How accurate is this? 1. We haven't heard reports of deaths, will check into it; 2. The people were killed, but by a faulty Palestinian rocket/bomb; 3. OK we killed them, but they were terrorists; 4. OK they were civilians, but they were being used as human shields; 5. OK there were no fighters in the area, so it was our mistake. But we kill civilians by accident, they do it on purpose; 6. OK we kill far more civilians than they do, but look at how terrible other countries are! 7. Why are you still talking about Israel? Are you some kind of anti-semite?
This is a point that I find very valid in the here and now. The conflict has a long history and throughout that no one has exclusively owned the moral high ground, but in the present day it's hard to argue against this. Israel is in an impossible position.
I listen to the episodes that have on guests I follow/like, which is increasingly less common unfortunately.
I agree totally with this guy, which is why I posted the same clip before on this thread. And I don't think any of the leftists/"pacifists" here can make a convincing argument against this simple truth, which is why they will just ignore it and continue to scream "genocide", "Israel kills babies", "Bibi evil", blablablablabla.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/israel-is-running-out-of-options/ Israel is running out of options There are many misunderstandings about Israel in the international media, but one of the most bewildering is the suggestion that if it weren’t for the presence of Benjamin Netanyahu the war would end. It is one of those mistakes that at best mixes up hope with analysis, and at worst displays a dumbfounding ignorance. Let me give you an example. In recent months I think I’ve interviewed everybody in Israeli politics who might some day replace Netanyahu. It doesn’t matter if they’re from the right or the left of the political spectrum, not one would be doing anything different from what he is doing now. You might ask why. The answer is obvious. If you had 1,200 of your citizens slaughtered in the most barbaric ways, what would you do? If hundreds of your citizens had been taken hostage and more than a hundred were still being held in a densely populated civilian area, what would you do? Add in a few other factors. Imagine if all this had been done by a terrorist group who do not wear uniforms that distinguish them from the general population, that the terrorists want to maximise civilian casualties on their own side, that much of the civilian population are actually complicit in hiding hostages, storing weapons in their houses or hosting entrances to the terrorists’ huge underground tunnel networks then, again, what would you do? The geniuses in the armchair class tend to say things like ‘There should be peace’, as though this has never occurred to the Israelis. Or they say: ‘There must be an end to the fighting.’ Again, as though this were some fantastically original insight. But all these things are wanted in Jerusalem. Who wants to have to fight a war in the same place for 18 years? Still, in Washington, Paris and London the mistaken idea continues that what is happening in Gaza might stop if there were only a change in Israel’s leadership. I can say with a considerable degree of certainty that this war would be going almost exactly the same way whoever the prime minister of Israel was. No leader, from the left, centre or right, would have been able to sit back and allow Hamas to get away with its massacre on 7 October. No Israeli leader would have been able to allow Hamas to rape, torture and brutalise Israeli hostages without doing everything they could to get them back. One of those suggested as a possible Israeli PM is Benny Gantz, a minister in the war cabinet and long-time rival of Netanyahu. Last month he went on a trip to the US which was highly controversial in Israel – seen as it was by some as an opportunity for Gantz to present himself as a more acceptable face in Washington. What Gantz said on the visit might have surprised some of those at the top of the US government and the leadership of the Democratic party. Then, as now, the whole world’s attention was focused on the south Gazan city of Rafah – the last hiding place for the remaining leadership of Hamas and the suspected holding place of the surviving Israeli hostages. Rafah is also home to a large population of Gazan civilians, which makes the operation infinitely tougher for the Israelis, though very helpful for Hamas, who forever boast about (and demonstrate) how much they love death. The intense global focus on that operation alone is noteworthy. I was in Ukraine the year before Gaza and at no stage was there any comparable concern about the operations or tactics of the Ukrainian army. Nor was there then – or since – any special concern that the Ukrainians might be harming too many Russian or Ukrainian civilians in their effort to win the war. One explanation is that much of the world still sees Israelis as the aggressors and Hamas as the victims, even in a war which was demonstrably, provably, bloodily started by Hamas. But picking apart that particular pathology might be a job for another day. What was interesting about Gantz’s appearance in Washington was that he said, clearly, that ‘ending the war without clearing out Rafah is like sending a firefighter to extinguish 80 per cent of the fire’. Indeed it is. Just as there is no point in putting out 80 per cent of a fire, so there is no point in destroying 80 per cent of Hamas and not getting all the hostages back. Calls from people like our own Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, to stop the war ignore the fact that what they are doing is asking the Israelis not to win. One of the other contenders for the top job in Israel told me a few months ago that he had the chance to destroy Hamas in 2009 when there was another round of the war, that time caused by the terror group launching rockets into Israel. He could have done it then, he said, but an international outcry caused domestic political pressure, and so he was pulled back from finishing the job. All that the people back then (who thought they had done such a wonderful service) had actually done was to cause every conflict that has occurred since, including the one that Hamas and Israel are currently engaged in. Everyone who stands any chance of leading Israel knows that the only way to stop the ‘cycle of violence’ is for Israel to win. Some people will of course resile at that statement. Some who do so want a Hamas victory. Others believe that their calls are simply aimed at avoiding any more Palestinian casualties. They could not be more wrong. Anyone who wants to stop the endless rounds of violence should notice who started the fire and who is the firefighter. They should want Hamas to lose, for Israel to win, and for some non-Hamas Palestinian leadership to emerge out of Hamas’s defeat. Will it happen? Who knows. At present the world is trying to force Israel to another draw. What they are in fact doing is setting the groundwork for ceaseless war.
Two things can be true. Hamas is a dangerous death cult and that Israel’s policies are morally questionable and not really helping its long term security. Also that Hamas deliberately targets civilians the IDF kills a lot of civilians.
If you think Israel is in an impossible position by listening to that given everything that has happened, namely objective evidence and events people describe above, you might be a r****d. people with sound judgement don’t get swayed by sociopathic podcast guests, or in your case…singular Joe Rogan is great, he’s made his position here abundantly clear. There are something that are just indefensible. When you look at everything you’re left with a documented, photographed , videotaped catalogue more than any other in history that points to a genocide
The argument against Israel is strongest when taken from a historical perspective and not framed in current events. Yet for some reason the critics of Israel always seem to focus on the here-and-now and appeals to emotion. Whether you agree or disagree about Israel's legitimacy and its claims to the land it holds and/or is taking, there's no question that line of argument/criticism holds up much better to scrutiny than focusing exclusively on the day-to-day horror of the modern conflict.
Coleman Hughes is one of the most rational and cogent people I know of. You calling him a sociopath says a lot more about you, honestly.
Sure man. again, if the most catalogued genocide in history taking place in 4K in front of you hasn’t helped sway you in one direction or another and it took Mr Hughes to reiterate talking points we’ve heard a million times I don’t know what to say to you
This is the uncomfortable truth people can't seem to reconcile with in good faith. Israel has a death cult in its back yard whom is not and never will be interested in peace. They will continue to indiscriminately kill and endanger anyone and everyone as long as they view it as in service of their goal of eradicating Israel. You cannot diplomacy your way out of this. Either Israel has to destroy Hamas (and deal with the knock-on consequences, whatever they may be) or Israel has to sit idly by as it is routinely attacked and its citizens are murdered. Two choices, neither are good, but one is less good.
I’ve said before that Israel has the right to defend itself and to get back the hostages. I also said that Hamas was intending this to be a blood bath that they knew they couldn’t win but wanted a battle that would kill a lot or people and harm Israel. That is why they are a death cult. The focus should’ve been utmost in getting the hostages back and I’m not going to pretend like so many to have the answers of easy solutions to do so. What we have seen is that negotiations actually ended up saving many hostages while few have been rescued militarily and even several have been killed in IDF operations. Given that it appears the solution might’ve been more negotiations and pressure through other means than a focus on military. My post though wasn’t limited to just what happened on Oct. 7. History didn’t begin on Oct 7 but for decades Israel has been carrying out policies of collective punishment on all the Palestinians and taking land sometimes even against Israeli law. That policy hasn’t made them much safer. Even after Oct. 7 they still carried out land seizures in the West Bank that had nothing directly to do with going after Hamas. It’s hard to see how those address saving hostages or Israel defending itself.
