You: So the pagers were ordered by Hezbollah…

Me: “The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas.”

You: “I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.”

Me: asking for clarification.

You: “you seem not to (or have chosen not to) understand [the parallel?] the first two times […] Edite: I see I typed Hamas when I meant to type Hezbollah in one place”

It seems you’ve mistyped, then misunderstood me when I fixed it (though I attributed it to a lack of knowledge) and now you’re insinuating I might be misunderstanding you willfully? If that’s the case, you’re making it so easy for me other people might think we’re in cahoots[1].

Anyway, Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I didn’t understand the argument. And I’m pretty sure I did understand at least one of your points. I’ve explained why the pagers aren’t like landmines and why the rational behind the treaty to ban landmines seems to agree with me. If that’s the only argument you made (“It’s been one argument the entire time”), you can simply reply to what I said instead of reframing anything.

[1] Speaking of other people, are people downvoting me as a dislike button, or is there a specific reason? I don’t mind the downvotes, just wondering if they’re because people don’t agree with me or because they think there’s something wrong/harmful with my messages.

I realize that, I was drawing a parallel between the two circumstances.

Err… what circumstances? What was the purpose of drawing a parallel between Hamas and Hezbollah? What insight was I to gain by it? Asking seriously.

And again - when you drop a bomb, you can credibly have made an attempt to ensure no one is in the vicinity who you don’t intend to bomb. (Not that israel seems to do this) - this is especially true with modern technology.

Sorry, were you making two arguments or one? You asked about the difference between landmines and what Israel did. I thought the rest of what you said was to show how planting bombs in pagers is like landmines, not a new argument. If there were two arguments, you didn’t respond to my answer regarding landmines.

I can talk about the difference, and you’ll respond with a counter argument etc. Ultimately, it’ll come down to me saying Israel is able to reasonably predict who’ll carry the explosive and you saying they can’t. The bottom line for me is this:

Some weapons have been banned from warfare while others haven’t. The banned weapons follow certain criteria for being banned. exploda-pagers don’t follow the criteria under which landmines have been banned. If you know of other weapons or tactics that are banned and are akin to exploda-pagers, we can discuss that. Otherwise, I’m left with the conclusion what Israel did falls within the bounds of a legitimate military operation. You can, of course, think differently.

The pagers were used by Hezbollah, not Hamas. They are two different entities, and while it doesn’t make any difference in the narrow context I’m replying to, it’s really a basic detail that anyone voicing an opinion on the matter should know.

How is this argument different than defending the use of landmines?

From the Wikipedia entry about landmines: “The use of land mines is controversial because they are indiscriminate weapons, harming soldier and civilian alike. They remain dangerous after the conflict in which they were deployed has ended, killing and injuring civilians and rendering land impassable and unusable for decades. To make matters worse, many factions have not kept accurate records (or any at all) of the exact locations of their minefields, making removal efforts painstakingly slow.”

Planting bombs inside pagers specifically used by Hezbollah isn’t indiscriminate (unless by “indiscriminate” you mean “when they go off, they harm anyone in the proximity”, but going by that definition everything with an exploding charge is “indiscriminate”, yet only mines are banned). And obviously exploded bombs don’t remain dangerous and aren’t difficult to remove.

First off, I think we should contextualize what happened - according to some news sources, the bombs were supposed to go off in the first days of an Israeli attack that would probably start an all out war (Some Hezbollah operatives became suspicious). The operation wasn’t intended to create an “escalation where Hezbollah will answer”, rather opening a full out attack against Hezbollah to force them to stop firing missiles at Israeli civilians and abide by the UN resolution.

Israel didn’t send “thousands of bombs God knows where they land”. They planted bombs in hardware that is used exclusively by Hezbollah operatives and their accomplices to evade gathering sigint. Yes, civilians got hurt. That’s the nature of war, and what makes it so horrible - people who might hold no malice nor pose any threat to the other side get hurt and die. The modern rules of warfare aren’t designed to eliminate civilian casualties, rather mainly to deter the warring parties from using civilians as a tool of war. That’s why an army can’t hide behind civilian population, but given an army that’s hiding behind civilian population, it’s acceptable for the other army to fire at them as long as they take proper measures to minimize civilian casualties (this in meant only as an example, not directly relating to Hezbollah or Hamas). If any act that results in civilian casualties is not “proper defense” I don’t think there has been a single case of “proper defense” in large scale armed conflict in modern history. People in the west might not realize it because for the last decades wars are fought away form their boarders, so it’s easier to view civilian casualties as optional.

And you know what? I’d WISH all civilian casualties in war would be confined to people who are in direct proximity to enemy personnel. If I could press a button and replace all Hezbollah attacks against civilian targets with bombs sent to IDF personnel, I’d do so in a heartbeat.

Regarding Netanyahu - right now, he’s slowly climbing in the polls. His plan is to keep his coalition from falling apart till the next election. Anything that disturbs the current situation is not in his interests (and, on the whole, the last time Netanyahu was proactive in anything other than a political capacity was about 2 decades ago). If Netanyahu wanted a war, he would have the public’s support for it months ago (in fact, the public very much supports a large scale conflict in order to stop Hezbollah targeting Israeli cities). His hand is being forced by other parties in the coalition. The obvious “culprit” are the far-right parties, but I personally think the main catalyst are the ultra-orthodox parties. This gets a bit complicated, but bear with me: The ultra-orthodox parties need to pass a law that’ll exempt their constituents from military service (long story short - they were exempt for years but due to court rulings, need a new law to keep that privilege). Galant (the minister of defense) is the one stopping the law from passing. Netanyahu was about to replace him and sell it to the public as Galant being the one who was against a war against Hezbollah. Actually, I’ll go as far as saying Israel being forced to activate the bombs prematurely, thus stopping Galant from being fired, makes  a war a bit less likely (Though obviously other factors have also been put in play, so the government can’t just do a U turn).

During the last month there were not 1, not 10, not 100 but 807 alerts in Israel for missile attacks. Some of them weren’t fired by Hezbollah, and some might have been the same alert in different areas, but that’s still about 7 missile PER DAY even if we assume only 1 in 4 alerts was due to an attack by Hezbollah (side note: during the entire war, about 2,000 missile were launched from Lebanon to Israel, that’s an average of about 6 per day). In addition to this, there were 452 aircraft intrusion alerts. Most of these attacks are against civilian targets.

Right now, there are about 79 thousand people (around 0.8% of total population) who are still evicted for nearly a year from northern Israel.

And just in case it needs to be said - the first attack was made by Hezbollah (on Oct. 8th) and without any provocation by Israel.

Not only is this a situation no sovereign country can stand, but it’s also a violation of the Lebanon-approved UN Security Council’s resolution 1701, that was the basis for ending the 2006 Lebanon War. Hell, just having missiles in the area is by itself a violation of the resolution.

Regarding political reasoning - A war in Lebanon is actually bad for Netanyahu. His interest is a slow-burning war so he can prolong the current situation as much as possible (once the war is over, the pubic will demand an election). In fact, that’s probably the main reason you had “a missile here and a bomb there” and not an actual war.

It’s not necessarily a matter of subjective vs. objective. There’s a difference between appreciating art and enjoying watching something. IMO, Tommy Wiseau’s “The Room” is utter garbage, but it was extremely enjoyable to watch.

I’ve ordered some household items (door stoppers, tools etc.). The prices were somewhat cheaper than AE, the quality was fine (some things were better than expected. Some very cheap items were… Let’s say they were priced according to their quality. Thought other very cheap items turned out good, so it’s a gamble) and shipping was OK. Never tried the app for privacy reasons, but the site seems ok-ish (it’s a bit janky, but I suspect it’s due in part to some privacy addon I use. In short:

1. Don’t use the app.
2. Don’t buy very cheap stuff unless you’re willing to chance it.
3. The “prizes” either appear only in the app or can be disabled via ad blockers and/or privacy addons.

No no, they meant first of many unfulfilled promises.

Cool. Thanks

Ohhh, I think I get it.

Purple is what you get when you force the visible light spectrum into a wheel, so there’ll be something that “connects” blue with red?

If so, is the reason we perceive green as a different color than purple is because we have receptors for that specific wavelength, otherwise both colors would affect our red and blue color receptors similarly?

So what would be the color created by a wavelength of 550nm?

Yeah, there’s a similar issue from the other side (at least in my country) - Men will usually apply for a job if they don’t meet all the requirements, while women won’t tend to do so.

Going on a tangent off “The traits that people typically associate with success in leadership, such as assertiveness and strength" (from the article), that almost sounds like something form the 50s - “Look here Johnson, I need those forms, and I need them yesterday, now get moving!”. Traits I associate with leadership (at least in high-skill modern work place) are good communication and motivation skills, ability to plan ahead and multi-tasking/ability to prioritize. Sure, once in a while a manager has to bang their fist against the table, but the real skill isn’t in banging on the table as hard as you can, it’s the ability get what you want without needing to do so in the first place. Point being that, if anything, women are better managers.

Thing is, There are less women in STEM, there are less women in management position etc. Therefor, either women are less interested/worse at these things (which is the conservative view) or society itself treats women differently than men. The rational behind affirmative action and programs geared towards women isn’t that women are less skilled and therefore need more help, rather that society makes it harder for a woman achieve the same as a similarly skilled man. By treating women differently we can help level the playing field.

Also, making gender “as unimportant as eye color in most things in life” is a completely unrealistic goal in the near future even in the most liberal countries in the world. We can (and do) strive to reach it, but that’s not a viable solution for issues we have right now.

And you know what? Legally changing your gender SHOULD be harder than filling a form. Someone who’s transgender should have no problem showing that’s what they are. The thing is to make sure the legal process is done respectfully, without making the person feel like they’re being interrogated.

Gaza was a part of Egypt and the west bank was a part of Jordan until 67. Israeli Arabs (not saying “Israeli Palestinians” as some of them don’t identify as such) were under martial law till the 60s, but still had many rights deprived from other Palestinians and even some minorities in western countries (for example, they had the right to vote).

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.

Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.

Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.

Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).

You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.

The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.

Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?

To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid  a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.