Gaza's journey to refuge marred by pervasive hunger, streets littered with corpses

[David__77]

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have fled their homes in Gaza to seek refuge in the southern city of Rafah and escape the hell Israel rains on the besieged enclave.

The evacuation, often termed a “journey of death,” involves navigating through ravaged neighborhoods to reach the sporadically open evacuation route on the Salah al-Din road.

“It has been an inconceivable extermination war,” said a Palestinian who identified himself as Mohamed from the Sabra neighborhood in Gaza, recalling the horrors of bombs, destruction, and bodies lying on the streets.
…

“It’s something terrifying. This is not a war,” said Abu Atal, recounting a tale of the displaced Palestinians that depicted harrowing forced evacuation, continuous threats, and the struggle for survival as the conflict rages.

https://efe.com/en/latest-news/2023-11-17/gazas-journey-to-refuge-marred-by-pervasive-hunger-streets-littered-with-corpses/

[Sal_NV]

1. And, to reiterate, Hamas is solely responsible for the pain and suffering of

Gazan's, but that for some reason, some seem to think that Israel is the villain here.

[David__77]

2. Will they be responsible for Israel expelling Gazans from their homeland or using an atom bomb, should they do that?

Both these things have been raised as possibilities by Israel officials.

[Sal_NV]

3. Bottom line is that none of this would be happening if the terrorist org., Hamas,

hadn't attacked Israel on Oct. 7th and murdered, yes, murdered, over a thousand Israeli citizens and taken hundreds of hostages, but some seem to forget that's what started this war.

And Israel doesn't need to use its nuclear arsenal, their conventional forces are more than adequate for taking on and wiping out the terrorist org. Hamas.

[CincyDem]

27. Respectfully, this isn't about taking hostages...it's about keeping hostages

Day after day, Hamas decides to keep hostages as another purposeful terrorist attack so day after day Israel keeps pounding.

Some day, Hamas will decide to not keep hostages (or their bodies) and at that point things will shift to a more rational approach.

[Sal_NV]

31. I see your point here,

but none of this would be happening if Hamas had honored the cease fire, hell, we wouldn't even be talking about this if not for that.
I smell the putrid hand of Putin in this, this is dividing the american public like I haven't seen since the Viet Nam war.

[maxsolomon]

71. Israel is not going to drop a nuke on Gaza. Israel is not going to exterminate 2.3 million people.

Egypt won't allow them to expel 2.3 million people.

RW Nutjob Israeli officials who aren't running this war talk a lot of reprehensible shit. Like Palestinian officials say a lot of reprehensible shit. The rhetoric is apocalyptic religious zealot hyperbole.

[WarGamer]

4. overly simplistic, lacking nuance.

[Sal_NV]

6. No, it isn't,

but you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[obamanut2012]

24. Yes, it is

[Sal_NV]

32. No, it isn't.

I can do this all day long.

[Big Blue Marble]

7. No, no matter how many times you

repeat this tired rationalization, it is not true It is the Israeli’s medieval siege and war planes dropping American bombs on defenseless children.

[Sal_NV]

9. No matter how many times you deny it,

this is a fact, if Hamas hadn't attacked Israel, then we wouldn't even be talking about this and the people of Gaza wouldn't be experiencing this horror brought on by Hamas.
As said earlier, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Big Blue Marble]

19. Arrogance, antagonism and belligerence are not a very wise way to introduce yourself to DU.

And as you become familiar with DU, notice that many of us have signatures at the bottom of
our posts. You might take the time to read mine. What applies to me also applies to you.

Humility would help you make your arguments more effectively.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

61. Being condescending is also not a wise thing

But have a nice day anyway

[Big Blue Marble]

62. Thanks for reading my comment.

And you have a nice day as well.

[tritsofme]

39. Welcome to DU! As you'll find, calling out pro-Hamas propaganda makes some folks a bit testy!

[Sal_NV]

40. As I am finding out.

Thanks for the welcome, I've been lurking for quite a while now, I finally decided to take the plunge and join in the fun, it's been quite the eye opener.

[Eko]

11. You are correct.

Hamas is so strong it imposes it's will on Israel to make them bomb and kill all those civilians. Do you even listen to yourself?
Eko.

[Sal_NV]

12. Do you even listen to yourself?

If Hamas hadn't attacked and murdered over 1000 innocent Israeli citizens on Oct. 7th, do you think that this suffering of the Palestinian people would be happening?
Do you think that Israel would have attacked Hamas?
As said again, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[Eko]

13. So what that attack gives them carte blanche over what happens later?

Cause that is what you are saying. Kill the civilians, Its pretty simple logic, if Hamas kills civilians and it's wrong then if Israel kills civilians its wrong. I don't care about reasons, or excuses. Innocent people killed are the same no matter what side you are on. You can excuse away and act as an apologist for Israel but its seriously plain to all of us. They are killing a lot of civilians. Period. If that is what they have to do then that is what they have to do. Don't act like some kind of apologist for this. Don"t try to spoon feed us some bullshit.
Eko.

[Sal_NV]

14. Hamas intentionally murdered over 1000 innocent Israeli civilians,

Israel does not intentionally kill civilians, but when your enemy intentionally hides among the civilian population, then there will be unintentional killing of civilians, that's the way it's been throughout the history of warfare, that's just a fact.
As I said before, if Hamas hadn't attacked Israel on Oct. 7th, then we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Once again, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
I've said my piece and I'm done arguing about this.

[Eko]

15. Huh, well for a fact they have killed over 10,000 people.

At least half are civilians. Israel itself has admitted to killing those people. That's what they did. Was it wrong was it right? Im not even talking about that. It's what they did and here you are trying to put the responsibility on someone else. At this point you seem transparent, almost like an apologist.
Eko.

[Straw Man]

18. Here's a parallel ...

How many German civilians died in aerial bombing during the Second World War? About a half-a-million, give or take. Was that worth doing? Do you blame the Allies, or blame Hitler?

[Eko]

20. Yes it was worth doing.

And I blame the allies for those deaths. Hitler didn't bomb his populace, we did. Did we feel we needed to because of Hitler's actions, yes. People keep saying "It's War, what do you expect?" I expect people to get killed and if we do it we do it. Nobody else is responsible for your own actions. If that's what my country had to do and I agreed then we made a choice, no one forced us to do it and no one else is responsible for it.

[Straw Man]

45. Fair enough, up to a point.

If that's what my country had to do and I agreed then we made a choice, no one forced us to do it and no one else is responsible for it.

That's where I disagree. Hitler forced us to do it. The alternative would have been intolerable: Nazi control of the world, bringing with it the murder or enslavement of all non-Aryans, as well as the killing of those with physical handicaps or alternate lifestyles. Absent Hitler, it would not have been necessary. To me, that means he bears responsibility.

There are parallels in contemporary criminal law: the concept of "felony murder," for example.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/

[Eko]

46. Hitler did not force us to do anything.

He did something and we reacted. By its definition reacting is to act in a particular way as a direct result of something else. To act is to reach, make, or issue a decision on some matter. To make a decision is to make a choice. That necessarily implies that there are multiple choices. That means that the choice taken is the responsibility of those making the choice. Do I fault the US and their allies for these choices? Absolutely. Some of them were just outright major military blunders made at that time. Others should have been war crimes. We made decisions based on the evidence we knew and we acted on them. Sometimes we were right, sometimes wrong. In the end it turned out to be better than the worse option and pretty much that is the best you can expect from war. It did cause the cold war, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Russia-afganistan, then,, we can keep going. Regardless, Hitler did not point a gun at Roosevelt and make him choose. Hitler acted, Roosevelt acted and we are all responsible for our actions. Or do you disagree? That's pretty much what the felony murder thing is.

[Straw Man]

47. Well ...

It did cause the cold war, then Korea, then Vietnam, then Russia-afganistan, then,, we can keep going.

The Allied victory in WW II did not cause those things. Political policies in the postwar world are to blame.

Regardless, Hitler did not point a gun at Roosevelt and make him choose.

Actually, that's exactly what he did -- metaphorically speaking. The Wehrmacht was his gun. He pointed it at the world and challenged them to stop him. And they did, because the alternative was unthinkable.

[Eko]

51. Yeah, metaphorically speaking.

Simply it means, when you say something which is not really true or realistic but you use it for expressing the intense of the circumstance. Obviously it is not similar to " Literally" or " Literally speaking". Literally means that is exactly true but metaphorically is when it's not true is just use to express the intense.
Not really true or realistic.
Eko.

[Straw Man]

53. "Metaphorically" doesn't mean "untrue."

A metaphor is a form of analogy that aims at establishing a deeper, underlying truth by asserting the commonality of two things or situations. If I say "The Wehrmacht was a loaded gun that Hitler pointed at the world," I know that an army isn't a gun, but the fact is that it is an implement that can be used to threaten and potential harm others.

[Eko]

59. I did not say it means untrue.

I said this, when you say something which is not really true or realistic but you use it for expressing the intense of the circumstance.

[Straw Man]

66. Actually, you did.

I said this, when you say something which is not really true or realistic but you use it for expressing the intense of the circumstance.

How am I supposed to read that other than "untrue"?

Metaphors have nothing to do with intensity. They are a form of analogy used to help in understanding a situation.

[Eko]

67. This is what you said.

"Metaphorically" doesn't mean "untrue."
I said I did not say that. I did provide a definition that had that word in it but it had a lot of other words that defined it. In no way did I say the definition was just "untrue". Is a metaphor a true thing?
Here is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says.
Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a figurative as opposed to literal use.
Merriam Webster
a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money)
It is an untrue thing but that is not what it means.
Is this true? You are as bright as the sun.

[Straw Man]

68. And on we go ...

Is this true? You are as bright as the sun.

That's a simile, not a metaphor: "as ... as ..."

Metaphor is a poetically or rhetorically ambitious use of words, a figurative as opposed to literal use.

Exactly: a figurative use to establish a deeper truth, a commonality between the two things. "Figurative" does not mean "untrue."

[Eko]

69. a simile is actually a subcategory of metaphor

[Straw Man]

70. Fair enough, but there's a key distinction.

a simile is actually a subcategory of metaphor

A simile can never be interpreted as literal. The use of "like" or "as ... as" removes that possibility. For the purposes of our discussion, that is pertinent.

[Eko]

72. So give me a metaphor that is literally true.

And while one can literally say they have a monkey on their back if they do indeed have one then they are not saying a metaphor. A metaphor states that one thing is another thing, they are not saying that the monkey that is actually on their back is not something else.

[Straw Man]

73. Metaphors are NOT literally true.

They are FIGURATIVELY true. That is not the same as "untrue." I thought we had established that.

Similes are literally true. The word "like" eliminates the need for them to be taken figuratively.

I'm mixed on similes with "as" -- they seem to be figurative as well: "as bright as the sun," etc.

[Eko]

74. What does figuratively true mean?

[Straw Man]

75. Figurative vs. Literal

What does figuratively true mean?

Not literally true on the surface, but expressing an underlying truth through the use of symbolism and analogy.

[Eko]

76. If it is not literally true.

Then it is literally untrue. Expressing an underlying truth does not make the thing real.

[Straw Man]

80. Congratulations.

If it is not literally true.

Then it is literally untrue. Expressing an underlying truth does not make the thing real.

You have just single-handedly demolished the validity of art and literature for all time.

[Eko]

82. Wow.

I am sure history will remember me for it. I should get an award or something. Its odd though because I can point to a painting and say it is a literal real thing. I can play a song on my many musical instruments and say its a literal real thing. I can even prove this by recording it and play it back for you. I may tell you that the song is about a harried native American tribe that eluded the US Calvary and then their Chief made a famous speech that starts with "Tell General Howard I know his heart." when he surrendered. You may listen to this song and not hear any of that. You may think the song conveys nothing of that story. And that would be your opinion. That's why expressing an underlying truth is not a real thing. I wrote the song conveying the story, starting off with minor chords only becoming minor chords when the bass note comes in to state the position the US was putting them in. Then using fast arpeggios with an underlying bass note that drones to convey their run. A third part gets even faster with some major arpeggios thrown in to show how they were succeeding in evading the Calvary. Then a fast six note descending scale that repeats except it starts on the second note played in the previous run eight times. Then go back to the beginning with the minor chords that become major. Its really hard to play. You may or may not get the reasons I used certain chords and scales and even modes and how they translate to the story. So, what was I saying? Oh yeah, that just like your opinion. It sucks that I spent 35 years, practicing, going to school for it and now using it for my work to know that I demolished the validity of music which is an art. Nah I didnt do that lol.
Eko.

[Straw Man]

83. Yeah, wow.

You may listen to this song and not hear any of that. You may think the song conveys nothing of that story. And that would be your opinion. That's why expressing an underlying truth is not a real thing.

Everything you describe is a form of metaphor, expressing an underlying truth. If your listener doesn't perceive it, then someone has failed -- either you or the listener. But the underlying truth is there. By denying that, you are denying the validity of the art. I'm stumped as to why you, as an artist, would want to do that.

[Eko]

84. Whats the underlying truth of that song?

[Straw Man]

85. The bitterness yet relief of surrender ...

... after a long struggle.

[Eko]

86. Nope.

But that sounds better than mine. So who is right?

[Straw Man]

87. So what is yours?

The concept of "right" is pretty reductive when we're talking metaphors, don't you think?

[Eko]

88. I'll rephrase

But that sounds better than mine. So who is correct?
right=correct.
Eko.

[Straw Man]

89. Didn't help.

"Right" and "correct" are both hopelessly reductive when talking about art and metaphor.

[Eko]

16. Certainly not arguing with you

It doesn't matter if they intentionally kill them or not, they are still dead. Even here though you admit that Israel killed them so your trying to apologize it away is just straight ill-logical.

[Sal_NV]

17. Can we at least agree that if Hamas hadn't attacked Israel

on Oct. 7th, murdering over 1000 Israeli citizens and taking over 200 hostages, those innocent Palestinians would still be alive and the devastation of Gaza wouldn't be happening as we speak?

[Eko]

21. Absolutely.

Can we also agree that if Israel hadn't started bombing Gaza then those innocent Palestinians would still be alive? I'm not saying whether or not they had a right to do that or if it was correct or not.

[Beastly Boy]

22. Can we also agree that bombing Gaza and bombing military targets in Gaza are not one and the same?

Can we further agree that if Hamas didn't violate international law then all those innocent Palestinians would still be alive?

Regardless of anyone's right to do anything. (Obviously, disregarding international laws is not the correct way to do anything, but that consideration is outside of the scope of my response).

[Eko]

23. My anwsers.

Can we also agree that bombing Gaza and bombing military targets in Gaza are not one and the same? Yes.
Can we further agree that if Hamas didn't violate international law then all those innocent Palestinians would still be alive? Yes.
Can we also agree that if Israel didn't do the bombings the innocent Palestinians would still be alive?

[Eko]

38. Its not polite to ask a question,

And then when someone answers your question and then asks you a question to not answer. That is how conversations work.

[Beastly Boy]

48. It was impottant to get your answers to my questions first.

Because if you answer them in the affirmative, as you did, your question to me becomes a mere technicality. Outside of the context of events that are excluded from your question, your question becomes a classic circular reasoning fallacy. The answer to your question is predetermined by your question: yes if Israel didn't do the bombing they did, the innocent Palestinians wouldn't be bombed and would still be alive.

Which begs another impolite question: what is the purpose of your question anyway?

[Eko]

50. I shall reply to your question when you do to mine.

To you it may be a mere technicality, but to me it is not. As well, the circular reasoning fallacy applies to your reasons as well. I don't feel so bad about using it as it was you who used it first. Still, all that aside you still have yet to answer the question. Feel free to do so.

[Beastly Boy]

54. I did answer your question, perhaps not in the way you expected.

The answer to your question is predetermined by your question: yes if Israel didn't do the bombing they did, the innocent Palestinians wouldn't be bombed and would still be alive.

Whatever it is for you, your question constitutes a demonstrable fallacy.

Feel free to demonstrate where I used a fallacy first.

[Eko]

60. Its not?

The answer to your question is predetermined by your question: yes if Hamas didn't violate international law then all those innocent Palestinians would still be alive.
That was your question. Same use of circular reasoning.
You did not use it first, I was wrong on that. It was a different poster that did and I forgot it wasn't you.

[Sal_NV]

30. Yes, we can agree on that.

[Eko]

34. Thanks.

[patphil]

28. So Israel is innocent of the 12,000 dead in Gaza?

Yes Hamas started this with an horrific act of terrorism. But Israel's response is all theirs.

[Sal_NV]

33. Israel is doing what they perceive they must do to protect their citizens,

if, say, Mexico were to attack the US and murder over 1000 of our citizens and kidnap over 200 americans, won't happen, then I would expect US forces to annihilate the threat from a foreign power.

Again, none of this would be happening if only Hamas had observed the cease fire in place, which seemed to work out pretty good, and not attacked Israel.

[patphil]

35. I reiteriate, Israel's response was their choice.

It amounted to revenge and punishment of people who weren't able to do anything to stop Hamas from engaging in their brutality.
They are trapped there, and weren't able to escape the massive retaliation inflicted on them by Israel.
Anniihilating 12,000 Palestines is not a vaild response.

Your example is a false equivalence.

[Sal_NV]

36. And this is exactly what the Allies did to Germany, Italy, and the Japanese,

we annihilated their will to fight, there were massive civilian causalities, but we did what we had to do to survive, which is what Israel is doing to protect their citizens and survive as a sovereign nation.

I really don't care if you think this is a false equivalence, your opinion means nothing to me, as my opinion should mean nothing to you.

[patphil]

37. What we did back then was horrible, brutal beyond belief. We topped it off with 2 nukes for Japan; a needless slaughter

I don't condone that, and I don't condone what Israel does now.
Israel is no closer to destroying Hamas today than they were when they started bombing civilians.
All They are doing is guaranteeing that this conflict will carry on for decades into the future. Do you really want to see hundreds of thousands of Palestinians killed in a futile attempt to destroy Hamas? Guerilla warfare is different from all out nation against nation warfare; there are no armies to destroy; the enemy is decentralized and can disperse/regroup no matter how much destruction is inflicted on the people.
All these deaths do is sow the seeds for the next generation of terrorists. Their children's children will be fighting this war.
There has to be a better way.

[Sal_NV]

41. What better way?

What is the better way to defeat an enemy whose sole existence is to destroy your nation and kill all your people?
It's right there in the Hamas charter.
Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian lives lost, in fact, this is what they want, they don't give 2 fucks about innocent Palestinian lives, as long as it furthers their goals of destroying the Israeli nation.

[patphil]

42. Israel needs to win the people of Gaza and the West Bank over by treating them with respect.

This is how it's done. This is how we won the people of Germany and Japan over after WW2. See how well that worked?
Love is the key ingredient here; love over time to heal the wounds and gain the respect of the Palestinians. No more treating them with disdain; no more making every day of their lives a living hell; no more administrating Gaza and the West Bank as if they were open air prisons; no more letting settlers have free reign to take land on the West Bank.

Hamas is a declared enemy of Israel, but the Palestinians need not be seen as enemies. If Israel won them over, Hamas would wither and die.
Again, love is the key. Work with the people and they will eventually come around.

[Sal_NV]

43. I can respect your take on this all the while disagreeing with it.

It's my opinion that unless Hamas is removed from power in the Gaza Strip and rendered ineffective as a terrorist org;., there will be no peace with them, their only existence is the destruction of the State of Israel and the complete removal of the Jewish people from the face of the planet, there is no other option than these goals by Israel.

We did basically the same thing in WWII with the Axis Powers, at stake was the survival of democracy.

[Autumn]

57. How will Hamas be removed when Netanyahu is the one who has kept Hamas in power to make

sure Palestinian not become a state?

[Sal_NV]

58. I honestly don't know,

that's for the people with the big brains and college degrees to figure out.

[Straw Man]

49. The thing is ...

Israel needs to win the people of Gaza and the West Bank over by treating them with respect.

This is how it's done. This is how we won the people of Germany and Japan over after WW2. See how well that worked?

... that that was after we reduced their cities to smoking ruins, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process. But yeah, it worked.

[patphil]

55. After the carnage of WW1 we left out the "treat with respect" part and had to go through it all again.

Hitler was able to take control of Germany because of the disdain Germany experienced after losing the WW1. The people were angry, resentful, and looked to a leader who promised to restore their pride and greatness.
Hitler was able to direct their hatred and use it to his advantage.
At least we learned our lesson and did not act as conquerors after WW2. Sure we occupied Germany and Japan, but the people of those nations were not given daily reminders, year after year, that their future was out of their hands, as has always been the case with Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.
The destruction of Europe during WW2 was a tragedy; millions of people died in the conflagration. Yes, it left Germany in ruins, and destroyed their will to continue fighting. But I don't believe it's wise to use that as an excuse to do the same in Gaza. Is Israel ready to rebuild what they destroy?
I have no illusions that Israel is ready to do anything but continue to administer their conquered lands in the same fashion they have always done. I don't see any light at the end of this tunnel if that is the case.
There has to be a fundamental change in the attitude of both sides if there is ever to be peace in this region.

[Straw Man]

56. I'm not arguing for the total destruction of Gaza.

The destruction of Europe during WW2 was a tragedy; millions of people died in the conflagration. Yes, it left Germany in ruins, and destroyed their will to continue fighting. But I don't believe it's wise to use that as an excuse to do the same in Gaza. Is Israel ready to rebuild what they destroy?

I don't know. I'm just not sure that the "treat 'em right" policy has as much chance of success there as it did with the Axis powers in WW II.

[patphil]

63. I understand what you're sayiing, but this is a 75+ year old blood feud we're trying to overcome.

And the treat 'em harshly approach has yet to yield any promising results; probably never will.
If there is ever to be peace in the region, something fundamental has to change on both sides.
There has to be something besides war. Pain, suffering, death, and destruction has not worked.

[RubyRose]

65. That feud

Goes back a lot longer than 75 years.

[JustAnotherGen]

44. These folks

Keep forgetting about the cease fire in place in May of this year.

Israel tried that, it didn't work.

Why would they set themselves up for Hamas to do this again? That was like be stupid.

[Butterflylady]

64. Protection is one thing

Overkill is another. When will it be enough? Will it be when all Palestinians are dead? It sure seems that way.

[leftstreet]

5. DURec

[Mossfern]

8. so *this* is

the spoof thread.
Right?

[Sal_NV]

10. I guess it is judging by some of the comments here.

[obamanut2012]

26. There is not one reply to imply that

[JCMach1]

25. How about we don't automatically buy into the propaganda promulgated

By both sides... Just a modest proposal.

[malaise]

29. Nothing justifies this response

That is all

[moniss]

52. The death toll will

go higher if they actually can ever do a complete job of going through the rubble.

[GuppyGal]

77. They teach their children to hate us. These over simplified responses are exhausting. They LITERALLY

teach their children do you know the fucking way to Jihad Street. Jew hating is part of their education and identity as well as HATING US.

This is ABSURD.

[David__77]

78. Who is "they"? Does "they" include the children? If so, is there an age cut-off?

[GuppyGal]

79. Do your own 'research' ....even though if you've been alive for more than a minute you'd

fucking know it

[Mysterian]

81. When you allow your area to become a giant terrorist camp

Bad things can happen.