#israelunderattack | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

matan4il · 12 hours

Note

do you think irans attack this past weekend was a test? a dip of the toe, if you will, to assess potential future plan viability?

can’t shake the thought unfortunately

Hi lovely, sorry it's taken me a moment to reply! I think you're justified in thinking this way, because when the top military experts all did not foresee Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel coming, we all have to take their threats very seriously.

That said, I personally find it hard to believe that Iran will make its "big move" before it has a nuclear weapon. Israel (supposedly) has nuclear weapons, and also has (again, supposedly) some of them loaded unto nuclear submarines. Why the submarines? Because those are hard to locate, which means that even if an enemy thinks they can somehow exterminate Israel with one decisive strike, they'll still pay the price of Israel's retaliation, launched from those submarines. And THAT is a serious deterrent. So if Iran wants to destroy Israel and live to tell the tale, it needs at the very least its own nuclear weapon, and a plan on how to stop Israel's nuclear submarines from striking back.

Iran is def not in a place where it thinks it can avoid Israel's retaliation (at least not yet). How do I know? Because of the money they invest in Hezbollah. More than any of the other terrorist organizations it funds, the Iranian regime arms, trains and prepares Hezbollah to be its main extension during an all out war with Israel. Hezbollah is believed to be at least ten times stronger than Hamas, at least in terms of manpower and number of rockets, and Iran was still reluctant to add its power to that of Hamas on Oct 7. They're reserving that terrorist organization and its power for the day they'll need it. The reluctance to use it during the current war tells me Iran is still not ready for the ultimate showdown with Israel. It's also supported by the fact that Iran was quick to announce after its attack on Israel, that they're done if Israel doesn't further attacks, and then the Iranian regime pretended like it couldn't determine who launched the (counter)strike on Isfahan, and also did all it could to hide the damage that we now know was caused to Iran's aerial defense systems, protecting its nuclear program...

Iran is not ready yet. Does that mean they're not learning from this little exchange of blows? They are. Just like Hamas used every time they fired rockets at Israel to study Iron Dome, and make their next attacks more efficient. But what did the Iranian regime learn? That even when it looks like Israel is more diplomatically isolated than ever, that doesn't mean that the world's leaders will stand by when unjustified aggression is launched at it. They DO understand that what Iran gets away with when it comes to Israel can come for their own countries next. That its air defense systems are still no match for Israel's attack capabilities, since the Iranians failed to even detect them coming in. That there is a coalition in place, which even includes identified and unidentified moderate Arab countries, back by western ones, and this constellation will be much harder to fight than Israel on its own, even with Iran's proxies. That 99% success at defending Israel means Iran is not even close to where it needs to be, if it wants to launch its ultimate attack.

We do have to be wary, and I'm sure the heads of Israel's security forces are. But I also think we still have time before Iran makes its "big move" to destroy Israel, because honestly, I do believe they know they won't get more than one shot. So... I have that's a bit of comfort. I'm not saying Iran won't attack, but I am saying I don't think we're there yet. And just like Iran can use this little exchange to study Israel, we can do the same right back. Remember, Israel has a laser defense system that's meant to go operational in the near future, and it's meant to be even better (in more than one way) than Iron Dome. So we have a few tricks up our sleeves, too... ;)

Sending you a big hug, I hope you're okay, and if you celebrate it, then have a happy Passover! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #antisemitism #israeli #israel news #israel under attack #israel under fire #terrorism #anti terrorism #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish #israelunderattack #iran

21 notes · View notes

taqato-alim · 5 months

Text

Analysis of: YouTube user comments to the video "Israel under pressure as Gaza strikes compound suffering of civilians" by DW News

youtube

In the following text "document" refers to the combined comments to the YouTube video.

Here is a summary of the key points:

The genre of the document is an online discussion forum/comment section in response to a news article.

Views expressed range from strongly pro-Israel to strongly pro-Palestine with little consensus.

Reasoning suffers from biases, logical fallacies, lack of evidence and consideration of nuance.

Emotions like anger and defensiveness dominate over objective, solutions-focused discourse.

Stakeholders are discussed in polarized ways that overgeneralize motivations and responsibilities.

Participants fall more on the democratic end of expression but close to autocratic in hostile, fact-averse rhetoric.

Two main ideological factions support primarily Israeli or Palestinian perspectives.

Arguments on both sides exhibit nationalism, omit opposing considerations, and downplay political complexities of the conflict.

To strengthen quality, discourse requires more factual substantiation, acknowledging complexity, mitigating bias, focusing on understanding over conflict, and cooperative problem-solving over blame.

In summary, the discussion reflects entrenched polarized positions online debates can foster, with rhetorical weaknesses that impede progress towards consensus or resolution in conflict.

Here is a summary of the document in bullet points:

Many comments express opinions or viewpoints about the Israel-Palestine conflict and recent events.

Some ask questions seeking additional information or context.

A few defend or support Israel's actions while others criticize or condemn them.

Hamas' actions and responsibilities are also discussed and debated.

The timing and circumstances around the October 7th attack in Jerusalem are referenced.

Comments reference statistics or reports about civilian deaths and support for Hamas.

The histories and claims to the land by Israelis and Palestinians are mentioned.

International laws of war and responsibilities to protect civilians are brought up.

The roles and responses of other countries like the US, Egypt, and Hamas are discussed.

Logistics and realities of the conflict like population density and tunnels are addressed.

Moral evaluations and accusations of innocence or terrorism on both sides.

Frustration or criticism is expressed towards media coverage and interpretations.

Religious or nationalistic rhetoric is invoked in a few comments on both sides.

Practical suggestions or counter-arguments are made in response to other views.

Here are the main stakeholders mentioned in the document and an evaluation:

Israelis - Interest in security, autonomy over territory. Some target criticism of actions.

Palestinians - Interest in autonomy, rights, end to occupation/blockade. Some defend Hamas actions.

Hamas - Defended by some as resistance, criticized by others as terrorist group prolonging conflict.

Israel government - Critiqued for actions, settler policies. Interest in security, defeating Hamas.

Palestinian civilians - Concerns expressed for welfare and deaths, also accused of Hamas support by some.

United States - Role scrutinized in backing Israel, pressures on conflict. Seen as pro-Israel by some.

Egypt - Role scrutinized in Gaza policies, pressures on Hamas. Seen as an obstacle by some comments.

International community - Evaluated in constraints on and pressures applied to conflict parties. Blamed by some.

Overall stakeholders are discussed in polarized, even unfairly prejudiced ways at times. More balanced, nuanced acknowledgment of valid security/rights concerns on all sides could strengthen evaluation rather than politicized finger-pointing and overgeneralization around stakeholders' motivations and responsibilities in this complex, extended conflict.

Based on the positions expressed in the comments, there appear to be two main factions present:

Pro-Israel faction:

Defends Israeli right to security and attacks on Hamas targets.

Blames Hamas for conflict escalation and using civilians as shields.

Sees Hamas/Palestinians as illegitimate or obstructionist to peace.

Criticizes international pressure/condemnations of Israel's actions.

Supports military response and casts doubt on civilian casualty statistics.

Pro-Palestine faction:

Sympathizes with suffering of Palestinians under occupation/blockade.

Criticizes disproportionate/indiscriminate nature of Israeli strikes.

Questions obligations of occupier to protect civilians under its control.

Points to root causes in settlements, unequal rights, loss of land.

Questions official narratives and casualty figures from Israeli sources.

A minority of comments advocate more neutral/moderate positions but most comments seem to strongly advocate for one factional position over the other. The polarized discourse reflects the entrenched divisions between the two main ideological camps in this complex, long-running conflict.

Here is an evaluation of the arguments made by the Pro-Israel faction in the document:

Right to security: Valid concern, but blockade/occupation policies also impact Palestinian security and rights. Nuance is lacking.

Blaming Hamas: Reasonable to an extent, but ignores grievances that fuel support for Hamas and risks portraying all Palestinians as supporters. Oversimplifies root causes.

Palestinians as obstructionist: Depicts Israel's stance as always reasonable and Palestinians as consistently unreasonable without acknowledging power imbalances. One-sided.

Criticism of international pressure: Fair to scrutinize other nations' stances, but rhetoric dismisses outside perspectives without merit. Nationalism overrides impartial consideration of issues.

Supporting military response: Ignores proportionality concerns of international law and widespread civilian impact. Lacks acknowledgement of non-violent or political options.

Casting doubt on casualties: Undermines consensus reporting without alternative evidence. Risks downplaying humanitarian toll, which hardens positions.

Omissions: Failure to substantially acknowledge settler expansion, Gaza blockade impact, or possibility of both sides' legitimate security/rights concerns. Appears largely one-sided defense of state policies over impartial analysis.

Overall, while security concerns are understandable, the arguments exhibit strong nationalism, lack proportionate consideration of Palestinians' perspectives, and downplay political/socioeconomic drivers of the conflict. A more balanced, nuanced discussion acknowledging complexity on all sides could strengthen the quality of discourse.

Here is an evaluation of the arguments made by the Pro-Palestine faction:

Sympathy for Palestinian suffering: Acknowledges humanitarian impact, though risk of emotional appeals without addressing root causes.

Criticizing disproportionate strikes: Valid international law concern, but does not sufficiently acknowledge militant activities/locations either.

Obligations of occupier: Reasonable international standard, but context of civilian rockets/attacks requires acknowledgement too for balanced perspective.

Root causes in settlements: Valid historical grievance, but presents Palestinian actions as solely reactionary without agency. One-sided.

Questioning official narratives: Reasonable skepticism, but alternative narratives also require substantiation to avoid appearance of denial.

Omissions: Does not substantially address Hamas charter/governance, civilian protections responsibilities, or potential for negotiated political solutions on the basis of international consensus.

Overall, while some concerns raised align with international law, the arguments exhibit an empathetic nationalism, lack of acknowledgement for complex security factors, and downplay possibilities for non-violence/negotiation. A more comprehensive, impartial discussion is needed to strengthen rhetorical positions and understanding between opposing interpretive communities.

Based on the document, there appears to be little meaningful consensus among the participants.

Some key points regarding the lack of consensus include:

Views expressed range widely from strongly supporting Israel to strongly supporting Palestine, with very few ambivalent or neutral positions.

Few comments acknowledge legitimate concerns or interests on both sides of the conflict. Most advocate primarily for one side over the other.

Factual claims and causal interpretations of events are often directly contradictory between comments, suggesting no agreement.

Blame and responsibility are primarily placed on the opposing side by different comments, rather than shared between parties.

Proposed solutions tend to reflect absolutist preferences for one side rather than compromise-based approaches both sides could accept.

Replies often involve counter-arguments and rejection rather than seeking understanding or common ground.

Appeals to emotions, moral outrage and provocative language widen rather than narrow differences.

Overall, while debate of perspectives is reasonable, the polarized, reactive style of discourse and lack of objective truths referenced appears to foster division and oppositional camps rather than movement toward consensus. A more reconciliatory, fact-based approach may be necessary to build agreement.

Here is an evaluation of the quality of reasoning in the document:

Objective evidence: Very little objective evidence or data-backed claims are provided to support assertions. Much is anecdotal.

Credible sources: Sources for statistical claims etc. are rarely cited, undermining credibility and leaving conclusions unsupported.

Logical consistency: Logical fallacies abound. Reasoning frequently lacks internal consistency or ignores counter-considerations.

Open-mindedness: Most comments advance pre-formed views rather than demonstrate open-minded, balanced assessment of available information.

Nuanced understanding: Issues are often presented as black/white rather than acknowledging complexity. Context and all perspectives are not considered.

Solution-oriented: Discussion centers more on conflict/blame than cooperative resolution of issues both sides could accept.

Principles of reasoned debate: Principles like charitable interpretation, burden of proof, are not systematically applied to debate issues fairly and truthfully.

Overall, while open discussion of issues is positive, the quality and standards of reasoning exhibited in these comments fall quite short. Emotion and pre-determined views prevail over fact-based, nuanced, and unbiased analysis. This format may also encourage rapid, reactive responses over well-researched, balanced consideration of issues. Substantially improving evidentiary support and logical coherence could strengthen the quality of this public dialogue and debate.

Based on the content and discourse style within the document, here is an evaluation of where the participants fall on the democratic vs autocratic spectrum:

Democratic:

Participants are free to express a diversity of views without censorship. This aligns with democratic values of free expression.

Discussion involves questions, counterarguments, and debate of different perspectives, reflecting democratic principles of open dialogue.

Autocratic:

Some comments convey an absolutist certainty of one position over engagement with alternate views. This aligns more with autocratic mindsets.

Bias, logical fallacies, and personal attacks are present without objective standards, as in less regulated speech environments.

Lack of fact-checking or accountability for veracity of claims could enable spread of misinformation.

Overall, while the open discussion format is democratic, the style of some partisan contributions without accountability reflects weaknesses that can enable autocratic influences like propaganda or post-truth rhetoric to spread more easily.

The participants score higher on the democratic end due to the open forum, but could be pulled more towards autocratic tendencies if misinformation or attacks on the "other" go unchecked. Moderation promoting respect, facts and criticial thinking could help counterbalance this.

Here’s an analysis of the emotions expressed in the document:

Anger: Many comments express anger, usually directed at the opposing side’s perceived actions and stance.

Frustration: Some comments convey frustration, e.g. at the conflict continuing, media coverage, or opposing views.

Defensiveness: Replies often adopt a defensive tone in response to perceived criticism or accusation.

Righteous indignation: Certain claims and language portray strong moral outrage toward the other.

Fear/threat: Some comments reference feelings of threat from the other or worse events to come.

Sympathy: Comments expressing pity for Palestinian suffering or specific tragedies.

Nationalism: Pride or defensive tone in some comments suggests nationalistic emotions.

Hopelessness: A few comments convey a sense that peace may never be achieved.

Accusation: Finger-pointing the blame at the other side is a common underlying emotion.

Overall, intensely negative and polarizing emotions like anger, defensiveness and accusation dominate the discussion, undermining the potential for rational debate and understanding between opposing perspectives. More constructive emotions could be empathy, concern for all innocent lives, and hope for nonviolent solutions. The format may also encourages emotionally-reactive rather than measured responses.

Here is an evaluation of some key psychological factors reflected in the document:

Polarization - Views appear highly polarized along pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian lines, suggesting effect of group polarization dynamics.

Confirmation bias - As noted, comments strongly reflect seeking out confirming rather than disconfirming information, maintaining preexisting views.

Tribalism - Rhetoric and logical framing reflects an "us vs. them" psychological tribalism rather than impartial assessment of issues.

Reactance - Defensiveness and counter-accusations in replies reflect a psychological reactance to perceived criticism or threat.

Cognitive dissonance - Attempts to reduce dissonance between preexisting views and contradictory information through rationalization strategies.

Psychological needs - Needs for belonging, positive self/group image appear stronger drivers of rhetoric than truth or resolution-finding.

Emotion overriding reason - As evaluated, emotional/reactive thinking dominates over impartial/objective reasoning about complex issues.

Moral grandstanding - Language of accusing/indignation suggests satisfying psychological need to see oneself/group as unequivocally righteous.

Overall, the well-documented psychological factors of confirmation bias, group polarization, tribalism and needs for belonging/certainty likely strongly influence discourse, undermining clear-headed analysis and compromise-finding around such a conflict. Awareness could help address these dynamics.

Here are some logical fallacies I identified in the document:

Appeal to emotion - Comments appealing to emotions like pity, anger without factual basis. e.g. "poor Palestinians".

Strawman - Misrepresenting others' views inaccurately to more easily rebut. e.g. overgeneralizing the "world" or "educated people".

Red herring - Changing the topic to divert from the original issue. e.g.Bringing up unrelated events/countries.

Whataboutism - Attempting to discredit an argument by responding with "what about…" some unrelated issue. Common tactic used.

Hasty generalization - Making broad generalizations from anecdotal or limited examples. e.g. Views of "everybody", "nobody".

Anecdotal - Using personal stories or singular examples as representative of a whole issue. Limited evidence.

Appeal to authority - Claiming something as true due to someone's status/title rather than evidence.

Special pleading - Making exception for some without reason. E.g defense of some militant group's actions.

Faulty causation - Falsely claiming or implying x caused y without evidence. Common concerning events/conflicts.

Black-and-white thinking - Presenting issues as either/or without acknowledging nuance or complexity.

Overall, logical fallacies are quite prevalent in the discussion, likely due to the limitations of internet debate forums which can foster fallacious or emotionally-driven reasoning rather than objective, evidenced discussion. More skepticism of such rhetoric could improve discourse.

Here is an evaluation of ethics in the document:

Accuracy: Some comments share reports/statistics but without citations it's difficult to verify the accuracy of factual claims. Overall accuracy seems variable.

Bias: Many comments seem biased towards one viewpoint over others. However, bias is somewhat expected in debate forums. Most allow counterarguments.

Respect: Some comments address the topic respectfully while others use accusatory or disrespectful language towards those with differing views. Tone could be more civil.

Identity: Many users hide behind anonymity which could enable uncivil rhetoric. Transparency about identities/motives could promote more ethical discourse.

Facts vs. opinions: While opinions are shared, not all clearly distinguish facts from interpretations/opinions. Reader discernment is required to separate the two.

Propaganda: A few comments seem aimed more at promoting a particular viewpoint than open discussion. Agenda-pushing edges into propaganda.

Exploitation: The humanitarian crisis is exploited for political points scoring by some rather than genuine concern for affected peoples.

Understanding: Few comments seem aimed at understanding other perspectives. Most seek to promote/defend one side over meaningful dialogue.

Solution-focused: Most debate fault/blame rather than constructively discuss non-violent solutions both sides could accept. Tone hinders progress.

Overall, while open debate is important, the focus on attack/defense over understanding and the lack of accountability for factual claims or respectful dialogue undermine the ethical quality of discussion in this forum. More neutral, solution-oriented discourse could be encouraged.

Here is an evaluation of the document in relation to potential biases:

Confirmation bias: Many comments seem aimed at defending/justifying preexisting views rather than open-minded consideration of alternatives.

In-group bias: Identification with one side (Israeli or Palestinian) appears to color perspectives and capacity to see other views objectively.

Out-group bias: Derogation or skepticism of the other side without substantial grounds at times suggests out-group bias.

Authority bias: Uncritical acceptance of claims due to perceived authority (official reports etc) without independent verification.

Exaggerated bias: Strong, emotionally polarized language at times goes beyond objective positions and into exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

Perseverance bias: Unwillingness to reconsider views in light of counter-evidence or failure to acknowledge complexity/nuance.

Availability bias: Views more readily call to mind recent or emotionally salient examples without considering full appropriate context.

Framing bias: language subtly frames issues in a way that primes certain emotional and cognitive associations over others.

Overall, while open debate has value, the many indications of confirmation, in-group, out-group and related biases suggest achieving genuinely objective and nuanced consideration of this issue may prove challenging within this comment discussion format and polarized sociopolitical climate. Remaining open and considering alternative perspectives could help counteract this.

Here are some common criteria for evaluating the genre of a document and my analysis based on the given document:

Tone/Register - The tone of most comments is informal/conversational as is typical in online discussions. However, a few use a more assertive/defensive tone. Overall the register fits an online forum genre.

Organization - The comments are loosely organized by time of posting but have no formal structure. Replies are interspersed. This disorganization fits an online discussion genre.

Content - The content involves expressed opinions, questions, counter-arguments - which aligns with an open discussion/debate format. Factual reports are also referenced.

Purpose - To discuss, debate and share perspectives on the news issue. This collaborative/interactive purpose fits an online discussion board genre.

Format - Individual comments in a threaded format with @ replies. Visual presence of likes/votes. All fit a typical online forum discussion board format.

Citations - Some reports/statistics are referenced but no clear citation style. Aligns with a less formal discussion than academic writing.

Audience - The commentary suggests an audience interested in the news issue seeking/sharing varied perspectives. Fits intended audience of an online discussion.

Participants - Appears to involve multiple individuals rather than representing one voice/authorship. Fits interactive nature of an online discussion format.

Based on these criteria pertaining to tone, organization, content, purpose, format, citations, audience and participants - the document genre most accurately aligns with an online discussion board or forum format.

1 note · View note