Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Here we go again. No rest afforded to the victims. If Covid isn't enough, why not add a few misiles and kill civilians. Whatever else will be said about this massacre, Israel cannot be said to be defending itself from territory it is occupying. It's a contradiction in terms.
The US needs to stop sending military support to the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons and is destroying the lives of civilians which lands it is stealing. This issue will not stop until the occupation stops. Utterly horrifying and contemptible behavior from the Israeli state.
For some decent coverage on the topic, it's good to look at Israeli sources instead of US ones.
Haaretz is offering good, careful coverage of the current situation:
https://www.haaretz.com/
Also crucial is B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.btselem.org/
EDIT:
For important recent information on the Israel situation Human Rights Watch recently issued a strongly worded condemnation of the situation of the Palestinians. It's worth a look for those who may not be aware of the extent of Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
The US needs to stop sending military support to the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons and is destroying the lives of civilians which lands it is stealing. This issue will not stop until the occupation stops. Utterly horrifying and contemptible behavior from the Israeli state.
For some decent coverage on the topic, it's good to look at Israeli sources instead of US ones.
Haaretz is offering good, careful coverage of the current situation:
https://www.haaretz.com/
Also crucial is B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.btselem.org/
EDIT:
For important recent information on the Israel situation Human Rights Watch recently issued a strongly worded condemnation of the situation of the Palestinians. It's worth a look for those who may not be aware of the extent of Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Comments (7611)
If you think Nazi death camp inmates are wrong to rise up against their exterminators, I don't know what to tell you. Your moral compass is so off from mine, we probably won't agree on much.
I would have more respect for Hamas if they only targeted soldiers, but I would still side with Israel. When Jews have power, they establish a democratic state like Israel, that respects women and LGBTQ people. When Hamas is given power, they establish a shithole.
The Oslo peace agreement, agreed by both sides, allowed for a two-state solution. So if any side broke the agreement, and I don't care which, then they are responsible for the current state of affairs. This is not the Palestinians fault. Hamas was 'allowed' to contest in the 2015 election, so whoever allowed the initial selection affected the outcome of the election.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I take the point of view that both the Israelis and Palestinians are the oppressed, both refugees in their own time frames. My guess is, and this is an unsupported assumption, the players who are playing both sides are still playing. They should throw off the shackles of their patrons, if this is the case, and make peace with each other. Again, my unsupported guess is that some entities do not want a peaceful and economically strong middle east. Hence, destroy it or tame it, domesticate it, or both.
Quoting RogueAI
Well this confirms your bias. I regret every IDF and every Hamas fighter killed. As Jared Kushner suggests, these people should be given economic opportunities, and they won't join Hamas. That is what he says.
Quoting RogueAI
There is the right to armed resistance, the right to violent resistance, and there is a time and a place for that. I am all for death camp inmates rising up and taking over, but if there is no possibility of success, then I wonder about the morality of a suicidal action. That was the basis for my objection.
In this specific case, though, I believe that the action taken by Hamas, the violent resistance, was neither wise nor productive, and my moral compass points away from that.
There is a question of agency here also: who is responsible for the existence of Hamas? Who is responsible for the existence of Israel? By extension, are they responsible for their actions?
Sorry I missed the point, but do you accept the UN stance on the right to violent resistance? I don't.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/20/palestinians-have-a-legal-right-to-armed-struggle/
Except Hamas and other extremists. The sad truth is there are extremist elements on both sides driven by fear and fuelled by hatred. This has been the case ever since I started breathing.
I honestly see no real peaceful solution for another generation at least.
It took a long, long time to solve the Irish issue. Even now it could still boil over as tensions still exist. The middle east is far, far, far more volatile due to drastically different cultures being thrown together (both internally and externally).
The US can impose upon Israel, but the leadership will not. Maybe once Biden has gone whoever comes in will start pushing a little. I won’t hold my breath though.
I hope that is the case. We'll see.
I find it very irksome that demonstrators in Europe and the US have marched down the street chanting "From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free." What do these people--who do not send money to Isis, Al Qaeda, or Hamas and who almost certainly do not want to be in anybody's army--think that slogan means? IF the establishment of Israel involved ethnic cleansing, so would the dis-establishment of Israel.
It isn't the Israeli government's fault that Hamas launched an attack in southern Israel. It IS their fault--on numerous levels--that their substantial intelligence and military resources were not on duty, October 7. Netanyahu's all-out attack on Hamas will blunt the search for culpability in Israel.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Sure; everybody is nominally against killing innocent civilians. It's just that, unfortunately, "as far as possible" isn't much of a barrier, whether it involves blowing up people on an Israeli bus or in a restaurant in Tel Aviv, or dropping a bomb on an apartment building.
Yes
Quoting BC
Yes, I find it irksome and also very insensitive. They could chant 'free Palestine', instead. We know the meaning that people attach to those words, they would do well to refrain from using those words. It is their responsibility to avoid being misunderstood, and cast in a negative light. The river to the sea geographically spans an area that includes the State of Israel, and if they want to appear to be Hamas supporters, best not to use these words. Don't they have good PR firms in those countries, or good advisors? Or is this part of the plan?
Quoting BC
There is the question of agency here. To put it in another way, if the security of Israel was sub contracted to a company, and this happened, they would have a huge lawsuit on its hands. This has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel, just the responsibility for protection against a known threat. So Hamas is responsible for attacking, the IDF for failing to reasonably defend.
What is the driving time across Israel? Tel Aviv to Sderot : 1 hour, Jerusalem to Sderot: 1 hr 30 minutes. Depending on traffic I guess. Never been there.
One should also consider the technology both the United States and Israel have access to, and unlikely it seems that all these technologies could have failed.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210326996/one-week-into-israels-ground-war-in-gaza-satellites-and-socialf-media-give-hints
Quoting BC
These actions could be shown to be self-defeating, or having the risk of being self-defeating, damaging to their own cause, in which the actions could be said to be irrational. I think we can at least figure that out?
Of course they do, but people who organize demonstrations generally do not employ PR firms to make sure all of their messages are 'on point' and unambiguous. If you bring 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 people together for a massive demonstration, there are limits on how finely you can direct the groupthink. Small groups can control small demonstrations -- 200-300 people at most -- much better.
Today the PBS reporter on the ground in Gaza said the IDF said that about 43% of the housing in Gaza had been destroyed, so far. The IDF has quite a ways to go yet, what with the many miles of tunnels running under civilian infrastructure. By the time they are finished destroying the tunnels, it wouldn't be surprising if 60% of the housing was rubble.
There are about 2,000,000 people "living" in Gaza; if 800,000 are now homeless, over 1 million will be without housing in a few months. No house, no kitchen, no bed, no pot to piss in. Nothing, Who is going to rebuild Gaza? Who is going to buy the building materials to house 1,200,000 homeless, never mind repairing the houses that are still habitable? Who's going to rebuild the water/sewer/sanitation system? Who's going to rebuild the electrical/telecom system? Schools, mosques, hospitals, food distribution system, etc?
Gaza will be ungovernable, alright -- the was one of Israel's stated goals, right? Make it impossible for Hamas to govern.
I don't know which nations are going to take on the large job of rebuilding Gaza. If civilians shouldn't be killed, they also shouldn't be left to rot amid the rubble, either. The place will need intensive therapy -- lots of concrete, lots of reconstruction, lots of psycho-social support. If there is no physical and psychological recovery in Gaza, then there will be no peace in the area either, just a lot of very bitter, angry, revenge-minded people.
You or someone else might push this "oppressor/oppressed" and think there's some moral competition going around here of blameless underdogs and justified defense. This is basically about a conflict, which both sides have their victims, their reasons and their justifications.
The pre-1967 borders aren't actually disputed here by either the PA or the World in general. You might see the militant group going for the whole of Israel, but this is nonsense as Israel has a nuclear deterrent and militarily dominates it's Arab neighbors.
The issue is about what Israel gained in the Six Day war.
Hence one side is the occupier here. We don't talk of the English occupying Scotland and Wales for a reason. This was just some time ago shown by the Scots voting to stay in the union. Yet Palestine hasn't been integrated to Israel and the annexation hasn't been accepted. Hence the maps we generally use and what Israel uses are different about Israel.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Festering hatred is apt to use here. For Palestinians, the Nakba is a central part of their identity. And so is that Israel should be the home for Jews, a Jewish Israel, is also central to many Israelis.
Hence I'm firmly in the view that this conflict has no peaceful solution anywhere near.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yet here's the issue: MLK wasn't demanding a new state, he basically was demanding that the people should be treated as the constitution says. Gandhi had the advantage that Britain simply couldn't go on and occupy such large nation. With Israel/Palestine it's different. You are talking about Israelis and Palestinians in the first place, not "Israeli citizens". Who wants to integrate the Palestinians? Do they want to be integrated as Israelis??? Not at all.
And furthermore, assume then the Black Panthers had gone around and killed white people in the US. Do you think that would have made white Americans in the South less racist? Hell no, they would have flocked around the KKK. The US would be really, really ugly. This is what fear and hatred does.
If you think that peace can be obtained easily in the Middle East, I simply disagree. Basically a lot more people should have to be killed. It took two World Wars to pacify the Europeans, and such amounts of blood hasn't been spilled in the Middle East this or the last Century.
Good point. So when a news head says 'but some of them were shouting bad things' then of course you realize that a small minority does no represent the majority here. The majority in any case should know not to chant self - defeating slogans, but then maybe it is all planned in some way.
Quoting BC
You forgot to mention powerless. By many accounts, billions has already been invested in Gaza to this date.
For the countries and governments and people that 'support Israel' this is a solution, this is the right thing. The final result, according to Scott Ritter, is a Palestinian state, so we can see if he is right, or just propaganda.
It is time to pull out your moral compass and do some judging of the right and wrong here.
What upsets me is that bombing of civilians has been going on for years all over the world, in wars, civil wars, but without the news media attention that this has got. Where were the protests? 1 million Iraqis? 3 million Vietnamese?
There used to be that awful song protesters used to chant:
“Hey, Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” —A protest chant that first became popular in late 1967.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/vietnam-war-forty-quotes
1967. What has changed?
We need to teach peace in schools, really, not war. History, not distortions.
Lets start with this:
The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Of course we need to add Russia, China, France, UK.... search for it.
Oh yes, I remember chanting that, and others like
ho ho Ho Chi Minh
the NLF is gonna win
or
US out of Viet Nam
Japan and Okinawa
and
one two three four
we don't want your fucking war
The National Liberation Front did win, as it happens, and we are out of Vietnam, at least.
Quoting FreeEmotion
According to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, there were 15,000,000 military personnel killed in WWII, and 38,000,000 civilian deaths. Armies don't fight the way they did in the 19th century and earlier, where battlefields were at least somewhat isolated. Henry V's famous victory over the French at Agincourt took place on a battlefield 1000 yards wide. The French force of 20,000 greatly outnumbered the English who arrived at the battle already exhausted. Rather than engage in hand to hand battle, the English unleashed between 125,000 and 500,000 arrows from longbows and crossbows into the French troops. This was in 1415.
In the middle of the 19th century, there was the famous charge of the British light brigade during the battle of Balaclava in the Crimea. You remember (of course you do) Tennyson's lines,
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
Point is, civilians were not involved--just the uniformed cannon fodder.
Technology changed, of course, and by WWII armies were not necessarily making finicky distinctions between civilians and soldiers, economic forces and military forces. The allies fire-bombed a number of cities, -- Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo for example. Cities are where civilians live. The US nuclear bombs made no distinction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima -- indeed, the military wanted to nuke an intact city, the better to measure the effect.
At this stage of the game, we can expect civilians to be targeted in war--probably not as the explicit target (very bad PR) but as "unfortunate collateral damage". Civilians are not so respected that they even make good human shields, these days. In some military thinking, there isn't all that big a difference between a civilian and a soldier.
I don't approve military policy and practice; my disapproval and 50¢ won't buy me a cup of coffee.
Quoting FreeEmotion
In these times, my moral compass spins a lot, trying to locate the moral pole.
Israel uses “disproportionate force” in Gaza and deliberately attacks “civilian infrastructure” such as bridges, roads and residential complexes. This approach explains the “high number of deaths in Gaza” and, according to critics, “constitutes a violation of international treaties and the laws of war.”
This is stated in a confidential memo from the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv, which has been seen by NRC .
The memo was drawn up by the Defense Attaché at the embassy, ??who is intensively monitoring the situation around Gaza with a military team. According to the report, the Israeli political and military leadership has no clear strategy and the Israeli desire to finally deal with Hamas is "a military goal that is virtually impossible to achieve."
The findings in the confidential report are in stark contrast to public statements by the Israeli army in recent weeks, which claims to be doing as much as possible to prevent Palestinian civilian deaths. More than 11,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began, according to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry. Just this weekend, Israel came under intense international criticism for air and ground strikes around Al-Shifa Hospital.
Outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) said last Wednesday after a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel "must show that what they do is also proportionate" and must act within the limits of international law. Rutte, unlike French President Macron , for example , does not want to call for a ceasefire.
The memo shows that the Netherlands knows that Israel consciously opts for a ruthless military approach that leads to large numbers of civilian casualties. Yet the Israeli actions are not publicly condemned by Rutte and outgoing Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot (CDA).
D66 party leader and outgoing Minister for Climate and Energy Rob Jetten said on Sunday in Buitenhof that he believes that Rutte should now call for a ceasefire, but D66 appears to be alone in this within the outgoing cabinet.
According to the official memo, the decisions of the Israeli war cabinet and army leadership are motivated by feelings of revenge. “The emotion and anger are echoed in IDF [Israeli army] briefings,” the message said. These emotions would play a role in expanding the instructions for use of force for the Israeli military and in the Israeli interpretation of the laws of war.
Dahiya-doctrine
The IDF, the embassy writes, tries to limit losses on its own side as much as possible during the ground offensive (" zero risk ") and therefore uses lethal force more quickly (" shoot to kill "). Moreover, the embassy sees that the IDF applies "elements" of the so-called Dahiya doctrine. This strategy, which was first used in the 2006 war in Lebanon, "intends to deliberately cause massive destruction to infrastructure and civilian centers" while taking large numbers of civilian casualties for granted. The deliberate destruction of civilian targets is contrary to the laws of war, the memo states.
The use of brute force should restore the deterrence of Israel, which appeared militarily vulnerable to the Hamas attack. According to the memo, Israel wants to "display credible military force with its offensive in Gaza to show Iran and its proxies [such as Hezbollah] that they will stop at nothing." This attitude increases rather than decreases the chance of regional escalation, the Defense Attaché fears.
Embassy does take reports about Israeli plans to move Palestinians to the Sinai desert seriously.
Because the Israelis feel little explicit support from allies other than the United States, this could lead "to more extreme actions and the possible targeting of the northern front [a preventive Israeli war against Hezbollah]. then to hoped-for peace negotiations.”
At the end of October, Rutte said in a parliamentary debate that Israel has the right to eliminate the terrorist threat: “Hamas' ability to carry out attacks must disappear.” However, according to the embassy, ??"a clear military victory over Hamas" cannot be achieved. Moreover, there is no agreement on the Israeli side about the end goal of Operation Swords of Iron. “The current action is first and foremost motivated by the need to deliver a final blow to Hamas,” the memo states: “The prevailing feeling is that we will look further afterward.”
Even if Hamas is almost completely eliminated, the fundamentalist movement's ideology will live on, the memo said. “There is no military answer to this, this is a political issue.”
Saudi Arabia and Qatar
The Dutch Defense Attaché is also concerned about leaked Israeli plans to forcibly relocate the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza, temporarily or otherwise, to Egypt's Sinai desert. Israeli media recently wrote about a policy document mentioning this option, sparking fears among Palestinians of ethnic cleansing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the plan "hypothetical", but the Dutch embassy is taking it seriously. Under the heading ' Thinking the unthinkable ' it says that in Israel "several people – including parliamentarians, advisors and soldiers – do not dismiss this option as extreme, but as real."
The memo states that one of the scenarios for a Gaza without Hamas is that an international force will control the coastal strip. It could consist mainly of Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The memo states: “The question is what is left of Gaza after the military offensive and what this force will oversee.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not want to respond substantively to the memo, but emphasizes that it is only one of a "multiple of sources" that are used in drawing up policy advice to the minister. “The Netherlands is very concerned about the severity and scale of the conflict,” the ministry said: “Further civilian casualties on both sides must be prevented as much as possible.”
Saudi want in on the killing too? Is Yemen not enough fun for them?
Yes, there is no chance of a peaceful solution which both sides accept on the horizon*.
For either side the other side would need to accept what they will never accept and even if they did reach a compromise, which is impossible, it would be impossible to keep the peace in the long term.
*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times.
Any idea how many right wing settlers will have to move to make that a realistic option? Because currently it's simply not physically viable.
People are quick to call out Israeli assaults yet when Saudi does something similar there appears to be less of an outcry. Not really surprising given the history of the conflict … it almost bores me. It does sicken me that I am ‘bored’ by this, but hey, still bored.
Growing up with this conflict on the news every couple of yeast with the same old story does not exactly instill hope.
The ‘solution’ will almost certainly involve one state. No way can these peoples live side by side in two separate states anytime within the next couple if generations. The strange thing is the manner in which the country was created. No war, just people settling there. If it was an invasion that allowed Israel to exist I have a horrible feeling it would be more or less ‘justified’. Maybe the cultist connotations of Zionism are somehow more horrific?
Tired of it. Bored of it. Likely to cu,minate with an invasion of Iran within the next decade.
I don't think the whataboutism is particularly helpful. People don't know everything happening in every conflict in the world. If Israel did something terrible, and someone says "that's terrible", you saying "but what about when Saudi Arabia did it!?" isn't helpful at all. Either what they're doing is terrible, it's terrible regardless of what Saudi Arabia does. If it's not terrible, it's not terrible regardless of what Saudi Arabia does.
If people aren't also criticizing Saudi Arabia for the same thing, they probably don't know about Saudi Arabia or the context in which they're doing the same thing.
It is a mess and will remain so. I could not help if I wanted to other than by actively pointing how ludicrous it is to act as if we know what is going on or really care all that much.
The simple truth is we ‘feel like’ we should care but likely are just content to live distanced and remote from the realities of war and suffering. I guess we want to feel like we can have some impact somehow … truth is few to none are willing to really commit.
I have no immediate commitment to nonsense created by stupidity. I am neither proud nor ashamed of this fact.
Maybe I am just in a particularly bitter mood today? Who knows :D
As we are all I can see is the Palestinians being entirely removed from the land which Israel deems part of Israel. With the backing of the US and an international coalition.
There is another outcome which is less likely, that Israel becomes a failed state like Syria, or Iraq. But even then, the Palestinians will still likely be removed.
It seems relevant to the Israeli argument re antisemitism. The question is:
- Given that there has been no shortage of wars in the region in the past 50 years; and
- Given basically every country in the region has participated in said wars to some degree; and
- Given most countries in the region have suppressed internal unrest using extreme measures (Syria, Iraq, Egypt, etc.); and;
- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism?
Certainly, they are not exceptional for the region in how they treat a minority group, nor in their rules of engagement.
I think this argument has some limited merit. It seems fairly obvious that, historically, Israel has been used as a boogeyman to distract from the regional powers' own serious rights abuses and wide scale use of force against their people (often on significantly more intense scales than Israel). This does have something to do with the widespread antisemitism in the region that caused them to expell and expropriate all their Jews in the first place. And to the extent that Western media coverage gets guided by this as well (which it certainly does to some extent), there is a valid critique here. After all, would people have such passionate opinions about this conflict if it was occuring in Azerbaijan or Tajikistan and had similar dimensions? Obviously not. None of the much larger conflicts in the world over the last decade have produced marches (both for and against each side) on the scale we've seen in the West recently. The wars in Syria and Yemen produced no riots in Europe's relevant ethnic neighborhoods, no attacks on Sunni/Shia mosques to parallel attacks in synagogues, etc.
But not all of the elevation of the conflict in public discourse has to do with this phenomena. Part of it has to do with the religious salience of Israel for Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the West — and this phenomena also has the effect of boosting support for Israel, particularly in the US
Second, Israel claims to be a liberal democracy. This claim forces it to live up to a higher standard, and that has nothing to do with antisemitism.
Third, people often over estimate the gap between the the capabilities of the Israeli and Egyptian or Saudi armed forces. When Egypt just erases villages in the Sinai or the Saudis level areas of Yemen, people tend to think: "well they don't have the same precision capabilities." This actually isn't true. Egypt receives a massive amount of American military aid and has plenty of PGMs. They just don't choose to "waste" them in situations where leveling the entire community comes with minimal pushback. The Saudis spend a phenomenal amount on defense and have all sorts of high end American and Chinese precision weapons.
But perceptions are what matters, and people generally view these militaries as inept and corrupt (for good reason). The IDF has a much better reputation, which in turn increases perceived culpability for civilian losses and damaged infrastructure.
The "whataboutism" is relevant for an entirely different question then: why do people care so much more (one way or the other) about Palestine?
This is a question worth exploring because public opinion does shape the conflict. Would Hamas really think baiting Israel into destroying its own infrastructure and people was a worthwhile strategy if world and Arab opinion would be on a par with how people respond to other similar conflicts in the region? Absolutely not. Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways.
There are a few reasons situations like this happen.
1. Like I said, awareness. People are generally more aware of some conflicts than others, and more knowledgeable about them.
2. Western support. It may be perceived that Israel is doing all their nastiness with support and resources from Western countries, in ways that the other countries are not. The average American may think (whether right or wrong), my country is more involved in this conflict, which means my voice matters more than it would in some conflict my country is a lot less involved in
3. Responsiveness to reason. Israel may actually be seen as a country that is more fundamentally reasonable than other countries. In other words, if you said "hey, what you're doing is evil and you have to stop" to the Israeli government and also to the Saudi government, which one do you think is more likely to listen? Some countries, there's no point criticizing them much, because they're evil, they know they're evil, everyone knows they're evil. Other countries, especially more Western-seeming countries, provide space for the idea that if you criticise them hard enough, there may be enough sway within their society to stop the evil.
The last reason is why I criticise leftists more than conservatives. Conservatives are pretty much hopeless, criticism wouldn't do much good. People on the left can do better
Agreed.
This ties into (selective) awareness. Support for Israel is top of mind in part due to the powerful Arab reactions against it (e.g., the oil embargo, 9/11 was carried out ostensibly for this reason, etc.).
Egypt is also a huge beneficiary of US aid, as is Jordan and Iraq. The Gulf States pay for their hardware from the US, EU, and UK with their oil wealth, but as customers they are far larger than Israel. The Saudi defense budget alone is more than three times the size of Israel's, and they operate comprably far more European hardware (Typhoons, Tornados, Rafales, and Grippens). They're getting more US hardware as well and were recently involved in a long war that killed over a quarter million people. Not only this, but US intelligence was actively assisting their efforts and US assets were actively hitting targets in Yemen, flying recon, etc., a level of support Israel has not received in any of its wars.
This is not generally reflected in public understanding, and I think that ties back into the other factors we've both mentioned.
Absolutely.
Just curious. What “made” them a state?
Really good post, especially this part :up:. I’ve been trying to make all the same points in various ways, but you coalesced them really well there.
The usual suspect.
I’m not a fan of the empire.
Furthermore, the United States and Israel are responsible for many of the dumpster fires that litter the Middle-East. The dictators, they themselves have put in power. The extremist groups, they themselves have created and supported. The moderates, they themselves have deposed or assassinated.
So yea, I'm not buying these crocodile tears.
That’s a bit reductionist. Nasserism and Baathism were internalized versions of Marxism that failed on its own. There’s only a few countries that came out of the British and French carving of Ottomons relatively better off, Turkey being maybe one of the only ones (though not as recently).
US screwed up trying to invade Iraq but it’s not like it took down a wonderful system. A better case can be made with CIA operation that took down the democratically elected socialist Mossadegh in Iran which led to all sorts of problems with the Shah that led to the Ayatollah.
https://lawliberty.org/scenes-from-a-kibbutz/
Oh, and if you do a bit of digging around the Ba'ath party coming to power in Iraq, guess what you find?
The whole thing is so ironic it would be a nice joke were it not for the fact that the United States has the blood of millions on its hands in the Middle-East alone.
Quite the Israel Palestine problem is the touch stone for movements in geopolitics. Quite literally at the wailing wall and the temple of the mount.
Although, I suspect that it’s importance will wane as the Global South and Far East become more active on the global stage.
I'm not sure of the US putting Nasser in charge. In fact, he seemed pretty antagonistic overall to the US and West in general.
This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.
It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history.
Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. Generally speaking the British and then the US wanted to keep the more moderate stabilizing force of the original Hashemite and hereditary monarchs in power (Faisal, Abdullah, Hussein, Saud, etc.). This did not last for many of them. The ones that remained are still tenuously allies of the US (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, etc.).
It might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.
They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down.
But for what it's worth, the US put these people in charge because they thought it would keep the communists/socialists out, often to no avail.
Again, I'm not sure it is that simplistic, and feeds into "oppressor/oppressed" framework that I am questioning on these forums. Much of the politics in the oil countries early on revolved around oil. Britain actually shut the US out for example, and this caused various moves of alliances in places like Iran and Iraq early on. However, it can't be discounted that the Soviets were also trying their best to promote their people, as well as the simple fact that various internal coups inspired by European style ones, took place that didn't always involve America. It's more what the US did in reaction that caused problems. Afghanistan (fighting the Soviets), invading Iraq (various poorly conceived ends) and Iran (perceived communism alignment) were egregious examples of the US making it worse. However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests.
A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity).
Prosperity is ultimately what brought Europe and the United States out of despotism, so in my mind there's no reason to assume the same wouldn't have happened in the Middle-East were it not for constant US meddling.
Sadly, wealthy countries are also powerful, and that's the one thing the United States and Israel could not tolerate in the region. Wealthy communist countries? Even worse!
Again, Iraq fell to Baathists.. The US and Britain rather have had their monarchy there (I guess constitutional?). The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. They pressed Eisenhower who eventually relented and had the CIA join their M16 operation. Afghanistan's history was largely shaped by Soviet interference, and then reaction to that to reactionary forces. It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there.
Any reasonable person would think so too, but as I've said, extremists have taken over there. They will continue to dehumanize the "enemy" and basically argue for war, either "Jihad" or "Mowing the lawn" to be the only answer here.
What would be then the reasons why the extremists would fall from favor?
Well, in the case of Europe you finally got European integration after millions being killed in WW1 and it's continuation, WW2. Great example!
So a true genocide of Palestinians in Gaza? Not just 11000, but let's say 110 000? Or every tenth human being killed in Gaza? That would be 220 000 people. I think that could be a "biblical" enough to 'wake up' people from their apathy. It would then would 'look bad' enough for Israel to come up with a two state solution. If Israel continues to limit humanitarian assistance, we can be there. It actually would 'look bad' for the US too, so perhaps there would be some effective diplomacy, not the futile 'bearhugs' that the US now gives to Israel. Or let me backtrack: Israel I guess has accepted 4 hours of not boming. Quite quick those giving humanitarian assistance have to be...
And then you immediately have the following problem: only efficiently strong countries can keep peace. Lebanon and Syria are on brink of being failed states. How does the PA suddenly become a strong country? Egypt is strong enough, even if the 'Arab street' hates the peace with Israel. Yet Palestinians aren't Egyptians. Far easily populists in the Palestinian side could pose this as just a part of throwing back the crusaders. After all, it took 192 years to throw out the Crusaders.
Yeah, seems extremely bleak.
Which the US supported.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Exactly. Countries becoming modern, rejecting colonialism, etc.
Churchill was no less a scumbag. Perhaps even the worst of them all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'd say that goes without saying. They armed the Taliban and subsequently put them in charge. I don't think I need to remind you who the Taliban were. It's one of many extremist groups that rose to power as a direct result of US interference.
That isn't to say the US was the only bad guy in Afghanistan.
I think the Taleban was of Pakistani origin, not the US. And uh, yeah, the Pakistanis holding on to the Taleban and being an ally (somehow) of the US brought them victory in the end. The US did go away and didn't punish them. They can tap each other on the back in the offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence.
Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US.
I believe only in so far as they fought Iran in the 80s. That makes sense somewhat. However, they rather have not had the Baathists at all. That was who was there, and they were next to an even worse enemy (Iran hostage crisis, etc.).
Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them).
In the end, it makes as much sense as Bibi supporting Hamas!
I think the former Israeli prime minister Ehdu Olmert makes this clear quite well:
But if you really think that supporting the enemy of your enemy is allways 'makes sense', I have to disagree.
These myriad tricks usually blown in the face of these politicians who think that they can juggle with live grenades.
I would say that the Americans were better guys than the Soviets!
They stayed in Afghanistan far longer, yet killed far less people! :grin:
And now Afghanistan isn't controlled by rival factions and isn't as chaotic as after the Soviet backed government fell! :grin:
And you had an epic disaster movie in the end when Kabul fell, not a Soviet style parade with little girls giving flowers to the last Soviet troops. :blush:
Last Soviet in Afghanistan soil, general Gromov walking with his son out of Afghanistan:
Last American soldier in Afghani soil, general Donahue leaving Kabul walking to the transport aircraft:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CitizenFreePres/status/1724905192565702733[/tweet]
Suppose Hamas says it'll commit to a ceasefire, but then it'll build its forces and tunnels back during that lull in the action, and then it'll send people on parachutes over to rape and kill children like it did the last time it broke a ceasefire on October 7?
Then it'll operate out of a hospital and subject its own wounded and dying to more misery so it can blame the Israelis of violating the rule that says you can't attack your enemy when it hides behind an incubator filled with premies.
So sure, I'm in favor of the Garden of Eden you envision. It's unfortunately a myth.
I don’t want to be the party pooper, but if the hat fits…
These failed states are spreading, along with extremism. The large power blocks really should hunker down now and prepare for climate breakdown.
It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time.
Likely the power blocks, North America, Europe, China, will build metaphorical walls and even real walls eventually. Whether any other blocks can form quickly enough to build stability, we will have to see. If not they will probably join the failed states.
Great. I hope you have similar ideas about the myth of Democracy as well.
I am not sure that opposing a concept because it seems impossible is valid, but yes, it seems all very pie in the sky at the moment.
We can talk about what is possible, what is probable even, but all of these are equally disastrous to civilians. I suppose it has to be, then?
Quoting Punshhh
Peaceful coexistence is fine, there is no need to go the whole hog and 'mesh with western values' not sure what they are. After all, the Abraham accords were all about peace.
Israel is always in the world spotlight.
You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.
What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.
What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?
Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.
I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.
There is some role for regional players, but their influence compared to that of the great powers or their intelligence agencies is negligible.
I think people underestimate just how powerful the US and the CIA are/were. And this trend in large part countinues to this day. Just look at the gigantic propaganda campaigns surrounding Ukraine and Gaza.
Israel is always in the world spotlight.
You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.
What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.
What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?
Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.
I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.
Yes don’t trust any party that isn’t western, liberal democratic, and who are not generally trying to get along peacefully. Unfortunately, in that part of the world, this isn’t the world that is given. Saddam was a monster, but so is the Islamic regime next door. The shah wasn’t much better. It’s pretty dismal. You have murderous strongmen repressing murderous religious groups. Hamas turned out to be even more Jihadist than not and Netanyahu apparently thought it could be controlled. It turned out they rape, beheaded, burned and chopped up kids, women, old people sadistically, live streaming it. So yeah now Israel is going to get rid of as much of the the leadership and fighters on the ground as possible.
Haha. :rofl: you really have no sense of history at all, do you?
Look at my whole comment. If you don’t agree with my first statement, you can’t easily deny the facts that followed.
Yes that would be great. For a while after WW2 it looked as though it could have gone that way.
By mesh with western values I mean they didn’t conform with political, cultural and social norms. This isn’t a criticism of the Arabic way of life, they are just different to the established western world order. The blame for the failure to live peacefully alongside following the WW2 falls fairly and squarely on the U.S./U.K. coalition.
The decent into McCarthyism in the U.S. following WW2 and the pathological paranoia about communism is the root of the failure.
I was quite touched to see the Rabbi says he regrets the loss of life, all children or precious.
The more I see these Israelis the more I like them: they are nice people pushed beyond their ability to endure. How did this happen?
I agree. And the rich Gulf states with their tiny citizenry have their own milder version of Apartheid namely in the form of permanent migrant workers, whose legal rights can be dubious (at least by Western standards). At least usually the migrant workers can go home.
In a larger persepective, this was the curse of decolonization: how could you even think of 'capitalism' that your colonizer had, as surely the part of being a colony wasn't so great? Socialism seemed a perfectly viable answer back then. How would Palestinians think about "American democracy" after having lived under occupation that the US supports? Hence the "back to original roots" -movement with islamism is now the 'viable' option. Unfortunately.
And how can you expect the Israelis to support a two state solution given their experience with the Palestinians?
How can we explain the US alliance with Germany and Japan given their WW2 experience?
How can we explain the US alliance with the UK given the history of colonization and indentured servitude.
Why do Muslims live in the US peaceably, but not in their ancestral homelands?
My point here is that if we want to widen our scope to figure our why people act as they do, the variables are limitless, and are not simply explained by focusing on the select events that satisfy a narrative that evil is explainable as being reactionary.
Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.
That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well.
And Hamas
Intentional, malicious leadership.
Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency?
Well, that actually was my point. I was ultimately placing blame on actual bad actors, not on prior histories that might lead people to bad, but understandable decisions. For example, we can all recite the difficult economic and social situation Germany was in prior to the rise of Hitler, and that certainly had much to do with his emergence, but that doesn't absolve the Nazi regime of the horrors it caused.
It's the distinction between explanations and excuses. The fact that I can find an explanation for why a murderer murders doesn't mean that serves as an excuse for his murdering.
And what would be the reason for Israel to support a two state solution in the first place?
How would anybody expect Israel to do anything that would be inconvenient for the country as it has the staunch backing from the US? Some protests in the West don't matter much if at all. The vast majority of nations don't care much about the regional problems in the Middle East.
Quoting Hanover
Quite well: In the end in both countries, there was no support for the previous aggressive expansionism as the utter defeat was totally evident to everybody. How bad previous national socialism and Imperial militarism had been simply couldn't be denied. And then, both countries happily accepted the position they were given: being an ally of the US was quite different from being an "ally" of the Soviet Union.
Quoting Hanover
Well, the US military still had Operational Plans for a war against Canada and the UK even after WW1 (Warplan Red), so it wasn't so easy I guess.
Quoting Hanover
Well, if you don't understand that, wonder what gives. Yes, why do the Palestinians oppose Israel??? :roll:
Quoting Hanover
Yet it's you who talk of evil. And the variables are many, but not limitless. There are important and then not so important issues. Which are the most important reasons is the interesting discussion here.
Quoting Hanover
Even if what is right and wrong is important, I still would not base issues here on a moral judgement of good and evil. Or just bad people get into power than good ones. There was a reason that people did vote for mr Hitler in Germany, just as they voted into power mr Trump. Or mr Biden. Or anybody.
Surely if Germany would have won WW1, an Austro-Hungarian -borne corporal and a failed painter likely wouldn't have been elected and likely the whole national socialism wouldn't have prevailed in Germany. Perhaps then in France or the UK? If there would have been a Communist Revolution in either France or the UK after a lost war, wouldn't that seem so inevitable to us now? France had this history of revolutions, starting from the revolution that bears the country's name. Or UK as a monarchy would seem to have been so ripe for the inevitable fall. After all, then Marx would have been totally correct in his views of the place where the Proletariat starts it's violent struggle against Capitalism.
Quoting Hanover
I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage.
But then that swings both ways. The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side.
I am so glad you said this. History shows that almost every nation on earth has had its wars and internal conflicts that have got millions killed. History taught in schools does not cover this. There is hope, however, that people are somewhat tired of wars. People are tired of wars, but not all, some want war, it seems. Why? Money? Lack of the draft for over 65? Religious nationalism?
The following lectures were both useful and revealing. Apparently United States did have plans to invade Canada at that time, thinking has changed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyXhRKTb-mk
Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMUBGpQ6FA
I am absolutely sickened by war, but much of what I have learned, sadly, or as a part of design, is the glorification of war that has been so much a part of the social environment I live it. Peace has no heroes. We are taught of Alexander the Great: there is book called "Alexander the Killer of men" which seems to be a better title. Granted, not everyone will turn into a Gandhi, but give everyone a proper education of history (including in Gaza and Israel) and the possibilities of diplomatic resolutions, plus the murderous history of some of these people in power.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am glad you asked that question.
Would you agree that neither the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Jews at that time had any agency in the creation of this conflict, but mainly puppets in the great powers who decided their fate?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Care to trace the chain of cause and effect to its roots?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/20/264241052/oxfam-worlds-richest-1-percent-control-half-of-global-wealth
What does wealth have to do with agency?
https://press.un.org/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm
Suggested before, but not now?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-arabs-idUSTRE73923020110410/
I would say the whole colonial world was shaped by "greater powers". You are bringing this up as if I hadn't already addressed this, but perhaps you didn't read earlier posts. The Middle East and Africa (and most of Asia for that matter) are purely fictional entities essentially contrived by Britain, France (and other European powers to a lesser extent... Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Russia, etc.). So in that respect, of course the colonies developed from the 17th-20th centuries were shaped by "greater powers" (in Europe mainly).
But more proximately, Israel, the modern state, was an idea that came about in the 19th century and borne out of the nationalism that was prevalent of that time. But the same can be said of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and you name it. The reality of Israel came about through the realization that Jews in the Western world (and that includes populations in Arab centers which traditionally have been "treated" a bit better than Europe prior to Israel), because history has demonstrated a rampant hatred of this group through the generations and culminating with the holocaust (and is that some sort of "End of History" moment for humanity or the Jews in general, or can that happen yet again, and again and again.. hence the idea that perhaps a location related to the group's origins makes sense for there to be at least one place for the people not to be continually at the whims of whatever country they belong). And even then, the Israelis just didn't get a state, it happened through a series of pushes of various groups right after WW2, especially in regards to getting displaced persons in European concentration camps into Israel (as many places just wouldn't take them). So, then the UN resolution was passed. And thus the movements of Arabs hoping to return after Israel's utter defeat (the ever present Nakba). It didn't happen the way they had predicted, and here we are with two populations warring ever since regarding the right of this or that, and the other. What it means to lose a war, what it means to win a war. What is the proper place of the UN? Is it biased? Is it objective? Is a tool for whatever country needs it at the moment? Is it a tool of Europe against the US' hegemony after WW2? Is it a tool of the developing countries against the West, or the US? Who knows. Whatever interest needs it to be their cudgel will use it, as the third-party that is truly "objective" and has peered into the Writ of World Morality.
Quoting FreeEmotion
Actually, I thought
video was pretty apt in terms of real brief summary of missed opportunities for peace:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853565
Naomi Klein has pointed out in her recent book, which touches on the middle east, that Zionism used to be simply one part of a wide discussion. Before it turned into a byword for the Holocaust, "the jewish question" was avidly discussed by jews with various views represented.
But the Holocaust destroyed this discussion, both by physically destroying it's participants as well as discrediting the idea that jews could integrate. Zionism ended up the only plausible answer.
Klein argues that Israel offers jews a kind of new identity. A kind of repudiation of the old European stereotypes of jews (intellectuals, merchants, poor peasant communities in eastern Europe). A muscular, tanned figure, rifle in hand, tanks and fighter jets at their back.
Most of what you said seems to be a certain sentiment except the war imagery at the end. It was probably a mix of just wanting to feel secure and I would think most families would rather the image be collective farmers, fishermen, builders, engineers, etc just living life building the land. Being a citizen soldier is just a necessity not the driving force. If your existence is on the line though, surely fighting in the army is not a remote possibility but a necessity.
Well I can't really make any claim in my own right. But it made sense to me as a reaction to trauma.
Israel is not just another nation state. It's not just an anachronistic quasi colonial project. It's also a product of the Shoa. It's a promise that, the next time, the jews will not be helpless.
And if that is so it would certainly have a bearing on the Israel Palestine conflict. It would especially have a hearing on the reaction to a terror attack.
I think trauma is certainly part of the equation but that gets really complex.
Quoting Echarmion
I think I agree with that characterization, and thus the idea of not being wiped out or losing ground plays a major role in defense. These are really broad strokes though and I don’t think everything can be reduced to sweeping sentiments. There are various historical forces that shape policy but there is also tremendous diversity in views and ideas on how to maintain a secure state in a relatively hostile region, be it labor party peace activists, religious sects, Likud, centrists, and various ideas and interests for how to conduct domestic and foreign policy.
Or because Netanyahu had himself a role to play in the derailment of the peace-process, as Bibi himself has bragged about:
And the widows of former prime minister (shot by an Jewish extremist) blamed quite openly Likud and Bibi for creating the hostile environment.
And if you want to hear it, yes, also there were those terrorist attacks on Israelis. As I've said, the extremists dominate the scene.
So my point was that almost all of us on this forum have disagreed with Bibi's handling of the two-state solution, and his basically stopping it. But my point with that last post referencing @Nicholas video was to show how it is that Netanyahu started to become favored over the ones willing to go for peaceful two-state solution (even AMIDST Hamas' suicide bombing campaigns). It doesn't turn that way overnight. It gets that way over a series of failed efforts of the moderate Pals to form something strong enough to keep the process going. Netanyahu is influential, but he's not god. He can't mess up everything on his own. It takes two to tango, and prior to Bibi's omnipresence, the Pals could not figure it out. Would not meet at any compromise that wasn't absolutely perfectly what they wanted.
But ok, so Bibi comes to power now. He and Likud clearly don't like the idea of giving up the West Bank. We start talking past each other with Hamas. He thought Hamas could be controlled, but what would you have done about Hamas? How Bibi shot himself in the foot is even if he ranted and raved against Hamas, or went to the UN railing against Iran backing Hamas, the West Bank policies just made him look like a warmonger.
However, something Bibi can't really control as much is the hatred of a kind whereby the Hamas terrorists rape dead bodies, cut people's heads off and burn babies, and then even call their parents to celebrate how many Jews they killed with their barehands, and the parents are overcome with joy for their child. So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality.
So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control?
If I say extremists take over, what I mean is that they do take over because they are popular. And because "appeasement" of trying to form a peace deal, a two nation solution, isn't. So I'm not against you here, Bibi is basically the most successful Israeli politican ever. Yet I think that the politicians themselves have a lot do with this. It's not like a tide has swept them even if they would have wanted a peace deal.
Let's take an example: Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon in Operation Peace for Galilee to root out the PLO in 1982. It retreated from Southern Lebanon in 1985, yet stayed in the southern bordelands of Lebanon and occupied what was called the South Lebanon Security Zone until 2000.
And PLO indeed left during the initial operation. But what happened then?
A low intensity conflict presumed in which a religious shiite militant group opposed Israel's occupation called Hezbollah was borne. And this organization sponsored by Iran and earlier Syria (when it could) is now basically the unconventional deterrent for Iran that Israel won't attack itself. It's been so successfull, that it has brother organizations for example in Iraq.
But how was this portrayed in Israeli politics? Well, the Ehud Barak, one of the most highly decorated Israeli soldiers and Labor government prime minister withdrew unilateraly from South Lebanon (which by then had caused over 200 Israeli soldiers being killed about over 1000 Hezbollah fighters being killed). Hezbollah then followed them to the border basically as the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel.
Bibi and others then reason that it's been the withdrawal that caused then the bombing of Israeli settlements and everywhere where Israel has tried to "negotiate", only failure has followed. Not that going off an occupying other countries will create insurgencies and escalate the conflict.
And why wouldn't many Jewish Israelis choose Bibi's version of events? Israel has the nuclear bomb, Arabs don't. Israel has military superiority over it's neighbors. Israel has an staunch ally in the US that will accept basically everything that Israel does.
If I knew Palestinian politics better, I would assume that the fate of those who tried aggressively to get a two state solution by negotiating with the Israelis are as unpopular as the Labor party is now in Israel. Religious fanatics rule.
This seems to be pretty tenuous argument as it is basically generalizing the end of a conflict that had determining factors for why Israel was battling the PLO in Lebanon. It's not as easy as Israel just wanted to go in there for funsies. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean by "occupying other countries". As you are simply stating the consequence not the reason. But then tying it to Gaza also seems tenuous as Gaza is not quite a state the same way Lebanon is. It is a territory that would perhaps become a future state if the moderates agreed that Israel should exist peaceably and that Israelis should not be arbitrarily killed, etc.
Also here: Quoting ssu
I'm confused why you would say Hezbollah was the "proxy arm of the IDF". You are making them sound like Israel's ally. That doesn't sound right. The consequence for the withdrawal is the South Lebanese Army was taken over by Hezbollah guerillas. I think you meant the South Lebanese Army was Israel's proxy (though even that is a bit tenuous)?
Quoting ssu
You make it sound like the Palestinian disagreement means that they are having high noon tea hashing out a well-planned peace deal over crumpets and honey or some shit. Not negotiating looks like the barbaric kind of shit that they did.
Basically, you didn't answer my questioned and hedged. I'll ask it again:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Israel wanted to erase PLO from operating from Lebanon. That was the "funsies" you asked about. PLO is no not firing rockets or terrorist attacks from Lebanon. Hezbollah is for that there now. And do you wonder why?
Well, somehow being 18 years as an occupation force in Lebanon did make this. Israel's own proxy force, the South Lebanese Army, collapsed immediately when Israel withdrew. You might try to fight an insurgency like the British did in Northern Ireland, or then can fight it like Israelis did in Lebanon: in order to defend from ambushes like when the road is next to trees and orchards, fire blindly your machine guns into the orchard. If a small girl is accidentally killed by this, then tell that a terrorist has been killed in operations.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting ssu
Would have been better to end the sentence 'Hezbollah then followed them to the border.'
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, you got it. SLA was the Israeli proxy, not Hezbollah.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Now I'm the one confused. Please try refrain the question because I don't understand what your point is.
What's the shibboleth overmined here? That I talk about occupied territories and not about Judea and Samara? Or what?
Or should we just talk about the Israeli civilians who have died in terrorist attacks? If you look at this century, then those killed basically doubled in October 7th. But we are reaching new heights now with Palestinian deaths too. (But that's the shibboleth of mentioning them or what?)
The shibboleth is Netanyahu.
What don’t you get about these questions?
That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? Is there enough will on the Pals side to do this?
The first thing that needs happen is for Israel to stop its belligerent occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Until that happens, Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel.
Armed resistance isn't even forbidden under such conditions according to international law, and Israel, being the occupier, cannot legally claim self-defense.
You do understand that there's a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?
There's just the Palestinian Authority. But basically it's quite sidelined. As new settlements are still rising and Palestinians are forced out of their homes, what is the reason why the PA would start fighting other Palestinians? Hence the PA is not even in the position of Vichy France when it fought the resistance movement and 'Free French'..
Nah, I don't think that characterization is even true. It's stated ends and its means say otherwise. Jihadist and extremist characterize it more. Or, at least you are severely playing down that aspect as some kind of legitimate form of resistance. Just lambs resisting evil Israel rather than antagonizing them. Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, and then uses their own people as human shields not giving one shit about their lives and put all their money into building tunnels and firing rockets and weapons and making themselves rich.
At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they?
Ah you are STILL gaslighting and not answering the question. I will repeat:
Quoting schopenhauer1
If mass rape and beheading of babies is Hamas's idea of "resistance" then Israel will beat the shit out of them and any peoples that choose to be governed by them. And deservedly so.
Resistance movements are often very unpleasant in their methods, simply because they cannot resist the oppressor through conventional means. The Vietcong were no different, nor were the Taliban, or the IRA.
If Israel wants it to stop, they should stop the occupation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, Hamas is a resistance movement. Its purpose is to resist the occupier.
It's not a political movement.
Israel actually supported Hamas in order to disenfranchise the Palestinian political movements, so go figure.
The problem is that Israel wants to continue its illegal occupation no matter what, so Israel is at the center of this problem.
Resistance fighters don't behead babies in their cribs. They don't throw babies into ovens. They don't murder a child's parents and then play with the children afterwards while filming it. 80% of the victims showed signs of torture. Then there's the rapes. And Hamas has clarified that they wish to do this again and again.
Quoting Tzeentch
FTFY. The state of Israel per se IS the occupation per Hamas. Hamas is committed to the annihilation of any independent Jewish state on that land. This is not about a few miles of Gaza or the WB.
I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. They were burned, maimed, cut to pieces also.
Even in the limited context of present events there's no moral high ground for them to claim, I'm afraid.
But you're right in the fact that resistance movements have a tendency to commit acts of extreme violence. That's nothing new.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Regardless of whether that's true or not, Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank.
Don't rely on my word. Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. This is not about Gaza. Gaza has been rid of Jews since '05.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwzNAV4sWs&t=197s
At 2:15 the question is asked directly.
Quoting Tzeentch
I disagree. Hamas intentionally murders the innocent, Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. The IDF does not indiscriminately murder. There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters - a legitimate military target which unfortunately Hamas choose to have at al-Shifa hospital.
Legal schmegal.
Law is a good thing within a civil society. "States" are not citizens themselves. States have interests which they pursue. The business end of "states' interests" may be very unpleasant for those who experience it. Israel is pursuing its interests in the same way that China, UK, US, Russia, Nigeria, Iran, and every other state pursues its interests. There are agreements among sovereign states to do or not do X, Y, or Z, but enforcement depends on whose ox is getting gored at the time. .
Look, I don't like what's going on in various places around the planet, but "legality" is honored in the breach whenever it is expedient or convenient.
The relationship between Jews and Palestinians has been heavily freighted since before the beginning of the Israeli state. The whole Middle East has been heavily freighted by the activities of the Ottoman Empire, Arabs, Britain, France, Iran, et al. Just ask the Kurds and Yazidis. All sorts of dissatisfactions all round.
What states can try to achieve is reduced conflict over the long run. We can't eliminate conflict, but we can perhaps (maybe, possibly) manage it. What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. Hamas isn't a little cell of committed radicals--it's a military / terrorist element that the State of Israel can not tolerate.
Could more humane management be practiced for the Palestinians who are not part of Hamas? Maybe. Maybe not. There is only so many humanitarian solutions possible in a war.
The fact is that bad things happen to people who get in the way of a state's interests, and generally other states are willing to live with it. Up to an uncertain point. How will the present situation resolve itself? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure "law" isn't going to figure large in the conclusion.
I think that is quite true. Hamas isn't ISIS or just a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in general: their objectives are to fight the Israeli occupation. A bit of gaslighting from yourself there.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Have you not noticed that I've said that again and again the extremists have taken over?
Or do you assume that Palestinians are somehow uncapable or perhaps so inferior they cannot form a functioning state? Is that your idea?
I don't see 'moderates' in charge anywhere. What is there for 'moderate Pals' to do in Gaza or the West Bank, actually? You obviously didn't find 'moderate Germans' during WW2, but afterwards in peacetime you did find them.
First and foremost: Beyond their fierce rhetoric, actors in the Middle East are capable of being reasonable. But if you want to go with a line deranged babykillers cannot be tolerated and that Palestinians are them, I have to remind you that the PA did hideous terrorist attacks too and vowed to destroy Israel... until they did sit down and tried to make peace.
Hamas is only one actor that is basically now being destroyed. How the conflict continues from here on depends on many issues.
(Another good documentary, which especially tells well the Trump peace process why Arab states did normalize their relations with Israel and why the Saudi's were on the cusp of doing it, but then this war happened... )
Rather strange view on police actions. At least the Israelis themselves are far more honest than you and call it a war.
So how to fight?
I would say that they ought to fight as United States armed forces did in Iraq like in Fallujah. There in Iraq when they were fighting the terrorists, they (the US) were at the same time bringing assistance to the few civilians still there. The US Army understood that you simply cannot first fight the long urban fight and only after destroying the last terrorist stronghold start humanitarian assistance to the civilians. There wasn't a massive casualties. Even in Afghanistan the death toll of civilians compared to the Russian invasion is totally on a different, smaller scale.
So why, from the start, stop water for 2,2 million people? Would it be so disadvantage to still provide water for the people with so many children? It's really quite clearly simply about revenge and fulfilling the desire for revenge after the horrible massacres. And you can clearly see from the statements of the politicians of Gaza being the 'evil city' with 'human animals' that something like cool, calculated moves may not in the end prevail.
The whole idea that laws of war would prevent from a military from achieving victory is nonsense. Abiding to the laws of war is on the long run important especially if you consider the country to abide by international law in the first place. Not abiding those rules just tarnishes the cause however just it would be.
Of course from ancient history onwards sieges have been about starving those behind the walls, but I think similar actions today can be very counterproductive. At least for Israel at the present.
Thank you for having the patience to deal with the apologists on here with some basic facts, common sense, and humanity. As has been pointed out, if Israel's war crimes against the civilian population in Gaza, and the slaughter of thousands of civilians, including children, are justified by the excuse that Israel is "defending themselves" then the far more vulnerable Gazans are justified in "defending themselves" by also slaughtering as many Israeli civilians as they can.
Those of us who are against killing civilians out of the type of bloodlust and revenge that dominates on both sides in this conflict reject that logic but the apologists can't escape it. Every excuse they make for the mass murder and ill-treatment of Gazan civilians is also an excuse for Hamas's butchery. The most marked difference between the two is only of scale--the IDF is a far more efficient and dangerous killing machine than Hamas and has the actual potential to be an existential threat to Gazans compared to the imaginary existential threat the relatively tiny force of Hamas extremists pose to Israel.
But the way it's proceeding here is that the apologists will claim an existential threat against Israel to excuse Israel's existential threat against Gaza. They will point to Hamas's butchery of civilians to excuse Israel's butchery of civilians. They will claim Israel must stop Hamas's war against it to excuse Israel's extending the war indefinitely. They will claim Hamas must be eliminated to excuse the elimination of Palestinian children while more Hamas militants are created from their grieving families and the cycle of violence intensifies. Any they will always claim "Hamas started it" by ignoring Israeli provocations, including the ongoing occupation.
So, if your reaction to Palestinian civilians being starved, denied medical treatment, made homeless and generally being slaughtered by a far superior force is "Oh well, it's a war" (in other words you simply don't care) but your reaction to Israeli civilians being killed is one of shock and horror then you must be suspected of moral ineptitude or bias or both.
I've made this point before, but as an (imperfect but sufficiently apt) analogy, the IRA engaged in a long guerilla war with the British army in which it committed atrocities against British civilians. It had widespread support among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and in certain cities, such as Derry, it dominated politically as does Hamas in Gaza. The British government wanted to eliminate and defeat the IRA but no one in their right mind ever suggested bombing Derry and slaughtering masses of Irish civilians as a means to kill IRA operatives because you cannot "eliminate" an embedded guerilla force without committing war crimes against the civilian population in which they are embedded. And trying to do so simply creates more extremism among the remaining population. The British and anyone with any common sense knows this and they remained within international law in dealing with the conflict. But by the logic of the apologists on here, their reaction could excusably have been "Oh well, it's a war" and they could have sent the bombers over Derry.
Why should the lives of Palestinian civilians be so worthless that they are not given similar consideration? Why should their antagonists not be bound by basic moral constraints? For the apologists, it seems to be that they are the wrong race, the wrong religion, too poor, and too far away. There can be no other reason, because the reason "because Hamas are bad" no more excuses the ill-treatment of the innocents of Gaza than Israel's current crimes excuse more Hamas slaughter of Israeli civilians, The cycle has to end somewhere, but it won't as long as selective empathy dominates.
But it's really not hard, if you can't manage empathy for Palestinian children being bombed, burned or buried alive at least apply some simple moral rules such as: War crimes are wrong, bombing refugee routes, hospitals, and schools is wrong, slaughtering people at concerts and in their homes is wrong, firing rockets at or bombing residential areas is wrong, killing large numbers of children to get at a far fewer number of military personnel is wrong. Very, very wrong. Then apply these rules unbiasedly. Don't be a supporter and apologist for the killing of innocents on either side or you are part of the problem. Step back and think about what you are really saying and the real consequences for real people. What way forward would or could lead to the least number of innocents (on either side) being killed? The least amount of violence now and in the future? Is this it? Surely no one in their right mind can claim it is.
these are normally off limits but since hamas launches operations from these buildings they become legitimate targets. using a hospital or school as an operations center/militarizing it is a war crime. striking a hospital or school that is being used as a military base is not a war crime.
If you think bombing a school full of children and e.g. killing them all is justified because there also happen to be some militants in that school using it as a base then you are a very morally sick individual imo. I wish you the best.
If you want to qualify your statement and agree it would apply to the slaughter of Israeli children also, please do.
As I have often pointed out here, if both sides are killing civilians, as happened in WW2, it is important to look at what both sides stand for. That is to say, what kind of world would we live in should each side come to power? Israel has shown that it would create a democratic world that respects women and minorities, particularly LGBTQ peopole. Hamas would create an Islamic shithole where Muslim men are on top and everyone else is treated like crap.
Which world would you prefer to live in, Baden? It's not really a hard choice is it?
Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. British lives were more important than Nazi lives, and American lives were more important than Japanese lives. War sucks. Hamas and Palestine brought it on themselves when they got in bed together. The South needed to be taught a lesson by Sherman in the Civil War and Palestinians need to be taught a lesson in this war.
I feel sorry for you.
To others who are less homicidal, Palestinian civilians are not Nazis, they are poor, dispossessed and a plurality are more likely to be critical of Hamas than support them. Certainly children, who represent a majority of Gaza's citizens, are not responsible for the extremist nutters who hold sway there. Wanting them dead to "teach them a lesson" is beyond reprehensible.
Finally, it's also counterproductive. The lesson you are teaching them is to be as murderous as their extremist overlords, as the IDF and as you are should you support such violence. The way out of this is not more bloodshed unless you are intent on killing every single Palestinian and even then you won't kill the idea that Israel deserves to be wiped out, but further foment it.
As for bombing schools, hospitals and residential areas, no you don't get ethical carte blanche to do that, the issue of proportionality must come into play. The idea you can kill as many civilians as you want per militant killed and irregardless of actual threat from a militant "base" (whatever that is defined as) has never been and will never be ethically justifiable. Which is why e.g. the British never even considered such military tactics in N. Ireland. And yes you could have just as easily called the Catholic population there Nazis and said they deserved it. But they weren't either and they didn't. More pertinently probably, they happen to be white, and Irish Americans have a political voice in the U.S. unlike Palestinians who are on the wrong side of power.
Finally, anyone who wants to argue Israel has not committed war crimes in Gaza, try it and you will lose that argument. Start with Wikipedia.
I would prefer to live as far away as possible from people like you. I have met Palestinians. They're human. And I have no sympathy for Hamas who are homicidal extremists who don't give a damn about the lives of anyone, including their own population.
A child killed by an IDF airstrike on a hospital. If you're happy she was "taught a lesson", I again feel sorry for you. This does not have to keep on happening and neither is it necessary because it achieves nothing except to foment a store of more violence for the future. It's a conscious choice to take this path not some inevitability of war and if your main thought is not "how do we stop this", you're missing something.
"Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip show a little less consensus but the overall majority supported the attack. A mass of 63.6% said that they supported the attack “extremely” or to a “somewhat” extent. A further 14.4% answered that they did not oppose or support the attack."
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791
"As for bombing schools, hospitals and residential areas, no you don't get ethical carte blanche to do that, the issue of proportionality must come into play."
Sure you do. Countries don't fight wars proportionately, they fight them to win in the most efficient way possible. The Allies didn't scale their attacks down to match the Axis's dwindling militaries, nor should they have. Israel is not going to bring a knife to a gun fight. Good for them.
"The way out of this is not more bloodshed unless you are intent on killing every single Palestinian and even then you won't kill the idea that Israel deserves to be wiped out, but further foment it."
If Israel's neighbors continue to believe Israel should be wiped out, Israel should create an occupied buffer around itself so Oct. 7th can never happen again.
"Finally, anyone who wants to argue Israel has not committed war crimes in Gaza, try it and you will lose that argument."
The Allies committed war crimes bombing German and Japanese cities. The Allied commanders would have been hanged had they lost the war. So what? The Axis brought it on themselves. What did Hamas think would happen when they decided to behead babies and rape Jewish women to death? If you rape women to death and behead babies, you get what's coming to you.
War crimes are just fine? Ok, thanks for that. Anyhow, most of the casualties are not Hamas. I don't care what happens to Hamas militants. Put them in a pit with Likud and let them all kill each other. At this point though, you honestly do not appear to be capable of making an ethical argument, so let's just part verbal company as the ethics of the situation are what I'm interested in.
So this is not a hard question to answer. Yes, you would prefer to live in a world where Israel is in charge. The world is a better place without Hamas in it, and if Palestinians support the Hamas attacks, the world is a better place with fewer of them too. Peoples sometimes have to be dragged into the civilized world kicking and screaming. It happened with Germany and Japan. It will happen with Palestine too. They'll eventually get tired of voting for terrorists to rule them.
I've made an ethical argument: both Israel and Hamas kill innocent people. Israel stands for democratic rule and protection of women and minorities. Hamas stands for Islamic rule and degradation of women and minorities. Therefore, we should prefer Israel wins.
Yes
Quoting RogueAI
No, no more than it would be a better place should we kill more Israeli civilians because they support Israel's war crimes. Honestly, you are extremely confused; you think Hamas's war crimes should be punished by Israeli war crimes and the killing of civilians seems to be not just a matter of a side effect but an actual goal of the war for you. You and the Hamas militants have very similar moral standards but somehow you can't see the irrational mess you've put yourself in with your outbursts.
Maybe democracies and those who are in favor of minority rights should also be against war crimes? Anyway, honestly, that's it. You are writing nonsense. I'm moving on.
I don't hope Palestinians get killed anymore than I would have hoped German civilians were killed in WW2. If some of those German civilians that were killed were diehard Nazi supporters, good. If some of the Palestinians killed are die-hard Hamas supporters, good. The world is better of without them. If apolitical civilians get killed, or the kids of Nazi/Hamas loyalists, it's a shame, just like it was in Japan and Germany, but that's war.
I see. So Hamas gets to commit civilian atrocities, but when Israel starts bombing them while they hide behind human shields, Hamas runs to the refs and cries foul? Yeah, we livestreamed raping women to death, but what Israel's doing is a war crime!!! That's pathetic enough, but what kind of useful idiot do you have to be to go along with it?
Speaking of useful idiots, your self-contradictory arguments, strawmen, and tu quoque fallacies represent a neat, if hyperbolic, summary of your more sophisticated fellow apologists' positions and helps expose them for what they are: excuses for unjustifiable and excessive violence against one side rather than the application of consistent moral principles.
This is all wordplay to justify this kind of action. It is ISIS-style barbarity aimed at the Jewish state of Israel, instead of the West in general. Okie dokie.
Quoting ssu
It sure as hell looks like they can't form a moderate state, yes. But notice that you have to throw "inferior" in there. Bad faith arguing. I am making a point about what has happened, I haven't condemned a people as eternally inferior. To say they "failed to form a moderate coalition" is so mildly putting it, it is laughable and you KNOW it. So don't put weasel words in there like "inferior". C'mon man. Stick to history not that kind of tactic.
Quoting ssu
Ok, now you are making Israel's (Netanyahu's government's) case right now about why they have to take over Gaza and hold it for a while and make sure it is molded to their liking ala the US to Germany and Japan after utterly defeating them after WW2.
Quoting ssu
I think Hamas has lost the time limit on that one. At some point a line is drawn. Some authoritarian leaders can be reasonable. Some are continually belligerent. Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler could be trusted, but clearly he wasn't.
In the fascist reality now sweeping Israel, even such a statement is considered treasonous and an expression of Israel hatred."
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-11-12/ty-article/.premium/in-both-israel-and-in-gaza-they-didnt-deserve-to-die/0000018b-bfcf-d03e-a3ab-bfffe07d0000
From Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. Most of it is behind a paywall but what's freely available there illustrates my point: It's not about whether you are Israeli or Palestinian or Jewish or Muslim or otherwise, it's about whether you are an apologist for unjustifiable violence / a moral ignoramus or not. It's that moral fence I'm interested on being on the right side of.
Worth quoting at length (from YT transcript):
"I'm not pro Palestinian I'm not pro-israeli I'm Pro truth and I'm Pro Justice if the truth is on the Israeli side I will support Israel if Justice is on the Israeli side I'll support Israel and the same thing goes for the Palestinians I've spent the greater part of my adult life you can say beginning 1982 so it's more than four decades researching studying the Israel Palestine conflict and it's my conclusion at the end of that research but already early on that the case that Israel makes for its crimes are in large part fabrications misrepresentations and distortions and then on the other hand the Palestinian case is very strongly supported by the evidence and when I speak about evidence I'm not talking about what Hamas says any more than when I speak about Israel I care much about what the government says if you're serious about these sorts of things first the first thing you do is you try to search out sources which have a certain amount of credibility so when it comes to the Israel Palestine conflict let's say the human rights Dimension you look at what respected human rights organizations have to say Human Rights Watch Amnesty International the bet selum the main Israeli information information center for the occupied territories you look at what the evidence shows not based on bias sources or naturally biased sources but on the available evidence and I try to be as strict adherent of the two principles of Truth and Justice and that's where I landed and I think that's frankly where most of the world has landed.
And it's also incidentally but not trivially it's where a large part of the young Jewish population has landed if you go to the demonstrations now the ones have garnered the headlines say the one in Grand Central Station was overwhelmingly Jewish was organized by Jewish organizations young people mostly but not entirely the Statue of Liberty demonstration again it was Jew, Jewish young people who organized the demonstration so this idea that it's somehow polarized ethnically is bellied by the facts now I will wholeheartedly admit that when I first started out we were a we were a handful of people Je Jews who oppose what Israel is doing but the Spectrum has radically changed in recent years I'm just one among a large number of Jews who oppose what's going on not because they're self-hating not because they're indifferent to the fate of Israelis but because the evidence is overwhelming.
[Israel has] declared a war of genocide on the people of Gaza that's not exaggerated language the prime minister of Israel said in a speech which been which has been reproduced everywhere he said this is a war against Amalek referring to the Old Testament and what's a war against against Amalek will just open up the Old Testament it obliges Israel to kill every man woman and child that's what it means to invoke a war against Amalek.
....
They make up these stories that we have to turn off the incubators in the hospitals because there's a Hamas command and control center in the basement say most recently of alifa hospital and then the spokesperson for our US Department of Defense John Kirby he gives a news conference three days ago and he says we have intelligence information confirming that there is a Hamas command and control center and that justifies in the minds of the public opinion that that's then it's okay to deny fuel to the incubators imagine ... your child is born prematurely and is put in an incubator where the fuel is cut off and your child that you've been carrying for nine months suffocates to death, was there a Hamas command and control center in Gaza? answer no, was Hamas's leadership in the basement of alifa Hospital? answer no, were there hostages beneath alifa Hospital? answer no, you just get the lies and more lies and more lies and more lies and attendant upon those nonstop lies are the sensation the termination of life because of the lies the termination of Life of thousands of Palestinian children is that complicated does it require a PhD in Middle East studies to figure these things out in my book... it's as complicated as Jews like my parents mother, mother on both sides, father on both sides sisters and brothers on both sides, it's as complicated as my family except for my mother and my father being shoved into gas Chambers that's how complicated it is in my eyes."
Compare this to the American removal of the Native Americans. Who were the extremists, the victims, and the perpetrators? In the history of worldwide land acquisition, what other examples do you have of international judgment of who each are to the extent that opinion bears on how that land is to be used or defended?
Consider this, "Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel
This is quite a feat, considering Iran, N.Korea, Russia, and so many others. That sliver of land I am to believe results in the majority of all evil in the world.
This is to say, I don't take seriously that the condemnations of Israel are objective evaluations or that the attempts at drawing morally equivalence with Israel and its enemies are valid. Israel's killing of children is not like Palestinian killing of children. Israel kills Palestinian children in the legitimate defense of its nation and it does so out of the necessity because the children are being used as shields. Could there be a higher war crime?
Israel is not invading hospitals because the injured and dying make easy pickings. If they wanted to exact massive death tolls, they'd carpet bomb and there'd be no Gaza left. They are fighting an enemy that is actually using hospitals as military launching sites, and where is the condemnation of that? Could there be a greater war crime and crime against humanity than luring your enemy into your hospitals where children and elderly already suffer?
Is it really that difficult to figure what the outcome ought to be when an enemy invades a sovereign nation with paratroopers who rape, kidnap, and butcher.
And then he goes on to say, as if he has special access to this information:
Quoting Baden
Suppose that's not the truth? Suppose the hospital were a military target because Hamas operated out of there?
This comment declares that Israel just decided to attack the hospital? Why would they do that from a military or public opinion standpoint?
Are they just murderous monsters?
If Hamas did use the hospital as a military base, can I hear the unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and the acceptance that the hospital invasion was justified?
And when I imagine my child suffering in the hospital, I direct that moral outrage at Hamas, not Israel, because they are the ones that caused this.
As I said before, unless you can clarify that you care as much about the lives of Palestinian civilians and also equally assert the Palestinian's basic right to self defense, there is no point engaging because you are not presenting a moral argument but simply Israeli propaganda. I mean, if Israel has the right to kill 4,000 Palestinian children including babies in a hospital as "self defence" against its few hundred casualties of a Hamas attack then how many Israeli civilians, by your own logic, if you are to be consistent, would Hamas be justified in killing in defence of its (much much more vulnerable) population? You're caught in a moral absurdity that pretending this conflict started a month ago and Hamas are the only bad actors is part of.
Nobody here who has spent five minutes studying what's going on would deny atrocities have been committed by both sides nor would they deny the vast number of casualties and by far the most vulnerable party are Palestininan civilians. The numbers are there and whether or not Hamas is more brutal or ruthless in its methods (as I think I've intimated many times, I think they are utter scum) doesn't change the fact of the cruelty of both sides. But your twisted logic sadly mirrors the logic of Hamas and the other bad actors in this conflict that continuously paint themselves as the only victims and thus try to absolve themselves of their brutality. It's nothing more than we're the legitimate "good guys" so we can do whatever we like to the "bad guys". But there are no "good guys" among those who would kill children in hospitals or behead them in homes. Until you get past your moral delusion that you think licences your utter disregard and lack of empathy for the Palestinians then you are of no use here except as an example of a morally degraded partisan pretending to be part of a genuine conversation on the ethics of war. And I understand why you are partisan, which is why I am trying to be nice to you. Yes, this is me being nice.
Look in the mirror, apologists.
The Allies killed untold numbers of children with indiscriminate bombing. Is your claim then that the Allies weren't morally superior to the Axis?
They aren't killing in retaliation, as if this is the Palestinians moral dessert, and so we measure their punishment against their crime.
They are protecting their citizens from attack and securing their borders.
And they're not out seeking children or hospitals to attack. They are being forced into a battle where the enemy uses human shields.
In any event, I asked previously, what would you do if this were your land? Would you just withdraw now, leaving Hamas intact and allow Iran to re-fund Hamas so that this can play out again? Do you give Hamas safety zones in hospitals and schools? Since you condemn the response, tell me what you do.
Do you sit down at the table with Hamas expecting they'll reasonably resolve this? If they don't, how many more chances do you give? If you allow a ceasefire, if they send in terrorists again, is it now game on, no more Mr. Nice Guy?
It is absolutely terrible what is happening. All war is horrible beyond compression. We can save the recitations of that, as if some of us have superior senses of empathy others don't.
My question is if this response is unjust, then lay me out your just battle plan, which cannot include placing your citizens at risk if you take seriously your duty to protect your citizens.
40,000 Hamas militants who have killed some hundreds of Israelis in recent years are not Nazi Germany who had an army in the tens of millions, killed six million Jews, and took over half of Europe. Please stop talking to me. You are really not capable of intelligent conversation and I don't have any more patience for it.
You can't fully eliminate risk to your citizens at any cost. That would justify the killing of every Palestinian if even one Israeli citizen's life were to be put at risk. This is the moral madness at work. However, the question of alternatives is a reasonable one. I'll come back to it later with reference to Northern Ireland.
Ah, so it's a question of scale, is it? What do you think Hamas would do to Israel if they were in charge of a Germany-sized country, hmmm? I think we both know the answer to that.
And I'm not comparing Hamas to Nazi's, even though I easily could. I'm establishing the fact that "good guys" can kill children in war and still be morally superior to their enemies. I will grant you that Stalinist Russia might not be all that good compared to Nazi Germany, but America and Britain were clearly morally superior to the Germans. I think you would agree with that. And they retained their moral superiority even though they did terror bombings that killed tens of thousands and had little strategic value.
It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What Hamas thinks is completely irrelevant. Israel illegally occupies Gaza and the West Bank, period.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's just as intentional and murderous. Or should we try to re-frame Hamas' killing of innocents as a "byproduct of resisting occupation" also?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Unfortunately for you, Israel follows what it calls the 'Dahiya doctrine', which openly endorses the disproportionate killing of civilians, and we see that doctrine in action every day in Gaza.
Quoting BC
What Israel is doing is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, as is confirmed by various UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding.
As far as I'm concerned, Israel is creating groups like Hamas through its blatant disregard for international and humanitarian law, as confirmed by various human rights organisations, including those within Israel.
Not to mention the current Israeli PM is party to what is colloquially called the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance'.
-
These comments read like a bad joke. I'm sorry to say.
And this is a kind statement, sincerely, but it does injustice to my position, as if to suggest I'm emotionally traumatized to an extent, and so a certain amount of irrationality and lack of objectivity is understandable.
My point is that morality demands partisanship. You don't go into the battlefield weighing your enemy's interests and suffering. Your enemy worries about themselves and you yourself. That is what war is: pure adversarial efforts at protecting your interests. To do otherwise is suicide.
You don't weigh your neighbor's interests like your family's, and that's not because you lack the ability to be objective. It's because being objective is not how you protect your family. Allowing your family to die a deserved death is not honorable or moral. It's the opposite.
We've been over this many times (mainly between SSU and I but you were there I think...), the moderate Pals had opportunities and they failed to take them. The issue right now is no longer about these bigger issues of a two-state (and hopefully will be at some point in the future), it is what to do about Hamas. Unfortunately the situation had to turn from containment (file missiles back and let Hamas keep building tunnels and funneling millions of dollars to the leaders and the war machine rather than the people), to destroying the group.
I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. They had their own government even. They voted in Hamas who has then governed in terroristic fashion over Gaza and against Israel. They were given billions in aid from various places including the UN, and they funneled that money to their war machine, which now apparently includes ISIS style terrorist atrocities against a way more militarily powerful foe which they knew would attack. When asked about their intentions, they said they would do it again and again.
You can't "destroy" Hamas by brutalizing the Palestinian people. Hamas is an idea as much as a group. You can temporarily inhibit their capacity to hurt you but the only way Hamas could have been destroyed or deradicalised, which amounts to the same thing, would have been through support for moderate alternatives which made Palestinian lives better or a comprehensive peace deal which Netanyahu never wanted. By killing civilians (who are the majority of casualties in this conflict) you simply create the conditions for more Hamas, which what? Gives you an excuse to kill more civilians? Ethnically cleanse the area? What is the end goal of a delusional military aim?
The UN disagrees.
I understand that's your viewpoint and it's a necessarily perspectival one. But the people of Gaza can say the same and then what? Are Hamas then being moral in their further mistreatment of you and yours? I mean, yes, it's moral to protect our families but does that give us carte blanche to completely disregard the families of our enemies? And even if it did in some limited sense of being in the heat of battle, what I'm looking for here is what the ethical solution to the situation might be, one that could reasonably be agreed to by those who are not in the battle but want the battle to at some point end with the minimum of casualties on both sides. A solution that could be considered just. I think some here are claiming what's happening now meets this standard of justice but really their position also comes across as biased and would have to be to make such a claim.
None of us are privy to the details and I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. People will kill other people and those willing and able to act will act. Many will make poor choices based on biases and conditioning.
Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up.
If anyone mostly disagrees please state why.
Maybe an external party could enter the scene and enforce a kind of peace … but let’s be honest. No one looks likely to do that anytime soon for fear of public/media backlash. As per usual the under-the-table politicking will continue and deals will be made and broken.
People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. What are you distracting yourselves from at home. Nothing? Or is this external conflict a vent for an internal one maybe?
Ok, so you don't care or know much about this. The sensible thing would be not to post here then. I consider criticism of those who do care enough to get involved in what is a very obvious and current ethical and political issue to be trolling.
That's a good point. This is heartening:
"The 2019 Arab Youth Survey, published on Tuesday, reveals that attitudes to religion and its role in society is changing rapidly among young adults, with a more secular approach becoming increasingly appealing to 18 to 24-year-olds across the Gulf, Levant and North Africa."
https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/arab-youth-survey-religion-too-influential-in-middle-east-say-young-people-1.855341
It could all be stopped tomorrow hypothetically. ‘Hypothetically’ not in reality.
It's a philosophy forum and we debate politics and ethics here. If you're too stupid to know that, that's your problem.
If you do not wish to address my point that is your choice obviously. I think it was a valid point and an appropriate one to make on a philosophy forum.
Lol. You don't care about a war where thousands of civilians are being killed but you insist on posting on the thread because you do care that someone else might care about it because then they might think their voice matters and that would really bother you. Go away, you fool.
Thinking about how many more Muslims will be radicalized watching those scenes and how much more death and destruction they'll mete out to innocents and how the innocents around them will suffer with further retaliatory attacks as the cycle continues, it's very hard to see anything at all being achieved by this bloodbath not to mind anything that would justify killing babies. Sadly though, this was predictable.
Would it change your view if instead Hamas was hiding in Israel using civilians as human shields there? Should the IDF kill its own citizens to get at Hamas?
What if Hamas was hiding in New York?
Unless you're an arab.
It's a bit like arguing Nazi Germany was a perfectly fine place to live. If you were a blond, blue eyed ethnic german.
Quoting RogueAI
My standard response to this is the following:
Since you're in favour of killing people, I think the world is a better place without you. Therefore, please apply your own logic.
Quoting RogueAI
Germany and Japan were not civilised before 1945?
Quoting RogueAI
Which would be an ok argument If you're 9. Are you?
I guess it just seems pointless. Though Qatar has claimed they're close to a deal.
Can you elaborate why one wouldn’t want to advocate for the nearest proximal thing for a cease fire? And I’m talking mainly Palestinians and adjacent allies.
Of course the, civilian at least, hostages should be released because they are innocents and keeping them hostage is a war crime. Military personnel taken hostage on both sides are prisoners of war and should be protected, treated humanely and released at the end of the war.
However, the question of why Palestinians aren't calling for the release of the hostages while Israel is murdering their children in hospitals and the hostages are their only bergaining chip to make the slaughter stop is naive at best.
Remember this bit of propaganda that helped cause the first Iraqi war:
"In her testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, remove the incubators and leave the babies to die."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
A shocking and horrific story that brought the world into line against Saddam Hussein. Only it was a lie. Iraq was never that brutal. Israel on the other hand has effectively done just this by cutting off the electricity to incubators in Al Shifa hospital on the basis of a claim about a Hamas "command centre" for which there is no credible evidence. And even if there was, do you think that would have mattered in the case of Saddam? Do you think the world would have said "Oh fine, they killed premature babies but there were a couple of militants nearby in a tunnel somehere, so that's acceptable..."? I doubt it. I expect it wouldn't have made a difference because the world had already decided Saddam was a bad guy and so that was the frame in which the story became real and confirmatory. Whereas, in this situation, Amercian public opinion is conditioned to think of Israel as the good guy so the frame doesn't allow for the recognition of reality but only excuses for reality. The IDF take full advantage of this by carrying out acts of absolute barbarity with relative impunity. They rely on naive apologists to make excuses for them so they can keep on getting away with it. Saddam never had that advantage so people believed the lie of what he hadn't done while they will excuse the truth of what the IDF has done.
First of all, if I'm Prime minister of anywhere, I work within international law from the start and within a moral framework that balances national interest with a wider notion of justice. How that's done isn't a new debate. It goes back to Socrates vs Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus (Book 1-2 of the Republic). I take Socrate's side. Others here seem to be on the side of his interlocutors. So, consider that as a first principle.
Secondly, where do you want me to start, now? Oct 7th? Before that?
Indeed, but these aren't military personnel, unless you think a 9 month olds and 85 year old grandmas are military personnel.
Quoting Baden
I didn't quote the rest because none of that answered my question.
I just said:
Quoting Baden
Don't distort my point like that.
Got it. For some reason putting those together seemed odd and looked like it was conflated.
But then, the question at hand which I don't think was really answered except by way of a tangent on something else?
The confusion is 100% on your side. How hard is it to understand that civilians should be released when it's written in black and white in front of you. And obviously military personnel captured can be considered prisoners of war.
Yes, I just don't know why military personnel was added. We were talking about hostages. But I get that you obviously think that the civilian hostages should be released. I wasn't doubting that you would think that.
What question? Why the Palestinians don't want the hostages released? Israel hasn't promised a ceasefire if they are, has it? What do you think the benefit is to the Palestinians to call for this?
I think it would indeed lead to some sort of cease-fire. But why wouldn't you if that is one of the continuing incentives. I mean, some of the perpetrator's parents were elated when they talked to them live on the phone, but surely you would think that letting go of the hostages would be at least one avenue for stopping it. From what I have heard from what is stated, it is the letting go of hostages that have to happen first from the Israeli perspective, being that Hamas started and continue to hold hostages from their attack.
That's frankly stupid and exculpatory. Of course they have a choice. They could have chosen not to kill babies in Al Shifa. You're not worth talking to if you're this ignorant.
I think it's been explained to you that you can't eliminate an idea and that by killing Palestininan civilians you create more Hamas especially in the long term. Anyhow your whole shtick here seems a blithe, glib and thoughtless exculpation of Israel while blaming everything on Hamas. It's painfully ignorant.
Of course it's correct to advocate for releasing the hostages. I don't see it as effective. That is I see no way such advocacy has tangible results.
I guess we could lobby our governments to pressure the gulf states to pressure Hamas.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not so optimistic. It rather seems like the policy currently is to wreck Gaza to make it unliveable. Which is arguably a more plausible plan than to somehow "pacify" it by killing Hamas fighters.
Quoting tim wood
If only we had some historical precedent to assess the likelihood of that working.
Agree or disagree people? I have no time for anyone who disagrees with this unless they are directly affected by / involved in the conflict in which case I don't expect objectivity. Otherwise, if you don't respect innocent lives, I don't respect you.
When you start making excuses for one side, e.g. Hamas, killing civilians you end up excusing the other side doing the same. The people in charge of both sides think like you which is why the region is drowning in blood. Congratulations.
Thanks for providing the mirror image of Israeli propaganda with Palestinian propaganda. Maybe you and the likes of @tim wood can get a room somewhere and beat each other up while anyone sensible left on this thread tries to find a civilised middle ground.
You're fighting a war, not having an internal debate, paralyzed to respond as you wring your hands over the dictates of righteousness. Your passion for being moral strikes me as a Nietzschean described tragedy where you can no longer self defend because you trouble yourself with the thought that all the world are equally lambs, so who am I to ever be a wolf?
The deaths of the Palestinians I lay at the feet of Hamas, not Israel.. Men drape themselves in Palestinian babies with guns blazing toward the innocent and the world stands in shock at those who return fire and not at those men? That is a world gone mad.
And this impassioned plea you make for the children of Palestine as the innocent victims, they don't make for themselves. Where are the Palestinian protesters chanting their hatred toward Hamas and love and support for the children of Israel? I hear these arguments only among those trying to intellectualize this debate, but not by actual protesters and Palestinians.
Your solution is appeasement so that we don't aggravate the situation so that we can limit the population of future terrorists. Here's the reality: the problem can't be aggravated, appeasement will not lead to peace, and the people who need to worry are not the Israelis. You'd think from your description, Hamas has Israel where it wants them. From my chair, Hamas is being devastated and their only hope is in winning a political battle on the streets that will convince Israel to stop the onslaught.
But anyway, no one has actually responded by providing a real battle plan as the bombs fall. They just recite what they think caused it and what they think the consequences will be. They say the response must be proportionate, but can't describe that in concrete terms because it will mean acknowledging Israel's right to defend and allowing a certain number of Palestinian deaths.
Actually how about you and @Hanover beat each other up with your uberman warmongering. I'll just sit by and watch while you savage each other. Get to it.
This is just you regretting entering this fray and wanting to bow out. Not that I blame you. I took some time before entering it as well and not sure what headway gets made in these sorts of debates anyway.
The thing is it's impossible to discuss this with you because to me it is country A vs country B. I have no love or hatred for either the word "Israel" or "Palestine". They're just labels to me. I'm trying to look at it as objectively as I can, but to you, understandably, you need to take a side. So, yes, we are talking completely at cross purposes.
I think it is partly that the kind of intensity of Hamas' continued attacks has changed character to this ISIS style. This has made the arguments prior to October 7th change as well. Before October 7th I didn't really step into this kind of thread, because it seemed like status quo and everyone can debate and make points on how policies were being carried out in the West bank, or how the rocket attacks in response were over proportional and unnecessary, or whatnot. But then October 7th was so brutal that it indeed does become about what you do in that situation. On October 8th there were some people (not saying you Baden) who tacitly were silent or some even cheered (those images of college posters with parachutes and "Free Palestine"). Then of course Israel is going to retaliate. Hamas has their stuff inevitably imbedded in civilian targets, and Israel has now changed the strategy from containment and retaliation to literally destroying all their infrastructure and fighters. Destroying does not mean "eliminate" because as you stated, an idea can never be destroyed. But they are going to destroy the personnel and infrastructure, and they see it more like a war whereby in order to achieve this mission with an evil enemy, you have to be willing to do very unfortunate things. In that sense it is apt to make analogies to various other wars where the aim is to get rid of a governmental/military entity completely.
In the meantime, Hamas knows Israel will go all out, but they don't care. I think they have given up using the prisoners as some bargaining chip. Indeed they will use the media cycle and try to cause chaos in the region.
Ok, thanks for that.
Just make sure it isn't a kibbutz either.
But then I'd have the freakin US Navy backing me up!
You'd be dead first, apparently. Don't ask how.
Possibly. It would have to be done very carefully and legally, though. Countries have duties to their own citizens that go way beyond duties to innocents in foreign lands.
Same thing. Countries have duties to citizens in allied countries that go beyond duties to citizens in non-allied or hostile countries. Israel can be very vicious when it comes to killing terrorists. I would not put it past them to clandestinely take out an American citizen that they knew was funneling lots of money to Hamas.
No. Are you claiming Nazi Germany was a civilized country? We could argue about Japan after I see your answer on this one.
:100:
It should probably be considered a compliment that people think you're susceptible to moral appeals.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think Hamas had any illusions as to their ability to fight the IDF head on. Perhaps they were counting on a more limited response, or perhaps not. Ultimately I don't think they care either way.
Quoting Hanover
Seems like an odd requirement on the philosophy forum.
But anyways I think the battle plan would involve not fighting the Hamas directly but instead setting up a scheme that incentives the Gazan citizens to withdraw their support for Hamas.
Probably take back direct rule over the Gaza strip, start with an area and show that you can provide something more tangible than hate.
You just justified the Holocaust. Congratulations.
I understand things changed after Oct 7th, just as things changed after 9/11. And lo, the same mistakes are being made. 9/11 was a brutal crime against innocents that was tacitly excused or even cheered on by moral degenerates due to their political sympathies, and, on the other extreme, there were calls to lash out against innocents in the name of a "war on terror" and a slew of propaganda convinced the population to get behind a bevy of war crimes that resulted in civilian death and destruction. Sound familiar? Did we not learn that our "war on terror " turned us into terrorists and torturers? That in any case it only inspired more terror (ISIS etc)?
And are not exactly the same excuses being made now? We "have to" do something (let's ignore what that something is, only that we "have to" do it). We are acting in defence... etc etc. All turned out to be a bunch of bull aimed at fuelling neocons' war fantasies and profits for their military enterprises, ended up with smiling U.S. torturers at Abu Ghraib and more extremism in the region. But yes, we all saw that happen. How stupid some of us were to go along with the propaganda, right? To thoughtlessly preach that we just "must" respond and therefore (hidden premise) every atrocity on our side is justified.
I understand the psychology of this, but I don't forgive it. I don't forgive the ignorance of history, the careless forgetfulness, the inability to draw analogies, the lack of nuance, the glib repetition of the dominant line, the wilful moral blindness, all that which renders otherwise intelligent people helplessly unable to condemn the killing of civilians, even children, unless the right ones are being killed. So, yes, I'm halfway with you on your analysis but I draw contrary conclusions. My conclusion is that it's not "unfortunate" what happened after 9/11 any more than it is "unfortunate" what Israel is doing now; it is, rather, wilfully criminal and predominantly an expression of hatred and revenge that will be recognized as such in the history books and in the later consciences of those who were misguided enough to go along with it.
I think legally Gaza is Israel. So the Gazans are Israeli citizens, whether either likes it or not.
Quoting RogueAI
Germany existed prior to 1936.
But also yes, Nazi Germany was "civilised". The Nazis weren't some alien species that suddenly appeared in the middle of Europe. While Nazism was a peculiarly German ideology in some ways, it's also recognisably a product of european civilisation.
That's what makes it so scary: it unleashed the murderous ideas that European powers had confined to their colonies on the heart of Europe itself.
Quoting Baden
Well said!
Of course there's a moral element to what "should" be done. There is by definition. And I already said the question is a good one, but it will take time to respond as it's not like right now there are any clear solutions, which is why I at least provided you with a moral framework. Anyway, I will take your premise that I have been elected Israeli Prime Minister right now and run with that when I have time. But really it's coming at things very late and what comes out of that thought experiment is going to be much less promising than one where Israel didn't decide it's best option was just to "destroy" Gaza or before that to foment Hamas's extremism through its brutal oppression and disregard of a political solution.
History is messy indeed. Should Chamberlain have let Hitler keep enlarging his territory at the price of peace? In hindsight that was not the answer. Hitler was not someone whose aims were purely for making the "trains run on time" and to improve the economy. He had other aims. They were right there in his manifesto, in fact.
First I wish there was no war ever, and we resolved conflict peacefully. That isn't the case here, unfortunately.
Second, I wish if there ever had to be a war, they would fight it in a battlefield whereby no civilians were ever harmed. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
The US, Britain, France, and the Allies, had to fight a regime doing evil and in doing so unfortunately killed civilians in the process. It's horrible. One major difference is that Nazis by and large didn't want their own citizens to die (though they didn't mind them being used as military fodder). However, arguably, towards the end of the war, Hitler wanted every German to fight to the death, so perhaps he did... Either way, what do you do in the face of such atrocious enemies? Some people wished Israel would lay down and die already so that Palestine can be "free" (of them). But Israelis may feel differently about that notion. The threat of another 10-7 is not quite the same as a 9/11. Mexico and Canada are not sending suicide attackers, missiles and rapist, baby-beheading murderers over to regain their "rightful" territory and kill as many Americans as possible. So where the aftermath of 9/11 was indeed a poorly thought out game of wackamole and carrying plans for the benefit of X cause that may have not had much to do with the "War on Terror", this indeed is a live threat, right there, in your face, (yes "existential") threat, in that it can and will happen again and again. You can say that getting rid of Hamas by overwhelming force will cause more Hamas, but as some have already commented on this thread, it took many years for Western Europe to get to a peaceful ennui and just be sick and tired of it all.
Again, because of 10-7 it really does change the equation from debating rockets and West Bank policies from Likud, to how does one deal with groups who want to keep maiming, torturing, killing and not governing or enriching the lives of their actual citizens that they supposedly represent and govern.
:roll:
As pointed out previously, the comparison of Gaza to Nazi Germany is utterly delusional. And any argument built on that will backfire spectacularly. Hamas are a relatively tiny weak force that have only and can only inflict casualties in very low numbers relative to the larger population of Israel. What they have in common with the Nazis is that they hate Jews and would be happy to see them all dead, yes, but that becomes largely irrelevant when there is no capacity to hurt Israel militarily or kill their population in large numbers.
So, it's just propaganda and your opponents in the propaganda war can simply point out that Israel is the overwhelmingly powerful force in the region as the Nazis around the early stages of WW2 were, that Israel have the power to wipe out Gaza and have expressed their wish to do so as the Nazis expressed their wish to wipe out the Jews, that Israel is far more militarily and technologically advanced than Gaza and in the normal run of things controls it almost completely, that Israeli citizens have freedom of movement and Gazans haven't, that Gaza is and has been under a blockade and effectively policed by Israel in every aspect of their lives that matters. Your opponents in propaganda will say that the comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto or even the German concentration camps is more accurate, seeing as it's effectively an open prison. They will probably end by pointing out the fact that you have flipped reality on its head in almost every important and relevant aspect of the analogy at hand shows either your desperation or complete ignorance both of history and the present.
Why would you want to give them the ammunition to expose you like that? So, it's just a framing, and an extremely perverse one that in a blatantly false appeal to the most stupid and ignorant seeks to paint the Gazans as evil and a disproportionate threat so that Israel can be excused in slaughtering them in large numbers while we dehumanize them as Nazis (everyone hates the Nazis, right?). Not good. Try something else.
A fantastical depiction of Palestinian and Jews in one sentence. Well done.
Quoting tim wood
Maybe start with the detail that what you just wrote is inherently contradictory.
Did the US try to "wipe out" Nazi Germany? They wanted to wipe out the Nazi regime, indeed. And they did at great cost. And by the end of the war, the US didn't say "Ok, well the Nazis are sufficiently pushed back to their own accepted borders... let's go home now". At that point, past 1941, it was all but over for the Nazis, and certainly by 1945.
Quoting Baden
Indeed, and that would be propaganda for sure being that it is a "prison camp" because Hamas funnels the money to enrich their leaders and to build tunnels, obtain missiles, munitions, and the like. Instead of vying for a peace to stop it, they kept attacking and not stopping from their goal...
Quoting Baden
Because the framing is apt, and still is even after these counter-arguments.
Israel is the one inflicting the vast majority of death and destruction on Gazans and the one really able to act on it. It seems like you don't know this. Hamas are tiny and weak compared to Israel. They can never do it any significant harm. On the other hand, Israel has been killing Gazan civilians at will for years. They call it "mowing the lawn". Honestly, are you even aware of the power disparity here? Are you aware of how many Gazan civilians Israel has killed in the recent past compared to Israeli civilians Hamas have killed? Do you understand Israel is a nuclear power backed up by the U.S., whereas Hamas is a small group of extremist nutters that sometimes gets arms from larger groups of extremist nutters (e.g. Iran) but has no large scale military technology at all? Your whole mental world is on backwards. Maybe ask yourself who did that to you.
Not a terrible idea. In my opinion a "one-state solution" with equal rights is probably the only real solution to the Israel-Palestine problem, though it's equally unlikely to happen given the huge amount of animosity and unwillingness on both sides. Also it would require Israel to stop being a principally Jewish state, which will probably not happen for various reasons either.
Maybe if Netanyahu gets ousted and a more reasonable political elite takes over. They might come to the conclusion that it is the only way to lasting peace and that there are simply no feasible alternatives.
Everything in reality is the opposite of the way you framed it but the framing is apt to you? We're at a dead end here. Thanks for the conversation.
Except if the Palestinian people became pro-democracy and anti-Islamic terrorist, Israel would work with them. If Israel became pacifistic, and embraced right-to-return and a two-state solution, Hamas would still try to kill as many Jews as possible.
Oct. 7th wasn't "significant harm"?
As I said way earlier in the thread, Germany was also a weakened entity by 1945. It was in no position to win. Should the US have stopped and went home? It was the underdog by that point, no? Should Chamberlain have sued for peace or should he have struck Germany hard at the beginning and ended it there? Germany wasn't yet in a position to be so decisive in their military pursuits that they were definitely signaling they were going to do.
To the innocent victims, yes, and their suffering should never be downplayed. But to Israel as a country, in military and infrastructural terms which is my context, no. It continued to be able to function normally. It's military wasn't in any way degraded. Territory was retaken almost immediately etc. Contrast that with Gaza where the majority of the population has been displaced and 50% of the homes destroyed. That's significant harm on a nationwide scale.
Even so, what Israel should do is independent of what Hamas would do. Nobody is calling for it to be pacifist, but for it to stop taking land from Palestinians and undermining peaceful solutions. And yes, I think people who were expelled from the land that they lived and the houses they lived in, should have a right to return there. So weird!
The analogy is utterly stupid, not to mention a malicious attempt to excuse war crimes against innocent Gazans who are not Nazis or anything close but the victims of a brutal occupation. Give it up. No one in their right mind would accept such a ridiculous framing as the basis for rational argument.
You didn't answer my question. This is handwaving and stalling. Because you know the answers to those are not something you want to hear. That is okay though. If you want to handwave one more time and dismiss the analogy go ahead, but I think the case is indeed apt.
Again, poisoning the well. Great tactic :ok:
This kind of reality-denialism only shows up on the pro-Palestinian side of the debate.
I'll explain one last time. Suppose I say to you: The Israelis are like the Nazis and the Gazans are like the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto therefore surely the attack by Hamas on its oppressors is as justified as Jews fighting to get out of the Warsaw ghetto? Would you accept that framing.? Because I could offer far more justification for it (even though I don't accept it myself) than you can for yours.
You see what propaganda does to an argument now... ?
Where do you guys come up with this stuff? German Jews were not hellbent on destroying Germany. They didn't massacre German civilians, behead German babies, and rape German women to death.
Deliberate quote out of context. I'm giving an example of contrary propaganda that I explicitly made clear I don't agree with.
Quoting Baden
Go ahead, how is it a good framing?
Hamas had billions of dollars that they WASTED on weapons and enriching their leaders. Little to no actual development for the people.... The Jews in Warsaw were imprisoned there before being shipped off to death camps.
The people of Gaza did not try to get rid of Hamas if they disagreed with them. Unless you want to make an analogy that Hamas are making their own population the Warsaw Ghetto, it's not the same as a population being ruled by Nazis (sympathizers) that are eventually keeping them there before they send them to work/death camps.
To some extent, it seems Hamas has terrorised their population into compliance. At the same time, it's not infeasible that a sizable portion of the population would agree with Hamas anyway. The truth of the matter seems... impossible to get to the bottom of. Some people say the truth of that question doesn't matter anyway, but I think it matters.
I don't want to argue for it because I don't accept it. It's an example of mirroring propaganda. It frames the conversation in a way that presumes the conclusion in favour of the framer as you have done. Understand?
In the period 2013-2014 Israel violated the ceasefire 190+ times and Hamas about 75 times. So I'm significantly more likely to agree to something with Hamas than Likud/IDF.
But please continue
I understand what you are saying, but unlike the Warsaw Ghetto, the WW2 analogy is apt. Should Chamberlain have hurt Germany early on when they were still an "underdog" (at least not militarily capable yet of doing what they were signaling very much what they wanted to do)? On the other side of the war, should the US have pulled out of Germany in 1945, because by that time Germany was an underdog and their military pushed back and degraded enough to just leave?
So you don't have to argue along those lines fine, but we are in a debate forum and I am making a case. It's not rhetorical either, but using some historical precedent for what a full-scale war looks like when fighting a certain kind of evil enemy. And yeah, I'll say Hamas and Nazis are indeed evil in their means and ends.
"Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank strongly support Hamas, October 7 attack
A total of 75% of respondents agreed with the October 7 attack and 74.7% agreed that they support a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”"
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791
We all agree Nazis = bad so when we copy paste "Nazi" onto the party we want to call bad (Israel or Palestine) we make it impossible for the interlocutor we are arguing with to both accept our framing and yet still argue for their point of view because they also (most likely) agree Nazis = bad. The irony is I'm happy to call Hamas as bad / evil as Nazis but I'm not happy with the conflation of Nazi Germany with Gaza as that only serves as a rhetorical ploy to excuse killing Gazan civilians and if that's your game (note I said "if") then you're also as morally evil as the Nazis (but that again doesn't mean you are Nazi Germany, see...?). So, it's irrelevant that Hamas are as evil as Nazis in particular. You might as well say they're as evil as Charles Manson or any other individual or group that is destructive to human life, but so what? That should be obvious from their actions, but does not in any way whatsoever make Gaza Nazi Germany. The fact that the Gazan leadership are very bad people is a separate issue to what Gaza is in its contextual relationship to Israel, which is the absolutely dominated, weaker, and more vulnerable party, just the opposite of the Nazi relationship to Jews.
Anyway, here's your fallacy
There's the crux of the issue: Hamas is evil, Israel isn't. Israel can be trusted with power, Hamas can't. A world under Israeli rule would be tolerable, a world under Hamas rule would be a horrorshow.
I used to think liberals sided with Hamas because of a reflexive sympathy for the underdog, but the pro-Palestinian arguments advanced here by normally sober-minded progressives are so divorced from reality, the logic is so tortured, I'm thinking some latent antisemitism is at play.
Who has sided with Hamas here? Quote them. Call them out. Or drop the accusation.
Your world is a cartoon. What's evil is decided by actions not labels. The blatant disregard for human life, particularly vulnerable civilian life on both sides, is evil. Hamas have done that and the IDF have done that. They are both "evil".
Ever since Daguerre invented photography, we've served up pictures of horrors. The gory details of the American Civil War were captured on film (so to speak; they were using glass plates) and displayed in cities far away from the battlegrounds. People were shocked. Now the transmissions from Gaza City or Kiev are live. Obsessing has become easier.
Quoting I like sushi
What! Your haven't made arrangements to leave your home and fight on the side of Justice? @Baden hasn't either; you both must be trolling. Maybe we are all trolling.
I find the Middle East an ethical can of worms--more so than some other places, and not just in the context of the current military action. "People are dying! Palestinians are being killed and driven out of their homes. They are starving! Little children and women! Etc." Yes, true. We disapprove; we don't like it; we find it unfortunate, unethical, or unbearably cruel. But that's what happens when war is waged. Hamas may be destroyed, but there won't be much left in Gaza for anybody to govern at the rate Israel is plowing up the place.
I don't know how this is going to turn out in the end; nobody else does either. The end justifies the means? What is the end, here?
If we could rewind history and do it over -- better -- how far back would we have to go? Moses? Jesus? Mohammed? The Crusades? The Ottomans? The British and French mandates? 1948? October 7?
You don't get brownie points for not caring about stuff. I'm sure there is stuff you do care about. No idea what that is but I wouldn't get any brownie points for not caring about what you care about either. I would probably just steer clear of that thread. Anyway, thanks for not caring and good luck to you.
When are we talking about? Germany still had warfighting capacity in 1945. Heavily degraded, yes, but it's not like they could not rebuild.
Anyways one of the relevant differences is that defeating the German military and occupying their territory was a reasonable plan to prevent Germany from fighting another war of aggression.
The challenge is that Israel's plan for Gaza is not a rational path to security for Israel.
To be honest, we are sidewalk superintendents, by-standers, kibitzers at a long distance from the war. For us, our caring and concern is low-cost.
Go stuff yourself with all the brownies you are withholding from everyone you think doesn't care enough.
:yum: :lol:
[Quote=RogueAI ]"Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank strongly support Hamas, October 7 attack
A total of 75% of respondents agreed with the October 7 attack and 74.7% agreed that they support a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”"
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791[/quote]
And yet only 7.6% of Gaza residents, in answer to the question, What would you like as a preferred government after the war is finished in Gaza Strip?, replied ‘government by Hamas’.
[quote=Hanover]Where are the Palestinian protesters chanting their hatred toward Hamas and love and support for the children of Israel?[/quote ]
Oddly enough thousands of Palestinians did demonstrate against Hamas in July/August this year, as reported by the Times of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/protests-against-hamas-reemerge-in-the-streets-of-gaza-but-will-they-persist/
I would be tempted to agree. However, I don't want to get to that level of guessing the intentions of interlocutors, though it seems to come out that way. I was called a "white supremacist" (or something about my thread on Western civilization was) because I suggested that Middle Eastern nation states, being that they are already made up from European colonizing idea of "nation-state" should perhaps take on some of the good things from the West such as liberal democracy. My point was there is indeed a reflexive sympathy for any group that represents to them the "underdog". Normally what this group stands for is not at all what "progressive-minded" people would stand for.
So it all comes down I guess to land. Land is the fetish that people will stake their moralities on. You can do ANYTHING as long as you feel your land was stolen. But you can't do anything in response to that.
I think we all agree though, Hamas is evil. But the difference is Israel's response. How does one respond to Hamas? The reality is they are entrenched in that region and their goals are to do it again. If Israel did very little and Hamas did another October 7th attack, what then? How about after that? How about after that? In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives?
I think the other argument is Hamas will reform its views. You see, their stated goals and actions are just temporary. They are really waiting to transform. Apparently they will calm down, like a child that has to learn a bit and they'll grow up. Don't you see? They're just having a tantrum and Israel should just look at them like a lost child that will find their way one day. They got to give them space to grow.
But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country.
So this is why RogueAI might have a point...
Why do we have to start form the position that the obvious thing is what Israel is doing, that is all-out war? Why is that the default outcome we somehow have to accept, even though we have plenty of historical precedent that it just doesn't work? Or rather it can work, if you follow it up with ethnic cleansing.
Shouldn't it be incumbent on the people who argue for violence - any violence - to first prove conclusively at least that it'll be effective? Oh sure in war you cannot second guess for evey bullet you fire. But you should at least have a coherent and plausible strategic aim.
Asking for a justification isn't condoning Hamas, nor does one need to accept responsibility for further atrocities by concluding that there's no good answer to the problem. The default should not be to go ahead and kill people because you just have to do something.
From what you quoted I asked a series of questions. Israel took it as all out war on Hamas. If they give up, that would end. They could give up no? Just curious, what if Israel just went into a hornets nest to get Hamas and were massacred?
I'm not sure how that would work. Who would have the authority to do that? Someone might have the theoretical authority, but practically they'd just be ignored.
Of course every individual fighter could give up, sure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then they'd have to adjust their tactics. But still the core idea here seems to be you just have to "get Hamas", because they're evil and did something terrible. But that's the emotional reaction. Why is that the baseline we have to accept?
Sort of.
If we were back in the 60s debating America's involvement in Vietnam, with you the uninvested non-American and me the invested, blindly patriotic American, I could at least understand your position that American interests in the region were limited, and a communist Vietnam would not pose any real threat to the US. With that, you might argue that full withdrawal from Vietnam were the correct thing because it posed no threat to the US.
I might then argue otherwise, adopting the domino theory of the time, insisting that if Vietnam falls, soon will the entire region and eventually Americans would eventually lose all their freedoms.
Our respective arguments would be speculative, with neither of us knowing what a communist Vietnam would mean going forward in terms of Western interests, but that would be the focus of our arguments.
What's important here is what you would not be arguing. You would not be arguing that you agree the US will likely fall to communism if Vietnam falls, but that should be allowed because too many Vietnamese women and children will die when the US defends itself, and Vietnamese children are just as precious as American ones.
That is, my partisan position would be squared against your contrasting one, with the correct position ultimately being determined by whose prediction will happen to be right. Neither of us though would be arguing about whether the US has the right to protect its interests. That would be a given. The question would be whether a war in Vietnam will do that.
Back to Israel.
The threat to Israel, unlike in the Vietnam example, isn't a speculative fear of being overtaken by a foreign ideology, but it's of actual rapists on actual parachutes dropping in on concerts and kibbutzim.
So while you could reasonably say in the Vietnam example we need to stop and rethink strategy and withdraw, you can't say the same of Israel. Actual bombs are falling and you have to respond even if it pangs your conscience that maybe you've not been a perfect neighbor in the past.
My position is that Israel's right to protect itself is a given, just like the US's. The question is whether a full scale invasion of Gaza does that. I say it does. If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? This seems the question that won't be answered without backtracking on the assumption that Israel has the right to defend itself. All I've heard here is that Israel must concede its sins and accept its spanking.
So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel?
Actually, @Hanover is paralleling my argument so I’ll defer to his post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/854677
Quoting Hanover
You just have to respond, and that's that? No further argument is necessary other than "something happened, therefore a response must happen"?
Quoting Hanover
But why do we need to supply a strategy in order to be allowed to criticize? It should rightly be the other way around. It should be incumbent on the one who exercises violence to justify that violence. If they can't, then they're wrong. Whether the other party can supply some alternative means of resolution is irrelevant.
This is not an argument for absolute pacifism. But you can't turn around and turn the moral onus for [I]your position[/I] on your interlocutor.
Had Israel re-established security outside Gaza and then done nothing, a whole lot fewer people would be dead now. Of course the conflict would not be solved and Hamas could then kill even more people in the future. But if you want to make that argument then at the very least you need to be pretty sure whatever you're doing will a) destroy Hamas and b) not result in another similar group taking its place.
When will Israel be protected? Are there any limits on what it can do?
A political solution.
Explain how that works. Hamas attacks and you pick up the phone and call their leadership and you discuss how they ought stop raping concert goers?
Are you under any illusion that had Israel not responded as they did that the Hamas attack would not have ended?
I don't think the invasion is going to defeat Hamas. If they kill all the present crew, a new bunch of Iranian backed wackos will takes their places. Israel would have to occupy Gaza, and Blinkin has already signaled that that's not going to happen.
Bottom line is that Israel is ultimately going to have to rectify what they created in Gaza. Bombing the shit out it first is just going to make that harder. Going after Hamas by first securing the welfare of the civilians would have been smarter.
You have to respond because your country is being attacked. Quoting Echarmion
It's my position that the Israeli response is necessary to protect Israeli interests. If you disagree, you can present one of two arguments: (1) the Israeli response is disproportionate to the threat, meaning it excessively exacts damage beyond what is necessary to achieve safety for its citizens, or (2) Israel has no legitimate interest to protect because it is either an illegal occupier of the land or because it deserves this comuppance.
If you choose #1, you've got to set out what the proportionate response is. That no one can seem to do this leads me to believe that #2 is the real position everyone here actually has. The #2 position calls for the eliminatation of Israel, which is why Israel is ignoring the protests.
Hamas uses the civilians as shields and then stopped them from fleeing south to avoid the IDF. You can't assure the safety of the civilians without first engaging Hamas because they use them as their weapons.
@Count Timothy von Icarus
Do you agree with Hanover's assessment that bombing was the only way to defend Israel?
How many Israelis do you authorize be killed in defence of Gaza? Israel has destroyed half of the homes and displaced the majority of the people there. Israel is an existential threat to Gaza. Israeli politicians have said they want it wiped out. So whatever number you think is appropriate on the Palestinian side, you would have to logically concede a much larger number on the Israeli side if you are to play the "Country A has a right to defend itself (hidden premise: "by any means")" card. Otherwise you are again stuck in hypocrisy. The thing is you know that Gaza actually can't defend itself because of the overwhelmingly superior military force Israel has, and so you can feel comfortable making the argument.
So, yes, any country has the right to defend itself. But not "by any means". And getting people to agree to "Israel has a right to defend itself" as a cover for "Israel has a right to defend itself + by any means" is a rhetorical ploy that can justify not only Israeli war crimes but Hamas's war crimes too. If Gaza has "a right to defend itself + by any means" then future war crimes against Israel must also consistently be excused. That's the bind you're in. I'm not in that bind because I don't accept the hidden premise.
All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right?
So, every argument you make of the form "Why should we have to take it"? "Why can't we defend ourselves"? etc can be applied to any situation where a dominant power is facing an embedded guerilla force and the "obvious" answer that you seek from your interlocutor ("Of course you must defend yourself", "You don't have to take it", "Do whatever you think you need to") actually turns out to be not so obvious or uncomplicated, certainly not ethical, and not how civilised countries should react in such a situation without major qualifications.
And remember, Gaza is not an existential or infrastructural threat to Israel. The military capability of Hamas is absolutely tiny compared to Israel. Netanyahu messed up by letting border security lapse and Hamas got through in a significant way and did absolutely horrible things, but they were almost immediately defeated and had to retreat. So, razing Gaza to the ground and killing thousands of its civilians is not justifiable. It's politically opportunistic, excessive and vengeful rather than necessary, proportionate, and ethical. Also, committing war crimes is always wrong. Cutting the electricity to incubators so babies suffocate to death is wrong. Bombing refugees on routes declared safe is wrong. None of that is part of a legitimate defence and constantly trying to evade responsibility by blaming Hamas for everything as if Israel did not wilfully choose those actions is not going to fly. The blame can be shared but not escaped. If anyone has agency here, it's the IDF. So repeating the line "Israel has a right to defend itself" gets you nowhere and in fact with the hidden premise ties you into excusing any atrocity that forms part of a reaction to an attack, including reactions by Hamas to the current attack by Israel. Not a good position to be in.
I guess I didn't answer this. With all the qualifications above, if there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. But it is not justifiable to destroy an entire city because militants from that city attacked you. That's revenge and collective punishment.
Quoting Baden
I do believe being raped and butchered qualifies as a direct threat, so that leads me to destroying those military posts that offer Hamas that ability.
Hamas fortifies its positions behind its citizens, builds tunnels throughout Gaza, uses hospitals as military bases, and transports weapons in ambulances.
Those positions have to be destroyed under this logic.
It is a tragedy of epic proportions that Hamas is sacrificing helpless Palestinians, but that tragedy does not extend to the Israelis because they are not helpless, nor are they made helpless by the barbaric tactics of Hamas.
Quoting Baden
Do you truly view the Catholics of Northern Ireland as sufficiently similar to Hamas to make this comparison? This isn't a rhetorical question, but do you really believe the same folks who authorized the rape plan can be trusted at the negotiation table?
I mean think about that. You're sitting there with your leadership team and some guy says "let's rape concert goers and burn the babies on the collective farm," and the ayes have it, so it's approved, the parachutes then get packed, and then you tune in to CNN to watch it unfold.
That's kinda fucked up beyond repair, right?
You can keep repeating the word "rape" ad nauseum if you like but as far as I know that's a contested claim (from my reading of wiki) and there's no evidence of a "rape plan". Besides, it's unnecessary as Hamas targeting and butchering civilians, including children, already puts them on an absolute level of depravity. The difference is I can say this and also say suffocating babies to death is depraved. You can't. All you can do is use emotive language about Hamas as an attempt to excuse Israel's atrocities. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the IDF that Hamas "forced" them to kill children in hospitals? What exactly was the proven direct threat from that hospital to Israeli citizens that justified suffocating infants to death? Why did they "have to" kill those children? Spell it out. Otherwise, you have no case for the IDF being morally superior to Hamas.
I'll talk more about the IRA later (yes, there are differences) but I want to know what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital is. Make it utilitarian, deontological, whatever you like but drop the rhetoric and say something substantial for a change.
They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. Hamas had no justification to put children in harm's way under any ethical theory. Self defense was Israel's justification.
If I invade a country with a baby in my backpack, and you shoot me but I'm saved by my baby shield, the ethical violation is on me.
Two factual disputes from what you said above: (1) babies were evacuated from the hospital, meaning the IDF is working to reduce casualties to allow safe passage from an active war zone and (2) Hamas raped Israelis. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/world/israel-investigates-sexual-violence-hamas/index.html
The only known bombing of a Palestinian hospital was by a stray Hamas rocket, which hit the parking lot, but was first reported by Hamas and on this thread as a direct attack by Israel on the hospital itself.
This is a horrible war. It's painful to read the reports. Hamas should never have bombed, raped, butchered, and burned Israeli citizens, but really, this is child's play as to what happened after 9/11. The whole Middle East got re-sorted out. By some reports, the total deaths attributable to 9/11 was 4 to 5 million. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/
Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade.
As I said to you before I would happily see every member of Hamas blown up with the grenades of your choosing. This is not what's happening. Most of the casualties are civilians.
Quoting Hanover
No proof of this. They didn't find one Hamas member as far as I know. But let's suppose for argument's sake they were disarming Hamas. Were Hamas members in the incubator room holding babies in front of them while Israeli soldiers shot at them as per your analogy? No. So, the analogy fails. Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort.
Palestinians report 4 babies died in the hospital. Assuming that valid information, I assume it occurred as the result of power outages or other events secondary to the IDF"s attempt to remove Hamas from the hospital, or maybe they died of things unrelated to the war.
The IDF did not intentionally suffocate babies, and to the extent babies died collateral to the war efforts, responsibility rests with those who brought the war front to hospital, not the IDF. I don't justify killing babies, which is what I said before, which makes Hamas all the more despicable because they are responsible for that.
31 babies were evacuated, lending support to IDF"s claims they are doing all they can to reduce innocent casualties, which is extraordinary in comparison to what other nations do.
On the other hand, Hamas intentionally killed babies by their very hands, not as collateral damage, but intentionally and purposefully. That menace has to be eradicated, and the government of the Palestinian people cannot be removed without Palestinian casualties. That is always the case with war. The citizens suffer for the decisions of their government.
People care about other people dying. That is a given. Who ‘cares’ more? Pfft is exactly my reaction to that.
Thank you.
Exactly how comparable is this to the situation in the middle east though. Both conflicts span great swathes of time, but I think it is a hell of a lot easier for people who basically share the same traditions and history to come together and talk. I get the overall impression that this is not at all the case in the middle east as there is entrenched and despotic hatred held by many groups. Plus, there are multiple groups involved.
I would also state that it is very difficult to turn the other cheek (so to speak). The IRA were mostly acting at a distance. Hamas literally went into people houses and gunned them down. Israel has, on occasion I believe, done something similar but mostly at a distance. I am not sure there is an incredible amount of value in asking if it is ‘better’ to kill someone face to face with a gun or drop bombs on them from afar.
What could peace look like for future generations? What could be initiated now to allow the next generation to sit at a table and shake hands?
So, you don't know this:
"On 6 November, Israeli forces struck and destroyed the solar panels atop the hospital, leaving it fully reliant on back-up generators powered by rapidly dwindling fuel supplies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege
"Rapidly dwindling" because Israel cut off the fuel supplies. So they cut off the fuel supplies and then destroyed the solar panels on top of the hospital just to make sure the electricity will run out and babies in incubators reliant on that electricity are put at risk of death. But that's not their fault? No. If I stand outside your local hospital and cut off the electricity and also cynically make sure your back up is gone too, I'm responsible for the deaths and damage that results from that.
Or maybe the claim is that the phantom Hamas members who were never found at the hospital were using electric powered rifles that were an immediate threat to Israeli citizens tens of miles away? Please explain clearly why this "had to" be done in "self defence". Specifics and verified claims only. There is no verification of any threat coming from the hospital to Israel.
"The Geneva-based human rights organization Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor stated, "The Israeli army is the only party controlling the scene inside the al-Shifa Medical Complex, amid a total media blackout. No third party or international organization was permitted to be present inside... Therefore, there are concerns that the army might be creating the scene that might be released later."[96]
The IDF then released photos showing "Military uniforms, 11 guns, three military vests, one with a Hamas logo, nine grenades, two Qurans, a string of prayer beads, a box of dates." Former US State Department legal advisor Brian Finucane, said "These arms by themselves hardly seem to justify the military fixation on al-Shifa, even setting the law aside".[36]
Following the release of the Israeli photos, Al Jazeera senior political analyst Marwan Bishara was skeptical, since Hamas left the guns and nothing else.[97] Bishara added that Israel doesn't have any evidence that justifies "the genocide that they've carried out against Gaza and the bombings of the hospitals and other facilities and for the collective punishments.
Jeremy Bowen, BBC News' international editor, noted that there is no independent scrutiny inside the hospital, since journalists are working under the aegis of the Israeli military.[105] He also stated that the evidence that was produced wasn't convincing enough to prove that "this was a nerve centre for the Hamas operation".[105] On 17 November 2023, journalists for The Independent claimed that "Israel has not presented evidence that shows a large-scale headquarters under the hospital".[106] CNN analysis suggested Israel had rearranged the weaponry before allowing press into the hospital."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege
So, your justification seems to rest on a bunch of likely bogus or at the very least very questionable claims by the IDF. Certainly not enough to justify the disabling and invasion of a hospital, which is a war crime.
"According to the [International Committee for the Red Cross] If there is doubt about whether a hospital is being used for military purposes, it should be presumed not to be being used militarily"
There is no doubt there is at least doubt.
Quoting Hanover
First of all you're making the wrong comparison. The Catholics in N. Ireland did not = The IRA just as Gazans do not = Hamas. Hamas is and the IRA were militant groups fighting a guerilla war against an occupier and are / were deemed terrorist by the antagonists. The Catholics in N. Ireland and the Gazans are both civilian populations who show / showed support for these militant groups and their war.
Clearly Hamas have a fundamentalist religious ideology and their methods are on the face of it more brutal than the IRA. Also, the IRA didn't have a border with mainland U.K. to fire rockets into it though they did carry out attacks on the security forces and on Protestant civilians within N. Ireland. The IRA posed some though not a major threat to British civilian life but a significant threat to political stability in N. Ireland just as Hamas also poses some though not a major threat to Israeli civilian life but a significant threat to political stability in the region. There are differences but not enough to justify the difference between what the British did and what the Israelis are doing now.
Do you? Why?
This is no valid syllogism.
Quoting Hanover
No I don't have to do that.
It could simply be the case that there is no proportionate response that protects Israeli interests. Reality is not obligated to arrange itself so that Israeli interests can always be met.
If wishes were horses, the peasants would ride. I wish for a general, mutual peace. That would be good.
What I hope Israel DOES NOT do is create peace by removing the Palestinians from Gaza. I don't know where they would go. It seems like Gaza is being rendered uninhabitable. Of course it can be cleared and rebuilt; will it be cleared and rebuilt? I don't know.
Netanyahu said it will be a long war. Indeed. At least a year? Clearing the tunnels has scarcely begun, other than trying to blow them up with bombs. Destroying the tunnels (I assume that is on the agenda, whatever else happens) will also take time.
"Ethnic Cleansing" has been carried out successfully by any number of respectable countries. Spain kicked the Jews out several hundred years ago. The US severely reduced its indigenous population. After WWII, about 10,000,000 Germans were kicked out of countries their ancestors had been living in for a long time. The Potato Famine wasn't ethnic cleansing, supposedly, but Ireland's population decreased in size every census between the famine (1845) and 1990. My maternal ancestors fled Ireland around 1845. Turkey rid itself of about 1,000,000 Armenians in 1915 -- they died, they didn't move. A lot of Greek Christians were cleared out as well. There are quite a few others.
If you don't respond, your replacement will.
So, get your killing out of the way, lest someone outdoes you?
It's just a political reality that people aren't going to take an attack like 9/11 or 10/7 lying down. A leader who doesn't respond won't be in power long.
Just like it's a political reality that people won't take a longstanding political grievance combined with economic misery "lying down".
The solution this political reality offers is not new. Hamas is clear in what it proposes. So are some Israelis. Perhaps we should laud them for their honesty and just get on with it?
What would be the "moderate state" here when Israel is building new settlements in the West Bank, has an Apartheid system of different laws and has basically no intention of a two state solution? Why do you assume somehow "moderates" could form a state when the role is to be a puppet state?
Netanyahu aided Hamas to divide and rule the Palestinians, besides for him Hamas is far better representative of Palestinians than the Palestinians that would want to negotiate. Sorry, but the leadership of a state does matter: if we would the actions of the Iraqi state in the last 50 years, then Saddam Hussein and his utterly disastrous decisions to invade neighbors couldn't be otherwise explained than by his leadership.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Somehow you don't see the huge difference here.
The allies wanted to get rid of the ruling state, yet Germany and Japan were still left for Germans and the Japanese (although Soviet Union took Sakhalin, which has been a sour issue between Japan and Soviet Union / Russia).
Only a certain mr. H had plans not only to conquer to get rid of the states and annex land especially in his Eastern neighborhood, but he and his followers also had huge plans for population replacement in these countries on a grand scale.
If the victorious allies would have had similar objectives, moving the Japanese out of their islands or the Germans out of Germany (or putting the people on reservations), I think both people wouldn't been so happy with the situation as they were now about the allied occupation. In fact, I think in that case the response 'land and the people' (or in the case of Japan, 'the islands and the people') would become central to the national identity of the countries. Hence it's quite logical why for the Palestinians for their identity the land of Palestine is so central.
But the US did occupy Germany and Japan after utterly destroying many of their cities. There’s even dozen or so US army bases still in Germany and in Japan. When Western and Eastern Germany was rebuilt, it was definitely in a new framework molded to each sides image. It doesn’t mean it was some occupied territory forever (but was for a time). It had to be a liberal democracy again though.
A war crime would be more apt here, because these aren't ordinary criminals in Israel's view.
This idea that Germany and Japan were somehow remade out of while cloth by the allies, turning former barbarians into civilized people (as per @RogueAI) is really weird. Is this somehow a result of how the history of WW2 is taught, that the continuity of either nation was permanently shattered?
Edit: now that I think about it, I guess there is a popular history that Germany wasn't properly defeated after WW1 so the allies had to finish the job properly and excise the evil spirit of prussian militarism permanently.
Neither Germany nor Japan were transformed into killing machines by some evil spell, and neither nation just effortlessly switched back after the war. That the result was as positive has much to do with the integration of these countries into the anti-communist alliance, which justified lenient policies while providing a new sense of identity (very much abbreviated).
It would not be easy for Israel to pull off something similar. Centrally the current conception of the Israeli stated seems to me utterly opposed to giving the arabs [I]en Masse[/I] some sort of unifying identity as a part of Israel.
Straw man as I didn’t state that, just facts. Allies utterly bombed the hell out of these countries and occupied them for a time.
Quoting Echarmion
I mean yeah I agree so not sure why you phrase it like I didn’t think they did a good job afterwards allowing them to be reintegrated into the world community. It was still contingent on being a liberal democracy and being demilitarized to a large extent.
Quoting Echarmion
That’s speculative. Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out but then again how solid was post war Germany at the beginning? However, from what seems to have been stated it’s some sort of entity that isn’t hostile to Israel but have no idea what that looks like. Again, tgst is just from what’s said, so speculation. You can do that too but then your speculation is just that too.
People expect action from their leaders during times of economic misery. As FDR said, "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach."
This is a silly point you are arguing. When a country is attacked or when it's economy isn't working people expect action from their leader. Had Netanyahu not retaliated, as some here propose, he would have been removed by the Knesset for dereliction of duty or cowardice or incompetence, and deservedly so. His replacement would then have retaliated.
I've noticed some of the people here hold Israel to a ridiculously high standard, almost like a Madonna-complex, and when Israel doesn't live up to the impossible saintly expectations, they're lumped in with the animals that attacked them.
A moderate Palestinian state would not have these human rights abuses:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/
And how many Americans were repopulated to live in Germany? Did the American President declare that now Germany (or Japan) are part of the US?
And how long do we talk about an US lead occupation in Germany? That ended in 1949, as you yourself said, the occupation wasn't forever. Even with this example, the difference is quite stark between the US lead occupation (and West Germany) and the Soviet occupation (and formation of East Germany).
The West Germans remember quite well how the US assisted West-Berlin with the airlift and Marshall Plan:
While the East-Germans had their uprising against Soviet forces:
Spot any differences in the two occupations of the same people, @schopenhauer1? I do notice.
So yes, how the occupation forces behave and rule, what is it's true objectives do matter. The difference is between night and day.
And furthermore, the typical argument that the US is a Superpower and dominates other countries just like any other Great Power, hence if it's a country having US bases or being occupied by another country isn't at all so straight forward. Europeans do like NATO and genuinely have built their defense on a common defense. Here's a perfect example of how US troops were looked upon in Czechia in 2015, a year after the occupation of Crimea by the Russians.
Yet going back to the subject. The objectives of Israel here are quite different. And that is the problem.
I disagree. Public awareness and opinion do shape policy in the countries we live in and this is far more important than we think. The Israeli governments, when run by Likud or other right wing nutjobs, will not improve the fate of Palestinians unless the international community forces them. As they did with South Africa. Today, the Palestinian cause is getting much more attention than before despite the one-sided media coverage of traditional media and politicians.
We can only hope that the "Western" narrative is quickly abandoned by a more pluralistic and therefore balanced view as expressed by many other countries. The cry of "anti-semitism" each time Israeli policy is critizised, is losing its potency, both for being false and due to the inexoriable shift of (economic) power to Asia and hopefully sooner than later: Africa.
The same reason Russian sanctions are only upheld by EU, US and direct allies like Canada, Australia, Japan are at play here as well. Not even Mexico, with an important dependence on the US, sanctioned Russia. Because these countries understand all too well the role international policy from those countries have contributed to creating the circumstances for war. The "Western" narrative with respect to Israel-Palestine is obviously not shared by former colonies, who see this conflict much clearer with their own history of being oppressed by the same powers that now unconditionally support Israel. Quite frankly, it's as if we're reliving the 1800s with how backward the EU and US positions are. Especially when we get the cultural superiority arguments from the closet white supremacists ("where would you rather live?" "How come these countries do not independently develop into liberal democracies?").
We basically wrote Japan's new constitution for them. There was input from Japan, but everyone knew the new government was going to greatly resemble America's.
The question is, do you think the relevant factor for their post war recovery was how thoroughly they had been destroyed
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think we'd have to see what arguments we come up with rather than throw our hands up and say "it's all speculation anyways".
I don't see how Israel can develop the kind of rapport with the arabs that the US managed with Japan and Germany. In the case of Japan, the US had the emperor to work with, along with the somewhat ironic twist that the Japanese death cult turned into a kind of studied subservience once their defeat was obvious.
In Germany the US had already been as much a model to strive after as an object of hate. Americans and Germans did not have the kind of baggage Israel would have to deal with.
And again there's the basic problem of where there's room for the arabs in Israel, politically speaking.
Quoting RogueAI
Well and had Hamas not attacked Israel, they'd have been replaced by some other fanatical islamist organisation. As @Baden has repeatedly pointed out, all these arguments work both ways.
People defend Hamas citing exactly the political realities you're using in defense of Israel. That Hamas is the underdog. That Palestinians are oppressed. That one cannot expect the oppressed to be reasonable and just turn the other cheek.
Quoting RogueAI
Animals, yes. And what can you do with animals but to exterminate them. And since we cannot guarantee that the children of Gaza do not also turn into animals, the proper reaction is therefore to kill them all. Perhaps "god will know his own", as the apocryphal saying goes.
Quoting RogueAI
Meanwhile the Germans were allowed their own constitutional conference. Does it follow therefore that Germany is still Germany but Japan isn't?
And between right and wrong.
Now you are misconstruing my point which was AFTER they were bombed to hell they made sure that the countries were liberal democracies, friendly to the Allies, and demilitarized.
Quoting Echarmion
Because of this point that is why I don’t know what it would look like other than Abbas but he’s pretty weak. Perhaps an Arab coalition.
As I see it, you’re reiterating my points, not countering them. If you’re trying to say America responsibly reintegrated Germany and Japan and Israel should do the same, I agree.
Untrue btw.
''The New York Times published a report by its Visual Investigations team contradicting claims by the Israeli Defense Forces that civilian deaths and damage at the al-Shifa Hospital had been caused by stray Palestinian projectiles.[305] The report concluded instead, "some of the munitions were likely fired by Israeli forces", based on video and satellite evidence and an examination of weapons fragments collected and verified by The New York Times and analyzed by experts.[305] Moreover, two of the most severe strikes analyzed by The Times hit upper floors of the maternity ward and did not appear to be aimed at underground infrastructure.''
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
Now, please justify the firing of missiles at a maternity ward and how that is self defence.
But they don't work both ways. The IDF doesn't livestream itself committing atrocities on civilians and raping women to death. Hamas fighters behave like animals. They revel in the sadism. They think they have a divine mandate to kill Jews. They want to wipe them all out.
There is not a moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas. The argument doesn't work both ways. Israel's Arab neighbors are culturally inferior to Israel. Their Islamic-based values are abhorrent. The world would be a better place if Israel conquered it's Arab neighbors, occupied them, and forced a constitutional republic on them where women and LGBTQ people are given equal rights. Can you imagine the rejoicing that would take place from tens of millions of women and girls if that happened?
And, I suppose the implication is, whoever has the moral advantage is the good guy, and the good guy can do whatever it takes.
To me this is just as risible as the parallel argument where whoever is most oppressed is the victim and the victim can do whatever it takes. A parody of a moral argument.
Quoting RogueAI
I can also imagine the abject carnage that would precede the rejoicing. And maybe we would find that the people don't take all that kindly to our civilising mission.
If only we had some good, recent evidence to judge this proposal. Perhaps if some massive military power had invaded some middle eastern states and attempted to turn them into liberal democracies we could look how that went.
Yes, here's an accounting of Israeli war crimes, just so far, in this conflict, again to highlight the absurd lie that they are a respectable force. It includes attacks on churches, schools, hospitals, execution of prisoners, sexual humiliation of prisoners, attacks with white phosphorous, collective punishment, the murder of journalists, and more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes
Scroll to 2023 conflict.
It's hard to argue, given this litany of abuses, for the moral superiority of the IDF over Hamas.
Right, so is the argument that, through an occupation of the Gaza strip, Israel might be able demilitarise it and then develop occupation policies that'll lead to a long-term rapprochement?
In that case yeah, that might be possible. It'd be very hard and costly but at least it'd be a plan. It doesn't seem to be the current plan though.
The attacks won't stop until Israel ceases to exist in its current form it seems to me. And it shouldn't exist in its current form. It's a colony isn't it? And not just an imposition of political power, but also a displacement of existing established population. Military action by Israel is just going to create more terrorists, no? A political solution is the only serious option. In terms of the phone call, informing whatever leadership Palestine has of Israel's intention to dismantle their colony and then actually doing it might help stop the violence, if it is believed.
I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! The leaders will change on either side but things will continue to repeat unless there is a common world view as far as I can see. If you agree then what kind of measures could move things in that direction do you think?
Even a 'moderate Palestinian state', if by meaning that democratic elections are held and political opposition isn't persecuted, I guess there's much in the insurgency that human rights organizations won't look as to be OK.
And there surely is loads of evidence of warcrimes, human rights abuses and so on October 7th, even if Israel has now degraded the number of killed during that day. But it's not good either how Israel is fighting this war.
* * * * *
Quoting schopenhauer1
Hopefully you have noticed, that I'm not disagreeing with everything you say.
But there's the real problem, which makes me so pessimistic about this conflict: How can Israel do this?
Does it have the urge to do this? What is dominant view now is that the other side only understands lead. This goes also with the Palestinian side. The PA is sidelined and the West Bank surely isn't now a tranquil sea of modesty and respect. And Gaza? Well, what is there to talk? Who is there to talk to?
The only reason, in my view, is that Bibi and IDF go too far with the military operation of destroying Hamas and aren't prepared to take care of the 2,2 million people in which a lot more than just now children and civilians die. A lot more that finally it looks bad in the US. So bad that the question goes beyond the general culture war lines of being pro-Israeli or not, and something has to be done. And then it's so embarrassing to Israel, that they have to do something. People will die if they don't get food and water, hence the issue has to be solved.
There are hints that this could happen as the mood is starting to change in the US.
Of course, one solution is to try to keep the whole issue out of sight.
Or then declare that Hamas is finished and try to stick to that line and hope people don't question it. :roll:
First giving Netanyahu a blank check to commit his evil, blocking UN resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and with the Israel lobby appeased now going back to whinging about a two-state solution which will never happen anyway (and they know it) to avoid dropping too much in the polls.
:vomit:
Hezbollah so far has not escalated, Iran said they weren't going to get involved for now. So, what gives? Biden not going to do anything? Just let them all die?
The survivors of one of the worst massacres in history will reply in kind to others? Great.
I too will bow out for the time being, leaving with this final comment to ponder: quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Yes.
Well then we're probably in agreement that Israel's stated intention to not occupy Gaza likely means things will be much worse for whoever is left there, since it seems to imply Israel will destroy all the "Hamas infrastructure" (which probably means just all all the infrastructure) and then just leave.
South Africa
https://www.dirco.gov.za/south-africa-has-maintained-a-consistent-position-on-the-israel-palestine-question/
"unfinished decolonisation struggle"
India
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/palestine-israel-conflict-india-unsc-jerusalem-clashes-aqsa-7320652/
"Hours after Hamas' first attacks on Gaza on October 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on a post on X, expressed shock at the Palestinian offensive, and conveyed “solidarity with Israel”. He wrote, "“Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour." However, five days later, in its first official statement on the Israel-Hamas war, New Delhi has sought to nuance this. Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, in response to questions at the weekly briefing, said that there is a “universal obligation to observe international humanitarian law,” and there is also a global responsibility to fight the menace of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel."
China
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1302191.shtml
China urged an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, expressed opposition to any forced displacement and relocation of Palestinian civilians and emphasized that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of the Palestinian people must have their consent, Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi told visiting Arab and Islamic foreign ministers on Monday.
Brasil
https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2023/nov/14/brazils-lula-says-israel-committing-equivalent-of-terrorism-in-gaza-2632858.html
Lula: Israel is committing the "equivalent of terrorism" in Gaza by killing innocent women and children in its war on Hamas
& other south american countries
Have cancelled arms deals with US and other Israeli supporters for their unrepenting support of Israel.
None of these "non-Western" countries (except for Paraguay) designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation other than via the OAS, which is of course dominated by the northern American countries. That aside, no Asian country but Japan and no African country. In other words, the favoured position here is a minority position in the world. Posters would do well to acquaint themselves with other narratives instead of the implicitly racist assumptions in the Western narrative where the more people look like us the more support they get (Ukrainian refugees vs others, Israel vs Palestine etc.) or because of historic guilt trips for crimes committed by our grandfathers. My country doesn't owe Israel allegiance or support just because a bunch of Jews live there.
No problem! In 100 years the world will be in the midst of a 3ºC - 5ºC overheating crisis; the stormy chaotic weather will be hot; the oceans will be rising rapidly; food production will be disrupted; coastal cities will be regularly or chronically inundated; many millions of climate refugees will be on the move if thy have not died already... We are living in the "good old days"! Israel who?
The folk-singer Billy Bragg used the phrase "the vanity of nations" in his version of the International. Nationalism, religion, ethnocentrism (whether it's black, white, Palestinian, Jewish, Han Chinese. English, Mestizos, etc.). All the specificities that occlude our common, unitary species-relatedness are a piece of the problem. Unfortunately, BOMFOG (the Brotherhood Of Man under the Fatherhood Of God) went out of style years ago. and I don't see anything similar on the horizon.
Maybe a global heat crisis will help us drop our focus on specificities, but I would be surprised if that helps.
I do not look for a cessation of conflict on earth, no matter how good the climate is or how bad, because "whatever it is that people want or need" won't be distributed equally. and therein lies an insoluble problem.
Does there have to be a resolution to ethnic conflict? There does if the relevant ethnics want a decent future, but...
Just looking for some productive discussion :)
Like I said, the IRA managed to cease terrorist attacks but I am largely convinced the common traditions of peoples involved were common enough. In the middle east what kinds of commonalities exist because the various factions, and what apart than my broad statement might I have been neglecting?
I do not for a second believe it is almost entirely due to ONE point. What can we learn here? What information can we glean from these constant hostilities that can better equip us to avoid them elsewhere or help us understand conflicts of this type?
Yeah right, that will happen.
From: Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip
"Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats:"
There's two ways to look at this. On the other side, one could say that the Israeli response has deterred from Hezbollah joining the attack (and the two US carriers on the Mediterranean). From the other perspective, Iran's unconventional deterrent Hezbollah has kept Israel and the US from attacking itself (unlike Syria, which is a free range for bombing).
But then there's the Houthi hijack of a ship that has an owner that is Israeli. Bibi is accusing the Iran of terrorism.
Hopefully this doesn't escalate.
Quoting Baden
The moment that the Royal Air Force would have started bombing villages or houses in North Ireland, it would have been over. There would have not been the appetite for a new civil war in Ireland at all and the insurgency couldn't have been hided. Now the UK government achieved a huge victory in the discourse of the conflict: it was "The Troubles", not an insurgency (even if now the British Army openly says that it indeed was an insurgency. And the assassination attempt of Prime Minister Thatcher, didn't make "the gloves to come off". Yes, you had even British tanks deployed in Northern Ireland, but I don't think they ever used their main armamnet.
What is very telling is that in the conflict more British soldiers and policemen died than IRA terrorists. This ratio favoring the IRA terrorists doesn't tell about them being superior, but the British government sticking to the laws it had and using that restraint. And the British officials have later admitted that there have been killings by it's proxies and has made apologies for this.
The reality that having less restraint and using more firepower usually inflicts less casualties for you at the moment, but those actions can make you lose the war.
Quoting Benkei
The US backing anything that Israel does isn't anything new. And It should be noted that not all in the West take the line of Biden.
If your enemy isn't abiding by the Geneva Conventions, why should you? Does a nation have a moral duty to take the "high ground" in a conflict? Even if it increases their chances of losing the conflict? What about if their existence is truly at stake? If the Axis had used chemical weapons, wouldn't the Allies have been justified using them in retaliation? Or suppose Germany had gone through with Sea Lion and invaded Britain after the fall of France. Would the Brits have been justified in using gas against the German invaders? Doesn't the British high command have a duty to its people to fight a Nazi invasion with every means at their disposable? If the British generals decide that chemical weapons will give them a decisive edge against Nazi soldiers, don't they have a duty to use those chemical weapons in defense of their citizens?
Generally, nations are not moral subjects, individuals are.
But yeah I'd say you have the moral duty to take the high ground, always and in every situation. That is
what moral philosophy is ultimately about, isn't it? To have a framework that applies over and above what your current desires or interests are.
If we can throw it by the wayside when it doesn't suit us, why have it in the first place?
Quoting RogueAI
Morality in war is a tricky business, especially since there's not necessary a good argument to treat your enemy at large differently than your allies. You might have taken extra obligations towards your allies, but those could hardly result in your enemies having less moral standing.
I think we would need to employ the logic of self defense, expanded to groups since against an organised attacker, only an organised defense could succeed. And in that context we could argue that, in a justifiable cause, one does not need to accept undue risks. Since those that are fighting for the aggressor have by this act placed themselves outside the moral framework themselves, and thus cannot demand for themselves it's full protection.
But it's a difficult argument to carry forward without contradiction, as obviously not all victims of war really chose to be on either side in a meaningful way.
Quoting RogueAI
I think you could make the case that a counterattack is justified if it has a plausible military objective that you judge you could not meet any other way.
Quoting RogueAI
They probably have that duty, but I do think they'd also have to weigh their duty towards humanity in general, which even includes the enemy soldiers.
If the use of a gas weapon provides the decisive edge, and you have also considered the probable long term consequences, maybe such use could be justified. At the same time we can probably conclude that lobbing gas grenades at starving and undersupplied Germans who are barely holding their perimeter might be a step too far.
But to many, the point of morality IS to suit us (us being the larger picture, humanity as a whole - morality exists to improve our lives).
So if some moral rule is making lives worse and not better, would it not be a worthwhile argument that we should put it to the side?
I'm not saying this particular situation is necessarily like this, but it COULD be.
Well that would the the utilitarian perspective. My problem with that is that "improving our lives" is subjective and utilitarianism doesn't itself provide any framework to reconcile the different positions people might have on "the greater good". Hence I prefer the deontological approach.
I would still say that the purpose of moral philosophy is to make the world better, just not in the sense of trying to optimise any particular metric.
It is unsurprising one might find terms like 'voluntary human shield' in a DoD manual, but please refrain from using such terms in a serious discussion about IHL.
To make a long story short, Israel has no right to order Gazans to move, and forcing Gazans to move would in many cases constitute war crimes under the articles pertaining to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Resisting foreign occupation, and resisting war crimes, does not make a civilian population a legitimate military target or 'voluntary human shields'.
I feel a sudden urge to wash after having to explain this on a philosophy forum.
An ironic statement, considering the content of your post. :chin:
It wasn't clear to me you were disagreeing with Schmitt. You could have just said so and taken my post as an argument in support of your position.
But to each their own.
Hopefully the four days will be used so that the offensive won't restart and continue for another 8 weeks.
At least the sides are talking.
For a while rumors have gone around about the IDF / IAF itself being responsible for a large amount of civilian casualties during the attacks of October 7th.
A recent Haaretz interview with IAF Colonel Nof Erez now seems to lend credence to that idea, referencing the Hannibal Directive that essentially authorizes the Israeli armed forces to take out Israeli hostages to avoid them being used in bargaining for hostage exchanges. Erez called it a "Mass Hannibal".
Erez was presumably directly involved (the interview seems to imply as much) though the full article by Haaretz does not seem to be available yet.
Worrying, to say the least.
Temporary truce what they call this lull in the fighting.
Fingers crossed. The size of the prisoner exchange is at least a good indication that it might hold though.
But I do wonder when/how Israel will withdraw IDF losses reported so far are suprisingly light, but the cost of a lengthy occupation would seem likely to ramp up quickly. It's also probably the best way to destroy Hamas' credibility though.
I've heard speculation that Hamas' political leadership was not made aware of the attack before it happened. It certainly seems like they didn't let their allies know, so that has some level of credence. If that's true, it speaks to quite literally catastrophic issues within the groups C&C.
A telling interview from the Jordanian ambassador Dina Kawar. And this is an ambassador whose country has made peace with Israel:
:mask: :fire:
2012 ...
2013 ...
(will post full documentary when i find it)
Spain's Pedro Sánchez tells Netanyahu number of deaths in Gaza 'truly unbearable'
Say there was a situation where one of your loved ones was being used as a human shield by villainous entities. Would you still say it's ok to blow the shields up for the purposes of defense?
Yes, usually the generals and the intelligence officers tell the truth ...afterwards when retired. Naturally when in service they are loyal "team players" for the political leadership.
In fact, Finland has gotten it's share of flak by earlier deciding to get an air defense system from Israel. When asked about it by Al Jazeera and reminded that the leftist alliance party has criticized this, the foreign minister could only say: "Finland is a democracy and we have a multiparty system - all politicians have the right to also oppose the decisions of the government". What else could she say? Yet the message is still quite the same as from Spain.
What I don't understand is why this international conflict took part in the investiture. I think my country is not that relevant, and I believe that Netanyahu doesn't care about what Spain would say at all. But you know, we have to say 'something', and Pedro decided to be brave and criticised Israel.
I think this is even a strategic move because he promised that he would recognise Palestine as a sovereign nation in the future...
I am afraid of the long term consequences. It is not cool to be targeted by Israel and his 'partners'...
You don't turn to the least objective to ask what is most objective. That is, a judge who has an interest in the outcome of the case cannot sit on that case. So, might I be irrational in that circumstance? Likely.
I would, though, place 100% of the blame of the death on the enemy, and would find them additionally immoral for forcing a moral person into a situation where he had to kill an innocent person.
I guess where we differ is that I don't think questions about morality can ever be answered objectively. It has to be about how you feel personally. It has to be based on love for life and love for humanity. To the extent that you act out of love, you're as moral as you can be. But I can see how if you do think in terms of an objective answer, you would put rational imperatives first?
Edit: probably too soon but shitty jokes is how I cope.
Other discussion has been incredibly insightful, however.
Who has defended Hamas actions?
The number of posts similar to this, is what im talking about. |
Equivocating, essentially saying "Yeah, but..." at every turn. Justifying. It's harsh. Just don't get it.
I'm standing back from this then. I can't get on with this type of disguised motive.
Nobody who's read my comments here would say (except as a juvenile attempt at provocation) that I've in any way defended Hamas. Troll failed.
Do remember that this is just a very temporary truce. So temporary, that the EU and the UN quarreled for long which words they could use: ceasefire / truce / humanitarian pause. And this is so temporary, they are still discussing if the extension of the 'humanitarian pause' can be continued past Thursday.
If (when) Bibi continues the operation, I wonder what countries will continue repeating the line that Israel has the right to defend itself if we reach new heights in the numbers of killed civilians.
Destroying [s]the south of Gaza[/s] Hamas in the southern part of Gaza is the now the aim for Bibi ? ? ?
And I wonder how more enthusiasm for the 'just cause' Bibi will get when he returns to the war... :death:
No, particularly if we widen the window for when different policy interventions could occur. The easiest way to defend Israel would be to have the border properly garrisoned and monitored. It would not have taken a particularly onerous amount of resources to push back the initial Hamas assault. The heavy equipment they used would be extremely vulnerable to even older AT weapons and the paragliders were so low as to be easily taken down by simply having infantry with a GPMG there.
So they did so much damage because it was a surprise attack.
The longer this 'pause' continues, the more flak Bibi will get when he restarts it. Especially if there still are kidnapped Israelis to be exchanged. But from the military point of view, naturally the operation isn't anywhere near to the end.
Here actually Joe Biden did say some words of wisdom to Bibi, but the natural response is to milk October 7th dry and unleash the IDF as long as their is the support.
To be a sovereign state that can exist without its next-door neighbor threatening its women and babies with rape and mutilation. :grin:
And more anti-zionist propaganda from the evil United Nations, here from "the head terror-apologist" as Isreali leaders have put it:
At least they've gotten more UN workers killed than in any conflict. Remember October 7th!
Well they have so far insisted that a second occupation is out of the question.
The pessimistic version is that the decision-makers in Israel know full well the problems that have been discussed re "pacifying" Gaza, and that the talk of the "second Nakba" is not just empty rhetoric. That is wreck Gaza, then leave and hope that the crisis forces people to leave and perhaps more importantly pressures Egypt to actually let them leave.
The optimistic version I have trouble seeing. Hamas is destroyed and some other authority rebuilds Gaza with the help of Israel?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Unfortunately for Israel it's sovereignty extends over Gaza (at least I have not heard a convincing argument to the contrary). So even in a legal sense, Israel cannot simply wash it's hands of Gaza and pretend it's some foreign country they don't have any responsibility for.
An inconsistency when your actual policy is to revenge a large terrorist attack, yet you want to have nothing to do with giving real independence/autonomy to the Palestinians (the feared two-state solution). Of course when you assist terrorists like Hamas and then think you can control them, this is the end result.
Quoting Echarmion
Unfortunately the conquered land Israel loves so much seems to come with these human animals.
On the other hand, here's a clear headed interview of Ami Ayalon, who is one of the former Shin Bet directors and previously commanded of the Israeli Navy. Some points about this interview: Ayalon, who worked with Netanyahu for several years actually says Bibi's approach is risk-averse, meaning that he tries to manage things, not solve them (as this usually involves risk taking). Obviously managing the situation didn't work now.
Then he makes an interesting note: as both the Israeli and Palestinian narratives don't meet each other, the solution here would be outside pressure. Ayalon says that Biden here has credibility in Israel. He reminds that it took years to go from the Yom Kippur war to the peace deal with Egypt. It is leadership what is needed in the region, as this isn't just a conflict between Palestinians and Israel, but it has effects on the region and hence to the World.
What is so interesting in Israeli politics is how many of these former intelligence directors and generals have actually been part of the labour party, the left, in Israel. Perhaps it's that they do see that a two state solution is really the solution here while the right seems to have been hijacked by the fundamentalists and Bibi's type of populism.
In the long run, maybe in a decade or two, I would like to see a two state solution but not in the near future. Don't forget Egypt also supports the blockade. The Palestinian education system needs to be fundamentally reformed; anti-semitism and violence is inculcated at an early age. One can't help but be pessimistic to see the hostage handovers involving palestinian civilians harassing and shouting death to the hostages. Elon suggested a three pronged approach: eliminate hamas, reform education system, build prosperity. But this will take time.
Isn't that the official line: a two state solution always in the future perhaps, but not now?
Perhaps we can have the two-state solution, if Hamas would hit the jackpot: hence not only succeeding in making a devastating attack on Israel, but having then made Israel to make such a retaliatory strike with so much force, that the death toll would alienate the World and even the US to demand a two-state solution. Then Israel would have to choose the South Africa option, especially if the Evangelists and AIPAC wouldn't carry through in the US. Well, if you make supporting Israel a "culture war" issue, that can kill debate about the issue quite quickly.
But likely you are right. The two state solution will be a dream and the conflict will just go on: surely the children that survive this war in Gaza will remember it. And then we can have the next 'mowing of the lawn' in 2030's, perhaps 2040's, when they are adults?
Interesting to note if in the US this will cause more critique or not in the democratic party.
It will split the Democratic party and hand Trump a victory.
You talked about not talking about states as individuals but the inverse is also true, you can’t talk about statehood, without individuals. That is to say the venom of individuals has to be largely absent to actually have a state. A state isn’t much unless it recognizes its borders and recognizes its neighbors’ borders (or right to even exist). As Golda Meir said:
You can point to Netanyahu being a dick and this or that, but this sentiment goes a long way back before Netanyahu’s policies.
That is to say, it isn’t enough for leaders to be ok with peace, it largely has to be driven by the people. They keep saying Abbas is ineffective, why is that? And certainly Netanyahu has sidelined him but that’s not the only reason…
So you would need enough willpower from leadership to teach that the other side is your equal. Your friendly neighbor. Your ally. You need to see them as not occupiers, colonizers, etc. the narrative for individuals has to change. You then have to have the willpower to maintain a peacekeeping force that prosecutes its own bad actors who act against their neighbor. You then need to have elections that don’t vote in extremists again. That’s all driven by the people and their general will, not just the people recognized as the leaders.
And don’t get me wrong, this peace would have to include settlements being dismantled and Israel would have to enforce its own policies if that happens. Certainly someone who is not Netanyahu would need to be in charge if or when that happens. But as @Merkwurdichliebe points out here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857402
It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same…
Well, what has going along with the peace plan given to the people in the West Bank, the apartheid system continues, there new settlements are built.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Certainly, the Likud has all had this strategy where a two state solution would be a capitulation to the enemies of Israel. It has been the left that has honestly tried the two-state solution. Thus wanting peace, the Likud has fallen off from the political map and become a very tiny party in Israel.
Revenge and fear prevails and is the source where Likud politicians get their support. And it is ironic, that the former Shin Bet hopes that the US would here steer clear Israel to peace.
Quoting Hanover
Trump win is a possibility, although I hope Americans would choose something else than frail old men like Biden or Trump.
Yet I think the younger generations of Americans aren't as steadfast in their unwavering support of Israel, but do understand that perhaps not all the time America's objective as synonymous with Bibi's Israel. Assuming there isn't another terrorist attack.
You simply cannot deny that the occupied/occupier issue does matter here. It is imbalanced, because one being the occupier and the other side being the occupied with very limited resources is imbalanced!
It would be totally different if we would talk about Iran-Israeli relations. WTF has Israel done to Iran? That the Shah had good relations with Israel, that is it? Where this hypocrite grandstanding comes from? Trying to push your own Islamic revolution in muslim countries and that's why pick a fight with Israel? This is the classic case where a revolution had to go to desperate lengths to get that enemy they can then show they are so good to everybody else. In reality many young Iranians are totally OK with America, so pretty urgent to make your own "axis-of-evil" with US-Israel.
If you saw the abysmal debate of Newsom and DeSantis, perhaps not. Though bizarrely moderated by Sean Hannity.
That’s like holding a fair moderated debate in this forum on Israel / Palestine :razz:
Let me be in my echo-chamber where American politicians seem actually to be quite rational, intelligent and well aware of realities in the World. :wink:
Ok. have to watch that...
I guess noone here expects that the Palestinians have much capacity to change, given their situation. Though one might also argue that this attitude is dehumanising in a way.
It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism.
But see the deflection to the other side you did there.. That's what I am talking about... You are doubling down on a point I already acknowledged.
Quoting ssu
But c'mon ssu, this is exactly the framework the whole time I have been questioning and trying to get others to question. It is this exact way of framing the issue that is being questioned as to if it is proper to even speak in those terms. It is a narrative that exists. I get that. It is a narrative you might hold. I get that. But it might not be THE narrative, if you know what I mean. We have went over the history. Wars fought to wipe out Israel and that failed. The Oslo process and how that failed. The Israeli shift to the right as a RESULT of those attempts and failures. Then we have both agreed Hamas is no good all around. We even agree that Netanyahu and Likud is no good. But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! That would go for any prime minister, Netanyahu or otherwise! Even the most liberal peacenik would want that. Because afterall, what even IS statehood? It means nothing. You can call Palestine a state right now if you want. It's about recognizing borders, autonomy, etc. That takes peaceful overtures from both leadership and population. The population has to hold leadership accountable and vice versa. But see, these are all issues beyond the reductionist and biased "occupied/occupier".
Quoting ssu
Agreed there! Iran is ripe for being a more secularized de-radicalized state. It had the will to put the Ayatollah and Islamist regime in power... It has the power to do otherwise perhaps? Look at the protest over the head coverings and the girl that was killed.
I think my answer is same as above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I guess I could reject the framing of occupier and occupied and instead take the position that really Gaza has been given considerable autonomy as well as outside help, and it really should have been on Gazans to use these opportunities.
Yet this would seem to change little about my assessment that the position of the Israeli government seems destructive and unlikely to lead to any kind of peace apart from peace by displacement.
I can also adopt the position that Hamas has no claim to any legitimate resistance and is nothing more than a brutal crime syndicate. But this would not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that ordinary Gazans are particularly likely to actively fight them to achieve peace with Israel.
I do actually reject the position that morality can be reduced to some kind of oppression Olympics where the victim is right and the oppressor is wrong.
But from a purely practical perspective, wealth and security seem to be the most likely avenues out of the kind of extremism rife among Palestinians. I have always held to the position that the best advertisement for "western values" is to demonstrate that they work to your benefit.
Why?
What is ridiculous about it?
Annexation of territory is the whole issue.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Egypt is fully weaponized and fully armed. And so actually is Jordan, even if it has a far smaller armed forces.
But are somehow for you the Palestinians totally incapable or unfit of doing what Jordanians and Egyptians have been able to do?
Either it's a two state solution or a one state solution. And if/when it's a one state solution, you think the Palestinians will be OK being under a separate law than the Jewish and being second rate citizens in a state that is primary a home for the Jews?
No, living peaceably with the neighbor in that annexed territory is the issue.
Quoting ssu
As of right now, are you kidding? That is self-evidently the case (Hamas.. Abbas steps down...).
Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.
As I've said, I see no peaceful resolution to this.
Gaza had its chance. It went to shit. West Bank and Gaza had its chance, it wasn't taken. If Finland had its chance when Russians left and then they started bombing Russia... Yeah. If Finland had a deal which gave it nearly all it wanted and they said no thanks, we rather be in perpetual war than take that, then yeah.
What chance did the open air prison have?
Oh right, they could be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the West Bank, I guess.
Well, Bibi supported Hamas to show that peace cannot be made with the Palestinians, so he was very successful with that.
Nope different situation as the west bank. There were no more settlers there and to conflate the two is kinda bad faith arguing. The "open air prison" slogan is nice marketing but they were getting tons of aid and did nothing with it. You know, another strategy would have been for them to actually work with the Israelis. Oh right, they did pretend to do that with overtures for more work visas before murdering people.
That is the strategy possible for every people that have ever been occupied and their territory annexed by another country. Be this invader either a colonizer or simply the country neighboring you. Yet it's very common for people to resent the foreigners and not surrender.
You haven't answered just why is it ridiculous to talk about Gaza and the West Bank being occupied territories and of occupiers and the occupied.
I think this is the crux here is that somehow, for you unlike all other conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something totally different than everything else. As if for some reason, Israel just has these "unruly neighbors" that present a threat to them! Be it the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the Azeri-Armenian conflict, the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Moroccan West Saharan conflict or any of the multitude of wars where one country has seized territory in war and then annexed this territory. And especially when their isn't a solution given to occupied people of autonomy, economic freedom or cultural assimilation (that takes hundreds of years), then you will have a conflict.
That there didn't exist a state of Palestine doesn't make this different. When the Spanish pulled out of Western Sahara or when the Portuguese pulled out of East-Timor, both Morocco and Indonesia annexed the 'empty' territory and faced an insurgency and basically both used very rough measures. The conflict in East-Timor finally ended when Indonesia withdrew and Timor-Leste gained it's independence, but the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara hasn't.
(The Moroccan military wall in Western Sahara. It even looks a bit similar to the Gaza border from the air.)
But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens.
Actually Arafat didn't say 'no thanks' as rejecting it, but simply not taking the offer and made further demands. Actually let's look at the deal here:
But notice one thing again, @schopenhauer1, this isn't either on the table with Bibi as the negotiations were held by Ehud Barak and the Labor party, which now isn't in power and is a very small party in the Knesset. Also after Clinton, there hasn't been this kind of intense activity by the US either. Then happened 9/11.
Hence that time has passed. And that window of opportunity passed. And it could have simply fallen later apart simply by the building of new settlements no matter what piece of paper was signed in America.
And now nearly a quarter of a century later, there are far more settlements in the West Bank.
Not sure what you mean here.
Quoting ssu
Ah right, always goes back to Israel failing. I’ve already understood and addressed the shape of and pattern of your arguments.
Oh, and don’t forget Olmerts attempt in 2008 with Abbas!
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/amp/
Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.
Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel).
And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions like:
UN Resolution 194
United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242)
UN Resolution 2253 (E-V)
UN Resolution 3414
...and there's more, but you get the drift.
Hence, when you have those above, Arafat or Abbas can also drag their feet. Above all, they have to consider what the response of their people will be. Actually both Sadat and Rabin assassinations (or the killing of Folke Bernadotte) show that peacemaking in the Middle East is far more lethal than being a hawk.
Again, I still am unsure what you're trying to say.
Quoting ssu
Yes we mine as well. The UN is a shill for whoever wants to have some pseudo-body to back up their claims. Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all?
Quoting ssu
I have already reiterated ways the Israelis tried to work with the Pals to make it NOT the de facto situation and have a two state solution, for which they always balked, hedged, and then refused. If your idea of compromise is all or nothing, then bad faith partner to do business with. This puts the liberals at a loss for an answer and a shift to the right as the left loses legitimacy for thinking they can negotiate, etc. etc. I am not saying I think it should go to the right because at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, but in a population with two sides, the inability of the one starts making them look inept, especially when coupled with the failed attempts for two states, terrorism ensues and it feels like you can never deal with anyone on the Pals side because the moderates won't play nice.
As you point out, you have bad state actors stoking the flames. Iran, for example. You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. You have a bunch of neighbors coming around to basically getting the Palestinians to move on and form a state rather than hold onto smoldering grudges that lead to bloodshed and instability. Hamas is a chaos agent. They don't want stability for their people. People (Israelis or their own) are simply pawns to be used for various short and long term gains. The long term gain will be gaining the sympathy from the leftists. It's working. The short term gain is that they show they can inflict damage and pyrric victory of gaining something from hostage negotiations. Meanwhile, they couldn't give a shit if that means more of their own people die by provoking a much more heavily armed neighbor that is known to fiercely attack anyone who provokes them. In other words, Hamas isn't about "winning" in any conventional sense. It is "winning" in the media sense. It is helping the objectives mainly of Iran and Islamists, and uses the European (and American) Left to aid this cause, as we see play out here.
Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations.
And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories.
Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. Now it's just a useful reference for people who need to have an "objective body" to refer to. It's way past that in terms of its being "objective" or "useful". It clearly was never seen as the referee from the start.
Quoting ssu
Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. You could have just asked or mildly corrected that the UAE and Bahrain...Qatar obviously is on the mind because they are the ones who are handling negotiations.
Quoting ssu
I think I did and asking to repeat good arguments is a fallacy of "ignoring the argument". Pretend it wasn't made and you make the person constant repeat himself. I'm not doing it.
Or perhaps the conclusion we should draw from the repeated failures is that the two states solution is not a good way to go about it.
It tends to focus the discussion on the "who gets what" and thus encourages the rehashing of old grievances and maximalist demands, rather than framing it in terms of the future cooperation of jews and muslims.
As expected, Israel throwing all caution and humanity by the wayside in pursuit of a punitive campaign and possibly other, even less savory goals will likely come back to bite it.
What Israel needs to do to win is murder or displace two and a half million people. All Hamas needs to do to win is survive.
I've heard several analysts state they believe Israel has barely managed to scratch Hamas' foothold in Gaza.
It makes you wonder what the brigade of US and European stooges were thinking when they gave Israel carte blanche to go to town on the civilian population in Gaza. Fools in charge in Israel, fools in charge in the White House, fools in charge in Brussels - this is what you get.
The small bit of good news; Netanyahu is finished.
Well, forget then the UN. But a lot of countries do not simply kick out that 'rules based order', so forgive me if I, just as in the case of Ukraine,hold up this kind of "nonsense" of a rules based order. But for consistency, then one should never then refer to international laws or anything like that. Just picking up them when it's suits your position is inconsistent... or basically just propaganda. (Like, uh, some countries do...)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Just to correct a small mistake in order that the discussion gets things right. It's actually crucial to get the real picture. Even if Qatar is a tiny nation, it has a lot bigger role in the Middle East.
Hence Qatar isn't some 'whatever state' in the Gulf to this conflict. But notice as Qatar has a key US base, Al Udeid Air base, which also the Royal Air Force uses, this aid to Hamas hasn't been on the (natural?) target list of the US and made Qatar part of the 'axis-of-evil' or whatever.
That Qatari has an independent foreign policy that basically burns the candle at both ends seems to spreading. Perfect example was Pakistan. It acted as it was an ally in the War on Terror, yet then held Osama Bin Laden at a military city, then assisted the Taleban and lastly assisted the Taleban to take over Afghanistan. And there are no sanctions against Pakistan and it's not depicted as an "rogue nation". Great victory for Pakistan!
Same thing happening with Saudi-Arabia. The gradual loss of US leadership in the Middle East is happening as nobody fears China as they did fear the Soviet Union and Soviet influence.
Indeed. Even if the inflow from Russia and Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended helped the Jewish demographics. That's why drawing the borders in an ethnic/religious style gerrymandering would be so important. If someone would really think the two-state solution is possible now or in the future.
Usually when countries annex territories with people of different ethnicity, they use the age old strategy of cultural assimilation (if genocide is out of the question), first to get rid of the previous language and previous culture. Cultural assimilation has happened quite a lot a smaller people or ethnic groups do have de facto disappeared. Even if people trace their ancestry back to these people, they will talk the language and have the customs
And that above just tells how this isn't at all an answer here: Palestinians are of different religion (being Muslim and Christian) and the Jewish don't do much missionary work. And when the whole idea of the state of Israel is a 'homeland for the Jews', then all that multicultural fluff goes out of the window anyway. And as for the Palestinians the option of being 'Israeli' is doubtful as they already live under separate laws from the Jewish people living in the West Bank, then all they have is the Nakba-centered identity of Palestine. "Moving on" would mean the death of being Palestinian. You can then be part of these people that are spread out around the world and basically won't have an own nation. Be then like the Circassians or the Rohingya.
No doubt.
Educate yourself.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307
addendum:
Neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Israel, like (e.g.) R. Luxemburg, S. Freud, A. Einstein, E. Fromm, P. Levi Marek Edelman, I. Asimov, H. Arendt, I.F. Stone, N. Chomsky, H. Siegman, M. Lerner, R. Falk, T. Judt et al, I am also anti-zionist (i.e. anti-ethnonationalist).
Well that's pretty fucking terrible.
Of course the biggest threat, even if it's a remote possibility, is that even the 'nice' neighbors get upset with Israel. Turkey's Erdogan meeting with GCC members. NATO member Turkey (or is it Türkiye?) isn't a member of the GCC, but it is telling that the Muslim states in the region are now meeting on the issue.
Erdogan speaks about Gaza (and later Syria): "Netanyahu is gambling with the future of the whole region". Erdogan also says that "Israel must to be penalized for war crimes" 4:32-8:39:
And quite telling is this reaction in the Egyptian Parliament:
Good for VOA.
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/turkey
Yet that doesn't change the fact that actually both Turkey and Egypt, and Saudi-Arabia (the home of the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) are allies to the US. Which just shows how messy the Middle East is.
Hamas are a bunch of animals and the people who voted them into power aren't much better.
I am in the belief that in a democracy an individual can be totally consistent and to argue for a rule based international order, then those rules are universal for everyone. Too many times there's a difference if it's "the others" doing something or "our side" same thing. Hence for example South Africa is quite right to say that the West is hypocritical when condemning Russian actions in Ukraine, but not condemning the actions of Israel in the occupied territories. This is the obvious case where in Europe it's basically Ireland (with it's history of British occupation) that is most vocal in the support of the Palestinians.
If you argue for human rights, for thing that are on the UN charter, you will be guaranteed to criticize nearly everyone and that simply won't fit the typical left/right lines. I don't find any problem in supporting Ukraine in their fight against and criticizing the way Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza. But for some reason this would be by the 'culture wars' something inconsistent.
Quoting Benkei
The problem is simply picking up facts that suit you and leaving out other points that don't fit your agenda.
Is exactly the kind of rhetoric Hamas would use. Or any other person justifying mass murder.
Odd that someone would seriously adopt this rhetoric on a philosophy forum where, we should assume, they have sufficient time and capacity to evaluate their words before they post them.
I gave reasons for my statement, which you chose to ignore.
What are your reasons? Care to explain to us how calling the citizens of Gaza "not much better than animals" is not a tacit justification for their "extermination"?
Hamas has participated in one fair election. It was held almost twenty years ago now. In that election they won a slim plurality of the vote, not even a majority. The garnered 44.45% versus Fatah at 41.43%.
Hamas never allowed elections to challenge its rule again. It attack Fatah in a violent coup, resulting in a short war in which Palestinians were fighting each other in Gaza. Fatah took heavy losses and withdrew from the Strip.
Hamas does not allow challenges to its rule. When protests against them have cropped up they have been violently suppressed. They have been reported to international organizations for using torture, rape, and disappearances to enforce their rule.
That said, it hardly seems fair to the Hamas' slim electoral success to Gazans. A poll from 2022 had a full 70% of Gazans in support of Fatah returning to run the strip and Hamas' military being completely disbanded. This is saying something, since Fatah has plenty of problems with corruption and misrule as well.
"An overwhelming majority of Palestinians, both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, expressed their support for the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7, a poll by Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) found.
AWRAD is a research and consulting firm based in the Palestinian Authority capital Ramallah in the West Bank.
The poll surveyed the opinions of 668 residents across the West Bank and Gaza during the fourth week of the war in face-to-face interviews conducted online.
In its most revealing find, 85% of those polled support the “October 7 attacks” either strongly or at least somewhat."
https://allisrael.com/85-of-palestinians-express-support-for-hamas-massacre-on-oct-7-palestinian-poll-finds
I think if you polled college students in the U.S., there might be as much as 50% support for Hamas.
"[i]The hastily arranged meeting, which concluded by midday Thursday, comes as Magill faces intense pressure following Tuesday’s hearing in the House. Magill and the presidents of Harvard and MIT struggled to answer questions on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.
It is unclear whether the board gathering Thursday is related to Magill’s future at the school, but that topic is sure to be on the minds of board members.
A disastrous hearing
During Tuesday’s hearing, none of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.[/i]"
...
Sen. Elizabeth Warren told CNBC on Thursday that “advocating for genocide is fundamentally wrong, full-stop. We just can’t have this.”
Warren is right, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLnWZVU5MFs&t=2104s
Posted on the YouTube channel QU?NH H??NG 239K subscribers
Brazil
What do you think, and how does this bear on what is happening?
Since Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries have either made a peace-deal with Israel or have normalized their relations, there is a window of opportunity to get support from the Arab street with this conflict as the general population is disgusted how Palestinians are treated in the occupied territories.
I would not look to Scott Ritter for information about anything. He's not even a Tucker Carlson-tier propagandist but a full on state mouth piece. He's on the payroll of Russian state media and jettisoned whatever remaining credibility he might have had claiming that Ukrainian military raped and massacred their own civilians in order to blame it on Russia in Bucha.
He also has a history of famously bad takes (see below). He tries to leverage his "experience as an intelligence officer," for credibility, but the guy was an O-3 after 12 years.
Since his convictions as a child sex offender essentially preclude his working in the defense industry he seems to have decided peddling Russian talking points, no matter how ridiculous, was a solid career move.
https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/liz-magill
We have to see their code of conduct, and it has to be changed. Maybe.
All information is welcome, for me, even false statements contain information. He knows that his false claims will be found out, but he goes ahead anyway. So we simply reverse his false statements to get at the truth. So Israel is winning, and will win. The last two world wars were settled by bombing, right? It works, right? It is horrific but that is the price they are willing to pay. Interesting.
Do we really know whose payroll he is on? Is he freelancing for the Palestinian cause as well?
We do not really know, but the way his videos are presented on YouTube with an unknown knitting latdy from Brazil, that channel, it looks like a clumsy attempt at obfuscation.
You have to see their code of conduct to determine whether calls for genocide against Jews are tolerated? That was the kind of answer that caused the uproar in the first place, and led to the firing of the president of UPenn. Calls for genocide against Jews on college campuses should be treated the same way Holocaust denial is treated here: with extreme prejudice.
"Scott Ritter is an unreliable source who often makes things up," doesn't entail "the opposite of what he says is true in all cases." It means he's an unreliable source who has a terrible track record.
Yes. He works for Russian-stated-owned media companies. Sputnik and RT being owned and run by the state isn't a secret. Ritter being a contributor for them isn't a secret or some sort of supposition either. His crimes, also aren't innuendo but actual convictions, which are relevant to the degree that they explain his career choices and that multi-time pederasts who get multi-year prison sentences don't tend to be the most morally upright folks in the world.
Yep. This is the thing. One has to make a living.
Scott Ritter's apogee was when, as a former weapons inspector, he published a small booklet that convincingly stated that in 2003 Saddam Hussein didn't have any nuclear weapons program. That naturally did get him to be a persona-non-grata in Washington, but the former marine still was respectful. Then it got even worse after the sex offenses. So it brings enough bucks to tow the Russian line, that's for sure.
I'm just waiting when he will defend Venezuela, if it comes to war there.
Lots of people spoke out against the Iraq WMD claims and the claims of a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If this was a short term liability, it was a long term benefit. Folks who had been sceptical of the claims were tended to be those who were elevated in Bush's second term shake up, while the hardliners got the boot in 2005-2006. The IC was certainly not unified in promoting the Bush administration's interpretation of intelligence, sort of the opposite.
And it was even more of a boon to have spoken out against the war come the Obama years.
Ritter's problem had more to do with his claims and the manner in which he made them. For instance, he sometimes takes credit for pointing out that the US would "lose the war."
Now, the government the US set up, with its same constitution still rules Iraq, so it's debatable if the war was wholly "lost," although it's certainly fair to say the US did not attain its nation building goals in Iraq. But this is aside the point. Ritter's claims were that the US wouldn't be able to remove Saddam or take Baghdad, that it would face atrocious losses, etc. That is, Ritter was predicting a military defeat. In reality, the US routed the Iraqi military easily. It's problem wasn't defeating Saddam's military, but rather policing the civil war that broke out due to their inflexible, and awful occupation planning.
I think this, like the assertion that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was going "splendidly" months into the war, shows either dishonesty or incompetence.
Fears about policing Iraq were well warranted. Fears about overcoming the Iraqi military given the outcome of the Gulf War were sort of nonsense. The US had already defacto partitioned a third of the country, and the Iraqi military had been significantly degraded by 2002-3.
As someone noted earlier by surprising people:
Same people talking then with sanity. What difference some years make. (And being the CEO of Halliburton)
Alright. Let's take this one first. Some of Scott Ritter's claims are testable. Some are not, let's drop those. First one to take up is will Ukraine lose the war and surrender? That is still ongoing.
The second one is about Israel. What does he say there?
So, Scott Ritter says Israel's only option - only option - is a negotiated settlement. Since he is not on the side of the United States, and he is on the side of Russia, assuming Russia is in support of Palestine, then he is parroting the Russian line, right? He wants Hamas to win, right?
I do not think anyone coldly looking at the facts thinks that there is no other option, war is an option for Israel, if they do not care about collateral damage. I hope I am wrong, but Scott Ritter is wrong, and the following account is much more insightful, based on current trajectory, no matter who says it: this is a view, one view, and presupposes the destruction of Hamas, Gaza, the civilian infrastructure, population - everything, close to a post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland. " A social, economic, and humanitarian collapse in Gaza"
According to this view, Israel is seeking to win. The way things are going, looks like they will.
Quoting Tehran Times
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/492355/Social-collapse-another-tactic-of-the-apartheid-regime
I can see here that getting someone convicted in this way diminishes his credibility in the eyes of people, and that itself may be a temptation to the powers that be, right? The question is, is he worth the effort?
At least the Israeli government has made it quite clear what it would like to do with the Palestinians in Gaza, the over two million that still are there.
Gila Gamliel, the minister of intelligence, wrote in the Jerusalem Post November 19th with the headline: ' Victory is an opportunity for Israel in the midst of crisis - opinion'
First he rejects the Palestinian Authority to take Gaza over. Then the answer what to do with the Palestinians in Gaza is simple: they go somewhere else.
See here
That was an opinion of one minister in Bibi's administration. And seems like there has been more than just an idea of minister behind this. From Associated Press:
But now the idea has gotten support from the US, namely one of those neocon hawks John Bolton:
So no two-state solution and no Hamas-stans. And the refugees in the Nakba isn't a problem for Bolton, for he continues on The Hill:
So where to ethnically cleanse the nasty Palestinians? Bolton has a rather populist answer:
See Resettlement from Gaza must be an option
And now even the neighbors are getting extremely worried that this will be the final solution:
Can you handle some more truth?
"This is not a war against Hamas"
by Jeremy Scahill, 11Dec23
https://theintercept.com/2023/12/11/israel-hamas-war-civilians-biden/
addendum to ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450
Israel is a domestic politics issue in the US. It is as simple as that: American democracy can have powerful lobbygroups (in this case especially the Evangelist Christians, not the American Jews) that dominate rule the political discourse. Just think how powerful the gun lobby is in the US.
Hence once that is taken into account, at least some things that Biden has said have been reasonable, starting from his first comments of not doing the mistakes the US did after 9/11. It's no wonder that many commentators say that he (Biden) is actually quite popular in Israel.
Israel (& its settler-colonialist apatheid policy) has been a US-client state for over a half-century.
How depraved.
For any US President it's quite difficult to make a tough stance on Israel. Besides, US Middle East policy is and has been since the Gulf War a slow train wreck.
When US Presidents, even in later life, drift away from the official mantra of closest ally/only democracy around/Judeo-Christian heritage, they will be simply sidelined. For example, who cares if Jimmy Carter decades ago described Gaza as an open air prison? How much is he listened in the US Media? Not one bit. Likud can simply wait for the next President elect, who will be eager to have good relations with Israel. There's always some election going on in the US, so powerful lobby groups have power all the time.
In Israel there can be a heated discussion about the right-wing policies of Israel with many saying how things are openly, but not so in the US. That makes it difficult for any US administration, even if they would have an objective view about the situation.
Quoting 180 Proof
Seems that the client has much power in this case over the provider.
As Netanyahu has spent so much time in the US, he knows how the US works and basically he can be an American politician. This even is easier when he can speak in English to Americans and in Hebrew to his voters. There's an obvious difference what the Likud party and others tell in the different languages! If he (or the Likud) have problems with an US President, he (or the Israeli right) can simply bypass the administration and talk directly with not only the party in the opposition, but also directly with the Congress members of even the administrations party.
Really? What sort of policy changes would have made things better?
How about not invading Iraq for weapons and a weapons program that didn't exist anymore in the first place?
Saddam would have had his share of trouble when Arab Spring came around, so the last thing he would have been is a threat to his neighbors. Or Israel. Or the US, above all.
And how about not invading Afghanistan and fighting your longest war lived there because a financier of a tiny terrorist group that was successful in one strike? He btw. escaped to the sanctuary of Pakistan, but you didn't invade Pakistan.
Americans craved for revenge and blood after 9/11 and they had this wonderful hammer of the armed forces of a Superpower, hence just to handle the terrorist strike like the earlier terrorist strike on the twin towers with FBI doing a long investigation and finally getting the terrorists convicted in a normal US criminal court, would naturally be totally off the table. Why have GITMO in the first place? Why trample your own values? No, the tiny terrorist cabal couldn't be handled as the criminals they were. Yes, invading and occupying Afghanistan was the answer.
I agree, a houdini of a politician could have gone and fought the "War on Terror" without invading countries, but at least it would have been theoretically possible. Even if these would have made the President look as a "weak dick".
And just how many terrorist strikes on mainland US have happened now when the Taleban are back in power? Because that was the reason for the occupation, for Afghanistan not to become a 'terrorist haven'. Compared to that, the whole "Domino Theory" is far more logical and reasonable. (Now btw. US and Vietnam have good relations.)
Or how about not listening anymore to any of the neocons, who had this lunatic idea of arranging the Middle East totally to their liking with military interventions before China would grow too large (that was their assumption, remember the Project for the New American Century. Those people advocated invading Iraq already in 1998, but after 9/11 they got into power as they wanted and the end result was that the train wreck just worsened. Why are they still an influence in Washington DC?
And how about a little more push on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, above all?
How about treating the state of Israel as a normal ally, like uh, the UK or Australia?
(Ok, the last one is totally ludicrous fantasy, I agree.)
But if you would make a simply extrapolation of previous events, then in the future likely all the arab/Muslim allies that the US have had are it's enemies or quite hostile to it (like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan) and the sole ally is Israel. When you look at it this way, Americans would just love to have Saudi-Arabia as a hostile power. Oh how bad and evil would the Middle East look like then.
How great that would after starting from a position decades ago where there was an treaty organization there, CENTO, and Nasser asked the CIA if it would be OK for US for the Egyptian military to make a coup against the Egyptian king.
And what do know?
Well, when the next terrorist attack against Americans happens, don't do what the terrorists want you to do. Don't listen to the neocons. Perhaps bombing Mecca and Medina would sound as a sound retaliation, but that's basically what the terrorist want. Once you start treating criminals as enemy combatants, you have given them what they wanted in a first place: that they aren't just criminals, but people fighting against the US. Fair fight, I guess from their point of view.
And perhaps Middle East policy shouldn't be decided by lashing out in retaliation when the next terrorist strike happens.
Who do you think should have won WW2?
The Sudanese.
Ok, let's try that again: who should have won WW2, the Axis or Allies?
You're judging the justification for getting rid of Saddam, not the benefits of getting rid of a torturing tyrant on health of middle-eastern culture.
Quoting ssu
Again, you're taking cheap, meaningless pot-shots instead of undertaking a serious assessment.
Quoting ssu
More superficial sound bites. The point of the Iraqi invasion was to democratize the Middle East. It was bold gesture. Unfortunately, the population of the middle east didn't welcome the intervention.
Eh. It used to be worthwhile to discuss world events with you. Not so much anymore.
Please tell me the benefits after a war that killed 100 000 Iraqis gave in this case, really. Especially when the situation now is this like this:
As the Iraqi Parliament asked the US and other foreign forces to leave three years ago, this is a train wreck, no matter how you want to make it US policy in the Middle East something successful and meaningful.
Quoting frank
Totally wrong. Please remind yourself just how that war was marketed to the US. It was the Mushroom cloud. Saddam had ties to Osama bin Laden. Remember?
Quoting frank
It was a lunatic gesture, but yes, those neocons really believed it. At least publicly: the Gulf War had been so easy, all the Arab states including Syria had come to be allies with the US. Soviet Union had given an OK. That was actually the moment when the US lost it's ability to create alliances, use diplomacy. Why bother?
Besides: If someone puts a gun to your head and wants you to be a better person, the only thing you will notice is that some psycho is pointing a gun at you, not what that psycho is telling you. Not even he just wants you to be a better person. So invading countries that have not attacked you and occupying them and trying making them democracies is total lunacy.
Because yes, if a country attacks another country or declares war to it and then is totally beaten and occupied by this other country, that does make people in that country to think what went wrong with themselves and their decision making.
False and fabricated intel promoted by the people in the White House themselves, yes. They were looking for a moment and the successful terrorist attacks gave them that chance.
Quoting jorndoe
And how much blame do you put to Pakistan and it's intelligence services, which created and backed and is still backing the movement? In my view this gave a very dangerous example to other countries how to handle the US: you can indeed burn the candle from both ends! Just give the nice photo-op of being in the coalition, and then aid and organize the other side too. I fear similar things are happening in the Middle East now also. You already had basically US allies on different sides of the Libyan Civil war (and now also in Sudan), hence the US doesn't have the situation in control. How great it is in Western Europe compared to other continents where the US wants to create alliances? Oh, but you have to pivot away from Europe.
I would like to mention that there was a time when US policy wasn't similar as now.
Let's remember that prior to Iraq and Afghanistan, the US hadn't invaded any countries outside it's own continent after the Spanish-American war. In Korea, Vietnam or the intervention in Lebanon in 1958, there was a government that did ask for help. And in 1982 the US was part of an multinational force that was looking at the withdrawal of PLO from Lebanon.
So yes, there was a different era in US foreign policy before the unipolar moment.The greatest diplomatic triumph and the most easiest/most decisive war, the liberation of Kuwait, then lead to a tiny cabal of American politicians to make utterly bad conclusions about the US hegemony. As I said to @frank, their boldness was actually hubris which lead into lunacy.
Quoting ssu
The US never intended to occupy Iraq long term. Why does Iraq asking the US to leave make the situation a train wreck? By the way, in healthcare, a "train wreck" is a person who isn't going to survive the assault they've experienced, whether it was a physical assault or an assault by a disease. It might be that I don't know how you're using the term. If you're saying Iraq can't survive what it's been through, I'd say you're clearly wrong.
Do you really want to go with this line to justify genocide? (Even de facto genocide?)
And to anticipate: yes, I think Dresden was a war crime and immoral.
This is one of those cul-de-sacs of illogic Israel bashers run into. Should the Allies have won WW2? It's an easy question to answer. Or, at least, it should be an easy question to answer. Yes, the Allies should have won WW2. The Allies did horrible things, including killing untold numbers of children and civilians, but they were the lesser of two evils. So is Israel.
If nothing else, at least the story hasn't been "disappeared" / suppressed.
Opinion: ‘At my first meeting with Saddam Hussein, within 30 seconds, he knew two things about me,’ says FBI interrogator
[sup]— Peter Bergen interviews George Piro · CNN · Mar 21, 2023[/sup]
Investigated all the way down to Curveball's involvement, and fairly consistently and openly criticized, including by Americans — a scandal/travesty and lesson learned that might not quite have seen the light of day elsewhere. Something similar will happen again though, whether the US or someone else.
Just curious. It helps to make your point clear so others can understand why you think what you think.
It shows just how difficult it is to hide in the US what some would say a conspiracy and others (like me) is "using the moment to promote ones terrible agenda".
In fact, for me it this also makes quite questionable any "9/11 inside job" conspiracies. Because you have a thorough picture of how the events went, starting from the first meeting after the terror strikes when certain people started talking about Iraq when everybody else in the room knew it was OBL and Iraq had nothing to do with it.
In a curious way even the public discourse in the US changed after Trump and how swiftly he sidelined a Bush family member. Nobody here is promoting the argument that "The US president simply got bad intel, which was just an accident". Or earlier ideas during the GWOT / Freedom Fries era that "Saddam had links to Al Qaeda". So this is really something that is well known.
Anyway, there is such a stark contrast how the US has handled Europe and how the US has handled the Middle East. It's not obvious that European countries would create with the US a functioning treaty organization like NATO as it isn't obvious that Europe would have gone with the route of integration. Even with the Soviet threat. The US still had a lot to do with this. It really takes long term leadership and understanding what the Europeans want to do that to get to a situation where European countries genuinely depend in their defense matter on an international treaty organization.
The failures of both CENTO and SEATO show how difficult this is. And just how there isn't anything similar in the area where the US wants so desperately to pivot: Asia is quite an assortment of bilateral defence treaties with nonexistent cooperation. That the US creates AUKUS shows this: in the end it's basically a bilateral defence agreement, because naturally Australia and the UK did have defence agreements already.
Well, at least John Mccain was honest about it wanting the US to stay for 100 years in Iraq. (Naturally as they are staying in Germany, but anyway...)
Quoting frank
You think having troops in a country that has it's Parliament asking you to leave shows great diplomacy, fine foreign policy?
:roll:
How many drone attacks on US bases in Europe have been reported done by European militias that want the US out of Europe this year?
The response of East-European civilians when the US forces come by. From a few years ago.
Similar situation in Syria a few years ago, but do you know why they are pelting rocks at the US forces? Hint: a train wreck of a policy.
And during War-on-Terror times during "Operation Iraqi Freedom":
Foreign policy decisions matter. What the US decides to do has an evident impact on how foreigners will treat American forces.
Quoting frank
I'm not saying that at all. Perhaps they end up as an failed state, that maybe just barely surviving, but still surviving.
What I'm saying that basically from decade to decade the US stance in the Middle East has become worse. Having to occupy countries isn't a show of success. Not having peace and not having cordial if not friendly relations isn't a show of success. What I'm saying that this is a long train wreck that likely will go on some decades, but the way it's going is not good. It just takes so long that people don't get the full picture from where the US started from.
Just how it was in the 1950's:
I was looking for a more objective analysis. What American foreign policy would not have resulted in a trainwreck? But to answer your question, I think the fact that there is an Iraqi parliament that is able to ask US forces to evacuate is fucking brilliant. That's the optimum outcome to an invasion: the existence of a body that represents the people. I have no idea what you were looking for.
Quoting ssu
American foreign policy decisions do, yes. The primary aim of those decisions is to serve the interests of the American people. Does the US government always get that right? No, they really don't.
Quoting ssu
I think it mainly indicates that the US government doesn't have a magic wand.
But that's what the police do. When the bad guys do something and go hide in a city, the police kill everyone in that city until they have killed all the bad guys. And because they are the good guys, they can kill kids in hospitals and schools and blow up entire apartment blocks of innocent civilians to get one bad guy because that is a good thing to do because they are good. Everything was good in fact until suddenly on Oct 7th the bad guys appeared for no reason and attacked the good guys for no reason so the good guys had to respond to defend themselves by killing the bad guys and destroying the city and killing as many people as they needed to there to get all the bad guys, who keep multiplying by the way, so this could take a while.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/graphic-videos-and-incitement-how-the-idf-is-misleading-israelis-on-telegram/0000018c-5ab5-df2f-adac-febd01c30000
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-israeli-army-has-dropped-the-restraint-in-gaza-and-data-shows-unprecedented-killing/0000018c-4cca-db23-ad9f-6cdae8ad0000
Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys.
Bye.
Israel basher!
It's a good question.
Let's just look at the area first without the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. If you looked at the short historical video that put about CENTO in the last comment, notice that there the Middle Eastern members were calling for the US to join also the treaty organization. So first, there's commitment. If you want to be a Superpower, then you have to be one. If you don't want to be a Superpower, well, the US president will be listened to as much as the comments of the Canadian Prime Minister is.
Then a simple guideline: do take into consideration what the objective of the regional states are. Ask them, just like the Europeans themselves, what they want. As I stated, in the European integration process which lead to the EU, the US had a notable role. But if your real guidelines on foreign policy actions come from special interest groups, corporations and domestic lobbyists who have nothing to do with the actual regional politics, the end result will be different.
And there's many situations where could the US have taken another stance. Was Pan-Arabism really going to be socialist? After the US reprimanded the UK and France after their last Great Power adventure of the Suez Crisis, the US could have gone another way with Egypt. Of course now one get's to the what-if guessing, which makes only limited sense.
And then, if the US was OK with Mexico nationalizing it's oil production, what if you would have accepted Iran nationalizing it's oil production. In the end even Saudi-Arabia with Saudi-Aramco got it to be fully owned by Saudi Arabia. What would have Iran been if Mossadeq would have stayed in power and you wouldn't have had Operation Ajax?
And what to do with the Kurds? Again one problematic issue in the Middle East.
Then when the Gulf States organized into GCC, how about taking a role there and not letting these squabbling monarchs nearly going to war with each other. They nearly went to war... with a US base in the country. If the GCC would have been a treaty organization like CENTO was, would there have been the Yemen intervention as now?
And what are the effects now when Iran attacks Saudi-Arabia's oil refineries and the US reacts without doing anything? You think that's a great way to show your leadership?
Because there's something called leadership. Trump is one of the best example of a President who lacks this: a populist fixated on himself who isn't someone that listens to others (perhaps with the exception of the dictators he likes). But someone will argue that he did a lot. Well, he gave Afghanistan on a platter to the Taleban and with the Abraham accords basically tried to bribe the Arab countries into peace with Israel. At least Morocco got an OK for it's territorial annexations, which is quite ironic, actually. Bribing can be useful, but it's not a long term solution.
Just think how different it is today from how George Bush senior created a coalition when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US got a green light from Soviet Union. The US got a green light from the UN. The US got a large quantity of Arab and Muslim countries to join the coalition, including Syria. Above all, the US listened to it's Arab allies and didn't invade Iraq as the Saudis knew what would happen. And they actually were right.
How about now?
Yeah, well their media isn't controlled by or scared of the Israeli lobby from America!
And btw has anybody noticed the line of the Likud parties original platform(from 1977):
So no for a two-state solution and Israel from the river to the sea. Well, they are really working hard for that!
I think we have directly opposing viewpoints on what's best for the world. You think it's best for the US to be a global leader. I think it's best for the world to recognize the US as a heavily armed psychopath. In short, the difference between us is that you think the US is the good guys. I'm pretty sure they aren't.
You've got me wondering how many other non-Americans see things the way you do. Is it common?
Au contraire, morality works like this: in the decades long conflict of Israel vs Palestine, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinian civilians, that is good because they are the good guys but when the Palestinians do the same, that is bad because they are the bad guys. If you want to know whether killing innocent people is good or not, you need do no more than look at what people they are. If they are "Palestinian", killing them is good. If they are "Israeli", killing them is bad. If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. This is also very convenient because the IDF does much more killing so there is much more good killing than bad killing and the world is good and right. If you disagree with any of this, you are indeed irrational and simply hate the good guys. In fact, you are probably a bad guy, like Hamas.
(Someone once entertained the subversive idea that the good guys were the innocent civilians on both sides caught up in this cycle of senseless violence and the bad guys were the Israeli and Gazan leaderships perpetuating it in their respective ways, but that someone was called an anti-semite and taken out with white phosphorous, so cartoon world is once again perfect).
My first intervention on this recent iteration of this thread was to call Hamas butchers and animals. But of course the strategy of you and other weak-minded fools on here is to try to smear any criticism of Israel with support for Hamas no matter how clear the condemnation of that group. It's so insipid and pathetic, I can't imagine it working on anyone with any degree of intelligence. That you can is all your problem. You've proven yourself to be entirely out of your depth here.
Actually not! Again I'm not saying that.
If the US wants to be a Superpower, then it has to do something, or otherwise just stick to a more passive stance! That's a big if.
If it's not the global leader, then take the advice of Ron Paul. He's pretty consistent in how America would be. And the US of course could be what it was in the 19th Century, a regional power. Just being the largest economy doesn't matter so much politically in the global arena.
But sorry to say, Americans don't actually want that. America cannot be a huge Switzerland, which would mind it's own business yet be prosperous. Too much of your wealth and prosperity comes from the position of being that sole Superpower. Many Americans think that it comes just from their sheer own exceptionality and awesomeness, but that isn't so as the whole global system starting from the role of the dollar in international trade and finance has been tailored for the US. And when you look at those institutions and why other countries have accepted them as they are now, the answer lies in the military might of the Superpower behind it all. Or otherwise, why on Earth would other Western countries accept the US dollar having the status in international trade and finance as now and not use a basket of the largest currencies? It obviously gives the US the ability print as much money as itself it can and have others pay for it. Why would they give that kind of advantage to a competitor? Because you are just so awesome?
Quoting frank
Any state being the good guys or the bad guys is naive in my view. Just why is it so hard to accept that nations can have good policies and they can have bad policies, even destructive ones. They can be both perpetrators and victims at the same time.
Hence actual policies matter.
Hence you saying that the US is "a heavily armed psychopath" is simply throwing the towel. The US has to engage with the World as the US is an important part of the World. How you do it matters.
For example, it's already quite evident what would happen if the US would walk out of NATO. UK, France and Germany simply would have to create new defense pact, which is likely easy when they are already in one. Russia would have immense leverage in Europe as it would be the single most powerful country in Europe. For example the UK Parliament has already discussed this hypothetical thanks to Trump.
Or what if you go back from Asia? What happens if you leave South Korea, leave Japan, null defense agreements with the Asian countries.
Simple:
China simply fills that void. South Korea, Japan simply have to rearrange their defense posture either arming themselves to the teeth starting with nuclear weapons or then choose "Finlandization" and embrace those warm ties with China.
Ok. I don't really understand what you're saying at all. I did try, though. :smile:
But if your view is that there are good guys and bad guys and that's that, I cannot help you.
No, I thought you were saying American foreign policy is a trainwreck because the US is in decline in terms of global politics. That would amount to saying that the US should be globally influential. I guess I just misunderstood your point, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say.
I mean, the US is in decline. No political analyst disagrees with that. The US has a strong isolationist streak. No historian disagrees with that. Those two facts together add up to: the US isn't going to be the lone superpower going forward.
Yes— because the IDF kills babies with good intentions. That makes it a lesser evil. I think I’m getting it now.
If not the U.S. then who? I would be fine with a strong UN that could fill the role of the U.S., and defend countries like Taiwan, Ukraine, Poland, S. Korea, etc. but that's not realistic. So, if the U.S. takes its football and goes home, China will try and fill the power vacuum. I would rather have the U.S. run the show than China, wouldn't you?
I don't care.
Let me remind you: I said that the Foreign Policy in The Middle East has been a train wreck.
Where else have two former allies turned to be in the Axis-of-evil after revolutions? Where has the US fought it's longest wars post-1945? And where even today the US military is basically still fighting a low intensity war and is under attack?
In Europe?
In Asia?
In Latin America?
But I think that the Hamas charter isn't so important now. Good luck if Israel still can negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.
So now it's a trainwreck because of extended involvement in the region most of the US's oil comes from? I give up.
Most of our oil no longer comes from the Middle East.
"In 2018, the impact of U.S. shale oil production was readily apparent. Crude oil imports to the U.S. had fallen to 9.9 million BPD, and the share from the Persian Gulf had fallen to less than 1.6 million BPD (15.9%).
Canada is now the most important source of U.S. oil imports, supplying 4.3 million BPD in 2018 (43% of the total)." -- from Forbes
I think that means we probably need to bomb the hell out of Montreal.
Again you got it wrong. And doesn't the most of US's oil that it uses come from North America? I think @BC is correct. So I don't understand your point at all.
Anyway, In those other places there hasn't been such a train wreck.
The US isn't fighting an low intensity insurgency in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.
The US isn't being attacked by drones in Latin America, the Far East or in Europe.
That's why I'm saying that the train wreck has happened in the Middle East!
NOT IN OTHER PLACES!!!
Perhaps we shouldn't comment each other as there simply is no way we can understand each other.
So I give up too.
Well, now the death toll is going in your way quite obviously. That people are starting to starve tells a lot also.
And incidents like the shooting of the hostages that had escaped Hamas trying to surrender to IDF forces by waving white flags tells a lot. Of course it must have been a trap: why would otherwise any unarmed person waving a white flag try to approach Israeli soldiers, if it wasn't to pose a deadly threat to the Israeli soldiers. So obviously the Israeli soldiers had to shoot the men! :death:
Shoot everything that moves is seems a safe bet. On the other hand, there is quite a lot of blue-on-blue incidents happening in Gaza. Every fifth killed in action seems to be a friendly fire accident. (At least if we believe that the official statistics are truthful.)
The genocide has been going on for decades. Where are all the Palestinian sea side villages and cities? Their life and culture are being strangled by the occupation with this very goal: to make an independent Palestinian state impossible.
Unfortunately, people underestimate Likud voters and members. They are quite frankly insane murderous idiots on par with Saddam and the like. They stand exactly for what Hamas stood for until 2017 but then for Jews and with the unfortunate circumstance they actually have political power and weapons. Even their tactics are the same. Terror.
Meanwhile some of the posters here keep insisting the Palestinians are like the Nazis and this is some kind of existential struggle. It is, of course, but not for Israel. It's been informative who here has kept defending this insanity. God save their souls.
This is the worst of the gaslighting. That these Hamas militants with their tiny rockets, rifles, and hang gliders are a real military threat (even an existential one!) to a nuclear powered proxy of the world's superpower that will only accept their complete subjugation or displacement and actually has the means to achieve that. Analagous to Trump claiming the election is stolen while trying to steal it himself.
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-18/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israel-killed-thousands-of-children-in-gaza-how-can-so-many-israelis-remain-indifferent/0000018c-788c-d55c-a7cc-fb8edb100000
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-19/ty-article/.premium/dont-let-bibis-bluff-fool-you-israel-is-heading-toward-full-reoccupation-of-gaza/0000018c-7e2f-de44-a9be-7fbfafef0000
This a caricature of your opponent's position, claiming that only good can be seen in their own behavior and evil in the other's. The caricature of your position is that you can't see good or evil anywhere, but just points of view, as if no particular way of life is more defensible than the other. I'd suspect there are none here who would choose to live in a Palestinian controlled country over an Israeli controlled one, and certainly not our mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives, and especially not those who might not subscribe to traditional male/female roles. Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what one might expect in terms of justice and equality when comparing one country to the next.
The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. To the extent you accept or reject this notion of exceptionalism will likely color your view on how aggressively you defend those values versus how aggressively you declare it imperialistic and try to quash it.
In any struggle, large or small, the ones who bear the brunt of the conflict are always the most vulnerable. The children in their beds and women walking about were the first attacked, and now it's the poorest and least able to protect themselves that are being harmed. War is a horrible thing, but this war wasn't started by Israel and it most certainly wasn't started on October 7.
Quoting Baden
If your opponents have overstated the threat, here you have understated it. If Israel did not have the iron dome, it would be showered with rockets daily and be unlivable. The hang gliders were actual militants brought over as an act of war by their accepted government. You understate this threat and act as if this was a handful of thugs who could have been quickly eliminated, but this has been going on for decades, with backing of other governments, and it poses a real threat to the citizens to live a livable life, reasonably free from fear of death, burning, and rape. That is the purpose of terrorism, to destablize, to ruin, and evoke fear.
Hamas has an intricate system of underground tunnels designed for no purpose other than attacking Israel. They use every dollar they get to build tunnels and rockets instead of building infrastructure for their people. Gaza is a military base on Israel's Western border whose primary objective is the eradication of Israel. That they can't acheive victory is just their unfortunate reality and is not the result of lack of effort. They aren't just a handful of miscreants who just need a bit of understanding and appeasment, and it's not reasonable to believe Israel will just let them exist and accept that every now and again they'll be terrorized.
If a Palestinian-controlled country existed, this would be fair. But since it doesn’t, there’s nothing to compare it to. Would I want to live in Gaza? Of course not. But not because of Palestinians.
Quoting Hanover
It’s hard to believe this is still admitted to so freely.
We’re superior in “every way possible” here in the West. Yeah, I guess if one really believes this, then it’s possible to justify killing thousands of children — in defense of those superior values, of course.
Would you choose to live in Egypt or Israel.
Quoting Mikie
What's hard to believe is that you don't think you can say it out loud that your society is better than others.
It's not possible to justify killling thousands of children if one of the ways we're superior is that we don't kill thousands of children to impose our superior values. There is a difference between imposing and defending. The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way.
Satire to be exact and much deserved.
Quoting Hanover
And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? Honestly, I feel like you constantly make arguments that undermine your own position and I can't make sense of why you don't see that. You've inadvertently justified Hamas's attacks with your right to defend argument combined with your justifications for killing civilians and now you've demonstrated that the IDF are no less deserving of the label "terrorists" than Hamas. If you would just remove yourself from the situation and see it as group A vs group B and focus on the actions of each, I think you could come up with a coherent position but you won't do that. Everything is coloured with the fact that you will support Israel no matter what. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.
Anyway, yes, I can agree that a Hamas government would be awful but probably no worse than, say, Saudi Arabia which is a country that is protected and coddled by the U.S. because... oil.
And this:
Quoting Hanover
has me scratching my head. Really, you need to read this again, consider the implications, and potentially rephrase it so you don't sound like some Victorian "white man's burden" carrier. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass satired off. I mean, dude...
Have you considered the options for defending the value of civility that don't involve bombing schools and designated safe routes, shooting white flag carriers, and pulling the plug on newborn babies in incubators? Because those things don't seem all that civil. It's almost like they're the opposite of civility... It's almost like war crimes do not constitute superior values but are barbaric and something we should be against. Right?
Quoting Baden
What you need to do is realize it's not about A versus B. Again, you carry around this torch of equality like it's a virtue as if to argue you bring nothing better to the table that the other side does. What I ask of you is what you ask of me, which is to abandon your vantage point as if it's superior. I think your position is foolish.
I'm not walking around asking that other countries be invaded so as to impose my beliefs upon them. I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force.
Mine is no more white man's burden than your is white man's guilt, fearful of just admitting the obvious that a Palestinian controlled region would be disastorous for world democracy and every inhabitant of Israel. Should Palestine come into control of the region, every current Israeli would be forced entirely out of the region, just as they've been forced out of every Middle Eastern nation except Israel and then they would impose whatever wonderful government upon those remaining.
As Bob Dylan says:
[i]I've heard you say many times
That you're better than no one
And no one is better than you
If you really believe that
You know you have
Nothing to win and nothing to lose[/i]
Yes, those are the facts, just as you've stated them. Israel awoke Monday morning and decided today's the day we'll yank premies from their warm incubators, we'll open fire on the children to nip those emerging problems in the bud, and we'll bomb indiscriminately, well, because we're just enraged at these trespassers.
Or, maybe what happened is that Hamas received billions of dollars from nations that want to eradicate Israel and force everything Western out of "their" region (speaking of apartheid), they built a fortress of underground tunnels, they sent over their rapist special forces to murder and burn, and then they got pushed back only to find those they attacked weren't willing to allow this to happen again, but then they used their finest tactic of hiding behind babies in hospitals to defend themselves.
And then the hostage exchange. How many Palestinian terrorists must Israel exchange for Israeli children? Do we talk about that?
I agree with this, but I also hold some sympathy for the position of Israelis (not the government or military). Israelis ought not to live in fear of terrorist attacks by a neighbor. Theirs is a long term concern that is perceived (rightly? wrongly?) to be solvable by eradicating Hamas. Will their military actions accomplish this goal of eradicating Hamas? Maybe, but either way, it's likely to increase resentment and anger by Palestinians toward Israel. That is what breeds reaction, including the deplorable reaction of terrorist action. Hence there's no end in sight to the cycle.
We could take a deep dive into this question, but can you see how bringing this up in a thread about a Israel and Gaza makes it sound like you think Israel's attack is justified based on Israel's moral superiority? Do you really believe that?
It's an impossibility for Hamas to militarily defeat Israel, a nuclear state backed up by the U.S. Talk about an invented fear. Are you also worried about Honduras taking over California? Should we go in and bomb just in case? It's absurd. The only existential threat is to the Palestinians. They're the ones who just had their city of 1.5 million people destroyed and you're telling me the danger is Israelis being ethnically cleansed? Again, come on... And I'm not a fan of, say, Iran as a society either. But so what? If I don't want to wipe them from the earth militarily, is that supposed to indicate some guilt complex about being Western?
So, I think number one, lay off the John Wayne movies and Rudyard Kipling books. Two, my personal values are superior to plenty of people, including you, where we differ imo. I have no problem saying that. It has nothing to do with whether I'm Western or not. We're not some monolithic group. I mean isn't that in itself something of a Western value that we understand we don't all share the same values? Finally, I'll have some of what you're drinking today. It's been fun.
But Israel is a colony isn't it? Yes, Hamas are horrible, but the cause is just, no? That's why even if all the Hamas assholes are killed, Israel is still going to come under attack while people have a memory. Have I got that right?
Quoting Hanover Maybe I'm watching the wrong lefty YouTube videos. Are these the stone-throwers?
I should probably read a book before getting involved in these conversations. I'm happy to be educated.
EDIT: if I was a Palestinian, I think there's a pretty good chance I'd want to go and fuck up an Israeli. And I'd want one that would hurt and shock - a woman or a child. And I'd do something to maim and traumatise, and probably leave just about alive. Maybe I'd come to my senses half way through and stop. Dunno. EDIT2: it would be futile and I'd know it. It wouldn't hurt Netenyahu one bit, in fact it would help him further justify military action. But I'd have the fantasy at least.
Agree. What I'm primarily against is the escalation of violence by whatever side does it. Both sides seem too willing to go to the extremes and I see no end in sight.
Of course I don't think that Israel can go and invade any nation it feels (or actually is) morally superior to. The basis for the war is that Israel was invaded by a group of people who were morally inferior to it and the consequences of not protecting itself goes beyond just A now occupying where B used to be. The consequences are that A being in B's place will have far more significant consequences that have to be considered when one is thinking about who to back in this war.
So you're saying that we should back Israel, not only because Israel needs to defend itself, but because the Israeli way of life is superior to the Hamas/Palestinian way of life, and if the latter is allowed to take over Israel, Israel would be a worse place. Is that what you're saying?
The fear isn't invented, at least not for the raped women and burned babies. Are you suggesting the only way to lose is by complete takeover?Quoting Baden
No, but I am pretty sure if Honduras attacked California, what you're seeing in Gaza would look like child's play.
Quoting Baden
Now my position is being interpreted as arguing for preemptive war? My position is that Hamas set this in motion, not just Israel deciding there might be an attack forthcoming so it decided to act first. Just to remind ourselves of the sequence: Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second.Quoting Baden
They started a war and then there was a response and so we blame the self defender? And where is the ethnic cleansing? The population of Palestinians has soared since Israel has been a state. Take a look at the statistics of Jews throughout the Middle East during that time. They have literally been removed from every nation except Israel. What rights do you think Jews get in all these supposedly non-apartheid Arab states?Quoting Baden
I've not suggested fixing the world's problems one bomb at a time. We're talking about a real life Western type democracy being attacked by a group of folks who hate everything Western. They are the ones who would in fact reorganize the world one bomb at a time if left unchecked.
I'm saying we back Israel because they have the right to defend their land that was invaded and we need not be so foolish to think that the outcome of this war won't have greater implications for all involved, which includes who gets to control the area politically.
You've uncovered the fact that Israel is biased towards Israel?
I also note that the Palestinians didn't protest the October 7 attacks, uncovering the fact that Palestine is biased toward Palestine.
Israel has a right to defend their land. That's a given.
The second part of your statement reads as a thinly veiled condemnation of Islam. This is why I say that:
It just isn't in the realm of possibility that Hamas/Gaza could take over or govern Israel. It would have to be their Iranian backers who would take over. The whole middle east would fall apart in the wake of a nuclear attack by Israel before that could happen. I'm not really sure who would go in and try to establish stability in the region after that, but both Israel and Iran would basically be gone at this point.
In other words, you aren't addressing anything real when you conjure Hamas taking over Israel. It looks like you're just expressing your sentiments about Islam? I say Islam, because Hamas isn't a fully fledged culture. It's an organization that is a side effect of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
In other words, what you're saying just sounds like bigotry.
You've moved the goalposts here. The fear of Israel being destroyed by Hamas is invented. The fear that Hamas will unjustifiably attack and kill innocent Israelis is not invented, just as the fear of Palestinian civilians that the IDF will unjustifiably attack and kill them is not invented. So, what I'm suggesting is that, for a start and at a minimum, Israel stops committing war crimes. I would also contend that their current actions could no more be a defence of civilized values than smashing someone in the face with a hammer could be a defence of kindness. Shooting people carrying white flags is not civilized. Bombing people on routes you told them to go to because they were safe is not civilized. Israel, whatever the proposed justifications for its actions, is not currently defending civilized values, which is why every civilized country in the world bar the U.S. wants them to stop doing what they are doing.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, Hamas did set the current set of hostilities (but not the hostilities in general) in motion. I have described that as a combination of strategic idiocy and murderousness, which you can take to mean I also hold them responsible for what's happening to their own people. That doesn't absolve Israel of agency though. The IRA once bombed the entire British cabinet almost killing the Prime Minister. Britain had a right to defend itself and could have bombed Derry and probably have killed many IRA operatives, including the commander Martin McGuinness, but they chose not to because the killing of innocent civilians and even the extra-judicial killing of an IRA commander was considered unacceptable to a civilised country. What they did instead was to open unpublicized background communication channels with the group and appeal to more moderate elements in the nationalist community to get the IRA to stop. Which worked. Contrast this to Israel which decided to fund Hamas as part of a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinians to prevent the only possible solution (two state) to the conflict. If Britain had chosen to fund the IRA to prevent any possible peaceful solution and followed Israel's path of escalation, the whole island of Ireland would have joined a war against them and we would have a similar disaster to the current situation in Israel/Palestine. So, Israel is not and has no right to call itself civilized simply because it is fighting against an uncivilized opponent. It is not and has not shown itself to be interested in peace or a civilized solution to the conflict. Just the opposite. And that Hamas is bad, evil, uncivilized, etc does not change that fact one iota.
Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples?
Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?
I'm just trying to get the scope of your notion of legitimacy in conflict. I am also testing to see if you are using various historical scenarios when it suits your argument and then retreating when they don't. It will just be a game of "That was different!" on both sides, you see.
So Iraq should have had a right to murder American children, since they’d be “defending” themselves too.
Hilarious that the occupying country, with 1000 times the military power of Hamas and backed by the most powerful military power in the world, has to murder innocent people because they’re scared.
“Defense” has been used for decades to justify atrocities. Sorry to see you’re taken in by such a flimsy excuse because it’s your own country supporting it.
Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”?
Indeed, I dislike Netanyahu and one of the main reasons is he actually delegitimizes any military actions because everything he did prior to that was done out of "bad faith" when it came to trying to broker a peace deal. However, as I see the conflict, there has only been one side over the long-term that has made overtures for peace so that Gaza and the West Bank (in some compromise) would be a country next to Israel that could have its own territory. That would mean dropping the desire for exact restitution of the past "catastrophe". That's what it means to be a two-state solution. Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted.
Each one wants to border off the other so that they can maintain political control of the region, hence the need for two states and not a unitary one. The populations are too different. Israel's main goal is to preserve their identity and not have it wiped out. Palestine wants to maintain their identity, but functionally speaking, if there was no Palestine, the culture that Palestine represents (Arab Muslim, roughly.. a subset one can say of the southern Syrian province of the old Ottoman Empire if one wants to find a historical precedent), would be intact in a vast swath of the region of the Middle East.
No: occupied territory turned concentration camp first by government/military of Israel (not innocent children), reaction on October 7th (which I also condemn) by Hamas (not innocent children), and now a barbaric slaughter of THOUSANDS (not dozens) of children and women by the extreme right-wing government of Israel, enacted by the IDF and their psychopathic leaders.
You joke about how ridiculous it sounds that Israel suddenly woke up and started bombing for no reason— yet apparently without a shred of awareness seem to believe Hamas woke up on October 7th and decided to kill and capture innocent people.
Cool, could that be said of any nationalism? I mean, why are the "Irish" associated with "Ireland" and not, say, Africa? We all came from Africa no? Why do the Jews identify Israel as their homeland, and not Rwanda or South Africa, or Tanzania? Why does nationalism itself exist? I mean you could be making a case for globalized communism, or globalized Star Trek Federation of Earth or whatnot, where we are all just a unitary government. As it stands, we live in a Westphalian world of nation-states post-WW2 created by the Western European notions of things in relation to post-colonialism.
Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose?
Give me a break. Gaza is — and here I’m echoing Finkelstein, as he’s absolutely correct — a concentration camp. Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To then show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible.
Why not say what you mean? “Palestinians deserve this.”
So is that the same? When the Allies were bombing Germany, did they just "up and do that to the Germans"? I would argue that is the analogy.
But if I were to scale it back, if two tribes are fighting each other and one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. I already showed my hand and said that because Netanyahu didn't compromise, he delegitimizes things for Israel, but in the past, they were the more willing actor and thus should be seen in that light as there has been almost zero of this from the Pals side. At some point, your notion of legitimacy cannot be mined continually from grievance, especially when you in the position of having "lost" every war (1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, etc. etc.).
Quoting Mikie
But I can just say that about what you are saying, and add in a bit of indignation and attitude with it to make it seem more legitimate in what I am arguing.
I don't know. This seems tangential to any point. Indeed, Native Hawaiians feel an affinity to Hawaii and not let's say Zimbabwe.
A pretty sure goal when you are the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with likely a working nuclear triad deterrence, a superior armed forces compared even to all neighbors combined. Addition to all that, then you are backed by the sole Superpower that funds your defense spending and will rush to your aid.
Oh, how close it is that Israel would perish! :snicker:
Quoting schopenhauer1
?
Again an argument for the inferiority of Palestinians compared to the 'new comers'?
Jewish culture endured even when there was no Israel around.
I meant the goal of Israel as a nation. One of it's founding principles.
Quoting ssu
Indeed. But it does get into the differences at stake here. Jewish identity has tried to have been stamped out. One region was very close to Finland that tried to do this actually. Finland joined along for the ride, right? Had to preserve itself as well....
The IRA blew up pubs full of off-duty soldiers and civilians, killed old folks at a remembrance parade and bombed the entire British cabinet in a Brighton hotel. There is no "fundamental" difference in intensity between that and what Hamas does with suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or the massacre of innocent concert goers. But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic.
So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. @Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reasons. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it.
I actually think it does.. and there is a fundamental difference. If IRA continually bombed over and over the hell out of any street corner, bus station or whatnot of British targets, you might have had a much bloodier conflict than "The Troubles".
Quoting Baden
I think the overall bloodshed represented was just less in the kind of operations and who was being targeted in Britain. Fundamentally speaking, the IRA, though bloody, was closer to Western European historical uses of violence, even if terroristic. It was not quite "Jihadist" and as nihilistic as suicide bombings targeted at maximum kills.
Quoting Baden
In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me. Hell, even if their aims were 1967 borders (which it is not), they pretty much want Jews off that land unless they control it, and then, I doubt it would be a good day for Jews who lived there if they legitimately had some control of the region.
Quoting Baden
Right. I agree, it was mainly because of Britain. But it was convenient that Britain was the one fighting (takes the load of Ireland). But if Britain lost, what then, was it not worth fighting? Would a Nazi controlled Britain have been better?
What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I anywhere suggest those were the only two options? Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time.
Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting Baden
Again, in theory, if Hamas can stand down without any civilian casualties, obviously, that is the best option. What is the options in between? What Israel is not going to do have the UN involved, and I don't blame them based on the fact that they can't even condemn various Hamas activities. So if we take the UN off the table as not representing a fair "objective" body for both sides, I would say the best option is to make the war more targeted. I'd say Biden's notion of limited warfare (though he's not holding them to it), is so far the most moral. Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that.
Just take the UN off the table :lol: . The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. But let's just take that off the table because the whole world wants Israel to stop committing war crimes. No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Of course it was legitimate. Germany had probably the most powerful military in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here.
Ok, we do agree on something at least. :up:
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, if you think that is "the opinion" you are crazy. The UN lost the thread of this conflict right at the beginning. They are nothing but a complaint forum. The humanitarian branches are the main use of it. As for the "political" aspect. It legitimizes all sorts of crazy opinions, and whatever it represents, it isn't "the truth", "objectivity", or even "the world". It has no power, and whatever it was, it's function has ceased to be useful from the start. Is it useful for countries to "decry" American hegemony as they defund their own militaries, sure.
Quoting Baden
Nah, you don't get to call the UN as representative of "the World" either, so we can agree to disagree. The UN is sidelined in practice, and in principle it has become what I said above- a sounding board against US interests mainly. Okie dokie.. Great forum. What comes out of it? Nothing. Rhetoric. Talk. Ways for people in a philosophy forum to point to something else to make it seem their point must be objectively correct.
Quoting Baden
I don't give a shit about your rhetoric of "mind-boggling"- adds nothing to the case. What is relevant is that sometimes civilian deaths are a tragic part of warfare. It should be minimized as much as possible agree, but it will happen, even in legitimate conflicts. Germany thought they were right too. Tell a die hard Nazi that they shouldn't rule Britain, they would disagree. We can all say, that it is mind-boggingly ridiculous. But that only worked itself out when there was a large bloody conflict where the Allies had to kill a lot of civilians in Germany.
If we buy into the nonsense that it’s been the Palestinians refusing peace all these years, would this justify supporting the apartheid state that establishes concentration camps?
I don’t think Israel citizens should be killed or punished for having an extreme right wing government— do you agree? If so, we should also agree that the Palestinian people should not be killed or punished for their government’s actions.
It wouldn't "justify" it, but it would explain it, and put less of that onus on "That is Israel's failure" and instead of giving no agency or responsibility to Pals (who had a shaky history of moderation in negotiations if any).
Quoting Mikie
I think Israel's rightwing government should call for a vote of no-confidence and Likud should lose. But if Netanyahu had the army do to Palestinians what Hamas did, I would say that it should be dismantled. I don't think bulldozing homes or all the articles you want to send my way amount to what Hamas did, so you can save the copy-pastes. We know the difference.
Yes, we know that killing THOUSANDS of children and killing DOZENS of children is indeed a difference.
I am for them being more targeted. I said as such. What else can I say? I want Netanyahu gone. I want a moderate approach to their war in Gaza.
How about saying that you’re against Israel’s concentration camp?
Nah, I am not buying to that rhetoric, and I told you the reasons in the last post.
:100:
As a famous American once observed, elections have consequences. Choosing to be ruled by Hamas has led to some disastrous consequences for the Palestinians. Perhaps they will make better choices in the future. Germany and Japan also had to learn this lesson the hard way.
I don't expect anything of you but I think one day Hanover is going to wake up and have a serious D'Oh! moment over that comment.
No one said they were. Have fun with your irrelevant comments before looking at the words you actually endorsed.
I remember Blair saying that, by Saddam's actions, Saddam chose to be invaded.
What is the argument now?
Western countries are superior to Middle East countries. You wouldn't choose to live in Iran, or Iraq, or Egypt over Israel for obvious reasons. Few people here would, especially women or LGBTQ.
The Palestinians thought it would be a good idea to put Hamas in charge. Hamas decided to commit mass rape, and kill a bunch of babies, old people and civilians. What did Hamas and the Palestinians think would happen when they went down this road? Did they think it would end well? Did they learn nothing from history? You call it "war-crimes". :roll: I call it the inevitable ass-kicking that happens after something like Oct. 7th.
Why did they do all that then if it's so stupid?
And so we now are talking about the civility of poltics? American politics is more civil than Palestinian politics, at least to the extent there has been an election in the past 20 years in Palestine, with almost half of their population never having actually lived through one. And what a civil leadership they have. Instead of using their money on schools, medicine, or hope of any kind, they spend it on subterranean rat holes designed to funnel homemade rockets so they can launch them onto the unsuspecting party goers next door. Their politics is built only around their hate for their neighbors.
Of course not every politician is wonderful, and not every nation outside the West (like Japan, as you've pointed out) is morally bankrupt, but I have no problem claiming that Western democracies are protective of the rights you hold most dear, and I can say that recognizing that there are other societies outside the west that adhere to the same values, but also recongnizing that we should not promote those that do not.
Good question. Why did the 9/11 hijackers commit suicide to kill American civilians?
"Abu Mohammed picked up his rifle, said farewell to his wife and six children and went out to face the Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships and missile-firing airborne drones.
"Being unable to defeat Israel is no reason to surrender," the Hamas fighter said with a smile as he headed to the Gaza Strip's front line last Saturday, ignoring pleas from his family to stay.
"My children and wife are very dear to me," he said. "But reward in Heaven and the homeland are dearer."
The 38-year-old furniture salesman says he is not afraid to die for the cause of destroying Israel and forging a Palestinian state on all Israel's territory, the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-palestinians-israel-fighter/hamas-fighters-battle-on-inspired-by-god-idUKL0312451520080303/
Religious brainwashing has a lot to do with this.
Lol. You know what you wrote is amazingly stupid at best and now you're just going to try to babble it away. Withdraw the comment and get it over with. Or be held to the utterly moronic idea that Western societies are superior "in every way possible"--your words--to non-Western societies.
What is being argued? Are arguing whether Western societies are "superior"? And can we switch out "societies" with "values"? Can we also throw in there, that "Western" leaders can also discard those values just as easily as anyone else?
Just read @Hanover's post.
This is the quote under scrutiny:
Quoting Hanover
The sweeping nature of which makes it obviously false. But I still want it admitted so and withdrawn without any BS attempts to pretend he never said that.
You're ridiculous.
You can't even agree that the value you adhere to are superior and so you make a reference to Trump and say "but he's as stupid as they come." As if that's responsive to the conversation. Of course there are bad politicians, but should a Republican become President, I think I'd persevere, as opposed to someone from Hamas becoming President.
I did say it because I meant it. There is a moral superiority of the West to others. What's shocking is that you can't admit it.
You then inserted in your own projections to make it say something that it didn't, like no one but the West is moral and that somehow Trump is proof that America is an immoral nation.
Your claim was not limited to morality. Your claim as it is written is that the West is superior to the non-West in every possible way. Are you saying now you didn't mean that? Feel free to clarify.
Let me clarify. What I said was:
Quoting Hanover
What part confuses you?
Even from the man you quoted, this is primarily about land, not about religion. Same for Israel's government, no? It's a dispute over land. A feeling of injustice is a very strong motivator, much stronger than the will to live in many cases. People, not mad people, think there are just causes worth dying for. That doesn't seem stupid to me.
What a gross viewpoint.
So the thousands of innocent children murder by Israeli forces should have known better 17 years ago. Got it.
By that logic, the Israelis who died on October 7th were also learning some “hard” lessons for electing a terrorist government. Glad to know you’re cool with Hamas’ actions.
Because they kill a thousand times more babies— but with good western values.
How many German and Japanese kids died because their parents made bad decisions in the 1920's and 30's? A lot. Far more than Israel will end up killing. Innocents get killed in war. Hamas and the Palestinians should have thought about that when they went down this road.
Yes, the thousands of babies should have known better. Take your racist, genocide-justifying comments to where they’ll be more accepted. Perhaps 4Chan.
According to you, the axis powers. I disagree, though.
Yeah, I’d say the one who justifies collective punishment and shrugs off the deliberate murdering of thousands of babies with “Hey, they should’ve known better.”
But yeah, better to leave your racist rantings there. Not that you could do much worse, but that we don’t have to feel so nauseated by being reminded that members of this forum hold such disgusting, callous views.
That's what this is all about?
Quoting Hanover
"Every way possible" should have been limited to those things along the lines of the examples given and not included things like height, athletic ability, sexual prowess, soccer skills, big game hunting, ability to navigate the high seas on a paddleboard, prettier hair styles, and everything else that would be included in the term "every way possible."
I will now add to the end of my errant sentence "along these lines" so as to remove that confusion that I wonder if ever really existed, but it did say what it said, so you were undoubtedly correct to have responded as you did, as opposed to having limited my comment into what a reasonable person might have said.
Nevertheless, not untrue.
I do wish to clarify that I don't think Westerners are more intelligent than non-Westerners, but I limit my comments to Western values in the sense I do in fact hold them superior to others, but not superior to all.
Thanks for clarifying.
The Israel/Hamas conflict is not west vs non-west.
Taken as a whole, it is superior to all. What other value system has delivered such widespread prosperity and quality of life?
:lol:
An oldie but goodie.
Indeed, the truth is always good. After all, what other value system has delivered such widespread prosperity and quality of life?
This is a very weirdly loaded question. What is the connection between value system and quality of life? I suspect hunter gathering is the most stable long term guarantee of quality of life. But that's less a value system and more of a social/survival practice. I'm as miserable as fuck living in the UK. Loads of reasons for that. I remember in the 1980s looking at pictures of starving Ethiopians on the TV. Half of them were grinning like lunatics. Not to say starving makes you happy, obviously, but western values (whatever the hell they are) don't seem to.
But it is. It is a living example of non-Western values clashing with Western values. Israel is trying to play by Western rules against an enemy that openly despises all Western values that do not fall strictly in line with their radical Islamist ideology. The outrage at Israel's current operation is myopic, just think of the true outrage that would be warranted if Israel went at Hamas by the rules of Hamas.
This conflict is over a specific bit of territory, not any kind of generalised eastern vs western values thing. If it's east v west at all it is only because western colonial powers decided to confiscate and divvy up foreign countries again, cunts that we are.
Lol. Please, keep them coming. This is great.
By quality of life, I mean the material luxuries and comforts of modern living: like food in the grocery stores, cheap available transportation, air conditioning, electricity, reliable plumbing &c. But there are also nonmaterial qualities of life like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peaceful assembly, freedom to do any deviant, wierd shit in the privacy of your own home, complete with right to privacy...&c, &c. These rights and liberties unquestionably enhance the quality of life for all people. . .the concept of a universal quality of life, is also a distinctly Western value.
Thanks. I will
Yes you are correct. But it is a window into what the fuck are you talking about Dr. Woke?
What the everloving fuck are you talking about?
:lol: Just showing how the values of Hamas differ from the values of Israel, and that the values of Israel fall closer in line with Western Liberal values than the values of Hamas do. How in the everfucking love could you disagree with that?
Which part of Hamas' attack represents something Westerners never do?
Ok, ok, I'll make a real response. First of all, the contrast is Western vs non-Western, not East vs West. And in this case, if we are getting specific, the non-Western happens to be of the radical Islamist genre.
All of it. The real question is: which part does not represent everything that is condemned by Western standards?
Westerners attack shit all the time. In fact, it's just something humans do.
Yes, but there are general rules that the West expects players to observe when conducting warfare. It goes back to an event most people have never heard of called world war 2. Hamas does not give two Allah-fucking-damns about those rules. Israel does, and the entirety of Western civilization is watching them with the absolute expectation that they will comply.
How many civilian hostages did Hamas deliberately take from Israel on the 7th? Since then, how many civilian hostages has Israel taken from Gaza?
Getting ornery there, that is a typical veiled antisemitic response that I wouldn't expect from you. Easy big feller.
But Mikie, what of the thousands of German and Japanese children who died in WWII bombing campaigns? A horrible crime, right? Clearly the allies should have never used air power. I say, if even one poor, innocent German or Japanese child died by allied weapons it would turn us into monsters. Best to be pacifists and let the Germans have their way. I'm no child killer.
You know me, they guy with the swastika tattooed on my forehead. I usually wear a veil.
In my view cultural assimilation stamps out identity, but pogroms or discrimination in general don't. On the contrary, even if you wouldn't otherwise care about it, you are quite "well informed" about your identity of being of a lower dubious status when you are a target of a pogrom or discrimination. And the memory of that discrimination just comes to be your heritage, part of your identity.
Not a niqab, predecessor to the Covid mask?
You see? It's all one global culture.
No, air power does work. Tactical air power works. Even strategic bombing can work. Yet the pre-war ideas of bombing civilian targets to quicken the ending of the war or make the home front collapse don't work. Have been tried on several occasions.
Bombing civilians can give political success when people cry for revenge. Yet this kind of revenge doesn't work as it just hardens the will to fight in many cases as it shows how cruel the enemy is and how existential the war is.
Just take the following hypothetical:
Assume that Hitler would have had an "Ural-bomber" that could have reached from France the US and would have been to bomb the East Coast of the US in 1943 or 1944. Question: would you think that bombing New York, Boston and Washington DC with few of such bombers would have made a real difference? Would Americans would have demanded immediate cessation of the war and would have made calls for peace with Germany once some New Yorkers would have died?
Of course not!
It simply would have strengthened the cause and made everybody to see that Hitler genuinely was a threat to the US. And naturally just like the British after the Blitz, Americans would have wanted more payback.
On the other hand: would it have bolstered German fighting spirits?
Yes. Or at least Hitler would have believed that it would. Goebbels would have been ecstatic and could have talked how demolishing all of America is just around the corner. Yet the real dent, just like with the actual 'Revenge'-weapons that Germany fielded and used, was basically to tie down for a while for the allied bombers to bomb the V-sites. More slave workers were killed producing the V-2 than the rockets killed people in the UK or Belgium. Hence attacking US cities in the east coast with German "Superbombers" would just made the USAAF to bomb those airfields that the bombers used, the plants that produce them and to have few fighter squadrons in defense of mainland USA. And of course we would have endless amounts of Hollywood films depicting these bombings, when American cities came together and showed the strength of the ordinary American.
There were strategic reasons for the air campaign, even after it was obvious it wasn't slowing German production down all that much and wasn't breaking their will to resist. Germany had to devote precious resources to defending their skies and that, of course, came at the expense of their forces on the Eastern Front.
Among other (10) nations, Norway is getting abroad to the fight.
Yes indeed.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
By all means use air power. Just don't use air power to kill innocent women or children. German, Japanese, or otherwise.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not a pacifist.
So Hamas had every right to deliberately kill innocent people on October 7th, since the innocents' government maintains concentration camps and conducts terrorist campaigns? Yeah, I don't accept that. Innocent people shouldn't be killed -- even if Hamas can give a better reason than Likud can.
Well, some estimates put the B-29 program to have been even more costly than the Manhattan project, so how much would a transatlantic bomber project or a von Braun's rocket that would have been the first intercontinental missile used up those precious warfighting resources Germany had? Hitler surely would have used them, if given the option. Just look at how the superb Me 262 was made into being a fighter bomber!
If a bombing campaign is to be undertaken, civilians will die. It is just a matter of how many. Our militaries do not have the ability to save all innocents.
Innocent people shouldn't be killed, but they will be. Regardless of method. Some methods result in more civilian deaths than others, but none result in zero.
That's not necessarily true.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Plenty result in zero. True, you can't drop a nuclear bomb on a city and have no civilian deaths -- but that's a reason for not doing it.
Yes, I do support the use of air power during WWII by the allies. I was making a point to Mikie's logic and extrapolating.
I agree with your analysis. And I'm sure you know by now that in Gaza the line between civilian and military is essentially nil. Hamas does not wear uniforms. Their deaths are counted among the civilian deaths. They use schools and hospitals to store and fire weaponry.
Quoting ssu
It would have strengthened our resolve. Just as the country rallied together after Pearl Harbor. Henry Kissinger argued in "Diplomacy" that even after Pearl Harbor Hitler declaring war on the US was one of his big mistakes. He says war with Germany was not inevitable after that -- only war with Japan was.
Here's where nuance comes in, for me at least. There's a difference, for example, between a targeted missile strike on an apartment that kills an enemy militant and also an innocent civilian from the apartment next door and simply bombing the apartment block and killing 100 innocent civilians and the militant. Every option in between could also be explored ethically but the former shows some respect for civilian life and the latter doesn't. This idea of respecting and protecting civilian life is expressed in the Geneva conventions as follows:
"In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects in the war-zone; the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.[6] Although ratified by 173 countries, the only countries that are currently not signatories to Protocol I are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty#:~:text=International%20law,-Following%20the%20Second&text=In%201977%2C%20Protocol%20I%20was,and%20civilian%20objects%20as%20possible.
It's expressed there because it reflects the appropriate, in my view, moral intuition that civilians should not be indiscriminately or unnecessarily punished during war. It's telling that the U.S. and Israel are two of only six countries that haven't signed up to this (although others have signed and simply ignore it).
No, it's not. Civilians are civilians and militants are miltiants regardless of their fashion choices. You have to consider the logic of the alternative. If the line is really literally nil for you and you also support eliminating the military then you would be saying you support elimintaing 1.5 million people, only roughly 40,000 (less than 3%) of whom are actual militants, 50% of whom are children. I don't believe you do, but again, words have consequences and this idea that everyone in Gaza is Hamas is used to justify killing civilians and should not be so used. It's that simple. Talk about being civilized. The first rule should be "protect the innocent", no? Incidentally, Hamas have used a similar argument, that Israeli civilians are indistinguishable from the military due to their compulsory military service. This is again just an excuse to dehumanize innocent civilians so they may be attacked with impunity.
Oh absolutely, proportionality is certainly a legitimate concern. But we also need to be honest that neither of us are in the IDF operations room and have a clear idea of Israel's proportionality policy. We just don't know the exact terrorist to civilian death ratio. Israel claims a 2:1 ratio but that truth may very well be stretched. We'll never know.
But I can tell you that Israel could certainly be more brutal than it's being now. It sends its young soldiers to die to reduce the number of palestinian casualties.
It's not a similar argument. Israel is not raping Palestinian women to death. They're not beheading babies. They made some men kneel down in their underwear and everyone lost their shit. They're fighting a cowardly enemy hiding among civilians and still trying to limit civilian casualties. If Hamas would engage in a stand-up fight against Israeli soldiers, the war would be over quick, without many civilian casualties. But they're a bunch of murdering pussies, so Israel has to root them out and people are getting killed in the process. As I've said many times, what did Palestinians think would happen when they put Hamas in charge? Did they think it would end well?
Of course there is a meaningful difference between civilian and militant; innocent and guilty. I wish to make that clear. However, on the ground if Israel is operating in an area where they've told, e.g. all males to evacuate and is known to be a Hamas stronghold then virtually all military-aged males are suspect and will likely be rounded up and interrogated. Hamas's policy of not using uniforms and luring IDF soldiers into traps with the sounds of crying babies endangers the entire Palestinian population.
I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured.
Israel decapitates thousands of babies: self defense.
You see, it’s all about HOW you kill children. Israel kills far more, but they do it the right way — and for noble reasons. Unlike those animals who kill less children, but do so the wrong way.
I posted another poll done about a month ago that had similar results, but I don't feel like wading through pages and pages. Suffice it to say their society has gone off the deep end. I suspect Israel is going to occupy the place for a long time and [s]"freedom fighters"[/s] terrorists from around the Islamic world will flock to it in the hopes of killing Israeli soldiers. That, at least, would be more sporting than beheading babies and raping women to death.
Of course, Israel could be more brutal. It could nuke Gaza or just completely level it, but we ought not to give credit to them for not being as brutal as possible if we also want to claim they are civilized. because we are entitled to have certain expectations of civilized countries even in war. I acknowledge, for example, that if Hamas was granted Israel's military capability, they would likely be more brutal than Israel is being now, but it is of no credit to anyone just to be better than Hamas. The bar has to be higher. And what disturbs me here is when I get the impression from some that it's not.
I have had (online) students from Gaza. The last one I spoke to was trying to get out, on a scholarship to America, far as I remember. He didn't hate the West. He wasn't a fanatic. And he wasn't inferior to any of my other students either. He was an earnest, polite, and respectful guy looking for a better life and that is my base presumption of who people in Israel and Gaza, despite their shitty governments, are. It's also my base presumption that if any of us here had to bear direct witness to the killing there, we would not be so quick to gloss over the details of how this operation is being conducted, regardless of whether we thought some kind of operation needed to be undertaken. What's frustrated me on this thread is the unwillingness to look at the reality of what's going on head on. That requires at the very least humanizing, not generalizing.
Firstly:
"Hamas's fighters did not behead Israeli babies, was the conclusion of an investigation conducted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz"
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/did-hamas-fightersdecapitate-israeli-babies-israeli-newspaper-answers/
Secondly, regardless of that argument, you are not against killing babies or civilians as long as they are Palestinians. You continually justify it. In fact, it's hard to understand how you think you have any credibility when, with a simple change of label, you could be a Hamas spokesman justifying their killings. You are that person for whom the enemy, including its civilians, are nothing. That's your burden of confusion and moral emptiness to live with and I pity you.
I would like to know the context for that but remember the way the attacks are presented is just as skewed on the Palestinian side. I would like to know what it is these people actually support. I doubt all 75% would say they support the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians any more than Israelis would say that. Instead, they are likely to simply deny that's happened and claim to be supporting a justifiable military operation. But there's just not enough information there. A qualitative study is likely to be more revealing.
I just don't know what a humane ratio would be of terrorist KIA vs innocents. Is 2:1 ok? What if it's really 3:1 or 4:1? Or what are we to make if some of those civilians are willingly providing support to hamas but not directly taking part in hostilities? the picture is incredibly complicated and we will never know it perfectly. how precise are the armaments israel is working with? how does their tech compare with e.g. the us or uk?
Quoting Baden
I'm an American Jew. A decade ago I stayed with my dad's cousin in Israel, a hardcore Zionist, and easily the most racist, disgusting person I have ever met. I am under no delusions about israeli racism. I am not nearly as racist as them but I would still describe myself as suspicious of arab muslims. I grew up during the second intifata. I quite clearly remember going to hebrew school and reading articles of how palestinian militants would go into restaurants, bars, or buses full of civilians and blow themselves up during peak hours. They'd also lace their explosives with poison or feces so that those who did get hit would suffer. It would sometimes be women or children who did this. It was a level of hatred that left me astounded at the time and that astonishment has never left me. The absolute disregard that that society shows for human life was made prevalent to me very early. War and conflict degrade people, especially over such an extended period.
I appreciate that perspective, but what are they reading? And how do we separate out the day-to-day reality of who people are from what is selectively presented to us? My direct exposure to Palestinians is limited but having had, often through teaching online, students from all over the world, I've noted thst commonalities tend to trump differences and that's maybe why I tend to have a relatively positive view of the average person that may not take account of highly objectionable attitudes or beliefs they don't reveal to me. I'm willing to learn more on this, but again, qualitative studies, long form interviews is what I'm after. Anyhow, I agree completely war does degrade people and the cycle of degradation seems to have gotten completely out of control here. I don't think that was an inevitability if there had been different leadership on both sides.
Practically, it is. It was the case in WWII and it is the case now in Gaza. If military infrastructure is struck, some number of civilians will die. Do we know the janitor's work schedule so we can schedule our bombings on his off hours? Targeting precision is not perfect. No one can control the direction of shrapnel or debris. Bombing campaigns are a matter of how many die.
Western values: how to exploit people and nature. How to reduce everything to monetary value. How to externalise costs. How to burn the world while munching on your packaged double-salted caramel popcorn you don't know how to make, doomscrolling through tiktok while hating on Johnny foreigner.
The dominant "Westen values" are shit. It's just tribalism.
That idea is quite clear, actually.
Israel in a few weeks killed more civilians than the Russians did in a year, while the Russians are conducting a massive operation and Israel is operating in an area the size of a post stamp.
Israel is massacring civilians on purpose, because it cannot effectively hurt Hamas.
It's established Israeli military "strategy", which they call the Dahiya doctrine. The murder of disproportionate amounts of civilians in order to pressure Hamas is an explicit part of that doctrine.
Let's not mince words here.
Great argument :D
Hamas fires its weapons from schools and hospitals; Ukraine does not use such tactics. Hamas enmeshes itself in the civilian population without a uniform while Ukraine does not.
Where are you getting your news? Tik tok? Lies.
Again, no. Hamas is completely fine with Palestinian civilians dying and this in no way "pressures" them. Hamas has forbid people from leaving zones where Israel said it would bomb. It has not allowed them to leave buildings that were to be bombed. You've got it backwards here.
From IDF documents and Israeli spokespeople themselves, actually. :brow:
The IDF is not intentionally massacring civilians. Hamas says 20,000 dead, but this does not distinguish between civilians and militants. Israel says 2:1 civilian to terrorist ratio have died. The IDF could make that ratio a lot higher if it wanted but it has made steps to reduce casualties.
I would like to remind everyone that the Srebrenica massacre that took place during the Bosnian war which involved the murder of 8,372 Bosniak Muslims was labeled a genocide by both the ICC and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), and the people responsible were convicted for genocide.
I hope this illustrates how Israel's actions are well within the scope of what could be considered a genocide, especially coupled with the rhetoric of Israeli officials and Israel's previous conduct.
Yes, in the Srebrenica massacre prisoners were being summarily executed; this is something we've seen hamas do, but not the IDF. We also saw the russians engage in executions of prisoners, including civilian prisoners. even though the ukrainian civilian death toll is comparable low, russia's tactics make its intentions appear plausibly genocidal.
Yes, they do: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
Fair enough, but this article is a bit dated. To the best of my knowledge much of the fighting today is back to WWI style trenches away from civilians and it is a damn good thing that Russia is losing given what they did in places like Bucha.
I saw that one! Very good one. Let me help you out:
Don't know why you're tagging me. I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. Maher is boring, conventional, and not too sharp. The comedians I like are mostly dead, unfortunately.
Too bad, being he makes great points there... And it's only 8 minutes!
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/863275
I very much doubt he does, but to highlight how much I dislike listening to popular American mainstream comedians who I find the absolute dullest and untalented people on earth (Letterman was maybe somewhat of an exception but he's gone now), I would much rather even read a post of yours rehashing some of those "great points", so feel free to steal his material.
I can meet you in the middle and give you a transcript :wink:
0:00
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -And finally, New Rule.
0:02
I know, it's supposed to be that magical time of year,
0:04
but maybe, what we all really need
0:06
right now, is a good dose of realism.
0:08
I see a lot of nativity scenes when I'm out,
0:10
as you always do before Christmas.
0:12
And I can't help thinking
0:13
about where that manger really is.
0:16
It's in the West Bank on Palestinian land,
0:19
controlled by the Palestinian authority.
0:22
In 1950, the little town of Bethlehem
0:24
was 86 percent Christian, now it's overwhelmingly Muslim.
0:29
And that's my point tonight, things change.
0:32
To 2.3 billion Christians, there can be no more sacred site
0:36
than where their Savior was born but they don't have it anymore.
0:39
And yet, no Crusader Army has geared up to take it back.
0:42
Things change. Countries, boundaries, empires.
0:46
Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire
0:49
for 400 years, but today, an ottoman is something
0:51
you put under your feet.
0:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -(CLEARS THROAT)
1:01
The city of Byzantium
1:03
became the city of Constantinople,
1:05
became Istanbul. Not everybody liked it,
1:08
but you can't keep arguing the call forever.
1:11
The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip.
1:18
-(SMACKS LIPS) -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
1:21
-They, uh... -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, CHEERING)
1:28
They blew each other up over it for 30 years,
1:31
but eventually everybody comes to an accommodation,
1:34
except the Palestinians.
1:37
Was it unjust
1:38
that even a single Arab family was forced to move
1:41
upon the founding of the Jewish state? Yes.
1:44
But it's also not rare.
1:45
Happening all through history, all over the world,
1:48
and mostly what people do is make the best of it.
1:51
After World War II, 12 million ethnic Germans
1:54
got shoved out of Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia
1:57
because being German had become kind of unpopular.
2:00
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:02
A million Greeks were shoved out of Turkey in 1923,
2:05
a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria in 1983,
2:08
almost a million French out of Algeria in 1962,
2:12
nearly a million Syrian refugees moved to Germany
2:15
eight years ago. Was that a perfect fit?
2:19
And no one knows more about being pushed off land...
2:21
(SCOFFS) ...than the Jews.
2:22
Including being almost wholly kicked out
2:25
of every Arab country they once lived in.
2:29
-Yes, TikTok fans. Ethnic-- -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:34
Ethnic cleansing happened both ways.
2:37
In Fiddler on the Roof, the family is always moving
2:40
to stay one step ahead of the Cossacks,
2:42
but they deal with it.
2:43
When they're leaving Anatevka, they say,
2:45
"Hey, it wasn't so great anyway."
2:48
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
2:53
(CHUCKLES)
2:57
"Come on. Like other countries don't have roofs
3:00
-you could fiddle on." -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
3:02
-(CHUCKLES) -BILL MAHER: Now...
3:06
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
3:09
Now, that's not how they really felt,
3:11
but they were coping. They coped.
3:14
Because sometimes, that's all you can do.
3:16
History is brutal and humans are not good people.
3:20
History is sad and full of wrongs,
3:22
but you can't make them unhappen
3:24
because a paraglider isn't a time machine.
3:27
People get moved, and yes, colonized.
3:30
Nobody was a bigger colonizer than the Muslim army
3:33
that swept out of the Arabian Desert
3:35
and took over much of the world in a single century.
3:38
And they didn't do it by asking.
3:40
There's a reason Saudi Arabia's flag is a sword.
3:43
Kosovo was the cradle of Christian Serbia,
3:46
then it became Muslim.
3:48
They fought a war about it in the '90s, but stopped.
3:52
They didn't keep it going for 75 years.
3:55
There were deals on the table
3:56
to share the land called Palestine.
3:59
In 1947, '93, '95, '98,
4:04
2000, 2008.
4:06
And East Jerusalem could have been the capital
4:08
of a Palestinian state that today might look
4:12
more like Dubai than Gaza.
4:15
Arafat was offered 95 percent of the West Bank,
4:18
and said no.
4:20
The Palestinian people should know, your leaders
4:23
and the useful idiots on college campuses
4:25
who are their allies are not doing you any favors
4:29
by keeping alive "The River to the Sea" myth.
4:32
I mean where do you think Israel is going?
4:35
-Spoiler alert, nowhere. -(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
4:46
It's one of the most powerful countries in the world
4:48
with the 500-billion-dollar economy,
4:51
the world's second largest tech sector
4:53
after Silicon Valley, and nuclear weapons.
4:56
They're here, they like their bagel
4:58
-with a shmear, get used to it. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
5:08
What's happening to Palestinians today is horrible,
5:11
and not just in Gaza, in the West Bank too.
5:14
But wars end with negotiation
5:16
and what the media glosses over is--
5:18
It's hard to negotiate
5:19
when the other side's bargaining position
5:21
is you all die and disappear.
5:24
(SCOFFS) I mean, the chant "From the River to the Sea."
5:27
Yeah, let's look at the map.
5:29
Here's the river, here's the sea.
5:32
Oh, I see, it means you get all of it.
5:34
Not just the West Bank
5:36
which was basically the original UN partition deal you rejected
5:39
because you wanted all of it and always have.
5:42
Even though, it's indisputably
5:44
also the Jews' ancestral homeland.
5:46
And so, you attacked and lost. And attacked again and lost.
5:52
And attacked again and lost.
5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"
5:58
(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
6:07
Look at what Mexico used to own.
6:10
All the way up to the top of California,
6:12
but no Mexican is out there chanting,
6:14
"From the Rio Grande to Portland, Oregon."
6:16
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
6:26
Because they chose a different path.
6:28
They got real and built a country
6:30
that's the world's 14th biggest economy now.
6:33
Because they knew the United States
6:36
wasn't going to give back Phoenix,
6:38
any more than Hamas will ever be in Tel Aviv.
6:41
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -One of...
6:43
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
6:48
One of the leaders of Hamas says...
6:59
(SCOFFS) I'm sorry, who's the one
7:01
with imaginary dreams?
7:03
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and say your plan
7:06
for a completely Jew-less Palestine
7:08
isn't that all the Jews should die.
7:10
(SMACKS LIPS) What is the only other option?
7:14
They move. You move all the Jews.
7:17
(SCOFFS) Okay, I got to warn you,
7:18
there's gonna be some kvetching.
7:20
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:23
(SCOFFS)
7:28
You move all the Jews and we do this with what?
7:31
A fleet of trucks called Jew-haul.
7:33
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:41
And to where are we moving this entire country? Texas?
7:45
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Sure, they have room
7:49
and I guess we could put the Wailing Wall on the border
7:51
and kill two birds with one stone.
7:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -Or we could just get serious.
Stupid and superficial. There's nothing of substance there. There's no sharp satire or ... well, anything. Of course Hamas is not taking over Tel Aviv. Is that it?
Where are the great points?
As for this:
"The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip."
It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened.
Anyway, I guarantee you @ssu who is an intelligent commentator will not find this impressive either.
He's summarizing in perfunctory way in 8 minute segment. I am not saying it's impressive, just his points are correct, whether it's an impressive 2 hour in depth conversation about the nuances of British settlement in Northern Ireland or not. Indeed, did it not start under Queen Elizabeth sending colonists in the 1500s? Ironically, most of the settlers were fellow Celts, but of Scottish background. Presbyterians rather than Anglicans. But not native Irishman / Catholics.
Eh, Maher is okay. He is particularly hung up on people laughing at his jokes. I just happen to agree with him. He generally has many viewpoints on his show from conservative and liberal. I rather like it if everyone goes away feeling a bit annoyed because it means various sides were represented rather than blowing smoke up your ass for your side only. Many American shows are just reaffirming their side. That goes for "comedic" news / political commentary shows or "regular" news.
I like John Oliver's political commentary too, but he's way far to the left, and doesn't have a panel of people on his show, JUST his view, which is okay if you like that thing.
Maher is on point there. Can't really argue with history. Best to argue by attacking the commentator for not being sufficiently comedic.
Seem to be a common tactic..
The bit about Ireland is completely and utterly wrong, but whatever, it's light entertainment, so I don't expect him to know anything about that or bother finding out. It's not the point of the show. Ditto with the Middle East and the context there. He might get something right or not randomly. But most people, I presume, watch his show just to relax and have a laugh not to fact check it. Which is fine.
Whatever you do, don't address the actual topic :wink:
Yes, I heard you say that, but you didn't provide your reason for your disagreement. As far as the show, yea I generally agree. He isn't writing all that material. He probably gives his main outline and other people fill in some historical context is my guess, though he is quite informed. But I have yet to see what was wrong there. As you stated, it has to be short so he can make his point. He isn't giving a lecture on every conflict, but a broader understanding about conflict, coping, and at some point compromising and the result of the lack thereof.
Have we not being addressing the topic for 155 pages? But please just spell out the new and incisive contribution Maher has made here and of course we can debate it.
It's not disagreement. He just got it totally wrong. The whole island of Ireland was fully under the control of Britain and then we fought a war of independence in which we negotiated away N. Ireland at which point the Free State, now the Republic came into being. It was not a case of Ireland being free (having the whole island to ourselves) and then Britain came and took N. Ireland (our tip) away when it became a colonial power. As I said, he just made that up. The fact that you took it seriously without doing even two minutes research on it, is a major weakness that I guess extends to your understanding of Israle/Palestine. Get your facts from books or other reliable sources, not second rate comedians. Also, don't double down when someone points out you're wrong as if Maher is some sort of a reliable source.
I have work to do. I'll come back to this tomorrow.
Oh yeah, he wasn't going to discuss all that in an 8 minute segment. Just watch the video.
But, to be fair, it depends in what part of the history you are discussing. Yes, Britain "controlled" Ireland, but they "settled" Northern Ireland much earlier than Ireland's independence movement, which depending on how we are looking at the history, is why the conflict is a thing in the first place. But yeah, maybe the exact wording doesn't quite fit that narrative, but it is true that Ireland wanted all of it under the Republic of Ireland, including Ulster County, and Britain said no, we retain that.
Have we? I must have missed it.
Maher spells out nothing new. He only reminds us of very obvious historical truths.
:up:
So a familiar debate tactic is to focus on some wording issue. Thus the main idea is lost to fighting over the trees and not the forest. I don't even agree that Maher was wrong on this, but even if I did, that would be the tactic you are bringing up. I actually think he did quite good cramming a lot of conflict-history in a short amount of time to make a broader point about getting over what one perceives as historical wrongs over land and whatnot. The Israeli-Pals issue is no different than what has happened and in the past people have coped, dealt with it, moved on, compromised.
The British were "starting" the empire, by settling the Scottish/Northern English Presbyterian/Anglican / Protestant immigrants. They were "maintaining it" by keeping Northern Ireland in the negotiation for the Republic of Ireland being independent ([s]sans an Ulster County[/s] not just Ulster county but the area of ulster containing those counties..).
No, that's not how it happened either and Ulster is not a "County" and you have no clue what you're talking about but if you would like to know something, you can read this. We are off topic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland
Good night.
Cool, sorry yeah I used Ulster province as a shorthand for the name of the six individual counties that are under the British (versus the remaining 3 under Ireland), my bad. And saying "You have no clue what you are talking about" is not helpful, even if you think you are right, which you aren't :).
The whole reason for the claim of Northern Ireland by Britain is the settlers, so no :roll:
And yeah, I get the counties and provinces mixed up. Mea culpa
Quoting Ireland Article
It is the paragraph in bold that I wanted to claim makes that statement right in terms of Britain colonizing (starting the empire), and not just controlling the region. Hence, "maintaining" that foothold was what happened by keeping Northern Ireland. So yeah the conflict of political control is one thing, but then the colonization part can be said to have been the main sticking point for why it is claimed as part of the British Empire and not the Republic of Ireland.
As usual, telling you agree with idiots and claim "impartiality" and "objectivity" so you can ignore anything that doesn't comport with your view because they are by definition subjective in your tiny reptilian brain. Really, the red flag is when you agree with what tim wood says, because we already know for 3 years he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this conflict.
The reason why all these comparisons fail is because unlike Nigeria, Algeria and Turkey, Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. That is the crime of aggression for which Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. A crime so egregious that the law criminalising it was written after it was committed just so they could sentence them.
And Syrian refugees chose to flee, there's no obligation for them to do so and they would have every right to stay where they are and demand safety and security.
Yup. Exactly the point.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And when you call them out for it, they always seem to cut and run...case in point:
Quoting Baden
And then look behind you and you see @Benkei who also didn't get the point of the video.
Quoting Benkei
Um, not sure what video you watched, but Maher isn't making a claim that Israel has a right to the land from the river Jordan to the sea. Rather, it's quite the other way he is criticizing (and it's aimed mainly at college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots").
Quoting Benkei
This just isn't even coherently connected to anything about the theme of that video. Out of all the people debating thus far, it is you who might want to internalize and really grapple with what he is saying. You seemed to have missed the point if you even watched it.
He got the point of the video. He is just regurgitating the programming of the college kids, leftists, and "useful idiots" so he can avoid addressing the actual point.
Peculiar that he never mentions the multiple times Israel tried for a two state solution and was outright rejected. I believe Maher mentioned it though. No ambiguity about it.
Being left apparently nowadays means having principles.
It’s probably Bill’s worst editorial he’s done in years. I was cringing at certain points. No historical knowledge whatsoever, just slogans. That this is being dragged out as an example of “good points” shows exactly the kind of lazy thinking behind most posts. So be it.
But yeah — not even worth 8 minutes.
Yes it does, specifically the marxian principles of critical consciousness.
What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:
The answer would be: it's working quite well!
Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together.
And yes, the history of Ireland isn't correct (but who cares about that in America). Also somehow from the part where historical events were listed with the argument "Deal with it" / "Just move on..", the Holocaust was somehow forgotten, only a reference to pogroms in Russia was made.
So no, things aren't just in the category of "it happened, so just move on".
So I knew you were going to bring up the Likud part there.. It would make sense if it was symmetrical but the point he was making isn't symmetrical. His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals, even when they lost over and over in armed conflict and were in a position where if they took it, they would have gotten much of what they wanted. His point was that eventually, people move on. If I was forced out of my house, and let's say there was 700,000 people also forced out (and that's not even necessarily that straightforward a story), if I got to war over it a bunch of times and lose, and then there's deals made where I could get something else and I don't take it, at that point, my whole identity as this or that nationality is no longer functioning other than purely from a place of grievance and revenge. It wouldn't help if I am educated from birth a narrative that completely denies anything historical about the other side OTHER THAN that they are occupiers. Welp, there we have it. A psychology that cannot move on. At the end of the day, coping is what is needed. It psychological. None of this shit is real except for the extent which people cannot move forward with their lives. It's psychological as much as anything. But people will reify it to no end.
I say this as someone who wants to see the conflict end, wants minimized civilian casualties, and is not a fan of Netanyahu or Likud. But none of that negates the much of that responsibility before and on October 7th on the Palestinian side. Israel got shifted to the right because there was very weak moderate partners (Arafat for example), and their right wing wasn't just "right wing" it was "blow people up" . You play with fire and vote in a group that does this, you now have a group that will destroy all dissenters, enforces strict religious rules, and puts most of its funds into violence rather than development.
But @tim wood has laid it out really well here:
Quoting tim wood
Also I did explain here how whilst in an 8 minute video, even that could still be construed as "correct" as it is acknowledged that the British at various points "controlled" Ireland, some times more ironhandedly than others (was it Lords, or was it mainly chieftains, or was it now Dukes from England.. it waned and waxed over time).. But that the current conflict really started with the settlement of in the late 1500s of Scotch and English into Northern Ireland, kicking out the Irish Catholic landlords etc.. "This" can be considered what he meant with his very brief comment (really more of joke punchline) for "wanted to start an empire". Yes, British already controlled it, but it was that that is much of the reason the conflict specifically over the holdout of Northern Ireland has played out the way it did.
That says it all. Probably why the woke leftist victim mentality is so keen to symp for Hamas. Peas in a pod.
It was 12 midnight and I had an important meeting the next morning. Should I spend more time trying to convince someone on here that a comedian was wrong about some of the basic history of my country when they just don't want to believe that? I mean this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale is all anyone would need, but then I'd just be inviting more off-topic conversation. Maher's statement that Ireland had the whole island to themselves before the plantation period (per Schopes most charitable analysis of what he was saying) is 100% wrong. Not 99%, not 80%, but 100%. They didn't. Look at the map (e.g. "Land held by English King"). His related statement that the start of this foreign intervention in Ireland was Britain coming and taking the tip (N. Ireland) of Ireland is also factually wrong. 100% (e.g. The Pale was on the east coast not in the North). The two things are wrong. Nothing to do with lack of detail, misphrasing. They're just completely wrong. Anyone who made those claims in an exam on the history of Ireland would fail on those points, but someone doesn't want to believe that it's possible Maher (or more likely his writers) are just doing comedy and actual facts don't matter to them. That person wants to take it seriously. I don't know why but there's little point responding further to them.
(Even the first plantations weren't in Ulster but in the midlands. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland . )
:up:
This is simply a lie. I don't want to go into the full history how things actually went but basically every "peace" deal involved the Palestinians having no to little self-determination and was only concerned with Israeli security. It also meant making demands before negotiations even started, which isn't a negotiation but blackmail. And finally, Israel always wanted to carve up the land in such a way and control Palestinian movement that it would not result in a viable state for the Palestinians.
Then the PLO gave away self determination indefinitely - the closest we got to "peace" according to every dunce with a microphone - which a majority of Palestinians rejected at the time and why Hamas became popular. Peace where you subjugate yourself to your oppressor simply isn't peace.
But then, you actually should read the proposals ("insults" is a better term) instead of pursuing statements that fit your pre-conceived notions of what's going on.
Wonder why :rofl: you make that sound like it was not relevant to be concerned about security. Take a deal and build on it. As Maher said, how’s the other way working? Quoting Benkei
They were given large tracts of land but not 100%. It’s called compromise.
You’re so biased you would want perpetual warfare. You’d at least want Jews to be in a position where they can live precariously at the whims of their violent neighbors.
Sucks that they got pushed to the right as they did but getting blown up constantly during that process didn’t help matters. The pals moderate failure led to Hamas pushing a stronger case for Likud.
It's dumb shit like this that's tiresome. It's not Israelis that regularly get massacred en masse. Palestinian security is just as relevant but has never been on the table in any proposal. To then subsequently accuse me of bias would be funny if idiots like you didn't make the world such a tragic place.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why should an oppressed people give up land that Israel has no right to? There's a UN partition plan. There are even the borders of 1967 where Israel has stolen land, a crime of aggression that was punished with hanging at Nuremberg, that the Palestinians are willing to accept. Which is already a huge concession.
It is Israel, especially under Likud, that refuses to compromise and has been slowly strangling the Palestinians. Once they are done with Gaza - and they will be done when they fully occupy it and it basically doesn't exist anymore because all infrastructure is gone then they will turn to the West Bank and eat and eat away. But you know, keep writing dumb shit. It's entertaining at least.
As pointed out time and again, Israel as client state of the US, can do whatever it wants and has been doing exactly that and will continue to do that until people realise the Palestinians actually have rights. That some of those rights are actually inalienable and not subject to compromise, that having a fucking moral backbone requires you to not tell victims to give in to the demands of their aggressors. But sure, it's all the fault of the Palestinians that Israel is ruled by genocidal thugs. Jesus fucking christ, talk about blaming the victim. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's no wonder you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think anti-natalism makes sense because looking in the mirror must suck for you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So I knew that again @schopenhauer1 would again totally sideline the crucial factor of just who is in power in Israel (or in Gaza, for that matter).
If we are able to make a distinction between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party and understand that they have their differences in US politics, why then act as if "Israel" is one entity here?
It's Likud and it's right-wing allies that is in power, not the Labour party, not the Kadima party.
It was the Labour party that made the Oslo accords happen (with Rabin, who later was assassinated).
It was Labour party that withdrew from Lebanon (with Ehud Barak as prime minister).
It was the Kadima party that tried to attempted later a political resolution (with Ehud Olmert as prime minister).
And yes, the ex-terrorist Menachem Begin, the founder of Likud, did make the peace deal with Egypt. Hence even possibly Netanyahu could make a peace deal. If he it would be beneficial policy to him. Or basically if the not accepting it would be disastrous.
What is also very typical to (people like Maher etc.), is to sideline the Arab side peace initiatives.
There was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative , reindorsed 2007 and 2017, which was immediately embraced by the Palestinians, by Arafat (and later by Abbas). And notable, included in the 57 Arab and Muslim states is also Iran. The Arab states, those that are still technically at war with Israel (like Kuwait etc) would normalize their relations if Israel withdrew from the 1967 occupied territories and accepted the two-state solution. Distribution of territory could also be discussed.
Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel.
The fact is that it's the moderate lines that aren't tolerated. Israel has killed for example those Palestinian leaders that have been promoting the two state solution. And let's not forget that Bibi supported Hamas first (in order to weaken the PA). Non-compromising zealots just love if the other side is also made of non-compromising zealots: pretty easy to explain then why a negotiated settlement isn't possible.
Do you mean like the suicide bombings that regularly occurred in Israel prior to them building that wall in the West Bank? Do you mean the reason why billions dollars were put into the Iron Dome so Israel didn't have thousands of people dying since Hamas sends rockets in a quarter-yearly basis (or whatever frequency it was). Do you mean the brutal rapes, murders, and indiscriminate killings that were showcased with glee on social media by Hamas and their supporters?
Quoting Benkei
You mean the plan that Israel agreed to and the Arab nations (there wasn't even a Palestine yet), decided to call for an all out war to wipe Israel out completely?
Quoting Benkei
Just wondering, are you aware the borders are not given from on high, but are negotiated things, right? This idea that everything has to be fixed or nothing happens and no other factors (yes like security) can come into play? Europe has shifted its borders numerous times in history, sometimes in conflict, but sometimes not. The fact is, the Pals were given almost all of that 1967 territory but there were some contingencies that Israel, security-wise, and politically wanted to maintain. Being they had the position of power, the Pals had a chance to take a deal and then build on it and create their own X society they wanted, working with Israel on security measures etc. But nope. Because of the all-or-nothing notions that you represent here, this continues.
Quoting Benkei
Gaza was given a huge number of greenhouses that could have helped sustain their food supply. Israel also offered to help build the ports. But nope, they didn't want to take "Jewish money". No, instead, Hamas was voted in, violent attitudes reigned, and then Hamas decided to take money from international organizations, funneling billions of dollars to the leadership and building a huge tunnel system and weapons.
I hope that Gaza could be reconstructed into something that is a peaceful enclave that is part of a peaceful state that can compromise with its neighbors.
Quoting Benkei
But Israelis would say that this is the case regarding them in 10/7 and that left to their devices, Hamas would just continue this. Rather than "take it on the chin", Israel probably doesn't want that threat looming and growing for the next attack. In your ideal world, Hamas is able to do a thousand 10/7s until the Jews are pushed to the sea. Then perhaps you might switch over to supporting the Jews (perhaps not, depending on how far the hate goes), because then the Jews would be the "underdogs" and "victims". Of course, I don't even see it in this way. Rather, I see it as a set of bad decisions that were made and are continued to be made. Unlike you, who seems to have no scrupples regarding the Palestinian violence, I do think that Israel needs to moderate as much as possible, and that Netanyahu and the Likud and rightwing policies should be voted out. But then, if I say that, you think it's an opening.
As for the ad homs, I'm just ignoring.
So the Houthis have now expanded their strikes to Western shipping in general, which has a huge impact on world trade and global logistic chains. Already Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and BP have routed their shipping around Africa. This increases shipping times by 7 to 14 days and has already increased insurance fees for anyone going through the Bab el Mandeb. The USN Destroyer Carney shot down 14 drones (using very costly 2,5 million dollar Standard missiles at the far cheaper drones) some days ago. Also the Royal Navy (see HMS Diamond: British warship shoots down suspected attack drone in Red Sea) and the French navy have shot down drones (see French frigate downs drones over Red Sea in 'legitimate defence'). The USN aircraft carrier Eisenhower has moved from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.
Hence the Western powers are ALREADY engaged in a naval war protecting one of the most crucial sea lanes in the World. And just like the Ukrainian Navy has shown that the mix of drones and missiles can do the job, that you don't need to have ships yourself, so are Iran's proxy showing this in the Middle East.
Now this naval operation has become Operation Prosperity Guardian (not much info on the Wikipedia page yet, but I'm sure there will be more).
The next question is how will the West respond to this? Merchant shipping has already reacted to the threat, and this is a mission that basically the US Navy was created for in the first place. Will it strike at possible launching sites in Houthi controlled Yemen? Will it start convoys through the Red Sea or form a picket defense? Are ships going to be reflagged?
(Stay tuned...)
No, you see, I already acknowledged who I'd prefer to be in power, and voted in. However, in this debate where it's heavily one-sided I choose not to muddle that point with the broader debate which heavily overlooks Palestinian violence and poor decision-making that led to this. That Maher video is especially pertinent on that point as it is as much psychological than anything else. A grievance is a grievance as long as you hold on to it.
Quoting ssu
And if you look at the posts before this, I explained how that happened. It didn't happen over night.
Quoting ssu
Yes it was. Wasn't that nice (and then got punished with Hezbollah). But anyways, the moderate Pals did not take a deal when they had the chance.
Quoting ssu
You mean the "offer" accompanied by a Hamas terror attack on Passover?
Quoting ssu
I mean, now we are just treading over the same ground, where we forget why someone like Netanyahu started getting more support.
Accompanied? You think the peace initiative and the Hamas Passover attack were coordinated?
I think that attack was simply to derail any peace initiative! This is what Hamas (and Likud) do. Their worst enemies are the moderates wanting a two state solution. That's my whole point! I think it was @Baden (if I remember correctly) that pointed out that when the North Ireland peace agreement (the Good Friday agreement) was negotiated, the extremists made their last bomb attacks hoping to stop the process and continue the circle of violence.
And notice that the Arab peace inititative hadn't been forgotten! Not even this autumn 2023.
That was PRIOR to the Hamas attacks in October: Saudi Arabia was still holding on to the Arab peace initiative. So your wrong to argue that this "offer" was something in the distant past.
Same reason why Hamas is starting to get more support.
I'm just wondering, is there a strategy here, cynical one? Perhaps you can reference articles why Israel didn't take it...
Quoting ssu
Started? Unlike Likud, Hamas acts on violence and terrorism outside of government when it's not in power, and then got into actual governmental power over control of territory which is why this awful mess is how it is. Israel thought there was a chance they might act differently. Nope.
Fair point. Allow me to retract my reference to you.
Ariel Sharon rejected the Arab initiative as a "non-starter" because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders. Simple as that.
And perhaps I should then add to you that solving these issues through negotiation and an international settlement isn't believed on the other side also: Hamas has s very low opinion about an international settlement on the issue. They say these are a waste of time, actually have written so in their charter. From their 1988 Charter:
(see here)
Right, it's not just the rhetoric, but the actions that makes it seem like people are doing a false equivalency when we compare Hamas with say, Likud. One wants the 600s it seems all over again, and has shown that they don't mind ending things all around them in that goal. But, they sure don't mind that billions of dollars and living large in Qatar and places like that either...
Hamas isn't Isis.
As I stated with the Israeli political parties, don't generalize everything. It would be as silly as me saying that every American in this forum thinks about political issues the same way, because they're Americans. We know that isn't the case.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Indeed.
Both can talk about their people having the right for everything between the River and the Sea, but only one has the ability potentially to go through with that.
Of course, the smaller political parties are quite open about their demands on expelling the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria too.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-palestinians.html
A massacre of innocent people and large scale collective punishment, all unfolding right in front of us.
Let’s hope the Arab countries don’t start bombing innocent Israelis for the actions of their government. Even though that would be just, according to genocide apologists on the philosophy forum. (As long as the 20,000 were claimed to be killed by accident — or with good intentions, of course.)
— Some Hamas-like extremist. Oh wait, no…the Israeli defense minister.
So are you splitting hairs on who is more barbaric? Are they for the 800s? Again this looks kind of 600s to me:
Calling for a Jihad and then actually thinking today's world is like the 600s seems close to Isis-like thinking.
But as far as the beheadings and rapings and such, what should we then compare it to? I mean, Genghis Khan works for me. The social media aspect adds the modern part to it I guess.
But to equivocate Likud with that, eh, bit of a stretch. I know, I know, the response to such attacks is somehow the equivalent, and that we are just going to disagree. Civilians dying alone doesn't make a Genghis Kahn. And then we inevitably will discuss just wars and all that. Quoting ssu
Um, that can be interpreted to protect civilians, as their dear Arab friend neighbors don't let them in.
Hamas can give up the hostages and give up the fight too. That is an option, is it not? Yes or no? You can sidestep the answer by not answering it, but I'd like a yes or no whether in theory and in practicality, they can literally give up this fight.
Seems like for you they are all just one bunch.
Who cares to sort them out? Isis, Fatah, Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria... whatever.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, Palestians can go to Jordan, Egypt and all other places in the Middle East. Why are they making it so difficult for themselves?
Just deal with it, as your favorite Bill Maher says.
So now it if you who are not differentiating?
So similarly, You think the Irgun would just have given up too at the British and "come to their senses", had just "dealt with it" and "moved on" (as your favorite Bill Maher says)? As if at some point they would understand that there couldn't be an Israel as an homeland for Jews, but they simply have to coexist with the Arabs in Palestine under the benevolent leadership of the British Mandate?
A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I've listened a lot to Robert Wright on various issues, it's good listening. I'll listen to it and comment it.
Just to give another insightful interview, here is one former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy (former advisor for Ehud Barak). What is interesting to here is just how close the negotiations came and how the situation has developed. I think it also shows just how clearheaded and open Israelis can be about the situation. I think one of the most informative explanations of the current situation and how we got here.
(If I've already referred to this, well, I'm getting then old. But worth wile to watch or listen to.)
Thanks for the vids. :up:
So, I guess they can give up the fight by sending back the hostages leaving to Qatar or something and have the Israelis let them for now do that. They can exit the region to their mansions and hotel rooms in Qatar or whatnot, and try to hide wherever, but vacate the place.
Quoting ssu
So this is where there are false equivalencies in terms of means and ends- in this case more ends. Israel wanted a nation but they were willing to live peacefully with an Arab neighbor, something where they could have some political autonomy but yet coexist with an Arab autonomous state as well. That wasn't the same sentiment by Arab neighbors. Hamas wants what? Oh that's right, to wipe off the Israeli state from the map. This seems very cynical to not see that Hamas has been trying to screw up a peace deal from day 1. They aren't reformed (obviously), and they aren't looking to simply govern a peaceful state next door, "Bibism" aside. Never was, and in fact is one of the contributors to derailing a number of peace attempts in the past.
Quoting ssu
So, this does make me question the motives of the posters here, to be fair. So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". And of course, this doesn't look great, but I don't know how else to make of these sentiments other than it seems acceptable for a certain contingent to see Jewry as victims, or perpetually some underdog, but not gain any agency without getting tremendous hatred. There was no winning. I can understand European Jewry wanting a national state, whatever their thoughts before that. Simply, "Ah, come on back, it won't be as bad this time!" seems a bit off there. Anyways, it just makes me wonder what the actual feelings of some posters are on matters like this. To be completely ambivalent or even hostile sort of would make me wonder. Maybe after a horrific world war where a lot of European countries collaborated (willingly or unwillingly), it feels cathartic to then say, "But see! They are X, Y, Z!".
Quoting ssu
I agree with his assessment, and probably politically align more with his thoughts on the matter. But the way the forum here is framing the debates, it's as if Hamas has no part they have played in this, and thus has forced me to explain their role in this. They still have hostages. They still want Israel gone, etc. etc. I do agree that Israel seems to have had no other contingencies and simply followed a siege plan rather than other ideas, but I can't even get to that point when there doesn't seem to be good faith on the other side on how they regard Israel in the first place.
I'll look at the one from SSU. Yeah, I thought the Wright/Friedman interview was actually one where realistic situations and assessments were being discussed.
Straw man. Nobody has argued for this.
So what is your position? We all hate Bibi-ism, so we don't even need to debate that. Do you think Israel has a fundamental right to exist?
But besides your personal point, it's this weird insinuation by equivocating Hamas attacks and Israel as an existing state. Thus when @ssu used this equivalency:
Quoting ssu
I pointed out that in one case it was simply to exist. In the other it was to banish and derail any two state solutions, as if this whole time Hamas hasn't been trying to continually kill people as talks were happening. And currently, their Isis version of how they operate...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html
What a shocker.
:yawn: Blahblahblah. NYT has no credibility.
Yeah, another shocker: just ignore whatever you disagree with. In line with the rest of your juvenile ramblings.
Thank you for being nice enough to at least acknowledge that I'm consistent with my juvenile ramblings, because I am very capable of rambling in other ways.
Obviously the vast majority of Hamas have basically been born and lived all their lives in Gaza without ever being anywhere else.
Quoting schopenhauer1
OK, I was talking about the Jews resisting British control and fighting the British. The Irgun fought the British, you know. You cannot simply start the conflict when the British have already left.
And furthermore, colonial settlers typically do not get a warm welcome. Especially when their desire is to establish their own country for themselves. And this is one of the reasons why this conflict is so unsolvable: There are no Palestinian Jews anymore, there are Israeli Jews. And furthermore, Israel as a homeland for the jews isn't interested in creating a common Israeli identity for Jews, Christians and Muslims. And on the other side the Palestinian identity has emerged from the Nakba, from the struggle against Israel, hence there isn't any interest on their sides to become Israelis either (thanks to the Apartheid system). I would argue that a lot of the present Palestinian identity is linked to the conflict itself. Hardly something that will ease relations even if there was peace one day. (Just think about Irish-British relations even today)
As Golda Meir in an interview (from 1970) clearly states, she was prior to the creation Israel a Palestinian as she moved to Palestine in 1921 from the US (she was born in Ukraine).
Some commentators triumphantly note that there was no independent Palestine ever. Yet in the last 75 years, there certainly has emerged Palestinians with a Palestinian identity from just Arabs that were living in Palestine.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think this has been seen by all commentators here. As I restarted this thread three months ago (Page 83, btw.) I did state quite early in this conflict the following like:
Quoting ssu
and...
Quoting ssu
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think that people question the existence or the right for the existence of Israel. Hence I agree with @Benkei: a bit of a strawman. But if the Jewish had backing for an Israeli state from the Balfour declaration to the Holocaust and the successful Zionist movement, you do have also a lot to backing to the Palestinian aspirations here.
Just compare Palestinians to the another Middle-Eastern people without their own country: the Kurds.
Firstly, Kurds are Muslims inside Muslim states.
Kurds are predominantly Sunni Muslims, although some Kurds are of other religions. Yet this makes the Kurdish conflict and internal matter for Islam. Hence the conflict cannot be portrayed as defense of the Ummah and calls aren't made for a Jihad against the infidels. And the Kurds have revolted for a very long time: they have revolted against the Safavid Empire (Iran) and later the Ottomans. In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Jewish settlers mainly came for Europe and thus are of different religion, even if Palestinian Jews have existed. Hence you have Iran meddling in this conflict, even if it hasn't got otherwise any border with Israel and Iranians aren't Arabs or Sunni Muslims either.
Secondly, Kurds are not Arabs
Pan-Arabism matters. And it is obvious that Palestinians are Arabs. This gives another reason why the plight of the Palestinians does matter to the Arab street.
Thirdly, Palestinians are on their own as no Muslim state claims the land of Palestine
Starting from the 1970 Black September King Hussein pushed the PLO out of Jordania (and into Lebanon). Then King Hussein decreed that Palestinians in the West Bank were not Jordanians. This means that only the Golan Heights are claimed by a neighboring state of Israel. Yet in the case of the Kurds, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria have no intention of giving the Kurds an area of their own. Only Iraq is still going with the Kurdish autonomy (Syria only because of the civil war are there pockets of Kurdish control), but even there in Iraq dark clouds are gathering.
Fourthly, the land gained by war by Israel in 1967 gives Palestinians them a legal reason
Territorial annexations by force aren't tolerated in a World made of sovereign states. This is something quite universal today and the UN is quite consistent in this. Hence we talk about occupied territories and the maps used everywhere else than in Israel are different from the maps used there. This gives an obvious legal argument for the Palestinians. And as I stated above, with the exception of the Golan Heights, claims to West Bank and Gaza are between Israel and the Palestinians.
The wall simply was designed to counter individual people or small groups of terrorists trying to infiltrate to Israel. It wasn't designed to handle an organized military operation. And that's basically it. Just like the famous Maginot-line, the real error was in the understanding of how the enemy would fight and attack. This basically comes down to hubris, when you don't anticipate that the enemy, Hamas, would be capable of organizing a large scale military operation. The IDF spokesperson is totally correct that there will be a lot of soul searching in the future.
That a lightly armed security team of one kibbutz could defend and fight off the Hamas insurgents for three hours just show how easy the defense actually would have been. The Hamas tactic obviously was "attack military targets, go on a rampage on the kibbutzes, take hostages and bring back them into Gaza". The high number of Israeli soldiers killed in October 7 also shows how unprepared the IDF are. In truth, soldiers in barracks wasting their time on a holiday aren't a cohesive military force either, but simply individuals. Now only a fraction of IDF soldiers have been killed in Gaza, which shows how out of the blue this came for the IDF.
The documentary also brings in well the fact that those now being kidnapped in Gaza came from a distinct rural area and distinct kibbutzes whereas the larger population of Israel simply had to fear for the rare yet possibly deadly Hamas rocket. If time and interest, worth wile to see.
I'm addressing an issue that is closer to home to you, actually. No doubt, the issue is thorny with Palestinians and Israelis living together in mutually beneficial societies that identify with their respective cultures without intervening in each other's cultural/political affairs (of course security being a different and trickier matter). Maybe there could even be a confederation of sorts. There are plenty of people that can make plans of all sorts. We all agree on this forum at least that Bibi-ism obviously won't get us closer there. I am actually more on board with Friedman, if I try to assess my own views of the matter. Or at least, I take his general attitude towards the situation, despite what looks like "Ra Ra, everything Israel does must be always right". Rather, my defense is a product of this forum being so un-even-handed against the Israeli side, that it is laughable if it wasn't so apparent. But the thing is, I do think it is a bit odd that countries that were directly involved in the displacement of European Jewry, who were occupied by Germany or became collaborators with them, and who willingly and unwillingly assisted the Nazi cause, would be so callously anti-Israel. As far as optics, it looks like they cannot catch a break from certain countries in Europe/Europeans. As if, now that you decimated and expelled the populations so utterly, and now that they are gone from your presence more or less, the Arabs can finish the job. I am not saying that is what people actually believe, but it sure doesn't look good either. And let us not forget, Israel isn't just about "European Jewry". Because, unlike the nebulous way the "Nakba" happened (some forced, some moved and couldn't come back during an armed conflict, etc.) there were ACTUAL real expulsion of Jews from Arab countries that were there for hundreds, if not thousands of years- prior to any Arab conquest even. Around 850,000 Arab Jewish populations were forced to leave. And UNLIKE many Arab countries that USE the Palestinians, the Israeli population took them in gladly.
The point of Israel was to be one place in the world where you couldn't f*ck with them anymore. I don't blame them, given the circumstances. I do sort of blame European anti-Israeli sentiment in the way that being so forcefully against Israel- and not just in the current Bibi-ism, but throughout its history, seems just more of that same old antisemetic attitudes, just now dressed up and allowable in a different form.
Now, certainly this could be attributed to general "Leftism". And this is where useful idiots come into play. Certainly, I don't see you as a "useful idiot". However, for example, this town hall meeting in Long Beach, California (not shocking I know) comes to mind with the mindlessness that it can take:
https://x.com/yaelbt/status/1737857686933283294?s=20
Quoting ssu
Right, well this all came about from European colonialism. Being that you are a student of history, did you ever wonder if the borders set by European powers are itself a form of colonialism? Conflict is terrible, but conflict in territories where peoples claim to have claim to have land are not going to be neatly contained because Europe had an idea about their former colonies after WW2.
Who is gorging themselves? The Jews or the media?
Encouraging intruders is the best way to ensure who your enemy is. At this point there is no ambiguity about the motivations of the enemy, despite the fact that we left the front door unlocked on purpose ... facts are facts
Correct. It is a sucka play for nabbing baby-raping dimwits
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/12/27/headlines/israeli_conscientious_objector_sentenced_to_30_days_in_prison
Quoting tim wood
Maybe a time machine that leads back to 1967 ... or 1948. :mask:
Good to know that the diaspora, fleeing the Germans etc. we're all done "voluntarily" by Jews in the past since to be murdered or not is the voluntary choice of the victims.
The man is insane.
Quoting schopenhauer1
???
Well, I'm a Finn, not a German. And my country wasn't directly involved with the displacement of of the European Jewry (as our Jews fought alongside the Germans). And btw the most pro-Palestine people are the Irish. Were the Irish collaborators in the Holocaust? Perhaps it's their memories of the English makes them feel towards the Palestinians more than other Europeans. Other Europeans likely don't know the reasons just why the Irish aren't British, even if they talk the same language.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Indeed it came. As usual, when a large empire falls and new nations or regions are drawn on a map, it will create turmoil. And in the Middle East, that turmoil has continued from the WW1.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Even if Finland could be said to have been a colony of lets say Russia, this does huge injustice to actual colonies as Europeans do treat other Europeans differently as say Asians or Africans.
I haven't heard about the African colony which the European colonizer not only gave autonomy and accepted it to have it's own currency, but also didn't make the European language (Russian) education in schools mandatory (only some eighty years into the colonization), and kept the existing legal system intact when it annexed the territory. And then the colony itself could create a monopoly in some industrial sector of the European country itself. Hence imperialism is the word to use, not colonialism.
Do notice that there was even in the British Empire quite a difference between dominions and colonies.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Uganda? That was thought too. But again, just transporting people somewhere else usually don't solve anything. Best example was Liberia: the American freed slaves made just then an elite, which later didn't have so warm relations with the "original" Africans.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is a campaign away that tries to make critique of the policies of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic hate speech. I think this simply alienates even more people, because naturally and logically it's one thing to be against some policies of a country and another to hate the people. For example, I'm against the aggressive policies of Putin, but I don't hate the Russians. Having met them, they are very nice people, extremely generous and friendly when they have guests. Above all, Russians understand how many problems they have, but they have been ruled and are ruled now with fear. Why would you hate people that are living under a dictatorship? And anyway, I'm against the generalizations to condemn such large groups as people, condemning individuals is another and a more appropriate thing.
I think my country is a good example how the relation with Israel has changed: prior Israel was seen as a similar small nation heroically defending itself from a larger enemy (as Finland had been during the Winter War). I think that changed somewhat when Israel invaded Lebanon, a smaller nation than Israel and especially after the massacres of Shabra and Shatila, that prior image of a small heroic nation changed. Now it was the bully, the stronger dominant nation, not the one that defended itself from a larger power as in 1948 or 1967. Hence the anti-US, anti-Israeli leftist rhetoric started to win the discourse simply based on the facts that the massacres did happen. Yet Finland isn't nowhere near to Ireland in it's views about Israel. And naturally there are those Finnish Christians who think that Israel is the Holy Land and the Jews are a special people.
I'm not so sure that this was done by intention as Israelis blame Netanyahu for this. If the IDF would have been ready, it could have stopped the attacks, but Hamas simply got the strategic surprise.
I think in this case using Occams razor gives the best answer: as there never had been such a large coordinated attack initiated by Hamas, the IDF simply hadn't taken into account that a large coordinated attack like this could happen. The whole billion dollar wall wasn't designed in mind of this. Which actually just shows what kind of an open air prison Gaza was. For example, the Wall would be simply a nuisance for conventional army, as an armed force simply could quickly blast it's way through the wall. Just look how different the Russian defensive line is in Ukraine.
Why on Earth praise the BRICs?
You think those Great Powers are different or better, or some kind of champions of human rights and against genocide? Yeah, they surely will condemn things that are in their interest. But it's not some universal value they agree on.
What about what Russia did in Chechnya or now is doing in Ukraine or what China is doing in Uighuria to the Uighurs?
I think it is similar acts, although far more worse in the case of Russia. In the First and Second Chechen wars multiple more Chechens were killed than Palestinians have been killed in the current war in Gaza and there are far fewer Chechens than Palestinians. And the treatment of the Uighurs in China will definately constitute the legal definition of genocide.
So :vomit: for praising such countries like Russia and China.
Why not take the side of simply being against colonialism and for human rights everywhere?
Yes, I agree.
Yet why it was so successful is the same thing: such a strike had never happened in the US.
I do remember prior to 9/11 how lax the security in the US was on domestic flights: it was a joke. Even on the international flights the security was more lax than for example in France.
Actually the US was talking a lot about Al Qaeda, there had been already attacks made by Al Qaeda at the US. Clinton had already bombed Al Qaeda training sites in Afghanistan. And let's remember that the twin towers had been tried to be demolished already by the same terrorists (some where related to 9/11 attackers, so tiny is this cabal). As they weren't so successful, the terrorists were tried in a normal court, the FBI went looking for them and found some in Pakistan. And they are still in the US prison system.
And yes, it's the strategy of a crisis giving the opportunity for some to push their agenda.
That is interesting to explore, why one identifies with one group versus another. First off, the Jews were fighting the British as much or perhaps more than any Palestinian, so there would be that solidarity. But also, even claims that Jews are the "colonizers" is questionable, being that all it takes is widening the scope of history to see that it was colonized by many peoples, all of whom recognized it as the ancient Jewish homeland, now defunct to this CONQUERING army or that- Arab/Muslim army included. Ironically, there would be no Arab invasion without the Jewish religion for which Mohammed and his growing religion drew upon for their basis. It's all relative being that identity, land, and heritage is both fixed, personal, and social. Land is also fungible, in my opinion. If "eminent domain" is a thing, whereby governments can literally take your land for public use, and you have no recourse, what of it? I was born into a society, but I didn't agree to that arrangement. It was happenstance I live with that. In other words, everyone will have the cudgel to form their defense of why they deserve this land or that land. The same goes for the British and Irish.
To me there is this weird "fixed" nature of things post-WW2, as if all other conquests, claims, and motives before WW2 were not how it is that we had the claims post-WW2. Holding on to an identity of being wronged leads to the hatreds. It gets stoked by third-parties feeding the cause. You raise a child to learn to be bitter and aggrieved and you keep adding to this, they will generally hold on to that. Not always, but most of the time.
Quoting ssu
I agree with you but I think you missed my point about what happened on the ground in Europe. Many Europeans from various countries, both willingly, and unwillingly helped the Nazi get rid of their Jewish populations (think of the Vichy French or Poland). Just as in America there is generally a sensitivity around slavery, Jim Crow, and the like because of specific events in American history, it makes various people seem that much more bigoted if they seem to ignore these things or don't recognize its severe impact in American history. I would say the same should go in many European nations in regards to how it treated its Jewish populations in the early 20th century. It wasn't that long prior that Jews had rights as equal citizen (really basically since Napoleon and the 1800s). It wasn't long before old hatreds led to more violent and racist notions. The Nazis were the culmination of this. Antisemitism wasn't created wholesale from Hitler. It goes back over a millennium, and took on industrial psychopathic proportions rather than hodgepodge pogroms or lower-level decrees of expulsion and the like. So I was just saying it looks bad to finding no sympathy with a people, that were expelled amidst your own lands, to then want to deny them even in their aspirations for their own land in what at least, historically and ancestrally, is recognized as their origin... yes, even acknowledging the Palestinian rights as well.
Quoting ssu
Yes, this is indeed an interesting case, and I actually think this should be studied more as an interesting parallel of a people whose origin is from that general "region" (not specifically but mainly Western Africa), but are not "of" that particular land anymore. That just shows you that all of this has aspects of identity, regionality, and self-determination mixed in that isn't straightforward. The slaves to America were a COMBINATION of European colonialism AND opportunism of some tribes to get rid of their neighboring tribes and build wealth doing so. Is there any "justice" to Liberian ex-slaves claims to "return" to that general region? I'd say yes there is. It is just as justified as any other reason to have a state. You see, I don't think it's all about "who is where at this snapshot of time". What snapshot? Before the slaves were sent against their will, those people deserve a state, but the returning slaves to the continent of their origin, don't get an opportunity to form a state? Because they were too long separated? Again, that is just YOUR idea of how a state should be so self-determined. Why is THAT the one that is "morally justified", and not the idea that ex-slaves can form a state as well? Especially knowing the fact that those who were sent into slavery were done so against their will with collaborators of European and native African tribes. I mean, it's all grey area. Is England an illegal state since 1066 because of William the Conqueror? Should the Welsh and Scottish throw out their Anglo-Saxon overlords, being they conquered the original Celts of Briton in the central portion of the country so thoroughly that there's barely traces of Celtic in the English language? I mean it's all made up to some extent. And no, not everything has to be a snapshot of what countries should be like just because European nations were done holding on to their "colonies".
Quoting ssu
That makes sense. Yes, as you become more powerful, you become more criticized on how you use that power. Hamas justifies Likud's heavy-handedness, I get it. However, in counterfactual history, Hamas wasn't going to act differently. So, whatever the blame is, it's going to have to be some moderated force from both sides.
Well, even if I've met several intelligence officers, I think this is a more of a case of how these organizations operate. The individual intelligence officer is smart, usually quite informed and if true intelligence man, quite a talker who can relate to anybody.
Yet in a group the 'intelligence' of the individuals decrease, and in comes first "policy" or "the mission". Once you have the political objectives, military men (intelligence or other branches), will start to implement the given task. In a dictatorship, they will follow the dictators whims and in a democracy, they will follow the political leadership. If they don't, well in the first case (dictatorships) their wives may become widows and in the latter case (deomocracies) the only option for active officers is simply to resign. And if they know that the next guy will be eager to continue with the policy, then they might even decide to continue to be a "team member" and try to influence the outcome of an agenda. that they themselves don't believe in.
Quoting Vaskane
Again I agree with this. That's what actually all the foreign policy "blobs" in the World are.
And the most obvious reason for antisemitism isn't usually talked about: it is Matthew 27:24–25, from the Bible:
I genuinely think that this is the most sickening, obnoxious part of the New Testament. That none of the other Gospels say anything like this, doesn't make it less important. The idea of the Jews as being Christkillers and having that 'Blood curse' is very important in Christian anti-semitism. It explains just why after the Pope instigated the Crusades, the first to be attacked were the local Jews, as there weren't so many Muslims around that time in Central Europe. Yes, the Blood curse was repudiated later by the Catholic Church and others, but that doesn't stop someone like Mel Gibson putting the crowd to chant in Aramaic the Bible verses from Mathew in his Passion of the Christ film in 2004.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Still, if the aspiration is to live in their own land, hardly anyone has anything against that. What simply creates the anger is the Apartheid system, is that Israel is seen as a Western country and democracies shouldn't have apartheid systems and yes, that it is so close to US (where it's basically a domestic policy issue) get anti-American sentiment linked to this. This can be seen how much fewer calls there are for the Kurds to have their own state, even if they too have been a target of genocide, like with the Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who is morally right to own land is to me a stupid question as countries themselves are social constructs in the end. It's actually something that warmongers and imperialists ponder about and get the 'moral reasons' for 'liberation' or conquest. Those who seek moral justification for their sovereignty over a territory are usually the bad guys.
The morally good situation is where neighboring states are quite happy with their borders and those borders are open.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, were the fears of the white Afrikaners justified or not when they abolish the Apartheid system in South Africa?
The irony here is that in order to have a peace deal, Israel would need a strong state capable of upholding the peace treaty and keeping the border calm, an act that basically like Egypt and Jordan can do, but Lebanon cannot do and Syria can barely. But that would mean that a Palestine would have to have it's own capable armed forces, which Israel doesn't allow. Or then there ought to be dramatically more integration on the Arab side, like the League of the Arab states being more like the EU or something similar. Then you could have Egyptian, Saudi and Iraq forces patrolling the Palestinian borders. Well, the GCC is closest to an Arab military treaty organization, and it's members nearly went to war with one members, so that doesn't look good.
And this is why, yes again, I come back to the present Israeli administration, which has done everything possible to make the Palestinian Authority as weak as possible, because their objective is to annex Judea and Samaria and to get away with it. And that's why I am very pessimistic about the future here.
Just how many people add up to a genocide? 'Genocide' means killing a large number of a people in order to destroy a nation or a group. Civilian deaths in urban warfare are worse than unfortunate, but they are not genocidal.
The population of the Gaza Strip is 2.3 million. So far, the current death toll (according to Hamas) is 21,300. That is about .0089% of the Gaza population. A significant percentage of the 21,300 have to be Hamas fighters. Civilian deaths in war are a tragedy, but this isn't a genocide.
In comparison:
The percentage of Armenians killed by the Turks in 1915 is between 44% and 80% depending on direct and indirect killing. That's a genocide. By 1945 the Germans killed 63% Europe's Jews. That's a genocide. In 1994 75% of Rwandan Tutsis were killed -- in just 3 months! That's a genocide.
I hope Israel's war in Gaza does not approach even 1% of the Palestinian population -- 23000 -- but the longer the people there endure bombing, shelling, and bullets, collapsed infrastructure, lack of food, clean water, and medical care, indirect deaths are likely to steeply rise -- possibly quite suddenly.
Speaking of genocide, isn't that what Hamas is calling for?
Not at all; just my anti-settler-colonizer/anti-zionism that I share with
Quoting 180 Proof
and Israeli conscientious objectors like Tal Mitnick. Clearly, it's apologists for zionist mass murder like you, tim wood, who are among the actual antisemites (contra Israeli and Palestinian children) in this historical context. :shade:
:up: No doubt, you hit one of the core origins of European and general Christian antisemitism. What's ironic is if you peel back the layers of the clearly polemical aspects of the New Testament, you have a very Jewish Jesus of Nazareth who died at the hands of the Roman Imperial system. But as Pauline doctrine spread across the Mediterranean, you cannot have that connection anymore, and any good Greek scribe is going to make a passage that detaches Jesus from his own people, so as to make him sui generis. And this goes with what I said a while ago in the antisemitism thread:
Quoting ssu
Well, that's also an interesting part of it. Where are the "comparable" outcries in conflicts elsewhere?
Quoting ssu
I think we have hit upon a foundational agreement between our views :). There is a certain arbitrariness to all of it, and thus any justification is simply that group's cudgel for their justification. But cudgel it is.
Quoting ssu
Indeed, and this is where the real debate is, and I agree, this is the most important million dollar question: What of the day after the day after? What is really to rule this area and bring peace, and not just the status quo? I am hoping it is something akin to what you recommend- that a coalition of sorts, helps Palestine rebuild, and rebuild away from those who led them down the darkest nightmare path to death-cult, and to something like a developing country that has economic ties to its closest neighbor. There is literally, no other way. And yes, this takes an Israel that is open to this, one that must be radically transgressive in order to form peace with a former hostile neighbor. Something has to change in order for a long term peace. It cannot be seen as simply a hotbed for more death and destruction. If there is no end to grievance retribution, there is no end to any of it. Give up the fuckn ghost, might be the slogan then.
Thank you for providing some historical context to this!
Quoting BC
A lot of little league teams and little old men are going to be very disappointed with this characterization. But now that I think of it, they should be proud to be part of a conspiracy of community service, so carry on with the conspiracy!
This is just crappy analysis, Tim. Being charitable, it ignores the lack of parity and the much more deadly violence of the Israeli government.
What Israel could have done is not turned Gaza into a concentration camp. The Palestinian women and children being slaughtered are victims— and you’re essentially blaming them for actions of Hamas. Again, if that’s truly the standard being used, then what Hamas did on October 7th was equally justified. Do we take that seriously?
Asked and answered over two years ago ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/650650
Just curious if it's "parity" would the Israeli government be justified in raping, beheading, and mutilating Palestinians in the exact same numbers in an unprovoked event at a time of their choosing? That would assume what Israel's mission is the same as Hamas' mission. Israel is trying to destroy both Hamas as an entity and their infrastructure. They think not doing this simply allows Hamas to rebuild and try to do this again. They have the power to do this, whilst minimizing their own casualties, try to regain their hostages, so they are doing so.
Now, I am not necessarily for this approach, but I get the idea. I would say Hamas can to step down, give up the hostages, and Israel can let them leave to Qatar or some other neutral place for the time being. But would Hamas agree to this? Okay, let's say that will be "unacceptable" for Hamas. How about more of the Thomas Friedman approach? That is to say:
Quoting It’s Time for the U.S. to Give Israel Some Tough Love- Thomas Friedman
I doubt Hamas would even agree to this. Anything that would mean that Hamas is accountable, and not independently running Gaza would be against their interest as chaos actor in the region on behest of themselves and other Islamist regimes. So you still have this pesky situation of a terrorist organization willing to bide their time to carry out as many attacks as they can to destroy Israel. Quite a predicament.
Stop the occupation and create the two-state solution that’s always been possible. At the very least, a ceasefire.
Quoting tim wood
They bear some responsibility for Israel creating a concentration camp? No, I reject that analysis. The thousands of children killed do not bear responsibility.
Quoting tim wood
Hamas could agree to a ceasefire. As can the Israeli government. I don’t blame the citizens of either country for barbaric acts of their “leaders.” If I did, then every Arab country should be bombing Israel, which has killed FAR more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis.
Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually.
In the exact same numbers? That would be an eye for an eye — if one begins history on October 7th and views that event, absurdly, as “unprovoked.” But instead Israel beheads and mutilates Palestinians at something like 100:1 at this point. No, that’s not parity. Nor is the military power or resources.
This leaves out all the unprovoked “mowing the grass” exercises that happened well before October 7th. To most genocide apologists, those — like every other act of state terrorism — were defensive. So think of Hamas’ actions as defensive too, in that case.
Quoting schopenhauer1
From Bibi’s mouth to your brain. You’re like an average US citizen in 2003 supporting the invasion of Iraq. As this atrocity drags on, you’ll see how grotesque your position was — assuming you have some decency.
Before or after they stole their land?
Cool, I had too long a conversation with folks with more historical perspective and nuance to entertain this kind of generic, college campus argument.
Some Jews began arriving in the late 19th century. At the time...
As more Jewish people moved in, they pushed the Palestinians out and destroyed their villages. There was armed Palestinian / Arab resistance by the mid 30s which gradually intensified. The day after the British departed Palestine, Israel declared its statehood--5/14/48. The next day, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invaded the nascent Jewish state, seizing the central highland area (Golan Heights), the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
As you know there were subsequent wars which resulted in today's map of Israel.
There is no getting around the fact that Israel's creation was, of necessity, at the Palestinian people's expense. "Of necessity" because the land of the ancient Jewish state of Israel was now occupied by Palestinians. The Palestinians ended up in refugee camps in the nearby Arab areas (like Gaza, Beersheba, Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Jaffa and Bethlehem. There would be further displacements. Some left the country altogether, to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.
Israel wasn't the first instance of forced population displacement. The Western Hemisphere was the subject of large scale displacement. The English displaced the Aboriginal people as they established colonies along the Atlantic Seaboard, starting in 1607. European colonization cost millions of lives in North and South America (a genocide by consequence if not by policy).
The difference between the settler / colonial system that Made America Great and Israel's settling, is this: The English, French, and Spanish were empire building for profit. Israel was seeking to establish a refuge where they would not be subject to discrimination, pogroms, and extermination camps. The Jews were, after all, originally from Israel.
The Jews have achieved a relatively safe homeland, but at the cost of frequent military defensive campaigns.
In the real world, this is what history tends to look like. Humanitarian and human rights advocates deplore it all, and civilized people put as good a face on it as they can.
Cease fire, then apologise and turn myself in at the nearest cop shop as a war criminal
Cool. Keep up the good work rationalizing genocide as it unfolds before our eyes.
Quoting tim wood
How convenient.
But yes, even starting the clock on October 7th makes no difference: this is still genocide. Thousands of innocent bodies later — and growing — and you and others like you are still convinced it’s justified (or defensive, or accidental, etc).
I guess Hamas just needed better PR. Bombing refugee camps and murdering flag-waving hostages would then excused when they say “oops, our bad.”
Israel is the greater power, backed by the US for geopolitical reasons to the tune of billions of dollars. Gaza is a concentration camp whose people have been living with Israeli occupation and terrorism for decades. There is no parity here.
21,000 Palestinians killed so far. Including over 8,500 children and over 6,000 women.
At least the New Testament has the great insight that it has several Gospels, hence someone clearly understood that the written story of the life of Jesus would be extremely crucial to the whole religion, so better to have several accounts. But do Christians use the Gospels together and come to conclusions then to what really happened? Of course not! Not only would it be too confusing, but also Pontius Pilatus and his hand washing is of course center in the marketing effort in trying to convert Romans to Christianity. So pick that Gospel to teach how bad the Jews were to Christ.
And because this is a central part of the traumatic history of a Jews, Jewish satire comes into play: not only the largest religion on Earth has such anti-semitic passages in it's holy book, the second largest religion on Earth also has similar passages in it's holy book. In that case, as there's no uncertainty of Muhammad and his kingdom existing (we even still have the grave around untouched), you have case like the Jewish Banu Nabir tribe trying to assassinate Muhammad, Muhammad fighting against Jewish tribes. And of course, Muhammad trying to convert the Jews and the Jews not being so excited about this new prophet. And a lot of how bad the Jews are.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's a nice way to put it: cudgeling for ones owns justifications. You first come up with your objectives, then look for some moral reasons why your objectives are also morally good. Typical actions in our World.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Only under pressure will both sides cave in and the zealots lose their support. Otherwise the grievance retribution circle will just go on.
The only way I see that pressure coming against Bibi's administration is that they really fuck up with Gaza and a lot more Palestinians would be killed. Perhaps 50 000 are killed. Or perhaps 100 000? Where do we put the number when the outrage becomes too bad? Because that number is out there. When that is reached, Biden will really get the "Genocide Joe" nickname for real. And that's when the US love for Israel would falter: there is already the notable change in the attitudes of the younger generations. Yet so insane aren't even the hardliners in the Israeli government. They might perhaps hope that Palestinians in the Gaza simply walk out to Egypt, but even these Zionist zealots aren't up to any 'final solution' solutions. They might talk so, but likely do understand the consequences and not act so.
The problem is that having over two million people starving without shelter can produce a true disaster of epic proportions. That's the real threat, because Bibi isn't insane. But as we have seen, he can fuck up.
If the Warsaw Uprising is comparable to Gaza now, let's just remember that it took for the Germans 63 days and then from a smaller population of Warsaw they had killed 150 000 to 200 000 civilian and 15 000 Polish resistance fighters. Now with Gaza the war has gone longer and 21 000 civilians have died and perhaps few thousand Hamas fighters are casualties. That is bad and I do say that we could have far less destruction if the IDF would fight like the US Army in Iraq, but we aren't dealing with six digit numbers.
Then on the Palestinian side: when would the losses be so traumatic, that there wouldn't be this firm belief that Israel can be overcome through decades of war? When is it so dark, that people would be just happy to have peace and really don't give a shit about who controls the holy places in Jerusalem? In this way, the history of Europe shows just how ugly the killing has to be that people genuinely want peace and are against jingoism and religious extremism.
Hence I'm really pessimistic at everything here, because the road to real peace might be extremely ugly.
So I'm not hopeful at all.
Appropriate the myths and history from the people it came from, reconfigure it to your own culture's setting (Greco-Roman notions for Christianity and Arab culture for Islam), and then kill the originators of said belief system. Maybe there's an inherent tension when you lift wholesale ideas and histories from another people and then go around telling those people how they got their own myths wrong. Very peculiar this cultural appropriation practice. This is why I'm for the original paganism. Identify with your tribal religion, syncretize with other pagan religions, live and let live, or acknowledge the tribal traditions of others, but this whole "steal the original and then kill the makers" is peculiar on many levels. Of course, if you are a "believer" in these religions, there is no way it will look this way to you. Rather, you are "improving" and providing the "correct interpretation" of the originating people's culturo-religious practice.. But again, this just comes off as telling the originators how they got their own interpretation of their own writings and traditions wrong.
I mean, ideally, I am for just not being religious at all, if one can help it. I generally categorize ancient religions into two kinds- tribal/ethnic and universal. Most religions throughout history were tribal/ethnic based. I'd say even Hinduism falls under this, despite some of the Western notions during the 60s and the Hare Krishnas. At the end of the day it relies very much on a caste system, brahmins, castes, etc. I would also say most ancient pagan religions were also largely tribal based, though there was syncretism during the Greco-Roman empire and various pantheons of mixing and matching. Ancestral worship is another common form that is localized obviously to ones ancestors. There is animism and the like, which again, is very localized. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and a few others are "universal". They generally rose up in an age of more advanced civilizations. They tend to be more Iron Age rather than Bronze Age, let's say. These ones look to convert new people. However, Christianity and Islam are peculiar in that they rely on a substartum of the Jewish history and stories, which are largely tribal, and then need to retro-fit it as the more "correct" version of it that is universal, or at least, fits their own respective cultures when they were created. This also means that one has to be hostile to the group from which one pinched the stories from. So it's built on the fact of "replacing" the originators (supercessionism in Christianity, etc.).
Quoting ssu
Absolutely. Everyone's got their narrative, and many times, never the two shall meet, and all that.
Quoting ssu
Yep agreed. First step is getting Netanyahu out of office. At least that's a start for different leadership. Get labor party back in power. I'm not sure if that changes much on the ground, as generals also play a huge role. However, I know this isn't even a start. What is the real issue at play here is the hostages. Israel is extremely sensitive to their people being taken hostage.
Another thing to consider is, I wonder what it would take for the Gazans to hand over Hamas. Israel should provide incentives to do so perhaps. I don't know.
I think Friedman's solution makes the most sense right now to stop the fighting. Hamas hands over hostages, joins with international organization to run Gaza. Get other actors involved and keep a watchful eye.
What's sad is Hamas being so small simply angered the bear and the bear is now attacking. I'm not sure how else they thought Israel would respond, being that even just sending rockets provoked huge amounts of rockets being sent their way. If your goal is to provoke with no real end goal in mind other than "fuck you" to a powerful country next door who is not afraid to use that power, I don't know what to call that kind of reasoning. Certainly the people that they represent should rise up against them. I can see hating Israel, but their actions are totally predictable. Hamas led their people into this mess, yet their people are okay that they did this? None of this makes sense.
So you have an “understanding” of genocide. Yeah, I do too. I understand how savage and immoral it is, and that it should be stopped immediately.
8000 children.
Quoting tim wood
They haven’t had a chance to govern themselves. Hamas was never given a chance, the Palestinian people were never given a chance. They’ve been living in an “open air prison” for decades, and have now had thousands of their children killed.
I’m sure they really give a rat’s ass about what you think they’ve shown.
:up:
Ohh it’s really Hamas that’s murdering 8000 children, not Israel. Got it. Be sure to explain that to their parents.
Quoting tim wood
Israel or Hamas? Since the IDF are far more effective terrorists, I’ll assume you mean them.
Encouraging intruders is the best way to ensure who your enemy is. At this point there is no ambiguity about the motivations of the enemy, despite the fact that the front door was left open on purpose ... hamas played their hand, fuck 'em
:100:
Your solution leaves out the security issue for Palestinians and is a common denial for people's right to self-determination. In other words it's dumb shit only a rabid pro-israeli with no idea of justice or fairness will come up with.
Don't bother replying. I'm pointing it out for others.
And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too.
Quoting Mikie
:mask: :up:
Jussayin' (not that I have a particular answer myself).
Maybe we're the ones in the wrong. What's this brief life on Earth compared with the eternal bliss of the one true Creator, Allah? Live for death, not for life.
Quoting Mikie
The Israel haters here (esp. the moderators) sure do come across as pricks sometimes.
Cultural destruction is a bad thing too, but I don't see Palestinians being forced to give up their religion, their language, their social habits and practices, etc. Again, their culture and lives are being severely disrupted -- which happens when your homeland is a battlefield.
Gaza probably will be an uninhabitable rubbish heap by the time Israel decides it has destroyed the military capacity of Hamas. The war in Gaza might well be the prelude to another dispossession. Who is going to rebuild Gaza, and for whom?
This is mostly bullshit, though. For the most part, the geographical development of Islam was done by Persians, and it wasn't done violently. Islam was attractive because it served as merchant law throughout Central Asia.
And there's nothing foreign about Muslim extremism. Your bigotry stinks.
You, Benkie, and others who are perfectly capable of more precise language are falling back on terms applicable to the Nazi extermination of Jews. Israel is neither engaging in genocide nor operating a concentration camp in Gaza. People in the Nazi concentration camps were subjected to severe deprivation leading to very high death rates. Prior to October 7, 500 trucks per day delivered food and other supplies to Gaza. That's a truck load for every 42 people per week. That's 1 truck load of supplies per every 15 people per month. It could have been more, sure, but conditions did not resemble a concentration camp.
Palestinians have described Gaza as an open air prison. That is probably exactly how it felt to people who did not leave every day to work in Israel. But again, not a concentration camp.
The war Israel is conducting may kill another 20,000 civilians before it is over. At the end of the war -- next week, next month, next year, there will be nothing to return to for most of the Gaza residents, save piles of rubble. How literally "nothing to return to" describes reality will depend on how long the current bombing and shelling continues.
Creating a population of 2,300,000 homeless people is entirely worthy of condemnation. Destroying schools, hospitals, businesses, mosques, etc. adds significantly to the Palestinian misery and deserves condemnation -- even if Hamas was living under and in the hospital, the school, the mosque.
You two, @Mikie and @Benkei should be performing at a higher level of expression, especially since you are moderating,
I think these kind of blanket statements come out of taking the opposite side. "You say that Muslims conquered violently! I say they were a delightful bunch of peaceniks that people simply couldn't resist being a part of." I mean it depends on what part of the history, in what region, the various rulers and empires. There were definitely parts that were violent. The whole reason the Middle East is Islamic is because Arabs formed a deadly army that was able to defeat the floundering empires (like the Byzantine Empire) and other smaller regions in their spread across to North Africa and Spain on one side and into almost Vienna on the other (eventually much later.. but still into Persia and Pakistan area, etc.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests
If you keep reading you'll find that within about a generation after the Arabs came out of Arabia, the Iranians took back their own territory, as Muslims. At that point, the Islamic leaders were all former Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists. For the most part, Islam was spread in the Persian language.
It's just a historical fact that conversion to Islam was usually voluntary because of the social stability it provided.
Not my point. Many people converted to Christianity for similar reasons. That's how these kind of religions work. In Christendom it was usually kings that converted and then came their subjects or tribal units.. But my point was it was still a conquering, militaristic force.
Ask the people conquered under Genghis Khan their thoughts versus just a generation later under the "Pax Mongolia" of the "peaceful" Mongolian Empire of Kublai Khan. You cannot just skip over stuff because it's convenient for your argument.
I was just answering Bitconnect's claim that Arabs were great colonizers. That's not true. The great Muslim colonizers were Persian.
Cool. The Persians still had to be conquered and made it worth their while to "convert" for this to even be a thing, that's all I'm saying. I'm not sure about the picayunish point (in this debate) that indeed many Persian philosophers and centers of study eventually took shape adding to the Islamic Empire and Golden Age.
I agree.
If it’s provocative, it’s to get people to understand the situation. Is there truth to it? Yes. Likud is not the Nazi party, however. But I don’t say Nazi concentration camps or say Gaza is Auschwitz, and never have. “Open air prison” is also accurate— but if using that term is preferable because it makes people feel better, I’m not interested.
Quoting BC
As I’ve said, this isn’t made up by me — I’m repeating Norm Finkelstein, who himself is citing the Israeli scholar Baruch Kimmerling. Based on what I’ve read, spoken to Palestinians about, and seen, I think it’s an accurate description. It’s not hyperbole .
As for genocide— sorry, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
I see no way around it when looking at the numbers. We can blame Hamas or excuse it all as “defense” or accidental or (the most inhumane of all, in my view) collateral damage. But that’s buying into a government’s justifications and narrative. Every government and every group, including those deemed terrorists, give some justification for their actions. Hamas does too— and we shouldn’t buy into it.
These numbers are unacceptable. Period. I don’t care what the reason is. You shouldn’t be killing 8000 children. That’s a fucking monstrosity and we should all be outraged.
False. I've never done that and that's never been my point.
As to genocide, I'm using it exactly as it is defined. It's asshats like you who pretend to know what they talk about and then whine about semantics, not knowing the definitions. So, once again (the third time in this thread), according to the convention to prevent genocide:
I’m not going to go out on a limb here and say that most extreme factions of Palestinians (which are a majority), in absence of an army, use terrorism as a way to assert their “genocidal” beliefs. Oh does that sound like it’s overusing the word? Well, everyone can do it I guess. But as I said earlier, everyone’s going to use their particular cudgel. Whatever Bibi’s policies were in the West Bank, Hamas, Gazans ruling party, made their own series of poor decisions. But I’m sure you’ll find a way to justify that and then turn it around and blame the Israelis for their bad decisions. Always leads to the same answer of the blame game. I wonder why… Whether it’s convenient or not, they were given boatloads of cash and squandered it and blamed Israel. They could have just set up elections, worked on development, etc. there were other avenues, that would have led to simply trading in economics instead of rockets. But when one takes everything as an a priori truth that “Israel has been, is, and will always be wrong” then you’ve already got your conclusions.
But I’m willing to admit, none of these actors right now are playing in the realm of idealism. There is no turn the other cheek and live in harmony. These are two brutally realist actors. I guess one might say the jihadism of Hamas might make them a bit different than realism. Not sure just fundamentalist I guess. Certainly, if mothers consider suicide bombers and rapist murderers as a positive thing, perhaps there is some values out of line there.
This is also why war is different than other conflict. Here you have large populations all holding various ideas that might differ from their official state policies. Yet if the official state policies are hostile and bad natured, then the populations will suffer.
The terms bantered about here like genocide and concentration camps bear no resemblance to what those terms mean to Jews, and we cannot pretend they are not being used sardonically and intentionally to say "you escaped persecution only to be like those you escaped."
This is the Gaza "concentration camp" prior to the recent war:
I could share photos of Nazi concentration camps, but I'll do my ancestors the respect not to trot those out. They were death camps, designed for the separating, forcing into labor, gassing, and burning of an entire race. But you can compare the ways "concentration camp" is used and decide if it's appropriate to have a single word describe both situations.
As to genocide, this is what genocide looks like:
That's just Europe. Over 900,000 Jews have been expelled from the Middle East since WW2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world
The Palestinian population has increased 9 fold in Israel since 1948.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/13/c_138055503.htm#:~:text=%22The%20Palestinian%20population%20in%20the,1948%2C%22%20said%20the%20report.
This is why we asshats quibble over your terms.
Great points.
Quoting Hanover
This seems to be exactly what’s implied.
Israel can't draw the Holocaust card to excuse its own genocidal behavior.
is exactly right. Israel's behavior fits the IHL definition of genocide, and as I have pointed out before, there are examples of people who were convicted for the crime of genocide (for example, during the ICTY) that are much smaller in scale in comparison to what Israel is doing today in Gaza (and what it has subjected the Palestinian people to over the course of decades).
In short, an unsuccessful genocide is still a genocide, and just because the Jewish people were subjected to genocide in the past, does not give them a right to commit the same crime onto others.
Just curious when is there a distinction between genocide and simply the consequences of war itself? Was the carpet bombing of North Vietnam genocide or bad war policy? Was the bombing of Berlin genocide or how the strategic goals of the war were carried out in order to gain unconditional surrender.
I think rather @Hanover is suggesting that rather than dealing in the substance this is using cynical ploys at terminology by so framing this “hypocritical and ironic narrative of moral equivalence”, as he put it.
Rather, the framing of the question should be whether this is the right military strategy, and overall approach to resolving this issue. Their objective might come at too high a cost. But this is also playing in the hands of Hamas. However, it now has to live with the consequences of leading their people down a suicidal path, so they should allow an international coalition to govern the region provisionally, as long as the hostages are given back. Hamas has to step down on some fashion, that seems to be the crux here along with the hostages.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Netanyahu might go at some time, but I think the real problem is the extreme right, people like Smotrich and others. They won't go away and the moderates in Israel are few without much support. The Labor party is a tiny opposition party. People that push for the "From the Sea to the River"-soluntion without the Palestinians and are totally against any kind of Palestinian sovereignty do have a lot of power. And from their viewpoint, why not?
Equally difficult is the Palestinian politics. Democratic elections might give authority, but I think with the current environment and actions of the IDF, that might also not get elected the kind of people that we Westerners would assume to solve the situation.
Quoting Hanover
So apparently not everything that the Gulf States gave their weren't put into building tunnels.
I've lost count how many times the Palestinian areas have been built by outside money just for Israel to destroy the buildings as "terrorist strongholds".
My point remains that the usage of the terms "concentration camp" and "genocide" has been and continues to be used to create a moral equivalency argument between Israel and Nazi Germany. Acting as if those terms are just generic terms that can be used in all sorts of contexts of varying degrees is not taken seriously by anyone recognizing the context of upon which Israel was given statehood or by who resides in that land.
Well, the Labor Party with Ehud Barak was voted in previously, and right after Netanyahu, so there has been a model in the past for such things!
Quoting ssu
Yes. I think the weird unknown here is Abbas and Fatah. The way some people have phrased it, rather than being equivalent to something like a Labor Party or peacniks, they are like Hamas-lite. They still give pensions to terrorists and such. Abbas himself has practically a major in Holocaust-denial (that was his thesis). So I don't really no what their ability to work as "moderates" are, other than they aren't openly supporting terrorism at the moment. But, I have always thought Bibi never nurtured the relations with Fatah and Abbas, and for cynical gain I am sure. So again, Netanyahu and rightwing has to go, and Fatah, I don't even know what to do with that other than find someone who is moderate whether in Fatah or some outsider. I have heard rumors of another guy, I forgot his name.. who might be some moderate voice that both Gaza and West Bank respect?
What I think we got to get away from, absolutely, is looking at ndividuals as completely not autonomous if they are on what you perceive as the "underdog" side.
Quoting ssu
Yet after October 7th, are we even doubting there is terrorist activities. I just think this should be stricken as another "strafe" comment, rather than substantive.
The distinction is the element of intent, as per the relevant article of legislature that has already been quoted. In the case of Israel, several Israeli politicians including Netanyahu himself have busied overtly genocidal language and thus established intent.
In the case of the bombing of Germany during WWII, I think it is fair to say the Allies had no genocidal intentions. Still, the intentional massacring of huge numbers of civilians is a war crime and morally abhorrent.
In the case of the various different kinds of bombings of Vietnam and Cambodia (including chemical ones), I think this may qualify as genocide given the sheer scale of mass killings and the decades-long impact of the atrocities. That impact is still felt today. Was the mass killing of civilians intentional? In the case of the Vietnam war, I think so. It's a typical phenomenon seen during counterinsurgencies, where the conventional force grows frustrated with its inability to break the resistance, and turns on the civilian population out of frustration.
Quoting schopenhauer1
In all situations I've named; the Allied bombing of Germany and Japan, Vietnam, and the Israel-Gaza war, the bombings did not have a decisive impact on the war.
Many of these "strategies" were based on pre-WWII conceptions of airpower, that hypothesized that mass killings among the civilian population could "break" the receiving nation's will to fight.
This is completely unproven. There's not a single instance in history where this was the case, in fact bombing civilians often times strengthens the resolve of the target nation, especially in the case of insurgencies - that's something witnessed during almost every insurgency where mass killings of the civilian population took place.
However, the reason nations still choose this approach is because, especially during insurgencies, airpower brings the promise of low casualties to the own side. It's wishful thinking. All the airpower in the world couldn't bring the US victory in the Middle-East for example, and instead turned it into a nation of war criminals.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There's nothing cynical about pointing out that Israel's actions in Gaza fit the criteria for genocide. As I've noted before, individuals have been convicted of genocide for actions that did not reach the scale of what is taking place in Gaza today. (for examples, look at the ICTY)
I think if Netanyahu were put before an impartial international court, there's enough evidence to convict him of genocide.
That's not a semantical game I'm playing. That's my (in this case educated) opinion.
Persecution of Zoroastrians
[sup]— Wikipedia[/sup]
Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji (1150-1206)
[sup]— Wikipedia[/sup]
Still to this day, in some cases. :/
Iranian Regime Inciting Hatred, Persecuting Zoroastrian Minority
[sup]— Ahmad Majidyar · The Middle East Institute · Feb 3, 2017[/sup]
? There are some genocidal tendencies in this stuff, and the (seemingly) religious aspects of the Israel-Hamas conflict aren't pretty either. If those aspects could somehow be "filtered out" (for all parties), then peace would have a better chance.
(Animated map shows how religion spread around the world (Business Insider · Jul 14, 2015 · 2m:35s))
I mean, I think this is all you need for your arguments to have some merit. Generals tend to go right to the hammer, without considering other tools. But I also think there is a sort of naivete of how warfare manifests. It depends on the objectives and what is being fought over. In this case it is getting rid of an organization that exists to fuck over your population whenever they have the capacity and a chance to do so. It is also to retrieve hostages whilst not giving them what they want. Some objectives require massive force. For example, destroying Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan probably needed massive amounts of force. It is arguably true as well, that Israel could use even more aggressive force (but they don't) to win their objective. But if they are showing some restraint, it can be argued that they should show more restraint. Again, a theme here, is viewing Hamas/Palestinians as having absolutely no autonomy. That is not true. Hamas has the ability to negotiate in terms that would prevent the war from continuing. That is to say, they can make an agreement to leave to Qatar and hand over the hostages forthwith. They could call for an international provisional government perhaps and hand over the hostages. I think Thomas Friedman has a good plan here:
Quoting Thomas Friedman
What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people.
Yes. Muslims tended to kick ass. But since the 2nd generation Muslims were Iranians, @BitconnectCarlos was spouting bullshit about how Arab Muslims were great colonizers. They weren't. And complaining about Arab Muslims from 1200 freaking years ago adjacent to some bullshit about Hamas, gives the appearance of bigotry.
Let's complain about the Hebrew invasion of the "promised land" and then immediately talk about what we all know about what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That bullshit would be anti-Semitism.
Dammit why can't anybody on this forum read the posts they're responding to? :groan:
I mean dude, these are the terms the people actually fighting often think in, so stop being so dismissive. The far right in Israel think in terms of regaining "Samaria and Judea".. that is ancient. The Muslims think in terms of clearing the ancient Muslim Empire of any group having political control of once Muslim controlled lands. That is how Jihadists think. This isn't ancient history, even if it should be.
In fact, I don't even know your point. Muslims/Arabs "colonized" the Middle East by conquering the other empires there! You can't get more "colonizing" than that! Whether or not the inhabitants converted peacefully over time is another matter.
Let me explain this again.
To complain about Hebrews from the Bronze Age, and then immediately bring up what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians is antisemitism. This is because all Jews are being lumped together and accused to being violent invaders.
That's what @BitconnectCarlos was doing, except he was doing it to Muslims.
Is there any part of that which seems confusing to you?
Ok, can you send me the link the post?
over 2,000+ people were killed at Pearl Harbor. It ended with the dropping of two atomic bombs, and now a prosperous Japan. What's your point? Am I justifying any of the violence, no. But it does matter because there is a HUGE difference between WAR and GENOCIDE.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It did, but despite not a single German city being left standing, the Germans fought on until the bitter end. The mass killing of civilians did not cause a surrender or a breaking of the will of the population. It was military action, taking place overwhelmingly on the eastern front, that decided that war.
Similarly for Japan, Japanese resistance was not broken by bombing but by their political leadership understanding the futility in carrying on the fight. They were ready to sue for peace before the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Strategic bombing as a means to a decisive victory is understood to be wrong in military academic circles. Given that fact, I think the intentional mass murder of civilians can't be justified even in these wars in which much was at stake, thus I view them all as war crimes and morally abject.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Certainly. However, there is a crucial element that shouldn't be overlooked.
An insurgency can only be undertaken against an occupier.
So when Western countries are facing stubborn insurgencies that don't allow themselves to be rooted out, the first question should be: why are we there as the occupier in the first place?
Of course there is. Scratch a hyperbolist, find a useful idiot.
I love this one. Your ancestors are rolling around in their graves for you defending what the Nazis did to them.
Both parties lay claim to religio-historical areas (+ there's a contemporary geo-context) ... Both parties have exhibited sort of genocidal tendencies if you will ... The badness on both sides has been re-repeated throughout the threat...err...thread many times (often by loud partisans) ...
What am I missing? :) What would be some good stuff, suggestions toward peace stability prosperity, forward-looking, something like that? (assuming there are any)
I would quibble over this, as after the Invasion of Normandy, the Western front became overwhelmingly successful. But yes, the turning point were the battles on the Eastern front.
Quoting Tzeentch
Perhaps. And it is this is why I bring it up. The arguments should be made for how hard one should use military force, not other issues that are not the case, like "this is a genocide", which again given the history of actual genocides, seems like a cynical ploy. I think the inaccuracy of that framing, means it should be dropped for a more apt argument about how war is to be conducted.
Quoting Tzeentch
Okay, but you see that is a different argument. That is saying "War, what is it good for?". War can never be justified. But again, different type of argument. Now that the argument has become properly framed, the debate can in good faith continue. I would say that there is a middle ground where "War is never justified", and "Maximum force is necessary to achieve objective". I think it is indeed the case that most generals tend towards the maximal. However, I think you should always allow the enemy to have ways of standing down. I think in this case, it could be argued that Israel can propose ideas for Hamas to stand down, even if Hamas (for whatever reason) does not do this themselves. I noticed in your examples, you provided ways in which indeed the enemy did sue for peace by standing down. Well, that is not the case right now with Hamas. If the objective is to get rid of Hamas, there are only a few ways that could go. But as Friedman points out, perhaps a worse fate for Hamas would have to live amongst the people they dragged into this mess. But it wouldn't be just "leave them be to reform with new batch of terrorists". Rather, it would have to be an international force, including Israel supervising the area until they commit to peaceful political parties. I do not think it would be responsible for Israel to just leave, nor do I think it responsible for them to simply take it over with no plan. So we can agree on it there.
Quoting Tzeentch
But this again assumes EVERY insurgency is morally justified. That is a ridiculous notion. "You represent the underdog, and are willing to fight for a cause, and do so using terrorism, therefore your cause is right". That doesn't make sense. Just because, for example, Isis, or the Lord's Resistance Party, or Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, or the Sandinistas, or Contras, or the Shining Path, or the represents an "insurgency" or some "underdog" doesn't mean they are morally justified to carry on with their operations.
Right. And this is genocide. Sorry you can’t get your mind around it. Too bad.
The term "genocide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the acts of the Nazi regime in Europe. He also applied it to the extensive destruction of the Armenian people by Turkey in 1915. Those two events set a high bar for an event to qualify as a genocide.
Please note, moderator, that I didn't find it necessary to describe your response in derogatory terms.
Quoting Vaskane
Post WWII emigration has resulted in a decline of the Jewish population in Europe. What is the statistical fallacy nightmare you are talking about?
The Nazi atrocity against the Jewish population has a unique name : the Holocaust. This term should not be used of other slaughters.
However, 'concentration camp' was used already of the internment carried out by Britain during the Boer War.
'Genocide' has been defined by international treaty, and legitimately used of events in various places such as Bosnia, Rwanda, and Myanmar.
So to the language police, "Do not exceed your remit!"
It does matter, because now you are making someone "defend a genocide" rather than a war, and being this is a philosophy forum, people are just going to "rest their case" because "genocide". All done, now we can go home... You must be a genocide-supporter see! What did I tell ya! Yeah, it is a tactic to make the debate about defending genocide, but what if I do not agree those are the terms of this debate? Then you will point to whatever person wrote this or that article which has supported your case. And then we are at a standstill. Okay, and then what? Well, one person will say, "At least I'm not for genocide?!" But then I can just turn it around and say Hamas supports genocide, or is committing genocide in whatever way they have capacity to do so. Okay, now what? It's a straw man debate and moves the substantive questions of how force should be used in war to a realm of something else.
I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said one cannot rule it out on principle, but one has to look at what is happening and what is being justified by what rhetoric. If a genocide is happening, then either one tries to defend it or one condemns it. One cannot look at some other event and claim that because the death toll was higher there, this event cannot be counted.
When I looked back, my basic argument was already made here, and in more detail, so I just defer to this, as to what I am trying to convey here:
Quoting BC
Also, I brought up to another poster that in WW2, 2000+ (mostly military) personnel were killed in Pearl Harbor. At the end of the conflict, two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.
Now possibly, this can be considered a "genocide". What I'm saying is, if it's used in such a wide scope, then genocide loses meaning or just becomes another term that is bandied about like "war crime". So yeah, pile it on if you must, but that isn't the substantive issue of the case. For example, all those terms and pointing to this or that definition is hiding the actual philosophical/moral dilemma which is how you conduct a conflict against an enemy polity.
In the moral case of Japan, the issue was often put in terms of how many people would die in a ground invasion versus two large bombs that were relatively unknown. Now, perhaps that was not the right decision. I certainly wouldn't want to make it. Possibly the biggest moral dilemma any political person ever faced in modern times. But it's about war and how much force to use and when, etc. That is the debate.
What is your argument though, that current usage is wrong because we need lots of words to uniquely ly describe the Holocaust? It's a very weak argument, given that genocide has an agreed definition in international law, and the unique term already exists for what the Nazis did. I describe how these terms are used; no one talks of "The Genocide". So you are simply wrong, the English speaking community including international bodies and common parlance do not follow your preferred usage. you don't get to dictate the language.
You can talk gobbledegook if you like, as far as I'm concerned mate; I'm describing common usage and objecting to those who wish to rule it out of bounds.
Ok so under this definition:
Quoting BC
Almost every war in the 20th and 21st century constitutes a genocide.
They're not rules of mine, but my understanding of polite careful speech. You say what you like and the site owner will let you know what his rules are. My writ does not run here, I merely opine.
I see you skipped this post, which I believe the strongest against your case:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866645
Would it be "off topic" if by comparing them it might reveal that the definition becomes too wide? But anyways, indeed, in this case, it is about the methods for which are employed to "defeat Hamas". What does that take, what are the alternatives, what might work better, etc.
If you are just going to say, "War itself is genocide" I just won't take it seriously as an argument. Often war ends up being two ethnically different group, but when one ethnic group's polity goes to war against another, and even if they use maximum force, that doesn't mean "genocide".
Too wide for your narrow mind? It seems to function s a legal definition. I am objecting to the ruling out of language in common use — can you explain your objection to my objection?
Define something however you want to fit your case, man. I'm just giving you the other side regarding that usage in this case.
Gaza is an "open air prison" because of various moves that are not fully (nor even mostly) Israel's fault or intention. Rather, Hamas was voted in. It used money to build bombs and not economic development, and then proceeded to harass a much more powerful neighbor in the process. That more powerful neighbor, then responds when they are attacked by the government that heads that area. Thus comes the blaming of Israel for this or that for their own undoing because (insert generic anti-Zionism thing in here). Okie dokie.
Yes, I discount it, because even to the extent that it is in common parlance as you speak it it is qualified as "of Armenians", it does not rule out that there may have been other genocides of other peoples. Every people think of themselves as 'The People'. My parents talked about The War; their parents talked about The Great War, to distinguish it from the little difficulty with the nazis, that my parents called "The War"
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, man. I do not define something however I want, and I have not really made a case for anything except the allowance of common usage in this thread. I think you must be confusing me with the international court or something. Rather it is you who are trying to change the definitions. I observed that there is a futile argument over the mere words, and sought to resolve it. I wasn't even addressing you particularly.
Now when it comes to "open air prison", that is an emotive and unclear term, that may have some legitimacy in describing the feelings that some, maybe many Palestinians have about their situation - that they cannot get out, and cannot work to improve their situation. But it is not a clear or exact description of anything, and probably not very useful therefore to a political or philosophical discussion.
Ok, well, we can just drop this line of argument I think. I was trying to make a point about using semantics to then fit the case into the semantics, but now this is solely eating up our energy discussing semantics, the thing I was against doing anyways. Rather, look at the substance. What should be done. How should Israel proceed? How should Hamas proceed? etc.
Israel's goal: End Hamas.
Hamas' goal: (Besides end Israel which is NOT in their capacity but is in their intent), to stay alive and not let Israel destroy them.
I already gave my substantive proposal.. To follow more-or-less Thomas Friedman's proposal as I quoted earlier.
Have you been paying attention? Bibi's regime is not the one getting fucked
Yes indeed. Successful genocides are quickly forgotten, because history is written by the winners. And this is a thread about Gaza today. I have forgotten the Armenians, because the language has forgotten them. You would cause a deal of confusion, — and god knows there is enough already — if you started to try and talk about The Genocide, and insisting it was something that happened elsewhere and to other people than the places and peoples we are discussing. This is called "context". In a discussion of Armenian history, it would be entirely appropriate, here it is an irrelevant and confusing dispute.
And now i am bored already, so carry on at your pleasure.
“Woops, total accident.”
“Good enough, carry on.”
I only have to hear the lame ass bitching and whining from you Hamas symps to know Hamas is fucked.
Boo hoo
Good point. That is one of the things makes the West so historically unique, that it seeks to hold itself to strict standards of humane warfare. The idea of war crimes, is as insane as it is brilliant because it creates an objective moral highground in relation to the brutality and savagery of total war.
What a truly repugnant response.
@Merkwurdichliebe's “boo hoo” reply makes me envision someone eating popcorn with a brewsky in their hand in front of their TV set while joyfully laughing out loud at every instance of a child being maimed or dying, and always drooling at the mouth for more children’s blood being shed.
There's a chance this might not be Merkwurdichliebe, but such is the image his comment produces.
In my experience, such individuals have no guilt and can do no wrong, irrespective of what their actions might be. They’re in their own eyes pure angels - angels that want for others to be ruthlessly obliterated with as much bloodlust and spin of reality as is required to do so.
Honest observations from someone who knows himself to be no angel - of the type just addressed or any other. :naughty:
----
The numbers you talk about alone sometime bring me close to crying rather authentic tears. But then, this turns into anger - which can in principle be put to good use.
Basically wanted to second your comment.
Cite where I "sympathize with Hamas" or retract your slander.
Well, unlike some others, there indeed is something about concentration camps that I deem wrong. This especially when they turn into extermination camps. No quivering on my part, but sorrow, yes - this mixed with some anger at those who don't give a fuck.
In now long-gone history, this concentration camp turned extermination camp thing was once done by the Nazis toward the Jews - in case some have not heard. But this is only meaningful to those who care, of course.
In the present moment, this concentration camp turning into extermination camp is being directly done by the Israelis with the Palestinians - if not strictly via direct killings then via intentional starvation and disease. But this is also strictly meaningful to those who have a heart and thereby care.
The past is unalterable. The present, however, is. But I somehow already know your reply: almost 10,000 children killed in a few months time, to not mention those maimed both physically and psychologically ... boo-fuckin-hoo you privately reply, because you just don't give a fuck.
And no, I don't shed tears for people that hate children.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/1948/12/02.htm
Why is calling Israel's conduct in Gaza a genocide a cynical ploy or inaccurate framing?
It fits the IHL definition of a genocide.
Israeli officials themselves are busying overtly genocidal language.
I think Netanyahu would be found guilty of genocide if he were put infront of an impartial international court.
As I've noted before, several Bosnian Serbs were convicted for the crime of genocide by an international tribunal for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre. What Israel is doing today in Gaza and has done over the course of several decades is of a scale far greater.
As such, jurisprudence supports my argument that what Israel is doing today falls within the realm of a genocide.
This isn't an exaggeration on my part at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
My view of what constitutes acceptable use of force and civilian casualties correspond roughly with the guidelines IHL provides. Israel is blatantly ignoring IHL and committing war crimes.
Sorry, but I cannot accept your position as a middleground. If you believe what Israel is doing today is justified I think your views are at the extreme end of the spectrum.
On what basis can you condemn Hamas for its attacks if you see no problem with what Israel is doing today? They're simply using "maximum force necessary to achieve objectives" as well.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong.
If people are more informed on the history, they couldn't just use the latest headline as their newest political cudgel. That would mean a nuanced understanding on the fact that it was a series of wars started by neighboring Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. etc.), who annexed the West Bank and Gaza and never did anything themselves to make these territories into their own self-determining state,.
Then when the Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt and the rest stopped attacking, and it became only Palestinians left with Israelis to make a deal, the Palestinian side, when given a chance to make a state, never took any deals. But yes, for those who do understand some of the history, the terms of these deals will be said by them, as "unreasonable" for Palestinians and thus implies it seems "reasonable" for the asymmetrical warfare "intafadas" that ensued of of suicide bombings, and terrorist rampages and kidnappings into Israel by Palestinians jihadists and terrorists. Meanwhile of course, any Israeli responses to being attacked, like striking the network of dug-in underground tunnels filled with ammunitions, Hamas fighters, and hostages (purposefully built under densely populated areas) will be decried as wrong for exactly the reasons Hamas built the tunnels under these infrastructures in the first place.. to make it near impossible to get to without killing civilians, enacting world outrage, and purposefully entangling their own civilian's lives into the conflict itself, all the while using children and women as soldiers and shields. And they did this with the aid of Iran and their para-military proxies- not to mention the funneling of funds from US, Europe, and Arab states into their rat's nest apparatus, designed perfectly to wrap Gaza's own population into a no-win, deadly situation.
Israel thus now has to balance Gazan's civilians with its military goals, but this is the situation that the Hamas-run Gaza has set up. Being that they have no scruples or moral compass other than "jihad" and "fuck the Jews and the Jewish state", it is all on Israel to make sure they can achieve their objectives while also worrying about the civilians, being Hamas and their undetermined but large number of sympathizers, don't care about their own population, other than how they can be used to stoke world outrage by making sure they are entangled in their war apparatus.
Quoting Tzeentch
This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your insurgency is about setting up something like an Isis or death squads or any pretty much dysfunctional or evil or totalitarian or fundamentalist society, the moral justification for that insurgency becomes suspect or negated. Combine that with consistently evil means, then the entire argument looks tendentious and arbitrary. And again, goes back to my point of why underdog is justified JUST because they’re an underdog. I can form a posse of evil insurgents and that commit acts of terrorism for my cause and I wouldn’t be right because I’m the “little guy” in the situation throwing bombs and putting a mask on and shooting ak47s in the air and I’m pissed and I have people from other governments prop me up.
I could not possibly go through all of the posts in this mega-thread, but you seem to believe that there is a difference in the moral character of Israel, and the ones supplying them weapons, and Hamas. I think differences exist, but also that one's intentions can be inferred from their actions sometimes. On a surface level it is claimed to be a war, but this "war", at least for the Palestinians, has resulted in a ratio of around 90% civilian deaths to combatants according to some sources, and hundreds of thousands displaced. This looks like a genocide, largely because so many civilians are killed, but also because Israel is adhering to an ineffective strategy in bombarding Gaza. If it was about beating Hamas they would have done something else.
Hamas actually has a better civilian to combatants killed ratio and they are explicitly terrorist. That says a lot. And just because they antagonized Israel, use human shields, deprive their people of aid, etc., doesn't justify terror or wanton killing on the part of Israel. Clearly. Tit for tat stops at war crimes.
Israel's actions indicate either wild incompetence, or a concerted effort to displace and murder Palestinians. Given that it is Israel, I doubt it could only be incompetence. So, it's genocide.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, true, but Hamas carries the added baggage of being Islamic fundamentalists, many of whom hate Jews for reasons not tied to the oppression of the Palestinians. Although that doesn't help.
If you looked on the thread I’m not endorsing this heavy handed approach either, I’m just not calling it a genocide. It’s a debate about how hard to hit on war. Most generals want a maximal approach.
I already stated I would rather see Thomas Friedman’s solution enacted ASAP as described in that article. Its goals to degrade Hamas would take too long and is too costly at this point, but they’re probably set in for this to go on for months or more. I’ve stated that the Israeli leadership needs to change and they need an end goal in mind politically that involves international and Arab neighbors.
However, yeah look at my previous post before this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866806
Okay, so what is the takeaway? Yes, Hamas is going to do whatever it takes to win, but we have zero capability to change them, and it has long been known that support for Hamas among the Palestinians has gone up when conflict flared up between them and Israel. Whichever Generals decided to just go ahead and bomb hospitals and UN schools and what not are not only responsible for specific war crimes, but also give zero fucks about winning in a way that doesn't include the annihilation of the Palestinians.
I mean, what is Hamas supposed to do? Not use every advantage they have? I wish they would just surrender too, but they are the closest thing to freedom fighters (albeit shitty freedom fighters) that the Palestinians have.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is that attitude not kind of understandable minus the jihad part? I mean, I see nothing too wrong with saying "fuck the Jewish state", for instance, if not "fuck the Jews". That would definitely be antisemitic. But there are reasons, and I'm sure you know them well, for the anger towards Israel. You say we hold Israel to a really high standard. Well, I say we hold the Palestinians to too high of a standard. That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.
Haha, I don’t know why but this right there is so oddly obvious, in its characterization of Hamas and its rhetoric, it is oddly out of place. Like calling Osama bin Laden only slightly anti-America. What was it that tipped you off? Was it the actions or the rhetoric?
Quoting ToothyMaw
That’s a farce. Hamas was the organizations that killed thousands of Israelis in the 90s and 2000s amidst Oslo peace process not even wanting to give it a chance. They want all of Israel. Then when Sharon pulled Israeli settlements out of Gaza and they held elections, instead of voting in a moderate government, they voted in Hamas and sent rockets to Israel. They also burned down the greenhouses that Israel were left for them to use for their economic benefit. They don’t care about development or a thriving culture for their people. Purely about war. They ran that economy into the ground with all the aid they got.
Quoting ToothyMaw
The first part of your sentence negates the second part. Isis or Boko Harem aren’t righteous SIMPLY because they are fighting a perceived oppressor. That’s an oddly amoral argument for a relation dynamic that doesn’t consider the means and ends of the people involved.
Well shit, isn’t that part of their strategy? If you are run by a leadership with a death cult mentality that provokes a more powerful neighbor, better appeal to the neighbor to not do anything about it. Well, if Hamas leadership was left to their devices they would want to repeat the carnage and if given the chance, would get bolder. Their neighbors would also perceive this as weakness and attack as well seeing as there was little resistance. Rather, Israel decided their goal was destroying all the infrastructure and fighters. The other allies like Hezbollah balked.
It's up to people themselves how they want to govern their state. The United States has proven how futile the attempt is to decide for other people how they should govern themselves. The US wanted to turn the Middle-East into a sea of democracy, and instead turned it into a sea of Muslim fundamentalism.
But moreover, occupation and oppression breed extremism, and certainly in the case of Hamas it is a direct result of how the Palestinians were treated by Israel over the course of decades.
If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas, it should end the occupation. Hamas' reason for existence disappears, and moderates will take their place.
Of course, this is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Israeli right-wing political establishment, and that is the problem.
If you read what I was saying, I was differentiating between one thing that might be construed as antisemitic and one thing that definitely was. That's why I said it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Did Israel not occupy Gaza and treat the Palestinians like shit for decades? And I said that Hamas is bad and doesn't benefit the Palestinians, so we agree on that. If you are saying that the Palestinians wanted a seemingly endless conflict that would eventually conclude with their near destruction, you are patently wrong. What is happening now is largely the result of Israel's actions, actions like sniping civilians at peaceful protests and attacking people's funerals. These are the actions of a terrorist regime, and terrorism invites more terrorism.
Furthermore, Netanyahu actually supported Hamas, so there's that.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm not advocating for Hamas, I'm saying that that is how many Palestinians see it probably. I think Hamas sucks. But clearly the Palestinians have some sort of relationship with Hamas that is somewhat neutral, and I can only explain that as a function of the Palestinians wanting men to fight on their behalf.
So then I can use that argument for why Israel kept voting in right wing parties.
Quoting Tzeentch
That seems naive. Gaza was given to them and the gesture was “fuck you not good enough” and “fuck your economic gift, we don’t want anything from a Jewish state”. Not engendering good will there when Israel acts in a way that loosens it’s direct control. Also Israel did try to negotiate and got bombed repeatedly and then rejected by the moderates who still pay their radical suicide bomber families pensions. Real moderate!
Quoting Tzeentch
Because I think that moderates should prevail, I’ll agree that there should always be a good faith effort.
One group was initially wronged and wronged more severely over a period of time by another group. If the first group starts attacking the second, maybe the initial wrong-doers should try to stop it instead of escalating?
So I’ll repeat for the apparently less informed how it got this way once again:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting ToothyMaw
No they want Israel’s destruction and to kill as many Israelis as they can get away with, as well as project their “power” by holding hostages as Israel has in the past given up immense numbers of prisoners for only one person as they tend to value their citizens. Hamas uses useful idiots and the media cycle to stoke outage. It’s all asymmetrical tactics. It’s the long game. They bit off more than they were predicting this time. Most likely their neighbors were step in and make it a regional war but that didn’t happen either. Their only recourse is the civilian deaths lead to moral outrage.
Quoting ToothyMaw
I’m no supporter of Netanyahu but, Israel at first might have thought that Hamas could be worked with once they got power. That lasted a second though. Netanyahu did benefit from thinking he could ignore the existential issue and Hamas was convenient for that no doubt.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Palestinians are both supporters and captive of Hamas depending. If there were elections in the West Bank, 75% would vote them on.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Now this is just historically false. Look back at the history I reiterated for a second time.
I didn't respond in kind, but attempted to diffuse your inappropriate comment only for you not to allow that we just move on from there, now presenting with this claim that I'm a racist.
Anyway, all that can be said has been said on this, no opinions are likely to change, and so now all that is left is snark and insult. To the extent you believe your opponents are in bad faith, deluded, racist, or whatever other subhuman trait you attribute to them, you are very wrong.
I can’t speak for Benkei, but I myself do not consider them the same as Nazis or the Holocaust. They are not the same.
As for the appropriateness of “concentration camp,” which many people immediately associate with Nazi concentration camps, I think the following is enlightening:
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/influential-israeli-national-security-leader-makes-the-case-for-genocide-in-gaza/
This statement was made by Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council. He’s no Palestinian sympathizer, either. Is his description wrong?
They have been actually, people just pay less attention, but it still goes on. The Armenian diaspora is one of the most effective diaspora groups in terms of lobbying the West. This is how they are able to get disproportionate attention for a country of marginal economic and strategic relevance, and why they have very quickly been able to get Western support against the Azerbaijan despite having alienated the West by being so closely aligned to Russia for so long.
This actually flies in the face of real politick, considering the considerable issues Iran has been having with internal security crises, especially those related to its large minority populations, largely Kurds and Azeris. You could see an argument for US grand strategy doing more to court the Azeris the way they do the Kurds, but they don't do this in part because of the power of the Armenian lobby.
Armenia was also instrumental in throwing up some major road blocks to Turkey's entry into the EU, re demands for recognizing the genocide and paying reparations (which only accomplished having Turkey point a finger at the Greeks). Granted, these were in part more an excuse for people who already didn't want Turkey in the union.
I only point this out because there is this tendency to see Israel has somehow unique in having a powerful diaspora lobby. It isn't, and peoples with significant diasporas often have powerful lobbies in areas in which they've concentrated. And of course, you can have influence without a large diaspora. I would say the Saudis tend to have more influence in the US than Israel for example (or maybe Turkey via cash payments to the NSA, or gold coins given to a certain NJ senator, lol).
People tend to pay more attention to Israel's efforts, due to both antisemitic tropes, the religious salience of the "Holy Land," and the fact that Palestine also has a large diaspora movement. This attention actually makes their efforts less successful IMO. Shining light on foreign influence isn't normally helpful.
Sounds like psychobabble and ad homs in place of any interesting insight. I am quite content to be labelled by people with agendas on either side, and my anonymous internet bravery is positively troll-worthy. :grin:
Banned ... another "Israeli war crimes" apologist.
Also: I never called it a concentration camp but nice to know you feel obligated to defend that crime by pointing out it isn't as bad as an actual one.
As there is a legal definition for Genocide, do note that it isn't similar to what the Third Reich perpetrated and what we know as the Holocaust. For example, the genocide in Ruanda isn't similar to the Holocaust, especially by scope, but it is still a genocide. Many people think that genocide and Holocaust are synonyms, they aren't. Also, concentration camps have been used by quite many countries, which do not have had the idea of extermination everybody.
The unfortunate thing is that @Benkei's argument that a genocide is happening in Gaza is becoming more credible as the talk continues of "voluntary" movement of Palestinians from Gaza and when Gaza is reduced to rubble with not much ability to sustain over 2 million people to live there. It simply cannot be refuted that there isn't a lot of genocidal discourse in Israel starting with the prime minister talking about Amalek and other high ranking politicians referring to human animal, Gaza as evil and the calls for "voluntary" removal of Palestinians to the Sinai desert (not the Negev desert in Israel), or for Nakba 2. I find it very worrisome that the way that the IDF is now fighting Hamas starts to be very different from the way the US fought Iraqi insurgents, and this makes a lot more credible the accusations of genocide.
I would suggest to watch (or listen) to the following interview Raz Segal, a Professor in the Study of Modern Genocide at Stockton University, which makes quite well the argument for a genocide happening in Gaza.
Some points from the interview (if you won't bother to watch it):
- Hamas has many times talked about destroying Israel, so yes, it has the intent, but not the capability. Here what really matters is not only the intent, but also the capability to perform such things. (That Hamas has broken human rights and perpetrated war crimes is obvious.)
- The whole idea of moving people from the Gaza into the Sinai desert comes very close to examples like the Armenian genocide.
- Historically it has been the case that the perpetrators of a genocide have thought to be acting in self defence: From the Ottomans to Nazi Germany.
And if you think this is totally unimportant / nonsensical anti-semitic arguments of "the left", please do observe that just South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice for being " in breach of its obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention in its crackdown against the Palestinian group Hamas in Gaza".
See United Nations page
So it's not just some crackpots here in PF, it's also some nations too. And not only Arab/Muslim countries. Hence we are really quickly moving from the initial responses from October 7 to something else (as happened in the Global War on Terror) thanks to the idiot zealots and those nurturing the feelings for revenge.
And (if you're still reading), I will repeat that this is extremely unfortunate. If this is dragged to be some kind of "culture war" issue or then being critical of Israel's actions is deemed anti-semitic, then at some point people will start to fall into saying that "Very well then, if opposing this is anti-semitic, count me being one then!". And that's not a good thing.
Okay, you are referencing the Arab-Israeli War. Just because Egypt and Jordan didn't allow the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank to form their own self-determining states doesn't mean that Israel shouldn't.
After the Six Day War and Resolution 242, Israel was supposed to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, but they didn't. Thus began an unjust occupation. The first Intifada in 1987 was the result of increasing settlements and the ongoing repression of Palestinians by security forces, not Palestinian bloodlust. Many Palestinian protests were nonviolent, even if some escalated.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What about all of the attempts to implement a two-state solution Palestinians would find favorable in the UN that have been vetoed by Israel and the United States? Did that just not happen?
For the secular western mind - very foreign. Islam is more eschatological than Judaism. Eschatology is featured extensively in the Quran and the Hadiths unlike the Hebrew bible. Christ was heavily eschatological but that faded over time with Christianity.
Quoting Tzeentch
Do you support resistance "by any means necessary" i.e. the complete dismissal of any moral notions?
In any case, I agree that the oppressed is justified in fighting back (but certainly within limits!). The foreign occupier has no right to the land.
So I guess we should send the Palestinians back to Saudi Arabia or whichever surrounding Arabic nation they came from. The hardline Islamic rule of Hamas and the main religion of the Palestinians doesn't arrive in the region until the 7th century. Jews were there over a millennium earlier.
Really? :brow:
:up:
Christian and Muslim eschatology both come from Jewish version. Apocalypticism exists in all three religions to this day, with Orthodox Jews manifesting it.
I'm just giving you a heads up here: you've expressed quite a few false opinions up to this point. I think you might be interested in looking into the history of the Abrahamic religions further. I think if you asked in the shoutbox, you'd get some good suggestions as to where to start.
Islam is more eschatological than Judaism. Do you agree or disagree?
Where is my error? I contend 1) that Islam, as reflected in the Quran and Hadiths, is more eschatological than Judaism and that 2) Arab Muslims have engaged in vast colonization. Both seem right to me.
I'd be happy to take up a debate on either subject.
Both are wrong. Both are issues that could easily be settled by referencing religion scholars and historians. I guess I don't understand why you need to debate it with someone rather than just look it up. I worked the last three days and I need to clean my house up. Can you just go to the local university library and get some books?
No, I need to go to synagogue today where I will surely hear my rabbi lecture about how to get to heaven and attain my 72 virgins. You know, because, the Hebrew Bible is just full of eschatology and certain knowledge of the afterlife. :roll: /s
Jewish eschatology pervades the Talmud. Do you even know what that is? :eyes:
It's present but I wouldn't say that it pervades. We're told not to place our focus on it (Pirkei Avot 1:3).
And of course there's a difference between conversations among ancient rabbis versus what is actually used for instruction to a congregation.
That's good, because Jewish apocalypticism is basically about a deep, raging hatred of Gentiles. It's the kind of hatred that twists the soul. Rabbis would debate how long a Gentile needs to be tortured in Hades in order to make the universe right, while Jews sit at God's right hand in heaven and look down on the screaming. If you didn't know about this, I would strongly suggest you get a textbook on the Talmud to give you a better understanding of the history of your religion.
The point is, there are still Jewish apocalypticists: they're Orthodox Jews. In the same way, Islam and Christianity both have populations of believers who are waiting on the end of the world (Jews call it the World to Come) and their place in heaven.
For a long time, the Rabbis only believed Gentiles are tortured in Hades. They eventually decided it might be possible for a Jew to receive that kind of judgement. That was the beginning of a little healing. Oppression is a monster-maker. Being full of rage is a natural part of the process. Keep that in mind when you're trying to understand Hamas.
Oh good. Did you know the same thing is true of Muslims?
You have a habit of generalizing. The Talmud is a dense complicated text that takes years of study (7 years being the rule of thumb) to gain proficiency with it. I am not a Talmudic expert, neither are you - we are both out of our depths here but the Talmud says that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. Rabbis will discuss every topic under the sun, just as Christian and Muslim religious authorities have debated similarly whether followers of other religions end up in hell. I see no reason for particular vitriol against the Jews. Nor is the Talmud the end of Jewish tradition.
You've shifted the emphasis to the Talmud because you know the Torah is not eschatological (in contrast to the Quran, which is claimed to be pure revelation from God and goes into deep detail about the afterlife and punishment.)
Orthodox Jews may believe in a world to come, but they are not "apocalyptists" -- there is no fast track to Heaven like a shahid in Islam. It also seems heaven in Islam is described carnally. The Orthodox Jew is focused on daily piousness, not "death for the sake of God" as it's highest aim as stated in the Hamas charter. Orthodox Judaism is not a death cult like Hamas or fundamentalist Islam.
Quoting frank
Yet even Jews in actual concentration camps (Auschwitz, not Gaza) didn't end up mass raping German women or committing atrocities because of their "rage." Murder is condemned in all religions and the Hamas murderer-rapists will be accountable to God. Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. They are bred to be sociopaths in a culture which glorifies death and revenge. The Palestinians deserve better.
The way Jews absorbed Greek and Persian eschatology was by reading it into the Torah. The idea is that the OT is in code. We discover God's message to us by unravelling the numbers and words. The one book that was intended to be eschatological is Daniel.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Do you know what's meant by Messiah? :eyes:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yea, that's probably true. Christianity is the king of all death cults, though. Nobody does dark and gruesome like Christians.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well at least you've narrowed your condemnation from all Muslims down to Hamas. We're making progress. :up:
A plague on all their houses? Well, plagues are pretty unpleasant, so maybe something else. How about a wave of enlightened secularism? More than a wave, a tsunami.
Pretty much everyone who has taken a strong religious stand in the Middle East from the getgo has been a big part of the problem. That is not to say that religious partisans haven't royally fucked things up elsewhere on the planet.
I think those features of Abrahamic religions were stress responses. Secularism has enjoyed a happy period where stresses have been put at arms length in various ways. If those stresses come back, the same kind of weird images will start growing out of the crevices of secularism like lichens out of a rock.
"Yet even Jews in actual concentration camps (Auschwitz, not Gaza) didn't end up mass raping German women or committing atrocities because of their "rage." Murder is condemned in all religions and the Hamas murderer-rapists will be accountable to God. Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. They are bred to be sociopaths in a culture which glorifies death and revenge. The Palestinians deserve better."
Muslim terrorists often strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up, taking as many civilians as they can with them. Orthodox Jews don't. Why is that?
I don't understand the point of this question. Could you spell it out?
Why do Muslim terrorists rape women to death? Put on suicide vests and blow innocent people up? Fly planes into civilian buildings? Behead people and burn them alive, like ISIS? Why don't we see similar behavior from Jews? Why didn't the Jews in Europe do such things in response to the Holocaust?
What is your answer to this question?
What's causing the religious extremism?
And Israeli’s killing 8000 children out of love and compassion.
As long as good invisible intentions are there, one can kill with impunity.
That's a misquote. Bitconnect said that. I don't entirely agree with what he said,
:up:
That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow. Also, the actions of colonial powers and the U.S. involvement in the region are a factor in pushing people towards extremism. The U.S. involvement has been nakedly self-serving, dishonest, and destructive. That would cause a lot of rage.
Waging war on the Axis made the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Axis children an inevitability. Much more than 8k. Such is war. The blood lies on the instigator.
Hamas uses 14-18 year olds as combatants. Hamas allows children as young as 14 to carry explosives.
Islam does have a fair amount of ideological ease with militancy because its central figure was a military leader. I'm having a hard time drawing a line between what Hamas just did and Islam, though. There's a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't know if we'll ever know what actually happened.
I've spent quite a bit of time over the decades criticizing and denouncing US policy. However, "states" -- be the United States, Germany, Iran, Thailand... pick a state, any state... are and should be self serving. States do not have morals, friends, etc. What they have are "interests" and they are intended to pursue those interests on behalf of their ["most valuable"] citizen groups.
How well states pursue their interests varies. States don't have to be honest with everybody else, but they need to be honest within their core -- else they come to believe their own bullshit, which is a universal big mistake. Destructive? States can be very destructive in pursuit of their interests.
None of that is intended as blanket immunity. Germany was severely punished for a criminal overreach in pursuit of its self interests (lebensraum). Germany was also punished for elevating social prejudice against Jews to a lethal state policy. And more, besides. Had Germany won the war, the Allies wouldn't have been able to punish Germany.
So who do we blame for what states do? Start with their leaders, of course, and not just the 1 or 2 leaders at the tip of the power pyramid. The war in Vietnam involved many more leaders than John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon. Blame corporate interests (somebody's always making a lot of money manufacturing war materiel). Blame wishy-washy civil and religious institutions. Blame the electorate. And, of course, blame other states who pursue their interests contrary to our interests.
All that said, I don't know to what extent loyal support of Israel really is in the American state's interest. I'm predisposed by personal history to prefer Israel over Syria, say, or Israel over Iran. Apart from personal history, it isn't obvious to me that the leadership of Israel (an assortment of of people I probably don't agree with on much) is pursuing Israel's long-germ interests.
So Hamas was justified? No thank you. I don’t buy that.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And Israel kills them — of all ages, in fact. Approaching the tens of thousands.
But at least they do it without hatred in their hearts.
I don't know. Could be. Christianity (at an early stage under Constantine) became Romanized. The Empire was a very multilingual, multiethnic, multi-creedal operation, and the Romanized Christian Church required a millennium to stabilize its various creeds and heresies. Islam's history seems to be quite different.
Islam began as fast paced military/religious conquest; outside of the empire, it took the Christian Church quite some time for the Christian Church to achieve maximum distribution.
Is "stress" the force behind Islamic militancy?
I suppose; it depends. If social/political/economic stresses don't kill people, they probably make them more militant. Very comfortable people usually don't become hard core revolutionaries. Not never, but usually not.
Just asking: Why is it so hard not to demand ethnic cleansing?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Palestinians aren't even remotely close to Axis powers of the WW2.
Terror bombing and killing civilians isn't an inevitability. If you have good civil defense (bomb shelters), safety of civilians is important and the evacuation of civilians from the battlefield is possible, then a huge war can go without huge losses on civilians. And if the intent isn't to kill civilians. My country (with population of 3,7 million people) lost about 95 000 soldiers killed in WW2, yet only two thousand civilians were killed in WW2.
And "such is war" is one of the most stupid reasoning ever I've heard. Believe me, there really are very different ways of fighting a war. The Roman doctrine of "Get peace by making an artificial desert" or the Mongol doctrine of "Kill every human being and make the country grazing ground for our horses" is quite different from how the Western allies fought and occupied Germany and Japan. Or for that matter how usually wars are fought.
So let's put this death toll from Gaza into context:
In the US invasion of Iraq, according to Iraqi Body Count Project, the fatalities were the following:
It should be noted that afterwards the actual Civil War in Iraq killed quite a lot of Iraqis and hence the minority of the 180 000 - 205 000 fatalities 2003-2008 (according to IBCP, but others are similar) were killed by US troops. Now we are reaching in Gaza the numbers that in the Iraqi war were killed in two years (24 000). And Iraq is quite more bigger than Gaza, Saddam's army was quite more bigger than Hamas and there was far more US and allied forces in Iraq than now in Gaza.
A house-by-house, room-by-room, tunnel-by-tunnel rooting out of Hamas would result in many fewer collateral deaths. Israel doesn't have enough population to mount and sustain so personnel-intensive approach. Dropping bombs and shelling buildings is a more efficient use of resources, with ghastlier side effects. There's no such thing as a bomb smart enough to blow up only the right people. Bombs and shells are equal opportunity death-dealing devices.
I like to watch NDEs, and some people recount going through a "life review" where the they feel the impact their presence had on others and its true consequences. If they caused others pain, that pain will come back to them. It's shame they feel, not physical torture. The good and the bad are both magnified and felt by the subject.
I'm not one to harp on the afterlife. It's left open in Judaism and there are various ideas but it's not a focus for us like it is in other religions. I read the Bible because it enriches my life. I do hope there is something after death because I'm a stickler for fairness and I like the idea that the soul would be able to reflect on the life it just had and learn from it. I do not believe in eternal punishment as I don't believe a just God would allow it. In any case, if one studies religious literature, one sees that themes like the end times or heaven and hell appear later along the biblical timeline -- the bulk of the Hebrew Bible has other topics to cover.
And if it all just goes to black at the end, for everybody, does it really even matter who was right and who was wrong?
Or the will. Just to give an example where a country treated insurgents as criminals and their supporters still as citizens is "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland: there more British soldiers and policeman died than IRA terrorists and the tho IRA perpetrators of the worst attack against the British army got off free as the court didn't find enough evidence for it. (The other later was killed when he was fixing a bomb, but I guess the other one lived free.)
The politics in Israel is going into a very worrisome direction. Many people are talking about transferring people out of Gaza, even building there new colonies.
Quoting BC
Destroying all buildings and infrastructure is an ominous issue here. Here again a totally different style of warfare compared to the US (for example in Iraq).
Didn't Netanyahu say this would go on for the rest of 2024?
Even granting that Israel was entirely justified in attacking Hamas in the way they have, there is a Humpty Dumpty problem here: All Israel's horses and all Israel's men almost certainly have no intention of putting Gaza back together again. So, then what? A much more intensive immiseration of the Palestinians in Gaza and a much more intensive radical reaction -- sooner or later -- probably sooner.
I don't think Netanyahu ever intended for Gaza to go back to the way it was. I think he wants the refugees to leave Israel. Or die.
I used to believe this, but I don't think it's true anymore. A state is just a collection of people, and peoples have morals, friends, allegiances, etc. Take America and Britain, for example. The two peoples have a lot of shared history, they've helped each other throughout the centuries, and they feel a lot of good will towards each other. That's going to influence the policies of the countries. In practical terms, if America pursues a nakedly self-serving policy and screws over Britain in some matter, causing it to be harmed, the American people (and politicians) would be unhappy with that, and the policy might have to change.
You are probably right. Neither "kill them all" nor "expel them all" has been sayable. Instead, "defeat Hamas"; "render Gaza ungovernable". Substitute "unlivable" for "ungovernable". First Gaza then the West Bank?
Roughly 20% of Israel's population is Palestinian--about 1.600.000. Who is going to accept 1.600,000 people?
If they have a choice, displaced people tend to go where there are already communities of their people.
The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:
Jordan 3,240,000
Syria 630,000
Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
Lebanon 402,582
Saudi Arabia 280,245
Egypt 270,245
United States 255,000 (the largest concentrations in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles)`
Honduras 250,000
Guatemala est. 200,000
Mexico 120,000
Qatar 100,000
I think what "nations have interests" means is that when people assume the roles of state policy and control, they tend to pursue the state's interests. Certainly, even large groups of people (nation-state sized) have friends and enemies, and this is represented in the state's interests. States belonging to the "axis of evil" (defined from the American perspective) are our enemies. Russia's interests are not our interests. From the opposite perspective, the US, UK, and EU might be defined as the axis of evil.
The people in control of a state can be blind to this or that hazard or interest. two generations of US leaders have viewed Cuba as a threat or an embarrassment. Embarrassment it might be, but alone it can't be much of a threat. The US has viewed Taiwan as an interest rather than a hazard. I'm not sure where our interest really lies there. Does it lie with the PRC? That's not altogether clear either.
I first heard this idea about 15 years ago. It seemed like a nifty phrase and I think it has some validity, but maybe I'll stop repeating it. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
Yep. Time to pack up and leave.
Yes, but at the center of Christianity you have Jesus while at the center of Islam you have Muhammad, a successful warlord with a child bride. Jesus sees an adultress about to be stoned and says "let he who is without sin casts the first stone." Muhammad when faced with the same situation says to stone the woman. These figures are not the same.
I am of course against Islamic fundamentalism but I cannot call these groups theologically incorrect -- nor has the Muslim world really spoke out against them. On the contrary, if martyrdom for the Islamic cause assures one a spot in heaven then groups like Hamas are good actors and have brought 20,000 muslim souls a place in paradise.
The 20,000 Gazans die martyrs and we should be cheering if we are honest muslims.
Yes. I made the same point earlier. Islam has greater ideological ease with militancy than other Abrahamic religions do. Can't really form this into a condemnation of Islam, though. Christians, with their pacificist central figure, have kicked more ass than anyone.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Muslim leaders condemn extremism on the regular.
My knowledge is limited, but you used Ukraine as an example of the bad deeds of Russia, which couldn't be further off the mark. NATO is America's puppet, and Ukraine is America's proxy for making war on Russia. In America's desire for world domination Russia and China, the BRICS and I hope soon the entire Eastern hemisphere is what stands in America's way. America has already usurped the sovereignty of the countries of Europe when they placed nuclear warheads on their soils, American nuclear warheads. America is, and has been the only superpower for some time, and has been a brutal and cruel master globally. The Eastern hemisphere, basically the history of European colonies, are tired of being kept poor, and brutalized in the process. They desire to see a multipolar world, not one governed by colonialists of the West. Colonialism did not die with the British Empire; it just changed hands, and became an American tradition, more brutal than their British predecessors. If this is what you are rooting for, you are on the wrong side of history. All the while America has been using its awesome military to intimidate and crush weaker countries by making economic warfare on them, these countries have been preparing to meet the challenge of their brutal master, and today is the day. American propaganda is masterly, particularly effective on its own population, but the world at large knows America for the beast it is in its blood-drenched history. So again, you are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of a better world.
It's been going on much longer and has been mainstream with Likud since its inception but I guess people waking up to this incitement is a win.
Indeed it is, so at least you are honest. :up:
Quoting boagie
Obviously you don't know the history starting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and all the ways that Russia has intervened in Ukraine and it's near abroad starting from the 1990's. And this might not be the correct thread to go (again) this. Anyway, a long story short, Russia's behaviour in it's "Near Abroad" and in former Soviet Republics is similar if not worse as US actions in Central America and the Caribbean.
Quoting boagie
Really?
It might be hard to fathom, but actually Europeans are happy with the defense treaty organization, just as they are happy with their European integration process, especially after the UK showed the example just how utterly bad is the idea of separating from the union. But if you think that these countries are mere puppets, I don't think we can have an insightful discussion.
Quoting boagieAre Taiwan, South Korea, the Gulf States poor? Here again the idea of the poor Third World of the 1960's and 1970's is different from the present.
Quoting boagie
The US has never been a brutal master of either China or Russia, or of India!
Quoting boagie
How do you think Putin and Communist China will make the world better? Being critical about the US is fine, I am critical especially about their Mid-East policies. But then thinking that those opposing the US have to be great is illogical. Enemy of my enemy isn't my friend. There is much to improve in this World, I agree with you, but I don't think those guys will make it better.
And I assume you never saw Soviet Union, or lived when it was still around. Sorry, but I'm for democracy, human rights, and having this kind of forums where you can openly say what you want...even about your own countries politics. So just remember when you cheer for Russia or China, remember what kind of states they actually are.
In fact a forum like this would be the first place that would at least get the administrator into trouble in Russia or China.
Hezbollah is already active, if engaged in a limited brawl with Israel. Other factions in Lebanon are a different matter.
Also what is explained why containerships are the more precious vessels here.
If we're going with your statement that Quoting Tzeentch then it's a question of who is the occupier/colonizer and Jewish kingdoms were there well before the arrival of Arab muslims. One cannot "occupy" the land to which one is indigenous to. Jews are indigenous to Israel; Islam spread from Mecca. Israeli Jews are in no sense foreign occupiers.
Quoting Mikie
Just curious, do you think the US was justified in launching strikes against Afghanistan post 9/11? Or permitted to attack the Japanese mainland after Pearl Harbor?
Do you see any difference at all between a) a willing perpetrator of genocide who intentionally murders members of a certain group because they are members of that group and b) a soldier in the opposing army who, in attacking that group, accidentally kills civilians of that group.
Are these two people the same to you? How about their governments?
What can I say? The UN Security Council disagrees and has disagreed since 1967.
I agree. "Realist" international relations theory doesn't seem to actually explain history very well, and so relies on all sorts of ad hoc additions like "chain ganging," etc. For example, Mearshimer's "offensive realism," would predict that the United States should have annexed Canada (and Mexico) at any point since the Civil War, when it clearly became capable of doing so. It doesn't, because no one in America wants that, regardless of if it would improve national security, which it obviously would have during the early Cold War when Canada waffled on how many US assets could be placed in the arctic to defend against the Soviets.
American support of Israel is a particularly stark example of where cultural ties have outweighed strategic value. Another example would be Hungary joining the Axis due to a shared experience of WWI and resentment over how the war was concluded, rather than the actual strategic merits.
There are way more than 1.6 million Palestinians that live in Israel. The 20% figure is for Arab-Israelis, who live within Israel's 1948 borders and have full citizenship (2 million). A further 4.5 million live in the occupied territories. This is relevant in that it makes the one state solution fatal to the idea of a "Jewish state." In a one state solution, just under half the population would be non-Jews and, due to disparate birth rates (the OTs has one of the highest birth rates in the world), non-Jews would very quickly outnumber Jews.
The question is, should there be a "Jewish state?" which is much the same problem as "should there be a Kurdish state?" Should Iran be ostensibly a "Persian state?" when minorities make up half the population and want to leave? Should Afghanistan ostensibly be a Pashtun state? Should China be a "Han state," when it has hundreds of millions of people who aren't/don't want to be "Han." I don't think there is always a good answer here, as independence movements are extremely plentiful, and it's unclear if "a Flanders for the Flemish," or "one island, one Ireland," really resolve the root issues.
Anyhow, while I am sure fringe figures have advocated for expelling the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Palestinian Muslims, this is a fringe position. Removing a whole fifth of Israel's population, people integrated into the economy and with full citizenship rights, is a different question.
When are you going to wake up and understand that this entire dichotomy is nonsense. Propaganda, through and through.
The killing of 8000 children isn’t accidental — they simply don’t care. They don’t care about Palestinian lives. That’s obvious in the rhetoric and the actions.
So ask yourself: what’s worse, someone who murders children and recognizes them as victims for some cause, or someone who murders children for some cause but who sees them as irrelevant statistics?
I’m not in favor of killing children— even in the name of some great cause or defense or good intentions. If you believe it’s all accidental and the intentions are better, that’s on you. In that case, the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, were all justified. For that matter, invading Poland was justified— Nazis gave plenty of justification, and of course claimed the best intentions.
There should, at minimum, be a ceasefire.
Making something complicated seem simple is often disingenuous, but I happen to agree that your description frames the issue. "I had no other choice but to bomb people in tunnels, so any collateral damage is not my problem" is obscene. The fact is that Israel decided that occasional annoyances from evil Hamas was sufficient warrant to stop caring about the lives and well-being of millions of people. Israel had other choices - hard as they might have been politically (the choice to do nothing is a choice). Just as good-faith moral clarity from a standard Westerner requires seeing Hamas' behavior as abhorrent and morally repugnant, so too does it require seeing "Sorry if I killed some kids" the same way.
And for those that say the Israeli's do care about the children, lip service and rending their garments after they have used the death of a few hundred people to justify the past and future killings of thousands of other people, Israeli care is meaningless. The retort of "What would you do?" sounds great - as if the only answer is weighing the method of killing innocents with indifference - but choosing to let even 10,000 Israelis die due to Israel's inability to repel Hamas (or other) attacks is a profoundly more moral choice.
Totally asymmetric warfare makes the problem less obvious, but why is sending several thousand troops to their death in a "justified war" more moral than tolerating the murder of a few hundred of your own citizens? Is it because we can pretend that maybe the soldiers won't die and blame their deaths on the "enemy"?
The hard part about all of this is that the moral thing to do is not necessarily what we ought to do - we can be justified in doing bad things. Having justification, however, doesn't make the bad behavior good. Or if you prefer, obedience to one duty does not diminish your disobedience to another.
Behind the curtains of all the rhetoric there is a scale where infinitely valuable lives are measured and traded. Pretending otherwise does not further our ability to do better.
You are absolutely correct. Thank you for pointing out my error. My demographic picture is faulty -- but there are conflicting ways of presenting information.
Starting over: The population of Israel is around 9.3 million. About 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab -- mostly Muslim but a substantial number of Christians Arabs. I was confused about whether Gaza and West Bank were included in the population. They are not. There are about 5 million non-citizen Palestinians in the two areas.
Hamas gives justifications too. So does ISIS. So did the Nazis. According to the United States, the US has only made “blundering efforts to do good,” and is always acting defensively.
This is why apologists love to trot out Dresden or Hiroshima.
As Churchill said, "Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else first."
I have not studied war, but my guess is that none of these wars were carried out with thoughtful sensitivity regarding the safety of civilians and children. Bullets fly and they go right through people who get in the bullet's way. Mines laid 40 years ago blow up people today. The combatants never come back to collect them all -- or any of them. There are no smart bombs.
The present war in Gaza is bad, probably worse than other wars in Israel have been. Perhaps, though, not as bad as some other wars carried out to achieve control over other territories and people.
The world does not actually have a United Nations Peace Keeping service. If it did, the "blue helmets" would have to be more than a timid diplomatic service. They would have to be the biggest hogs in the trough, and the permanent members of the Security Council are loathe to give up their own "biggest hog" status.
I already noticed this awful tendency happening already during the "War on Terror" with revenge, fear and islamophobia taking over. Hence South Africa has a point when it says that the West has double standards (Israel's actions compared to Russia's invasion of Ukraine).
Nothing. Gaza was a giant refugee camp, one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, spewing demoralizing attacks on its neighbor.
The west cautioned Israel not to go overboard attacking Gaza because of all the helpless, innocent people who would suffer or be killed. Israel didn't listen. What was the west supposed to do about it?
How this doesn't go down as hate speech is a bit beyond me. While anyone can theorize anything they like, stating "facts" like this about Jews doesn't strike of philosophical value and engenders conversations like demanding that someone prove that woman are morally equivalent to men. It is on its face hateful or so decontextualized that anyone but a rarefied few would grasp its subtle underpinnings that might be capable of redeeming the assertion. Sure, bad psycho-analysis has some role on the continent, but it would be best if it was restricted to its couches and private therapy rooms, no?
Historical claims (like the cause of antisemitism is X and even Jews are antisemitic because of X) are inherently non-philosophical if only because the terms employed are so vague as to say practically nothing. You can try to use jargon in such a precise way that anyone who already knew what you thought would understand what you are saying in just the way you meant it, but for the casual reader (you know, most people who see the word "ressentiment" and think, "Huh? Can that guy spell?") the words hanging by themselves mean something very different.
Had you said something like, "Those Jews whose views on equality were so anti-abusive master that when finally given the chance to be master they...." maybe you would come closer to not sounding like an outright antisemite. But to write something tantamount to "Even Jews hate Jews because that is what inherently arises from hateful, reactionary Judaism" reads much more like an argument for why people should be antisemitic written in brief. Writing "the Judaic Religion also creates very strong individuals..." just doesn't do the work of fixing the horrid thing written.
Lovely, someone wrote a book called the On the Genealogy of Morals (picked for its ease of title even if you'd rather a different reference) and the Jews come out of it looking less than philosophically enviable.
For anyone who cares, here is a random Wiki on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Slave_revolt_in_morals
Are we not allowed to question Islam here? I'd say you hold similar prejudices towards Judaism.
Quoting Vaskane
Judaism is not a morality of hate. I know this is a point that Nietzsche makes, and while there may be a grain of truth to his comments on the "priestly class" this categorization of Jewish morality is simply unfitting. If you want to know Jewish morality look up the 613 commandments -- how many of those instruct one to hate or resent?
Quoting Vaskane
Thanks for the recommendation, but my reading trends towards actual biblical scholars when it comes to interpreting the bible. Might I recommend Nahum Sarna? Or Rashi? Gerhard von Rad? People who have devoted their entire lives to this.
Quoting Vaskane
Huh? Zionism is littered throughout the Torah with God promising the land to the Hebrews and describing Israel as a "land of milk and honey." Zionism is biblical.
Quoting Vaskane
Sure, if we also say e.g. racism against blacks starts with blacks.
Of course— this is a thread on that specific topic.
Quoting BC
Maybe, sure— what’s your point though?
... ergo a fundamentalist ethnonational delusion; thus, the many generations of secular Jews who were/are conscientious anti-Zionists.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858450
Delusion is too strong a word. It's no matter to me whether one believes in God. The Bible traces the inextricable connection the Jews have to Israel back to the bronze age. You got records of trips and burial sites from the patriarchs all across the land we know as Israel. According to Genesis the patriarchs were buried in a cave in Hebron.
The US can stop the war in Gaza at any point in time. Note that the US is supplying Israel with the weapons it needs to conduct this massacre, note the carrier groups it sent in support of Israel, etc.
The reason it doesn't is because of domestic political reasons, aka the US Israel lobby.
If Joe wants to have even a sliver of a chance to be re-elected, he can't afford to antagonize the Israel lobby, which will drag him through the mud if he dares to do so.
Furthermore, due to Israel's tenuous position in the region it is very reliant on international support, so if the US and European countries were to take a firm stance, Israel would have to take it seriously.
The problem is, upon the outbreak of the conflict the first thing these nations did was give Israel cart blanche.
The sputterings they produce now is nothing more than window dressing, so they can continue to pararde themselves as "upholders of international law."
US intelligence confirms Islamic State's Afghanistan branch behind Iran blasts (Reuters)
"Confirms",
Am I the only one who finds this use of language suspicious to say the least?
The moment I see this type of language coming from "anonymous US intelligence sources" my first thought is that they're the ones responsible.
The question is, if Israel is part of the West and it's really looking at the possibility of ethnic cleansing, what does it tell about the West?
Last time ethnic cleansing happened close by it was the former Yugoslavia, that wasn't part of the West, even if European. Putin's Russia isn't also part of the West, hence the treatment of the Chechens isn't about the actions of a Western democracy. Former Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern bloc countries. And other examples have been from what we term as the Third World.
Or are you saying that Israel isn't a Western country and hence shouldn't be judged as one?
I think Israel would react the same no matter who was in Gaza. I don't think their actions are governed by racism, such that if the Gazans were Dutch, everything would be fine.
Well, there is the possibility that here IS is used as a proxy, just as Iran is using the Houthis as proxy. Iran learnt to use proxies after using it's own forces against Western shipping with the US Navy launching the largest naval operation after WW2 against the Iranian Navy in Operation Praying Mantis. This short war that actually didn't surface so much in the media sunk a lot of the Iranian navy. Hence Iran uses proxies. Possibly now Israel / US has learnt it too? IS would be perfect as you cannot say it's an ally of the West... only with wearing an enormous tin foil hat, that is!
(If someone is interested in that US operation years ago, here's a good visual summary of the 1988 large scale operation, that is quite unknown, the video starts after commercials in 1:10)
Or you assume that just big enough terrorist attack would have perpetrated by the IRA against the British, then the UK would have started to ethnically cleanse North Ireland and push all the catholics to Ireland? You think that would have been a normal response from a nation that says it upholds human rights etc?
Or even just as a patsy. It's not like anyone would believe the word of violent extremists over US intelligence. By now IS is probably so badly fractured that there's not even any type of spokesperson that could deny the claim.
But yes, there's no question that Iran uses proxies. They're commonly referred to as "the head of the octopus."
It'll be interesting to see how the US intends to deal with this, though.
There's a lot of talk about starting a war with Iran, but what would that look like?
Air and naval power aren't going to win the day. Those times are over. They could use it to hurt Iran, but to defeat Iran it would require a full-scale invasion.
Iran is backed by Russia and China, and probably well-prepared to fight a war against a conventional military force.
Even if the US would pull out victorious (which is a big 'if') they would simply be busying themselves with small fish, while the big fish (China) is the laughing third once again.
Like a disaster as everybody has for years anticipated it to be. Basically the US could simply mount a bombing campaign, something similar to Operation Desert Fox and likely nothing else. And Iran is far more powerful than the weak Iraq was after the liberation of Kuwait. A ground invasion? From where? Teheran is over mountains quite well inside Iran. Simply out of the question.
And where could Iran counterattack with it's proxies, the "Axis of resistance":
1) Bab el Mandeb -with the Houthis. Next step would be starting to mine the straits, which would be an absolute disaster for global trade. Already the global chokepoint is an area of fighting and attacks have also happened in the Arabian Sea and even in the Indian Ocean.
2) Iraq and the pro-Iranian militias there, which already have been active:
3) And Hezbollah and it's rocket artillery to attack Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been already evacuated from the northern parts of the country in anticipation of an all out war with Hezbollah.
If you notice, already 1), 2), 3) are already engaged, even on a low burner. Hence the US can attack Iranian nuclear facilities while Iran can attack many US facilities in Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States.
Hence I find this all very bleak and worrisome.
Seconded, and good points.
I've heard some talk about Azerbaijan being used as a potential springboard, though the route to Teheran would still be very well-defendable. It'd be a stretch, and incur a level of cost that the Americans cannot afford, as long as China is the main rival they should be worrying about.
Even if they could capture Teheran, there's no way that would end the war. Since the Iranians are probably well-prepared for irregular warfare with Russian and Chinese backing. It would simply turn into another forever war that would eventually end in a US defeat.
At the same time, I can't help but feel the Americans are starting to look cornered. They're being pressured from all angles and it might only be a matter of time before they choose to draw the line somewhere.
Strategically one would think that the line would be drawn somewhere else, in the Pacific, and start a conflict between the US and China. But I don't think the Americans can afford to simply drop all their other interests while waiting for the Pacific to boil over. They certainly can't afford to drop Israel, at least not as far as my imagination goes.
Very worrying indeed. On one hand I can't imagine the US starting a war with Iran under current conditions. On the other hand the stakes are being raised and I think we're nearing a point where the US cannot back down and might do something drastic.
The biggest issue is that Americans don't want a war. It's the last thing they want. Only some 9/11 will push them eagerly to attack Iran. Yet Afghanistan is still quite in memory.
This came clear when in 2016, when the Bush neocons were still in office and the WOT still going, the US had ground forces deployed both in Iraq and Afghanistan and someone like the former national security advisor Brzezinski was fearful that the US would indeed strike Iran.
At this moment in January 2016, Iran took prisoner US Navy personnel of a small naval patrol vessel that ventured into Iranian territory:
And no war happened.
What happened is that actually, for no reason given, the US Commander of CENTCOM later resigned. It might be a coincidence, but actually the only way how a US commander can protest is by resigning. Even if it was just a coincidence, the neocons in the White House never attacked Iran. And after this time the US policy has been not so aggressive. Hence to invade Iran is simply a bad idea and the US military knows it.
Even now, the Houthis, part of the Axis of Resistance, are seriously warned about their actions and the operation Prosperity Guardian is said to be purely defensive. And even that US-lead operation isn't forming a great alliance as the French Navy is protecting it's merchant ship by itself and India is doing it's naval operations on it's own in tackling what seems to be Somali privateers now.
Indian commandos rescue a hijacked cargo ship just yesterday in the Arabian Sea:
Hmm, this is probably true, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Can they really afford to continue to bide their time as another crisis erupts that directly attacks US / western interests?
I'm also quite skeptical about the willingness of other nations to help out. In the case of Somali pirates it was an isolated threat that in itself could not really harm armed navy vessels. The Houthi rebels however are being supplied with anti-ship missiles.
The only navy I can imagine putting itself in the line of fire of such weapons is the US navy. And possibly the Indians? But then again, the Indians are part of BRICS so it's unlikely their ships would be targeted in such a way.
I think other nations will not be willing to run the risk of having one of their vessels swamped in anti-ship missiles and sunk. It requires a lot of faith in one's equipment.
The Royal Navy has already shot down Houthi drones and missiles and the French Navy is already escorting French cargo ships through the Bab el Mandeb.
Shooting down anti-ship missiles and drones has basically been the norm from the 1980's, so it's not so difficult. The Houthi missile arsenal itself is technically quite old, the Iranian missiles like the Noor (originally the Soviet Styx missile) and the Chinese C802 are developed in the 1970's. There are newer Iranian missiles like the Sayyad, but all the anti-ship missiles seem to be subsonic.
The Sayyad missile on parade in Sanaa:
The only issue is that drones are dirt cheap while the surface to air missiles used to shoot them down cost over million dollars and there is a limited number of them on the destroyers and frigates. Hence the ships need to rearm, which isn't something you can easily do especially on the high seas.
Then there can be also remotely controlled ship borne explosive devices, something similar that the Ukrainians have used. Here some years ago a Saudi frigate was attacked by this kind of boat.
And the next level would be mine warfare. If mines are laid on the straight, it would mean that special minehunter ships have to be deployed. What makes this unlikely is that this ceases all shipping from passing through the straights, including countries that are friendly to Iran / the Houthis. For example, no Russian tankers have been attacked by the Houthis.
The only nation that basically has the ability and the will to possibly take an offensive stance here, to bomb Houthi installations, is basically the US Navy. Yet seems there isn't an eagerness to do this, if it can come to this.
Shooting down a single anti-ship missile is indeed not much of a problem.
The problem is that anti-ship missiles and drones are cheap, and their principal tactic is to overwhelm the target ship's defenses. They fly low to decrease reaction time, which is why many subsonic anti-ship missiles are still in use today.
A lone ship, or even a small task force, is a sitting duck against swarm attacks.
I don't expect the French or British to stick around if there is a real risk such attacks are carried out on their ships.
Besides, their navies are starting to get pretty dated, and I doubt they'll be willing to put their newest vessels on the line.
Yet let's have a reality check here:
Houthi's have not sunk any ship yet and except for the hostage crew, nobody has been killed. And I think this is on purpose, actually. They have already hit the traffic, got the Western powers to respond, hiked up shipping costs etc, yet have not gotten the US aircraft carrier on the Arabian Sea to make retaliatory attacks into Yemen.
I think this is the tit for tat game of limited escalation. All out attack will likely respond in an all out counter-attack and retaliatory strike.
Just curious, what do you see as Iran's (and by association, their proxy armies) ultimate vision, one where they would never need to use violence against adversaries again? I just want us to be clear here the means and ends here, as they get lost in this "Elephant vs. tiger" crap.
And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.
I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. It's not just Iran's fault.
:up:
I just want this to be kept in mind when discussing all of this. There is a tendency (of anti-Westerners), to romanticize or glorify the "little guy" no matter what- to admire their way of causing small areas of chaos. But at the end of the day it is for an awful goal. Simply saying, "Well they are against imperialism!" is disregarding all things you are mentioning. Their actions lead to heightened pain and suffering, transforming them into a force resembling the very "Great Satan" they claim to fight against, especially when they fuel smaller paramilitary groups resisting integration into the global system.
Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history.
While acknowledging that the West might sometimes act against its own interests, solely pointing fingers at "the West" for these issues oversimplifies the intricate geopolitical landscape. Yes, NGOs and governmental entities might sometimes support internal resistance to authoritarian regimes, but cynically highlighting the West's interests without considering the nuanced reality doesn't contribute to a balanced perspective.
The West's failures lie in its inconsistent promotion of freedoms using soft power or, at times, misusing hard power. Yes, colonialists might eye resources, but it's infinitely better to engage with nations that knew how to quickly develop and integrate with the West, like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which have embraced liberal democracy, anti-corruption measures, and the rule of law. Development, championed by leaders prioritizing structured growth over export-based economies, is the key to creating more just societies and promoting global welfare.
I was not calling for ethnic cleansing. My position was in response to Tzeentch's logic that the indigenous population always has the right to resist a foreign occupier. I argue that zionism is decolonization.
Quoting ssu
Hamas is comparable to the axis powers in terms of wickedness. More rapey than Nazi Germany though.
How do you think the US responds if 1200 of its civilians are killed and 200 captured by a group that is bent on its destruction? The casualty rate isn't terrible: about 1:2 or 1:3 terrorist killed to civilian ratio. Many conflicts around the globe are much bloodier but receive far less attention. No nation is placed under a microscope like Israel.
Quoting ssu
And Hamas did build bomb shelters... for themselves. They've received plenty of aid to build shelters. Or are you suggesting here that Israel just build bomb shelters for the palestinians? I'm not sure why you mentioned this idea or its relevance to the Israel/Gaza war.
Quoting ssu
All of which involve killing the enemy as far as I'm aware. Since you mentioned WWII I'm sure you know the Allies did get their hands dirty and engaged in very questionable practices which today we'd call war crimes. Israel's conduct is well above the standards of the Allies in WWII. Israel exercises restraint. And we can all sit back and demand Israel exercises more restraint but it's basically babble to me as none of us are familiar with the reality on the ground. What other country would we demand such restraint from after 1200 of its people have been murdered? And 200 captured? By a terrorist group which vows to do so again and again?
Quoting ssu
Did the Iraqi army wear uniforms? Did they build their command centers under hospitals? Did they routinely store weapons in houses and schools? Would they open fire behind women in wheelchairs? Hamas is a different type of enemy on a different type of terrain.
Hamas's ideology infects the Palestinian people and their schools raise them to be martyrs from childhood fearless of death. You ever see those kindergarten graduations in Gaza? Israel ought to destroy their enemy this time, not just wound it and come to some temporary peace (and you know it's temporary because Hamas strives endlessly for Israel's destruction). But it's a dangerous task because the more Israel is victorious, the more world opinion and anti-semitism will turn against them and the Jews. Israel may win militarily, but lose strategically.
I think the fact that (presumably) Iran launched these attacks on shipping amidst talk of a US invasion tells me they either think the US is bluffing or are not afraid of wider conflict. Either option is fertile ground for escalation.
In addition, most semi-modern navy vessels simply aren't made with swarm attacks in mind. They can defeat a salvo of 5-8 subsonic sea skimming missiles, but that requires the vessel, crew, sensors and armaments to be in peak condition.
US navy ships tend to be better equipped to counter high volume, but the problem is that given how cheap modern drones are, an attack could contain literally hundreds of drones and still be (extremely) cost-effective.
A Shahed drone reportedly only costs 20,000 USD to produce. Modern anti-air missiles cost millions a piece. Hell, even a burst from CIWS probably costs more than that.
I believe the Russians improved the original Iranian Shahed with optical guidance. If drones can target seperate systems on a navy vessels (radars, VLS, CIWS, etc.) they would turn ships into sitting ducks even if they fail to sink them.
Assuming the Iranians can produce them in high quantities, this is basically a blueprint to defeat modern navies, including the US navy. Furthermore, I think Russia and China are seeing this as well, and probably are producing similar drones of their own. (And they are capable of far greater production quantities than Iran)
It would require a massive revolution in naval shipbuilding to counter this threat.
I went on a bit of a tangent there, but whilst writing this I started to realise how grave this situation might actually be. I used to take US naval dominance for granted, but I think we're actually past that point.
The Allies' goal wasn't to displace an entire people and ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians. So this is false. You have an idiotic idea of restraint, where the capability to do worse is proof of restraint. That's the abusive father claiming restraint when hitting his children because he could kill them too.
Well, if the anti-Westerners have the idea of viewing things extremely black and white, I also urge to make the distinction between Iran and the IS / Daesh.
Iran isn't a suicidal death cult. It has managed far better in it's foreign policy than let's say another "Axis-of-evil" country, North Korea. The idea of "Mad Mullahs" is more of propaganda than reality.
And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. Rhetoric and actions are two different things. In European and American rhetoric and discourse this is different, especially if the person is at a leadership position. In fact, when some Iranian politicians vow to destroy Israel, this is rhetoric to the crowds. In similar fashion, we should also be somewhat hesitant also to make direct conclusions when Israeli politicians vow now to destroy Gaza or when they refer to Amalek. Just to take an example, the PLO said quite the same things as Hamas says now, yet could sit down with the Israelis and attempt the peace process. Yes, the rhetoric is very alarming and shouldn't be dismissed, yet the simple fact is that basically in the Middle East you have hotheads dominating the public discourse.
And what of the actions that you keep pointing to and discussing? This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? You’re playing both sides by using sorting language on their escalation and now saying oh it’s not so bad. Either they want the region in conflict or they don’t.
Look at how the war was actually fought as opposed to self-declared or implied intentions. The US often wouldn't even take prisoners in the pacific. German POWs were massacred on several occasions as a retaliatory measure. Bombings were much more indiscriminate under Arthur "bomber" Harris and by the US against Japan. I won't even bring in the Russians because it would make my point too easy. Israel imports aid to the civilians of Gaza while the conflict is ongoing. Israel is leagues ahead of the conduct of the Allies. Also, it is not clear what Israel's intention is regarding Gaza. I think Israel would be unwise to annex it assuming they are victorious.
Even with my "idiotic" definition Hamas still fails. They show no restraint. Hamas kills and rapes until they are stopped by force. They are truly indiscriminate.
This has been clear for decades. You've just not been paying attention. And not just Gaza, the rest of Palestine as well.
That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.
For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen.
Right, but what is the strategy here? Yes, these are leading questions.
Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?
Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no?
Seems like the Houthis have tried swarming or similar attack, that the US CENTCOM called "complex":
See here
Seems like US merchant vessels went through the Bab el Mandeb and the US warships and the British warship were on picket defence.
Well, how did the Israeli independence movement look like to the British, who were fighting them?
It's a war, an insurgency.
Here's footage of the British doing anti-terrorist operations against the Zionists:
My sense is that the Houthi are raising the threat environment, and possibly gathering intel on the effectiveness of their bombs and strike patterns. It's hard to imagine other fleets operating indepedently under this type of threat. I think everyone will be leaning on the Americans.
No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question.
I think there will be interesting military history written about this, but I think it will take years. Military professional magazines might have a good account on the missile war in a few months I guess.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Perhaps then I don't understand your question.
Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here?
Yes. Quoting schopenhauer1
The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian).
(The most authoritarian are North Korea, Myanmar and Afghanistan in that order).
In my view, for a country to be a democracy and a justice state, you do have to have a) a functioning economy and b) functioning, effective institutions to uphold those rights and freedoms. One might argue that many of the Gulf States are at least OK for their own citizens (not for the migrant workers). If you don't have to pay taxes, all services are provided and you can even get income from the state, many can be OK with an autocratic monarch.
The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters.
I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view.
Quoting ssu
As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms.
Quoting ssu
So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? That to me, seems like slightly different question than what are their goals, because it questions whether their goal itself IS violence for violence sake. Usually violence is a means to an ends. But if violence is actually the goal, that is a different story. That is something that cannot be remediated or negotiated. It can only be contained or stopped for brief time periods until they decide to pursue their goals again.
One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke.
It’s quite a projection to post this being you are one of the most biased, toxic and well-poisoning posters on this issue. You seem to support any cause that is deemed the underdog, no matter how violent the means and ends.. No matter if it was they who started the violence or not.. No matter if they want peace or not. Also, the whole UN schtick is out the door being that NO ONE has followed the UN since 1947.. the very FIRST ignoring of the resolution.
Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out.
This is what you get when you support people unconditionally: they rightfully think they can get away with anything with clear atrocities as a result.
Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic???
Quoting schopenhauer1
Iranians have their Islamic revolution. No wonder that both Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and Hezbollah are also islamic movements too. Hence it's no wonder why they are islamic and shiite movements. It would be similar to be puzzled about the American revolution being so much about liberal policies and rights of individuals.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Tunisia has had it's share of going forward and back, but the country that started the "Arab spring" has improved somewhat. No news is usually good news, even if corruption still persists.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is.
Despite the ruling class trying to avoid this. I think there would be an interesting analysis to be made between Wahhabism and Trumpism in relation to inequality and political power.
I'm not so sure just how grass roots is the support for strict Wahhabism in Saudi-Arabia, though. But there surely are those Wahhabbi Trumpists around in the country. Usually putting religion to be state sponsored and you make the people to be not so religious. My country is a perfect example of that! And actually, the youth in Iran isn't so interested in the theocracy either.
This is generic smear based on your bias, but carry on with ad home and unsupported smears. You don’t like it if the history doesn’t support your narrative and then ad hom and poison the well without reasoned arguments for the rest when you are bothered. But carry on.
Yeah look at that topic. It’s already biased, so are you saying we have to buy into the inherent bias of the thread (started years ago) to discuss the broader Middle East from which this topic is part of and relevant to being the players that are involved?
Quoting ssu
Yeah so what does this world look like? Prior to and after Trump, you essentially got the gist of an American democratic society. You have post Ww2 Western Europe. It’s liberal democracy that tends towards consumerism but has the freedoms not to if one chooses. Countries pursue self interest for resources and trade and using their monetary policy. That’s a given. I don’t need secret cabal-style “oh no!” documents to prove what’s obvious about corporations pursuing their goals for profit. But besides these not so interesting “revelations” that general anti-globalist Leftist ideas proffer, what is this counter Iran’s end goal vision is that they are countering? I don’t need Islamic jihadism to tell me free trade can cause trade imbalances. So again, what are they offering? Why perpetual violence disruptions as policy? What is the end goal of not to simply maintain violence? I guess it redirects attention away from them for their own citizens. It gives them a show of power in the region. But power usually is for a goal. Economic, ideological, etc. it’s usually not simply that one has the power to display a show of power because it always begs the question, “for what purpose”? Simply showing you can cause violence in a region for its own sake makes no sense other than one wants to cause chaos for its own sake.
At least one country in the world is doing something serious against Israel.
Yes he was fantastic, and so was the judge. All of them really.
"The statements were made by persons in command of the state. They communicated state policy. It is simple. If the statements were not intended, they would not have been made."
Yes. It's insane to see, but there it is. And they will keep saying insane things.
And likely total silence from the mainstream media... especially in the US. Or just a sidenote.
For example (just now) from CNN:
For example any links to here this opening statement above, at least I don't find from CNN.
Yet what is told is the response from Israel:
Sure, what else are they going to say? Well, they did say South Africa was the legal extension of Hamas.
But it's all pathetic, having no defense, they hurl insults, which is what happens when your arguments (or rather, propaganda) no longer work.
@ssu well?
Yet still it's working: the Ivy League presidents resign, the allies of the US are mute as they don't want to oppose such a dear issue for the Superpower.
Yet this aggressive counterattack works only for some time, actually.
You can cow the media to silence by hurling accusations of anti-semitism and racism, but that goes only so far. Ignorance too goes only so far too. Yet fear isn't a way to control people for long.
Because finally, and unfortunately, you will get the American politician that doesn't praise AIPAC or Israel. Who simply won't care about it. And why I say this is unfortunate is because then it's going to be real field day for the real anti-semites.
Israel's hope is that there comes another issue which takes the attention away.
Standard issue so far, but as you indicate, it's becoming less effective. You can only continue this mass butchery for so long, people see the pictures and it just becomes impossible to defend.
I think they are hoping that Lebanon will eventually lose its patience, then Gaza can be forgotten for a bit. Probably not helped by the issue that Netanyahu may end up going to prison for unrelated issues.
War is an excellent motivator for many politicians.
Do you have trouble looking from their viewpoint on the whole issue?
Schops, how would you feel if the US politicians would argue that your country is an existential threat for the US? The Iranians can quite easily make the statement to others and especially to themselves that the US is out to get them. Heck, they can just take a book by Noam Chomsky and start reading out loud from it. Starting with Operation Ajax, if not even earlier. And they can see themselves being in just as a perilous situation facing imminent attack from hostile foreigners as one other country that I won't mention.
But this is the Middle East and both sides see themselves having the need to defend themselves. As I've pointed out, the most lethal thing for a politician in that region is to try to make peace.
To make this more clear, of the Iranian attitudes toward this, just listen to the supreme leader of Iran on the subject on why the chant "Death to America", from some years ago:
Lebanon cannot do anything, I assume you are talking about Hezbollah. Two different actors, actually, even if in the same country.
One thing is that the Houthis could have success in the Bab el Mandeb missile shootout. One American merchant vessel sunk and I think it wouldn't be just me and @Tzeentch talking about the ongoing naval battle there.
Or then you have a terrorist attack either in the US or Europe, to which Netanyahu can give a "See I told you!" response.
Or people simply get numb. Just as they did with the war in Ukraine. That's the most likely scenario.
I mean yes, technically Hezbollah. But remember Lebanon offered to remove Hezbollah from the border on condition that Israel stop its bombing campaign.
The reply was a murder of a Hamas leader in Beirut.
However, Hezbollah have been extremely restrained (given what they could do), because they know that if they go all in, Lebanon will be in ruins.
But there's the issue that if Israel keeps escalating inside Beirut, then the whole country may explode. And by then it would be beyond Hezbollah, even though they would be the single biggest actor inside Lebanon.
Sure, the Houthis have replied and are being quite effective. Are for numb, it's always a possibility. It's just not sustainable to maintain the same level of emotional attachment for a prolonged period - or at least, many people (me included) find it hard to do.
But the Gaza situation is just so awful, that I still think anything could happen, in terms of things blowing up. If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing.
Yeah, he's known for presenting unbiased non-leftist view of things :roll:.
Quoting ssu
And here we are again, you simply fell into the trope I already pointed out and yet you did anyways here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
That is to say, interference didn't prevent them from going the way of Tunisia in 1979. But that would work against general leftism anti-Western ideology. Cut your nose to spite your face. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.. Same thing heaped on US foreign policy applies to the former Soviet Union / Russia and general anti-Western Leftism (quote some more Chomsky for this kind of argument). That is to say, all the things that one would blame on the West, can be accused of anti-Westerners in a converse argument. All the things that are blamed an external force can be blamed on internal failings in a converse argument.
Yes, this it seems, we agree with. I will just bring up the fact that in the Israeli case, they generally wanted to be left alone prior to 1967 and then 1973. Yet NO ONE I have seen in these debates acknowledges that Israel now has the West Bank and Gaza because Jordan and Egypt and the other countries wanted to ATTACK Israel and blow it off the map. I disagree with how the settler movement happened. However, I understand only one part of the West Bank strategy: That KNOWING that the countries and groups want your dissolution and/or obliteration, they felt that the hill country in the West Bank was strategic to control on top of the well known fact that having a KNOWN hostile enemy on your borders with only 16 miles between Gaza and the West Bank, where the country could be cut in half.
So with security in mind, Israelis negotiated with the KNOWN hostile neighbors to have 95% of what they wanted with secure borders and it failed each time. As you said, leaders are afraid to make peace deals in that region. It's not in their mortal interest, for sure.
And now currently, just curious. What if there were calls to return the hostages? That would be the minimal approach to giving Israel the onus of stopping the war. What if they did the maximal thing and offered to hand themselves in because they care about their citizens and don't want the destruction to continue? Could that be an option? But the answer to this is telling, because besides the knee-jerk reaction to the other side, it implies that they shouldn't do that. So you will make the claim it won't do anything (which is most likely false), and then imply that they shouldn't (taking a side).
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/jan/11/south-africa-accuses-israel-of-genocide-gaza-the-hague-international-court-of-justice
As of today 11Jan24, it's estimated that over 23,000 dead Palestinian mostly women, children & elderly noncombatants in Gaza have been mass-murdered by the US-supported & armed IDF in disproportionate retaliation for Hamas' terrorist attack of 7Oct23 since then.
And there's no shame in my leftist game! :smirk:
Perhaps you specified in an earlier post what a proportionate retaliation would be.
I don't know what it would be, but it seems like killing 23,000 people; destroying at least 60% of the housing for 2 million people, busting up the infrastructure required in a city, destroying the hospital and health care system (such as it was), just wide-spread wrecking everywhere in the strip--would all add up to more than a sufficient retaliation.
Killing off the current Hamas personnel is another objective apparently. Netanyahu says it will take a year of fighting, bombing (I would think), preventing all but minimal relief for the civilians, and the like. Granting that they could achieve this goal, the severely aggrieved Palestinian civilians are likely to welcome new fighters (Hamas or something else), rendering the whole retaliation moot.
So does Israel get to kill 1200 palestinians then and rape some palestinian women? would that be fair? or does it mean Israel gets to kill 1200 hamas members but no more? but what about those who ordered the massacre, you know, the government in charge? which has vowed to do 10/7 again and again?
1200
23,000.
Read those over, and over, and over until you have something less strawman to say :)
23,000 includes Hamas dead.
2400 Americans died in Pearl Harbor. Yet we invaded and went on to kill hundreds of thousands if not a million or so Japanese. Was that also unfair? Do we only get to kill 2400 of them?
1200
23,000
Don't pretend this is somehow 'going easy' on Hamas. This is way beyond Hamas now. No one in their right mind defends them (and the only ones i've ever seen do it can't even articulate who they are)
...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively?
Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation.
How much straw can a straw man straw.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You must be out of your mind.
As it is, I'm not a strawfan.
Of course you have a good point and of course your opponents won't address it. America and UK killed so many women and children in WW2 they make Israel look like pikers. Were these Allied bombings disproportional? Maybe. Does it matter? No. The Axis started the war and they reaped the consequences. Same with Hamas.
But if you press the Hamas sympathizers here on who should have won WW2, you won't get an answer. The logic of their position forces them to be silent on that, for obvious reasons. Whereas the pro-Israel side can answer confidently, "Yes, the Allies should have won WW2", which is of course the right answer.
If you truly think they are comparable, you are out of your mind.
So what? Israel is limited to inflicting 1200 deaths on Hamas/Palestine but the US isn't when it's attacked?
:rofl:
I don't care. It was seventy years ago, and I wasn't there, nor do i have accurate understanding of the circumstances beyond the macro, and in the macro, it doesn't matter. The allies won.
Quoting AmadeusD
Like I said, they won't answer that very simple question: who should have won WW2?
That tells you everything about their position.
What's the relevance to the current Israel-Hamas conflict?
Currently you're behaving like a derranged Twitter user that thinks a kafka-trap is an argument.
I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question. It's also 100% irrelevant and an indication that you mildly deranged by this topic
If an admission of a gap in knowledge sufficient to answer a glib, stupid question is a problem for you please feel free to continue that utterly indefensible nonsense you call an argument on your own.
Quoting RogueAI
Sorry, this is a great indicator you have absolutely no interest in anything but finding enemies to be pissed off at. Not my circus.
How do you want Israel to respond when 1200 of its own are murdered by a terrorist group? Consider that the US went to war after 9/11. I don't see anything outlandish about Israel's response here when compared with the US.
Equivocating between several completely disparate retaliatory military actions sin't very helpful.
But for what it's worth I was at the time, and continue to be convinced the war in Iraq was a moral mistake.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What does this matter?? It simply doesn't matter. It is an entirely different topic with almost nothing to be read across.
It sounds as if you're saying the USA sets the benchmark and we should work from that as 'correct'. I reject that entirely, so you're not asking questions that make any sense to me.
Not Iraq, Afghanistan. Invading/striking afghanistan was the immediate response to 9/11, Iraq came 2 years later - and was completely uninvolved in 9/11. I do see parallels between 9/11 and 10/7 but the two are certainly not the same.
I'm getting tired. If you were the leader of Israel or America or any given country, and a horde of barbaric criminals crossed into your border to murder 1200 of your civilians and raped and mutilated along the way what is the proper response? Consider that the leader of the horde vows to repeat the massacre as much as possible.
Looks like the next step towards escalation. I doubt it was unexpected by the Houthis and Iran, and I wonder what their reaction will be.
The warning cuts both ways. Who sowed the wind and who will reap the whirlwind? Israel, Hamas, or both of them?
Israel's response to the Hamas attack on October 7 is disproportionate. Disproportionate retaliation is always a risk in war. When Israel began its retaliation, some people were saying that Israel was playing into Hamas's plan. If Hamas wanted an overwhelming response, we ought not complain about them getting it.
Israel's retaliation is proportionate in the context of its history. It is engaged in a long struggle to establish for itself a secure homeland. Previous attacks on Israel have resulted in at least vigorous Israeli armed self-defense. Hamas was surely aware of what would happen to them and to Gaza after the massacre they carried out.
The purpose of a disproportionate retaliation is to strongly discourage future attacks.
Maybe Israel is reaching the end of useful disproportionality. Literally destroying every last standing building in Gaza on its way to killing every last Hamas fighter would be, may already be, disproportionate--think diminishing returns. Has Israel killed enough Hamas fighters? Who knows? Killing them all will result in many MORE civilian deaths -- something that was inevitable from the getgo in a densely populated territory with Hamas as an embedded enemy.