Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank

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.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos
Liberation if they survive as a people.

Whether the Gazan’s as a people survive this offensive seems not to matter to the Israeli’s. The collective punishment and limiting of aid demonstrates this.

To starve an entire captive population so as to restrict the resources of a small number of militants is disproportionate. To reduce a whole country to rubble for the same reasons is disproportionate.

And counterproductive.

Quoting Tzeentch

they have no basis to condemn Hamas' actions because it is simply fighting according to the rules by which such a war is fought.

And the rules are? Give me two of them as precisely as you can.

Quoting Benkei

But Israel clearly escalated beyond any reasonable proportionality.

And the reasonable proportionality formula is? In your immense wisdom, do you have an equation to show us?

Reply to neomac The dictates of public conscience. I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying. Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions.

Quoting Benkei

public conscience

"Public conscience" of which country? Should there be a referendum to establish it? Or a phone survey is enough? How large is the sample?

Quoting Benkei

Maybe find a moral compass before asking moral questions.

Maybe in your immense wisdom you can try to explain to me what that even means. What is the moral compass one needs BEFORE asking moral questions. Show me yours.

Reply to Tzeentch Quoting Manuel

If Israel were rational, they would just call it a "victory" and just stop the damn thing.

Witnesses told Reuters that the raids targeted a military base adjacent to Sanaa airport, a military site near Taiz airport, a Houthi naval base in Hodeidah and military sites in Hajjah governorate.

Note one thing missing here:

The U.S. said Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands supported the operation, and sought to present the strikes as part of an international effort to restore the free flow of trade in a key route between Europe and Asia that accounts for about 15% of the world's shipping traffic.

This shows how incompetent the Biden administration, and US diplomacy in general, has become and how the US isn't able to take the leadership role.

So the US and British attack Houthi sites.

What about France?

France is also protecting it's vessels and has also shot down drones, but apparently frustrated at the pace (and obviosly where the US is just protecting it's own vessels, the NATO country is now working on it's own.

What about Norway? Or Denmark?

Tiny nations, but the Danish Maersk is the one of the largest (if not the largest) container shipping firms in the World and Norway already onboard the operation Prosperity Guardian.

What about the EU in general?

The EU had it's operation Atalanta there to fight Somali piracy, and actually Somali piracy stopped in 2017 until this year as the Houthis picked up their campaign. How difficult would it have been to get the EU support this operation?

What about India?

India was pissed of from attacks close to it's borders and Indian forces have been active in fighting piracy (or privateers perhaps in this case).

All above simply show the degeneration of US foreign politics and the unability to create large scale alliances. Long time has gone from the time when the US could bolster an awesome alliance to get Iraq out of Kuwait with UN resolutions and all that. It simply the total lack to do that. Haven't seen the foreign secretary going to countries to get nations around this. To simply talk about free navigation of shipping could in my view easily have gotten countries like Japan, the EU countries and South Korea, perhaps even India to commit to this. And this is very perilous, especially if (and when) Trump comes to be the next president.

* * *

Btw now the whole Arab league is supporting South Africa's legal case:

The Arab League has voiced support for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over its deadly military offensive in the Gaza Strip.

So I guess that's the end for Biden's attempts to "normalize" relations between Saudi-Arabia and Israeli in the continuation of the Abraham records. Accusing a country of genocide and then normalizing relations doesn't go hand in hand. :snicker:

Reply to neomac As I said, if this isn't apparent to you, I'm not wasting my time answering dumb questions.

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience.

Quoting Benkei

Read the Geneva and the Hague conventions if you have problems wrapping your head around which principles are involved. Or alternatively grow a conscience.

Even if I read those conventions, you may question my understanding of them. So, in your immense wisdom, point me where exactly the Geneva and the Hague conventions specify the reasonable proportionality formula or equation. Or where "public conscience" to establish "reasonable proportionality" is specified for proper assessment.

Quoting Benkei

Or alternatively grow a conscience.

Help me grow it with your immense wisdom, Holy Benkei. If it was enough your injunction "grow a conscience" to make grow one in somebody, we would be living in a moral paradise already, wouldn't we?

Reply to neomac No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm.

Quoting Benkei

neomac
No. And you haven't read those conventions or you would already have the answer. But nice try hiding your ignorance behind sarcasm.

Yep you really gave me a lesson, Holy Benkei. I tried so hard to hide my immense ignorance. But you, in your immense wisdom, showed to the world how immense your wisdom is, didn't you? But what if I claimed I read them and the answer is NO, THERE IS NO EQUATION NOR FORMULA TO ASSESS REASONABLE PROPORTIONALITY OR PUBLIC CONSCIENCE IN THOSE CONVENTIONS! Prove to the world that I'm a liar, Holy Benkei.

Reply to neomac Stop acting like a dumb shit. Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.

The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down). So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life.

Reply to ssu

Yes, Biden's policies in foreign affairs have been by and large pretty bad. Not to mention that if Israel did not receive so much aid from the US, Israel couldn't do what it is doing, with such intensity and impunity. Or at least, the conflict would not drag on so long. This also shows the Israeli government doesn't have a clue what to do with Hamas.

I think that Europe doesn't want to get dragged into a much larger conflict if things go sideways, regardless of the harm on international trade. But I'm not sure what they're thinking.

Interesting to note that the poorest and the people who have been through one of the worst wars in the 21st century are almost the only ones trying to do something to help Gaza to whatever extent it can. And Hezbollah too, but they are Palestinian so, they would do something.

Now we are all just waiting for the Israel-Lebanon situation to go completely blow up and then who knows what will happen?

Reply to Manuel If Israel is going to survive they should look at a map and reflect on who their neighbours and near neighbours are and how many there are.

Reply to Punshhh

They should.

But they also have the Samson Option, which they could use if they see themselves in an existential threat. Egypt, Jordan and others have done almost nothing.

Qatar has done good work.

Reply to ssu The Biden administration has gotten itself into one giant mess, and seems to have no clue how to get out of it nor possesses the diplomatic credibility to ameliorate the damage.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

The current attacks on shipping are a direct result of the Israel-Gaza war. Many in Europe and even India are critical of both Israel's and the US policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the Palestinians.

My sense is that their willingness to put sailors and vessels at risk to clean up the mess the United States and Israel created is probably quite low, especially considering US-EU relations of late.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved.

Furthermore, whereas Somalia was an isolated, failed state and Somali piracy was limited in both scale and weaponry, the Houthis and the interests they represent (Iran / wider Muslim world / perhaps even the Iran-Russia-China "alliance") carry much more gravity.

Just think of France's rapidly dwindling position in Africa right now. If they piss off the wrong people, they will lose their entire former empire (or what was left of it). It would be for the better if you ask me, but the French elite probably disagree.

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Lastly, as we've discussed earlier, the weaponry the Houthi are using is extremely dangerous to a navy that isn't prepared for this (new) generation of warfare. Nations will think twice about putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Even navies that are capable of dealing with this type of threat will face the monetary cost of sending a taskforce that can defend itself 24/7.

With the Somalis it was completely different. A navy vessel operating alone would be perfectly fine. The piracy was carried out by armed men in small boats who intended to board merchant vessels. What the Houthi are doing today is completely different.

Consider perhaps also the risk of getting dragged into a war with the Houthi / Yemen or even Iran by operating under US-led task forces

FYI, proportionally is generally assessed at a fairly granular level. E.g., if a force is firing inaccurate and ineffective artillery from the playground of a school being used as a shelter, you can't hit the artillery with a 2,000lb bomb because the risk the artillery poses to your forces is not proportional to the risk to civilians in the school. If said artillery was instead lobbing shells into a crowded city, it might be proportional to use such means to destroy it , despite the shelter, as the artillery would represent a major threat. Likewise, even if the artillery isn't much of a threat, it might be proportional to capture it with infantry or destroy it with small loitering munitions, because then the threat to the civilians would be drastically reduced.

Proportionality is not assessed based on a comparison of total fatalities in a conflict, for obvious reasons. Whoever ends up with enemy forces on their land is generally going to have higher losses (not always true though, e.g. the current Ukraine War). The losing side is also, generally (though not always) going to have significantly higher losses. But proportionality would be an absolutely unenforceable concept if it tended to require that the winning side in a conflict cease operations as soon as it began winning.

So, Israel's responses are disproportionate on other grounds, and this would be what comparisons to WWII miss. I think the intuition in bringing that conflict up is that you can't very well ask that winning parties to a conflict cease operations as they start winning — fair enough, but that's actually not what is at issue in Israel's use of force in Gaza. The issue would be destroying all the infrastructure and relying on powerful munitions in an urban area against an enemy that seems to have been largely militarily defeated already. Where is the proportionality? IDF losses have been shockingly light so far, and by the IDFs own figures a solid proportion of all Hamas fighters have already been captured or killed.

You can't just look at numbers. For example, the Iraqi push to retake Mosul from ISIS had, to date, higher civilian deaths in absolute and relative terms. However, those forces were also operating without many of the advantages Israel has, so what counts as "proportional" is going to vary. The proportionality depends on the [I] risk[/I] to your soldiers/civilians versus the risk to enemy non-combatants, which means Israel's decisive advantage of the ground factors into proportionality.

Reply to Tzeentch

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved

lol, what? They hit two Panamanian ships and would have hit a Nigerian flagged, Japanese owned ship has the munitions not been intercepted. "Extremely dangerous," might not be the right word. They've successfully hit commercial ships (e.g. the two Panamanian ones, a Norwegian flagged/owned oil/chemical tanker) and those carried on with minor damage.

How exactly is a Norwegian owned/operated tanker delivering to Italy related to Israel? How exactly is firing on ships transiting from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan related to Israel?

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Russia didn't even veto the UN resolution.

Iran / wider Muslim world

Ah yes, because of close alignment between Iran and the Arabs, two sides essentially in their own regional cold war.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

lol, what?

LOL

Reply to Manuel I doubt Israel would survive for long the Samson option.
Qatar has done good work, but I doubt it will change anything.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

The proportionality depends on the risk to your soldiers/civilians versus the risk to enemy non-combatants, which means Israel's decisive advantage of the ground factors into proportionality.

You left out subsidiarity but otherwise agree with your post but I don't think it applies here in most actions taken by Israel. Breaches of humanitarian law (such as collective punishment) are disproportional by definition and therefore not allowed under any circumstances.

Reply to Punshhh

It's better than nothing, but it's still a pittance. Something's gotta give, or else this genocide may come to full fruition as mass starvation starts killing tens of thousands, maybe more.

So, there are reasons to suspect that in the short term nothing will change much, but it's also not sustainable for too much longer, Israel's economy is not doing well, and they may soon enter a full-blown war with Hezbollah. That would be quite disastrous for everybody, but Israel will be significantly harmed...

It's a powder keg.

Reply to Benkei Yes, they broke the rules the moment they withdrew food water and medicine from a captive population.

Also I think the term genocide might need to include the destruction of a country. The buildings, infrastructure, farmland etc.

Quoting Tzeentch

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

It's not happening. France is doing it's own thing, EU isn't at all contacted, other countries (like India) are not taken into account. And this just shows how for example "the Quad" isn't anything serious, as obviously for it's members safe navigation on the global sea routes is quite important!

In the end it might be that ships will just reflag to China! Chinese ships have no problem going through and even if China has two surface vessels in the region (and a naval base in Djibouti), there aren't doing anything. They don't have to.

The US doesn't actually use the card that this is an attack to international shipping and this itself is a threat to global trade and international relations. Just putting it down to "are you for free and safe shipping in the World?" would likely do it. Yet if and when the US simply is only defending it's own flagged ships, fine, but don't think that other countries will give a shit about your "Prosperity Guardian". France here is the canary in the coal mine. Hence you end up with NATO members doing their own stuff and basically not knowing just who does what.

Lack of leadership, I say. And this has become very typical to the US. It really doesn't care a shit about having allies or not. It just spurts out decisions and actions and then just looks puzzled if nobody goes along with it.

Reply to Manuel The fact that large scale humanitarian aid doesn’t seem to have got through is worrying. The international community has repeatedly offered aid, which has not been delivered as far as I know for many weeks.

Quoting Punshhh

I doubt Israel would survive for long the Samson option.
Qatar has done good work, but I doubt it will change anything.

Qatar is one of biggest helpers of Hamas... that's why the relationship. So you prefer that other countries assist Hamas too???

And Israel has a nuclear deterrence, likely a nuclear triad. Hence it doesn't have to worry about the Arab countries going back to their old habit of attacking Israel itself. They don't have nuclear weapons and conventionally too they might likely lose a conflict. And more likely they are afraid of the wrath that the US. Yet Israel sure plays the "Where a tiny nation that neighbors want to whipe away!"-card with dedication.

I'm not sure just how many Americans actually know that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Reply to Punshhh

From what I've read through Haaretz, Al Jazeera and several knowledgeable people on the situation, including UN agencies, some aid is getting through, but it's nowhere near the amount of aid that needs to get through to prevent mass starvation, so it's kind of a band-aid for sawed off limbs.

I don't know if things would change if many thousands start dying from lack of food and water. Likely Biden, Blinken and Netanyahu wouldn't care, but then at that stage, maybe other Arab countries might be forced to do something much more significant.

If that includes breaking diplomatic ties, or cutting off trade or even war, I cannot say. But proportionally, what is happening in Gaza is almost unprecedented in modern war, so many doctors, journalists and babies being killed on purpose is ghastly.

Rwanda was worse, Yemen maybe, a few others. But even in terms of Israel's quite abysmal record on human rights in war, it's the worst they've done by quite a bit.

Quoting ssu

Lack of leadership, I say.

I'll agree. The Biden administration looks like a set of children playing with fire, and where I had sort of expected some foreign policy veterans to show up to avoid utter disaster, nothing of the sort seems to be happening.

Quoting AmadeusD

I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question.

:roll:

Seems preliminary reaction by Israel is "look how terrible Hamas was on 7 October" as an argument that therefore Hamas must be eliminated with the unspoken addition "by any means necessary". Without that last point, there is after all, no argument.

For the lawyers on "direct and public incitement to commit genocide":

https://cld.irmct.org/notions/show/265/direct-and-public-incitement-to-commit-genocide#

Quoting Benkei

Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.


The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf

Thanks for the quote and the link, Holy Benkei. I can understand that proportionality is matter of interpretation.
The problem is still who is interpreting the application of the convention, though. Because, as long as you want to talk laws, it’s not just a self-entitled anonymous nobody over the internet that must interpret violations of the Geneva Convention, but rather an authoritative (to the extant the balance of power allows it) if not recognised tribunal, yes?
Besides it isn’t that easy to prove the intentionality of such violations like “collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians” and pin it down on specific political leaders, or is it? Maybe that’s because the problem of implementing justice in the international arena can not be disentangled that easily from power balance and conflict of interests?



Quoting Benkei

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down).

Yes it’s a problem indeed, Holy Benkei. But still the same problem, if I do not have a conscience how can I grow one as you preach? You must certainly have the answer, yes? That’s why your immense wisdom is so precious to me. Teach me the holy way to fix the world horrors from your armchair. While you are at it, why do you think Geneva Conventions are too often violated as some say (https://onu.delegfrance.org/The-Geneva-Conventions-are-too-often-violated) and so hard to prosecute as others say (https://www.axios.com/2022/03/22/russia-putin-war-crimes-icc-ukraine)? Is it possible that there are enough people and, especially powerful people, which do not seem to comply to what is “ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience” EVEN IF international laws is telling them to do so? And if they do not comply and yet their action is so terrifyingly impactful, how else can they grow a conscience? Do you think if all anonymous nobodies in this forum will keep calling them “morderous iditios” long enough, would this grow conscience in them and everywhere in the universe and this will finally help fix the world horrors, Holy Benkei? Is that your gospel which will free us from the Evil?


Quoting Benkei

So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life.

But then how can murderous idiots grow a conscience if you refuse to share your immense wisdom with them, Holy Benkei?

Reply to Benkei

I'm not seeing the "any means necessary" part, in that document, not that they haven't said it, they have in many ways, maybe I'm looking at the wrong part.

But there is no argument here against intent, the intent is crystal clear. The genocide is not far away, especially if food and medicine do not come in in sufficient numbers, then we will have an exponential death and that would be actual genocide.

But, the fact they bothered to show up to court, means they can't completely disregard world opinion, otherwise they could've skipped this, as they have done before.

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light.

Qatar is one of biggest helpers of Hamas... that's why the relationship. So you prefer that other countries assist Hamas too???

Reply to ssu
Only in that Qatar has conducted successful negotiations between the two sides.

Regarding Hamas, there is always now going to be an attack force like Hamas and there is always going to be a negotiation with such a force for a peace to be reached, there’s no other way.

Quoting neomac

Besides it isn’t that easy to prove the intentionality of such violations like “collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians” and pin it down on specific political leaders, or is it?

Fairly straightforward I would have thought. The facts of what has happened is evidence of intention. Words are evidence of intention.

Just listening to Tal Becker's defence. He's just talking about how nasty Hamas is. Nothing directly relevant to the case so far. He's just mischaracterised South Africa's argument by saying that SA is denying Israel's right to defend itself in any way at all. Now he's doing an ad hom against SA saying SA has links with Hamas, which is irrelevant. Not impressed so far. More emotional pleas than legal points.

Reply to Manuel It's not a document brought into the proceedings but reflects references in court cases of the UN and specific tribunals to get a better understanding how rulings were argued on this specific subject.

Quoting Punshhh

Regarding Hamas, there is always now going to be an attack force like Hamas and there is always going to be a negotiation with such a force for a peace to be reached, there’s no other way.

Exactly. It's a war that will continue until there's a two state solution.

Quoting Manuel

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light.

That's extremely tiny light, yet I think the coverage simply can move attitudes and bring change in the long run.

Of course the most adamant defender of Israel is Germany. For apparent reasons:

Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement that Israel was "defending itself" after the "inhuman" attacks by Hamas of October 7.

"In light of German history and the crimes against humanity of the Shoah, the German government is particularly committed to the (UN) Genocide Convention," signed in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, Hebestreit said.

He said the Convention marked a "central instrument" under international law to prevent another Holocaust.

For this reason, he said, "we stand firmly against a political instrumentalisation" of the Convention.

Hebestreit acknowledged diverging views in the international community on Israel's military operation in Gaza.

"However the German government decisively and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide brought against Israel before the International Court of Justice," he said.

Reply to Benkei

As far as I know, experts are saying this is the strongest case they've seen in terms of "intent of genocide", so, I suppose that counts for something.

I hope South Africa will win... But there's the whole political angle that makes this more difficult than usual.

Reply to ssu

True, historical issues make this a thorny issue for Germany.

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue.

But this could all be rendered significantly less important if Israel goes to full scale war with Hezbollah, which could happen. It's very tense.

Quoting bert1

The facts of what has happened is evidence of intention. Words are evidence of intention.

Right, why do we even have an ICC if we have bert1 to teach us what counts as evidence in the violation of the Geneva convention?

Quoting neomac

counts as evidence

It's pretty normal to use behaviour and words as evidence of intention, as we don't have mind-reading machines.

I don't know much about international law. Is there an equivalent concept to mens rea when it comes to crimes committed by states?

Reply to bert1 Yes Israel didn’t offer a defence. They seem to think that 7th October is relevant. It isn’t.

Reply to Punshhh It's relevant in "the end justifies the means" thinking prevalent in typical right wing thinking.

Quoting bert1

It's pretty normal to use behaviour and words as evidence of intention, as we don't have mind-reading machines.

Yes also breathing air as we are not breathless machines, I guess.

Quoting Vaskane

Hate is in all of those objective commandments. Detailing how one must live.

Jesus believed in commandments... if one sought eternal life (Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). Commandments like "thou shall not murder" make up the foundation of any civilized people, but by all means reject them. Who needs a society where people heed strict rules like that?

Quoting Vaskane

Jesus born a Jew and within such a shitty way of life and tradition rejected the whole of the Jewish tradition and faith by representing God's undying love and faithfulness.

"You must be careful to do everything [the teachers of the law and the Pharisees] tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23:30).

Yeah, totally seems like Jesus rejected the whole of Judaism. :roll:

Quoting Vaskane

In fact, the Jews apparently treated Jesus like dirt because he rejected Judaism.

Or because he essentially claimed to be God? He speaks with absolute certainty. Cult leader.

Quoting Vaskane

Blacks never popularized an objective us vs them morality. One that infected the globe because it says the weak alone are the good.

The weak alone are good? Then why do Jews lionize King David? Or the Maccabees at Hanukkah? The Hebrew Bible praises military victory. Jews are hard-nose realists; try actually talking with one. They are more aware than any of the problems with weakness. Closer to this idea is Jesus.

Reply to Vaskane

Reply to ssu

EU isn't at all contacted,

The EU was contacted and was going to use resources already dedicated to Operation Atlanta, but Spain vetoed it. But it seems like all the ships in the original package are going anyhow.

Reflagging ships isn't a solution. Look at the targets, Indian-operated/Liberian flagged, a Gabon flagged ship. The ballistic missiles attacks haven't come close to any ships, but I believe there were 26 ships in the area in the first incident, 50 in the second. They just targeted a Russian ship (obviously this would probably be an accident). The fact is they lack capabilities for target discrimination and so the general strategy seems to be to try to hit anything as a means of disrupting global trade.

India

One of the ships attacked had an Indian crew. India already has ships in the area, they just stopped an attack by unrelated pirates recently and they are sending several more ships.

The problem is more one of willingness to put ships under a consolidated command, not willingness to send ships to the region to intercept attacks.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus

A very welcomed articulated post (BTW kudos for the mod title!). A few comments:
- Proportionality “needs quantifying” to offer actual military and legal guidance (an example of this is the “non-combatant casualty cutoff value”) wrt military necessity (at operational, tactic and strategic level) in the course of the war. Indeed, proportionality “prohibits the attack only if the attacker concludes the incidental or collateral consequences will be excessive to the anticipated concrete military advantage”. The problem is that the equation would still be very sensitive to the context (e.g. “non-combatant casualty cutoff value” is assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the conflicts and operations, would vary from 0 to 30 acceptable civilian deaths per strike), the available information (i.e. no matter if the result turned out to contradict the expectation at the time it was launched), how valuable the military target (i.e. a legitimate military objective, not civilians!), the measures taken to minimise the non-combatants casualties, the risk for one’s own soldiers, the overall military doctrine (which may vary country by country). The military calculus is more relevant to assess proportionality than the entity of the outcome per se. It’s the military calculus that needs interpreting and the interpretative benchmark of military calculus is offered by the military expertise and practice, not by ordinary people. In other words, “a legitimate critique must ultimately focus on the attack decision, and not the attack outcome. As a result, it is near impossible to conclude an attack violated the wartime proportionality rule without considering the situation that informed the attack decision at the time it was made. This does not mean attack effects are irrelevant. Instead, it means they are only one aspect of a much more complex legality assessment. This may be frustrating, as the full context of an attack decision is often difficult to access or replicate” (https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/10/26/geoff-corn-on-the-disproportionate-confusion-about-proportionality/).
- To assess proportionality and war crimes lawfully authorities (which ones?) need to run proper investigations (per strike) and feed them to an authoritative tribunal. It’s not enough to establish proportionality by popular outcry over whatever people take to be evidence of war crimes or guidance from general legal principles. Not to mention that, on general principles, it would be much easier to pin MOST of the responsibility for the current war crimes on Hamas, INCLUDING the ones allegedly and repeatedly committed by Israel, why? Because International humanitarian law is based on the separation of combatants from civilians: 1. armed forces cannot target civilians (which Hamas did in attacking Israeli civilians - as main target not as collateral damage! - and taking hostages) 2. they must separate their own military assets from the civilian population (which Hamas doesn’t do hiding its combatants, arsenals, infrastructure among civilians, in buildings and places with high-density population, in hospitals and schools) exposing civilians to Israeli attacks. Who wants to sanction Israel for Israel’s war crimes should sanction Palestine roughly twice as much for Hamas’ war crimes.
- But the problem of “proportionality” is much worse though: international legal institutions even if meant for humanitarian purposes still serve states not the other way around. The compliance to international legal institutions by states inevitably depend on power balance and systems of alliance, with all implied security dilemmas. NO major geopolitical actor is in the position to lecture Israel on how to react in case of existential threats or severe human rights violations or war crimes. Indeed, war crimes have been attributed to Syria (against the Syrian rebels), Turkey (e.g. against the Kurds), Saudi Arabia (e.g. against Yemen), Iran (e.g. by supporting war crimes of Hamas), Russia (e.g. against Ukraine), the US (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq). So the international reactions to Israel’s military intervention in Gaza are more useful to assess the degree of convergence of interests in the geopolitical arena, than to pin down Israel’s responsibilities based on violations of international laws. So, as far as I’m concerned, if the international arena is taken as a morality contest, better to assess performances based more on how perceivably far we are from the principle “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” than on how legally close we are to “the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience”.

Concerning your point “the issue would be destroying all the infrastructure and relying on powerful munitions in an urban area against an enemy that seems to have been largely militarily defeated already. Where is the proportionality?”, I take it to mean that ambiguities remain in the Israeli strategic end-game which may exceed the purpose of defeating Hamas as political/military organization rooted in Gaza (hence the suspicion of wanting to expel Palestinians, annex Gaza or part of it, puppetize Palestine, etc.) and hang on the moral hazards of Netanyahu’s political predicament. That sounds plausible to me.

Quoting Vaskane

Jesus born a Jew and within such a shitty way of life and tradition rejected the whole of the Jewish tradition and faith by representing God's undying love and faithfulness.

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus clearly states that you should obey all the laws of the Old testament:

[i]17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.[/i]

Quoting Vaskane

I mean, can we just take a moment to reflect on these fucking rules to begin with. ”Oh, it's okay for states to negligently kill people but individuals aren't allowed to.” WTF? Well if I assess it would be good for the country to say, assassinate a state official who is a corrupt piece of shit, then why the fuck can't I? It's okay for THE STATE to do so. It's okay for a state to send hundreds of thousands or millions to their death over exploitation rights the next business queer can get rich off of.

If you are talking to me, I never made any such claim, nor presupposed it, nor implied it, nor meant to suggest it.


Quoting Vaskane

Law of proportionality is exactly how Israel utilizes its civilians as human shields.

Not sure to understand what you are claiming here: do you mean that on the 7th October there were Israeli combatants hiding among the civilians and preparing a terrorist attack on non-combatant Palestinian civilians to murder/decapitate/torture/rape them and take hostages, so Hamas attacked them first?

Quoting Vaskane

Oh, and yet, in the account of the lives of Jesus Christ, the Gospels, there is no such thing as sin, guilt, punishment and reward, merely Jesus and the Glad Tidings. It's the disciples who introduce ever aspect of Judaism back into Christianity.

Reply to Vaskane

Jesus cannot sin if he is God. His disciples can sin because they are fully human and 0% God.

For us/his disciples/his audience there is definitely sin, guilt, punishment and reward. Jesus reminds us again and again that we can be thrown into hellfire, aka Gehinnom, an idea present in second temple era Judaism.

Quoting Vaskane

it states those who do not follow the ways of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgment, under the Judaic tradition

Happy to go to the text.

Quoting Vaskane

not the Judaic dogma of slavish hate and resentment towards objective values.

What are you talking about? Jews are monotheists and believers in objective values. One God. One set of rules; some binding towards all of humanity, others binding only for Israel.

Quoting Vaskane

No, the problem is that the law of proportionality allows wonton mass murder under the guise of legitimate military conduct.

If the “proportionality” requirement is so loose, why do you think Israel (and all countries accused of committing war crimes for that matter) would be so reluctant to accept related foreign investigations? On the other side, if the “proportionality” requirement was as strict as you wish, what are the chances that such strict requirement would be integrated and applied in international law, if a lighter version of it is already hardly tolerated and applied?
For any legal system, the issue is not just the content of the law and how to interpret it in various circumstances but also the means to enforce them. Laws, not matter how just, that can’t be enforced risk to be nothing more than [I]flatus vocis[/I].


Quoting Vaskane

If Israel believes that all it has to do to defend land from being attacked is move Israeli occupants into illegally claimed lands, then Israel uses human bodies to protect the land from being taken back. Which, by the way, is breaking International Humanitarian Law. And still using human non-combatants to protect your land from the dangers of war. Thus since Israel believes that land is protected by the humans they funnel into an area to claim it for Greater Israel, Israel technically, uses human shielding, albeit by skirting the law, and breaking it even, by moving Israeli civilians into non Israeli lands.

But the legal notion of “human shields” I was referring to concerns legitimate military targets (legitimate according to the laws of war) hidden behind civilians and civilian infrastructures/facilities/properties as it is claimed to be the case for Hamas in Gaza. Besides, Hamas attacks on the 7th October didn’t target Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law, as far as I can tell.

Reply to Vaskane "legitimate military target" is the target of a direct strike. On the 7th October Hamas didn't attack civilian infrastructures with military value (like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets), even less of illegitimate settlements under international law. They directly killed civilians and made hostages. There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point.

Quoting Vaskane

I'm using the law as it's stated within the law.

Do you have anything compelling to support such a claim?

Quoting Vaskane

That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of

feeling compelled by claims made without a good argument or evidence to support them.

Reply to ssu So far the Houthi don't appear to be backing down.

Honestly, I get the feeling the US and allies are falling for a trap here. Bombing campaigns are the NATO's bread and butter, and it was the predictable reaction to the Houthi attacks.

Since US diplomacy has completely failed, the "hammer" is the only tool in the West's tool box. Simultaneously the US is spread so thin that it can't afford to commit anywhere, greatly diminishing the impact of said hammer and making it almost bound to end in a dud.

Meanwhile, judging by the way Hamas has managed to mitigate the damage done by Israeli bombing strikes it appears that such actors aren't as vulnerable to this type of warfare as they once were.

Reply to Vaskane How so?

It's relevant in "the end justifies the means" thinking prevalent in typical right wing thinking.

Reply to Benkei

Interesting, but I assumed that Genocide was so grave a crime that nothing excused it, no excuse was sufficient to justify committing it.

The Israeli’s claim that the attack on 7th October was a genocidal act, therefore they are justified in committing genocide as a response(they vehemently deny they are committing genocide, while insisting that 7th October was a genocide).

It looks like they are engaging in cakism, (having your cake and eating it), which we are familiar with in U.K. re’ Boris Johnson.

Quoting Manuel

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue.

As others have said here, time really seem to be changing. Far away are the times when a tiny Israel faced a collection of Arab country armed to teeth by the Soviet Union, the Israel which likely Biden is thinking about.

And also Israel has changed too: I think it too has become more polarized just as other Western countries, but here decades of low intensity conflict, terrorism has made it worse.

Reply to RogueAI It's not my fault if you require an answer I am unable to give.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos A proportionate response.

Do with that what you will. I am also, extremely tired of people who think they have the answers to geopolitical issues like this :)

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
I'm using the law as it's stated within the law. That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of decent analysis. Israel inadvertently makes its population human shields by assuming the law of proportionality protects the area from military operations in which it moves civilians.

Quoting Vaskane

Land is a legitimate military target. Or do you feel there's no military advantage to controlling land? It's why Israel breaks IHL 51-7

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

"SHALL NOT BE USED TO RENDER CERTAIN POINTS OR AREAS IMMUNE FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS."

Again analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point. Not sure wtf you think Area means? Surface area of the human body? No, area means environment.

Dude, focus, I already made my point that question such argument of yours:
1. On the 7th October Hamas didn’t target points or areas as legitimate military objectives like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets. And the civilians that were killed and made hostage weren’t collateral damage of a strike against such legitimate military objectives, they were the illegitimate military objective: Hamas directly massacred civilians and made hostages. And as in IHL 51-6: [I]Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited[/I]. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51). So, by my understanding, there is no room to claim that those citizens of October massacre were used as human shield by Israel.
2. One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.

Besides I doubt that if you use the adverb “inadvertently” you are making stronger your already weak argument.




Quoting Vaskane

How many Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since?

Irrelevant, since I’m talking about law of proportionality in jus in bello: [I]”The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” [/I] (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality).
As it has been clarified also by others in this thread, the comparison of “Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since” is not pertinent when assessing proportionality in jus in bello.


Quoting Vaskane

"Tyranny of Context" by Michael Schmidt does a fair job at detailing Israel's targeting practices.

If that’s the article you are talking about (https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1905&context=jil) by “one of West Point leading scholars”, as far as I read it (very quickly, so correct me if I’m wrong), NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
But feel free to cite others “West Point leading scholars” arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or, to stay more on topic, in the massacre of October. You made me curious.

Quoting Vaskane

And within it shows that Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL.

So Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL but inadvertently makes its population human shields? I doubt your beliefs on the subject are consistent.



Quoting Vaskane

Interestingly enough apparently the US and Israel aren't actually bound to IHL.

Interesting indeed, because if they are not bound, is it reasonable to expect that Israel would feel compelled to comply with the IHL, just because IHL prohibits this or that?



[1]
[I]Hamas’ tactics and strategy in the recent Gaza conflict were
dramatically different, but also calculated to create asymmetry. The
Gaza Strip is an almost entirely urban battlefield. Only 40
kilometers long and 10 deep, Gaza is densely packed with civilians
and civilian objects.55 Hamas exploits this reality intentionally.
During every round of hostilities in Gaza since Israel’s unilateral
disengagement, Hamas has fought almost exclusively from among
the civilian population. It employs both voluntary and involuntary
(those taken to the target area or forced to remain there) human
shields, conducts command and control from civilian homes, caches
weapons in civilian property, often fails to wear uniforms or
otherwise distinguish its fighters from civilians, prohibits or deters
civilians from leaving areas likely to be targeted, and fires rockets
from schools, mosques, United Nations facilities, and civilian
residences.56 It seeks to create asymmetry by using the law, which it
Like Hezbollah, Hamas appreciates the enormous value Israel
places on its civilian population and soldiers. To leverage these
concerns to its benefit, for example, it fires rockets indiscriminately
at Israeli civilian population centers to terrorize civilians and
provoke an Israel military response, which the international
community may perceive as heavy-handed.58 Hamas also
increasingly relies on an elaborate tunnel network. Designed to
offset the IDF’s reliance on air power and its employment of UAVs
for observation, the group has increasingly gone underground.59
Some tunnels are used to infiltrate into Israel to conduct attacks or
to overwhelm isolated IDF positions and, in particular, take
prisoners. Others are filled with explosives and detonated under
IDF positions or used as “bait”, that is, designed to be discovered by
the IDF and then detonated while its forces are inside. Still others
are used to move personnel and material within, to, and from Gaza.


78 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. [Vol. 37:1
warheads detonate in such a way as to contain and direct the blast,
and the effects of weather and other variables.
Finally, the IDF has adapted to fight under the particular
circumstances it faces – combat in urban terrain against an
adversary that routinely fails to distinguish itself from the civilian
population and uses that population and civilian objects to shield its
forces and operations from attack. Since the IDF is not
expeditionary, the IDF has been able to develop a deep
understanding of the most likely theaters of operations—Gaza,
Lebanon and the West Bank. For instance, its planners have a
granular appreciation of such critical targeting matters as the usual
pattern of civilian life in the target area, construction materials used
to build homes and other structures, and the load-bearing capacity
of roads and bridges. It is therefore especially well equipped to
precisely identify the required destructive capacity of the weapons
it employs against particular targets and the likely collateral damage
that will result from an attack.


2015] TYRANNY OF CONTEXT 115
strike. This position is styled by proponents as analogous to the
generally accepted view that workers in a munitions factory are
civilians who continue to enjoy their protected status despite an
activity that plainly contributes to the conflict. Along the same lines,
if members of an organized armed group carry them out, the
activities do not amount to a continuous combat function that would
permit targeting the individuals based solely on membership in the
group.
Israel and the Authors view such activity as direct participation
in hostilities. This is both a principled position and a practical one
in light of the fact that rockets pose a threat to Israel’s civilian
population, are built in or near the battle area, and are the weapon
with the greatest potential for bringing those who use it success in
the conflict (however success might be defined). To conclude
otherwise would ignore the military necessity element underlying
the LOAC and, quite simply, be illogical in light of the reality of the
conflicts Israel faces. Interestingly, the MAG officers asked would
not offer an opinion on whether individuals transporting weapons
through the tunnels into Gaza are directly participating in
hostilities. Both of the Authors would readily conclude they are so
participating on the basis of the proximity to the area of combat and
the immediacy of the use of the weapons.

5.4. Human Shields
The IDF regularly confronts the use of human shields by its
enemies.172 According to Additional Protocol I, Article 57(7),
“[T]he presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points
or areas immune from military operations, in particular in
attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to
shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to
the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian”
Although most States, including the United States and Israel,174
accept these provisions as reflecting customary law, the
interpretation thereof has been the source of significant controversy
since it was highlighted during the Interpretive Guidance project.175
The project’s debate surrounded the distinction between individuals
who voluntarily shield a target, as when individuals go to a target
in order to shield it from attack, and those who shield involuntarily,
as in the case of weapons placed in a school occupied by students
and teachers unaware of the presence of the weapons. Israel has
faced both situations. For instance, the IDF often warns individuals
in a building to be attacked to leave the facility. In some cases,
Hamas responds by urging people to come to the target area in order
to deter the Israeli attack. More commonly used is the practice of
conducting military activities, such as launching rockets, from the
top of, or next to, inhabited buildings, like apartment complexes and
schools




This is especially the case with respect to urban areas such as Gaza
where civilians and civilian objects are collocated with fighters and
military objectives. Moreover, Israel’s opponents, as described
earlier, have adopted a strategy of operating near civilians and
civilian objects and using civilians as human shields, both
voluntarily and involuntarily. This further enhances the degree of
uncertainty attendant to IDF strikes.


As an example, given the propensity of Israel’s
enemies to use human shields, it is unsurprising that Israel has taken
the position that individuals voluntarily acting in this manner are to
be treated as direct participants in hostilities. In light of its enemies’
frequent failure to distinguish itself from the civilian population, it
is equally unsurprising that Israel has embraced the principle of
reasonableness with respect to target identification. Perhaps most
noteworthy is the high value Israel places on the safety of its soldiers
and its civilian population.[/I]

Quoting AmadeusD

It's not my fault if you require an answer I am unable to give.

Do you really not have a preference over who should have won WW2, the Allies or Japan and Nazi Germany? I find that hard to believe.

Reply to RogueAI
You may find it so. But I don't know enough to make a call. The current situation seems fine, but i have no basis for comparison.

A preference is very different from who should have won, by the way. I'd be happy to give a preferential call based on what I know, but i couldn't in good conscience say that's who should have won.

I'm sure as white, European male i'd have done alright had it gone another way; I just plum dont knoiw

Quoting AmadeusD

A proportionate response.

Reply to AmadeusD

So, like, kill 1200 Hamas?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos I mean, that's one thing which would come under that banner, imo.

Unsure what you're intimating though, so will refrain from comment beyond that.

Quoting AmadeusD

preference is very different from who should have won, by the way. I'd be happy to give a preferential call based on what I know, but i couldn't in good conscience say that's who should have won.

OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis?

Quoting Vaskane

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it.

You might even have a point here. But keep in mind several things:
1) The conflict has been going on since 1947, with the first move being the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181. From then on, no one cared what the UN resolved, it seems. But what did "rejection" mean? It meant the Israeli war of Independence (lasted over 9 months), whereby Israel had to fight to even maintain not being pushed into the sea. It won and the borders that are now the position of the Oslo Accords (or thereabouts), was where that armistice line ended up being.

2) However, instead of creating a Palestinian state (that wasn't even conceived yet until the PLO in 1964), the goal was again to wipe out Israel instead of form a "two state solution", and thus Israel had to defend itself from annihilation again in 1967. They won that as well, now holding Gaza from Egypt, West Bank from Jordan (being that it was the "West Bank" of the Jordan River), and the Saini peninsula from Egypt.

3) Right after 1967, there was a plea made from Israel that the Arab nations had to disavow their destruction of Israel goal, and make peace and they would give back the newly obtained land. The Arab countries responded with the three No's.. (No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel).

4) Eventually Egypt did recognize and negotiate with Israel, as they wanted the Saini back. Jordan also normalized relations in 1994. Black September and the killing of the Jordanian prime minister in the 70s didn't help much with Jordan's relations with Palestinians, etc.

5) After a protracted war with the PLO in Jordan and then in Lebanon in the 80s, there was a movement to recruit the retired Arafat from Tunisia back into Palestine to negotiate a two state solution. This was around 1988. So here we have the first "intifada" and then shortly after the Oslo Accords.

6) The West Bank and Gaza were given 95% of what they wanted, with considerations that Israel had for security, as it was impossible after the previous wars for them to consider absolutely NO security measures. Besides which, Hamas was bombing Israel throughout the 90s and early 2000s, and it was CLEAR that security HAD to be part of the negotiations, lest they become even more weakened at a future point. Arafat could not except it, because, as someone else in this thread alluded to, "making peace in the Middle East is deadly". Rabin was shot, but the negotiations eventually continued with Ehud Barak. Didn't happen, second intifada ensued with even more Hamas bombings of cafes, busses, street corners, etc. Sharon responded by putting up the wall. He also pulled settlers out of Gaza.

7) Gazans voted IN Hamas, the very organization who was responsible for most of the deadly suicide bombings throughout the whole peace process, showing the "Fuck you" to the move to self-rule.

8) After 2008, Israel moved to the right as Hamas sent rockets over.. and then led to opportunists like Netanyahu and Smotrich etc. to use Hamas as proof that they could run roughshod in the West Bank with more settlements, and ignoring Abbas (who also didn't make it easy basically being afraid to make concessions himself.. but needed to hold power because Hamas would have been voted in the West Bank too.. Which would have widened this war and probably had it come sooner had they won the West Bank)..

Anyways, all of this is to show that none of this took place in vacuum, and it didn't JUST start with Netanyahu's policies. But was also pushed along, mainly, by Palestinian overtures against any negotiation, moderation, or peace. This led the opportunity for Netanyahu to enact his agenda, which was also not good. But legitimized it the more Hamas acted. That is to say, cause-and-effect is a thing when it comes to security matters and state formation. All the moves of Arab countries and then Palestinian independence (a very recent thing really not evolving to its current formation until Oslo Accords), led Israel down a rightward move towards downplaying peace. To many Israelis, it seems, the more they got towards peace, the more Hamas et al, would ramp up suicide bombings, attacks, and the like. Then a common quote would be "We just can't negotiate with them.. They say one thing and their terrorist wing does another thing. They aren't committed to peace"). And then they become hardened that containment is better than opening the lid to the container.

Quoting Vaskane

Actually it's been ongoing since WWI.

Sure we can go back even to 1937's Peele Commission recommendation which would have made Israel a tiny enclave near the Galilee.. The Arab neighbors, wouldn't even accept this (and the impetus prior to the Holocaust, was not there for Western nations to care enough).

Quoting Vaskane

And today's Israel has always been stolen land

So right. Being that this is first and foremost in your thought-process it seems, the rest of your arguments I honestly don't think matters as it is from this initial perspective that you arguing from (i.e. Israel shouldn't EVEN exist).

Quoting Vaskane

You provide the solution FIRST dumb ass, not cause the conflict first.

I don't know what you mean. The solution for Arabs was no Jewish state, period. Clearly, that wasn't a solution for Jews. So that outcome was rejected by Jews. That caused the Jews to seek independence, and they held their ground.

Quoting Vaskane

Perhaps, but you certainly don't just dump a million people from what they had to nothing and be like. "Yeah, we're God's Chosen bruh, da fuqs 0usta h3r3!

Well, being that there was never going to be some peaceful negotiation from the start, this seemed to be inevitable being the interest of the two groups.

Quoting Vaskane

You American?

Why is that pertinent?

Quoting Vaskane

Give your home to a Native American, and make a video for us all to see. If you wont then I see how you really feel about Israel too.

I'd be for a Native American state that is completely independent and not just reservations. If you remember, the Middle East was largely just districts within the Ottoman Empire, not their own nations. Nationalism, was instilled by Westerners. But if we were to inject the same 19th century notion of "nation for a state", just like Liberia was created for ex-slaves by the US prior to the Civil War, if there was a "Nation of First Nations of the American Continent", taken from public lands (there's plenty of that in the US and much more fertile than anything Israel was given in the Negev), then sure why not.

Differences of course are that the Middle East, being occupied by the Arabs since the Arab Conquest in the 600-700s, could be representative of the Americans.. Just like Israel was willing to accept at one point, even the tiny Peele Commission enclave, being that they are not going back to perfectly aligned ancient lands (like "Judea and Samaria" which is technically in the West Bank), and knowing that it is reconstituted, for modern notions of nationalism, sure, why not? Not sure if that would be something the Native American tribal nations would want per se.

Reply to Vaskane
I think you answered your own question. Britain didn't want it to be their issue.

Quoting Vaskane

Their need to play god started with preventing Germany from obtaining that Berlin to Baghdad Rail Road.

No doubt, imperial ambition was part-and-parcel of the British (and French) Empire's way of dominating the world (prior to WW2 basically). You control a region through soft power (sphere's of influence in China for example.. and all European nations including Germany had their sphere), or directly ruling a region (Africa, Middle East, and parts of Asia). You control ports of entry (Persian Gulf, Suez Canal, Red Sea, etc.), trade routes, and resources, and you gain the glory and riches from this in an interconnected globalized economic system.

Quoting Vaskane

Obviously you're inability at analysis comes from the rigidness of your mind in the word play of "legitimate military target," which is just a distraction from the actual laws. Your "focus" is more like tunnel vision.

Quoting Vaskane

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly.

Well if you wanna put it in these terms, then I’ll repeat my point once again: “NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
The same holds true for the quotes you reported, because NOTHING in those quotes is even remotely in conflict with what I said, repeatedly, in my earlier posts. Those quotes insist on the definition of “human shields” which, to my understanding, apply VERY WELL to the case of HAMAS, but not so well to the case of Israel, and most certainly do not apply in the case of the October massacre.
Since it’s your interpretation against mine over a legal point, and since I assume we are no legal experts, I told you: “feel free to cite others ‘West Point leading scholars’ arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or in the massacre of October. Now you made me curious”. So if you can’t, don’t waste your time lecturing me about your understanding of the international law. Get it now, dude?



Quoting Vaskane

If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it.

Again your point is referring to illegally occupied territories. And I wrote: “One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.”
And yes “It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory” (legal point) and moving people in disputed land by Israel (BTW Israel doesn’t need to move anything, Israeli settlers move and Israel legalises them) is considered illegal (legal point) and Israel would do this in order to make it harder for Palestinians to reclaim land, as much as Russia is doing in Crimea (warfare point). So fucking what? Would the notion of “human shield” as understood in international law apply? To me, no unless the principle of distinction has been violated on the Israeli/Russian part.
As I told you and now repeat: “There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point”. I was making a legal point not a warfare point. And your warfare point is really nothing I wasn’t already aware of or that deserves three posts to clarify or to brag about. But if you feel the overwhelming urge to embarrass yourself for another round, pls bore me some more as if I didn’t have enough already.

Reply to ssu

That's right.

How more right wing could they become?

I mean, Israel only has the strong backing if the US, and to a lesser but still substantial degree, Germany.

If not for them, Israel would be alone. You cannot do what they are doing and expect the world to say nothing about it. I mean the barbarity of this is unprecedented. Or at least, not seen in many years.

Quoting Vaskane

Why exactly did Britain give Palestinian land away is the real question.

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly.

Quoting Vaskane

Israel had to belong where its roots were and this is the problem, there was no other solution for Israel either.

There were other solutions. Zionism was not always the majority opinion in jewish communities, there was a lively debate. But then the debate, along with the people participating in it, died. And in the aftermath of that, Zionism suddenly seemed the only logical conclusion.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Echarmion

Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly.

The Balfour declaration was the British solution to the "Jewish problem", which Jews they wanted to fuck off our of the UK. It was heavily debates against by Jewish parliamentarians for the obvious racist crap it was at the time. So the British gave them permission to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine when that mandate wasn't even in place - that happened three years later and was ended in 1947.

Reply to Benkei

The Balfour declaration probably tried to balance a lot of interests at once, in typical British imperial fashion. It played the Zionist card to gain influence with Jewish factions and position Britain as the caretaker of the region. It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish [I]state[/I] and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims. It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain.

The ongoing power struggle between France and Britain in the region makes it difficult to establish intentions accurately, since both tried to play all kinds of local interest off against each other. "A line in the Sand" by James Barr gives an interesting account of the conflict, though since I'm not a historian I cannot vouch for it's accuracy.

Quoting Echarmion

It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain.

There's no "may" about it.

Quoting Echarmion

It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims

This too is false. The zionist movement was clear wel as the phrase "national home". National already meant what it does today as belonging to a nation-state.

What's your point about pretending this is all less clear than it really was?

Reply to Benkei

The point is that the narrative "Britain gave Palestine to the Jews with the Balfour declaration and thus Israel was created" is simplistic and doesn't reflect the actual history of the region.

You're simply assuming that Lord Balfour's personal opinions about Jews - as reported - were British official policy. But there's no actual evidence for this that I can see. If you're certain this was the case I'd like to hear your argument.

It also seems odd to claim that "national home" had a clear meaning when it doesn't refer to any established concept, then or now. It's precisely the kind of phrase you would use if you wanted people to read into it what they like to hear, without actually being committed to anything.

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate.

Reply to Echarmion As Montagu in the British cabinet (I eronneously said parliament before) and other like-minded Jews argued at the time:

Montagu:...I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.

On the prevalent anti-semitism in Britain:

Montagu:and I am not in the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some people think, of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us.

On the meaning of "national home":

Montagu:I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation.

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning.

Here's the full memo: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/montagu-memo-on-british-government-s-anti-semitism

Quoting Echarmion

And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate.

Because it was not Britain's place to create it and in any case as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. That didn't happen until decolonalisation started in 1947.

Quoting Benkei

It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home".

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves".

Quoting Benkei

Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning.

You can't turn absence of evidence into an argument for your preferred interpretation.

Quoting Benkei

Because it was not Britain's place to create it

Why not? If, as you claim "everyone understood" that "national home" meant nation state and the Balfour declaration became part of the official British mandate, then it would follow that Britain was thereby obligated to create a jewish nation state.

Quoting Benkei

as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine.

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that.

Quoting Vaskane

Why would Schmitt put a target on himself like that?
I don't need his opinion to interpret the law. Schmitt's paper is to show Israel's targeting practice, silly, and the tyranny of context in which it's applied. Two of the Corpus of Laws relevant specifically state "MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AREAS TO IMPEDE MILITARY OPERATIONS," as war-crimes relevant to human shielding

.

This line you quote does not refer to the condition of being ILLEGAL settler (which BTW is not the case of the massacre of October the 7th), but to military objectives to be distinguished by non-combatant civilians according to the principle of distinction. See the examples and the explanation:

[I]Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadži? and Mladi? case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives[/I]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97

It’s NOT the land the military target of Hamas strikes and which Israel hides behind civilians, it’s the civilians. They have to be massacred. The legal point you are making it is something different: namely that legitimizing settlements prohibited by international law and therefore exposing its own citizens to retaliations for which Israel can not advocate the right of self-defence is legally imputable against Israel. And I think this accusation has been already leveled against Israel.


Quoting Vaskane

Trying to base your judgement off of if Schmitt said so or not is fallacious to the point of fact of you appeal to authority -- ignoring the wording of the law . Which is exactly what I said I was using to interpret the law, remember? Try not to lose "focus" as you would say .

First, the accusation of fallacious appeal to authority doesn’t make any sense, since the authoritative interpretation of the law is not what you or Hamas claim it to be, but what results from the authority, namely domain-specific legal expertise and practice. You, not me, brought Schmitt up as “one of West Point leading scholars” and I also invited you to cite other relevant sources in support of your claims. BTW, you can find plenty of human rights organizations that are notoriously very critical of Israel illegal settlements or Israel killing Palestinian civilians or denying that Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields, see here:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2019/01/chapter-3-israeli-settlements-and-international-law/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/15/israel/palestine-unlawful-israeli-airstrikes-kill-civilians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
But I couldn’t find any relevant source arguing that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields in general, or in the case of the October massacre, or in the illegal settlements, in the specific sense in which it is understood in international law. While they do not have problems to report Israel of using Palestinians as human shields: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/mde151432002en.pdf
Since I’m a layman, if you find one relevant source, you are welcome to let me know, of course.



Quoting Vaskane

Bro, and let me put it to you again, I was bitching at you about the law of proportionality, and how obtuse and effed up it is. I wasn't bitching at you about anything else you said. And my complaint was with the Law of Proportionality, not with what you said. But you took what I said as an attack against you, and you tried challenging how Israel uses Human Shielding. My B for not specifying that I wasn't attacking you. But I thought since I was bitching solely about how stupid and effed up ambiguous the laws are that surround the law of proportionality, and not about what you said in particular, I figured the subject in which the bitching was directed at was obviously that of the Law of Proportionality. So effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets.

Bro, I’m complaining about you complaining about the Law of Proportionality as being so ambiguous that “Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”. International law as understood by the International Criminal Court is not based on Hamas’ interpretation of the Law of Proportionality or the legal notion of Human Shield, so iI doubt that it would make sense for Hamas to plan its strikes based on its own interpretation of International law. They may plan their strikes having in mind what Israel has been ALREADY accused of by ICC and human rights ONGs.
In short, my understanding is that the law of proportionality and the legal notion of human shield in international law are not as ambiguous as you claim it to be, reason (but maybe not the only one) why Israel may show reluctance in accepting international law investigations as it does. But also reason why there is nobody (like ICC and human rights ONGs) claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields, as far as I can tell. And this accusation of Israel using its own citizens as human shields would sound more plausible in strikes against illegally occupied territories (according to international law), more than in the case of the massacre of the 7th October.
It would be more interesting to support your complaint if you could AT LEAST find Hamas/Palestinian sources claiming that Israel is using its own citizens as human shields. But, even in this case, I would take it as infowar (i.e. as instrumentally messing with the poor understanding of international law by laymen, not because the law is that ambiguous per se) as much as accusing Israel of violating the law of proportionality based on a comparison between Israeli and Palestinian casualties among civilians.

Quoting Echarmion

And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that.

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood.

Quoting Echarmion

So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...

Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves".

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time.

As to a "single prominent person" they got organised in the League of British Jews. Anti-zionist Jewish movements were common at the time.

It's not enough to just repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there.

Quoting Benkei

The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood.

I didn't expect someone to bring up the treaty of Westphalia as an argument... Anyways this is just undermining your own argument, as your explanation for why Britain didn't simply establish a Jewish state was "because they wanted to retain Palestine". Yet now you're arguing they could have done this with a Jewish state in Palestine. So which is it?

Quoting Benkei

This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.

But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time.

Well, if I'm so illiterate it should be no problem for you to make a convincing argument against me. Obviously I don't claim people in 1917 didn't know what a nation or nationalism is. What I'm claiming is that the phrase "national home" was chosen intentionally to allude to the concept of a nation state without actually committing Britain to one.

Hence why your own source (the only actual part of "everybody" you have so far relied on for your argument) doesn't know what it means and has to assume.

Quoting Benkei

It's not enough to just
A repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there.

If Wikipedia agrees with my assessments, that's an argument in my favour, unless you additionally want to establish that the Wikipedia page contains false claims.

Reply to Echarmion Sure buddy. They waived their magic wand "national home" and all of a sudden nobody understood what they meant!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Hence no Heaven.

Reply to Vaskane

Just to be clear, Jews do believe in heaven/a good afterlife for the righteous. When Jesus says the righteous will be rewarded and the wicked punished after death/in the world to come he is in accordance with Jewish thought.

Quoting Vaskane

Everyone else is shit to Jews

You should either talk with a rabbi or read the Hebrew Bible in its entirety. Read Book of Ruth, especially. Consider that there are many examples of righteous gentiles in the Hebrew Bible as well as Jewish tradition.

Quoting Vaskane

I am literally 100% excluded from ever belonging to their ethnoreligion I can never be a Jew.

Not technically, but if you reject God and objective values then you will certainly not be allowed in. You wouldn't be a Christian or a Muslim with those beliefs either.

If you changed your beliefs you'd be eligible to convert Judaism does accept converts, but being Jewish is not a requirement for a good afterlife so Jews don't go around trying to convert everyone.

Hence why Jews created Christianity, for the non Jews.

Christianity is a minority offshoot of Judaism. A breakaway movement. Slave morality may have been "birthed" with the Israelites, but imo it reaches its peak in Jesus. If I'm not mistaken, Nietzsche would emphasis the Jewishness of Jesus to anti-Semites - i.e. how he magnifies certain concepts that were originally present in Judaism/Jewish thought. Evangelical Christians like John MacArthur will sometimes make this point as well.

Indian media sharing footage of the attack that took place on a Greek-owned cargo ship that took place today.

This might give people an idea of the type of ordnance the Houthi are using.

Obviously, these aren't Taliban-style IEDs strapped together with duct tape, but actual weapons of war that pose a serious threat to civilian and military shipping.

Military vessels are generally able to withstand multiple impacts of this kind. For frigate/destroyer-sized vessels, three impacts would be a conservative estimate. Civilian ships, depending on size and age, may perish to fire and flooding after even one.

Quoting RogueAI

OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis?

I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence.

From a God's-eye view, I would ahve the innate knowledge of which course would have been 'just'. So, there's no reason for these questions or reasonable way to answer them. Which i've insisted on.

What a weird line of thought about this.

Quoting AmadeusD

I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence.

That's the only reason you prefer the Allies win? Because of reasons of your own existence? Stopping Nazi Germany doesn't factor into your preferring the Allies won? Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening?

Quoting AmadeusD

What a weird line of thought about this.

Indeed. Most people would just say, "Yeah, the Allies should have won WW2. Thank God they did. What are you, nuts?" But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha".

Quoting RogueAI

Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening?

Just as stupid as the previous question. We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. It actually doesn't matter what I think about all you're trying to 'gotcha' me with - ironic, as below...

Quoting RogueAI

But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha

No. I am unable to answer it. If you're not going to accept that, then just stop replying. You're not a psychic and your assumptions betray a lack of humility or even want of a decent exchange. You are exactly looking for a "Gotcha, you're a Nazi supporter".

That you think it wise to project that on to someone who is literally refusing certain propositions, and asking nothing of you, is bizarre.

Quoting AmadeusD

We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else.

Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in?

Quoting AmadeusD

e are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else.

You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born?

Quoting RogueAI

Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in?

Understood, and I'm happy to answer the TE after a disclaimer: We have an actual result here. Any other result (other the course of events leading to this exchange) is utterly preposterous to imagine, for any reason other than fancy, to my mind. The TE isn't an experiment - it's a counterfactual - one which seems to be purely set out for the purpose of trapping someone who is attempting not to take something preposterous seriously.

I would prefer the Allies won. But i am actually IN this world, so I may not have the intellectual capability of truly imagining another.

Quoting RogueAI

You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born?

I bite the bullet. Yes. I am unable to prefer that world.
I also bite that bullet. I am unable to prefer that world.

However, I'm an anti-natalist so I think its best if people weren't born at base anyway. But once alive, that goes out hte window entirely. And i'm trying to restrict myself to the actual - not speculative nonsense about things that cannot possibly happen.

Quoting AmadeusD

I would prefer the Allies won.

So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids?

Quoting RogueAI

So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids?

I wont play 'gotcha' games. Particularly not with someone who accused me of the same.

I just said: I would prefer the Allies won - I didn't try to change the realities of WWII.

But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point.

Quoting AmadeusD

I wont play 'gotcha' games.

It's not a gotcha game. It's exploring your preference for an Allied victory knowing they killed untold numbers of innocents. I suspect your reasoning is similar to mine: yes, the Allies did terrible things, but the alternative of an Axis victory would have been so much worse. A "lesser of two evils" thing. Am I right?

"Particularly not with someone who accused me of the same."

I never accused you of gotcha games. I said "Who should have won WW2?" is not a gotcha question. I'm right on this. It's not. It's easily answerable.

Quoting AmadeusD

But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point.

Of course not. God forbid we explore this intuition you have. It's obviously a "gotcha". :roll:

I'll leave you with some words of wisdom: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

Quoting RogueAI

an Axis victory would have been so much worse. A "lesser of two evils" thing. Am I right?

I simply don't know. Nor could I. Preposterous. We already know exactly what the one option gets us - we are essentially blind to the other, and I wont speculate. Not going to entertain this one again.

You're correct. You did not accuse me. I misread this post

Quoting RogueAI

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

You're asking me to forego the examination of my actual life to examine an impossible life. And in fact, a situation in whcih i am not alive. Ironic in the extreme.

Reply to AmadeusD I've had pleasant interactions with you, and I want to keep it that way, so agree to disagree and apologies if I got too snarky.

Reply to RogueAI Absolutely - no ill will whatsoever. I really appreciate the exchanges, and that recognition of same :) Thank you.

Reply to AmadeusD Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys.

Reply to Benkei I like how you turned that one around. :lol:

Quoting 180 Proof

I would not have supported the jihadist Hamas party over PA-affiliated, secular parties in Gaza and not have promoted the violent settler land-grabs in the West Bank, etc in order for both policies to sabotage all prospects of a "Two-State Solution" as Bibi's governments have done since 2004; thus, no October 7th atrocities and retaliatory mass murdering by the IDF today.

More circumstantial evidence of the Netanyahu regime's complicity via strategic neglect...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260.amp

Reply to Benkei

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys.

You don't even need to stretch it to "occasionally." The Soviets were part of the Allies and they committed war crimes on an industrial scale, and also responded to dissent within their own population with disappearances and torture, like Hamas.

The parallels work pretty well. The Soviets had a habit of refusing to let civilians evacuate urban areas because they thought keeping the people crowded into them would frustrate the German advance. Also similar is how the party elites sat on stacks of horded supplies while the population starved and leveraged this to extort them.

The analogy also works because, following their victory the Soviets carried a large scale genocide expelling about 12-14 million Germans from Eastern Europe, killing another 2-2.5 million (this is after the war), and I can't see a world where Hamas achieves total victory and Jews are allowed to remain in Israel.

The analogy falls apart though when you consider how Hamas got control of Gaza, fighting a war with the PA. Stalin had unified control, whereas I would have to assume that if the Jews left Israel tonight a Palestinian civil war would erupt by next week (same thing happened with the Iraqi Kurds).

It really goes to show how dismal the whole situation is (and was then for Eastern Europe).

Quoting AmadeusD

I mean, that's one thing which would come under that banner, imo.

Unsure what you're intimating though, so will refrain from comment beyond that.

Reply to AmadeusD

Just trying to understand your position.

Israel could have killed 1200 hamas and stopped but hamas has promised to continuously repeat 10/7 so we'd just see more of the same. I get your position, but personally I have no qualms about going after the root of the problem -- the governing structure that is intent on the destruction of its neighbor because it's neighbor exists as an independent Jewish state and will happily murder civilians as a way of accomplishing this goal. All Jews in Israel are regarded as "Israel" and thus viable, fair targets for Hamas. What must be done to those who vow to murder innocent civilians? They must be killed.

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus I only wrote that because I got fed up with the recurring question "who would you have rather have won?" where in the questioners mind he firmly believes Hamas are like the Nazis and therefore Israel is allowed to commit war crimes because since we wanted the Allies to have won we therefore think their war crimes were acceptable and, indeed, necessary.

And while I appreciate your insights on the WWII history I think in the end my post should not be seriously engaged as it was mostly intended to ridicule the original question.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

I can't see a world where Hamas achieves total victory and Jews are allowed to remain in Israel.

I agree. I also don't see an Israel that doesn't fully destroy Arab history and culture in greater Palestine nor a "Jewish State" that will ever be anything but a racist shithole without foreign intervention (a la South Africa). Any solution has to come from outside the warring parties, especially if Europe/anglo-saxon countries continue to unconditionally support Israel.

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved.

Quoting Benkei

It's also interesting how when I ask Asians, Africans or South Americans about this conflict it all of a sudden really isn't that complicated. At least to them. It really is a "Western" problem that this conflict is not getting closer to getting resolved.

Indeed.

It's not complicated. It's simply hard if not impossible to peacefully solve. Partly (and only partly) because of the West.

Namibia has criticised Germany’s “shocking decision” to support Israel in the genocide case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought by South Africa, as Israel’s war on Gaza entered its 100th day.

“Germany has chosen to defend in the ICJ the genocidal and gruesome acts of the Israeli government against innocent civilians in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian Territories,” the president of Namibia, Hage Geingob, said in a statement on X on Saturday.

- - -

The statement by the Namibian presidency added that Berlin was ignoring Israel’s killing of more than 23,000 Palestinians in Gaza and various United Nations reports disturbingly highlighting the internal displacement of 85 percent of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people amid acute shortages of food and essential services.

The Namibian president expressed “deep concern” over “the shocking decision” communicated by the government of Germany on Friday, in which “it rejected the morally upright indictment” brought forward by South Africa.

“No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against Palestinians in Gaza,” it said.

Quoting Benkei

I also don't see an Israel that doesn't fully destroy Arab history and culture in greater Palestine

Reply to Benkei

wym by this? Arab culture or Islam? Do you see Israel banning falafel, tzatziki and hummus or Arab architecture? Or will zionist imperialists readily raze muslim holy sites (like the dome of the rock which Israel protected against Hamas's rockets) and build their Temple on its ruins? Like how dome of the rock lies on top of the ruins of the second temple.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos There's no Israeli village not build on an Arab ruin.

Reply to ssu

No peace-loving human being can ignore the carnage waged against...

any number of communities around the world. Ukraine, China, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Turkey, Syria, Sudan, D. R. Congo, East Africa, Central America, and more!

Ill-treating fellow humans in one place doesn't justify not-quite-as-bad, similar, or worse treatment somewhere else. The ICJ would be too busy to break for lunch if charges were brought against every guilty government.

Yemen fires missiles at international shipping in the Red Sea. The US & UK strike missile sites in Houthi controlled areas. There are immediate protests that bombing the missile sites will make things worse. So, what to do, what to do?

Someone on the BBC suggested that it would have been better if India and the Netherlands had carried out the strikes. Maybe. But wouldn't that just "widen the war in the Middle East" which any number of actions are said to do?

I'm not sure that Israel declaring a cease-fire really would lower the risks in the region, though it would reduce the suffering in Gaza.

Reply to Benkei And those Arab towns are built on Jewish ruins.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

the governing structure that is intent on the destruction of its neighbor

It simply isn't that simple, imo Particularly the prolonged nature of dealing with these things. I find it extremely hard to pretend to know what's really going on, or pretend to read the minds of governing collectives (which i find incoherent, anyway).

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

What must be done to those who vow to murder innocent civilians? They must be killed.

I also get your position, but it's entirely incompatible with how i see thing in general. This logic leads to killing every person who makes a semi-credible threat of death on anyone (you've deemed innocent). I can't take that seriously, i'm sorry. Again, I understand the position but it appears to me an attempt to signal an emotive position rather than a rational one. We must just disagree... And that's fine :)

Reply to Benkei You're not even wrong. And that's kind of the problem (though, I would have to remove all the hyperbolic WWII comparisons for this to be acceptable lol).

Hence, I am in no place to make a call.

Reply to Benkei

Everyone has built on top of everyone else because buildings become dilapidated and lands change hands whether through sales or conquering. Israel preserves Muslim holy sites (the main ones, at least); fundamentalist Muslims have a very poor track record for preserving the holy sites of other groups. There are many mosques in Israel and virtually no synagogues in the Arab world.

Reply to Benkei

I figured as much, but I think the analogy actually is quite good in some ways. For in the case of the Soviets, we see a state that was in every way justified in defending itself and taking all means necessary to defeat their adversary. At the same time, the Soviets also did a ton of cruel, unnecessary shit that actively hurt their effort to defeat the Nazis. To my mind, Hamas has often acted similarly. It would be one thing to carry out horrific attacks that actually could reasonably expected to help the long term position of the people of Gaza, but their means aren't even good for achieving their ends.

Most of the Strip is now occupied (and destroyed). If the IDF's figures are even remotely accurate, they've lost a very large share of their total strength wounded/killed/captured, and a significant proportion appears to have also deserted. Their leadership is encircled, and their last leverage point is the hostages, which Israel only appears to be willing to accept their exile for. Their plan seems to have managed to get a lot of their people killed, their land destroyed and occupied, and their organization decimated — which was not particularly hard to predict given their strategy.

Some sort of militant group will exist in Israel after this. It might even be an Islamist group. But it seems probable that it won't be Hamas, and even if it is, it will probably be (justifiably) new leadership, because this not a good outcome.

You could also say it's analogous to the last days of the Third Reich in that the war is already decisively lost, and there doesn't seem to be anything to be gained from making your people's city your funeral pyre, but the leadership obviously isn't concerned with that. Although, it's not quite as bad, since the Nazis had a window to surrender to the Western Allies in 1944 on, when the war was decisively lost, and spare their people the epidemic of rape and half century of Russian domination fighting on entailed, but they chose the "let's use Berlin as our funeral pyre," option even with that off-ramp (notably, millions of soldiers and civilians did not, and fled west).

Quoting Vaskane

Damn dude you are dumb as a brick it seems.

If you want to insult me, it would be more fair to notify me first, so I can readily insult you back.
Where are your manners, asshole?!



Quoting Vaskane

That's precisely why 51-7 is a war crime.

You are conflating things. Isreal would violate IHL by moving (deporting?) its civilians in ILLEGALLY occupied territories and it would show lack of concern for civilians by exposing them to possible retaliations by hostile powers but that wouldn’t yet amount to a case of “human shields” usage.
Indeed, IHL explicitly treats the case of “Transfer of Own Civilian Population into Occupied Territory” in a dedicated rule: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule130#Fn_9AD70858_00003
The status of illegal settler even if promoted by a state is not a case of human shield, as far as I’ve understood. Besides the massacres of October 7h do not concern illegally occupied territories!



Quoting Vaskane

Moving civilians into contested land, to block military operations is human shielding as stated by two Corpus of Laws, including the Geneva Convention.

In IHL 51-7, it’s written: [i]“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.”[/I] and it doesn’t mention “contested land”. And IHL 51-7 needs to be interpreted in light of 51-6 (which is what Hamas massacre is violating), the examples given or suggested by the underlined note (which echoes the principle of distinction).

[I]Definition of human shields
The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.[19] There were many condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.[20] Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition related to rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.[21]
In the Review of the Indictments in the Karadži? and Mladi? case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields”.[22]
It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives[/u][/I]
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule97




Quoting Vaskane

Again, you're not even using the law, you're just quoting articles about the law.

I explained to you why: quoting laws is not always enough for laymen like me and you. One needs also to rely on legal expertise to identify standard interpretation when others are possible. And that is all that matters to me. So even if there are other interpretations than the standard one, I still care exclusively about the standard one.



Quoting Vaskane

Means blocking military operations by moving civilians into an area is considered human shielding, and this is what Israel does.

And yet you couldn’t report any IHL experts accusing Israel of using its civilians as human shields yet. Instead you reported an IHL expert that expressly and repeatedly claimed Hamas is using Palestinians as human shields.


Quoting Vaskane

Tell us, what do you suppose the following means:

"MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AN AREA TO IMPEDE OPERATIONS."

Examples have been given:
“placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains”. (AREA = ammunition trains, OPERATION = strikes against the ammunition train)
“place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points” (AREA = military defence point, OPERATION = strikes against military defence point)
“rounding up civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia” (AREA = location of the military units, OPERATION = strikes against location of the military units)

The military operation still requires co-location of military objectives (https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-objectives/) and civilians as distinguishable military targets of a strike.

[i]A particular difficulty appears where civilian objects, namely, infrastructure and buildings (roads, schools, factories, electrical fittings, radio and TV installations), are temporarily used for military purpose or are used for both civilian and military purpose. These are dual-use objects; when they fulfill the two cumulative conditions, they may be considered legitimate military targets if additional specific conditions are respected: it is mandatory to take necessary measures before the attack to ensure that civilians are evacuated. In addition, the attack must not create disproportionate harm to non-combatants.
The key issue here is to ensure that the destruction of the object is indeed due to its military use rather than to terrorize civilians or weaken their morale[/i].

In other words the military operation that is impeded (by exploiting civilians as human shields) should make military sense without civilian involvement. But the operation of massacring and terrorazing non-combatant Israeli civilians as did Hamas in October the 7th doesn’t make sense without Israeli non-combatant civilians. While the Israeli strikes against Hamas combatants and Hamas infrastructures by IDF make sense even without Palestinian non-combatant civilians used as “human shields”.

Reply to neomac

Right, "human shields," generally refers to placing civilians around [I]active[/I] military operations or forcing them to stay near such operations. Resettlement in occupied territory is a crime, just not equivalent with the concept of "human shields."

The Crimea example given earlier is not a good one. What Russia is doing in moving Russian civilians into eastern/southern Ukraine while deporting Ukrainians into Russia is illegal, but it isn't using human shields. When the UAF has advanced, Russians who were moved into Ukrainian territory have been allowed to flee, and they certainly haven't been forcibly transporting civilians to military objectives. There are all sorts of bad things you could say about Russia: the mass graves with signs of torture, the fact that their own soldiers were found castrated in the same mass graves, the absolute disregard for civilian casualties, such that if Gaza had a similar fatality rate to Mariupol it would mean 250,000-300,000 dead. However, using human shields has not been one of their infamies.

It's an odd fixation given that essentially the entire international community [I]has[/I] recognized that Israel is engaging in illegal activities in the West Bank. They just aren't engaging in exactly the same crimes Hamas engages in.

And this isn't even an assessment that comes with any sort of moral overtones. Israel [I]doesn't need[/I] to do what Hamas does because of their large military advantage (and because human shields would be useless against Hamas). Rather than being some form of restraint or virtue, you could chalk this up to Israel simply not standing to benefit from such actions.

That said, there are few militant groups I can think of who have been so completely and callously indifferent to "their people's" deaths than Hamas. I don't think it's wrong to say that, in Hamas' calculus, Palestinian civilian death and suffering has often been taken as a good thing, a goal to achieve for the good of the wider project (hell, their own public statements say as much). But even if you thought the ends might justify these means, the fact that no "mass Arab attack on Israel," was going to happen was very easy to predict, such that Hamas' actions aren't just callous, but callous with no discernable chance of success, sheer nihilism.

Quoting RogueAI

one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in?

According to Alt-history youtube channels, a world where the Axis won would not be geopolitically so different from today. Germany would pick up Soviet Union's role but more shifted West. It would eventually disintegrate into multiple countries, forming a European Union à la CEI.
Not like alt-history is a real field, but I thought you'd like to know as a little curious tidbit.

You could also say it's analogous to the last days of the Third Reich in that the war is already decisively lost,

Reply to Count Timothy von Icarus
I would say that this part of the analogy fails. The war from the viewpoint of the Arab world is not lost, or over.
Israel is bolstering support for Hamas and other anti-Israeli groups who will revisit this issue in the future.
In terms of living alongside their neighbours in peace, Israel has lost. They have become a pariah state which is insulting their neighbours in every way and on every level. They are overtly hostile, while conducting collective punishment and unspeakable horrors on a captive Arabic population. Their status and position in the Middle East is now under threat and possibly unsustainable

If Israel is going to remain in its current form it will become an isolated fortress, bristling with weapons. The only alternative to this outcome is for Israel to remove the extremists from Government and extend the hand of friendship and compromise to the Palestinians. Even then it will be a long and difficult road. The first (an isolated fortress) would be vulnerable, unstable and reliant on being propped up by the US.
The second is almost inconceivable at this point and could fail and descend into further wars at every turn.
As I see it, Israel has already lost and Netanyahu, who represents the Jewish people, in this, has blood on his hands.

Quoting Punshhh

As I see it, Israel has already lost and Netanyahu, who represents the Jewish people, in this, has blood on his hands.

Reply to Punshhh

Netanyahu does not represent the Jewish people. He is the prime minister of a state, not a religious authority.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Not trying to stir anything up, but surely this kind of thinking also exculpates all Palestinians who would not be represented by Hamas? I'm not pretending you don't see the distinction, but in the Israel case, Netanyahu is the actual head-of-state, not an interloper, which Hamas can be seen as.

Surely, the proportionality question, comes, in some sense, down to who is actually liable to attack?

Quoting AmadeusD

Not trying to stir anything up, but surely this kind of thinking also exculpates all Palestinians who would not be represented by Hamas?

There are innocent Palestinians and there are guilty Palestinians. Some legitimate targets of war, others not. Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; Hamas will consider all Israelis legitimate targets for violence/death/kidnapping/rape.

Quoting AmadeusD

I'm not pretending you don't see the distinction, but in the Israel case, Netanyahu is the actual head-of-state, not an interloper, which Hamas can be seen as.

Netanyahu is the head of state, Hamas is the governing organization of Gaza. Ismail Haniyeh is the leader.

Surely, the proportionality question, comes, in some sense, down to who is actually liable to attack?

This is an armed conflict. Both sides attack. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 10/7. Reply to AmadeusD

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Hey mate - I'll go in reverse, as that seems to make sense..

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

This is an armed conflict. Both sides attack. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel since 10/7.

This doesn't have anything to do with which individuals are liable to be attacked. But i understand the emotional behind that fact. It just isn't what i've asked about.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Netanyahu is the head of state, Hamas is the governing organization of Gaza. Ismail Haniyeh is the leader.

You've glossed over what i've said. Hamas is an interloper, not an actual Government and Ismail is not an actual head-of-state. I did point this out...

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

There are innocent Palestinians and there are guilty Palestinians. Some legitimate targets of war, others not. Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians

I find this wanting of fact. I do not see any clear-cut policy whereby this is actually happening. Particularly given the Israeli propensity to literally refer to Palestinians as animals and worthy of eradication..

Quoting AmadeusD

You've glossed over what i've said. Hamas is an interloper, not an actual Government and Ismail is not an actual head-of-state. I did point this out...

Reply to AmadeusD

I very much consider Hamas as the actual government of Gaza. If it's not Hamas, who is it? Haniyeh may not be head of a state, but he is head of a government. Hamas rules Gaza, not Israel. There were no Jews in Gaza prior to 10/7.

Quoting AmadeusD

I find this wanting of fact. I do not see any clear-cut policy whereby this is actually happening. Particularly given the Israeli propensity to literally refer to Palestinians as animals and worthy of eradication..

They do not. Netanyahu has drawn a clear distinction between the wicked Hamas and innocent Palestinians (who are not to be intentionally targeted). The IDF has called off attacks due to civilians being in the area and there is footage of this. Yes Israel will target houses and hospitals because Hamas will militarize houses and hospitals, but Israel will provide aid to innocent Palestinians.

Quoting AmadeusD

This doesn't have anything to do with which individuals are liable to be attacked. But i understand the emotional behind that fact. It just isn't what i've asked about.

palestinian civilians are in danger because hamas wears no uniforms and blends in with the civilian population. Any IDF soldier who intentionally targets civilians is guilty of war crimes, but targeting houses which contain weapons and hamas operatives is not a war crime.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I very much consider Hamas as the actual government of Gaza

Ah, see.. that's fair enough. I do not. That seems like a massaging of reality to support an emotional state, to me. But i'm sure my rejection of that appears a weak 'no true scotsman' appeal in the sense that "they're not a 'proper'" government being my at-base reasoning.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

a governmen

Unrecognized by any relevant body? Interesting. Goes to the above, i suppose, but given that only the PNA, and unequivocal rejection of Hamas, seems to be taken on by any relevant body or authority i find it an odd thing to rest on.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Yes Israel will target houses and hospitals because Hamas will militarize houses and hospitals, but Israel will provide aid to innocent Palestinians.

This seems counter to them not doing this. But that's a digression - the sources of information are questionable at best given the interests on each side. I'm not committed to anything here. What I would say, is that I can do this:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evidence-of-war-crimes-as-israeli-attacks-wipe-out-entire-families-in-gaza/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes (the relevant section, obviously)

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/11/9/israels-war-crimes-in-gaza-are-by-design-not-default

https://www.voanews.com/a/human-rights-watch-accuses-israel-of-war-crimes-criticizes-selective-outrage-of-allies/7436111.html

https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocities-present-past-and-future-escalating-crimes-and-consequences-in-israel-and-occupied-palestine/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/18/israel-starvation-used-weapon-war-gaza

https://amnesty.org.nz/evidence-war-crimes-gaza

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/enough-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-gaza-says-israeli-american-holocaust-professor/3061948

I'm not expecting you to even click any of these links. My point is not that anything in them is conclusive, or even reliable. My point is that I could do the same in reverse (as i'm sure you would do). Fact is, there is no obvious response to what's going on. It is equivocal in a general sense.

Also, I'm sorry, but again, looking at the two death tolls

"As of December 30, 2023 Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor estimated Gaza Strip deaths as 30,034 total and civilian deaths at 27,681 which would mean about 2,353 militant deaths."

i just cannot make sense of your position at-base, so I have to go on to this more abstract discussion to come to interesting points, which i think are here. I cannot understand how it is possible to look at a 2:1 or worse ratio of civilian to combatant deaths and think that's anything less that a severe war crime.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

but targeting houses which contain weapons and hamas operatives is not a war crime.

Targeting civilians is a war crime. Being wrong is not.

Netanyahu does not represent the Jewish people. He is the prime minister of a state, not a religious authority.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos
Then who does represent the Jewish people here? Ask someone in a neighbouring state who represents the Jewish people here?

Or do we have a vacuum of leadership/representation of the Jewish people?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians;

Yes they do. That's the whole issue with collective punishment, evicting Arab Israelis from their homes in Jerusalem, confiscation of property just because you're related to a criminal if you're a non-Jew and stealing and selling land that isn't theirs is all done indiscriminately. Or actually it's all done discriminately because it always targets non-Jewish Israelis or Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel does not indiscriminately target all Palestinians; Hamas will consider all Israelis legitimate targets for violence/death/kidnapping/rape.

Indeed, they don't bomb the West Bank as much as Gaza.

But if we just look at Gaza, it's another thing. Have you looked at the amounts of bombs used and the amount of buildings destroyed? Quite comparable to WW2 terror bombings.

(AP) Jan 11th 2024, The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.

In just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group.

You simply cannot talk of an attempt to avoid civilian casualties. And after all, when the Gazan's elected Hamas years ago, aren't they as one Israeli politician put it, all are culpable? Or as another put it, It's the evil city.

And let's remember what the Israeli Defense minister said:

“We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly,” Gallant said.

While it appears that Gallant was specifically referring to Hamas fighters in that comment, the rest of the minister’s remarks called for further oppression of all people in Gaza by denying them basic human needs.

“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza,” Gallant said. “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed.”

Seems indeed that the Israelis are true to their word.

Quoting Punshhh

Then who does represent the Jewish people here? Ask someone in a neighbouring state who represents the Jewish people here?

Or do we have a vacuum of leadership/representation of the Jewish people?

Who represents the Protestants? Or the Muslims? Does the President of Iran represent the Shia and are all Shias answerable for his actions? Reply to Punshhh

Reply to BitconnectCarlos It would be more helpful to answer the question. It is directly relevant to an assertion you made that seems unreasonable to the rest of us.

The examples you gave aren't relevant. They are religions with various sects. We're talking about one particular state, which is geopolitically homogenous.

Reply to AmadeusD

Which assertion in particular?

Judaism is also a religion with various sects/denominations. Within those sects/denominations there is leadership/authorities.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Quoting AmadeusD

We're talking about one particular state, which is geopolitically homogenous.

Really hard to think you're not choosing to ignore some really critical points in your replies.

Reply to AmadeusD

Israel has a diversity of parties in its Parliament and has Arab muslims represented on its judiciary as well. Israel has a considerable minority arab muslim population as well as christians and druze.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Fully agreed. Im unsure how that changes that Netanyahu is the official, globally recognized representative of the State of Israel(which is what's being posited is at fault - not hte religion Judaism).

Reply to AmadeusD

My point was directed to Punshhh who stated that Netanyahu represents the Jewish people.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos It was a direct reply to me - so, with some jest, forgive me for taking it as aimed at me LOL.

And, per my response, Netanyahu DOES represent the Jewish people. Those descended from the tribes of Israel, generally, support Netanyahu and if we're going to get even MORE specific, religious Jews are almost entirely in support - Only secular Jews present a minority support

Please note: "The survey was conducted during a previous wave of protests against judicial reform..." so can be read as probably slightly less accurate, in a way that supports the contention.

Reply to AmadeusD

The vast majority of world Jewry did not vote for Netanyahu. There is a dangerous phenomenon emerging where Jews across the world are being targeted simply for being Jews due to this idea that Netanyahu represents all Jews.

But 85-90% of Jews are zionists and zionism is heavily embedded in Jewish culture. Jews will fight for their state because they're all too familiar with what happens without one.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos I cordially step away.

Who represents the Protestants? Or the Muslims? Does the President of Iran represent the Shia and are all Shias answerable for his actions?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos
You are equivocating a people with a religious movement. I said the Jewish people. This is a racial group, it just happens to correspond also to the members of the Jewish religious group, but I was not referring to the members of the Jewish religious group, but to the racial group.

Who other than Netanyahu speaks for the Jewish people and to be more pertinent, who conducts foreign policy, provides security for this group? Because there is a serious failure of leadership here.

Reply to Vaskane Listen… ehm… brilliant Cybersecurity Compliance (as in compliance with the law) graduate, US Navy Intelligence Community genius, past time law superhero, in other words… dude, for being one who claims to understand words and not ignore them, you most certainly seem to not understand or to ignore mine. So I’ll repeat them, again, for the last time: if you want to score points with me give me IHL experts’ sources, ONG legals sources, Palestinian/Hamas sources arguing that Israel is using its civilians as human shields by occupying Israel land wherever they are. Until then the only loophole I see is in your fallacious appeal to irrelevant titles, anecdotes and question-begging ad hominem. Don’t come empty handed at the next round, ok?

Reply to Punshhh :ok:

Quoting Punshhh

You are equivocating a people with a religious movement. I said the Jewish people. This is a racial group, it just happens to correspond also to the members of the Jewish religious group, but I was not referring to the members of the Jewish religious group, but to the racial group.

Who other than Netanyahu speaks for the Jewish people and to be more pertinent, who conducts foreign policy, provides security for this group?

Judaism is both a religion and a people, but not a race. One can't convert to a race, but one can convert to Judaism.

Who speaks for black people? Who speaks for the Arabs? No one has appointed Netanyahu "spokesperson for the Jews."

Reply to Punshhh

Reply to Vaskane

Personally I'd have a hard time living by a "master morality" that values noble birth, physical strength/size... if you have a disability in that society or you're of low birth or God forbid both you're just kinda fucked. You ever see 300? I can hardly blame that cripple for betraying the Spartans. What is his role in that society?

Judaism has a nice mix of slave and master elements to it imo. It is Christ who goes full throttle slave morality. There is something quite terrifying and powerful about slave morality. But the Church has tempered Christ's original message.

If the objectivity part of Judaism is what supposedly leads to hate and resentment then there's no need to single it out among the Abrahamics... Christianity and Islam contain objective claims as well as well as many other religious systems.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel has a diversity of parties in its Parliament and has Arab muslims represented on its judiciary as well. Israel has a considerable minority arab muslim population as well as christians and druze.

...and then has the occupied territories, where non-Jewish people are have different laws (military law) to the Jewish people there. In addition to that, it has laws like the 'Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law', which prohibits inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that are usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen (i.e., family reunification).

But South Africa was too a democracy under the Apartheid era... to the whites.

Netanyahu tells US it opposes a Palestinian state. From the river to the sea it will be a Jewish national state: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/netanyahu-tells-us-opposes-palestinian-state-after-gaza-war

"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is considered a statement of genocide by the Israeli propaganda machine. So we know what this means.

We already knew this of course but then this further underlines the Likud intent (as we know from their charter) and it's out in the open in MSM.

Quoting Vaskane

I on the other hand simply pull up the law and throw basic reading comprehension in your face

But I questioned your basic reading comprehension of the letter of the law too. And the fact that you didn't realize it, it is pretty telling about your basic reading comprehension skills. Dude.

Judaism is both a religion and a people, but not a race. One can't convert to a race, but one can convert to Judaism.

The difference here is that Judaism is an ideology, a lifestyle. The Jewish people are a genealogical group, a biological lineage.
It’s not complicated, this equivocation is often encountered in relation to Jews.

Who speaks for black people? Who speaks for the Arabs? No one has appointed Netanyahu "spokesperson for the Jews."

Reply to BitconnectCarlos
A black, or Arabic leader from a black, or Arabic country would step forward and speak.

Who speaks for the Jewish people, who is leading now that a Country of Jewish people is under threat and has been taken to the International Criminal court?

A weird decision-making process from Iran. They are losing face over not engaging Israel as Hamas is destroyed and getting into it with the US and UK (and potentially the rest of the world given they keep hitting even their ostensible allies' shipping) via Yemen, but then they bomb Iraq and Pakistan, provoking a counter attack by Pakistan.

Iraq makes some sense, because they've already been fighting with their Kurdish population, up to using artillery on their own cities in a few incidents, but they have also had a growing rift with Iraqi Shia, and this won't help that. The Pakistan choice is even more strange, especially since they were trading fire with the Taliban earlier in 2023 and have an insurgency with their Azeri population. It seems like flailing.

Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus

provoking a counter attack by Pakistan.

Beware that both Pakistan and Iran are attacking each others' sides of Belochistan. A chaos land where anti-regime terrorists and drug/arm smugglers of both sides can hide.

10,000 children killed so far.

10,000.

But Israel isn’t a terrorist state. Hamas hasn’t killed nearly as many children, but their real problem is PR: when they murder, they do it wrong. If only they learned to call it “accidental” and “defensive,” or maybe justified it by saying “those are the breaks— Dresden, Hiroshima, collateral damage, blah blah”. Then I suppose Israeli war crime apologists would be just fine with it. Too bad.

They need to hire better publicists.

Meanwhile, 10,000 Palestinian children have been murdered by Israel. And counting.

Reply to Punshhh

Judaism is an ethnicity... it's an ethno-religion. It accepts converts but does not actively seek them out. There are many different sects.

Would be Assad or Raisi be representative for Arabs? When Assad kills 500,000 of his own people does that represent Arabs around the world? Netanyahu is the head of state in Israel and nothing more. He is not a rabbi. He holds no religious post. Jews are not blameworthy through his actions.

Quoting ssu

...and then has the occupied territories, where non-Jewish people are have different laws (military law) to the Jewish people there. In addition to that, it has laws like the 'Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law', which prohibits inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that are usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen (i.e., family reunification).

But South Africa was too a democracy under the Apartheid era... to the whites.

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea. Is it non-Jewish people or non-Israeli citizens? My understanding is that Christians and Jews tend to get by the checkpoints better while palestinian muslims are held up at the checkpoints. In the WB Israelis are under Israeli law and Palestinians are under the law of the PA so yes the rules are different. There were fewer checkpoints before the intifatas and violence. Just today or yesterday the IDF did an operation in Tulkarm in the WB and found 400 explosives. It would be ridiculous to treat Israeli civilians like Palestinian ones security-wise.

Israeli arabs have equal rights under Israeli law. They are represented in government and hold high places across the society. Given that Jews were ethnically cleansed across the arab world ("judenrein"), what do you think of the comparison between the arab world and nazism?

Were black south african allowed to vote under apartheid? did they have political representation? the apartheid comparison is ridiculous. Reply to ssu

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
Yeah, but the main difference discovered, between you and I, being that you're incapable of basic reading comprehension, but rather need others to tell you what to believe.

Sure, I need IHL experts to tell me what IHL experts think about "human shields" and IHL laws, if that's what I'm interested in. And I'm interested in their interpretation because it has legal effects, your interpretation is just an intellectual fart which you should be ashamed of, not brag about. Your "basic reading comprehension" skills are poor reading comprehension skills, and make IHL laws not only contradictory and paradoxical, but also it betrays the spirit of the law of war which permits civilian casualties under certain circumstances, and not solicit it.

Yesterday, I received a disturbing email from my Senator (the less crazy of two from Texas):

[i]Anti-Israeli rhetoric has spread like wildfire across social media. It's taken root on elite college campuses and even in some parts of Congress.

This past weekend, we saw the latest chapter in ‘blaming the victim’ as protesters gathered in our nation’s Capital to demand a ceasefire in Gaza.

They carried signs that said, ‘Free Palestine,’ and ‘Let Gaza live.’ They accused Israel of being an apartheid government and outrageously went so far as to say the United States was supporting genocide.

I find it deeply disturbing to see this view shared by so many because it's completely divorced from reality. These protesters have the entire problem completely backward.

Hamas is not a victim. Hamas is the aggressor in every possible sense, along with its state sponsor, Iran.

But war is not just a battle of brute force – it's also a contest for public opinion.

Hamas goes to great lengths to shift the narrative and build sympathy, and it’s deeply disappointing to see how many Hamas sympathizers are trying to gloss over the truth.

We have a responsibility to call out and correct the falsehoods that are spreading across our country. We have a responsibility to make sure the American people understand who is the aggressor and who is the victim.

We have a duty to stand with our ally Israel as it roots out terrorism, just as so many stood with us on 9/11 when we were in Israel’s shoes.

For Texas,
John [Cornyn][/i]

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea.

That is exactly the point and not a misnomer. Israel has zero rights there.

Reply to Benkei

I don't know whether states can have rights, but there has been a continual Jewish presence in the WB since antiquity which ought to live under Jewish governance. Jewish roots and claims in that land go back thousands of years and Jews refuse to be dhimmis or ethnically cleansed under Arab rule.

Where are the ancient Palestinian claims to that land?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Yes, states can have rights and obligations. It's a thing called sovereignty. I didn't say the Jewish presence had to leave, although every illegal settler should.

Reply to Benkei

It makes no sense to me how the Palestinians, a group which only gains its identity in the 1960s, just magically have a right to the entire west bank. And of course the Jewish inhabitants of that region will be faced with genocide if such a thing actualized.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

"Occupied territories" is itself a misnomer. It implies the palestinians are entitled to 100% of the west bank which is a ridiculous idea.

Incorrect.

Let's start with the most obvious: Syria and Israel has never signed a peace-agreement, thus Syria hasn't OK'd the annexation of the Golan Heights. Golan Heights is rather similar to Crimea. No other country has recognized the annexation of the Golan Heights than Trumpistan!

(Trump Heights, YEAH!)


For example the EU has declared that it doesn't recognize the Golan Heights to be part of Israel.

Then let's look at the West Bank (and Gaza).

First of all, Israel has basically (both de facto and de jure) annexed only Jerusalem. Israel hasn't actually annexed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Bibi naturally is very eager to do this, but it's been a bit difficult since the US isn't yet back to being Trumpistan again and Saudi-Arabia wouldn't be so eager to normalize the ties if Israel annexed the West Bank. And of course the Israelis know that there is the UN Security Council 242, so it wouldn't be a hugely popular move.

First let's take go through prior history:

Turkey did not legally surrender its sovereignty until 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Such detachment was primarily de facto and was a consequence of the British military occupation of Palestine and became de jure in 1923. The British military occupation did not bestow sovereignty to the United Kingdom, furthermore the military occupation did not affect any claim to sovereignty of the inhabitants.

Hence the reference to Mandatory Palestine. The British obtained this from the League of Nations to administer areas of the defunct Ottoman Empire "until such time as they are able to stand alone". Hence here already the Palestinians, then meaning both the Jewish and the Arabs living there, had a more legal grounds for the land than the "administrator", United Kingdom. Hence Palestine was never a British colony.

Then the UK gave up the land with the quarreling people and Israel declared independence and we had the UN partition plan. And we had the 1948 war and it's armstice.

From the UN site THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA

In 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan and Syria that followed the 1948 war meant territorial changes in Palestine. Israel secured control of all the territory allotted them in the Partition Plan and gained substantial additional portions in the West Bank area. The Gaza Strip was held by Egypt and the West Bank was united with Transjordan with no prejudice to the final settlement of its just cause within the framework of national aspirations.

These are the pre-1967 borders.

Do note that the Gaza Strip was first All-Palestine Protectorate and only was from 1959 annexed to be part of Egypt, but de facto was a military occupation area of Egypt. The people of Gaza couldn't for example move freely into Egypt.

What is called the West Bank is the area that Trans-Jordania occupied in the 1948 war, which by UN Resolution 181 was intended to be the Arab state alongside the Jewish part. In December 1948 in the Jericho conference Palestinian notables accepted Jordanian rule and recognized king Abdullah as their ruler. The Palestinians in the West Bank got Jordanian nationality and full citizenship rights. So how did Jordan view the Palestinians? Let's say they got over losing the West Bank to Israel quite quickly and saw the people being Palestinians, not Jordanians. King Hussein said the following in the UN in 1979:

“On 24 April 1950, the joint Jordanian Parliament, in taking its historic decision on unity, did not neglect to record Jordan’s unwavering stand towards the historic rights of the Palestinians and the support of Arab Palestinian rights in any future settlement in accordance with national aspirations and international justice. Thus when we speak today of the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people we do so because it is something we have always believed in and have always attempted to bring about within the framework of a just and comprehensive settlement.

And anyway, Jordan lost the West Bank and finally in 1988 Jordan shed all legal and administrative ties with the West Bank it claimed, except for the Jordanian sponsorship of the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, and recognised the PLO's claim to the State of Palestine. So from 1988, nobody claimed that the people of the West Bank were Jordanians. This actually is important, because many Israeli politicians have simply hoped that Palestinians in the West Bank would move to Jordania.

Then how about the peace deals with Egypt and with later Jordan?

The Egyptian-Isreali peace treaty normalized the relations between the two countries, gave Sinai back (partly demilitarized), provided Israel free passage in the Suez canal and also the straights of Tiran and in the Gulf of Aqaba, but also called for an end to Israeli military rule over the Israeli-occupied territories and the establishment of full autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the territories.

That's in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. So obviously that didn't give any leeway for Israel to annex the Occupied territories.

How about the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of 1994?

Here we should remember that already in 1988 Jordan had relinquished any claims it had towards the West Bank and stated that the Palestinians lead by the PLO had the rightful claim.

Still, Here's the main principles of that peace treaty:

1) Borders: The international boundary between Israel and Jordan follows the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers, the Dead Sea, the Emek Ha'Arava/Wadi Araba, and the Gulf of Aqaba. The section of the line that separated Jordan from the West Bank was stipulated as "without prejudice to the status of [that] territory."
2) Diplomatic relations and co-operation: The Parties agreed to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident embassies, grant tourists visas, open air travel and seaports, establish a free trade zone and an industrial park in the Arava. The agreement prohibits hostile propaganda.
3) Security and defense: Each country promised respect for the sovereignty and territory of each side, to not enter the other's territory without permission, and to cooperate against terrorism. This included thwarting border attacks, smuggling, preventing any hostile attack against the other and not cooperating with any terrorist organization against the other.
4) Jerusalem: Article 9 links the Peace Treaty to the Israeli–Palestinian peace process. Israel recognized the special role of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem and committed itself to give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines in negotiations on the permanent status.
5) Water: Israel agreed to give Jordan 50,000,000 cubic metres (1.8×109 cu ft) of water each year and for Jordan to own 75% of the water from the Yarmouk River. Both countries could develop other water resources and reservoirs and agreed to help each other survive droughts. Israel also agreed to help Jordan use desalination technology in order to find additional water.
6) Palestinian refugees: Israel and Jordan agreed to cooperate to help the refugees, including a four-way committee (Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians) to try to work towards solutions.

So here not only Israel recognized Jordan's claims on the muslim holy shrines in Jerusalem, but notice also the last part.

Quoting Relativist

Yesterday, I received a disturbing email from my Senator (the less crazy of two from Texas):

That is the way the US views this. So no wonder Bibi is extremely confident that his military operation will go through and achieve it's objectives.

Quoting ssu

That is the way the US views this

That is not the way everyone in the US views it.

Quoting Relativist

That is not the way everyone in the US views it.

Official US views it so. Bi-partisan support! And with that, in the tow many other Western countries issue something like that or then simply want to keep silent (simply as not to anger the Americans, but also not to anger their own voters either). It seems that you really have to be neutral like the Irish...

Yet I think times are changing. You don't rule the public discourse by fear, which seems to be the case.

Bibi and the far right in Israel are with eager determination marching Israel to the position of White South Africa. (But then of course, White South Africa endured on for many decades...)

Reply to BitconnectCarlos it's called the right to self determination. Look it up.

Reply to Vaskane Reply to Benkei

According to wikipedia Palestine is a state. If so, it is a state that Israel is at war with. It is a state that claims all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos so occupied territories, yes?

[i]Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks
In videos from 7 October, the body of a young woman is lying face down in the back of a pickup truck, stripped to her underwear, one leg bent at an unnatural angle. One of the men sitting next to her pulls her long hair as armed men around him shout praises to God.[/i]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts.

Reply to RogueAI

So, do we research who each of the dead voted for to determine our level of concern?

Reply to Vaskane Yours are just self-serving arguments which beg the question and add nothing to strengthen your argument. Indeed, you didn’t bring any independent IHL sources to support your claim and that is already enough to me. But since you want to talk the merits of your interpretation then I’d add that you offered an uncharitable interpretation of IHL 51-7 that not only contradicts IHL 51-6 and the IHL principle of distinction, not only it makes it redundant with other IHL rules, but also it betrays the spirit of the IHL as if it was meant to encourage civilian killings instead of restrain it.
If you brought Palestinian/Hamas sources or massacres in illegally occupied territories according to IHL (which is not the case of October 7th) you might have had a chance to at least score a point however INCONCLUSIVE to support your original statement (i.e. that the law or proportionality is "so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets."). You didn’t even do that.
Catastrophic and you wanna even brag about it. Now, tell me: why should I have pity for you? Why?

Judaism is an ethnicity... it's an ethno-religion. It accepts converts but does not actively seek them out. There are many different sects.

Then why the equivocation?
When I said the Jewish people I was referring to the ethnic group. Which should have been obvious to you.
This equivocation is used widely to accuse people critical of Israeli action of anti-semitism. The Jewish lobby around the world is using it as a smokescreen, a sleight of hand to excuse the Jewish people of accountability for the reckless behaviour of Netanyahu.

Cakeism again.

Would be Assad or Raisi be representative for Arabs? When Assad kills 500,000 of his own people does that represent Arabs around the world? Netanyahu is the head of state in Israel and nothing more. He is not a rabbi. He holds no religious post. Jews are not blameworthy through his actions.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

Blah blah blah…. Netanyahu is nothing to do with the Jewish people. He’s just some despot in the Middle East, nothing to do with us.

Cakeism.

And yet we are left with a vacuum of leadership of the Jewish people. A people spread across the world, devoid of a homeland. A people who do now have a homeland thanks to it being accepted and recognised by the international community. But when it, the state of Isreal breaks international law, becomes an international pariah and indiscriminately slaughters a captive people of another ethnicity intending to annex their land.

Oh, it’s nothing to do with us, that land over there in the Middle East. That’s just some despot. Oh and by the way don’t criticise me for feeling insecure when someone points out I’m Jewish, or links me to this despot. You’re an anti-Semite.

Cakeism all the way.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

According to wikipedia Palestine is a state. If so, it is a state that Israel is at war with.

Hamas isn't the Palestine state, just like Hezbollah isn't Lebanon.

Quoting Vaskane

Hamas feels Israel is an occupation state, thus viewing all of Israel as legal game, as per the LETTER OF THE LAW.

Quoting Vaskane

If you consider Israel a legitimate state ...
THAT'S BEGGING THE QUESTION ... which assumes several fallacious premises.

Not begging the question at all, since the legitimacy of a state either is established by IHL laws (and I doubt that is even possible because the IHL doesn't establish if states are legitimate, just what it is permissible during war!), then you should show me the IHL international tribunal legally establishing that the Israel state as a whole is illegitimate to have legal effect or relevance which again you didn't provide. What international tribunals have established is that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories), not that the whole Israel or the territories that Hamas as attacked in October the 7th are illegally occupied!
Or the legitimacy of a state is established by states (NOT ME, YOU TOAD!), so for all those states which acknowledged Israel as a legitimate state then Israeli is a legitimate state, and there is no IHL laws that can establish otherwise.
You are conflating political/ideological claims with legal claims (beside conflating different legal claims) hoping that the appeal to the word of a single law (IHL 51-7), as you understand it after extrapolating it from its legal context, would support your belief that the law or proportionality is "so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets."
Besides you didn't provide any proof that Hamas or Palestinians take Israel as a whole as illegitimate because that's what they are compelled to believe according to IHL laws as YOU understand them. Hamas or Palestinians may take Israel as a whole as illegitimate no matter what the words of the IHL laws say.

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
The IHL Laws that were created AFTER Israel

So what?

Quoting Vaskane

and hundreds of other states determines what is a state?

What is a legitimate sovereign state in interstate relations, it’s established by sovereign states, obviously.


Quoting Vaskane

According to the King-Crane commission of 1919 the sentiment for the Zionist program within Palestine was roughly 9/10ths of the population against the concept of Israel. And Palestinians never gave away their land freely. To which you completely ignore the catastrophic consequences of the 1948 Nakba cause by Israel. So you know what Nakba means?
According to Palestinians, "The Nakba, which means “catastrophe” in Arabic, refers to the mass displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Before the Nakba, Palestine was a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society." Israel represents the Nakba, of course you and your shit reading comprehension will take that to mean Palestinians cheer and prop up Israel as legitimate, rather than as a "catastrophe," that happened to their people.
Since Israel represents catastrophe, and 9/10ths of the Palestinain population were against it at inception, it's definitely safe to assume Israel as illegitimate.

Sure, the state of Israel is/was widely perceived as illegitimate by the Palestinians (yet [I]“The Palestine Liberation Organization is a Palestinian nationalist coalition that is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people”[/i] [I]In 1993, the PLO recognized Israeli sovereignty with the Oslo I Accord, and now only seeks Arab statehood in the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) that have been militarily occupied by Israel since the 1967 Arab–Israeli War.[/I] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization). Who needs to deny that? Even if all Palestinians considered Israel as an illegitimate state now and forever, so fucking what? State recognition doesn’t depend EXCLUSIVELY on what Palestinians claim to be legitimate AT ALL, indeed they may very much need to fight for international recognition, including for recognition from Israel. Political recognition is what results from peaceful or violent political processes, and there is no reason to take the ideological assumptions of Palestinians (or the Israeli ideological assumptions for that matter!) as a premise to assess if the IHL law of proportionality or the legal notion of “human shield” are ambiguous. That would be an epic non sequitur, indeed.




Quoting Vaskane

Just because Britain didn't want to be a part of the headache anymore and just allowed Israel to happen doesn't mean the Palestinians wanted them there. Hence the Israeli Arab war of 1948 dumbass. Which apparently you think is just a celebration of the formation of a "legitimate" Israel.

The problem you are pointing at is ideological and political, not related to the semantic ambiguity of the IHL laws. And again the perceived illegitimacy of Israel by Palestinians may very much hold INDEPENDENTLY from what the IHL laws and IHL tribunals establish. On the other side, Hamas may look into what IHL laws state and IHL tribunals have established to turn the international community against Israel. So your questionable legal claim (the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”) has also very questionable explanatory power.

Quoting Vaskane

The fuck do I need to provide proof when that's literally what the whole fucking conflict is over? It's called common fucking knowledge.

What is common fucking knowledge? That the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”? That Israel has used its civilians as human shields in the massacre of October the 7th? Because that is what I’m questioning on legal grounds. And for these claims I need more than just you claiming so. BTW if it so common fucking knowledge why can’t you provide evidence from IHL experts, ONG investigators or even Palestinian/Hamas sources claiming that Israel was using its civilians as human shields by IHL laws in the massacre of October the 7th or in any other massacre, for that matter? Israel and IHL experts claim that Hamas is using Palestinian civilians as human shields, ONGs claim that Israel is using Palestinians as human shields. Yet nobody seems to claim that Israel is using Israeli civilians as human shields even though the IHL laws are so fucking ambiguous to making it an obvious successful accusation against Israel based on common knowledge. That's quite remarkable, innit?

You make no sense, dude.

Quoting RogueAI

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts.

Quoting Echarmion

So, do we research who each of the dead voted for to determine our level of concern?

In the last election, in 2006, Hamas got 44.45% of the vote.

Reply to RogueAI Let's apply that to the Israelis as well. They voted in Likud, who is now committing war crimes. Whatever happens to the Israelis, no matter how bad, is their just desserts.

You really don't understand how morality works do you? Only hate in your bones.

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
You're the one saying Law of Proportionality doesn't allow for states to kill innocent civilians

That’s a clamorous straw man, I didn’t claim anywhere the Law of Proportionality doesn’t allow states to kill innocent civilians, indeed you can not quote me claiming this. Of course the Law of Proportionality allows it (that’s my point too !), but also it restrains it through the notion of “proportionality” which must not be understood in terms of casualty comparisons between Palestinians and Israelis.


Quoting Vaskane

You're literally here defending Israel's wonton mass murder via bombardment.

That’s another calamorous straw man argument. As repeatedly stated, I’m questioning your claim that the law of proportionality is “so effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets”.


Quoting Vaskane

And you're doing so because you're an emotional toad who thought my first comment replying to you was attacking you when it was literally, for the third time, attacking the law of proportionality.

Yet another straw man argument, a childish one. It’s me who is complaining about you complaining about the law of proportionality, as I stated, and I argued accordingly with pertinent reasons.


Quoting Vaskane

Well, let's hope people you're friends with aren't killed by Israel's wonton bombardment. That is if you even have any friends from that part of the world.

Try reading an account of the 50 years of occupation: https://ramseyhanhan.org/

"Born in Palestine ‘on the “wrong” side of the border,’ Sameer finds his way to America to rebuild his life. His immigrant experience in post-9/11 America is laced to the ongoing conflict at home with the common threads of school shootings, police violence, human rights abuses, activism, and walls. For the sake of his daughter, he decides he must do something."

Are you crying, dude? Do you want a hug?

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
You do realize I read about the first few sentences then ignore the rest of what you write right? of course it's a strawman,

You do realize that I have no pity for you, right?

Reply to Benkei

It's particularly silly because it's been pointed out several times that:

A. Hamas won 44% of the vote in that election, not even a majority. They beat Fatah by a whole 2%.
B. They rule Gaza unilaterally not because of that election but the 2007 Gaza War they fought with Fatah where they essentially threw a coup and murdered the Fatah members still in the Strip.
C. They haven't allowed for anything like democracy ever since, repress protests, disappear/torture dissidents, etc.
D. Up through 2022, they polled fairly terribly, with north of 73% saying Hamas should be forced to hold election and that their military wing should be disarmed and disbanded.

Also ironic is that a key campaign promise was to stop hiding military assets/forces in civilian areas and using "human shields." Hamas pronouncements that all of Gaza is "eager to become martyrs," for them should be taken with a grain of salt. It hardly seems fair to hold the general population accountable, especially since the 10/7 attack was planned in secret, hidden even from the Hamas political leadership and their allies. Israelis have far more say in their government.



---
Anyhow, Israel's unity government seems to be begining to crack up. There seems to be growing recognition that totally removing Hamas and returning the hostages alive are mutually exclusive goals.

Totally removing Hamas requires taking Rafah, which requires some sort of understanding with the Egyptians. This is lacking precisely because Israel has no clear vision for what comes next. As much as Egypt might love to be rid of Hamas, obviously they don't want to write a blank check (or take in refugees, or be forced into a position where it looks very bad for them not to take refugees.

It's really unclear what the plan is supposed to be.

Quoting Vaskane

Why would I want that? Pity persuades to extinction

Signed, der Gekreuzigte.

Reply to Vaskane frankly, not as terrible as your arguments. Ba dum tsss.

Quoting RogueAI

No sympathy for Hamas or the people who voted them into power. They're getting their just desserts.

Yeah, those 10,000 babies should have known better.

You’re a sick guy.

Quoting Vaskane

Lol, it's too ripe... It's cute that you try to use "begging the question," fallacy yet don't even know how it's applied.

I, and many others, have already pointed this out on the Ukraine thread. Just do what everyone else has learned to do: ignore him.

Quoting Mikie

Yeah, those 10,000 babies should have known better.

Reread what I said. Babies did not vote Hamas into power. I have sympathy for them.

Reply to RogueAI

Oh, I see. So just no sympathy for those who voted for Hamas 17 years ago and who happened to be murdered now.

I stand corrected about your humanity.

Quoting Vaskane

?neomac
Your argument against my argument was even worse "but who cares about the wording of the law, we should only care about how the west interprets the law to exploit the middle east!"

Thus spoke the self-deprecating Westerner. You shouldn't feel alone though: Mikie is so excited to invite you to his information bubble, you lucky boy!

Quoting Mikie

Oh, I see. So just no sympathy for those who voted for Hamas 17 years ago and who happened to be murdered now.

I don't care if it was 10, 20, or 30 years ago. They chose to get in bed with Hamas, and now they're in a war and getting the shit kicked out of them. Live and learn. Next time don't vote for terrorists.

Quoting RogueAI

They chose to get in bed with Hamas, and now they're in a war and getting the shit kicked out of them. Live and learn. Next time don't vote for terrorists.

There is a moral (but not legal) argument to be made that the citizens of a democracy are responsible for the actions of their rulers, and therefore are morally legitimate targets in a war. I don't know how much of a democracy there was in the region at the time. I live in the uk and we have a shit democracy here. We have a choice of two due to the gaming mechanics of the first past the post system. I certainly don't think I'm personally responsible for anything the current government does. Do you feel the same about those who didn't vote for Hamas? What about the children of Hamas voters? Do your think international law should be changed to allow targeting of civilians in a democracy? If so, how direct should the democracy be?

Reply to RogueAI

So you’re also OK with what Hamas did, provided the victims voted for the current terrorist regime in Israel? Good — at least you’re consistent.

Quoting Benkei

I'll refer you to my dog analogy. We all know what happens to the dog that finally bites its abusive masters. Gaza will basically be razed to the ground. People will start starving in about two weeks.

Well, that was predictable then.

Reply to Punshhh

Who is the leader of your race/religion? Who do I go to if I need to speak to, e.g., the leader of the black people? Take me to your leader so you can become blameworthy through him.

Reply to bert1 Let's start with a simple case. The Shmazi's in Shmermany have been elected with over 80% support of the populace. They start a war of conquest and extermination against Shmoland, which is no threat to Shmermany. What is Shmoland morally allowed to do in fighting this war of aggression? I would argue: anything. Nothing is off the table for them in their fight for survival.

Reply to RogueAI

OK, so anything is on the table.

Let's spin this further: Shmoland knew about the plans and has anticipated the plans for years. They easily turn back the attacker, suffering limited casualties. The leadership now believes there is no actual threat to their country. However, motivated purely by revenge, they now nuke Shmermany's main cities into oblivion.

Justified?

Why Israel's Response to Hamas was Justified

Brain In A Vat episode just released - they speak with a London-based International Rights rights Lawyer.

However, she is Natasha Hausdorff, the Director of UK Lawyers For Israel. One can tell this is not a particularly impartial conversation (all three are Jewish, i believe).

Quoting Echarmion

OK, so anything is on the table.

Let's spin this further: Shmoland knew about the plans and has anticipated the plans for years. They easily turn back the attacker, suffering limited casualties. The leadership now believes there is no actual threat to their country. However, motivated purely by revenge, they now nuke Shmermany's main cities into oblivion.

Justified?

Let's just rename the countries for ease.

Revenge attacks are not justified. If Poland truly believes Germany is not a threat, they are not justified in attacking them. But in the age of nukes, what you describe is an impossible situation. Poland has already been attacked by Germany. The German people still hate Poland and want them eliminated. Germany can possibly develop a nuke of their own, or try and get one from another country that is hostile to Poland. Poland will have to be vigilant, up to the point of taking preemptive action against Germany, if it looks like a nuclear take is imminent.

If Hamas got their hands on a nuke, would they hesitate to use it against Israel? I don't think so.

Quoting RogueAI

Revenge attacks are not justified

Right. So we do agree that one is allowed to select an effective means to meet an attack, even if that means heavy casualties, but that intention matters. So your goal needs to be justifiable as well. And from this follows also that you must have a reasonable plan for how your selected end leads to your goal. E.g. noone in the 21st century can reasonably claim that terror bombing civilians will lead to the collapse of your opponent's morale, because this assumption has been pretty conclusively disproven in the 20th century.

Now in the real world intentions are never as pure nor as easily discernible as in the thought experiment. So usually we need to look at what people do and try to figure out what the goal might be, as well as how reasonable an approach to that goal it is.

To get back to the topic, the criticism of Israel's military action is not simply that it is prima facie inadmissible. It's also that it seems to be calculated not for defense, but for displacement, and that it seems unreasonable to assume it will be succesful unless the goal is actually to (mostly) depopulate the Gaza strip, in which case we are no longer talking about defense, are we?

Reply to AmadeusD Hausdorff is insane. The same lady who wants to sue the BBC on reporting that several NGOs had stated Israel was punishing the civilian population in Gaza. Which according to her is reprehensible moral equivalence.

Reply to Benkei I've not listened as yet, but as noted, It definitely seems an impossibility that its impartial. The opening five minutes seemed to make it quite clear the guest was on a high-horse and it wasn't going to be a discussion. Ill see how i feel shortly after listening.

20 mins in: Weirdly for this particular Podcast, this entire conversation hinges on empirical facts.
25 mins in: She is utterly lost in her own mind. Her take on proportionality isn't academic. Its racist. The only word that mattered in her take was "jews".
40 mins in: She seems to be the exact stereotype she takes issue with. It's actually getting difficult to continue listening - and the hosts inability to push back seems extremely out of character, and honestly a red flag in itself. So much emotive nonsense pretending to be argumentation.

End: She is insane. She literally accounts for the anti-semitism as a result of moving to Scientism as a 'new religious movement'. What the hell... As notedd, the hosts entirely fail to challenge her in any way. This wasn't their usual podcast. This was just a platform for Natasha to rant.

Natasha's take on the facts seems to be "true everything Israel ever says" and if you don't take that line, she cannot believe it. Can't really understand that.
Do you have any sources for why she might be wrong, though? If her facts are correct, then I can only disagree as a matter of taste really.

I note it would be wonderful to see a conversation between Natasha and Jeff McMahon.

Reply to AmadeusD I didn't listen, I looked her up.

[quote] Who is the leader of your race/religion? Who do I go to if I need to speak to, e.g., the leader of the black people? Take me to your leader so you can become blameworthy through him.
Reply to BitconnectCarlos

That’s a weak and nebulous response.

Let’s turn that around, say I’m a concerned Jew who is the representative leader of my people who I can go to and implore him/her to show restraint in Gaza?

Reply to Punshhh Jews are a religion when it suits them and a nation-race when it suits them. It's purposefully obfuscated so they can tut-tut when you critisise Israel and call you an anti-semite.

Edit: also, all human rights treaty and countries with a constitution explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. So if they choose option 1, the discrimination in Israel is even more egregious.

Reply to Benkei The attempt to make the criticism of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic goes a bit over. States and their policies and the people are two really different things. Or otherwise there are a lot of racist people here: just add up all those in the forum who have ever criticized either the policies of Russia, China or the US, the UK or Iran or Afghanistan or Syria or Venezuela and so on... a lot of racists and haters here!

But I guess modern propaganda is that you have to be aggressive and basically outrageous in your views. It isn't anymore of countering the most preposterous accusations yet admitting that things like collateral damage, like uh, nearly all Western armed forces do when in war. No, you just attack anyone who makes criticisms and accuse them of anti-semitism and hope that does the trick and that it spreads the fear of being called an anti-semite.

It doesn't work because there's ample amount of Israelis and Jewish living abroad that are critical to the right-wing administration and it's policies and tactics in this war. There's still room for actual discussion, not just for a lithurgy that is only a declaration on who's side you stand.

Reply to Benkei
It gives lots of wriggle room and lets apologists etc off the hook. While shutting down any discussion of the predicament Israel and therefore the Jewish diaspora find themselves in.

Reply to ssu I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position.

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else.

This raises the issue of the fate of the Jews and how they adjust to and are treated by and in civilisation as a whole. (I may start a thread about this as it is the elephant in the room)

Quoting Punshhh

They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism

Yes, not as sticky a paedophilia though.

Quoting Punshhh

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else.

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Actors like the Netanyahu government or uncouth lobby groups like AIPAC try to foster this intentionally, acting as though they represent "the Jews", when in fact they represent very narrow, (and in these cases quite problematic) agendas.

The ultimate result of this, is that these actors and groups present an image of undue legitimacy, whereas the people that are involuntarily associated with them ("the Jews") unduly suffer in the blowback.

Calling out these specific interests, what they stand for and who they represent exposes them and denies them the use of these labels as a shield against criticism.

Quoting Punshhh

I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position.

That is the problem. It makes also the classic "one state solution" totally impossible, because the ordinary way this would be solved is simply that being "Israeli" would actually mean similar thing as being "Palestinian" especially prior Israel's independence. There's no cultural assimilation of muslims and Christians to a homeland of the Jews. Hence everybody, right from the UN in the 1940's, has purposed the two state solution.

Quoting Punshhh

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism.

This is for especially the US a big issue, just like Hitler and national socialism is for Germany. With the US the issue with minorities is actually larger than in other American states, as the Latin countries have their culprit for everything bad, like the previous caste-system and the weak situation of the Indian population, just lying there over the Atlantic, their former colonizers.

[quote] What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.[quote]

Reply to Tzeentch

Yes, I see this. How do you suggest we describe these people and groups of people?
I would use alternative terminology, but don’t know any other.

I am aware of the circumstance where there are a large number of people of the Jewish diaspora around the world who would distance themselves from actions of the Israeli state. But how would I refer to them?

Reply to Punshhh Don't think of it as alternative terminology, but using accurate language, and demand from others also that they use accurate language.

Don't allow a Netanyahu to pretend to speak for all Jews, when in fact he speaks only for Israelis, and only a (ever-shrinking) portion of them.

Reply to Tzeentch And yet Netanyahu’s words and actions do impact the lives of everyone in the world who identifies as a Jew, or of Jewish heritage.

When I speak of these people, how would I refer to them without using the word Jew?

How can we call "the good Jews" and "the bad Jews"? They are both "Jews"! Very thorny philosophical problem. In the literature it's known as "the hard problem of calling the Jews".

Quoting Punshhh

When I speak of these people, how would I refer to them without using the word Jew?

Zionists

Reply to javi2541997 Not all Zionists agree with what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza:
https://readerwall.com/zionists-in-tel-aviv-protest-to-topple-netanyahu-administration/

Reply to neomac I agree. But, whilst 'Jews' is the concept of referring to the ethno-religious group, 'Zionist' is the political movement or faction that is committing the atrocities in Gaza. I think the latter is more - let's say - suitable to refer to them.

[quote] Zionists
Reply to javi2541997

No that doesn’t work. Because it refers to people involved in establishing the Jewish homeland in Israel. This leaves out the wider Jewish diaspora across the world.

Reply to Punshhh Yes, but if we refer to the diaspora of the Jews across the world, we are talking about the ethno-religious group, integrated with people who are not necessarily agree with the war. Yet, if we want to refer to them as the perpetrators of the genocide in Gaza, I guess it is more suitable to say 'Zionists', because this is their political and military faction.

Another example: Hezbollah. This political and military faction represents an exclusive group of people, but not all the Muslims nor Lebanese citizens.

Quoting Tzeentch

demand from others also that they use accurate language.

This doesn’t go well :sweat:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood Dumb. As usual.

@BitconnectCarlos @tim wood @RogueAI

A brief discussion about the new Jewish-American documentary "Israelism" ...


addendum to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621

[quote] Yes, but if we refer to the diaspora of the Jews across the world, we are talking about the ethno-religious group,
Reply to javi2541997

Yes this is the group I was referring to. The Jewish people as a whole, an ethno-religious group. If I were referring to the aggressors in Israel I would likely say Zionist, or Netanyahu’s government.

10,000 children slaughtered and counting.

Reply to Mikie More than 10,000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 7, Hamas-run health ministry says
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-17-24/h_257bdc236b13560cf82166ffb89b8a22

You think the Hamas-run health ministry is credible?

Reply to RogueAI Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding.

Reply to RogueAI

Yes, and have been shown to be numerous times.

They’re most likely underestimates, as it takes time to confirm. I’m sure it’s well over 12000 at this point. I’m being deliberately conservative.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting AmadeusD

Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding.

Both have vested interests in manipulating the data. That being said, I'm sure thousands of children have been killed.

Quoting Punshhh

Yes this is the group I was referring to. The Jewish people as a whole, an ethno-religious group. If I were referring to the aggressors in Israel I would likely say Zionist, or Netanyahu’s government.

:up:

Reply to tim wood It seems about right to you because you're dumb. There has been plenty of discussion about war and annexation of land in this thread, which is the crime of aggression under international law. That you then post a fucking tiktok style video as a sort of argument, is indeed fucking dumb.

Quoting tim wood

The only thing dumb is your remark about the video(s). Which inclines me to believe the fellow who makes them, in all of his videos that you are so dismissive of, is making good points. I myself am not in a position to verify them, but they seem about right.

So the basic message of that video: once you have war, then you can steal land. :roll:

Well, in order for that to be successful in acquiring land through war in the present, not only should you have a) a peace deal where the loser admits the transfer of territory and b) international recognition of your new land borders.

And as we know, both a) and b) are difficult for Israel.

I suspect that the Israeli government is looking to reduce the number of children in Gaza. By dropping mines that resemble cans of food on a starving population.

https://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1749801408566583732?s=20

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting ssu

Hamas isn't the Palestine state, just like Hezbollah isn't Lebanon.

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza and were voted in democratically. If elections were held in the WB, Hamas would win. I want to believe that Hamas is not the voice of the palestinians, but they quite likely are.

Even the "moderate" PLO has the martyr fund where they pay families of those martyrs who kill Jews.

Reply to ssu

Reply to tim wood I'm not wasting my time on an apologist like you. We've gone through this 3 years ago and again 2 years ago. Get brain surgery or something if you keep forgetting everything.

Reply to RogueAI This is more or less where I sit, fwiw. I can't possibly know what numbers are accurate, but it seems pretty wild to think that it's just not happening something like how it's reported from either side.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
@Benkei

Just a note - from a third party - you are both now not talking about anything but that you are having negative emotional reactions to each other. I would suggest perhaps either resetting to a position in whcih you can both speak about where you are disagreeing, instead of yelling at each other, or agreeing to part ways without such intense personal negativity.

I hope not to see fall-outs like this on a forum like this. I'm sure the basic notion we all hold is trying to avoid needless suffering. I may be hte wrong person to be making this call given my commitment to relativism, but that aside, I am well-aware of the practical need for shared values and language.

Could we return to somethign resembling a discussion instead of a primal argument? If this seems a bit high-falutin' i'm sorry. I just don't like seeing people losing humanity over an already-immeasurable loss of humanity :\

Reply to AmadeusD I would love to have a discussion with you but gave up on tim 2 years ago. He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76.

Asking me to again set out my position is disingenuous from him. Not only have a recently explained it again I've engaged him enough in this thread in the past. But you're right. I should just ignore him.

Reply to Benkei I appreciate your sentiment to me, and I feel the same.

It's just that i'm sure you're capable of not devolving into pissing matches. It may well be the case that Tim is ideologically blinded, and is being disingenuous and wasting your time. I'm addressing hte general vibe and cordiality. I know this is a political discussion so a wide berth is given. This is just a personal appeal.

Quoting Benkei

I should just ignore him.

If that's what's needed, that might be the go.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I scrolled through p. 76 twice. didn't find you there. Try again? And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?

People in such political threads, even mods, often forget that we are in a philosophy forum and at the very least philosophical investigation goes along with not taking one's own OBVIOUS truths for granted. So one can't possibly think to score points by venting their frustration at interlocutors when they bring up arguments that question their obvious truths. It's not matter of not losing humanity, it's matter of what one takes to be a philosophical investigation as applied also to political issues, I'd say especially to political issues (think of Socrates' philosophy in a period of democratic turmoil and how it ended up). Philosophical investigation is not an ideological/moral/emotional contest. It's about investigating and question our core reasons for our beliefs.

[quote] And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?
Reply to tim wood

We have to wade through propaganda, vested interests, media control and bias and try to remain unbiased ourselves.

[quote] In the literature it's known as "the hard problem of calling the Jews".
Reply to neomac
Yes, are we getting to the nub of the issue here?

Are we dealing with a traumatised psyche, not just of the Jewish people, but of civilisation as a whole. Why is the concept of genocide so worrying? It must have happened many times in prehistory, prior to modern civilisation.

Quoting Benkei

He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76.

Reply to tim wood That page is simply proof where you yourself admit you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say I specifically spoke to you then now did I? Try again.

Quoting Punshhh

Are we dealing with a traumatised psyche, not just of the Jewish people, but of civilisation as a whole. Why is the concept of genocide so worrying? It must have happened many times in prehistory, prior to modern civilisation.

This issue (the word "genocide" was coined by a Jew and arguably an ardent Zionist http://www.aapjstudies.org/index.php?id=110) touches on several Western core assumptions, the first ones that come to mind: universal right to life and freedom, universal right to national self-determination, fight against ignorance and error (e.g. racial prejudices), land ownership, international legal order, jus in bello, democracy (to what extent does Netanyahou represents the Jews?). All these core assumptions deserve to be investigated and questioned as applied also to the conflict we are discussing. They all are potential sources of mystification.

Quoting Punshhh

We have to wade through propaganda, vested interests, media control and bias and try to remain unbiased ourselves.

The first thing I would do, it's not to give for granted my understanding of their meaning. So I will ask myself: how would I identify and discriminate "propaganda", "vested interest", "media control", "bias" wrt what it is not "propaganda", "vested interest", "media control", "bias" in concrete cases? Does my interlocutor share my understanding of such notions? If my understanding of such notions is not clear enough and differs enough from my interlocutors' understanding of such notions, then we will likely fail to understand each other while discussing topics that presuppose a shared understanding of such notions. And this is very common in heated political debates like this one.

Quoting tim wood

Are you arguing here that the Israelis start wars against their neighbors in order to take their land?

Well, we do generally call the 1967 war a "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, hence it started that war. And it was that war where the occupied territories were taken by Israel, which was condemned by the UN security council, including the US. So with that said, it appears so.

Yes, it gave back the land it took from Egypt after a peace deal (btw. Israel had already started building settlements there too, hence used the similar tactic in Sinai too). But then again, similar issue is at hand would be the two-state solution. Something that actually the Palestinians would be OK with.

So if your going to disprove that, good luck rewriting history!

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

If elections were held in the WB, Hamas would win. I want to believe that Hamas is not the voice of the palestinians, but they quite likely are.

I think especially because of the "Operation Swords of Iron", nobody has in mind the peace process anymore.

The only way I see a negotiated settlement (or anything like that) coming out of this is if simply attitudes would change in the US and Israel would find it's situation similar to white South Africa. But that's hardly going to happen anytime soon, so the war continues. But I guess it can happen.

[quote] All these core assumptions deserve to be investigated and questioned as applied also to the conflict we are discussing. They all are potential sources of mystification.
Reply to neomac

I’m thinking more of anthropology rather than mysticism here. A study of human nature and how humanity and civilisation come to terms with human nature.

These terms include the trauma of this realisation and the post traumatic psychological effects.

Regarding the Jewish people they have struggled with exile for at least 2,900 years. This trauma has been repeated and reinforced numerous times since.

In terms of civilisation ‘a people’ is associated with a homeland. A land where their identity and sense of belonging in a world of people’s is rooted.

Something is happening, has happened, in which the Jewish people are repeatedly exiled, without roots, persecuted.

What is going on here?

What is missing for the Jewish people?

Quoting Punshhh

I’m thinking more of anthropology rather than mysticism here.

By “mystification”, I simply meant referring to the intellectual obfuscation over core notions that are taken to be clear, obvious and shared. But maybe they aren’t.


Quoting Punshhh

A study of human nature and how humanity and civilisation come to terms with human nature.

These terms include the trauma of this realisation and the post traumatic psychological effects.

Regarding the Jewish people they have struggled with exile for at least 2,900 years. This trauma has been repeated and reinforced numerous times since.

In terms of civilisation ‘a people’ is associated with a homeland. A land where their identity and sense of belonging in a world of people’s is rooted.

I’m more into conceptual investigation than into psychological investigation, but I too think that there is a historical trauma that “has been repeated and reinforced numerous times” for millennia in the case of the Jews. Still I find also fascinating to notice how the Jewish culture processed this trauma and by this way influenced the West more than what we are ready to acknowledge. The Jewish world may have contributed, more evidently, to Western cultural universalism (Christianity is a branch of Judaism founded by a Jew under the Roman rule, Communism as founded and elaborated by 2 Jews like Marx and Trotsky) and, less evidently, to the Western notion of national identity (as linked to the notion of State-Nation, and later at the core of the Zionist project in Israel). So it’s not surprising that among the greatest critics of Zionism there are other Jews (like Chomsky).
But also the West has its own traumas (like 2 World Wars and a Cold War under the constant threat of a nuclear escalation). So our emotional reaction to what is happening in Israel may also depend on our traumas and their backlash (like Holocaust and colonialism, in the case of the US, colonialism is part of its state formation as much as it is for Israel).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

2) what should the Israelis do?

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, end it's illegal occupation of the OPT and work towards a two-state solution, etc. as agreed upon in relevant resolutions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and Israeli officials should probably also stop openly stating that they wish to commit these crimes against humanity in Gaza and the OPT.

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them.


I mean, this is obvious. Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it.

Quoting tim wood

And what the Israelis should do is simply enfranchise the Palestinians by declaring Israel a joint Israeli-Palestinian state - with no doubt a lot of details to be worked out.

Here's why the issue isn't just about details, it's far more worse.

First, there's zionism: Israel is the homeland of the Jews. And let's say this ideology doesn't go so well with modern ideas of a multicultural nation where everyone can be whoever or whatever and things are fine. Hence there really is no overarching identity of all being Israelis, where there is an identity of being British to the English, Scots and Welsh. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim. And Islam as a religion isn't just a personal issue of the individual, which one can hide away and which that nobody notices. Also in Islam there isn't the separation of the church and the state. After all, Mohammed was literally a king and not just one named to be one, hence the link that religion has with the state is very tight. It's also an issue why the neighboring states actually care so much about the Palestinians. It's not just Palestinians, it's the Ummah that's under attack.

Hence if all Palestinians would be Christians, I think the conflict wouldn't have been so severe and not so unsolvable. The Christian states wouldn't have come to the defense of Christian Palestine as, well, they don't in general come to the aid when a Christian state is attacked by a Muslim state. Think Armenia/ Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. We don't even think about that conflict on terms of the religious divide. Yet Muslims do. The idea of Christendom was something important in the Middle Ages, yet not today.

And this is why right from the start the UN went on to divide Mandate Palestine with no lofty ivory tower attempts of everybody singing Kumbayah and being citizens of the same nation, just with having different religions.

And needless to say, current events haven't brought the sides closer. What was fucked up, just is getting worse.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions.

"Creating unlivable conditions" is what you end up with just thinking about the safety of the settlers: more walls, CCTVs, separate roads, restrictions on movement, random checks and violation of privacy.

So think twice then what would be those "reverse actions" when there is no political solution.

Quoting tim wood

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel

Israel is considered a belligerent occupier of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the Golan Heights since 1967 under international law. A whole slew of UNSC resolutions have been adopted to that end, each of which has reaffirmed the occupied status of the relevant areas and the illegality of the occupation.

___________________________________


Quoting tim wood

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that?

Israel controls everything and everyone that goes in and out of Gaza. So no, the Palestinians aren't the ones turning Gaza into an open air prison.

Quoting Human Rights Watch

Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.

[...]

This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory.

_________________________________________


Quoting tim wood

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions.

That's not an "if".

West Bank Access Restrictions (June, 2020)

___________________________________________


Quoting tim wood

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing."

Quoting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,

___________________________________________


Quoting tim wood

Flagrant?

Quoting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;

___________________________________________


Quoting tim wood

And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders.

Well, at least we are in agreement there. But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state?

This is why Israel's hard line political class has done everything in its power to avoid that from happening, and it has had to resort to apartheid.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

But imo a risk that must be accepted and taken.

This is astounding level of honesty - I often see an inability to note that these risks actually exist in many areas - so, refreshing.

Quoting tim wood

[...] how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions?

The behavior that attracts the harshest criticism has nothing to do with Israel protecting itself. (occupation, apartheid, settlements, etc.)

Like any state, Israel must follow international law.

Quoting tim wood

But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement.

I don't think history suggests that at all.

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it.



Quoting tim wood

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear.

I don't think Israeli Jews will disappear under a 'one-state solution' - it is not quite that grave.

However it would require certain political groups in Israel to relinquish the idea of Israel as a Jewish nation state, because when (more than) half its constituency is Muslim and is given equal rights, obviously Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

This is anathema to a large portion of Israelis, and somewhat understandably so. However, the price of holding on to this Jewish nation state ideal is painfully clear.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

"You can have peace and prosperity, rights and safety, or you can have war. We're better at war than you are; why don't we try peace?" But alas, I do not think the Palestinians are at the moment, and maybe for another generation, able to give a competent answer.

Competency, for the actual ethnic group 'Palestinian' in the face of such a suggestion would be
'Fuck off' - Just without violence this time.

Quoting tim wood

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all.

He points towards the fact that every Israeli government since 1967 has supported the Israeli settlement policy and thereby intentionally sought to make a two-state solution impossible. This exact fact is also reiterated time and time again in the relevant UNSC resolutions, like the one I have already linked.

Quoting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,

[...]

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps,
consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed
in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground,
which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State
reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and
for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace;

[...]

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential
for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken
immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the
two-State solution;

etc. etc.

This idea that the Palestinians are the ones to blame for the failure of the two-state solution is not really a serious one.

Reply to neomac Yes, I agree about the achievements of Jewish people over the millennia and how the Diaspora has played an important formative role in modern civilisation. I welcome this and the continued contribution. It pains me that their exile has not yet ended as they don’t as yet have a secure homeland.
The Middle East has not been treated well by empire and before that the crusades and before that Rome etc. The Jewish Diaspora has been passed from pillar to post for millennia. Exile and persecution inevitably repeated over the centuries.
I fear that this rift, this trauma is deepening and when human frailty is taken into consideration (what I was saying about the trauma of the realisation of the human condition). The world and geopolitics of this time is not equipped to put this right through conventional diplomatic, or other means.

I agree with what Gershon Baskin said in an interview with Matt Frei yesterday (UK channel4 news at 7pm, 23/01/24). Unfortunately I was unable to link to the interview, here is a brief summary of what he said.

“ What is happening imposes a danger to regional and international security.
Time for UK, US, European nations to recognise the state of Palestine. Remove the veto on Palestinian statehood from Israel. International community needs to work with Israel, Palestine, and neighbours to work out regional architecture for security, stability and economic development.
“Israel will not have security if Palestinians don’t have freedom and dignity, and Palestinians won’t have freedom and dignity if Israel doesn’t have security.”

Basically a global effort (UN) to put Israel and Palestine into special measures until a solution can be found and worked towards. This would need to be maintained indefinitely, for generations until something concrete is established.

Our modern civilisation has a duty here, for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians.

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power...

And its really more like this:
.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

Reply to Punshhh :o Has that been confirmed? (cans)

EDIT

Questionable according to Ryan Mcbeth (Jan 23, 2024).
Not that Gaza is safe for children.

Unusual age distribution ...

Children make up nearly half of Gaza's population. Here's what it means for the war
[sup]— Linah Mohammad · NPR · Oct 19, 2023[/sup]

Quoting Statista · Nov 21, 2023

According to estimates for 2023, the number of Palestinians in Gaza aged 0 to 4 was 278,511. That year, more than half of Gaza's estimated 2.06 million inhabitants were below 20 years old.

Reply to jorndoe Thanks for the confirmation that it was a fake video.

Quoting Punshhh

Our modern civilisation has a duty here, for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians.

I’m quite skeptical about your last claim. Whom/what is “modern civilisation” referring to? Why does “modern civilisation” have a duty “for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians”?

As far as I'm concerned, my understanding is that the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has to do with state-nation formation over the same piece of land, by two competing nations historically bent on preserving their national identity and security at the expense of the rival nation. So either the feud continues forever or one succeeds in being genocidal against the other, i.e. it expels or exterminates the rival nation, or one nation dominates the other by assimilation or partial citizenship (Jews have historically experienced all these solutions on their skin). Other powerful states can intervene to impose a solution which is convenient to them (because the instability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is detrimental to their interests), but without hegemony or international cooperation (and today the US hegemony is weakening while the wished cooperation of the multipolar world hasn’t materialised yet) the possibility to internationally impose a solution on this conflict is compromised. UN and IHL tribunals will fail to be effective. The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.

Quoting tim wood

And I think time is a main ingredient, along with the eventual dying out of the haters. To facilitate an interim peace, however long it takes, I'd be in favor of a robust blue-helmet presence to protect the peace, well-being, safety, and rights of both sides.

Or to have war weariness.

At least how it's now going, this isn't peace for the Jewish people with security operations that don't bother normal life and go on in the background.

The idea of having basically a perpetual insurgency around with the occasional "mowing of the lawn" isn't working. Already the calling in of the reservists has disrupted civilian economy and thus Israel is now looking at getting back some of the reservists from the war.

Yet the military operation isn't over. If it can be over with an objective of erasing out Hamas.
Here's a map that is rather up to date, which shows that for the IDF there's more to go, Hamas just hasn't been overrun and destroyed:


Also it's not likely that things just "die down": you do have the South African case in the court.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power.

And this is where Bibi can really fuck up for the last time. There is the possibility that he indeed turn Americans from being enthusiastic supporters of Israel to being lukewarm. If that happens, it's quite nasty for Jewish Americans.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back.

Quoting ssu

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power.

Yeah, even the PA under Abbas has to tow the terrorist-populist line. In the PA's official budget, they give large sums of money or "social security" to the families of so-called "martyrs" who were suicide bombers or terrorist attackers who killed large groups of civilians. So yeah, even the PA would to a large extent have to be de-radicalized. But they cannot be completely sidelined, or at least, they have to be reconstructed. Hell, the people already would vote in Hamas anyways, so it's not like they are EVEN just barely hanging on in popularity, so it's a wash there too.

Quoting ssu

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back.

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more. The leaders get to hide out and travel to mansions if needed while the foot soldiers are basically a suicide cult. Many of their relatives see them as proud fighters. It's like muscle memory at this point to have one's hate be stronger than even one's life, so I don't know. But, at some point, the leaders will want to pretend like they got something from this round of conflict, so probably some prisoner exchange, as if this was all worth it for them. They can go on indefinitely until they get some token prize perhaps, or if or when they are all killed I guess.

Quoting tim wood

Now I might be mistaken as a matter of fact, but I suspect that no one here - except maybe ssu - has any special knowledge.

Yes, don't let my masters in international law and 10 years of working for Amnesty stand in the way of assuming nobody here has any special knowledge. :lol:

Quoting tim wood

They are, 1) what exactly, near as you can tell, do the Palestinians want? And 2) what in your opinion should the Israelis do?

These questions have been answered by me regularly in this thread even in reply to you.

Quoting Benkei

I think the main problem is that some people think there's a moral equivalence between the violence of Palestinians and Israel. That requires you to deny several of the following things:

1. Palestinians are oppressed, discriminated against and economically undermined by border control that basically functions like the worst sanctions we have in the world
2. A gross differential in military might and state power
3. A gross differential in political support from other countries and political representation
4. Israeli "security" trumps Palestinian "security" pace every draft of every deal where on average there's pages upon pages on the former and very little or nothing in the latter
5. Israeli deaths are a fraction of Palestinian deaths
6. The multitude of discriminatory laws in Israeli proper linked to religious affiliation
7. Palestine barely functions, Israel is a modern state claiming to be a democracy

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context.

Nothing in the past 20 years has given any indication Israel wants peace. If one side doesn't want peace and undermines it every time, what's the moral obligation of the other side? At what point does violence against the oppressor become a moral obligation?

Quoting Benkei

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours

Reply to schopenhauer1 Once again, very one-sided nonsense about deradicalisation when it's Israel employing extremist's measures against an entire civilian population. Hamas and the PA don't need to deradicalise when terrorist bombings are a consequence of Israeli oppression. Nobody went around telling the IRA to "deradicalise" but when they're sufficiently different all of a sudden it's barbarism, which is a convenient label for the entire region for you but is basically just racist as fuck.

Quoting Benkei

Hamas and the PA don't need to deradicalise when terrorist bombings are a consequence of Israeli oppression.

Yeah that's all I need to hear to ignore you as a one-sided terrorist-supporter.
And as I already stated pretty clearly:
Quoting schopenhauer1

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Yeah that's all I need to hear to ignore you as a one-sided terrorist-supporter.

Except I'm not. As I've stated before I don't condone all their methods. But nuance is difficult. The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things.

Quoting Benkei

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context.

Reply to Benkei

I've noticed that you repeatedly liken palestinians to dogs or children. Given this is the case, how can one believe that they're ready of self-rule? The international community ought to set them a proper bedtime.

But yeah, it's not the same thing when a dog kills a person versus when an adult willfully murders a child even if the child is throwing pebbles.

If that's what the palestinians are then you're right on the money. I was silly enough to assign them responsibility.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I've noticed that you repeatedly liken palestinians to dogs or children. Given this is the case, how can one believe that they're ready of self-rule? The international community ought to set them a proper bedtime.

Except I've done no such thing so the rest of your post is idiotic. Maybe figure out what an analogy is.

Quoting Benkei

The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things.

That's exactly as I've been saying. Israel does have to allow for a two-state solution, but I sure as hell am going to say that the contingency is that Hamas and other radical elements (which are largely supported by the populous) have to be done away with. As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified. And hence, it's not even worth debating you unless you renounce such tactics. Again, and again, I'll state it again, because you didn't read my post carefully or chose to ignore it, or perhaps you just don't GET it but I said:

[quote="schopenhauer1;875353"]I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power...


And its really more like this:

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

Quoting Benkei

Except I'm not. As I've stated before I don't condone all their methods. But nuance is difficult. The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things.

It's become apparent to me that the palestinians could do anything -- any number of beheadings, rapes, murders, tortures, paying the families of those who kill Israelis -- and you'd say something like "I don't condone this" and that would be the end of it. I think it's because you view it in terms of group dynamics -- palestinians good, israel bad -- so anyone under the palestinian banner can only be so bad given they're on the right team/side. And you seemingly compare them to dogs biting an abusive master 2 pages back. Reply to Benkei

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

Israel can argue for the moral high ground until the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israeli security will be fundamentally compromised unless and until they actually solve the Palestinian issue, and that is going to involve dealing with reality rather than fantasy.


Today, Israel is still in a position to pursue a solution that favors Israeli long-term interests. In ten or twenty years from now, that likely won't be the case anymore.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: there will be a time when Israel is no longer the dominant player in the Middle-East. This is simply inevitable.

How do you suppose Israel would fare in such a situation?

Quoting Tzeentch

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

That is not really true as I see it. The radicalism was there from the beginning.. Where is the starting point? In 1967 when Israel gained the West Bank and Gaza and tried to give it back for a lasting peace and were rebuffed by the "3 no's"? Or the 90s-2000s era suicide bombings? Rather, the radicalism was always there, and Israel moved rightward politically as they saw that the negotiating partner couldn't compromise to save their people's lives (literally).

Also, the two sides have already put the moral arguments aside. As I said, and I'll say it again now:

schopenauer1:I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power...

🔗 Media content

And its really more like this:

🔗 Media content

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

[quote] Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:
Reply to Benkei

Yes, I agree, but it’s not happening any time soon. Unless it’s imposed from outside, that is.

Reply to schopenhauer1 It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security.


Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what?

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Once again: understand what an analogy is. Everybody understands beating a dog just makes it aggressive; this is no different than people. Why abused kids often become abusers, why dangerous neighbourhoods raise dangerous people.

And you have it reversed. Their actions result in who's better or worse. It's because Israel had no rights to the occupied territory, so armed resistance is just. It's Israel having collectively punished Gazans for decades. It's a matter of applying legal and moral principles as a result of which Israel is much worse than Hamas. Any tragedy visited in Israeli citizens is by their own making, Jews sacrificed on the Zionist altar.

Quoting Tzeentch

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

You stated:
Quoting Tzeentch

it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

So clearly YOU do. I was responding to YOUR comment on precisely that.

Quoting Tzeentch

Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what?

I am not sure what you are trying to say, so I can't answer unless you clarify.

If you mean, why do I not support terrorism, I think it goes without saying that Hamas, and people who don't mind their methods should not be rewarded. And so, as I stated, Israel not rewarding it, will simply become part of the system of co-option (to responding with power to over power their power) because this seems the only language of the political leadership of Palestinians in Gaza.

Reply to schopenhauer1 Well, I disagree, obviously.

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line Reply to Benkei argues.

But ultimately where it comes from doesn't matter. The fact is that it's there, and somehow, with that as a given, you will have to find a solution for Israel's fundamental security problem, which is what I'm asking you about.

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept.

Quoting Tzeentch

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line ?Benkei argues.

Ok, so you DO care about where it comes from and this is false:
Quoting Tzeentch

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from.

Quoting Tzeentch

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept.

As I stated here:
Quoting schopenhauer1

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

Quoting schopenhauer1

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

Right.

Hamas has to stop its resistance, and then the US has to impose an ultimatum to force Israel to adopt the two-state solutoin?

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance until Israel shows willingness. Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has.

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions.

Third, Israel made a two-state solution utterly impossible through its settlement policy, probably intentionally so.


Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years.

How long can Israel continue to ignore reality? Ten, twenty years maybe? Some time in the near future Israel will no longer be the dominant force in the Middle-East, and conditions will be imposed upon Israel which it can only hope are a little more merciful than its own methods.

Quoting Tzeentch

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance

Resistance to its own policies which had made Israel react to its terrorism after firing rockets? Funny how that works.

Quoting Tzeentch

Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has.

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition.

I’ll keep saying it cause it’s just my stance:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

Quoting Tzeentch

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions.

Honestly, the UN can f_ck itself.. It has countries voting in there with horrible human rights records. And it's Europe's whining ground because they can't do anything unilaterally. The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel.

However, the US does have huge sway over Israel if it really wanted to. There is a lot that could happen. It just chooses not to at the moment as it doesn't want to pull that just yet. Also, I am showing you what I want, not necessarily what will happen. I'd want Hamas destroyed, the region de-radicalized over time, the PA reformed as well, and a peace where two people's can live side-by-side without revenge or violence being the only language.. otherwise Mad Max.

Quoting Tzeentch

Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years.

You will just continually complain about everything. You are not living in reality because as I told your partner, Benkei:

Quoting schopenhauer1

As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified.

Quoting schopenhauer1

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition.

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically.

You can argue for a moral high ground, but it won't make any difference. The reality is that Hamas and the Palestinian problem exists, and that it is not going away through any of Israel's current actions.


Quoting schopenhauer1

The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel.

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall.


Quoting schopenhauer1

Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly.

Israel should hedge its bets while the West is still relatively in control.

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point.

Quoting Tzeentch

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically.

Ok, so back to nihilism. There is nothing then to be said about Israel's campaign as it is power vs. power and Mad Max Superdome. So fuck it.

Quoting Tzeentch

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall.

Not really. The "UN" is nothing. It's US, Britain (and Anglo-sphere), NATO, Russia, China. The rest don't mean much really except in relation to them. NATO also is pretty weak as they cannot even provide enough money to defend Ukraine against Russia, but we don't have to touch upon that. Certainly I don't see Netherlands (or individual European countries) taking up arms with Palestinians, their ole buddies any time soon. If they do, maybe you can have a point. The Middle Eastern countries that want stability just want this to end. The one's that don't never want this to end, so doesn't matter.

Quoting Tzeentch

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly.

Again, Hamas et al. wants Mad Max. Israel is now part of it Mad Max Superdome. Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it.

Quoting Tzeentch

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point.

Then Mad Max was always there and now it's coming to the surface. Either you want peace or you don't.

I don't think its a reasonable argument to blame anyone but the actor for their actions, whether it's a state or not. And that goes for both sides (in relation to the two of you trying to vie for each).

Reply to schopenhauer1 When I point out the realities of a situation, that doesn't mean nihilism, that means realism.

You can believe Hamas should not do what it does, but it will. We have thousands of years of history that is full with situations like these, and they all transpire in the same way.

The problem for Israel is that the majority of the world (as evidenced by not-so irrelevant UNGA resolutions) is no longer on its side, and that Israel - not Hamas - stands to lose most.

If Israel wants to use Hamas' behavior to excuse its own brutality it can, but it is missing the forest for the trees. It will end up alienating the rest of the region, perhaps even the rest of the world, and allow an endless breeding ground for extremism.

I'll ask again, what happens when the US retreats to its island, and another regional power takes over the dominant role in the Middle-East? You think they will be impressed by a meek "tu quoque" when Israel will be finally held to account for its decades-long oppression?

Reply to AmadeusD That's an unjustified appeal to moral equivalence that ignores context. These actors are not operating in a vacuum.

Reply to Benkei no it’s not.

Every actor is responsible for their own acts.

Reply to AmadeusD That's not how criminal law works though. So I see no reason it would here. Unless you mean "reaponsible" as something else as layman's version of "guilty". In which case you should explain what you mean.

Edit; how I understand it now: if I kill someone in self-defence, then I'm not "responsible" for his death but my attacker was.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more.

For Gazans. Palestinians know there's no coming back, if they "voluntarily" move, or are moved outside.

Quoting Tzeentch

The reality of the situation is that roughly as many Palestinians as Israelis live in the land Israel now occupies, which fundamentally compromises Israeli security.

And fundamentally creates and unsolvable problem for Zionism, because the idea of the Jewish homeland doesn't take into consideration Palestinians.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it.

Hamas wanted that the Palestinian question and their cause isn't forgotten and doesn't affect the overall situation in the Middle East. They had the warplan for quite some time, but likely the potential Israeli-Saudi deal launched this. Hamas leaders referred to this in their statements on October 7th, even if not mentioning Saudi-Arabia, but referring to "some Arab states".

Quoting Tzeentch

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point.

This might be a possibility, actually. If we extrapolate how things have been going, perhaps in the end the US really needs airbases in Israel and Cyprus and that's it.

Iraq wants a "quick and orderly" withdrawal of US forces out of Iraq, of the 2500 that are still there. Now those US forces are often under attack from Shiite armed groups in Iraq.

(ABC, 21st Jan 2024) In the latest escalation against U.S. forces in the Middle East, Iranian-backed militias launched a barrage of ballistic missiles and rockets at Al-Assad airbase in western Iraq on Saturday that left several U.S. personnel being evaluated for traumatic brain injuries, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

Most of the incoming missiles and rockets were intercepted by the air defense systems at the base, which is used by both the Iraq and U.S. militaries, but some impacted the base, officials said.

"At approximately 6:30 p.m. (Baghdad time) on January 20, multiple ballistic missiles and rockets were launched by Iranian-backed militants in Western Iraq targeting al-Assad Airbase," CENTCOM said in a statement.

"Most of the missiles were intercepted by the base’s air defense systems while others impacted on the base. Damage assessments are ongoing," it added. "A number of U.S. personnel are undergoing evaluation for traumatic brain injuries. At least one Iraqi service member was wounded."

Actually it's quite good luck that just two Navy Seals have died during the current fighting. A lot worse could have already happened, which would have forced the US to engage even more. Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice.

Quoting ssu

Yet the fact is that the US Middle East policy is a train wreck. Likely sooner or later US is forced out of Iraq, perhaps as with low media coverage like France left the Sahel. If nobody makes a big issue about it in the media, perhaps people won't notice.

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become.

Quoting Tzeentch

Yep, and unlike the US, Israel cannot retreat across an ocean and pretend nothing ever happened. It will be stuck in the middle of said trainwreck.

I think people grossly underestimate how dire this situation can become.

First peace with Egypt, then with Jordan and then Trumps Abraham records. Who remembers anymore the Oslo peace process? Everything is going fine, isn't it? Until now, Israel has thought it can very well handle everything, build settlements and simply do fine with the status quo. Hasn't that been the biggest job of Mr Security, Bibi Netanyahu?

Or then Israel could apply to the UN Security Council decisions. (Which it won't: there's no reason it would.)

Then if we somehow WOULD get that two-state solution, then issue is if the newly formed Palestine would have a peaceful border (like Jordan and Egypt) or if Israel would treat it like Lebanon. Hence likely you would have to have Arab states not only protecting the new Palestine, but also keeping the border peaceful. Which would mean an awful lot of coordination from the Arab states.

Not only would in the two nation state solution both countries need recognition from each other, but also that they would be left alone.

Ruling starts around 1 hour into the video.

Reply to ssu Reply to Tzeentch
So going back to my main point, if one was to be indifferent or "that's what Israel gets" regarding this latest round of killings/barbarism, then especially when it comes to this war, we can no longer really discuss in terms of morality, but in terms of power. So you no longer have to couch your arguments in terms of "Well, it was as bad or they're worse! because at that point, it's just counting various nihilistic barbarisms against each other. At that point, it's purely about power and ends ALONE (no longer means). In that case, whatever the leaders of the Palestinians and Israel do become JUST about ends in themselves. If that sounds scary, well, that is where YOUR logic has gotten you. But, all is not lost, because, even if one ditches morality of the means, and only looks at morality of the ends, one can still talk it just changes the subject. It is the morality of the Thunderdome and no longer of the Enlightenment.

I mean, at the end of the day if you don't think means matter, Genghis Khan was just as right to brutally conquer and torture people as not. A generation later, you had a Pax Mongolia of sorts, that can be said to be relatively peaceful! Same with Cyrus the Great from Persia.. Not a terrible policy of tolerance from a conqueror, AFTER he conquered of course. As this discussion has brought up over and over, the Allies had to do some pretty grizzly stuff to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, often to citizens of those countries, and now they enjoy some of the best economies in the world. Each of those countries thought they had a mandate of sorts to do what they did. They thought their ends were justified- at least the ones who supported their cause, and the ones who didn't, like today, were at the whims of the outcomes of their co-patriots' support.

So in this morality of the Thunderdome, where power is the language, and anything goes to get what one wants from the enemy, we can start talking about how the two power dynamics are to play out and how they operate. It could be seen instead of "two sides", as a system that is in a tightly wound knot. When they tug the knot gets tighter, not looser. So to untie the knot, there needs to be a set of actions by both sides in this particular round. The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win. Israel actually CARES about its OWN people, Hamas does not. Hamas cares about getting a token prize (prisoner exchange or ANYTHING that will allow it to not look like it lost with its tail between its legs). They care not one iota about suffering of their people, just about how the war is carried out.. Whether the media is portraying it their way, whether they get European and American Leftists on board, etc. But basically, they don't care about what is BEST (in terms of actual lives lost and suffering) of their people. The Israelis, DO care about its people to the extent that they don't really consider as much how badly the bombings will affect the Palestinians when they send rockets, because when the more targeted army rushes in, they will have less to deal with in terms of urban combat. They think about things in terms of PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. Hamas could go on indefinitely and lose millions of people. But they don't care. They DON'T CARE about their people. They care ONLY ABOUT THEIR CAUSE.

That makes a huge difference in how the knot is undone. Hamas would have to CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE by letting go of the hostages and even giving themselves in. Odd that they are suicidal, yet can't make the big boy decision that giving up would be best for their own people. They have to turn the key on their end to untie the knot.

BUT then here is another kicker. IF people on the sideline say, "Hamas should not have to give up", then they also don't care about the people that Hamas supposedly is there to represent and protect. Even if Israel supposedly doesn't care about the Palestinian casualties, Hamas and their supporters sure don't either. So who is left to care about the casualties? If Israel doesn't, but it still cares about its side. Hamas doesn't and that's the only one that represents its side (and the Leftist supporters of course). So apparently, all around everyone seems to care only about THEIR CAUSE and not SUFFERING, which negates cries against calling "foul", because they have the key, they just don't want it turned.

Just finished listening. The ruling is relatively weak. Most of the things the court told Israel to do, they are already supposed to do under the Genocide Convention. Only the report in a month is beyond existing legal obligations.

Despite the weakness of the ruling, I do believe the negative inference is interesting. The fact Israel is ordered to comply with the law seems to underline the fact they are in fact not doing that at this time. Combined with the plausibility of SA's claim genocide is happening, I think it's likely years from now Israel will indeed be convicted of at least genocidal intent and possibly genocide, unless it radically improves the humanitarian aid to Gaza.

My 0.02 USD.

Israel-Hamas war live updates: ICJ stops short of ordering cease-fire, tells Israel to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna135801

They didn't even call for a cease-fire. A win for Israel. Keep up the good work.

Reply to RogueAI You fail to understand this court case is also about international opinion. The plausability assessment by the court will affect the political position of allies vis-a-vis Israel.

For instance, this ruling will affect the court case in the Netherlands that Oxfam Novib started against the government, increasing the likelihood the court will order the government to stop providing material support (parts for planes in particular).

Edit: plus, such an interim judgment was unlikely to go that far too begin with.

Reply to Benkei I'd say the significance of this ruling lies in the fact that the ICJ has not dismissed the case and is essentially acknowledging there is a present risk of genocide being committed by Israel.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

There is a case against US administration in the US courts as well. Sunak, Biden and AIPAC people are saying that the suit does not make sense, but I do think that the judges may find the Leahy Law applicable against US military support for Israel.

Let's see what will happen with this case:

https://www.democracynow.org/2023/11/16/ccr_genocide


Now, a few days ago I was seeing with a friend a PBS documentary about German American Bund rally in Madison Square in 1939, where these "good Americans" could bring their swastikas and totally ignore the Jewish protesters. However weird it might sound, I recalled what is going on right now in the USA, where the protesters are not the Jews, but the Palestinians.

My friend asked me: how was it possible that back then NY authorities allowed a Nazi rally in Madison Square and they disregarded the Jewish protesters?

Well, I answered, this is American capitalism. Back in the 30ies in this country lived millions of Germans and the Jews were hundred thousands, but less in numbers than Pro-Hitler Americans (BUND Germans included). Hence, I guess Jewish protests were not enough to outlaw BUND rallies. Now, we have more pro-Israel people than pro-Palestine people in this country, and numbers (and money) are more important than justice for the US democracy.

Maybe numbers (not justice) are important in EU countries as well, where 25 million of Muslim residents have made Europe more sensitive towards the Palestinian Cause (in stark contrast with the US, where we have only 3 million Muslim residents).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Nazi_rally_at_Madison_Square_Garden

Reply to Eros1982 What do you mean "disregarded the Jewish protesters"? Did the nazis at the event harm the Jewish protesters physically, and the police allowed that to happen?

Reply to tim wood I have no interest in discussing this with you other than pointing out the obvious that once again is a stupid post.

Reply to flannel jesus

We were just surprised how such an event was allowed to take place in Manhattan (when many Jews, US leftists and anti-Hitler Germans had opposed it and had warned authorities against BUND).

In 2014, when all people in EU and UK were rallying in support of Palestine, Hillary Clinton was organizing a rally in support of Netanyahu and against the Intifada.

It seems that in this country none really cares about international causes, but just for money and voters.

Reply to Eros1982 I think the idea is, events are allowed to take place that you disagree with because there's a certain amount of freedom of speech. I don't see a problem with allowing rallys for ideas I disagree with, unless the rally is directly involved in violence or promoting violence.

I don't think a rally of nazis is necessarily directly promoting violence (I understand the intuition that it is, but I disagree with that), nor do I think a rally in support of Netanyahu or Israel is directly promoting violence. What reasons would you have to limit their speech in this way?

Reply to flannel jesus

Maybe I didn't give a good reason to limit the speeches of BUND and Co, but BUND and other similar cases may provide some clues about American democracy. Although when you speak with Liberals they will imply that "democracy", freedoms, and their liberal values, etc., are the most rational things in this universe, in practice we see that things we are taught to be self-evident, rational, etc., are just power. (Many groups in the USA have won their rights in that way, by exercising more power than other groups.) 

The BUND rally in Madison square shows that 80 years ago it was okay to disregard Jews because they were not strong enough. Now, I assume, in the US and some other countries is okay to disregard Palestinians and Muslims insofar as they are weak in numbers and money.

It is more correct to think of Clintons, Bidens, and co, as people who count on donors, money, voters, etc., than as people who really care about justice and American interests in the Middle East. However hard someone tries to find the rationality of the US policy in the Middle East, he/she will fail.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/11/israel-hamas-gaza-war-us-middle-east-policy-saudi-biden/

There are two routes for the US policy in the Middle East to change: 1 (the most probable) repetitive failures and loss of public interest in foreign affairs, i.e. American isolationism, and 2 (the less probable) pro-Palestine people in US overcome in numbers and money the pro-Israeli people (this is the case in EU right now, where you have 25 million Muslims and EU is much more reluctant than the US to endorse the Netanyahus).

Reply to Eros1982 I still don't know what you mean by "disregard". Does "disregard" just mean "allow a public protest or rally that they don't like"?

The U.N.’s agency for Palestinians said that it fired several employees after receiving information from Israel showing that they had taken part in the October 7 terrorist attacks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/u-n-agency-for-palestinians-discloses-involvement-of-employees-in-october-7-attack-u-s-pauses-funding/

With friends like the UN...

Reply to RogueAI Guilt by association fallacy.

I’m quite skeptical about your last claim. Whom/what is “modern civilisation” referring to? Why does “modern civilisation” have a duty “for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians”?

Reply to neomac

It’s a moral argument. An argument about the concept that the Jewish people have been wronged by the world (civilisation). That the current conflict is a symptom of this wrong and that to resolve this crisis this wrong will need to be put right in some way.

“Modern civilisation” for me is the human world of the last 2000yrs or so. Or perhaps from the point of the exile of the Jews in 800 BC, or thereabouts*. This whole period of civilisation was involved in the wrong and the evolution of the psychology and narrative of the state, or geopolitics of this time.

If one doesn’t accept this moral argument then we are not anymore addressing the moral argument applicable to this crisis. That’s fine, but we will be ignoring an important facet of the issue.

[quote]As far as I'm concerned, my understanding is that the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has to do with state-nation formation over the same piece of land, by two competing nations historically bent on preserving their national identity and security at the expense of the rival nation.

Well I would agree that this is what we see before us now. However we can’t ignore the way this formation was handled by the powers at the time. Not to forget the moral argument and the history of the peoples involved.

So either the feud continues forever or one succeeds in being genocidal against the other, i.e. it expels or exterminates the rival nation, or one nation dominates the other by assimilation or partial citizenship (Jews have historically experienced all these solutions on their skin).

The implications of any of these outcomes for the wider region, or world security may be complex, or unforeseen .

Other powerful states can intervene to impose a solution which is convenient to them (because the instability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is detrimental to their interests),

Well we are witnessing the US hegemony at the moment. Which is only deepening the crisis and will likely have either of three outcomes. An unstable fortress Israel state. The failure of the Israeli state, or some wider conflagration.

The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.

Quite, and what do you put it down to?

* I accept that civilisation over the last 2000yrs or so is complex with a dynamic geopolitics and is not confined to The West. However I would argue that this whole period is involved in the development of the current global zeitgeist.

The ICJ's preliminary report:

https://www.dw.com/en/un-court-ruling-on-gaza-hard-to-ignore-for-israels-allies/a-68099139

Reply to Benkei :up:

also this:

I've never been a fan of the NYTimes' (elite opinion) columnist Thomas Friedman, but can any of TPF's resident Israel/Netanyahu regime apologists @Rogue AI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood @BitconnectCarlos ... explain where Friedman's 'analysis' goes wrong? :chin:

Reply to 180 Proof Reply to 180 Proof

So I know you don’t pay attention to all my posts, but way back I posted several articles from Friedman and a video with him and Robert Wright and said that that was my view more or less, so you can stop mischaracterizing my positions please.

Reply to Benkei

Once again: understand what an analogy is. Everybody understands beating a dog just makes it aggressive; this is no different than people. Why abused kids often become abusers, why dangerous neighbourhoods raise dangerous people.

And you have it reversed. Their actions result in who's better or worse. It's because Israel had no rights to the occupied territory, so armed resistance is just. It's Israel having collectively punished Gazans for decades. It's a matter of applying legal and moral principles as a result of which Israel is much worse than Hamas. Any tragedy visited in Israeli citizens is by their own making, Jews sacrificed on the Zionist altar.

I understand that you're making an analogy. In your analogies, you repeatedly metaphorize Palestinians are dogs and/or children while Israel is metaphorized as an adult.

Interesting how you describe Israel in the collective abstract, i.e. an impersonal state, while you write of the opposite side as "Gazans" i.e. actual people who are victimized.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting schopenhauer1

So going back to my main point, if one was to be indifferent or "that's what Israel gets" regarding this latest round of killings/barbarism, then especially when it comes to this war, we can no longer really discuss in terms of morality, but in terms of power.

That's what I've been doing.

I've given you reasons for why Israel is not acting in its own self-interest. For 75 years their policies have failed, utterly, to produce a security situation that Israel can build on for the future.

It can whinge all day about how others are responsible for that failure, but the end result is that Israel is in an extremely precarious position and its own actions are making it evermore precarious.

Further, it has been in a priviledged position where through US hegemony it can get away with much of its misbehavior. That situation will inevitably change some day, and Israel will have to rely on its own diplomatic ties with its neighbors, who are now utterly estranged from it through Israel's decades-long belligerence, and the only reason they aren't on overtly hostile footing is due to American 'gun boat diplomacy'.

And again, if Israel believes it can solve its security problem by apartheid, ethnic cleansing or worse, then it is missing the forest for the trees. Such actions will alienate it from the rest of the world, including, importantly, it's immediate neighbors.

Israel cannot be secure without normal relations with its neighbors, which requires it to find an acceptable solution to the Palestinian problem.


You use Genghis Khan as an example, but, unlike Israel, the Mongolian Empire actually had extreme amounts of power. Israel might have power over the Palestinian territories and Hamas, but compared to its neighbors Israel is not strong at all. For one, because of simple metrics like population and geographics, and secondly because Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is giving its neighbors common cause against it.

If you think Israel can go around 'acting like Genghis Khan' you are sadly mistaken. Hamas is a small fish compared to Israel's regional rivals. Israel would much sooner find itself on the receiving end of a new 'Genghis Khan' when a Middle-East fractured by the US reunites under a new regional hegemon.


It might be worth emphasizing that a realist approach (which focuses on power) does not mean one can go around ignoring other nations' opinions when those opinions are in fact extremely important to one's own security. Realism is about security as much as it is about power, and clearly from a realist approach Israel is not doing well.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Because an oppressor is not a victim.

Quoting Tzeentch

For 75 years their policies have failed, utterly, to produce a security situation that Israel can build on for the future.

That's because "security" is the fig leaf for illegal land grab. It's not a failure, it's the defining feature of their policies.

Reply to Benkei I would argue it's a bit more complicated than that.

Israel's land grab of 1967, while illegal, can reasonably understood as Israel attempting to find strategic security in a geopolitical environment which was volatile and overtly hostile.

That decision was, in hindsight, extremely fool-hardy and still haunts them today. It is essentially the root of Israel's worst perpetrations, because from 1967 onward it became the belligerent occupier of millions of people.

Over time, the 1967 annexations have deteriorated (rather than strengthened) Israel's security position. How to go back on these decisions half a century after they were made, in a security environment which is almost worse than it was in 1967?

From an Israeli perspective, the two-state solution would essentially birth a nation (Palestine) which is (understandably) extremely hostile towards Israel. It also puts Israel in a strategically compromised position due to having a hostile nation right in the center of its territory. The distance between the West Bank and Tel Aviv is only some 70 kilometers. The distance between the West Bank and the Mediterranean is even shorter in some places.

There's more to this than base territorial greed, however in hindsight we cannot but acknowledge that this decision has in no way improved Israeli security, and might in fact be an anchor that eventually will pull it under.


As I've argued before, I believe the only way forward is to give Palestinians equal rights, forget the two-state solution, and turn Israel as it is now into a nation where both peoples can live together.

But this would require Israel to relinquish its vision of being a Jewish nation state, which understandably is a very bitter pill to swallow for some, the Zionist elite especially, but it is simply not feasible anymore under the conditions it has created in 1967.

While I think such a solution is perfectly realistic, I think the will to go there is absent from the Israeli elite. This might change as Netanyahu is ousted and hopefully makes way for more level-headed policies.

In my view, Israel's only hope is finding a rapprochement, but the time to accomplish it is ticking. For now the US still holds a lot of power internationally, and that power can be used to accomodate a rapprochement in a stable fashion. In ten, twenty years, I think this window of opportunity will be closed as well.

As I've argued before, I believe the only way forward is to give Palestinians equal rights, forget the two-state solution, and turn Israel as it is now into a nation where both peoples can live together.

Reply to Tzeentch

The Israeli’s won’t agree to this because it will result in Palestinians (Arabs) becoming elected into government at some stage. Due to the Palestinian population growing faster than the Jewish population.

Reply to Tzeentch
So again, it’s a system. Hamas has the ability to turn the key by giving up the hostages and giving up. They can CARE about THEIR citizens.

Remember, you and Benkei are the ones who threw out debates of morality when you decided that means don’t matter if the cause is something you think is just. But even without morality there is the ability to cut losses when there is too much damage incurred. And Israel considers any death a tragedy, not a martyrdom, and thus has a different calculation than Hamas.

As I said @Tzeentch
Quoting schopenhauer1

So in this morality of the Thunderdome, where power is the language, and anything goes to get what one wants from the enemy, we can start talking about how the two power dynamics are to play out and how they operate. It could be seen instead of "two sides", as a system that is in a tightly wound knot. When they tug the knot gets tighter, not looser. So to untie the knot, there needs to be a set of actions by both sides in this particular round. The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win. Israel actually CARES about its OWN people, Hamas does not. Hamas cares about getting a token prize (prisoner exchange or ANYTHING that will allow it to not look like it lost with its tail between its legs). They care not one iota about suffering of their people, just about how the war is carried out.. Whether the media is portraying it their way, whether they get European and American Leftists on board, etc. But basically, they don't care about what is BEST (in terms of actual lives lost and suffering) of their people. The Israelis, DO care about its people to the extent that they don't really consider as much how badly the bombings will affect the Palestinians when they send rockets, because when the more targeted army rushes in, they will have less to deal with in terms of urban combat. They think about things in terms of PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. Hamas could go on indefinitely and lose millions of people. But they don't care. They DON'T CARE about their people. They care ONLY ABOUT THEIR CAUSE.

That makes a huge difference in how the knot is undone. Hamas would have to CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE by letting go of the hostages and even giving themselves in. Odd that they are suicidal, yet can't make the big boy decision that giving up would be best for their own people. They have to turn the key on their end to untie the knot.

BUT then here is another kicker. IF people on the sideline say, "Hamas should not have to give up", then they also don't care about the people that Hamas supposedly is there to represent and protect. Even if Israel supposedly doesn't care about the Palestinian casualties, Hamas and their supporters sure don't either. So who is left to care about the casualties? If Israel doesn't, but it still cares about its side. Hamas doesn't and that's the only one that represents its side (and the Leftist supporters of course). So apparently, all around everyone seems to care only about THEIR CAUSE and not SUFFERING, which negates cries against calling "foul", because they have the key, they just don't want it turned.

So in this morality of the Thunderdome,

Reply to schopenhauer1

I think we can see what you’re saying here.
This is what is going to have to be dealt with though. There seems to be a failure by “The West” and by extension Israel to understand Arabic culture and morality. This isn’t confined to this arena, it applies to all Middle Eastern situations. Also there is likely an analogous failure on the other side too.

Quoting Punshhh

There seems to be a failure by “The West” and by extension Israel to understand Arabic culture and morality.

What’s the failure?

Quoting Punshhh

The Israeli’s won’t agree to this because it will result in Palestinians (Arabs) becoming elected into government at some stage. Due to the Palestinian population growing faster than the Jewish population.

I'm well aware that this is a problem - perhaps the central problem. Equal rights for Palestinians is not compatible with the idea of a Jewish nation state.

In my opinion, this simply means the idea of Israel as a Jewish nation state needs to be revamped. Clinging onto that idea means apartheid, ethnic cleansing or worse, and all of those options lead to complete isolation of Israel in the long run, which in turn will leads to its downfall.

However unappealing it might be for some people in Israel to have to change its identity, it's simply the only option if it wants to continue its existence. It also happens to be a just option: Israel solves its issue of strategic vulnerability, and in return for the territory grants the Palestinian people equal rights.

Is it the dream solution for either side? No. But it's infinitely more workable than the mess they're in now.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Remember, you and Benkei are the ones who threw out debates of morality when you decided that means don’t matter if the cause is something you think is just.

I think you've got it wrong. I would never argue that.

My arguments have not really been moral in nature, but pragmatic and realistic. Morality just isn't a suitable lens to view the actions of states, even if I can't help but feel some moral indignation at times. (Sue me)

Quoting schopenhauer1

The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win.

This is where we are fundamentally in disagreement.

Israel has most to lose.

How do you suppose a nation of a couple million keeps itself afloat once US power in the region wanes? Especially when it's already fighting an insurgency against a number equal to its own population on its own turf?!

It's sowing the seeds of its own destruction, because once the balance of power shifts, it is going to be faced with the bill of decades of belligerence.

Do you not see this?

To put it in simple terms, Israel is fucked if it fails to find some form of rapprochement. Hamas on the other hand, as is typical for resistance movements, just needs to survive until inevitably some day the tables turn.

Reply to Tzeentch That seems like a reasonable analysis to me.

Quoting schopenhauer1

What’s the failure?

I guess @Punshhh is actually referring to how religion and the lack of the effort to understand each other split two communities. Our failure in the West - our governments - and their failure in the East - their radical religious groups - is not finding a reason to maintain or share common ideas.

There have always been conflicts between us and them during the centuries: since Crusades to the current situation. And, each of them have a common cause: the lack of respecting each side and the failure of not understanding the position in the Middle East.

Quoting Tzeentch

This is where we are fundamentally in disagreement.

Israel has most to lose.

Yeah I know you think Hamas and Leftist supporters are super cool nihilists that are “gonna make Israel look bad” in an apocalyptic frenzy..as if leftists in Europe, and Iran didn’t already hate them? But do you see how outrageously costly Hamas’ strategy that is to care so little about the lives of THEIR OWN people, even if they win in the court of (leftist or Islamist) public opinion? You’ve already lost if you think of your own people as CANNON FODDER. To be used for what? Bad press for Israel and hatred that has and will always be there for Israel amongst those who don’t like Israel?

I’m no supporter of the right wing Netanyahu government, but if he’s in there, you can question why it is Israel wants the hostages back and no negotiations with terrorists, but the responsibility of Hamas is to their own people. In the game of nihilistic power, you have lost if you can’t protect your people. However, the insane part, is that is not anywhere in their calculus. Cause before their own people.

Quoting Tzeentch

Hamas on the other hand, as is typical for resistance movements, just needs to survive until inevitably some day the tables turn.

This is just your bias. Yes, I get you don’t see a problem with Hamas it seems, only Israel.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Yeah I know you think Hamas and Leftist supporters are super cool nihilists that are “gonna make Israel look bad” in an apocalyptic frenzy.

Quoting schopenhauer1

This is just your bias. Yes, I get you don’t see a problem with Hamas it seems, only Israel.

These accusations are weak.

Apparently I care enough to warn of the danger Israel is putting itself in down the line.

I'd love to hear your arguments for why I am needlessly fear-mongering, but don't come to me with these accusations of bias.

Reply to Benkei

Some might call it western paternalism to liken the palestinians (or Hamas) to children or dogs.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Which I haven't. That's entirely your interpretation. It seems you still don't understand what an analogy is. But please continue focusing on what you apparently think is a "gotcha".

Quoting Benkei

That's because "security" is the fig leaf for illegal land grab.

Like for Russia, "security" is the fig leaf for illegal land grab, right?

Living through a genocide happening before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

History will view them poorly.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

There is sense to your proposition that existentially the Jews have got to figure it out.

Israel controls Greater Israel. There are currently millions of Palestinians under illegal Israeli occupation. So yes, obviously they're the ones who have to figure it out. They're also the ones who have held all the cards for the past 40 years. Finally, they're the ones who stand most to lose, because all Hamas has to do is hang on until the tables eventually turn, and that is inevitable given enough time. (Though with US power declining, that time is ticking away rapidly).

So yes, Israel has got to figure something out if it knows what is good for them. Things aren't going to be pretty for Israel if it cannot find a rapprochement before large Arab nations take back control of the Middle-East after a receding American empire.

So the ICJ made it's primary ruling in favour of South Africa and against Israel.



I think it didn't make front page news in the West.

Reply to ssu Do you mean that the pro-Palestinians can be happy for such ruling? It didn't demand an immediate ceasefire nor it condemned Israel for committing a genocide.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

Really! You hold all the cards, yet I bomb your restaurants and buses, murder and outrage your people, wage wars against you, make clear I want you dead and gone and in any pause still fire rockets at you and commit any mayhem I can. And you think you hold the cards? Just who do you think is in control of the chaos, making it happen? If I bash you on the snout with a club, is it the fault/cause/responsibility of your nose? Are you a villain if you defend your nose? Have you nothing at all to say about the depredations by the Palestinians and their friends?

Not really. Hamas acts in the way resistance movements always act. Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc. It's a given. Israel won't be the first nation to find that out that moral whinging won't change the facts on the ground.

Israel on the other hand has had, certainly since 1991, the world's most powerful nation on its side and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. Israel of course sabotaged the solutions. Most notably it sabotaged the two-state solution which it was called upon to enact via (legally binding) UNSC resolutions. This sabotage is explicitly mentioned in the relevant UNSC resolutions.

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day the Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism.

Quoting tim wood

And the consequence of ignoring their role is to reduce them, implicitly making them just vermin and rats, vicious and beyond any possible responsibility, not even worth mentioning. And further implying your own thoughts are suspect or compromised, being victim to clever, unconscionable, very costly propaganda.

What a dumb comment.

Quoting tim wood

But you're right, the Israelis have got to do or die. But what right you to criticize what under necessity they have to do?!

They're not doing what is necessary. They're digging themselves deeper into a hole with every bomb they drop on Gaza.

Quoting Tzeentch

Not really. Hamas acts in the way resistance movements always act. Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc. It's a given. Israel won't be the first nation to find that out that moral whinging won't change the facts on the ground.

Yep, just a day in the park. Why doesn't Tibet do this? Hell, that's even their holy land... unlike Jerusalem which is a third-rate version.

Quoting Tzeentch

Israel on the other hand has had, certainly since 1991, the world's most powerful nation on its side and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. It of course sabotaged the solutions, most notably it sabotaged the two-state solution which it was called upon to enact via UNSC resolutions. This sabotage is explicitly mentioned in the relevant UNSC resolutions.

You are really showing your bias now.. Israel had several "dovish" leaders that made peace deals that Arafat and Abbas either rejected or made impossible to take (right of return).

Quoting Tzeentch

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism.

I'm going to. resist. urge. to copy. paste. whole. history of conflict. yet again to show how this is patently false, not even just spin.

Quoting Tzeentch

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism.

Did history not exist before the last twenty years?

Quoting Tzeentch

They're not doing what is necessary. They're digging themselves deeper into a hole with every bomb they drop on Gaza.

If you think Hamas will leave Israel alone if it did X, Y, Z measures, you would be wrong. They are not cutting off heads to ensure a peaceable solution around the table for tea. And like the Viet Cong, they want ALL of it, if they can, and will make it hard for Israel to live REALLY, not just in isolated incidents. They want to GROW how bad they can make it, not stop it once they gained a bit. But keep defending their means and ends.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Did history not exist before the last twenty years?

We can go back further if you'd like.

Israel's refusal to enact and sabotage of UNSC resolutions towards a two-state solution started all the way back in 1967.

Or would you like to talk about the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948?

Quoting Tzeentch

Israel's refusal to enact and sabotage of UNSC resolutions towards a two-state solution started all the way back in 1967.

3 No's

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

do the Israelis possess any right to be where they are?

Of course. This has nothing to do with Israel's right to exist.

What I'm laying out is how Israel can continue to exist, or, if it stays on the road it is on, can cease to exist.

I like Israel, actually. I visited Israel, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank as part of an academic tour in 2019. It was very eye-opening, and despite the fact that I like the country, it was also clear to me that the situation there as it is now simply cannot persist.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Mikie

Living through a genocide happening before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

History will view them poorly.

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire?

Quoting tim wood

Then a decent respect for those rights ought call for the inclusion of some acknowledgement of them and the attacks on them. For the rest, I agree.

Edit: As to the VC and the Taliban, the VC do not belong in this group - a separate discussion. But in glossing over who and what they are - e.g., the Taliban - you implicitly excuse them. And excusing without cause is imo a great mistake. Aesop covered this in his fable of the frog and the scorpion crossing the river, and no doubt a story even older than that.

Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation. Their tactics are tried and true, and yes, brutal. Sadly, brutal are also the tactics of the occupier and this is certainly true for Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

I'm not excusing anyone. I'm just not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground. I think both sides have acted awfully, and at some point it is just a vicious cycle where there are no "good guys" and "bad guys" anymore. There are a lot of innocent people stuck in the cross-fire though.

But it is clear that Israel controls Greater Israel and millions of Palestinians live under Israeli occupation - not the other way around.

Quoting Tzeentch

Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation.

I don't think it has to be that way. It is certainly cultural as much as anything. Why don't we see this type of violence currently in Tibet, for example?

Hell, even people in South America simply move when they are dissatisfied with the situation where they're from.. Most coming to the US, which of course causes its own problems. Many from Syria and other countries left due to conditions and are now residents, in countries like the Netherlands.

I am not trying to say, "Why don't the Palestinians move". That would be a strawman, just that cutting off heads and such isn't the only way to react. Clearly, this is chicken-or-egg phenomenon. Netanyahu essentially has co-opted the strongman approach of his Arab neighbors.. You stay in a region too long, you start becoming like the region a bit.

But almost like a college student who has posters of Che Guevera on the wall, it would be a simplistic oversimplication and perhaps even tacit consent, to merely handwave these kind of brutal reactions to one's perceived political enemy at the level of Hamas. That's my point.

Hamas suicide bombed the shit out of Israel and they voted in "strongmen". Who would have thought! If my house was bulldozed or if my grandfather was kicked out of territory, with my sense of morality as it stands now, I would damn sure NOT be cutting heads off people or supporting such causes.

Reply to schopenhauer1 As I said, I'm not playing the game of who gets to claim the moral high ground.

It goes without saying that neither side deserves any prizes in that regard.

Quoting Tzeentch

It goes without saying that neither side deserves any prizes in that regard.

Which is where I basically agree with Friedman's analysis as I see how the Israeli government has carried out the campaign. That's why I'm advocating looking at it as a system.. And I think we are but we are both saying that the other side should turn the key.

I get Israel's priority to NOT have Hamas anymore, but I of course get the Palestinian (non Hamas) who don't want to be in the midst of this current round of conflict.

What isn't discussed very much is why Israel chooses one strategy over another, and what it's advantage is, even if they don't care about world opinion. I have yet to have any real military analysis. I've been waiting for that, sans people's bias and moralizing.

Reply to Tzeentch
In regards to my last comment, a while ago I found this video from, out of all places, an Azerbaijanian-based news agency, that gave one of the better military overviews of the situation. One must keep in mind this was from months ago, so could be a bit dated with all the developments. However, it pretty much lays out why it is so difficult in terms of the lay of the land, if you will, and what it must face:

Reply to schopenhauer1 It's impossible to say what is going on on the ground in Gaza currently, but I've been skeptical about Israel's chances of success, and prior to the the start of Israel's operation the military analysts I have heard were skeptical too. Today most seem in agreement that Israel has not yet managed to deliver a serious blow to Hamas.

But ultimately Hamas is a small fish, and Israel is in a no-win situation.

If it manages to crush Hamas, it's only a matter of time until another organisation takes its place.

Even if Israel does the unthinkable and ethnically cleanses Gaza, it will not solve its problems.

Quoting neomac

Do you mean that the pro-Palestinians can be happy for such ruling? It didn't demand an immediate ceasefire nor it condemned Israel for committing a genocide.

First of all, do notice what the South African charge was.

Far better than it being thrown out of court, as Israel wanted it to do. And far better than nothing.

And also likeliest: the American lawyer (or the German on) likely wouldn't have gone against their governments that are against a ceasefire (only perhaps talking about humanitarian pauses etc.).

The UN continues to beclown itself.

[i]The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has fired 12 aid workers accused of involvement in the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel, and has launched an investigation. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said yesterday that he was "horrified" by the allegations and that those found to have been involved would be referred for potential criminal prosecution.
Germany, Australia, Finland, Italy and the U.K. joined the U.S. and Canada today in suspending funding to the agency. UNRWA employs about 13,000 Palestinians and runs schools and shelters and distributes aid across Gaza.[/i]
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna135991

Quoting RogueAI

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire?

Cool, now we suddenly care about the world court.

They should have. The reason is they’re playing it extremely cautiously. What’s more telling is that they haven’t completely dismissed the charges. It’s almost as if 10,000 dead babies is hard to ignore.

Reply to Mikie It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on.

[quote] The UN continues to beclown itself.
Reply to RogueAI

This is inevitable in such a caldron of apartheid and oppression. To characterise this as the UN as a sympathiser, or colluding with Hamas is a distortion which plays into Israel’s hands.

Now the UN is compromised, a coalition of international funders of aid has pulled out. Who just happen to be Israel’s main Western supporters.

And 2 million Palestinians face imminent starvation.

Israel will be bellicose in its cries blaming others for the genocide now.

[quote] What’s the failure?
Reply to schopenhauer1

Simply The West can only see barbarians and the Arab world can only see infidels. Your own description of Hamas portrays them as barbarians, understandably. To Hamas Israel are imperial colonisers, understandably.

There is a massive cultural divide which has been there and reinforced for over a thousand years.

It would be very strange for the ICJ to demand a cease-fire for several reasons.


First, this is an interim ruling - not a definitive ruling. Basically the court has said that, based on the South African case, there is reason to believe Israel may be planning and/or perpetrating a genocide. Had the court felt there was no such indication, the case would have been dismissed.

Second, under the conditions of the Gaza war a decision for a cease-fire should be taken in the UN Security Council, even for so simple a reason as that the UN has no way to impose a cease-fire without overwhelming international support and agreement of the warring parties.

Third, calling for a cease-fire may call into question the court's impartiality.


I think the court was wise in its decision not to call for a cease-fire. The message that the Israeli government may indeed be harboring genocidal intentions towards Gaza is strong enough on its own.

In other words, a big step toward nothing but enough for pro-Palestinians to claim there is reason to believe Israel [s]may be[/s] is actually planning and/or perpetrating a genocide?

[quote] I'm well aware that this is a problem - perhaps the central problem. Equal rights for Palestinians is not compatible with the idea of a Jewish nation state.
Reply to Tzeentch

Yes, I agree with your analysis, my pessimism might be slightly greater than yours though.

I come back to the moral argument I laid out a couple of days ago. That the Jewish people have been wronged, exiled for 2,900yrs. The trauma and modification in their culture to adapt to this runs deep.
Somehow they are transferring some of this pain onto the Palestinian people.

Also I refer to my point about the human condition. Human frailty, that we like to think ourselves as moral thinking actors, but so often find ourselves falling back into tribal and survival behaviours which we have evolved in us over millions of years.

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world.

Quoting Punshhh

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world.

I think there indeed was an opportunity for a real shift, but in my opinion that window has closed

The US during its 30 year period of hegemony simply continued its zero-sum politics, using the "rules-based order" to its advantage, and thereby completely destroying the legitimacy of said rules-based order.*

Now the counterbalancing powers (Russia, China, Iran, etc.) have thrown down the gauntlet and said: "If you're not going to follow the rules, neither will we."

Therefore I think that ship has sailed. The UN will continue to serve an important function as it has, but mostly as a reflection of state power and policy rather than a shaper of geopolitics.


*Note how the US/Israel are now attempting to delegitimize the UN as revenge for the ICJ ruling.

Quoting Punshhh

It’s a moral argument. An argument about the concept that the Jewish people have been wronged by the world (civilisation). That the current conflict is a symptom of this wrong and that to resolve this crisis this wrong will need to be put right in some way.

“Modern civilisation” for me is the human world of the last 2000yrs or so. Or perhaps from the point of the exile of the Jews in 800 BC, or thereabouts*. This whole period of civilisation was involved in the wrong and the evolution of the psychology and narrative of the state, or geopolitics of this time.

As I said, I’m more into conceptual analysis, so I can be very picky about semantic ambiguities depending on how claims are worded. In your case, it seems you are semantically equating “world” and “(modern) civilisation”, and take both as referring to some appropriate subject of moral assessment. But first questions that come to mind are: which Mongol, Peruvian, Islander, Lapp, Inca, Sumerian, Japanese, Congolese, Sri Lankan, Cherokee, Gypsy morally wronged Jewish people, if they are part of the world or civilization? Which American, German, Russian, Arab, Iranian, Palestinian, Swiss, French, Spaniard, Irish, Pole did morally wrong the Jewish people exactly, if we are all part of the world or (modern) civilization? How did I myself and you morally wrong the Jewish people exactly, if we are all part of the world or (modern) civilization? How did the Jewish people morally wrong themselves exactly, if they are all part of the world or (modern) civilization?
Folk sociological claims (descriptive or normative) concerning groups (and their members), like "the Jews have been morally wronged by the world or (modern) civilization", are sorts of claims we all often make in political debates. But they are full of ambiguities about their intension and extension (to me, absolutely worth investigating). One remarkable trait of such claims is that they are often provided and/or consumed not just or primarily to the extent they accurately inform us about what they refer to, but to the extent they accurately inform us about who is making such claims. In other words, they are taken as tokens of some social identity. For instance, claiming that Israel is genocidal, may more accurately inform us that the one claiming it is pro-Palestinian, than that Israel is actually genocidal.


Quoting Punshhh

If one doesn’t accept this moral argument then we are not anymore addressing the moral argument applicable to this crisis. That’s fine, but we will be ignoring an important facet of the issue.

To me it’s not even clear what such moral argument is supposed to be. Once it is enough clear we can investigate its grounds. So my challenge to you is the following: instead of expecting me to be charitable in understanding your moral argument, try to formulate it as precisely as you can. You’ll eventually see, I think, that’s not easy task at all, to put it mildly.



Quoting Punshhh

The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.


Quite, and what do you put it down to?

* I accept that civilisation over the last 2000yrs or so is complex with a dynamic geopolitics and is not confined to The West. However I would argue that this whole period is involved in the development of the current global zeitgeist.

My bad, I should have written “why we feel so powerless over this conflict” (let’s call it “emotional claim”) instead of “why we are powerless over this conflict” (let’s call it “factual claim”). Yet there is a link between the two claims. I would argue that the factual claim is very much related to what you yourself pointed out, the complex dynamic of geopolitics. But the emotional claim best hints at a clash between expectations and reality. So one may wonder about the genesis of such expectations. My suspicion is that we are inadvertently tempted to infer factual expectations (how people would act in certain circumstances) from prescriptive claims (how people should morally act in certain circumstances). And the problem is that if prescriptive claims can fail in guiding our expectations about reality, aren’t our moral beliefs blinding our understanding of reality? So how can we better deal with reality (in a moral sense), if morality doesn’t help us understand reality in the first place? Aren’t we maybe getting the whole point of moral reasoning wrong? I would argue that THIS ISSUE is what makes the complex dynamic of geopolitics morally problematic more than ANY PLAUSIBLE AMOUNT OF cynical exploitative greediness of evil elites, imperialism and military-industrial complex.

Quoting RogueAI

It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on.

No.

Reply to Tzeentch Yes, I can’t see a global coalition forming at the moment, although it might not be necessary. A coalition of Middle Eastern leaders might be able to get somewhere.

I don’t hold out much hope though as the US, U.K. and EU are holding the line of supporting the side with overwhelming power. And as you say this is not going to help Israel in the long run.

If Israel fails and even evacuates, the trauma on the Jewish people will compound the previous trauma of exile.

The BRICS grouping is evidence of an alternative to US hegemony. However I doubt it will result in much turmoil. I see us moving into a period of three great powers, or fortresses, the US, the EU and China. Who will cooperate to maintain some stability for their members and close allies. With many failed states struggling outside. With climate change becoming the big crisis on people’s minds.

Quoting Tzeentch

For one, because of simple metrics like population and geographics

Well, they've managed for a good while, almost surrounded by hostiles/unfriendlies in superior numbers on the ground. (Though not exactly all as efficiently as Entebbe 1976.) Looking back, I kind of get the impression that they built out a (modern) society in a desert, however discriminatory/thefty.

Quoting Tzeentch

and secondly because Israel's treatment of the Palestinian people is giving its neighbors common cause against it.

The fires have been going for a good while, not new, and those hostiles/unfriendlies have been and remain one reason for their zeal in the first place. But, yes, they're not helping any reconciliation. Third-party (neutral) intervention/involvement may be necessary, though seemingly rejected by both parties.

@schopenhauer1, are you making a case for ...



... ? :)

Quoting Mikie

Living through a genocide [s]happening[/s] before our eyes, with 10000+ children dead, and yet apologists think this time it’s an exception.

History will view them poorly

:up: :up:

Quoting RogueAI

Why didn't the ICJ demand a cease-fire?

C'mon, the ICJ issued a report that's only preliminary and is not a UN policy-making agency.

Reply to Mikie Quoting Mikie

It's almost like they don't really believe a genocide is going on.
— RogueAI

No.

Reply to Mikie

I encourage you to read Judge Sebutide's view.

https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203449

"During the oral proceedings in the present case, it was brought to the attention of the Court that South Africa, and in particular certain organs of government, have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a cordial relationship with the leadership of Hamas. If that is the case, then one would encourage South Africa as a party to these proceedings and to the Genocide Convention, to use whatever influence they might wield, to try and persuade Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the remaining hostages, as a good will gesture. I have no doubt that such a gesture of good will would go a very long way in defusing the current conflict in Gaza."

Reply to BitconnectCarlos

What a shocker you choose her. There’s little chance she wrote that anyway.

I encourage you to read what the other 15 judges said.

Quoting jorndoe

Well, they've managed for a good while, almost surrounded by hostiles/unfriendlies in superior numbers on the ground. (Though not exactly all as efficiently as Entebbe 1976.) Looking back, I kind of get the impression that they built out a (modern) society in a desert, however discriminatory/thefty.

Yes they have, but mostly on the basis of the supremacy of Western technology and doctrine. Today the power balance is different, and of course most important of all, the United States may be too occupied elsewhere to stage a large intervention in the case things go south.

Many of Israel's regional rivals are no longer militarily naive and backwards. They have figured out the American (and thus the Israeli) way of war, and have found ways to combat it, mostly through asymmetric warfare.

To put it in simple terms, if we compare Israel's population with that of its neighbors, we can only conclude that once those neighbors get even remotely competent Israel will stand no chance in a military engagement.

Three US servicemen killed and 34 wounded.

WASHINGTON, Jan 28 (Reuters) - Three U.S. service members were killed and at least 34 wounded in a drone attack by Iran-backed militants on U.S. troops in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border, President Joe Biden and U.S. officials said on Sunday.

Jan 28th (Al Jazeera) - The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iran-backed armed groups, claimed attacks targeting three bases, including one on the Jordan-Syria border.

Jordan condemned on Sunday the “terrorist attack” on a military advance post just inside its border with Syria and said it was cooperating with Washington to secure its frontier.

The pro-Iranian group IRI has been already attacking US forces inside Iraq.

Also, the war on shipping is going on, even after the US and UK strikes. Now a UK-based tanker carrying Russian nafta was attacked in the Red Sea by a Houthi ballistic missile. Indian, French and US naval vessels came to the help of the ship.



What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel.

At some time then Joe Biden has to make counterstrikes, or face the possibility to be viewed upon as a weak dick. Thus you have a perfect vicious circle. Naturally the American population isn't eager for a new (or continued) war in the Middle East, which limits the options here.

It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.

[quote] It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.
Reply to ssu

And Israel too, presumably?

Quoting ssu

What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself, but works well especially for Bibi. If Israel (or the US) attacks Iranian assets in lets say Lebanon and Syria (as has been done), Iran let's it "Axis of Resistance" go on with their agenda by giving them materiel.

I agree.

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests.

Quoting Punshhh

And Israel too, presumably?

Nope. Nuclear deterrence works. Especially when the other side doesn't have nuclear weapons. And I guess the Israelis, unlike the Americans who live on another continent, have an incentive to stay in the Middle East. Israel won't go away. Although in their propaganda they say that it's them who are on the verge of being wiped out.

And likely then the US can have it's bases in Israel. And perhaps one in Qatar for some time, because Qatar has made Saudi-Arabia so angry that they might correctly assume that it's good to keep the Americans around.

Perhaps the US can have an actual defence treaty with Israel? Why not, when the policy has gone from CENTO -> Twin Pillars -> to what, "Arab (Muslim) Containment?"

Then the US is just like the UK and France, the past colonial masters are: there to sell weapons to the Arabs, but not anything else. After all, doesn't the US want to pivot to the Far East?

There's ample reasons actually to think that this might happen. It's simply the "fatigue"-factor. Just like the leaving of Afghanistan on it's own was a deliberate policy by both a Republican and a Democrat administration, why then to hang around in Iraq or Syria? Holding there troops just creates an easy target for radical Islamic groups to attack them (as the bases are where they live). What's the purpose? When is the last time you have heard the term War on Terror being said anymore?

It's not the US military. It's the US politicians themselves: they likely don't see anything else than supporting Israel to be beneficial for them in their own political careers.

Reply to ssu I see what you were saying now, it was about the US withdrawing their bases from the Middle East. I was thinking more in terms of the US retreating in their support for Israel if there is a wider war.

Anyway, I don’t see a fortress, a defiant Israel feeling secure in the Middle East having ethnically cleansed Palestine. They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future.

Reply to neomac I’m not looking to make a formal moral argument, rather to seek a cause for the Israel Palestine conflict. I see the reality of the Jewish Diaspora over the last 2,000yrs or so having to live as immigrants in other countries, exiled from their homeland with no homeland of their own as a possible cause.
There are examples of other ethnic groups where something similar has happened, including the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli’s after the formation of Israel. I could list these disposed peoples, but I expect you already know.
It is human nature to feel wronged when dispossessed of their home and often they feel resentful, or seek to regain their home. On other occasions they might internalise the trauma and try to live with it, make the best of it. But what if it were to keep happening every few hundred years for 2,000yrs, culminating in the Holocaust. That would inevitably become internalised and cause those people to behave in a different way to peoples who had not been dispossessed. Even to visit what they experienced on some other group.

Quoting ssu

Although in their propaganda they say that it's them who are on the verge of being wiped out.

Reply to ssu

Antisemitism has once again become normalized; Jews are seen as the oppressors by 2/3 in Gen Z and 1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth. The First Minister of Scotland gave a holocaust address where he never once mentioned Jews. We have seen the erasure of Jewish suffering since 10/7 with everything being deserved because Jews are deemed the oppressors. Hostage posters torn down. Jewish restaurants destroyed and terrorized around the world. Some of the older Jews have compared this environment to the 1930s -- not a second holocaust, but scary.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Antisemitism has once again become normalized; Jews are seen as the oppressors by 2/3 in Gen Z

This first part has nothing to do with antisemitism and it's simply true if we ignore the convenient conflation nobody here has busied.

Reply to Punshhh All right. I would still add that for both Palestinians and Israelis the problem is not just the idea of being historically wronged and dispossessed but also the pursuit of a political status, that of a nation state (very much a Western idea). And nation state formation has been historically proven to be very bloody, if not genocidal. Besides there is the clash of religious factions that is complicating things from biblical times, so not strictly related to the wrongs that the Jewish people suffered in their recent history or Palestinians suffered from the recent history of the Zionist project.

Quoting Mikie

History will view them poorly.

Why wait for history? I already do.

Quoting ssu

What I see here is a process of the US slowly but determinedly sucked into the quagmire of a Middle Eastern conflict, which isn't beneficial for itself

A ton of cargo goes through the Red Sea and Gulf, so it is strategic, as with everything in that region. Also, it's good to back up allies, period. The US would indeed look weak if they don't back up allies in a region that also has strategic interests- as they have done in the past, like WW2, But I don't blame certain European attitudes for this I guess. It's nice to sit pretty with small homogeneous populations (except for "immigrants" from which causes their own "populist/nativist" divisions, even within Europe) with budgets for welfare states after WW2 and centuries of the bloodiest of conflicts and massive colonization and imperialistic World Domination projects by the biggest of the states... So I guess, let the Middle East implode in its genocidal project to only be safe for extremist versions of various Muslim sects. It's already failed at trying Western versions of shitty forms of government (Bathists/ Nasserism etc.).

If the US made strange unwise bedfellows with strategic anti-Soviet interests, European Leftists should watch for the same unwise bedfellows with extremist Islamist interests. It is a shame the Mid East is not as non-strategic as most parts of sub-Saharan Africa or Micronesia or something.

Reply to jorndoe
I'm not sure where you got that.. Though, I did just mention Quoting schopenhauer1

o I guess, let the Middle East implode in its genocidal project to only be safe for extremist versions of various Muslim sects. It's already failed at trying Western versions of shitty forms of government (Bathists/ Nasserism etc.).

But no, I don't actually think the Middle East should implode.. If you mean my reference to the "Thunderdome" type morality of Hamas and other extremist sects, sure. And Israel has been co-opted by such logic in its need to destroy Hamas at all costs and not having a clear plan for the day after. However, I don't blame Israel for wanting to get rid of Hamas. Hamas said what they wanted, they did what they said, and they have shown that in the past, like the suicide campaigns of the 90s-2000s. Also, when given freedom to actually "govern" some territory, they acted like the belligerents they were and put all the extra money into armaments and not growing a thriving region, or other avenues of peaceful existence, which may have led to different outcomes. I honestly couldn't fathom them doing so, so yeah, Israel is to blame in the sense of cynically thinking they might be better than Fatah. However, I think it was mostly because they didn't want to interfere. Kicking the can down the road has made it that much harder to get rid of them. Of course, if Israel tried to interfere more strongly back twenty years ago, they would have also been criticized for interfering, so Israel just can't win, and which is why they largely just ignore the gaslighting of Leftists, which I get. It works with those who already agree on a philosophy forum though.

I will agree that Israel should never have kept the West Bank and Gaza, but I also get that having strategic land which they could negotiate for peace (since at the time of 1967, no Arab state (including the newly formed PLO), wanted Israel to even exist).. I think the failed negotiations of 25 years+ ago and Hamas' stepped up attacks at that time, had unfortunately killed the Israeli will to vote in more dovish governments, and despite my hardline against the LEFTISTS on THIS FORUM, I actually am on the side of the (diminished) Doves in this whole conflict, DESPITE the hateful/one-sided rhetoric of the Leftists.

Quoting Benkei

That's not how criminal law works though.

While I see where you're going, you cannot read across from Criminal law (which is messier than you make it sound - and as a direct analogy, Palestine is hte aggressor here, without any debate and 'criminally' speaking would be the only party liable to be charged - until we look at proportionality).

International Law and Rules of Engagement are not analogous. In criminal law self-defense is both a variable, and messy set of rules. But, there is no occasion (barring a Charles Whitman scenario) on which a court would not find you responsibility for your actions.
We're not arguing about responsibility for death, but actions. If you want to argue about whether or not a particular act comes under 'self-defense'., particularly in war, you're going to need far more specific language and context to make a call than that "self-defense' applies, in any given instance. Which is what I take you to be trying to do here. But you can't.

Quoting Tzeentch

Israel is sensing US overstretch, and realizes that if the US now gets stuck in a conflict elsewhere, say Korea, Taiwan, etc. Israel may be on its own for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are trying to make sure the conflict the US eventually gets stuck in is the one that borders on their interests.

That is plausible.

Yet what is I think totally clear is that the Israeli government has not much here in long term thinking. Bibi is just hanging there, so I don't think he has his sights in the long term. The right-wing government has seen this as a crisis where they can attempt to do what they want, but likely it's going to backfire.

Quoting Punshhh

They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future.

Actually John Mersheimer said the reality quite well: The Israeli Lobby, just as any successful lobby, is basically part of the US system of lobbying. It's there just like the gun lobby is. Not only are there many Jewish Americans, but also the Evangelical support for Israel that will be there also in the future. Only something really terrible, actually, could make this to change. I don't see that for instance AIPAC would anytime need to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

What this means that the umblical cord goes actually the other way. Bibi can be very confident that the US will do what Israel wants, because of having this lobby group made of Americans supporting his country no matter what. No other country has this kind of influence over the US, which makes the situation quite unusual.

Reply to ssu Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too.

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

And in Israel, meanwhile...

Settlement Mega-event Calls for Jewish Return to Gaza

A third of Netanyahu's cabinet was present.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Antisemitism has once again become normalized

Criticism of the actions of the Israeli state gives also the antisemites an opportunity to act. This is unfortunately the way how this goes in other examples too: the opposition of Putin's attack into Ukraine has also brought hostility towards Russians and acts of Russofobia in general. Yet many Russians, especially those outside of Russia, don't at all support Putin. But many will simply generalize their opposition of the actions of the Russian state to being against Russians in general.

This Israeli administration will especially fervently promote the idea that being critical about the policies of the state of Israel is antisemitism.



Yet the question was if Israel will survive. That Israel will survive is a fact, a no brainer: it has a nuclear deterrent (it's neighbors don't), it enjoys military superiority over it's neighbors and it has the unwavering support of the US. But I guess it's convenient to portray Israel as the little guy facing off a huge powerful menace. Remarks like Israel will be forced out as the Crusader states earlier are similar conspiracy bullshit like Europe will become Muslim and the original Europeans will be replaced.

Quoting Punshhh

Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too.

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

Then let's assume the Arabs somehow, get their lines together and having such integration that the Arab league countries can coordinate their armed forces like NATO countries. Put them all together with the ability for the armies to fight together and that would make the situation different. Add even perhaps nukes from Pakistan, so there would be nuclear parity.

Why wouldn't this be an existential threat to Israel? Because the likely outcome would then be a two state solution. Faced with a nuclear balance, true possibility of losing a war, especially if the Israeli lobby would fail creating enough Islamophobia against this new version of the Arab League, then a two state solution would be on the table.

And once that is done, what would be incentive for then this alliance to endanger itself with a nuclear war with Israel? It's a common cause in the Arab realm, but somehow we miss that people still are rational actors, even if they muslim. Yet somehow the idea of "mad mullahs" wanting to blow up Israel (and themselves) is taken as real possibility. It only holds in the realm of propaganda.

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

Reply to ssu

But the biggest attack on the US since WW2 was carried out with a camping knife. Yes in terms of conventional weaponry Isreal is far more powerful. But if they are defiant against their neighbours then they will have to be an isolated fortress. A sitting duck bristling with weapons. Any interaction with their neighbours would compromise their security.

Going back to the umbilical chord, is this really what the US wants to be tied to? Especially if the ICJ verdict is that genocide and ethnic cleansing has happened. Look at the power brokers involved, Trump and Netanyahu, Biden is a rational actor in this, but the US political situation is on a precipice and helpless to correct it. Even a civil war may not be far off in the US.

I heard a U.S. general on the radio just yesterday saying that this is our chance to take Iran out. We should go in hard now. Presumably taking their eye off the ball in Ukraine.

I agree that the risk of the Middle East becoming a collection of failed states is high. But then Israel becomes even more isolated and perhaps paranoid (they seem to be paranoid now).

[quote] All right. I would still add that for both Palestinians and Israelis the problem is not just the idea of being historically wronged and dispossessed but also the pursuit of a political status, that of a nation state (very much a Western idea). And nation state formation has been historically proven to be very bloody, if not genocidal. Besides there is the clash of religious factions that is complicating things from biblical times, so not strictly related to the wrongs that the Jewish people suffered in their recent history or Palestinians suffered from the recent history of the Zionist project.

Reply to neomac

Yes it’s a very complex situation, but not at all unique and inevitable when territory is invaded/colonised and the existing population expelled and treated as second class citizens, through some form of apartheid.
Indeed there is another similar conflict in Myanmar happening now. In which the Rohingya ethnic minority for example are suffering a brutal ethic cleansing.

I suppose what is different here is that the ethnic cleansing is being carried out and endorsed by Western forces who are bound by human rights protocols and live by, or so they proclaim the morality of free and fair societies. Or in other words by the US via its client state Isreal and fully endorsed by the U.K. the previous colonial power in the region. Following promises and treaties guaranteeing to a degree autonomy and territory to the population now being cleansed. (I realise that the U.K. has done this before in other territories in the 19th century).

So what has gone wrong in this case?

Well there are two sides, attacks have been going on from both sides for decades, so it didn’t start on 7th October. That was just a point of escalation. The situation has become gradually worse over decades in a situation of apartheid rule by one side. So it would seem to me that the blame, or root of this crisis lies in the rule of the ruling side. The ruling side insists always that it is it’s oppressed population which is the root of the problem. Again this narrative is a symptom of what’s wrong in the rule of the ruling side.

This leaves me in the position where there is a crisis caused by a problem in the rule of Israel. What is going on in Israel which finds itself unable to live in peace and deescalate relations with its oppressed population.

One possibility is that apartheid states always fail. But if this is the case, surely the rulers of Israel would have realised by now that their apartheid rule will eventually fail. But rather than realise this, they have just increased the oppression, in a cycle of repeated conflict and greater increases in oppression. Accompanied by a gradually more extreme politics. With extreme meaning less rational and more oppressive.

So in conclusion I reach the point where the entire responsibility for the situation lies in the psyche of the ruling elites in Israel. With a side order of some osmosis with the US.

A failed attempt at nation building perhaps?

[quote] A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

Reply to Tzeentch

Good speech, sums it up nicely.

Quoting Punshhh

But the biggest attack on the US since WW2 was carried out with a camping knife.

Box cutters. And I think the heavy laden with fuel passenger jets were the actual weapons.

Besides, if the 1990's attackers to the Twin towers had achieved (which is totally possible) even one Twin tower collapsing immediately, the death toll could have been 20 000. Something similar to what now in Gaza have been killed. Yet they didn't, only some people were killed and thus the US justice department, the FBI and the New York court was able to find them (from Pakistan), sentence them and put them into an ordinary prison.

Even so, that isn't anywhere near something being existential. But what it's all about is seeking revenge. And milking that feeling for other objectives.

Quoting Punshhh

But if they are defiant against their neighbours then they will have to be an isolated fortress. A sitting duck bristling with weapons. Any interaction with their neighbors would compromise their security.

How so? Arab League countries have come a long way from the Khartoum Resolution. So why this assumption of any interaction being impossible?

It's Bibi's favorite line that negotiated peace is an impossibility. (One that he is proud to have derailed earlier.)

[quote] How so?
Reply to ssu
I did say if the ICJ verdict is genocide and the ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine people has happened.
I’m thinking in terms of terrorist action. I don’t doubt that eventually the Arab League would be able to reach some sort of peace with Israel. But I think the rubicon has been crossed when it comes to terrorist action.

Israel would be condemned to a future of repeated suicide bombings and other terrorist action. I’m not sure the Israeli people would put up with this, so would become isolated.

One clear headed and sobering interview with a Norwegian diplomat that participated in the Oslo peace process. From the interview comes many interesting insights about the now dead peace process:

a) The Madrid-talks put everything in action, that thanks to the US.
b) When Arafats PLO sided with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it really angered the Gulf States and cut their support of the PLO and thus Arafat found himself in a tight spot.
c) Norway had relations with the PLO.
d) Norwegian social democrats had very close ties with the Israeli Labor party, hence Norway could act as an intermediary.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth.

Not trying to be facetious - but do you have a source for this? My children are gen Z and this seems laughable to me... Would like to know if something so ridiculous was really going on :)

Reply to AmadeusD

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/12/07/one-in-five-young-americans-thinks-the-holocaust-is-a-myth

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Cheers, I actually found the document pretty quickly here

That is wild my dude. Absolutely wild. Quite wild also, that its nearly double the number of Dems v Cons. It has never, across three continents, been my experience that it's a 'left wing' position to either take a-historical positions, or to be anti-Jewish (i don't say anti-Semitic as this could, conceivably, be a result of bad education or indoctrination rather than some ethnic axe grinding exercise - but, that's optimistic).

Though, I also note, its significantly more Black and Hispanic Americans. Could there be something going on there? Stats demand weird questions...

Quoting Punshhh

But I think the rubicon has been crossed when it comes to terrorist action.

Ummm.... just who has crossed the Rubicon? Or have both crossed the Rubicon? :shade:

South Africa would have gotten for it's case more examples for it's case, had it made it's case after the past Sunday Settler meeting with the banner “Settlement Brings Security in Victory”, which was accompanied by twelve Israeli ministers.

(Democracy Now! Jan 31st 2024) This event was significant because thousands of people took part in it in West Jerusalem. They gathered in a big hall. I could say half of the participants were youth or college students. And you had mostly religious right-wing settlers.

There at the entrance, you had a big map, a huge map, showing the different settlements they plan to establish in the Gaza Strip, some of them literally on top of Palestinian villages and towns that exist and, of course, unfortunately, were destroyed by the Israeli aggression in the recent months.

Inside the hall, we had speeches of, as you said, ministers, parliament members. Four out of five of the — representatives of four out of five of the parties that are in the coalition of Netanyahu’s government were there, 11 ministers and 15 parliament members, so a big support from the government, and also settlers’ leaders and activists.

For me, personally, the most shocking thing was not only the plan to establish the settlements, but the fact that people there were dancing and singing, being happy and joyful. And this is important to understand that in the Israeli public atmosphere, this is something you barely see since the attack of 7 of October. You don’t see public events where people are joyful, not because, you know, most of the Israeli public ignore the horrific reality in Gaza, but because of the war, because of the attack of 7th of October, because Israeli soldiers are being killed every day in the war. You don’t see many of those events. And it shocked even mainstream Israelis to see ministers and people who take those decisions regarding the war dancing, was very shocking for many people. And I think this is because while the vast or big parts of the Israeli public is still in shock, the settler movement see this war as an opportunity to expand their plans to settle in Gaza.

Oren Ziv continues:

[quote]One could think that after ministers and the prime minister himself were quoted in the South African appeal to the court — this were the evidence, actually, what the Israeli politician, the genocidal discourse they were promoting in the beginning of the war — one could think they will be a bit more careful. But the opposite. This was not — it’s important to mention this was not only a conference talking about settling in Gaza. It was very clear, and most of the speakers talked about what they call is the encouraging immigration or forcing people from Gaza. So it’s very clear that the settlement movement is on the account of the residents of Gaza.

Daniella Weiss, one of the settlers’ leader who was leading the conference, when we asked her, “What would happen to the Palestinians if your plans come true?” she said, “They would leave. They would have to leave. We don’t give them food. We don’t give them water.” She was talking about the siege. And she said, “They would leave. They would have to spread around the world.” Also, Minister Ben-Gvir, who was a bit more careful in his language, said, “We have to encourage immigration from Gaza.” So this was a consensus in the conference.[/Quote]

Interestingly, even the German media (which usually is quite pro-Israeli) picked on this:



I think that @Benkei starts to be correct: there is really an urge for ethnic cleansing here. It's not anymore an emotional outburst after the horrors of October 7th. Even if there are Israelis that are against this, they aren't in control. Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control.

Reply to ssu This has been my point for nearly a decade because of what Likud stands for and Herut before that. This is just accelerating due to the 7 October attack and now obvious but it's been the game plan for them for decades now. A slow genocide is still a genocide.

Quoting ssu

Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control.

I thought this was given - it's just also assumed that Netanyahu is representative of a religious right-wing, and not Israel in general.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well.

Ummm.... just who has crossed the Rubicon? Or have both crossed the Rubicon? :shade:

Reply to ssu
I mean Israel has now crossed the Rubicon. In the future even if they are able to have good relations with their neighbours, they will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Because their action will spawn many anti-Israel terrorists.

Quoting Benkei

This has been my point for nearly a decade because of what Likud stands for and Herut before that. This is just accelerating due to the 7 October attack and now obvious but it's been the game plan for them for decades now.

It's telling how Israel has changed.

When you have a perpetual low-intensity war for decades that isn't fought somewhere away, this is the end result, I guess. The settler movement naturally is as old (and actually older) than the state of Israel, however the stances and rhetoric have hardened to such level that it's very worrisome. Or at least, it's totally acceptable now to say them in public. Israel is still a democracy in the way Apartheid Sou th Africa was a democracy for the whites, but the perpetual war has changed it.

Why Netanyahu and the right have been so successful comes basically also down to the US. Having lived for a long time in the US, Bibi is understands the US and knows how to speak to the American audience. In this way he is different from the earlier Israeli politicians.

Why the US has changed to being totally loyal and obedient to Israel without making any actual criticism is because of the Evangelist support of Israel in the US. The Jewish-American support wouldn't do this as there are only seven million or so Jewish Americans. Besides, many of the Jewish-Americans can be critical of the politics playing out in Israel, just like Israelis can be. But for the millions of Evangelists supporting Israel is an issue of faith, not about foreign policy in any traditional sense. Hence total devotion to everything that Bibi wants. The rest happens because of the US political system: if a lobby gets a powerful position in US politics, American politicians will bow to the lobby and take on their agenda fearing the votes they would lose in doing otherwise.

Quoting Punshhh

I mean Israel has now crossed the Rubicon. In the future even if they are able to have good relations with their neighbours, they will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Because their action will spawn many anti-Israel terrorists.

Yes. I would add that this is the result when both sides, actually, approach the issue really from a religious position with religious determination. For Hamas the Palestinians killed are martyrs, for the religious right in Israel this war is an opportunity, which you can celebrate by dancing.



Politics going back to the 1930's... at least in a way it rhymes.

Quoting AmadeusD

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well.

Ability to do something is important also. And naturally with the Palestinians, the PA has been quite well sidelined and the message hammered to the Palestinians that they are going to be pushed out (in Gaza now, but perhaps in the West Bank later too), so only way is to fight.

As I've said, the religious zealots are in control on both sides, even if not all from both sides are religious zealots.

Quoting Punshhh

the ethnic cleansing is being carried out and endorsed by Western forces who are bound by human rights protocols and live by, or so they proclaim the morality of free and fair societies

That’s a problem indeed. But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself. For example: what makes us think that there is a practical contradiction (i.e. what one claims to do or be committed to do does not correspond to what one is actually doing) between state X sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society, and military/economically/diplomatically support another state Y which is widely perceived of pursuing ethnic cleansing and committing war crimes, even inside state X and state Y? There would be a practical contradiction , for example if we assume that “sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society” broadly logically implies an unconditional commitment wrt any other population of any other state in all circumstances. Indeed, if one state acted in a way that does not correspond to “an unconditional commitment wrt any other population of any other state in all circumstances” then one can logically infer that it would practically contradict also the engagement expressed by “sponsoring and proclaiming commitment to human rights, free and fair society”.
However I find this assumption rather implausible for historical and geopolitical reasons, and even paradoxical if this claim is meant to imply that sovereign states should sacrifice their right to self-defence for humanitarian reasons.
Concerning historical reasons, the violent nature of nation-state formation practically in the entire world history should discourage optimism over pacific conflict resolutions over nation-state formations.
Concerning the geopolitical reasons, the international order (including the international agreements and institutions) is grounded on sovereign states’ consensus and power relations. The problem is that political imperative for sovereign nation-states is ideally to pursue their national interest even at the expense of other foreign people and sovereign states, even more so if they feel threatened by people perceived as hostile and which are not even recognized as part of a sovereign state. So I would find much more reasonable to take commitments for humanitarian reasons as very much conditional on national interests imperatives and power relations, which doesn’t exclude margins of cooperation if national interests converge enough. That said, I can also understand that it may be more convenient to present such commitments in the best light possible for “physiological” soft-power or propaganda needs. Yet this choice has reputational risks/costs attached to it, which sovereign states may seriously need to take into account (but struggle/fail to do it successfully, of course).

Addendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/874592

If the Netanyahu regime walks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propagandized as self-defense' and talks like 'genocide / ethnic cleansing propaganized as self-defense' – while they mass murder tens of thousands (to date) and have mass displaced (via e.g. domicide) over two million Palestinian noncombatants – then, as a US court has recently found (separately from the ICJ's interim report), maybe... :chin:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/01/genocide-gaza-israel-california-court

@BitconnectCarlos @RogueAI @schopenhauer1 @tim wood et al

Reply to 180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag.

Reply to 180 Proof

Blame Hamas for militarizing schools, homes and hospitals and endangering their population. There was no need for destruction to be this widespread, but when an enemy does not wear a uniform and militarizes their entire population neutralizes comes at a cost. Hamas commits constant war crimes and indiscriminately murders, while Israel allows in aid and takes comprehensive steps to minimize casualties.

https://amnesty.org.nz/unlawful-israeli-strikes-kill-civilians

Just going to leave this here to stoke discussion.

I don't take either side's claims (akin to BitconnectCarlos' take there) seriously, but i'm seeing far less vivacious posting around Israel's war crimes.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Bibi's policy of supporting Hamas since 2004 has been expressly to sabotage any "Two State Solution" by keeping the Palestinian population divided between the secular PLA in the West Bank that accepts 'Israel's right to exist' and a religious extremist militia in Gaza that strives to destroy Israel. Netanyahu & co have spent decades creating their own excuses, or pretexts, for systematically massacring and eventually driving the Palestinian population out of Palestinian lands. Lebensraum / Manifest Destiny aka "Greater Israel" policy! What the Irgun & co started in 1947-49, Bibi's Zion-über-alles regime is bloodthirstily hellbent on finishing in 2023-2025.

Quoting Benkei

?180 Proof You're just biased and the guardian is a leftist rag.

You're damn right, comrade! :mask:

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Still making excuses for the inexcusable and victim blaming at the same time. Classy.

Reply to Benkei Still shrugging off the intentional murder, kidnapping and rape of innocents because they happened to be born Israeli as "resistance against Israel" while palestinian victims are the greatest tragedy known to humanity? Classy.

Reply to 180 Proof

The PLA and Hamas are roughly of equal shittiness. The PLA has a martyrs fund that pays out funds to the families of those who kill Israelis. I don't hate the strategy of playing the two against each other. Both strive to destroy Israel.

Reply to BitconnectCarlos Funny how you keep insisting on that interpretation. What does that say about you?

Edit: edited your comment after my reply. Also classy.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

[quote] And it seems to me the Israeli claim for the well-being and return of the hostages is even more valid, and they may very well "rake" for them.
Reply to tim wood
They’ll be raking for them in the soil, for that is all that will be left of Gaza.

Quoting ssu

But I guess it's convenient to portray Israel as the little guy facing off a huge powerful menace.

Reply to ssu

It very well can be; it depends on the scale. Are we talking just the IDF vs Hamas? Then obviously no. But what if it's Israel versus the muslim world/those who strive to spread Islam? Then it does start to look a bit like that.

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen and the world will very much let it happen. Israel as a state is still a baby.

Regarding anti-semitism, the scale of it is shocking if you look at the stats. Cultural factors have me worried as well. Jews are the canary in the coal mine.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. Jews know very well that the unthinkable can happen [...]

This is certainly true, and Israel is doing just about everything it can to boycot it's own long-term prospects of peace and prosperity through its constant belligerence.

The problem is that during the last half century Israel has felt it could get away with anything due to Uncle Sam's unconditional support.

Religious ultranationalists (represented by Likud, for example) have foolishly attempted to seize this as an opportunity to turn Israel into a strictly Jewish nation state by force, despite the obvious problem of millions of non-Jews living on the territory it calls its own.

Furthermore, it has concluded that in order for that strictly Jewish state to survive, it must become the dominant player in the region and therefore cannot allow any other powerful states to spring up in the region.


They have evidently failed on both accounts, yet still they continue to double down on stupid by not using the little time Israel has left to find some form of rapprochement in the region.

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, which is the very thing that could provide some protection to Israel when the tables are turned.


It's like watching someone jump off a cliff in slow motion.


Quoting BitconnectCarlos

[...] and the world will very much let it happen.

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused?

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

I don't like the clickbait title but Hajo Meyer was a respected Dutch Jewish physicist.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

It very well can be; it depends on the scale. Are we talking just the IDF vs Hamas? Then obviously no. But what if it's Israel versus the muslim world/those who strive to spread Islam? Then it does start to look a bit like that.

So what's your argument for the reason of Indonesia and Malesia wanting to attack Israel? :snicker:

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given.

Survival of the Palestinians in Gaza shouldn't be taken as a given!

Israel is far more powerful than any of it's neighbors and it has nuclear weapons which they don't have. And then it has the obedient and totally loyal backing of the sole Superpower. Just what country wants to start a war with the US? (Which btw. has given weapons and assistance both to Egypt and Saudi-Arabia etc.) European countries don't want to irritate the US, for which Israel is close to heart, hence the silence about what is happening.

Ideas of the state of Israel being on being possibly wiped off are in truth quite delusional and basically a desperate way to give some reasoning just how the current Israel administration is handling the situation now. The last time Israel faced truly the possibility of being wiped off the map was during the 1948 war. Even the name of the Six Day War tells how this wasn't a war that could end up with Israel being wiped off the map, so crushing was the defeat for the Arabs.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Regarding anti-semitism, the scale of it is shocking if you look at the stats. Cultural factors have me worried as well. Jews are the canary in the coal mine.

Personally I don't have anything against Jews or Israeli Jews. I've met few, they were very smart people and actually didn't like how politics were going in their country, but naturally were very patriotic. Yes, the truth is that those lunatics dancing around in meetings and purposing new settlements in Gaza with the "voluntary removal" of Palestinians won't create empathy for the Jewish cause.

Yes, it will also increase anti-semitism as there are those that are prone to hate all people of certain group for the actions of either governments or some people (like terrorists). Hatred of Russians is another perfect example of this. But many Russians here were shocked by what Putin had done when attacking Ukraine. Hence I'm not going to for example ban Russian restaurants... they don't have President Putin's photo or the orange-black colours or "Z" up on their walls.

And what "Canary in the coal mine" are you talking about?

Quoting Tzeentch

I'm sure at the end of the day many a victim card will be played, but how long hasn't the world been spurring Israel on to find solutions, and how many times has Israel refused?

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities.

Would your response be, "At least Israel did the right thing"? If so, do you think that is what the Israelis will be saying in that scenario, that "at least" they did the right thing? Their heads are purely for security of their state.

I think we can agree the rightwing (Likud, settler movement, etc.) is inappropriate politically for long term stability and good faith agreement for developing a Palestinian state. But the moderate stance for keeping the West Bank has always been security, and that is a tougher position to argue against because the Israelis would be gambling that Palestinians would indeed follow the rules and not try to take over the whole thing.. Which is very much what a majority of Palestinians would like. "Right of return" has always been the polite way to say it, but that could be done militarily or simply walk right in.

Now, I can of course devise various scenarios whereby both sides follow a multilateral set of procedures in various milestones, etc. And indeed, that would take an international coalition of watchdogs constantly on the ground. Israel would have to give up sovergnty and Palestinians would have to be allowed to be controlled also by foreign entities, something both sides may not agree with. Perhaps with Arab neighbors that would help.

Palestine as a cause is really a cause from 1964 on. After the Arab states and Iran (artificially created by England and France), had failed in the military campaigns by 1973 (and throughout the 80s in Lebanon and Syria), they essentially gave up caring much about Palestinians other than they were a good way to rally their own people against a common enemy. It could be argued that if these states had won early on, they would have simply annexed various parts of Palestine into "greater" Syria/Jordan/Egypt, etc. Anyways, my point is that these Arab states have long ago given that prospect up, and it is in their interest to have a stable Middle East now that they have basically given up the narrative that Israel is the great enemy. Only Iran and its allies are keeping that alive.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities.

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf.


And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region. As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all.

Quoting Tzeentch

If a hypothetical future state of Palestine were to attack Israel, then Israel could rightfully claim self-defense and if it were unable to protect itself call upon the international community to intervene on its behalf.

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint.

Quoting Tzeentch

And I agree roughly with your post.

Whatever solution eventually is agreed upon, it would have to take place gradually and under supervision, and in dialogue with the rest of the region.

:up:

Quoting Tzeentch

As we've discussed, the most logical solution to my mind would not be a two-state, but a one-state solution: equal rights for all.

My Star Trek, sci-fi United States of the World part of me would be cool with that. However, in reality people's identities are important to them, and the old school 19th century view of "a nation for a state" or rather "a state for a nation", is still very strong in some regions. I get that though. If your group's identity has historically been erased throughout history, you will go at great lengths to preserve a part of the world to keep that identity. The Dutch enjoy their region, the English and Scottish enjoy theirs. Jews want to have a roughly "Jewish" state, and Arabs want to have Arab states, I don't begrudge them.

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state. There are huge cultural, historical, and political differences in how these two people want to be governed and live their lives. On top of this, a Jewish state was meant to be one place where the Jews can feasibly defend themselves if ever there was a Holocaust type situation. Arguably this causes smaller variations of violence in the region, but clearly they are willing to take that damage to keep the greater part of it alive.

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place and it's still ongoing with Ukraine. Israel is no different, but it gets a lot of air time because of various echoes of the Holocaust, the role that Israel as a territory plays in Western history, and the fact that there is a low level enmity between Islamist regimes, terrorist organizations, and para-militaries, and the Western world.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Yes, I get that from your vantage point. Israel doesn't want to even be put in that position in the first place, and that is understandable from their viewpoint.

The options are only going to get worse (and eventually run out) if they continue to let the situation deteriorate. In my opinion, it is no longer understandable.

Many Israelis are now realising that Likud and Netanyahu have led Israel down a dead end.

People have always had a great ability to come up with 'valid' excuses to cling to the status quo. They might do so until the bitter end. But here's to hoping they won't.

Quoting schopenhauer1

At the end of the day the Jews in Israel do not want to dissolve their status as a Jewish state.

It probably should have thought of this before it settled the most hotly contested piece of real estate on the planet.

Again, 'valid' reasons a-plenty to cling to the status quo. People can do that until reality starts dictating the terms of change.

Personally, I am not very sensitive to this argument. If people want to cling to an identity when it means supporting policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing then fuck those people. Adults need to step in and take the wheel, in the understanding that this simply cannot persist without inviting a reckoning of Biblical proportions.

The new Israeli identity will have to include Jews and Muslims. What alternatives are there?

Quoting schopenhauer1

Don't forget too, Europe is replete with bloody wars that has set the borders in place [...]

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more."

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated.

:100:

Quoting tim wood

Boundless arrogance?

Quoting tim wood

Israel is the law

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.


But no, Israel is not 'the law'. As the occupier it cannot claim self-defense, and armed resistance against an occupation is legal under international law.

And of course, the idea that Israel has to resort to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing, etc. to defend itself is a not a serious argument to begin with.

Quoting tim wood

I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got.

A-ha. The people who have lived under a brutal occupation for half a century are in control? Genius.

The only control they have is the extent to which Israel has, through its own belligerence, manoeuvred itself into a position where there are no more good outcomes for Israel.

They're in control, because the only way a good outcome for Israel can be produced is for the Palestinians to magically disappear. (but it seems in the absence of miracles the current Israeli government has no qualms with "moving fate along".)

What a joke.


What about:

Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity.

Quoting Tzeentch

The problem is that, given the shifting geopolitical situation, Israel is not going to survive such a round of conflicts. It is a tiny nation amid a sea of historical enemies.

It would be really callous to take such a stance, in effect saying: "Just let history take its course once more."

So was the Netherlands, technically, but they projected real power across the globe. Israel is just trying to keep itself existing, not even an imperial global empire.

Just a cursory history from ChatGPT of the Netherlands:

ChatGPT:Eighty Years' War (1568-1648):
The Eighty Years' War, fought for religious and political autonomy against the Spanish Empire, was a significant period of violence leading to the establishment of the independent Dutch Republic.

Dutch East India Company (VOC) and Colonial Violence:
Dutch colonial expansion, notably through the VOC, resulted in violence against local populations in regions such as the Dutch East Indies.

Thirty Years' War (1618-1648):
The Thirty Years' War, a complex conflict involving multiple European powers, had significant implications for the Dutch Republic. The war contributed to the economic and political rise of the Dutch Republic as it gained formal recognition at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1795-1815):
The French occupation during this period led to political changes in the Netherlands and included instances of violence.

World War II Occupation (1940-1945):
The Nazi occupation resulted in widespread violence and suffering, with the Dutch resistance engaging in acts of sabotage.

Decolonization and Indonesian War of Independence (1945-1949):
The Netherlands faced violence during the decolonization process, particularly in Indonesia, where the Dutch attempted to retain control.

Modern Terrorism and Political Violence:
In recent decades, the Netherlands has experienced instances of terrorism, such as the 2004 assassination of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, highlighting contemporary challenges.

Each of these historical events has shaped the trajectory of the Netherlands, contributing to its development, identity, and global influence.

The Netherlands, along with many European actors, created the modern world. What does self-determination mean really? At the end of the day, it is when people let go of past grievances. Nazi Germany didn't let go and were resentful until completely dismantled, for example. For the Netherlands, it was after almost a century of bloody conflicts. I don't want it to be carried out thus.

It would be best if people's went on with their lives, and allowed others to do the same without resort to religious or personal blood feuds, that is true. Peace must prevail more than hate. Surely, Hamas does not represent anywhere close to non-hate. Netanyahu is not good for peace either, though I am by no means equivocating the two. Simply that, even if Hamas wasn't the looming threat, he is independently a self-serving and divisive leader that won't lead to peace. Hamas does need to be dismantled, and the Israelis need to find a new leadership. However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians.. It does need to happen, but that is a concerted internal effort of self-purging of the hate cycle and moving forward from holding onto past grudges as one's sole identity. Certainly, that is perpetuated with the current violence, but it was there that led to this round of violence. At some point, someone has to cut it at its psychological roots and make the hard decisions to not stay on current ways of thinking and current policy.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

One state, equal rights, the only way: you and I have already agreed on this. (If only everyone else would - or could!)

The only way, which is also a complete impossibility. There isn't a chance in the world that Jews want to give up Israel as they know it in exchange for that. Out of all the possible ways to end the conflict, this suggestion seems NICE but also near the bottom of the "likely to happen" list. If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked.

It's my belief that the most responsible thing for people to promote is ideas that are actual possible to happen, real paths toward peace that have more than a chance in hell of being adopted by the relevant parties. Palestinians have been promised their right to return for generations by now, it should be clear that that promise is an empty one, the harsh truth is there's no return. If they accept a future without that, they actually have a chance of building prosperity for themselves

Quoting flannel jesus

The only way, which is also a complete impossibility. There isn't a chance in the world that Jews want to give up Israel as they know it in exchange for that. Out of all the possible ways to end the conflict, this suggestion seems NICE but also near the bottom of the "likely to happen" list. If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked.

The cultures and what they want are too far apart. How would the governance even work? Also those kind of confederations need to be mutually beneficial. Israel's parliament, at least in terms of its own governance, excepting Netanyahu's extremism in terms of the judiciary, has been working quite well for them. Why would one shift radically to a new form of government that would take power away from their own current polity's ability to vote in who they want? Rather, the two state solution would be the only way someone who already has a well-functioning government would would prefer it one would think, and for good reason. If they were in a position of utter weakness, perhaps this would have worked where they were just wanting any power sharing they could get.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting schopenhauer1

However, Netanyahu is right about de-radicalizing the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

Reply to Tzeentch
Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of?

Quoting Tzeentch

Boundless arrogance?
— tim wood

Israel is the law
— tim wood

:chin: Kind of making my point for me there, buddy.

:smirk: :up:

Quoting Tzeentch

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

:100:

Reply to Tzeentch Quoting Tzeentch

Netanyahu has no right to speak of deradicalizing anyone. He's a radical himself. Hamas is his baby. The murder of Yitzhak Rabin is his brain child. The death of Israel will be in large part his doing.

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory. Or is Netanyahu actually Meir Kahane in disguise, back from the dead?

Quoting tim wood

But for sheer possibility, let's look at the post war history of the Axis powers of WWII. They had defeat forced upon them and then they undertook the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitation, with appropriate rewards at every step. And they have done pretty well. Not a possibility for the Palestinians? Who says?

Being a citizen of a country that survived WW2 and is seen as being part of the Axis (even if we fought the Germans later), you really should think twice when countries have to do "the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitiation, with appropriate rewards at every step."

Germany had to do it. Even if East Germany, being all Marxist-Leninists and so, would hypocritically declare itself having nothing to do with the Holocaust. They, East-Germany, are the example of how people and nations avoid true guilt when it should be faced. Yet West Germany has done a lot to confront it's actual past. As the saying goes, if you are losing an argument to a (West) German, then you can always grab the "Hitler card"! Aber Sie haben die Juden geschlachtet. Then the German will be as hapless as an white American after uttering accidentally the N-word in the presence of other Americans. The German has to acknowledge that yes, they indeed killed all those Jews.

But for my country, we simply don't see it that way. We didn't attack anyone. Period. The diplomatically inconvenient moment of joining the 1941 offensive was cleared by the Soviet Air Force instantly bombing us even Finland had taken any action. The armed forces that joined NATO last year is the same armed forces that fought the Soviet Union first by itself, then alongside Germany and then gave the true "Dolchstoss" to it's former brothers in arms, The Third Reich, which just had assisted the country to fight the Soviet offensive to a standstill.. We have the same political parties around that were present prior to WW2, and also the same constitution. Hence when a Finnish general who had fought in WW2 was in the post-war era confronted by Westerners making the accusation "You fought with Hitler", he snapped back "And you fought with Stalin!". What remorse he had to show? Perhaps for the

And I think you should understand that Palestinians simply won't see any problem with themselves. The history is too clear here: European Jews came to the country they were living in and formed a country where they were living. That narrative is too simple, too clear, for them to have any issues about themselves being here the culprits. What really have the Palestinians done wrong? And what kind of option is this Israeli administration giving them?

This is why I say this is a conflict which I don't see any peaceful or negotiated solution to. A lot of things would have to change in order for that to happen.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Or is Netanyahu actually Meir Kahane in disguise, back from the dead?

Bibi needs his coalition partners, who actually are quite close to Meir Kahane. That's the problem here. They really are former terrorists... or terrorists that got free and to positions to further their agenda now.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting ssu

Personally I don't have anything against Jews or Israeli Jews. I've met few, they were very smart people and actually didn't like how politics were going in their country, but naturally were very patriotic. Yes, the truth is that those lunatics dancing around in meetings and purposing new settlements in Gaza with the "voluntary removal" of Palestinians won't create empathy for the Jewish cause.

Yes, it will also increase anti-semitism as there are those that are prone to hate all people of certain group for the actions of either governments or some people (like terrorists). Hatred of Russians is another perfect example of this. But many Russians here were shocked by what Putin had done when attacking Ukraine. Hence I'm not going to for example ban Russian restaurants... they don't have President Putin's photo or the orange-black colours or "Z" up on their walls.

And what "Canary in the coal mine" are you talking about?

It's more than that, at least in the US. I don't know how things are in Finland. Plenty of countries have right wing leadership and are involved with land disputes with other countries. Yet we don't hear about those, Somalia for instance. Today 19 students from Brown decided to go on hunger strike for Gaza. We're seeing roads get blocked and airports blocked off by protesters for Palestine. IIRC there's been like an 800% in antisemitic incidents or attacks quarterly... city council meetings in California where blood libels about israel stealing palestinian organs are mentioned. numerous violent protests against the police here in the US and across the world far exceeding anything we saw opposing Russia. Public figures such as politicians and CEOs who support Israel are harassed in public and their private events crashed by screaming protesters who have begun hiring their own security services (yellow armbands.) Synagogues faced with bomb threats and graffiti here in the US.

Federal investigations have opened against schools, IIRC, in New York and California for preaching antisemitism. DEI has ignored Jews for decades, portraying them as white oppressors. Dozens of Jewish families have withdrawn their children from these areas. I could go on about this. Check out the Ami Horowitz video where he goes to a college in San Francisco:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbm4mao4-k0

Much of it occurs in educated cities, liberal areas. By "canary in the coalmine" I see it as an early sign of things to come especially if this remains unchecked. Reply to ssu

Quoting ssu

Bibi needs his coalition partners, who actually are quite close to Meir Kahane. That's the problem here. They really are former terrorists... or terrorists that got free and to positions to further their agenda now.

Reply to ssu

For sure people like Ben Gvir are right-wing extremists.

Many if not most of the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on 10/7 were some of the most left-leaning, pro-integrationist settlements in Israel. They would employ Palestinians, drive them to hospitals, etc. It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power.

Quoting tim wood

So, that Palestine this or that, or that Palestinians this or that, then, is of abstract interest now. And a failure to rigorously account for any significance now allows for people now to claim benefit for an offense committed against someone else long ago, that might not even have been an offense, was not committed against them, and that they use and ground and warrant - their excuse - to murder without scruple or responsibility for their actions. This being in part what i call above a kind of professional victimhood.

I would get your point if this would be about something that has happened some time ago. Unfortunately the war is going on right now. It isn't at all abstract now, hasn't been abstract for a long time. This isn't just a thing with the Palestinian diaspora, this is a thing with those people now there. That it has gone for 75 years is the sad part. This problem ought to have solved when the Cold War was over, but it didn't.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

I see it as an early sign of things to come especially if this remains unchecked.

And it's not helpful that this issue becomes part of the moronic culture war, and isn't being able to be talked as an foreign policy issue.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

DEI has ignored Jews for decades, portraying them as white oppressors.

Just shows how absolutely crazy these "anti-racism" racists are. But naturally there's no logic to these stupidities, it is only a matter of convenience what the present hated or feared group is by the haters, be they the Jews, the Irish, the Muslims, the Japanese, the Chinese, whoever and whatever.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

Many if not most of the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on 10/7 were some of the most left-leaning, pro-integrationist settlements in Israel. They would employ Palestinians, drive them to hospitals, etc. It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power.

That is true. And that makes my point that religious zealots have hijacked the situation on both sides. I still would think that the majority of people would be OK if there would negotiated two-state solution and then actual peace. But that majority is silenced and naturally takes the side.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack.

No. The success of the October 7th attacks lies on the false assumption that a high tech wall can make Israel safe. The falsehood was here that the wall was intended for minor breakthrough attempts, not a large-scale well planned operation similar to a military operation. The wall was simply not built for that. They simply didn't anticipate this kind of attack. Yet likely Hamas had been for years thinking of this while digging all those tunnels.

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power.

That rise only shows the failure of "Mr. Security", prime minister Netanyahu. Because to assume that people like Ben Gvir will fix the problem is simply delusional. (Far more worse than thinking that Trump is the God-Emperor saviour for the US.) As if the "voluntary removal" of 2 million Palestinians and the building of new settlements in a Palestinian free-Gaza (forgot what the Jewish name for the place is) will be the success story you can dance about. Nope, this is just going to be one disaster among the many disasters that the Jewish people have endured. And so for the Palestinians too.

Israel actually shows how ugly Western democracies can become if you think that perpetual low-intensity conflict with a minor war flare up every decade is something "normal". One can imagine if the UK would have used similar force in Northern Ireland and bombed IRA sympathizing Catholic villages there by the RAF and shelled them with artillery fire. Yep, guess what the response would have been by the IRA? You think they would have less volunteers? It isn't hard to understand that in that kind of ugly UK there would come a politician that would simply talk about "voluntarily" moving all the Catholics and those who want to join Ireland to be moved to Ireland proper. They are simply so nasty and that's what they want, right?

Quoting ssu

Just shows how absolutely crazy these "anti-racism" racists are. But naturally there's no logic to these stupidities, it is only a matter of convenience what the present hated or feared group is by the haters, be they the Jews, the Irish, the Muslims, the Japanese, the Chinese, whoever and whatever.

Reply to ssu

Some of these groups are nationalities, others are religions -- can one not question an ideology? Or should we just immediately accept it if it's a religion? I'm wary of any religion which seeks to convert the world to its creed.

Quoting ssu

And that makes my point that religious zealots have hijacked the situation on both sides.

I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but Netanyahu, while certainly right wing, does not strike me as a religious extremist. I would question his level of observance/religious outlook and I do not group him in with e.g Kach although I understand the relationship between the two groups is nuanced and do share some common goals.

Quoting ssu

That rise only shows the failure of "Mr. Security", prime minister Netanyahu. Because to assume that people like Ben Gvir will fix the problem is simply delusional.

What I was saying was if it is true that Palestinians working at these kibbutzim aided Hamas in the 10/7 attacks then that lends credence to Ben Gvir's (and his party, which is the ideological successor of Kach -- Meir Kahane's party; the true far right of Israeli politics) notion of the Arab muslims as a fifth column that clearly threatens the democratic health of the state. It's unfortunate. Israel can attempt to integrate. There are muslim judges and muslims who hold respectable posts in the IDF, but Israel is still a new state and these religious differences are deeply entrenched.

Yep, guess what the response would have been by the IRA? You think they would have less volunteers?

I dislike comparisons between the IRA conflict with Britain and the Israel-Palestine conflict. When 1200 are murdered I'm fine with shelling. I'm fine with air strikes.

Catholics and Protestants are the same religion. Jews and Muslims (Jews and muslims almost surely have more in common than Jews and Christians, theologically) are not -- especially the fundamentalism of Hamas that seeps through the society through every institution. Islam (especially fundamentalist Islam), imho, manages to combine the most dangerous, potent elements of Judaism and Christianity and does so as the youngest of the bunch having undergone the least amount of reform.

I'd be more sympathetic to the IRA/UK comparison if the IRA wanted to capture all of the UK, establish hardline Catholic rule and subjugate the Protestants.

If an Islamic terrorist group like Hamas or Hezbollah acquired a nuclear weapon, what is the probability they would use it against a city in Europe or Israel or America? If anyone thinks it's less than 10%, can you explain why you think they would show restraint?

Quoting BitconnectCarlos

aaannd we've entered into conspiracy theory territory.

Nice joke.

The Israeli newspapers have spoken openly about what they call the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance', and how Netanyahu intentionally sought to get Rabin assassinated.

I think what we've entered is in fact 'head-in-sand' territory.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Just curious, is there other nations and leaders you also don’t approve of?

I have no problem with nations, but their leaders are almost exclusively a bunch of clowns. I'd have to think long and hard to find any nation that has a leader I do approve of.

[quote] But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself.
Reply to neomac
Yes there is a risk of that, although provided these contradictions are understood one can reach a balanced reading of the situation.

For example I am deeply critical of some foreign policy strategy and choices made by the US (the command and administration working through these crises in partnership). While at the same time would dearly love the international peace and order maintained by US hegemony to continue.
It’s true there is a facade of “a free and fair society for all” while behind the scenes there is a more complex geopolitical struggle going on. In which the rules are bent and the history whitewashed. But what is the alternative?

I often think what a China hegemony might be like. I think there would probably be much less war and more prosperity on the good side, while behind the scenes it could be a 1984 (George Orwell) scenario. We have the example of the reintegration of Hong Kong into China as an example.

Going back to the issue at hand, I see the problem as Israel not abiding by anything reasonable and within the bounds of the US hegemony. Israel is an unruly child of the US, poking their neighbours in the eye and stamping their feet. While the parent (the US) is trying to calm the situation and avoid a row between the parents.

Now we have a contradiction at the heart of the US policy. They want to avoid a war while at the same time thinking strategically how they could have war with Iran, take Iran out. Without upsetting the apple cart, using Israel’s plight as an excuse. Presumably they would whitewash the genocide of the Gazan people, as an unfortunate consequence of bigger goals. More important regional strategic interests and stability.

Quoting schopenhauer1

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities.

Funny how curiousity is then followed by a straw man as if your interlocutors are this stupid. Nobody has suggested returning occupied territories apart from a negotiated peace.

Reply to Tzeentch I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement.

Quoting Benkei

I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept

Based on what?

Quoting Benkei

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement.

I don't think removing the illegal settlers is realistic, and this is the main problem. We're talking literally hundreds of thousands, many of whom are religious fanatics, and many of whom are armed - and they have used force against the IDF in the past.

Previous instances where Israel had to remove settlers, like in the Sinai and Gaza, were notoriously difficult and much smaller in scale.

How would you suggest this could be done?