Israel - Hamas War VI

[Tywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

The Allied forces got away with a lot of war crimes. It's right to fight Nazis, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right. 

That's what you tell misbehaving children. War is more complicated than that. 

[Rippounet]

33 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I think many of us can agree this guy is pretty damned smart and knows what he's talking about (Harari, not fucking Morgan, though I have to admit the latter's provided more of a forum to Palestinians than many others). He's also Israeli and had family who were trapped and nearly killed during the horrific October 7 attack. He's talking about Israel's responsibility here in terms of retaliation, and seems to have compassion for innocent Palestinians who are caught in the crossfire and used/victimised by Hamas. Interestingly, he doesn't put the onus on them to overthrow Hamas - rather, he goes so far as to say Israel should consider taking in women and children whilst the operation happens. 

Loads of other great points, including how using historical injuries to justify inflicting more injuries isn't cool. 

Great interview. I don't always agree with Harari, but his positions in this interview are damn solid. His point about having to choose peace over justice was particularly good - it's sad, but we do need to reduce thought to soundbites to be effective.

Though I think his interview raises another point. As the article I posted illustrates, we tend to view the conflict from a Western perspective (hawks, but also doves). Another way to look at it may be that Israel knows, for a fact, that its brutality will not jeopardize its diplomatic efforts with Saudi Arabia. In which case, the US might find it that much harder to rein in Netanyahu & co.

11 minutes ago, Ran said:

It really takes no gymnastics. Contrarywise, the gymnastics to me seems from the other side entirely, which seems to believe that Hamas will go away with minimal effort and minimal collateral damage or, vice versa, they are in fact an integral part of the future of a Palestinian state.

Nah, you keep mixing up the descriptive and the normative. That Hamas won't go away without collateral damage is true, but it's descriptive. The normative is pretending that there is no Israeli agency in that, and that's a fallacy.
It may now be necessary for Israel to remove Hamas, but to view the methods used as normal is a failure of imagination. Or a moral failure, if we want to use big words.
 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's what you tell misbehaving children. War is more complicated than that. 

Good, because that's how Israel and Hamas are acting. 

[Gorn]

7 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Nah, you keep mixing up the descriptive and the normative. That Hamas won't go away without collateral damage is true, but it's descriptive. The normative is pretending that there is no Israeli agency in that, and that's a fallacy.

It may now be necessary for Israel to remove Hamas, but to view the methods used as normal is a failure of imagination. Or a moral failure, if we want to use big words.
 

At the same time, you pretend that there is no Palestinian agency in the October 7th attacks.

[Liffguard]

21 minutes ago, Ran said:

Contrarywise, the gymnastics to me seems from the other side entirely, which seems to believe that Hamas will go away with minimal effort and minimal collateral damage

Very much the opposite, it will take an enormous amount of effort to neutralise Hamas. Restraint requires effort, and courage. Lashing out is easy.

The only way to permanently neutralise Hamas, or prevent it from being replaced by something worse, is to remove it's base of support, it's legitimacy, which is rooted in the (legitimate, justified) grievances of the people of Gaza. Feed those grievances, and you feed Hamas's support base. Physically destroy Hamas whilst feeding those grievances, and you lay the foundation for Hamas's successor. All the while also eroding international goodwill and scuppering chances of diplomatic normalisation in the region.

When I was in the military, we were taught the concept of "courageous restraint." Sometimes when you're fired upon, the best tactic is not necessarily to immediately respond with overwhelming firepower. You might win the fight today, but if you kill some farmer's brother in the crossfire, or annihilate his home, or his livestock, then you've eliminated a future intelligence source, and created a new ally of the very people you're fighting. This was for small unit tactics, but I think the concept is equally applicable to states.

It's been said a few times on this thread so far that the destruction of Hamas is a precondition to peace and rebuilding, but I think that's wrong. Peace and rebuilding are preconditions for the destruction (not necessarily physical) of Hamas. Not sufficient conditions, not on their own, but necessary.

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'd also be curious as to whether that article you posted even mentions the religious aspect of any of this? What are the Arab nations thoughts to having a jewish state on their borders? Is that not some sort of motivating factor?

In passing: she does says that colonialism is a better explanation than religion when it comes to solidarity with Palestinians.

Imho, religion is more of a catalyst than a factor in itself. And we see proof of that because Arab leaders have progressively accepted the existence of Israel - even though public opinion generally hasn't.

The thing about religion is that, because it appeals to a higher power (by definition), it is mainly a tool to justify genocidal intent. But it's difficult to know whether genocide rests on genuine religious belief, or whether religious belief is merely used as a defense of genocidal intent. At least when it comes to leadership.

The point here would be not to assume that religion is an irresistible driving force in the greater picture. It plays a role, but overestimating that role would be at least as dangerous as underestimating it.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, the mental gymnastics are ignoring that Hamas started this war, they did so by firing thousands of rockets at another state while sending thousands of people to invade it. This plan was in the works for a long time. Once they successfully invaded they murdered well over a thousand innocent civilians, it didn't matter if they were elderly, women or children, took hundreds of hostages then used the people they're suppose to govern as human shields for defense. If Hamas didn't do all of the above no one would be dead. But they did and the lion's share of the blame is on them. Plus they're actively hoarding months worth of food, water and gas while not letting people flee areas that are about to be bombed because they want higher death tolls for propaganda purposes. 

JFC, that's the mental gymnastics man, to downplay what they've done.

You... Just proved my entire point.

 

11 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

I am German. My mother was three year old when the allied forced bombed Hamburg again and again. [...]

But still even if this was very bad, was it wrong to fight the Nazis? No obviously not, they had to be removed and the Germans themselves were not strong enough to do it, so they had to be defeated in war. and in war civilians die. Today we teach our children in school and I do believe this to be right:

The people are responsible for their government. the Germans were responsible for the nazis and their deeds.

Counterpoint: many of alied bombardments of Germany were war crimes, and you (or your mother) have been brainwashed to accept this as normal.

[fionwe1987]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, the mental gymnastics are ignoring that Hamas started this war,

Who has ignored that? We're arguing that the fact that Hamas started the war doesn't give Israel license to do what it wants in retaliation. We're discussing the specifics of their actions in response to Hamas. Which assumes Hamas started this, so I don't know what you mean by arguing this is being ignored. That's what you keep saying to distract from the conversation, to try and make the case that the only people who would object to Israel's actions are somehow justifying Hamas's. Ie, fitting a neat narrative into the complexity and nuance of the situation. 

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it drives me bonkers how selective people want to be about the history of this conflict. 

Yes, it does. Your selectiveness, and focus on "they started it" to the exclusion of all else is bonkers. 

13 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

But still even if this was very bad, was it wrong to fight the Nazis? No obviously not, they had to be removed and the Germans themselves were not strong enough to do it, so they had to be defeated in war. and in war civilians die. Today we teach our children in school and I do believe this to be right:

To fight the Nazis wasn't wrong. To commit war crimes in the process was. 

13 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

The people are responsible for their government. the Germans were responsible for the nazis and their deeds.

Half this population is children. Are you certain they're responsible for their government?

13 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's what you tell misbehaving children. War is more complicated than that. 

It is, which is why "he started it" and "tit for tat" are not arguments that make sense in this conversation. 

[Daeron the Daring]

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

It really takes no gymnastics. Contrarywise, the gymnastics to me seems from the other side entirely, which seems to believe that Hamas will go away with minimal effort and minimal collateral damage or, vice versa, they are in fact an integral part of the future of a Palestinian state.

I am yet to see someone actually say that here. I think all opinions have ranged between that the military intervention is a must (and that Israel is doing just what he must) and that it shouldn't happen, because it won't make Hamas go away, just strenghten the grievances,or at best lays ground for another terrorist organization to take over.

37 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't go around linking whatever comes blathering out of the mouths of XQC, Ethan Klein, or Wubby, and I don't cite other members of the forum as people who are experts. 

Even with your expressed stance, you just can't compare those to Hasan. That you seriously group these people's validity to his shows how much you're ignorant or intentionally misleading.

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

But we don't need to import more non-experts into the conversation.

Yea, sure. Let's say you have a fair reason an opinion to hold that stance. Let's even say he is nothing but professional.

But then why the hell would you yourself discredit the studies of UN approved NGOs and social studies who do say Israel is excercising genocide? Like bro, you literally told me (it was like the first or second thread when there was a discussion abiut this) they are not fucking trustworthy. They are professionals by any human merit. The only small objection one can have is that these orgs and studies come from places (countries) that don't align themselves geopolitically with Israel. Which to me raises the (poetic) question of why there isn't pressure from Western countries to have legal bodies take investigations on these matters. Countries who do geopolitically allign themselves to Israel.

[Tywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You... Just proved my entire point.

Not sure you had a valid point to begin with.

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Who has ignored that? We're arguing that the fact that Hamas started the war doesn't give Israel license to do what it wants in retaliation. We're discussing the specifics of their actions in response to Hamas. Which assumes Hamas started this, so I don't know what you mean by arguing this is being ignored. That's what you keep saying to distract from the conversation, to try and make the case that the only people who would object to Israel's actions are somehow justifying Hamas's. Ie, fitting a neat narrative into the complexity and nuance of the situation. 

It's certainly been downplayed by several posters. A few even argued that Hamas had no other choice but to attack Israel. And the amount of sympathy for the innocent civilians killed in Israel, who btw, weren't just Jews or Israeli citizens, has been minimal. 

And I hate to break your heart, when you start a war you don't get to play the victim card, especially when your main defensive tactic is hiding behind innocent civilians while still firing. That in no way justifies everything Israel has done in response, but the actual distraction is just focusing on Israel while not looking at what caused the problem. 

Quote

Yes, it does. Your selectiveness, and focus on "they started it" to the exclusion of all else is bonkers. 

My selectiveness? It's almost like you've forgotten or just don't know what Hamas and the people with the same mindset in the region have done during the entire history of the current state of Israel or beforehand. 

[Liffguard]

31 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

My mother was three year old when the allied forced bombed Hamburg again and again. In one night (28.7. 1943) more than 30.000 people - most of them civilians- died. My mother was three - and so definitly no Nazi, when she had to run for shelter night after night with her mother, who was pregnant again and had always elected socialdemocrats before the dictatorship and was also no nazi.. My mother dreams of this bombing  all of her life , still today. Of the bombs , of the screams, of the fire.

But still even if this was very bad, was it wrong to fight the Nazis? No obviously not,

 

I think this is actually a very illustrative argument for two reasons, one philosophical and the other empirical.

Firstly, it demonstrates the dangers of nationalistic thinking, and conceiving of states as unitary actors. The Nazis had to be stopped, therefore they had to be fought, therefore the state they controlled had to be fought, therefore violence against the state was justified, therefore violence against any of the people of the state was justified. It wasn't wrong to fight the nazis, therefore it wasn't wrong to drop enormous amounts of explosives on civilian population centres. Do you see how the latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former? Maybe there is a lesser evil argument to be made for those particular actions, but you have to make that argument on the specifics, not just assert that it was correct to fight therefore any action in furtherance of the fight is acceptable.

It's also illustrative, because the general consensus now is that strategic bombing doesn't work. The annihiliation of German cities had a minimal effect on German war capability. It's possible those deaths might have been a lesser evil if they'd brough the end of the war closer, but they didn't even do that. Tens of thousands of civilians burned for nothing. If anything, it's generally shown that strategic bombing causes populations to cohere and hardens will to resist.

Now, strictly speaking Israel is not technically engaging in strategic bombing. Technically they're aiming at supposedly tactical targets. However, I'd say that the sheer volume of ordnance into that small an area amounts to a similar effect. It will harden will to resist, whilst inflicting unimaginable suffering in the meantime.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

In passing: she does says that colonialism is a better explanation than religion when it comes to solidarity with Palestinians.

I'd say that religious solidarity is a powerful force for a lot of muslims, and is a big motivating factor when you look at the sort of support Palestine gets from general populations. Sure it's all wrapped up, but it sounds to me like someone coming at it from the outside with little appreciation for a religious worldview, and the preoccupation with colonialism says more about the author than anything else. I haven't even touched on the levels of anti semitism in arab nations. 

 

21 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The thing about religion is that, because it appeals to a higher power (by definition), it is mainly a tool to justify genocidal intent. But it's difficult to know whether genocide rests on genuine religious belief, or whether religious belief is merely used as a defense of genocidal intent. At least when it comes to leadership.

When it comes to leadership I'd also suggest that decision making might become a bit more cynical and self motivated, which is why Saudi Arabia might have been willing to normalise relations. 

 

[Zorral]

Paralysis at the Top in Israel

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/paralysis-at-the-top

Quote

 

.... Meanwhile many government ministers have been close to invisible since the war started. Some basic news about government policy comes out in the US first and only then gets reported in Israel. I should add that from a distance and without a subtle grasp of the textures of Israeli politics it’s difficult for me to judge the extent of this invisibility. But I’ve asked this question of numerous Israelis whose opinion I trust and all seem to agree with this basic read of the situation.

On top of this you have a Prime Minister who is thoroughly discredited but seems to be spending most of his time, or at least focus on, a) keeping out of jail (for his longstanding criminal prosecution) and b) lining up his defenses for an inevitable post-conflict inquiry into the failure to prevent the October 7th massacres. Needless to say that’s not what you want your head of government focusing on at a time like this. Over the last three weeks most of the key stakeholders in the Israeli national security sector have come forward with public apologies for their failure to prevent the October 7th attacks. But Netanyahu has conspicuously refused to do so.

Overnight Netanyahu tweeted explicitly blaming the country’s intelligence chiefs for failing to prevent the October 7th massacres. The response to this was so overwhelming that Netanyahu was compelled to delete the tweet and publicly apologize. For context, this is on par with Donald Trump apologizing. It doesn’t happen. He hastily affirmed his confidence in the intelligence chief who is, needless to say, in charge of running a significant part of the current war. In short, Netanyahu is distracted, discredited and clearly focused in large part on saving himself.

With all that, how is he remaining in power? Quite simply, there’s no viable mechanism to remove him. In theory, all that is required is a defeat in vote of no confidence. But that’s all but impossible to imagine under current circumstances. First, his coalition is made up of extremists who are extremely dedicated to him personally and to the agenda he made synonymous with his continuation in power. Second, those goals and political futures rely entirely on him. If an election were held today it’s all but certain that his coalition would lose power and that many of its members would lose their seat in the Knesset. In this way, the government’s very unpopularity fastens it to power. As long as his coalition holds, they are not required to hold a new election for more than three years. ....

 

 

[Rippounet]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

[...] the actual distraction is just focusing on Israel while not looking at what caused the problem.

It can't be a distraction to focus on the actor with the most agency.

You are, of course, projecting: you're the one trying to distract, by constantly going back to a very specific point in the past., which can no longer, by itself, explain what is happening.

[fionwe1987]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's certainly been downplayed by several posters.

Let's name names and quote posts, please. 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

A few even argued that Hamas had no other choice but to attack Israel.

Again, please name these posters, and feel free to quote them where they made these arguments.

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And the amount of sympathy for the innocent civilians killed in Israel, who btw, weren't just Jews or Israeli citizens, has been minimal. 

No it fucking has not. You're just making the absolutely batshit case that the only way to show sympathy to these victims is to support whatever retaliation the Israeli government chooses. If you lay the condition that you'll only count the sympathy from those who completely agree with you, I'm sure the sympathy feels minimal, but that is entirely on you. 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And I hate to break your heart, when you start a war you don't get to play the victim card,

And here's the bullshit again. Who is the "you" here? Hamas started this. The victims under discussion are the citizens of Gaza. They absolutely can play the victim card. If you have a worldview that says they're all responsible, that is a fascist worldview, period. You keep blending the people of Gaza with the perpetrators of the horror on October 7th. And that is morally repugnant, and strategically idiotic. It certainly won't result in the end of Hamas, which you claim to want. 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

especially when your main defensive tactic is hiding behind innocent civilians while still firing. That in no way justifies everything Israel has done in response, but the actual distraction is just focusing on Israel while not looking at what caused the problem. 

No, it really isn't. Hamas doesn't get any kind of pass for its actions, but Israel is not some preprogrammed automaton that has no choices. 

Nothing I say today will undo October 7th. But the ongoing battles in Gaza aren't in the past. And they will get even more focus as time goes on. This isn't antisemitic, or pro Hamas. It's the basic reality of people focusing on actions that can have effect in the future.

In terms of actions Hamas can take, we've all repeatedly brought up releasing the hostages, which is a continuing horror. Note, the lack of interest in those hostages is mostly concentrated among posters who also want Israel to go in and "end Hamas" whatever that means. 

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

My selectiveness? It's almost like you've forgotten or just don't know what Hamas and the people with the same mindset in the region have done during the entire history of the current state of Israel or beforehand. 

No, my discussion has always encompassed their actions. I've repeatedly mentioned the cycle of violence. Are you implying I secretly didn't mean this was a cycle where escalations have happened on both sides?

Stop selectively reading my posts. Stop ascribing the views of other posters to me. And stop vague criticism. Name names. Quote the actual posts, if you have the receipts to back up what you're saying about Hamas's actions being minimized or ignored.

[fionwe1987]

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

 and the preoccupation with colonialism says more about the author than anything else. 

This dismissal says more about you than anything else, too, you know. 

You have to be truly ignorant of colonialism to imply that it has no explanatory power over the religious conflicts of the world. It was literal colonial policy to intensify and mine existing religious tensions. And there is extensive work showing exactly how well those policies work.

It's highly convenient to dismiss all this and say "ah these Arabs are too obsessed with their religion". It isn't an inherent property of being an Arab. It is a result of actual history, of which we have clear written records from the perpetrators.

Of course, those nations that perpetrated this are alive and well today, and would love to bury that under the rug. Buy into this BS if you please, but that attitude will directly contribute to strengthening Hamas, and any worse body that will inevitable take their place if the "solution" is bombing them and continuing to ignore colonial history while thinking of solutions. 

Can I also say this: it is intensely hypocritical to say that the history of the Holocaust cannot be ignored, but colonial history from the same time should be. You're no different from a Holocaust denier when you deny colonialsm and it's impact. Deny either, and you're contributing to this conflict. Denying either let's you justify perpetuating more violence. It is sick. It is wrong.

Edited October 30, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Heartofice]

Just now, fionwe1987 said:

 

It's highly convenient to dismiss all this and say "ah these Arabs are too obsessed with their religion". 

Nobody did that. But you need to take into account religious attitudes and worldviews rather than come at everything from a western liberal perspective.

[fionwe1987]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Nobody did that. But you need to take into account religious attitudes and worldviews rather than come at everything from a western liberal perspective.

Um, I'm not a Westerner. My perspective is post-colonial, and rooted in the experience of my family and people. 

I certainly hold a lot of views in common with Western liberals. That says good things for them, but they remain a minority in the West, because the typical Western perspective is to dismiss colonialism and it's horrors as a canard.

Edited October 30, 2023 by fionwe1987

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Um, I'm not a Westerner. My perspective is post-colonial, and rooted in the experience of my family and people. 

I wasn't really referring to you, but making a general comment. 

[Tywin et al.]

36 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It can't be a distraction to focus on the actor with the most agency.

You are, of course, projecting: you're the one trying to distract, by constantly going back to a very specific point in the past., which can no longer, by itself, explain what is happening.

A point in the past that happened a few weeks ago that started the war? Odd take. 

You seem to be subscribing to the belief that in a fight the person who punches first isn't responsible for the fight because they're weaker than the person they punched. To which I call bullshit. 

 

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

The IDF will literally call people to urge them to leave prior to a strike; no other military force in the world does this.

The US regularly did this. Heck, the US (under Trump!) gave notice that they would attack actual military targets to the military there. Heck, the US dropped leaflets warning the Japanese about the atomic bomb. This is not the special get out of jail free card you think it might be.

It's also a bit weird to say that Israel does this and then also ignore that Israel (according to you) cut off all internet and cell service while stepping up the bombing. How does that work out in their favor, exactly? 

Note also that Israel's track record on notifications is not very good per reporting. Sometimes the notifications wouldn't come at all. Some times the notifications would come hours before an attack, which led people to believe they would be fine when nothing happened - and then they'd get bombed. 

In any case I think it's a stupid argument because it mostly focuses on intent. Let's assume that Israel is 100% against killing all civilians no matter what unless it is absolutely required for whatever their goals are. Would that make the cutting off of all food and water a reasonable thing to do? Would that make bombings of refugee camps reasonable? Would it make attacking the southern part of Gaza which their own maps that they sent to Gazans marked as 'safe areas' reasonable? The intent really doesn't matter all that much when you've killed 8000 noncombatants. 

4 hours ago, Ran said:

By "go", I mean I'd leave that location and find some place else that isn't setting up to launch rockets. And so on.

I would consider Hamas launching rockets from my neighbor's backyard or my daughter's kindergarden "advanced notice".

Except, of course, most of the strikes against Hamas right now are not against active rocket strike areas per the IDF. They're attacking locations of suspected Hamas, they're attacking weapons depots and forward intelligence setups, they're attacking places that have no outward sign of any actual fight. As an example, Israel bombed the AP building because apparently Hamas was setting up a jamming system there. How would those people know to leave the Associated Press building? 

Or a refugee camp? 

Or the 150 underground locations that Israel struck over the weekend?

There is, really, no 'safe' place to go in Gaza. There are less unsafe places, but nothing is actually safe.