Hamas uses the civilians as shields and then stopped them from fleeing south to avoid the IDF. You can't assure the safety of the civilians without first engaging Hamas because they use them as their weapons. — Hanover

@Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you agree with Hanover's assessment that bombing was the only way to defend Israel?

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

How many Israelis do you authorize be killed in defence of Gaza? Israel has destroyed half of the homes and displaced the majority of the people there. Israel is an existential threat to Gaza. Israeli politicians have said they want it wiped out. So whatever number you think is appropriate on the Palestinian side, you would have to logically concede a much larger number on the Israeli side if you are to play the "Country A has a right to defend itself (hidden premise: "by any means")" card. Otherwise you are again stuck in hypocrisy. The thing is you know that Gaza actually can't defend itself because of the overwhelmingly superior military force Israel has, and so you can feel comfortable making the argument.

So, yes, any country has the right to defend itself. But not "by any means". And getting people to agree to "Israel has a right to defend itself" as a cover for "Israel has a right to defend itself + by any means" is a rhetorical ploy that can justify not only Israeli war crimes but Hamas's war crimes too. If Gaza has "a right to defend itself + by any means" then future war crimes against Israel must also consistently be excused. That's the bind you're in. I'm not in that bind because I don't accept the hidden premise.

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right?

So, every argument you make of the form "Why should we have to take it"? "Why can't we defend ourselves"? etc can be applied to any situation where a dominant power is facing an embedded guerilla force and the "obvious" answer that you seek from your interlocutor ("Of course you must defend yourself", "You don't have to take it", "Do whatever you think you need to") actually turns out to be not so obvious or uncomplicated, certainly not ethical, and not how civilised countries should react in such a situation without major qualifications.

And remember, Gaza is not an existential or infrastructural threat to Israel. The military capability of Hamas is absolutely tiny compared to Israel. Netanyahu messed up by letting border security lapse and Hamas got through in a significant way and did absolutely horrible things, but they were almost immediately defeated and had to retreat. So, razing Gaza to the ground and killing thousands of its civilians is not justifiable. It's politically opportunistic, excessive and vengeful rather than necessary, proportionate, and ethical. Also, committing war crimes is always wrong. Cutting the electricity to incubators so babies suffocate to death is wrong. Bombing refugees on routes declared safe is wrong. None of that is part of a legitimate defence and constantly trying to evade responsibility by blaming Hamas for everything as if Israel did not wilfully choose those actions is not going to fly. The blame can be shared but not escaped. If anyone has agency here, it's the IDF. So repeating the line "Israel has a right to defend itself" gets you nowhere and in fact with the hidden premise ties you into excusing any atrocity that forms part of a reaction to an attack, including reactions by Hamas to the current attack by Israel. Not a good position to be in.

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

I guess I didn't answer this. With all the qualifications above, if there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. But it is not justifiable to destroy an entire city because militants from that city attacked you. That's revenge and collective punishment.

Imbedded in that response is that the appropriate Israeli response to the 3,000 missles launched in 4 hours on 10/7, the paratrooper invasion of rapists, butchers, and kidnappers onto civilian areas was to kill just those terrorists who made it over and then build a bigger iron dome and then set up a conference to hash out the future with the orchestrators of the rape?

If there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. — Baden

I do believe being raped and butchered qualifies as a direct threat, so that leads me to destroying those military posts that offer Hamas that ability.

Hamas fortifies its positions behind its citizens, builds tunnels throughout Gaza, uses hospitals as military bases, and transports weapons in ambulances.

Those positions have to be destroyed under this logic.

It is a tragedy of epic proportions that Hamas is sacrificing helpless Palestinians, but that tragedy does not extend to the Israelis because they are not helpless, nor are they made helpless by the barbaric tactics of Hamas.

They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable — Baden

Do you truly view the Catholics of Northern Ireland as sufficiently similar to Hamas to make this comparison? This isn't a rhetorical question, but do you really believe the same folks who authorized the rape plan can be trusted at the negotiation table?

I mean think about that. You're sitting there with your leadership team and some guy says "let's rape concert goers and burn the babies on the collective farm," and the ayes have it, so it's approved, the parachutes then get packed, and then you tune in to CNN to watch it unfold.

That's kinda fucked up beyond repair, right?

You can keep repeating the word "rape" ad nauseum if you like but as far as I know that's a contested claim (from my reading of wiki) and there's no evidence of a "rape plan". Besides, it's unnecessary as Hamas targeting and butchering civilians, including children, already puts them on an absolute level of depravity. The difference is I can say this and also say suffocating babies to death is depraved. You can't. All you can do is use emotive language about Hamas as an attempt to excuse Israel's atrocities. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the IDF that Hamas "forced" them to kill children in hospitals? What exactly was the proven direct threat from that hospital to Israeli citizens that justified suffocating infants to death? Why did they "have to" kill those children? Spell it out. Otherwise, you have no case for the IDF being morally superior to Hamas.

I'll talk more about the IRA later (yes, there are differences) but I want to know what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital is. Make it utilitarian, deontological, whatever you like but drop the rhetoric and say something substantial for a change.

I'll talk more about the IRA later but I want to know right now what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital i — Baden

They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. Hamas had no justification to put children in harm's way under any ethical theory. Self defense was Israel's justification.

If I invade a country with a baby in my backpack, and you shoot me but I'm saved by my baby shield, the ethical violation is on me.

Two factual disputes from what you said above: (1) babies were evacuated from the hospital, meaning the IDF is working to reduce casualties to allow safe passage from an active war zone and (2) Hamas raped Israelis. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/world/israel-investigates-sexual-violence-hamas/index.html

The only known bombing of a Palestinian hospital was by a stray Hamas rocket, which hit the parking lot, but was first reported by Hamas and on this thread as a direct attack by Israel on the hospital itself.

This is a horrible war. It's painful to read the reports. Hamas should never have bombed, raped, butchered, and burned Israeli citizens, but really, this is child's play as to what happened after 9/11. The whole Middle East got re-sorted out. By some reports, the total deaths attributable to 9/11 was 4 to 5 million. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/

Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade.

Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade. — Hanover

As I said to you before I would happily see every member of Hamas blown up with the grenades of your choosing. This is not what's happening. Most of the casualties are civilians.

They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. — Hanover

No proof of this. They didn't find one Hamas member as far as I know. But let's suppose for argument's sake they were disarming Hamas. Were Hamas members in the incubator room holding babies in front of them while Israeli soldiers shot at them as per your analogy? No. So, the analogy fails. Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort.

Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort. — Baden

Palestinians report 4 babies died in the hospital. Assuming that valid information, I assume it occurred as the result of power outages or other events secondary to the IDF"s attempt to remove Hamas from the hospital, or maybe they died of things unrelated to the war.

The IDF did not intentionally suffocate babies, and to the extent babies died collateral to the war efforts, responsibility rests with those who brought the war front to hospital, not the IDF. I don't justify killing babies, which is what I said before, which makes Hamas all the more despicable because they are responsible for that.

31 babies were evacuated, lending support to IDF"s claims they are doing all they can to reduce innocent casualties, which is extraordinary in comparison to what other nations do.

On the other hand, Hamas intentionally killed babies by their very hands, not as collateral damage, but intentionally and purposefully. That menace has to be eradicated, and the government of the Palestinian people cannot be removed without Palestinian casualties. That is always the case with war. The citizens suffer for the decisions of their government.

Hence why I was asking whether anyone agreed with my brief analysis of why things won’t be resolved anytime soon. The peace holds in Northern Island and view is that this is due mostly to cultural homogeny … what other reasons? What other factors are important? Are any relatable to the middle east?

People care about other people dying. That is a given. Who ‘cares’ more? Pfft is exactly my reaction to that.

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right? — Baden

Thank you.

Exactly how comparable is this to the situation in the middle east though. Both conflicts span great swathes of time, but I think it is a hell of a lot easier for people who basically share the same traditions and history to come together and talk. I get the overall impression that this is not at all the case in the middle east as there is entrenched and despotic hatred held by many groups. Plus, there are multiple groups involved.

I would also state that it is very difficult to turn the other cheek (so to speak). The IRA were mostly acting at a distance. Hamas literally went into people houses and gunned them down. Israel has, on occasion I believe, done something similar but mostly at a distance. I am not sure there is an incredible amount of value in asking if it is ‘better’ to kill someone face to face with a gun or drop bombs on them from afar.

What could peace look like for future generations? What could be initiated now to allow the next generation to sit at a table and shake hands?

Assuming that valid information, I assume it occurred as the result of power outages or other events secondary to the IDF"s attempt to remove Hamas from the hospital, or maybe they died of things unrelated to the war. — Hanover

So, you don't know this:

"On 6 November, Israeli forces struck and destroyed the solar panels atop the hospital, leaving it fully reliant on back-up generators powered by rapidly dwindling fuel supplies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege

"Rapidly dwindling" because Israel cut off the fuel supplies. So they cut off the fuel supplies and then destroyed the solar panels on top of the hospital just to make sure the electricity will run out and babies in incubators reliant on that electricity are put at risk of death. But that's not their fault? No. If I stand outside your local hospital and cut off the electricity and also cynically make sure your back up is gone too, I'm responsible for the deaths and damage that results from that.

Or maybe the claim is that the phantom Hamas members who were never found at the hospital were using electric powered rifles that were an immediate threat to Israeli citizens tens of miles away? Please explain clearly why this "had to" be done in "self defence". Specifics and verified claims only. There is no verification of any threat coming from the hospital to Israel.

"The Geneva-based human rights organization Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor stated, "The Israeli army is the only party controlling the scene inside the al-Shifa Medical Complex, amid a total media blackout. No third party or international organization was permitted to be present inside... Therefore, there are concerns that the army might be creating the scene that might be released later."[96]

The IDF then released photos showing "Military uniforms, 11 guns, three military vests, one with a Hamas logo, nine grenades, two Qurans, a string of prayer beads, a box of dates." Former US State Department legal advisor Brian Finucane, said "These arms by themselves hardly seem to justify the military fixation on al-Shifa, even setting the law aside".[36]

Following the release of the Israeli photos, Al Jazeera senior political analyst Marwan Bishara was skeptical, since Hamas left the guns and nothing else.[97] Bishara added that Israel doesn't have any evidence that justifies "the genocide that they've carried out against Gaza and the bombings of the hospitals and other facilities and for the collective punishments.

Jeremy Bowen, BBC News' international editor, noted that there is no independent scrutiny inside the hospital, since journalists are working under the aegis of the Israeli military.[105] He also stated that the evidence that was produced wasn't convincing enough to prove that "this was a nerve centre for the Hamas operation".[105] On 17 November 2023, journalists for The Independent claimed that "Israel has not presented evidence that shows a large-scale headquarters under the hospital".[106] CNN analysis suggested Israel had rearranged the weaponry before allowing press into the hospital."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege

So, your justification seems to rest on a bunch of likely bogus or at the very least very questionable claims by the IDF. Certainly not enough to justify the disabling and invasion of a hospital, which is a war crime.

"According to the [International Committee for the Red Cross] If there is doubt about whether a hospital is being used for military purposes, it should be presumed not to be being used militarily"

There is no doubt there is at least doubt.

Do you truly view the Catholics of Northern Ireland as sufficiently similar to Hamas to make this comparison? — Hanover

First of all you're making the wrong comparison. The Catholics in N. Ireland did not = The IRA just as Gazans do not = Hamas. Hamas is and the IRA were militant groups fighting a guerilla war against an occupier and are / were deemed terrorist by the antagonists. The Catholics in N. Ireland and the Gazans are both civilian populations who show / showed support for these militant groups and their war.

Clearly Hamas have a fundamentalist religious ideology and their methods are on the face of it more brutal than the IRA. Also, the IRA didn't have a border with mainland U.K. to fire rockets into it though they did carry out attacks on the security forces and on Protestant civilians within N. Ireland. The IRA posed some though not a major threat to British civilian life but a significant threat to political stability in N. Ireland just as Hamas also poses some though not a major threat to Israeli civilian life but a significant threat to political stability in the region. There are differences but not enough to justify the difference between what the British did and what the Israelis are doing now.

You have to respond because your country is being attacked. — Hanover

Do you? Why?

This is no valid syllogism.

It's my position that the Israeli response is necessary to protect Israeli interests. If you disagree, you can present one of two arguments: (1) the Israeli response is disproportionate to the threat, meaning it excessively exacts damage beyond what is necessary to achieve safety for its citizens, or (2) Israel has no legitimate interest to protect because it is either an illegal occupier of the land or because it deserves this comuppance.

If you choose #1, you've got to set out what the proportionate response is. That no one can seem to do this leads me to believe that #2 is the real position everyone here actually has. The #2 position calls for the eliminatation of Israel, which is why Israel is ignoring the protests. — Hanover

No I don't have to do that.

It could simply be the case that there is no proportionate response that protects Israeli interests. Reality is not obligated to arrange itself so that Israeli interests can always be met.

What could peace look like for future generations? — I like sushi

If wishes were horses, the peasants would ride. I wish for a general, mutual peace. That would be good.

What I hope Israel DOES NOT do is create peace by removing the Palestinians from Gaza. I don't know where they would go. It seems like Gaza is being rendered uninhabitable. Of course it can be cleared and rebuilt; will it be cleared and rebuilt? I don't know.

Netanyahu said it will be a long war. Indeed. At least a year? Clearing the tunnels has scarcely begun, other than trying to blow them up with bombs. Destroying the tunnels (I assume that is on the agenda, whatever else happens) will also take time.

"Ethnic Cleansing" has been carried out successfully by any number of respectable countries. Spain kicked the Jews out several hundred years ago. The US severely reduced its indigenous population. After WWII, about 10,000,000 Germans were kicked out of countries their ancestors had been living in for a long time. The Potato Famine wasn't ethnic cleansing, supposedly, but Ireland's population decreased in size every census between the famine (1845) and 1990. My maternal ancestors fled Ireland around 1845. Turkey rid itself of about 1,000,000 Armenians in 1915 -- they died, they didn't move. A lot of Greek Christians were cleared out as well. There are quite a few others.

You have to respond because your country is being attacked.
— Hanover

Do you? Why? — Echarmion

If you don't respond, your replacement will.

So, get your killing out of the way, lest someone outdoes you?

So, get your killing out of the way, lest someone outdoes you? — Echarmion

It's just a political reality that people aren't going to take an attack like 9/11 or 10/7 lying down. A leader who doesn't respond won't be in power long.

Just like it's a political reality that people won't take a longstanding political grievance combined with economic misery "lying down".

The solution this political reality offers is not new. Hamas is clear in what it proposes. So are some Israelis. Perhaps we should laud them for their honesty and just get on with it?

It sure as hell looks like they can't form a moderate state, yes. — schopenhauer1

What would be the "moderate state" here when Israel is building new settlements in the West Bank, has an Apartheid system of different laws and has basically no intention of a two state solution? Why do you assume somehow "moderates" could form a state when the role is to be a puppet state?

Netanyahu aided Hamas to divide and rule the Palestinians, besides for him Hamas is far better representative of Palestinians than the Palestinians that would want to negotiate. Sorry, but the leadership of a state does matter: if we would the actions of the Iraqi state in the last 50 years, then Saddam Hussein and his utterly disastrous decisions to invade neighbors couldn't be otherwise explained than by his leadership.

Ok, now you are making Israel's (Netanyahu's government's) case right now about why they have to take over Gaza and hold it for a while and make sure it is molded to their liking ala the US to Germany and Japan after utterly defeating them after WW2. — schopenhauer1

Somehow you don't see the huge difference here.

The allies wanted to get rid of the ruling state, yet Germany and Japan were still left for Germans and the Japanese (although Soviet Union took Sakhalin, which has been a sour issue between Japan and Soviet Union / Russia).

Only a certain mr. H had plans not only to conquer to get rid of the states and annex land especially in his Eastern neighborhood, but he and his followers also had huge plans for population replacement in these countries on a grand scale.

If the victorious allies would have had similar objectives, moving the Japanese out of their islands or the Germans out of Germany (or putting the people on reservations), I think both people wouldn't been so happy with the situation as they were now about the allied occupation. In fact, I think in that case the response 'land and the people' (or in the case of Japan, 'the islands and the people') would become central to the national identity of the countries. Hence it's quite logical why for the Palestinians for their identity the land of Palestine is so central.

If the victorious allies would have had similar objectives, moving the Japanese out of their islands or the Germans out of Germany (or putting the people on reservations), I think both people wouldn't been so happy with the situation as they were now about the allied occupation. In fact, I think in that case the response 'land and the people' (or in the case of Japan, 'the islands and the people') would become central to the national identity of the countries. Hence it's quite logical why for the Palestinians for their identity the land of Palestine is so central. — ssu

But the US did occupy Germany and Japan after utterly destroying many of their cities. There’s even dozen or so US army bases still in Germany and in Japan. When Western and Eastern Germany was rebuilt, it was definitely in a new framework molded to each sides image. It doesn’t mean it was some occupied territory forever (but was for a time). It had to be a liberal democracy again though.

Functionally a war. How else? But are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on 7 Oct. were not a crime? — tim wood

A war crime would be more apt here, because these aren't ordinary criminals in Israel's view.

But the US did occupy Germany and Japan after utterly destroying many of their cities. There’s even dozen or so US army bases still in Germany and in Japan. When Western and Eastern Germany was rebuilt, it was definitely in a new framework molded to each sides image. It doesn’t mean it was some occupied territory forever (but was for a time). It had to be a liberal democracy again though. — schopenhauer1

This idea that Germany and Japan were somehow remade out of while cloth by the allies, turning former barbarians into civilized people (as per @RogueAI) is really weird. Is this somehow a result of how the history of WW2 is taught, that the continuity of either nation was permanently shattered?

Edit: now that I think about it, I guess there is a popular history that Germany wasn't properly defeated after WW1 so the allies had to finish the job properly and excise the evil spirit of prussian militarism permanently.

Neither Germany nor Japan were transformed into killing machines by some evil spell, and neither nation just effortlessly switched back after the war. That the result was as positive has much to do with the integration of these countries into the anti-communist alliance, which justified lenient policies while providing a new sense of identity (very much abbreviated).

It would not be easy for Israel to pull off something similar. Centrally the current conception of the Israeli stated seems to me utterly opposed to giving the arabs en Masse some sort of unifying identity as a part of Israel.

This idea that Germany and Japan were somehow remade out of while cloth by the allies, turning former barbarians into civilized people (as per RogueAI) is really weird. Is this somehow a result of how the history of WW2 is taught, that the continuity of either nation was permanently shattered? — Echarmion

Straw man as I didn’t state that, just facts. Allies utterly bombed the hell out of these countries and occupied them for a time.

Neither Germany nor Japan were transformed into killing machines by some evil spell, and neither nation just effortlessly switched back after the war. That the result was as positive has much to do with the integration of these countries into the anti-communist alliance, which justified lenient policies while providing a new sense of identity (very much abbreviated). — Echarmion

I mean yeah I agree so not sure why you phrase it like I didn’t think they did a good job afterwards allowing them to be reintegrated into the world community. It was still contingent on being a liberal democracy and being demilitarized to a large extent.

It would not be easy for Israel to pull off something similar. Centrally the current conception of the Israeli stated seems to me utterly opposed to giving the arabs en Masse some sort of unifying identity as a part of Israel. — Echarmion

That’s speculative. Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out but then again how solid was post war Germany at the beginning? However, from what seems to have been stated it’s some sort of entity that isn’t hostile to Israel but have no idea what that looks like. Again, tgst is just from what’s said, so speculation. You can do that too but then your speculation is just that too.

Just like it's a political reality that people won't take a longstanding political grievance combined with economic misery "lying down". — Echarmion

People expect action from their leaders during times of economic misery. As FDR said, "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach."

This is a silly point you are arguing. When a country is attacked or when it's economy isn't working people expect action from their leader. Had Netanyahu not retaliated, as some here propose, he would have been removed by the Knesset for dereliction of duty or cowardice or incompetence, and deservedly so. His replacement would then have retaliated.

I've noticed some of the people here hold Israel to a ridiculously high standard, almost like a Madonna-complex, and when Israel doesn't live up to the impossible saintly expectations, they're lumped in with the animals that attacked them.

What would be the "moderate state" here when Israel is building new settlements in the West Bank, has an Apartheid system of different laws and has basically no intention of a two state solution? — ssu

A moderate Palestinian state would not have these human rights abuses:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/

But the US did occupy Germany and Japan after utterly destroying many of their cities. There’s even dozen or so US army bases still in Germany and in Japan. When Western and Eastern Germany was rebuilt, it was definitely in a new framework molded to each sides image. It doesn’t mean it was some occupied territory forever (but was for a time). It had to be a liberal democracy again though. — schopenhauer1

And how many Americans were repopulated to live in Germany? Did the American President declare that now Germany (or Japan) are part of the US?

And how long do we talk about an US lead occupation in Germany? That ended in 1949, as you yourself said, the occupation wasn't forever. Even with this example, the difference is quite stark between the US lead occupation (and West Germany) and the Soviet occupation (and formation of East Germany).

The West Germans remember quite well how the US assisted West-Berlin with the airlift and Marshall Plan:


While the East-Germans had their uprising against Soviet forces:


Spot any differences in the two occupations of the same people, @schopenhauer1? I do notice.

So yes, how the occupation forces behave and rule, what is it's true objectives do matter. The difference is between night and day.

And furthermore, the typical argument that the US is a Superpower and dominates other countries just like any other Great Power, hence if it's a country having US bases or being occupied by another country isn't at all so straight forward. Europeans do like NATO and genuinely have built their defense on a common defense. Here's a perfect example of how US troops were looked upon in Czechia in 2015, a year after the occupation of Crimea by the Russians.



Yet going back to the subject. The objectives of Israel here are quite different. And that is the problem.

To be honest, we are sidewalk superintendents, by-standers, kibitzers at a long distance from the war. For us, our caring and concern is low-cost. — BC

I disagree. Public awareness and opinion do shape policy in the countries we live in and this is far more important than we think. The Israeli governments, when run by Likud or other right wing nutjobs, will not improve the fate of Palestinians unless the international community forces them. As they did with South Africa. Today, the Palestinian cause is getting much more attention than before despite the one-sided media coverage of traditional media and politicians.

We can only hope that the "Western" narrative is quickly abandoned by a more pluralistic and therefore balanced view as expressed by many other countries. The cry of "anti-semitism" each time Israeli policy is critizised, is losing its potency, both for being false and due to the inexoriable shift of (economic) power to Asia and hopefully sooner than later: Africa.

The same reason Russian sanctions are only upheld by EU, US and direct allies like Canada, Australia, Japan are at play here as well. Not even Mexico, with an important dependence on the US, sanctioned Russia. Because these countries understand all too well the role international policy from those countries have contributed to creating the circumstances for war. The "Western" narrative with respect to Israel-Palestine is obviously not shared by former colonies, who see this conflict much clearer with their own history of being oppressed by the same powers that now unconditionally support Israel. Quite frankly, it's as if we're reliving the 1800s with how backward the EU and US positions are. Especially when we get the cultural superiority arguments from the closet white supremacists ("where would you rather live?" "How come these countries do not independently develop into liberal democracies?").

This idea that Germany and Japan were somehow remade out of while cloth by the allies, turning former barbarians into civilized people (as per RogueAI) is really weird. — Echarmion

We basically wrote Japan's new constitution for them. There was input from Japan, but everyone knew the new government was going to greatly resemble America's.

Straw man as I didn’t state that, just facts. Allies utterly bombed the hell out of these countries and occupied them for a time. — schopenhauer1

The question is, do you think the relevant factor for their post war recovery was how thoroughly they had been destroyed

That’s speculative. Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out but then again how solid was post war Germany at the beginning? However, from what seems to have been stated it’s some sort of entity that isn’t hostile to Israel but have no idea what that looks like. Again, tgst is just from what’s said, so speculation. You can do that too but then your speculation is just that too. — schopenhauer1

I think we'd have to see what arguments we come up with rather than throw our hands up and say "it's all speculation anyways".

I don't see how Israel can develop the kind of rapport with the arabs that the US managed with Japan and Germany. In the case of Japan, the US had the emperor to work with, along with the somewhat ironic twist that the Japanese death cult turned into a kind of studied subservience once their defeat was obvious.

In Germany the US had already been as much a model to strive after as an object of hate. Americans and Germans did not have the kind of baggage Israel would have to deal with.

And again there's the basic problem of where there's room for the arabs in Israel, politically speaking.

People expect action from their leaders during times of economic misery. As FDR said, "The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach."

This is a silly point you are arguing. When a country is attacked or when it's economy isn't working people expect action from their leader. Had Netanyahu not retaliated, as some here propose, he would have been removed by the Knesset for dereliction of duty or cowardice or incompetence, and deservedly so. His replacement would then have retaliated. — RogueAI

Well and had Hamas not attacked Israel, they'd have been replaced by some other fanatical islamist organisation. As @Baden has repeatedly pointed out, all these arguments work both ways.

People defend Hamas citing exactly the political realities you're using in defense of Israel. That Hamas is the underdog. That Palestinians are oppressed. That one cannot expect the oppressed to be reasonable and just turn the other cheek.

I've noticed some of the people here hold Israel to a ridiculously high standard, almost like a Madonna-complex, and when Israel doesn't live up to the impossible saintly expectations, they're lumped in with the animals that attacked them. — RogueAI

Animals, yes. And what can you do with animals but to exterminate them. And since we cannot guarantee that the children of Gaza do not also turn into animals, the proper reaction is therefore to kill them all. Perhaps "god will know his own", as the apocryphal saying goes.

"During one week in February 1946, a committee of 24 Americans, both military and civilian, drafted a democratic constitution for Japan. MacArthur approved it and SCAP presented it to Japan's foreign minister as a fait accompli."
https://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/lessons_on_the_japanese_constitution#:~:text — RogueAI

Meanwhile the Germans were allowed their own constitutional conference. Does it follow therefore that Germany is still Germany but Japan isn't?

The difference is between night and day. — ssu

And between right and wrong.

The question is, do you think the relevant factor for their post war recovery was how thoroughly they had been destroyed — Echarmion

Now you are misconstruing my point which was AFTER they were bombed to hell they made sure that the countries were liberal democracies, friendly to the Allies, and demilitarized.

In Germany the US had already been as much a model to strive after as an object of hate. Americans and Germans did not have the kind of baggage Israel would have to deal with. — Echarmion

Because of this point that is why I don’t know what it would look like other than Abbas but he’s pretty weak. Perhaps an Arab coalition.