Perhaps reference this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847759

Anyway, no one is denying the history of antisemitism in the Middle-East. Trying to excuse Israel's treatment of Palestinians in this way is familiar caveman logic. — Tzeentch

The point here is that the Arab nations have been expelling Jews from "their" land historically and during modern times. That clear case of apartheid for some reason is overlooked. What's also overlooked is that while there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years, a large portion of today's Jews are the descendants of refugees from all over the globe. Jews currently exist in their largest numbers (although still very small) in Israel and the US, and then way down the list you come up with France and the UK, but those numbers are very low.

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go, including Israel, one of the only places available. If not for the US, where do you think they'd go?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while shocking to you appears to overlook the fact that Palestinians butchered and burnt babies, raped women, and took the very old as hostages. The outrage that followed Israel's supposed bombing of the hospital seems to have been muted as evidence comes forward that it was Hamas. Why not the outrage and protests against Hamas for bombing a hospital? Will you take to the streets if evidence is confirmed it was Hamas?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while shocking to you appears to overlook the fact that Palestinians butchered and burnt babies, raped women, and took the very old as hostages. — Hanover

So you would say, on the atrocity scale, that Hamas has "crossed the line"?

I wasn't aware there was a spectrum of genocidal intent.

Claiming either side has a moral edge in justifying murder is....justifying murder.

Claiming either side has a moral edge in justifying murder is....justifying murder. — Pantagruel

Should the Allies have bombed Nazi Germany in 1945?

Should the Allies have bombed Nazi Germany in 1945? — schopenhauer1

Still looking for the moral high ground? The moral high ground, preferably with a deep surrounding ditch of historical persecution and subjugation, is always the most easily defensible, especially when guarded by "innocent civilians".

The point here is that the Arab nations have been expelling Jews from "their" land historically and during modern times. That clear case of apartheid for some reason is overlooked. What's also overlooked is that while there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years, a large portion of today's Jews are the descendants of refugees from all over the globe. Jews currently exist in their largest numbers (although still very small) in Israel and the US, and then way down the list you come up with France and the UK, but those numbers are very low.

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go, including Israel, one of the only places available. If not for the US, where do you think they'd go? — Hanover

And how exactly does this excuse human rights abuses and crimes against humanity?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while shocking to you appears to overlook the fact that Palestinians butchered and burnt babies, raped women, and took the very old as hostages. — Hanover

Equating Palestinians to Hamas is tasteless. I'd love to see where you're going with this logic.

Still looking for the moral high ground? The moral high ground, preferably with a deep surrounding ditch of historical persecution and subjugation, is always the most easily defensible, especially when guarded by "innocent civilians". — unenlightened

Would you like to answer that question?

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go — Hanover

They are God's chosen people.

Everything else pertaining to them follows from that.

, unfortunately, it goes further than the Jews, and has for some time. :/

Should the Allies have bombed Nazi Germany in 1945? — schopenhauer1

What should happen is that people stop try to justify and legitimize violence in all of its repulsive aspects. Morality is exercised in living contexts, not historical evaluations.

Would you like to answer that question? — schopenhauer1

Certainly. What one should do in these circumstances is die. It's very clear; Jesus did it and he told his followers to do it. And everyone can understand it. The blood sacrifice has to be made. All the horror comes from wanting someone else to do it.

Certainly. What one should do in these circumstances is die. It's very clear; Jesus did it and he told his followers to do it. And everyone can understand it. The blood sacrifice has to be made. All the horror comes from wanting someone else to do it. — unenlightened

:lol:

What should happen is that people stop try to justify and legitimize violence in all of its repulsive aspects. Morality is exercised in living contexts, not historical evaluations. — Pantagruel

I would love that too. I write a whole post also condemning the perpetual cycle of violence. But the point was to illustrate how the situation can be framed whereby it is both true it is absolutely wrong that any innocent civilian dies in war and yet there is still a justification in a war with a combatant who by all means is rotten in both its means and ends (Nazis and Hamas).

And thus whilst I consider Israel justified in its war on Hamas, it will be an extremely unfortunate fact that just like innocent Germans were bombed and died, Gazans being under this rule unfortunately also fall under this circumstance.

That being said, I think Israel should abide by its own principles in war and provide as much aide as possible to Gazans, keep its air strikes only at targets that are absolutely seen as necessary to disarm them, not just anywhere they suspect. They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians.

That being said, I think Israel should abide by its own principles in war and provide as much aide as possible to Gazans, keep its air strikes only at targets that are absolutely seen as necessary to disarm them, not just anywhere they suspect. They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

Reasonable.

Gaza ground offensive seems unlikely this week, perhaps longer.

Fire across the Lebanese and Syrian border ramped up, with 27 Hezbollah members and 7 members of Islamic Jihad and Hamas killed, as well as 6 or 7 (conflicting reports) members of the IDF.

The Islamic State and Al Qaeda called for global attacks on Jews, but what else is new? Contra to their position here, Jihadis seem to be taking advantage of the distraction this generates for Syria and Iran to carry out their own offensives. But of course, Assad is "just as evil." I recall the (dubious, to say the least) IS propaganda videos claiming SAA forces forced prisoners to chant "there is no God but Assad," and defile Korans.

IS stands to gain from new Turkish operations in Syria, while the SDF will be hindred in their fight against IS by them. The SDF itself has been implicated in gross use of force violations, mass arrests, disappearances, and killings, in their offensive operations against Arab tribes in Deir ez Zor.

Lebanon's economy is in shambles, the power and water grid failing, Beirut still a mess after the 2 kiloton explosion that rocked it. And yet Hezbollah's harassing attacks promise to bring more strikes down, and obviously this is not particularly pleasing for Hezbollah's many enemies. Lebanon is an economic basket case, and this has caused the scars of its 1975-1990 civil war to begin reopening.

Iran continues to have problems with domestic unrest in its Persian community, and faces an even larger threat from growing resistance from their very large minority population, particularly the Kurds and Azeris. Meanwhile, what Azerbaijan plans military vis-á-vis Armenia still seems to be an open question.

The Taliban are facing an IS offensive and were exchanging fire with Iranian forces just the other month, with a growing fight over water rights. Aside from this, they face other active insurgent movements.

And of course, one could see the same sort of chaos erupting in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, a bit less so in Jordan.

Point being, the whole region is a basket case. The whole argument about "all the neighbors rallying to destroy Israel," is millenarian nonsense, and should never have been allowed to be a part of actual military strategy within Hamas. I continue to think they didn't think their attack would be as successful as it was, but the very idea of trying to mobilize support by getting your own civilians killed is pretty grim. Also very short sighted.

Suppose the Gulf States and Egypt did mobilize against Israel? It's unclear if they could win, and there is the nuclear deterrent, but moreover, if they occupied Gaza or southern Lebanon one of the first orders of business would be completely dismantling Hamas and Hezbollah.

The millenarian view seems to suppose that anger over Israel will be so powerful that it will lead to popular coups across the Arab states such that "everyone becomes allies." I don't get how anyone could look at the history and not think such a second, more violent "Arab Spring," wouldn't be far more likely to result in a cascade of civil wars instead.

I don't know if Hamas drank too much of their own Kool Aid, just badly miscalculated, or simply acted for Iranian interests here. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. Reminds me of the GOP, the lunatics begin running the asylum and torpedo their own efforts.

Are you confident about that? Israeli sources (Haaretz and the Times of Israel) are saying the IDF is pressuring the government to launch the invasion, despite expected casualties to soldiers.

As for Hezbollah, I don't know man, I don't think this tit-for-tat will continue for much longer, I just see a long trial of gasoline and a match held by a drunken hand, wobbling over the fuel.

The longer this goes, the worse the prospects are for a very big war to break out. Maybe you have different intuitions and/or sources.

Certainly not positive about it, but there has been movement on the hostage negotiation front, the US is calling for a delay, and there have been some Israeli press releases that seems to presage a further delay.



The IDFs problem is that a siege is by far and away the safest way to destroy Hamas but also a gross violation of human rights. Realistically, they can't choke Hamas off from food, electricity, etc. without doing it to everyone. If they were alone in a fort or something, the obvious move would be to just sit and wait until they surrender.

I don't think there is a way for them to "thread the needle," here. They're going to have to let a large amount of supplies through and this will mean that Hamas is supplied. There isn't a real way to constrict their access without constricting everyone elses too, especially since they are armed and organized and can make sure they get supplies first.

I don't know if Hamas drank too much of their own Kool Aid, just badly miscalculated, or simply acted for Iranian interests here. The more I think about it the less sense it makes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There used to be a theory that the Boston Tea Party was masterminded to bring about colonial unity in the face of British punishment. I think most historians today believe the people who dumped $12 million dollars worth of tea into the harbor didn't realize what they'd done till the next day. The mastermind was probably whiskey.

I lean toward that perspective for most events of this kind. There's no mastermind and no plan. But then, Muslims don't drink, so I may be missing something.

The IDFs problem is that a siege is by far and away the safest way to destroy Hamas but also a gross violation of human rights. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Personally, I don't think a siege will do anything to destroy Hamas. If anything, the suffering of ordinary people plays right into the hands of Hamas and will increase support for them, and erode support for the actions of the Netanyahu government.

It's even reasonable to assume that Hamas, probably being prepared for these types of repercussions, is among the best supplied in all of Gaza.

I've known plenty of Muslims who drink lol. But even without that, you can blame hashish and captagon, which Hamas sort of corners the market on in the Strip anyhow.


Maybe. But carrying ops out in total secrecy that result in massive collective suffering while failing to accomplish any real goal outside of that very suffering? And then preplanning so that you're sitting cozy on supplies while others go without? That could spark backlash.

For example, the Siege of Leningrad certainly made the residents hate the Germans, but it also sparked significant hatred of the party. One, for the incompetent defense and political moves that made the siege a reality. Then, for the way the party elite didn't starve and used their control of resources to oppress. And also for the total lack of concern the government seemed to show in people, blocking evacuations, etc. (something Hamas seems to be engaging in to some degree). Survivors have some tales of pretty profound hatred for their own leadership in bringing the situation about at least.

And of course, the Red Army had to rely heavily on coercion, summary executions. and "blocking detachments," throughout the war, precisely because of this sort of thing.

The KMT's inability to effectively resist the Japanese, and how that played into the hands of the CCP is a similar example. Hatred of the Japanese did not equate to love of the KMT, which was blamed for both failures and their own actions of brutality.

Edit: Just as an indicator, Hamas was against an evacuation of the north, and allegedly put efforts into stopping evacuees, but 700,000-800,000 appear to have left despite their calls. Were the border with Egypt open, it doesn't not seem like the call by Hamas for everyone to stay in place would be particularly well heeded. And who can blame them. Passing out weapons is one thing. Asking you to keep your family in a combat zone to be used as a shield?

Maybe. But carrying ops out in total secrecy that result in massive collective suffering while failing to accomplish any real goal outside of that very suffering? And then preplanning so that you're sitting cozy on supplies while others go without? That could spark backlash. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That might sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it never works out that way, and because Israel is seen as the occupying force it will receive most if not all of the resentment resulting of it.

Such tactics have been tried before in history, because they seem to supply an easy solution that promises few losses on the side that conducts the counterinsurgency.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

Even the United States, the nation with by far the most, and most accurate, firepower at its disposal, eventually was compelled to devise other strategies for conducting counterinsurgency that focused on a 'Hearts & Minds' approach.

If sieges and bombings could have given the Israelis an easy out, I'm sure somewhere in the last 16 years that would have already happened.

People on this forum don’t want to recognize that is what Israel is dealing with. — schopenhauer1

I don't think it's so.

I don't think anyone (or nearly anyone) thinks Israel isn't allowed to deal with the terrorist threat it's facing. It's really about how they deal with it and if Israel takes into consideration Palestinian civilians or not. Or if the Gaza is the evil city with human animals as Bibi and the defense minister have said...and that's what you give as an order for the military. Warfare does have laws and one should try stick to them. Those laws don't mean that civilian casualties cannot happen. It's about civilian casualties counted in the thousands and not in the tens of thousands. Or in the hundreds of thousands. Besides, the more Palestinian civilians die, the better for Hamas.

The fact is that warfare in a densely populated area is very costly for urban population. History tells this to us:

In Stalingrad in total about 1 to 2 million perished, but "only" about 40 000 civilians died.

The Warsaw Uprising: 50 000 Germans vs 20 000 - 49 000 Polish Home Army. Civilians killed in Warsaw is estimated between 150 000 to 200 000

Battle of Manila: US forces 38 000 vs perhaps 17 000 Japanese. Over one hundred thousand civilians died during the fighting (from 1 million or so).

Battle of Hue: US & South Vietnamese forces 15 000 vs perhaps 7 000 PAVN & VC. About five thousand civilians died during the fighting (from a population of 140 000).

First and Second Battles of Fallujah: US and allied forces about 13 000 vs 4 000 insurgents. Perhaps 1400 civilians killed (of over quarter of a million population).

So Gaza has 2,2 million people, and Hamas has perhaps 40 000 fighters. Already perhaps 5 000 have been killed in Gaza in the initial bombing without even the actual ground fighting having not yet started.

Question: Which picture is from Gaza? One thing tells it, when you think about it.

if they occupied Gaza or southern Lebanon one of the first orders of business would be completely dismantling Hamas and Hezbollah. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Gaza, who knows. Yet remember that Israel has basically twice tried to take care of Lebanon by launching an war against it. Twice it has had to retreat from Lebanon and then the rockets have flown again from there.

And what is dismantling Hamas? Great, you can declare that every Hamas leader is either dead or in captivity! And how much time when the next generation of Hamas comes into existence? A decade? So you'll have a few years before it's time "to mow the lawn again". How great is that idea of perpetual war?

The IDFs problem is that a siege is by far and away the safest way to destroy Hamas but also a gross violation of human rights. Realistically, they can't choke Hamas off from food, electricity, etc. without doing it to everyone. If they were alone in a fort or something, the obvious move would be to just sit and wait until they surrender. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Basically they can go into Gaza, clear it and declare that Hamas has been destroyed. Hope that after that relations will come to what they were before. And that's it. Then Bibi can wait before he's going to be fired just like Golda Meir was after the Yom Kippur war.

That might sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it never works out that way, and because Israel is seen as the occupying force it will receive most if not all of the resentment resulting of it.

Never? You might consider how the PA lost its grip on Gaza and was able to be forced out in a violent coup. Hamas was able to gain power and influence, in large part because Fatah was seen as weak, ineffective against Israel, and unable to provide improvements in quality of life.

The claim that an insurgent group can never lose enough traction due to bad performance to be replaced is falsified by Hamas' rise itself. Consider also Hezbollah vs. Amal in the context of an ongoing struggle with other groups within Lebanon, or the way the SDF is hemorrhaging Arab members due to its use of repression.

[quoteIn reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.[/quote]

This simply isn't the case. The majority of insurgencies fail (84% in a dataset from 1900 containing 303 insurgencies). Guerillas/irregular forces are the sort least likely to win their conflicts (in comparison to conventional warfare of symmetrical non-conventional conflicts).

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40863761

E.g., FARC never took over Columbia. The various insurgencies in Egypt never succeeded in winning a victory over the government; this was only achieved (briefly) via non-military resistance. Syria crushed an earlier insurgency, prior to 2011. China has crushed insurgencies in East Turkistan, Tibet, etc. Stalin crushed post-WWII insurgencies. The Tamil Tigers were defeated despite the obvious zeal displayed in their frequent use of suicide attacks. The Shining Path is much reduced and clearly did not achieve a "victory," and the same is true of the Naxalites. The insurgency in Chechnya was also defeated, etc.

The illusion that insurgencies tend to be successful comes from two sources:

- First, the fact that these are the wars the West has been most likely to be engaged in since the end of the Second World War due to their lack of conventional peers. This is a cultural bias. Decolonization is wrapped into this, a larger historical phenomenon. Further, there is a strong selection bias at work here in that Western ground forces have generally only been used in conflicts were the state being supported is clearly out matched. No one much recalls support for states that just involves arms transfers.

Second, that insurgencies tend to last longer than any other type of war also helps sustain this illusion. Conventional wars tend to have the shortest duration, followed by SNC (neither side fielding significant amounts of armor, airpower, heavy artillery, e.g., Liberia, Sierra Leone, CAR, DRC, etc.). But it's a mistake to conflate staying power with victory. If anything, the fact that insurgencies tend to last so long is symptom of their inability to successfully win military contests.

Neither is it the case that insurgents that attack civilian targets in terror attacks (as opposed to military/police targets or property) are more likely to succeed. Every context is different, but writ large it seems to hurt insurgents' causes if anything.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG965.sum.pdf

On a side note, it is also not the case the violent resistance is more likely to attain a total victory in removing a regime or achieving lesser concession than non-violent resistance, quite the opposite. And non-violent resistance has the added benefit of making future conflict less likely. Ghandhi wrote at length about the importance of "how you win" for the future. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't listen and we had the disaster of the Partition, multiple wars since, and the sides aiming nuclear weapons at each other. Not that all the tensions can be tracked back to the Partition period, but a good deal can be.

https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-future-of-nonviolent-resistance-2/

Of course, every situation is different and there are different ways to run the numbers, but these are fairly robust trends (particularly the fact that insurgents tend to lose). This is not to say Hamas isn't justified in violent resistance of some sort. However, if your cause is important enough to kill for, then its important enough not to do things that make it less likely to succeed, and this is where I think this attack has been a catastrophic blunder.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

This is not the case, although I think it holds true in this context. Stalin's massive use of force and absolutely massive scale internal deportations crushed resistance effectively. You can see large scale use of force defeating revolts going all the way back to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple and mass deportation of the Jews out of Judea.

Gaza, who knows. Yet remember that Israel has basically twice tried to take care of Lebanon by launching an war against it. Twice it has had to retreat from Lebanon and then the rockets have flown again from there.

And what is dismantling Hamas? Great, you can declare that every Hamas leader is either dead or in captivity! And how much time when the next generation of Hamas comes into existence? A decade? So you'll have a few years before it's time "to mow the lawn again". How great is that idea of perpetual war?

I meant that "if an alliance of Egypt and the Gulf State joined the war on behalf of "the Palestinians," they would end up occupying Gaza as part of their offensive operations. And if they did that, they would almost certainly get rid of Hamas too, since they are enemies. I don't know if they would have the same "mowing the lawn" issues.

Likewise, if some sort of Arab expeditionary force attacked from the north, using Lebanon as a staging, ground, maybe coming down through Turkey maybe, crushing Hezbollah would likely be on their agenda as well eventually.

I mean, the whole idea is farcical in the first place. My point was simply that the whole "we'll provoke Israel so that they kill so many civilians that the whole Arab world joins the fight," is fanciful. It's fanciful because it's incredibly unlikely, but it's also fanciful for Hamas and Hezbollah to engage in because, as Iranian clients, they are ostensibly enemies of the very people that would be coming to "join the fray." The entire "everyone unites to take out Israel" delusion requires that everyone uniting magically puts down some extremely deep grudges.

Now, given what happened during the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the genocidal sectarian struggles there, this seems like pure delusion. That's what I mean by "insane millenarianism." And even if it worked and Israel was destroyed, it seems almost certain, in the current context, that "allies" wouldn't want to just hand over the land, nor that the Fatah - Hamas war wouldn't kick off again.

just badly miscalculated — Count Timothy von Icarus

Obviously this. After the first die is cast, most plans are for the rubbish bins. Especially if you don't have several battalions in reserve and options to manoeuvre in the theater of war, which is simply too small here.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that say, Egypt or Turkey get involved. But Hezbollah and Iran? It's looking more probable every day. And Israel would likely emerge "victorious", but they will also suffer from a very high civilian death toll, I don't see how that can be avoided if Iran and Hezbollah join.

But as this massacre continues, Egypt and Jordan and others will be heavily pressuring Israel. A very general and uninspired comment is that, after this, it seems to me that the status quo of Gaza and the West Bank may not go back to how it has been until recently.

But, in wars, almost everyone is wrong. Too many factors involved.

Hey, great points and examples in history! :clap:

Found this about the border fence. In 2022

Terror attack bared West Bank barrier’s gaps, but some say holes help keep the peace
Experts say despite tough talk from army, unspoken policy of allowing Palestinian laborers to enter Israel illegally for work will remain as a vital pressure release valve
Emanuel Fabian
By EMANUEL FABIAN
7 April 2022, 6:24 am

https://www.timesofisrael.com/terror-attack-bared-west-bank-barriers-gaps-but-some-say-holes-help-keep-the-peace/

I don't think anyone (or nearly anyone) thinks Israel isn't allowed to deal with the terrorist threat it's facing. It's really about how they deal with it and if Israel takes into consideration Palestinian civilians or not. Or if the Gaza is the evil city with human animals as Bibi and the defense minister have said...and that's what you give as an order for the military. Warfare does have laws and one should try stick to them. Those laws don't mean that civilian casualties cannot happen. It's about civilian casualties counted in the thousands and not in the tens of thousands. Or in the hundreds of thousands. Besides, the more Palestinian civilians die, the better for Hamas. — ssu

As I stated earlier:

I would love that too. I write a whole post also condemning the perpetual cycle of violence. But the point was to illustrate how the situation can be framed whereby it is both true it is absolutely wrong that any innocent civilian dies in war and yet there is still a justification in a war with a combatant who by all means is rotten in both its means and ends (Nazis and Hamas).

And thus whilst I consider Israel justified in its war on Hamas, it will be an extremely unfortunate fact that just like innocent Germans were bombed and died, Gazans being under this rule unfortunately also fall under this circumstance.

That being said, I think Israel should abide by its own principles in war and provide as much aide as possible to Gazans, keep its air strikes only at targets that are absolutely seen as necessary to disarm them, not just anywhere they suspect. They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians. — schopenhauer1