It's almost like making excuses for war crimes and then claiming our values are superior because we're Western would make us sound like some opium-addled Victorian grandpa who really deserves some kick ass satirising to drag him from his stupor...

. If you would just remove yourself from the situation and see it as group A vs group B and focus on the actions of each, I think you could come up with a coherent position but you won't do that. Everything is coloured with the fact that you will support Israel no matter what. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that. — Baden

Really, you need to read this again, consider the implications, and potentially rephrase it so you don't sound like some Victorian "white man's burden" carrier. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass satired off. I mean, dude... — Baden

What you need to do is realize it's not about A versus B. Again, you carry around this torch of equality like it's a virtue as if to argue you bring nothing better to the table that the other side does. What I ask of you is what you ask of me, which is to abandon your vantage point as if it's superior. I think your position is foolish.

I'm not walking around asking that other countries be invaded so as to impose my beliefs upon them. I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force.

Mine is no more white man's burden than your is white man's guilt, fearful of just admitting the obvious that a Palestinian controlled region would be disastorous for world democracy and every inhabitant of Israel. Should Palestine come into control of the region, every current Israeli would be forced entirely out of the region, just as they've been forced out of every Middle Eastern nation except Israel and then they would impose whatever wonderful government upon those remaining.

As Bob Dylan says:

I've heard you say many times
That you're better than no one
And no one is better than you
If you really believe that
You know you have
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

Have you considered the options for defending the value of civility that don't involve bombing schools, designated safe routes, shooting white flag carriers, and pulling the plug on newborn babies in incubators. Because those things don't seem all that civil. It's almost like they're the opposite of civility... It's almost like war crimes do not constitute superior values but are barbaric and something we should be against. Right? — Baden

Yes, those are the facts, just as you've stated them. Israel awoke Monday morning and decided today's the day we'll yank premies from their warm incubators, we'll open fire on the children to nip those emerging problems in the bud, and we'll bomb indiscriminately, well, because we're just enraged at these trespassers.

Or, maybe what happened is that Hamas received billions of dollars from nations that want to eradicate Israel and force everything Western out of "their" region (speaking of apartheid), they built a fortress of underground tunnels, they sent over their rapist special forces to murder and burn, and then they got pushed back only to find those they attacked weren't willing to allow this to happen again, but then they used their finest tactic of hiding behind babies in hospitals to defend themselves.

And then the hostage exchange. How many Palestinian terrorists must Israel exchange for Israeli children? Do we talk about that?

And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? — Baden

I agree with this, but I also hold some sympathy for the position of Israelis (not the government or military). Israelis ought not to live in fear of terrorist attacks by a neighbor. Theirs is a long term concern that is perceived (rightly? wrongly?) to be solvable by eradicating Hamas. Will their military actions accomplish this goal of eradicating Hamas? Maybe, but either way, it's likely to increase resentment and anger by Palestinians toward Israel. That is what breeds reaction, including the deplorable reaction of terrorist action. Hence there's no end in sight to the cycle.

What's hard to believe is that you don't think you can say it out loud that your society is better than others. — Hanover

We could take a deep dive into this question, but can you see how bringing this up in a thread about a Israel and Gaza makes it sound like you think Israel's attack is justified based on Israel's moral superiority? Do you really believe that?

It's an impossibility for Hamas to militarily defeat Israel, a nuclear state backed up by the U.S. Talk about an invented fear. Are you also worried about Honduras taking over California? Should we go in and bomb just in case? It's absurd. The only existential threat is to the Palestinians. They're the ones who just had their city of 1.5 million people destroyed and you're telling me the danger is Israelis being ethnically cleansed? Again, come on... And I'm not a fan of, say, Iran as a society either. But so what? If I don't want to wipe them from the earth militarily, is that supposed to indicate some guilt complex about being Western?

So, I think number one, lay off the John Wayne movies and Rudyard Kipling books. Two, my personal values are superior to plenty of people, including you, where we differ imo. I have no problem saying that. It has nothing to do with whether I'm Western or not. We're not some monolithic group. I mean isn't that in itself something of a Western value that we understand we don't all share the same values? Finally, I'll have some of what you're drinking today. It's been fun.

I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force. — Hanover

But Israel is a colony isn't it? Yes, Hamas are horrible, but the cause is just, no? That's why even if all the Hamas assholes are killed, Israel is still going to come under attack while people have a memory. Have I got that right?

Palestinian terrorists — Hanover

Maybe I'm watching the wrong lefty YouTube videos. Are these the stone-throwers?

I should probably read a book before getting involved in these conversations. I'm happy to be educated.

EDIT: if I was a Palestinian, I think there's a pretty good chance I'd want to go and fuck up an Israeli. And I'd want one that would hurt and shock - a woman or a child. And I'd do something to maim and traumatise, and probably leave just about alive. Maybe I'd come to my senses half way through and stop. Dunno. EDIT2: it would be futile and I'd know it. It wouldn't hurt Netenyahu one bit, in fact it would help him further justify military action. But I'd have the fantasy at least.

Agree. What I'm primarily against is the escalation of violence by whatever side does it. Both sides seem too willing to go to the extremes and I see no end in sight.

We could take a deep dive into this question, but can you see how bringing this up in a thread about a Israel and Gaza makes it sound like you think Israel's attack is justified based on Israel's moral superiority? Do you really believe that? — frank

Of course I don't think that Israel can go and invade any nation it feels (or actually is) morally superior to. The basis for the war is that Israel was invaded by a group of people who were morally inferior to it and the consequences of not protecting itself goes beyond just A now occupying where B used to be. The consequences are that A being in B's place will have far more significant consequences that have to be considered when one is thinking about who to back in this war.

The basis for the war is that Israel was invaded by a group of people who were morally inferior to it and the consequences of not protecting itself goes beyond just A now occupying where B used to be. The consequences are that A being in B's place will have far more significant consequences that have to be considered when one is thinking about who to back in this war. — Hanover

So you're saying that we should back Israel, not only because Israel needs to defend itself, but because the Israeli way of life is superior to the Hamas/Palestinian way of life, and if the latter is allowed to take over Israel, Israel would be a worse place. Is that what you're saying?

It's an impossibility for Hamas to militarily defeat Israel, a nuclear state backed up by the U.S. Talk about an invented fear. — Baden

The fear isn't invented, at least not for the raped women and burned babies. Are you suggesting the only way to lose is by complete takeover?

Are you also worried about Honduras taking over California? — Baden

No, but I am pretty sure if Honduras attacked California, what you're seeing in Gaza would look like child's play.

Should we go in and bomb just in case? It's absurd. — Baden

Now my position is being interpreted as arguing for preemptive war? My position is that Hamas set this in motion, not just Israel deciding there might be an attack forthcoming so it decided to act first. Just to remind ourselves of the sequence: Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second.

The only existential threat is to the Palestinians. They're the ones who just had their city of 1.5 million people destroyed and you're telling me the danger is Israelis being ethnically cleansed? — Baden

They started a war and then there was a response and so we blame the self defender? And where is the ethnic cleansing? The population of Palestinians has soared since Israel has been a state. Take a look at the statistics of Jews throughout the Middle East during that time. They have literally been removed from every nation except Israel. What rights do you think Jews get in all these supposedly non-apartheid Arab states?

And I'm not a fan of, say, Iran as a society either. But so what? If I don't want to wipe them from the earth militarily, is that supposed to indicate some guilt complex about being Western? — Baden

I've not suggested fixing the world's problems one bomb at a time. We're talking about a real life Western type democracy being attacked by a group of folks who hate everything Western. They are the ones who would in fact reorganize the world one bomb at a time if left unchecked.

So you're saying that we should back Israel, not only because Israel needs to defend itself, but because the Israeli way of life is superior to the Hamas/Palestinian way of life, and if the latter is allowed to take over Israel, Israel would be a worse place. Is that what you're saying? — frank

I'm saying we back Israel because they have the right to defend their land that was invaded and we need not be so foolish to think that the outcome of this war won't have greater implications for all involved, which includes who gets to control the area politically.

The fact that there was mass outrage over the killing of a handful ISRAELI Hostages, but not thousands of Palestinian Children is telling of the Israeli position and extreme bias. — Vaskane

You've uncovered the fact that Israel is biased towards Israel?

I also note that the Palestinians didn't protest the October 7 attacks, uncovering the fact that Palestine is biased toward Palestine.

I'm saying we back Israel because they have the right to defend their land that was invaded and we need not be so foolish to think that the outcome of this war won't have greater implications for all involved, which includes who gets to control the area politically. — Hanover

Israel has a right to defend their land. That's a given.

The second part of your statement reads as a thinly veiled condemnation of Islam. This is why I say that:

It just isn't in the realm of possibility that Hamas/Gaza could take over or govern Israel. It would have to be their Iranian backers who would take over. The whole middle east would fall apart in the wake of a nuclear attack by Israel before that could happen. I'm not really sure who would go in and try to establish stability in the region after that, but both Israel and Iran would basically be gone at this point.

In other words, you aren't addressing anything real when you conjure Hamas taking over Israel. It looks like you're just expressing your sentiments about Islam? I say Islam, because Hamas isn't a fully fledged culture. It's an organization that is a side effect of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.

In other words, what you're saying just sounds like bigotry.

The fear isn't invented, at least not for the raped women and burned babies. Are you suggesting the only way to lose is by complete takeover? — Hanover

You've moved the goalposts here. The fear of Israel being destroyed by Hamas is invented. The fear that Hamas will unjustifiably attack and kill innocent Israelis is not invented, just as the fear of Palestinian civilians that the IDF will unjustifiably attack and kill them is not invented. So, what I'm suggesting is that, for a start and at a minimum, Israel stops committing war crimes. I would also contend that their current actions could no more be a defence of civilized values than smashing someone in the face with a hammer could be a defence of kindness. Shooting people carrying white flags is not civilized. Bombing people on routes you told them to go to because they were safe is not civilized. Israel, whatever the proposed justifications for its actions, is not currently defending civilized values, which is why every civilized country in the world bar the U.S. wants them to stop doing what they are doing.

My position is that Hamas set this in motion, — Hanover

Yes, Hamas did set the current set of hostilities (but not the hostilities in general) in motion. I have described that as a combination of strategic idiocy and murderousness, which you can take to mean I also hold them responsible for what's happening to their own people. That doesn't absolve Israel of agency though. The IRA once bombed the entire British cabinet almost killing the Prime Minister. Britain had a right to defend itself and could have bombed Derry and probably have killed many IRA operatives, including the commander Martin McGuinness, but they chose not to because the killing of innocent civilians and even the extra-judicial killing of an IRA commander was considered unacceptable to a civilised country. What they did instead was to open unpublicized background communication channels with the group and appeal to more moderate elements in the nationalist community to get the IRA to stop. Which worked. Contrast this to Israel which decided to fund Hamas as part of a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinians to prevent the only possible solution (two state) to the conflict. If Britain had chosen to fund the IRA to prevent any possible peaceful solution and followed Israel's path of escalation, the whole island of Ireland would have joined a war against them and we would have a similar disaster to the current situation in Israel/Palestine. So, Israel is not and has no right to call itself civilized simply because it is fighting against an uncivilized opponent. It is not and has not shown itself to be interested in peace or a civilized solution to the conflict. Just the opposite. And that Hamas is bad, evil, uncivilized, etc does not change that fact one iota.

What they did instead was to open unpublicized background communication channels with the group and appeal to more moderate elements in the nationalist community to get the IRA to stop. — Baden

Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples?

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it?

I'm just trying to get the scope of your notion of legitimacy in conflict. I am also testing to see if you are using various historical scenarios when it suits your argument and then retreating when they don't. It will just be a game of "That was different!" on both sides, you see.

The children were killed because Hamas declared war on Israel and its values and put them in harm's way. — Hanover

So Iraq should have had a right to murder American children, since they’d be “defending” themselves too.

Hilarious that the occupying country, with 1000 times the military power of Hamas and backed by the most powerful military power in the world, has to murder innocent people because they’re scared.

“Defense” has been used for decades to justify atrocities. Sorry to see you’re taken in by such a flimsy excuse because it’s your own country supporting it.

I'm protecting the walls of Israel, a democracy from an invasive force. — Hanover

Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”?

Invasive force? So the concentration camp we call the Gaza strip — that’s the “invasive force”? — Mikie

Indeed, I dislike Netanyahu and one of the main reasons is he actually delegitimizes any military actions because everything he did prior to that was done out of "bad faith" when it came to trying to broker a peace deal. However, as I see the conflict, there has only been one side over the long-term that has made overtures for peace so that Gaza and the West Bank (in some compromise) would be a country next to Israel that could have its own territory. That would mean dropping the desire for exact restitution of the past "catastrophe". That's what it means to be a two-state solution. Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted.

Israel couldn't be a democracy, if they actually accepted the Palestinians in it would mean the Jews would be out numbered and thus Israel would be democratically dismantled. — Vaskane

Each one wants to border off the other so that they can maintain political control of the region, hence the need for two states and not a unitary one. The populations are too different. Israel's main goal is to preserve their identity and not have it wiped out. Palestine wants to maintain their identity, but functionally speaking, if there was no Palestine, the culture that Palestine represents (Arab Muslim, roughly.. a subset one can say of the southern Syrian province of the old Ottoman Empire if one wants to find a historical precedent), would be intact in a vast swath of the region of the Middle East.

Rapists like locusts from the sky first, Israeli tanks second. — Hanover

No: occupied territory turned concentration camp first by government/military of Israel (not innocent children), reaction on October 7th (which I also condemn) by Hamas (not innocent children), and now a barbaric slaughter of THOUSANDS (not dozens) of children and women by the extreme right-wing government of Israel, enacted by the IDF and their psychopathic leaders.

You joke about how ridiculous it sounds that Israel suddenly woke up and started bombing for no reason— yet apparently without a shred of awareness seem to believe Hamas woke up on October 7th and decided to kill and capture innocent people.

Modern Zionism started as a method to overcome Judaic tradition which leads to Self-Hate as Lessing details it. — Vaskane

Cool, could that be said of any nationalism? I mean, why are the "Irish" associated with "Ireland" and not, say, Africa? We all came from Africa no? Why do the Jews identify Israel as their homeland, and not Rwanda or South Africa, or Tanzania? Why does nationalism itself exist? I mean you could be making a case for globalized communism, or globalized Star Trek Federation of Earth or whatnot, where we are all just a unitary government. As it stands, we live in a Westphalian world of nation-states post-WW2 created by the Western European notions of things in relation to post-colonialism.

Anyways, that notion that Israel just all up and did this to the Palestinians and like it hasn't been a succession of events, is misleading and shortsighted. — schopenhauer1

Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose?

Give me a break. Gaza is — and here I’m echoing Finkelstein, as he’s absolutely correct — a concentration camp. Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To then show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible.

Why not say what you mean? “Palestinians deserve this.”

Sure — saying the Nazis “up and did this” to the Jews is equally misleading and shortsighted, I suppose? — Mikie

So is that the same? When the Allies were bombing Germany, did they just "up and do that to the Germans"? I would argue that is the analogy.

But if I were to scale it back, if two tribes are fighting each other and one tribe says that it wants to stand down and recognize the other but the other has to give up some things, and the other refuses, what of it? Who is in the right there? Take out the names and it just looks like who is willing to compromise and who isn't. I already showed my hand and said that because Netanyahu didn't compromise, he delegitimizes things for Israel, but in the past, they were the more willing actor and thus should be seen in that light as there has been almost zero of this from the Pals side. At some point, your notion of legitimacy cannot be mined continually from grievance, especially when you in the position of having "lost" every war (1948, 1967, 1973, 1982, etc. etc.).

Yes, there’s a long sequence of events that led to this monstrosity, which is true for literally everything. To the show up and declare how “shortsighted” it is to believe it’s unlike any other event in the world is…incredible. — Mikie

But I can just say that about what you are saying, and add in a bit of indignation and attitude with it to make it seem more legitimate in what I am arguing.

I dunno why am I an Irish American who finds the Hawaiian culture to be the one of the most noble life affirming culture in the modern world? (Hawaiian culture is vastly different than American culture btw) — Vaskane

I don't know. This seems tangential to any point. Indeed, Native Hawaiians feel an affinity to Hawaii and not let's say Zimbabwe.

Israel's main goal is to preserve their identity and not have it wiped out. — schopenhauer1

A pretty sure goal when you are the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with likely a working nuclear triad deterrence, a superior armed forces compared even to all neighbors combined. Addition to all that, then you are backed by the sole Superpower that funds your defense spending and will rush to your aid.

Oh, how close it is that Israel would perish! :snicker:

Palestine wants to maintain their identity, but functionally speaking, if there was no Palestine, the culture that Palestine represents (Arab Muslim, roughly.. a subset one can say of the southern Syrian province of the old Ottoman Empire if one wants to find a historical precedent), would be intact in a vast swath of the region of the Middle East. — schopenhauer1

?

Again an argument for the inferiority of Palestinians compared to the 'new comers'?

Jewish culture endured even when there was no Israel around.

A pretty sure goal when you are the sole nuclear power in the Middle East with likely a working nuclear triad deterrence, a superior armed forces compared even to all neighbors combined. Addition to all that, then you are backed by the sole Superpower that funds your defense spending and will rush to your aid.

Oh, how close it is that Israel would perish! — ssu

I meant the goal of Israel as a nation. One of it's founding principles.

Again an argument for the inferiority of Palestinians compared to the 'new comers'?

Jewish culture endured even when there was no Israel around. — ssu

Indeed. But it does get into the differences at stake here. Jewish identity has tried to have been stamped out. One region was very close to Finland that tried to do this actually. Finland joined along for the ride, right? Had to preserve itself as well....

Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples? — schopenhauer1

The IRA blew up pubs full of off-duty soldiers and civilians, killed old folks at a remembrance parade and bombed the entire British cabinet in a Brighton hotel. There is no "fundamental" difference in intensity between that and what Hamas does with suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or the massacre of innocent concert goers. But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic.

So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. @Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy.

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it? — schopenhauer1

Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reasons. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it.

But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. — Baden

I actually think it does.. and there is a fundamental difference. If IRA continually bombed over and over the hell out of any street corner, bus station or whatnot of British targets, you might have had a much bloodier conflict than "The Troubles".

It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic. — Baden

I think the overall bloodshed represented was just less in the kind of operations and who was being targeted in Britain. Fundamentally speaking, the IRA, though bloody, was closer to Western European historical uses of violence, even if terroristic. It was not quite "Jihadist" and as nihilistic as suicide bombings targeted at maximum kills.

So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy. — Baden

In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me. Hell, even if their aims were 1967 borders (which it is not), they pretty much want Jews off that land unless they control it, and then, I doubt it would be a good day for Jews who lived there if they legitimately had some control of the region.

Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reason. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it. — Baden

Right. I agree, it was mainly because of Britain. But it was convenient that Britain was the one fighting (takes the load of Ireland). But if Britain lost, what then, was it not worth fighting? Would a Nazi controlled Britain have been better?

To be clear, in case I'm misinterpreted again. I think certain cultures are better than others. I think Swedish culture is better than Saudi Arabian culture, Thai culture is better than North Korean culture etc. But I don't accept a sweeping Western superiority and I definitely don't accept a sweeping Western superiority as a cover for war crimes.