Hamas decapitates babies: outrage.

Israel decapitates thousands of babies: self defense.

You see, it’s all about HOW you kill children. Israel kills far more, but they do it the right way — and for noble reasons. Unlike those animals who kill less children, but do so the wrong way.

I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured. — BitconnectCarlos

I posted another poll done about a month ago that had similar results, but I don't feel like wading through pages and pages. Suffice it to say their society has gone off the deep end. I suspect Israel is going to occupy the place for a long time and "freedom fighters" terrorists from around the Islamic world will flock to it in the hopes of killing Israeli soldiers. That, at least, would be more sporting than beheading babies and raping women to death.

Of course, Israel could be more brutal. It could nuke Gaza or just completely level it, but we ought not to give credit to them for not being as brutal as possible if we also want to claim they are civilized. because we are entitled to have certain expectations of civilized countries even in war. I acknowledge, for example, that if Hamas was granted Israel's military capability, they would likely be more brutal than Israel is being now, but it is of no credit to anyone just to be better than Hamas. The bar has to be higher. And what disturbs me here is when I get the impression from some that it's not.

I have had (online) students from Gaza. The last one I spoke to was trying to get out, on a scholarship to America, far as I remember. He didn't hate the West. He wasn't a fanatic. And he wasn't inferior to any of my other students either. He was an earnest, polite, and respectful guy looking for a better life and that is my base presumption of who people in Israel and Gaza, despite their shitty governments, are. It's also my base presumption that if any of us here had to bear direct witness to the killing there, we would not be so quick to gloss over the details of how this operation is being conducted, regardless of whether we thought some kind of operation needed to be undertaken. What's frustrated me on this thread is the unwillingness to look at the reality of what's going on head on. That requires at the very least humanizing, not generalizing.

Firstly:

"Hamas's fighters did not behead Israeli babies, was the conclusion of an investigation conducted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz"

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/did-hamas-fightersdecapitate-israeli-babies-israeli-newspaper-answers/

Secondly, regardless of that argument, you are not against killing babies or civilians as long as they are Palestinians. You continually justify it. In fact, it's hard to understand how you think you have any credibility when, with a simple change of label, you could be a Hamas spokesman justifying their killings. You are that person for whom the enemy, including its civilians, are nothing. That's your burden of confusion and moral emptiness to live with and I pity you.

I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured. — BitconnectCarlos

I would like to know the context for that but remember the way the attacks are presented is just as skewed on the Palestinian side. I would like to know what it is these people actually support. I doubt all 75% would say they support the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians any more than Israelis would say that. Instead, they are likely to simply deny that's happened and claim to be supporting a justifiable military operation. But there's just not enough information there. A qualitative study is likely to be more revealing.

The bar has to be higher. And what disturbs me here is when I get the impression from some that it's not. — Baden

I just don't know what a humane ratio would be of terrorist KIA vs innocents. Is 2:1 ok? What if it's really 3:1 or 4:1? Or what are we to make if some of those civilians are willingly providing support to hamas but not directly taking part in hostilities? the picture is incredibly complicated and we will never know it perfectly. how precise are the armaments israel is working with? how does their tech compare with e.g. the us or uk?

He was an earnest, polite, and respectful guy looking for a better life and that is my base presumption of who people in Israel and Gaza — Baden

I'm an American Jew. A decade ago I stayed with my dad's cousin in Israel, a hardcore Zionist, and easily the most racist, disgusting person I have ever met. I am under no delusions about israeli racism. I am not nearly as racist as them but I would still describe myself as suspicious of arab muslims. I grew up during the second intifata. I quite clearly remember going to hebrew school and reading articles of how palestinian militants would go into restaurants, bars, or buses full of civilians and blow themselves up during peak hours. They'd also lace their explosives with poison or feces so that those who did get hit would suffer. It would sometimes be women or children who did this. It was a level of hatred that left me astounded at the time and that astonishment has never left me. The absolute disregard that that society shows for human life was made prevalent to me very early. War and conflict degrade people, especially over such an extended period.

I appreciate that perspective, but what are they reading? And how do we separate out the day-to-day reality of who people are from what is selectively presented to us? My direct exposure to Palestinians is limited but having had, often through teaching online, students from all over the world, I've noted thst commonalities tend to trump differences and that's maybe why I tend to have a relatively positive view of the average person that may not take account of highly objectionable attitudes or beliefs they don't reveal to me. I'm willing to learn more on this, but again, qualitative studies, long form interviews is what I'm after. Anyhow, I agree completely war does degrade people and the cycle of degradation seems to have gotten completely out of control here. I don't think that was an inevitability if there had been different leadership on both sides.

That's not necessarily true. — Mikie

Practically, it is. It was the case in WWII and it is the case now in Gaza. If military infrastructure is struck, some number of civilians will die. Do we know the janitor's work schedule so we can schedule our bombings on his off hours? Targeting precision is not perfect. No one can control the direction of shrapnel or debris. Bombing campaigns are a matter of how many die.

By the way, I've read enough to confirm to myself that Hamas did rape and sexually abuse Israeli women, quite possibly in a planned and systematic way. I've already said I wouldn't object to every member of the group being killed. In fact, if it would have ended the war at the outset, it would have been a far preferable outcome to what we have now as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what I could add to that. Probably that if anyone has had direct experience of someone who suffered that horror, they may understandably be immune to ideas of restraint or compromise.

I find the whole western values are superior skit also interesting. Of course in the paradigm of western values, you value western values and as beneficiaries of the benefits of that system it is regarded as positive. Until you are outside of it, then you are colonised, bombed and "educated" about your barbarity. And what these values are, is not even explicated. So indoctrinated are these people that it's all just assumptions.

Western values: how to exploit people and nature. How to reduce everything to monetary value. How to externalise costs. How to burn the world while munching on your packaged double-salted caramel popcorn you don't know how to make, doomscrolling through tiktok while hating on Johnny foreigner.

The dominant "Westen values" are shit. It's just tribalism.

But we also need to be honest that neither of us are in the IDF operations room and have a clear idea of Israel's proportionality policy. — BitconnectCarlos

That idea is quite clear, actually.

Israel in a few weeks killed more civilians than the Russians did in a year, while the Russians are conducting a massive operation and Israel is operating in an area the size of a post stamp.

Israel is massacring civilians on purpose, because it cannot effectively hurt Hamas.

It's established Israeli military "strategy", which they call the Dahiya doctrine. The murder of disproportionate amounts of civilians in order to pressure Hamas is an explicit part of that doctrine.

Let's not mince words here.

The dominant "Westen values" are shit. It's just tribalism. — Benkei

Great argument :D

Hamas fires its weapons from schools and hospitals; Ukraine does not use such tactics. Hamas enmeshes itself in the civilian population without a uniform while Ukraine does not.

Where are you getting your news? Tik tok? Lies.

Again, no. Hamas is completely fine with Palestinian civilians dying and this in no way "pressures" them. Hamas has forbid people from leaving zones where Israel said it would bomb. It has not allowed them to leave buildings that were to be bombed. You've got it backwards here.

Where are you getting your news? Tik tok? Lies. — BitconnectCarlos

From IDF documents and Israeli spokespeople themselves, actually. :brow:

The IDF is not intentionally massacring civilians. Hamas says 20,000 dead, but this does not distinguish between civilians and militants. Israel says 2:1 civilian to terrorist ratio have died. The IDF could make that ratio a lot higher if it wanted but it has made steps to reduce casualties.

I've noticed that people have been taking issue with the word 'genocide' being used to describe Israel's actions in Gaza.

I would like to remind everyone that the Srebrenica massacre that took place during the Bosnian war which involved the murder of 8,372 Bosniak Muslims was labeled a genocide by both the ICC and the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia), and the people responsible were convicted for genocide.

I hope this illustrates how Israel's actions are well within the scope of what could be considered a genocide, especially coupled with the rhetoric of Israeli officials and Israel's previous conduct.

Yes, in the Srebrenica massacre prisoners were being summarily executed; this is something we've seen hamas do, but not the IDF. We also saw the russians engage in executions of prisoners, including civilian prisoners. even though the ukrainian civilian death toll is comparable low, russia's tactics make its intentions appear plausibly genocidal.

Hamas fires its weapons from schools and hospitals; Ukraine does not use such tactics. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they do: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

Fair enough, but this article is a bit dated. To the best of my knowledge much of the fighting today is back to WWI style trenches away from civilians and it is a damn good thing that Russia is losing given what they did in places like Bucha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP-CRXROorw

@Baden @Merkwurdichliebe @RogueAI
I saw that one! Very good one. Let me help you out:

Don't know why you're tagging me. I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. Maher is boring, conventional, and not too sharp. The comedians I like are mostly dead, unfortunately.

Don't know why you're tagging me. I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. Maher is boring, conventional, and not too sharp. The comedians I like are mostly dead, unfortunately. — Baden

Too bad, being he makes great points there... And it's only 8 minutes!

I meant to add @ssu
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/863275

I very much doubt he does, but to highlight how much I dislike listening to popular American mainstream comedians who I find the absolute dullest and untalented people on earth (Letterman was maybe somewhat of an exception but he's gone now), I would much rather even read a post of yours rehashing some of those "great points", so feel free to steal his material.

I can meet you in the middle and give you a transcript :wink:

0:00
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -And finally, New Rule.
0:02
I know, it's supposed to be that magical time of year,
0:04
but maybe, what we all really need
0:06
right now, is a good dose of realism.
0:08
I see a lot of nativity scenes when I'm out,
0:10
as you always do before Christmas.
0:12
And I can't help thinking
0:13
about where that manger really is.
0:16
It's in the West Bank on Palestinian land,
0:19
controlled by the Palestinian authority.
0:22
In 1950, the little town of Bethlehem
0:24
was 86 percent Christian, now it's overwhelmingly Muslim.
0:29
And that's my point tonight, things change.
0:32
To 2.3 billion Christians, there can be no more sacred site
0:36
than where their Savior was born but they don't have it anymore.
0:39
And yet, no Crusader Army has geared up to take it back.
0:42
Things change. Countries, boundaries, empires.
0:46
Palestine was under the Ottoman Empire
0:49
for 400 years, but today, an ottoman is something
0:51
you put under your feet.
0:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -(CLEARS THROAT)
1:01
The city of Byzantium
1:03
became the city of Constantinople,
1:05
became Istanbul. Not everybody liked it,
1:08
but you can't keep arguing the call forever.
1:11
The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip.
1:18
-(SMACKS LIPS) -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
1:21
-They, uh... -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, CHEERING)
1:28
They blew each other up over it for 30 years,
1:31
but eventually everybody comes to an accommodation,
1:34
except the Palestinians.
1:37
Was it unjust
1:38
that even a single Arab family was forced to move
1:41
upon the founding of the Jewish state? Yes.
1:44
But it's also not rare.
1:45
Happening all through history, all over the world,
1:48
and mostly what people do is make the best of it.
1:51
After World War II, 12 million ethnic Germans
1:54
got shoved out of Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia
1:57
because being German had become kind of unpopular.
2:00
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:02
A million Greeks were shoved out of Turkey in 1923,
2:05
a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria in 1983,
2:08
almost a million French out of Algeria in 1962,
2:12
nearly a million Syrian refugees moved to Germany
2:15
eight years ago. Was that a perfect fit?
2:19
And no one knows more about being pushed off land...
2:21
(SCOFFS) ...than the Jews.
2:22
Including being almost wholly kicked out
2:25
of every Arab country they once lived in.
2:29
-Yes, TikTok fans. Ethnic-- -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
2:34
Ethnic cleansing happened both ways.
2:37
In Fiddler on the Roof, the family is always moving
2:40
to stay one step ahead of the Cossacks,
2:42
but they deal with it.
2:43
When they're leaving Anatevka, they say,
2:45
"Hey, it wasn't so great anyway."
2:48
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
2:53
(CHUCKLES)
2:57
"Come on. Like other countries don't have roofs
3:00
-you could fiddle on." -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING)
3:02
-(CHUCKLES) -BILL MAHER: Now...
3:06
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
3:09
Now, that's not how they really felt,
3:11
but they were coping. They coped.
3:14
Because sometimes, that's all you can do.
3:16
History is brutal and humans are not good people.
3:20
History is sad and full of wrongs,
3:22
but you can't make them unhappen
3:24
because a paraglider isn't a time machine.
3:27
People get moved, and yes, colonized.
3:30
Nobody was a bigger colonizer than the Muslim army
3:33
that swept out of the Arabian Desert
3:35
and took over much of the world in a single century.
3:38
And they didn't do it by asking.
3:40
There's a reason Saudi Arabia's flag is a sword.
3:43
Kosovo was the cradle of Christian Serbia,
3:46
then it became Muslim.
3:48
They fought a war about it in the '90s, but stopped.
3:52
They didn't keep it going for 75 years.
3:55
There were deals on the table
3:56
to share the land called Palestine.
3:59
In 1947, '93, '95, '98,
4:04
2000, 2008.
4:06
And East Jerusalem could have been the capital
4:08
of a Palestinian state that today might look
4:12
more like Dubai than Gaza.
4:15
Arafat was offered 95 percent of the West Bank,
4:18
and said no.
4:20
The Palestinian people should know, your leaders
4:23
and the useful idiots on college campuses
4:25
who are their allies are not doing you any favors
4:29
by keeping alive "The River to the Sea" myth.
4:32
I mean where do you think Israel is going?
4:35
-Spoiler alert, nowhere. -(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
4:46
It's one of the most powerful countries in the world
4:48
with the 500-billion-dollar economy,
4:51
the world's second largest tech sector
4:53
after Silicon Valley, and nuclear weapons.
4:56
They're here, they like their bagel
4:58
-with a shmear, get used to it. -(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
5:08
What's happening to Palestinians today is horrible,
5:11
and not just in Gaza, in the West Bank too.
5:14
But wars end with negotiation
5:16
and what the media glosses over is--
5:18
It's hard to negotiate
5:19
when the other side's bargaining position
5:21
is you all die and disappear.
5:24
(SCOFFS) I mean, the chant "From the River to the Sea."
5:27
Yeah, let's look at the map.
5:29
Here's the river, here's the sea.
5:32
Oh, I see, it means you get all of it.
5:34
Not just the West Bank
5:36
which was basically the original UN partition deal you rejected
5:39
because you wanted all of it and always have.
5:42
Even though, it's indisputably
5:44
also the Jews' ancestral homeland.
5:46
And so, you attacked and lost. And attacked again and lost.
5:52
And attacked again and lost.
5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"
5:58
(AUDIENCE CHEERING, APPLAUDING)
6:07
Look at what Mexico used to own.
6:10
All the way up to the top of California,
6:12
but no Mexican is out there chanting,
6:14
"From the Rio Grande to Portland, Oregon."
6:16
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
6:26
Because they chose a different path.
6:28
They got real and built a country
6:30
that's the world's 14th biggest economy now.
6:33
Because they knew the United States
6:36
wasn't going to give back Phoenix,
6:38
any more than Hamas will ever be in Tel Aviv.
6:41
-(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING) -One of...
6:43
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
6:48
One of the leaders of Hamas says...
6:59
(SCOFFS) I'm sorry, who's the one
7:01
with imaginary dreams?
7:03
If I give you the benefit of the doubt and say your plan
7:06
for a completely Jew-less Palestine
7:08
isn't that all the Jews should die.
7:10
(SMACKS LIPS) What is the only other option?
7:14
They move. You move all the Jews.
7:17
(SCOFFS) Okay, I got to warn you,
7:18
there's gonna be some kvetching.
7:20
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:23
(SCOFFS)
7:28
You move all the Jews and we do this with what?
7:31
A fleet of trucks called Jew-haul.
7:33
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING)
7:41
And to where are we moving this entire country? Texas?
7:45
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING) -Sure, they have room
7:49
and I guess we could put the Wailing Wall on the border
7:51
and kill two birds with one stone.
7:53
-(AUDIENCE LAUGHING, APPLAUDING) -Or we could just get serious.

Stupid and superficial. There's nothing of substance there. There's no sharp satire or ... well, anything. Of course Hamas is not taking over Tel Aviv. Is that it?

Where are the great points?

As for this:

"The Irish had the entire island to themselves,
1:14
but the British were starting an Empire,
1:16
and well, the Irish lost their tip."

It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened.

Anyway, I guarantee you @ssu who is an intelligent commentator will not find this impressive either.

American audiences on mainstream TV are odd and seem to laugh when they think they're supposed to, regardless of content. I remember watching a Letterman episode where the actor who plays Kramer in Seinfeld came on to apologise for calling members of his audience the N word. The audience at the show couldn't get around the fact they were not watching comedy and thought they were supposed to laugh and kept doing so until they were literally told to stop. Odd.

It's totally made up if he means as he seems to we had the entire island and then the British took N. Ireland (our tip). That's not at all what happened. — Baden

He's summarizing in perfunctory way in 8 minute segment. I am not saying it's impressive, just his points are correct, whether it's an impressive 2 hour in depth conversation about the nuances of British settlement in Northern Ireland or not. Indeed, did it not start under Queen Elizabeth sending colonists in the 1500s? Ironically, most of the settlers were fellow Celts, but of Scottish background. Presbyterians rather than Anglicans. But not native Irishman / Catholics.

American audiences on mainstream TV are odd and seem to laugh when they think they're supposed to, regardless of content. I remember watching a Letterman episode where the actor who plays Kramer in Seinfeld came on to apologise for calling members of his audience the N word. The audience at the show couldn't get around the fact they were not watching comedy and thought they were supposed to laugh and kept doing so until they were literally told to stop. Odd. — Baden

Eh, Maher is okay. He is particularly hung up on people laughing at his jokes. I just happen to agree with him. He generally has many viewpoints on his show from conservative and liberal. I rather like it if everyone goes away feeling a bit annoyed because it means various sides were represented rather than blowing smoke up your ass for your side only. Many American shows are just reaffirming their side. That goes for "comedic" news / political commentary shows or "regular" news.

I like John Oliver's political commentary too, but he's way far to the left, and doesn't have a panel of people on his show, JUST his view, which is okay if you like that thing.