Palestinians could surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel in exchange for peace?
How many children are YOU willing to sacrifice — neomac

:up:

I realize you don't speak for Israel, but if that's the price to pay to save the children, while I personally might be willing to pay it, is that not a brutal ransom to exact? Palestinians, in your own words, must surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel to save the children?

As I've said before, all judgement aside, there are functional ways to approach this tragedy and there are dysfunctional ways. Hamas can be the monsters that they appear to be, and still, that doesn't mean the ransom you offered would be helpful, let alone justified.

Don't you think?

I realize you don't speak for Israel, but if that's the price to pay to save the children, while I personally might be willing to pay it, is that not a brutal ransom to exact? Palestinians, in your own words, must surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel to save the children?

As I've said before, all judgement aside, there are functional ways to approach this tragedy and there are dysfunctional ways. Hamas can be the monsters that they appear to be, and still, that doesn't mean the ransom you offered would be helpful, let alone justified.

Don't you think? — ENOAH

To get a better understanding of my views, maybe those questions are not the best starting point. Certainly, I do not speak for Israel in the sense that I have no interest to push their propaganda in this forum. Yet my understanding of the geopolitical stakes in the Middle-East support enough my belief that the Israeli cause can serve Western interest in the region more than the Palestinian cause. Said that, my posts mainly focus on my and other people's understanding of the conflict, more than marketing one policy or another to solve the conflict.
Those questions are meant to "stress-test" pro-Palestinian views, in the first place. But also to remind people that there are options and choices, also on the Palestinian side, to cope with their predicament now, as they used to have before ending up in such predicament. "Surrendering" and "fleeing from Palestine" are/were options. Only a certain way of framing the issue compels Palestinians and their supporters to exclude such options. And they are not necessarily the same. These ways of framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitute their most basic understanding of that conflict, so I find philosophically interesting to make them explicit and question them.

When Japan tried to wipe off and sink whole Pacific fleet of the US, invaded the Phillipines (then a colony of the US) and Guam and Aleutian Islands of Alaska are something totally different on scale to a terrorist strike perpetrated by a non-state actor as tiny as Al Qaeda was. So it's a bit strange to say that Roosevelt responded with oversized force. There's no doubt that the US was attacked with the objective of taking it's territory (the Phillipines). The stupidity of this action from the Japanese is really a good question.

Secondly, the atomic bomb was thought as a large bomb and note that more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japanese cities. Only with the Cold War it gained it's reputation. The idea of strategic bombing wasn't purely American, Giulio Douhet had proposed it first in the 1920's and obviously the other countries believed in the concept that taking the battle to the whole enemy country made sense. — ssu

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Japanese attack and the Islamist attack were on the same scale, just that the American nukes more than aiming at destroying military capabilities, strategic infrastructures or decapitating/disrupting the Japanese chain of command, were aimed at demolishing morale in the civilian population and force total surrender. And this solution was welcomed by most Americans back then (and despite the fact that the number of American civilian casualties in the Japanese attack is far lower): In the initial days following the Japanese surrender, the United States public overwhelmingly supported the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A Gallup poll taken in August 1945 found that 85 percent of Americans supported the bombings, 10 percent were opposed to them, and 5 percent had no opinion. (https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/debate-over-bomb/). However that choice still remains controversial today and, in any case, it just set the first step of the following path to the future democratisation and economic development of Japan which wasn’t CLEAR back then, nor necessarily doomed to be successful, since the nuclear bombing and humiliation might have reason for collective resentment for generations.

In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “empathic responses”: indeed, it’s the empathic element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world. — neomac

Yes. Assuming they make sense. Did the reason why the US had it's longest war in Afghanistan make sense? The reason given was that "If the US doesn't occupy Afghanistan, it might possibly become a terrorist safe haven." It was repeated over and over again, but in my view it's even far more crazier than the "Domino Theory" in South-East Asia. — ssu

I’m not sure that this was the plan all along. As anticipated, strategies need to be adapted on the evolving circumstances and so they can fail in the execution phase, as I acknowledged already. But I’ll remind you that at the beginning of the war on terror, there was a wide consensus over it also from countries like Russia, India and China.

2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed. — neomac

How about "War on Blitzkrieg”? — ssu

That’s a cheap criticism. In politics, catchy names and slogans aren’t meant to be explicative but to solicit/nudge popular support.“War on terror” gives the sense of urgency and recalls the 9/11 Jihadist terroristic attacks without explicitly referring to Islam: indeed, an alternative could have been “War on Islamic Jihadism”, if not “Crusade against Islam” (somehow inspired by Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations”). I’m sure they were more clear but not as convenient for propaganda, and not only for “political correctness” concerns (I’ll come back to this at the end).

And then just a reminder about the "War on Terror" thinking, I assume you have seen it, but if not, it is one of the classic interview from general Wesley Clark, which btw. he absolutely hated to be reminded about during the Obama administration

That above isn't a clear strategy. It's the strategy of "We can do now everything we have wanted to do". That is unclear and will lead ultimately to failure, which it did. And actually also why there is indeed a lot to be critical about US policy. — ssu

Or this clip: here is the former secretary of Defense saying on why invading Iraq would be a stupid idea and would end up in a quagmire, which he the later promoted and then pushed through and indeed ended up as a quagmire. — ssu

It is said that prior to invading Iraq, George Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. — ssu

I’m not sure what one can infer from such anecdotes. I certainly do not:
- expect American Presidents to be smarter than the teams of advisors they rely on, especially for foreign policies and strategic analysis.
- discount the tensions that can often emerge between military advisors and political decision makers. Or between more hawkish and more dovish views among political advisors over long-term strategies. We are seeing this at play also in the Ukrainian war.

But let's think for a while what would the Americans would have thought if Bush had acted just by negotiating the handing over of OBL from the Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taleban), then had FBI and NYPD among other police departments working on the terrorist strikes. Not only would it looked like a weak response, but in fact extremely cold. That's the whole problem here. It's a version of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine": if you a strike leaves your country in shock, you can do anything you want. — ssu

My understanding is that the wider strategic goal was to counter islamism in the Middle-East always in a hegemonic perspective, not just as a mere punishment of the actual culprits of the 9/11 attack. Bush presented it as a war on terror (“Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html) with the most ambitious aim of exporting democracy in the middle-east and in the interest of the international community (whence the initial consensus from major international actors). Eventually, failed objectives (installing functional democracies and uprooting jihadism) and material/reputational costs of a never-ending war for the US appeared outweighing any actual gains (like eliminating jihadist leaders of al-Qaida, Talibans and Isis) by far. That’s why the whole enterprise looked so ill-conceived. I guess that the degree of overconfident unilateralism plus foreign and sub-national interests ended up hijacking and wasting efforts: foreign interests as Russians and Turks which fought the terrorists that they didn’t like (like Kurds and Isis) and sub-national interests as in the pro-Israel lobby (among others) which pushed for a fight against pro-Palestinian jihadism. Indeed, if one looks at the gains, the American strategy (after 9/11 attack) looks more similar to Israeli fight against Hamas than the other way around, and not by accident, I guess. Killing Saddam Hussain, Bin laden, Al-Qaeda were all supporters of the Palestinian cause. Most importantly Syria and Iran were and they still are potential targets in that logic. So surrounding Iran by installing a pro-American regime in Afghanistan and giving some leeway to ISIS as an anti-Iranian and anti-Syrian jihadism (more than pro-Palestinian jihadism) in the middle-east might have been instrumental to the Israeli cause. And this in turn triggered the reaction of Iran which allied with Russia in the fight against ISIS (while possibly helping Al-Qaida), and messed up with the American objectives in Afghanistan by officially supporting the Americans against the Taliban terrorists but covertly supporting them too against the Americans, or by supporting a pro-Iranian “democracy” in Iraq.
That’s why I’m talking about failed implementation of geopolitical objectives of strategic importance. Ideally it was one international game to be played against Islamic jihadism. But then it ended up being many regional double/triple-games being played by major international players.
Anyways, I think we are talking past each others, since when talking about strategy I have in mind wider geopolitical objectives that guide specific foreign policies, not about specific foreign policies.

30,000 now dead— likely an undercount. Vast majority women and children.

Just to remind everyone of the justification: to eradicate Hamas. Which won’t be done, and can’t be done — unless you wipe out the Palestinian population. Which is, I guess, the real goal.

“Hamas terrorists can surrender completely!”

Yeah, and Likud (deadlier and better funded terrorists) can all resign from office immediately. Sounds equally probable.

Sure, they are not the only ones to live in refugee camps. And it is reported that they aren’t even listed in the five largest refugee camps in the World:

As a percentage of the population?

Anyway, primary trigger might be more important than primary cause.

As I said, I’m interested in conceptual analysis, so if I can’t split hairs here, in a philosophy forum, where else can I? Besides I find it a worthy exercise as long as it helps better understand things.

Yes, of course please continue, I would like to myself on occasion. But I am short of time and level of concentration at the moment due to other commitments. Also I am more someone who looks for the root of things, or bigger picture in current affairs.

You do not seem able to provide a compelling argument for why it wouldn’t possible to separate moral case from a legal case.

You seem to impugn me here, (this is not the only time.)
Perhaps I would not mention the moral case (to separate it) if I were in a court of law (although I expect I would mention it)

This doesn’t need to be framed in human rights terms, not even for the international law:

The victims of oppression here have had various human rights violated. This reflects on the actions of the occupying, or controlling authority under which they are subject and under which they are confined. Yes you are right about nation state status etc. But we are talking about an apartheid state confining a subjugated population. Part of the case of the Palestinians is this treatment, it’s disregard of their rights and liberty against their will.

Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess.

I know, but you have been using it as a hammer.

I won’t answer any other points in your post here, because the discussion is expanding and I don’t have enough free time to address long posts right now. (But thanks for engaging and please continue, it is enjoyable).

I have verified this through multiple sources.
https://x.com/ToryFibs/status/1763178221149782108?s=20

Link didn’t work. Verified what?

Edit: never mind-I see it now. If this is true I won’t hold my breath for the Times to report it

I didn’t mean to suggest that the Japanese attack and the Islamist attack were on the same scale, just that the American nukes more than aiming at destroying military capabilities, strategic infrastructures or decapitating/disrupting the Japanese chain of command, were aimed at demolishing morale in the civilian population and force total surrender. — neomac

It's actually the basic concept of Douhet's argument from the 20's: strategic bombing ends wars more quickly. And simply the invasion of Japan planned for late 1945 and 1946, Operation Downfall. But notice that it didn't happen as Japan did surrender. But here comes the part I have tried to explain: The US had then a plan that made peace to prevail. The US didn't annex Japan or Japan wasn't cut into pieces by the allies (even if the Soviets took the Kuril islands, which has causes problems). The US left the Japanese emperor alive. The US did many things that the Japanese could accept, even if the surrendered.

And this of course all happened because there was no Operation Downfall. No marines or allied troops had set foot on the beaches of the main islands. Hence indeed McArthur had to respect the Japanese.



And this is my point: the war had a Klausewitzian goal. After the surrender the peace worked. Imagine how well it would have worked if Japan would have been cut into to with Stalin holding one part? North and South Korea give an answer to that. Yet there's no similar goal other than to "get the terrorists" when the US invaded Afghanistan. What was the plan then for Afghanistan? Nothing, George Bush had no intention of country-building at first. How did the plan take into account Pakistan? In no way. And hence Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends and in the end got it's Taleban back into power with the US retreating in humiliation.

My point is actually very well explained by Yuval Noah Harari in the following interview from some days ago: if you don't have the time to check it out all, please go to minute 09:00 where after the question Harari explains well what in the war is lacking: an Klausewitzian goal for the war. He takes the example of the invasion of Iraq, which simply played into the hands of Iran. Again something that wasn't clearly thought over, but concocted by the neocons.



Furthermore it's exactly on the point what Harari says about the battle for the soul of the Israeli nation between patriotism and Jewish supremacy. Harari explains very well the difference between patriotism and the feelings of national supremacy. As Harari also notes, Netanyahu hasn't said what the long term plan is. That Klausewitzian goal is missing: a peace to end this war.

It was reported on BBC radio4 at lunchtime and it’s on sky news now.

“Hamas terrorists can surrender completely!”

Yeah, and Likud (deadlier and better funded terrorists) can all resign from office immediately. Sounds equally probable. — Mikie

If it is sounds equally probable that Likud (deadlier and better funded terrorists) continues exterminating Palestinians while Hamas/Palestinians continue not surrendering, then political pressure can be exercised on both sides with equal chance of succeeding or failing. The point is why political pressure should be exercised on the one that is deadlier and better funded more than the other one that has way more too lose in terms of life, means of subsistence and freedoms. Do you have an idea?

29Feb24, Rafah:

+30,000 Palestinian noncombatants killed (c70,000 injured) and +2 million Palestianians displaced (ethnically cleansed) by the state of Israel since 7Oct23.

+1,100 Israelis et al killed (c5,500 injured) and +240 hostages taken by Hamas & co since 7Oct23.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war

:up: :up:

the discussion is expanding and I don’t have enough free time to address long posts right now. — Punshhh

And that's the most compelling argument you could offer, so far.

And it will continue indefinitely. With US support.

And it will continue indefinitely. With US support. — Mikie

:brow: Yes disgracefully so.

And that's the most compelling argument you could offer, so far.

A statement of fact actually.

Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess.”
“I know, but you have been using it as a hammer.

I thought this was quite a good analysis.

400,000 muslims dead in yemen. 500k-1 mil dead by assad. 1 mil muslims in concentration camps in china. much greater muslim suffering across the world, but how dare 1 jewish missile inadvertently kill a palestinian child in a home where weapons are stored and there's mass protests and synagogue burnings. palestinians are sacred victims. how dare those jews do that!

Now I'm even more confused. You do realize that we have been around as an independent state only from 1917, so I really don't know what you are talking about. — ssu

Ok, perhaps I remembered incorrectly, but I do recall you bringing up an instance where Finland was on the defensive, and in gaining victory gained a little more territory from the aggressor. If there is no such instance it is not important, as it is a common historical pattern - a country wins a war and gains territory.

The typical racism that jingoists use. Reminds me of the Serbs and their fixation with Kosovo Polje and how important for Putin is ancient Rus being the craddle of Russia, hence Ukraine and the Ukrainians are so artificial. It always starts from despising the other and questioning their overall existence and mythologization of one's own past.

But seriously, what has happened to Palestinian burial grounds? — ssu

No, racism, no mythology, only the facts from me:

If you'd like to disregard Genesis as myth that's fine. Archeology has clearly uncovered Hebrew/Israelite burial grounds from the ~6-7th century BC w/ inscriptions of the Torah. Israel has their ancient burial grounds.

"Palestine" has always described a geographic location. It did not become a people until the 1960s. So yes that will raise eyebrows. "Palestinians" are a people without a history, at least not one that extends back further than the 1960s. They are a recent invention.

...and then continued the open air prison of Gaza by closing the land and sea borders and had the occasional bombing of the place. That just now has hit a new crescendo. — ssu

With the support of Egypt. The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. Gazans can certainly get out of Gaza and there are beautiful homes there. Ultimately, no one really trusts them with their borders... and who would? I'm sorry, but national security comes first. Tons of aid has come to Gaza. By letting them control their own border and imports that creates a serious national security threat. It's not just Israel -- none of their neighbors want them having unfettered access to their borders where they'll be able to import whatever.

+30,000 Palestinian noncombatants killed — 180 Proof

False. Gazan figures do not distinguish between civilian and fighter.

With the support of Egypt. The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. Gazans can certainly get out of Gaza and there are beautiful homes there. Ultimately, no one really trusts them with their borders... and who would? I'm sorry, but national security comes first. Tons of aid has come to Gaza. By letting them control their own border and imports that creates a serious national security threat. It's not just Israel -- none of their neighbors want them having unfettered access to their borders where they'll be able to import whatever.

Struth, someone has boiled your brain, unless it is just performative.

"I am no fan of Hitler but he perpetrated the Holocaust for obvious reasons." - senior Palestinian official Abu Sido of Fatah, the moderate party.

As I thought.

No, racism, no mythology, only the facts from me: — BitconnectCarlos

Facts?
Seems you don't even notice in your thinking the obvious myths you cling to:

"Palestine" has always described a geographic location. It did not become a people until the 1960s. So yes that will raise eyebrows. "Palestinians" are a people without a history, at least not one that extends back further than the 1960s. They are a recent invention. — BitconnectCarlos

The obvious myth here is that somehow people that have lived ages ago somewhere before, have then more justification for the land while if people who have lived there, but haven't had a sovereign state, are somehow less justified. And more over, because Zionism is a creation of the 19th Century, so actually your ideas are not so old either.

Jews migrated to Europe even during the Roman Empire, so they had been here for quite a while until Zionism came along (and Hitler, obviously too).

And overall if we generalize, this kind of thinking, that one people have more right to territory than others living there, then puts any kind of immigration and migrants to have less claim to the home they have, which at worst can be and is a form of racism. If Finns and the few thousand Sami people have lived on the same place since Antiquity, that surely doesn't mean the few people whose ancestors have migrated here later are somehow less justified to be here. Someone who has gotten citizenship should have equal rights, obviously.

These kinds of attitudes are so similar how (Putin's) Russia thinks and belittles Ukrainians and Ukraine itself. The state of Ukraine is "artificial" to them and quite in a similar way that Palestine and Palestinians "raise your eyebrows".

And this also makes the narrative of Israelis being an "European settler-colonial movement" repulsive too, because it too also promotes the idea that then the Palestinians are more justified than the Israelis. The obvious solution should be that both have equal right for having a home.

The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. — BitconnectCarlos

I think in this case they are even less willing to assist in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when their people are already outraged how Israel is killing and starving Palestinians.

Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. — BitconnectCarlos

I think it's quite apt in this occasion.

I would encourage you to listen to one former US president of yours:

400,000 muslims dead in yemen. 500k-1 mil dead by assad. 1 mil muslims in concentration camps in china. much greater muslim suffering across the world — BitconnectCarlos

More pathetic deflection. Cool.

but how dare 1 jewish missile inadvertently kill a palestinian child — BitconnectCarlos

Thousands of bombs, and thousands of children.

But a really good try. “Inadvertently.” Lol.

Israeli forces opened fire on Thursday as a crowd gathered near a convoy of trucks carrying desperately needed aid in Gaza City, part of a chaotic scene in which scores of people were killed and injured, according to Gazan health officials and an Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The details of what happened were unclear, with officials from both sides offering starkly different accounts of the event. The Gazan health ministry said in a statement that more than 100 people were killed and more than 700 injured in a “massacre.” The Israeli official acknowledged that troops had opened fire, but said most of the people had been killed or injured in a stampede several hundred yards away.

Gazans, especially in the north of the territory, have become increasingly desperate for food. The United Nations and other relief groups are struggling to deliver supplies amid Israel’s nearly five-month-old military offensive, as law and order breaks down and Israel imposes restrictions on deliveries.

The official Palestinian Authority news agency, Wafa, reported that “Israeli tanks had opened fire with machine guns at thousands” waiting for aid to arrive.

Around 100 people with gunshot wounds were brought to Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza City, according to its director, Husam Abu Safiya, and injured people were being brought to other hospitals in the north. Mr. Abu Safiya said that the hospital had also received 12 bodies of people killed by gunfire.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/29/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news

@Punshhh

I’m going to reserve judgment until we know more. But it’s absolutely tragic.

The way we generally view, and thus speak, choose, act, re Israel and Gaza, is not open, and authentic, but autonomously driven by our collective Language. To simplify, look at some Signifiers we are fixated on with obvious triggers in the manifest world (i.e., triggering feelings, feelings to ideologies to choices/action): "terrorist" "anti-semitic" "genocide". It is obvious how, on their own, these go through the process whereby they ultimately trigger choices and actions.

The point I'm trying to make :

Because the Language of things like Human Rights, International Law, Foreign Occupation, Authoritarian, Fascist, trigger us in specific ways, more functional approaches to Gaza cannot arise.

Take Israel's response to October 7, and Hamas. Assume, as I'm willing to, that God help them, they're defending themselves against a brutal enemy. They swear to God, they're trying to adhere to international law. It's a challenge. You try and do better.

But 21,000 children dead; and countless others, owing to physical injuries and mental trauma, might wish they had died.

So, really? Because collectively we are fixated on the Language of International Law, we cause Israel to have to behave like a nation state, use a recognized military, and only bomb, occupy, mop up, all the while doing their best not to harm civilians, while openly, we accept that there must be such casualties.

What?

Because we are fixated on words like, Authoritarian, foreign occupation, and fascist, Israel cannot have done what likely would have saved 21000 children, and countless others, including, their homes, and billions in reconstruction. They couldn't do what El Salvador's guy did. Call Hammas criminals. Send in an army of police to round up anyone even smelling like Hamas. Enter their properties without a warrant, search and even rip shit up. Give them quick and basic trials, the clearly innocent will be released. Everyone else, the death penalty.

Our fixation on Language makes that sound abhorrent. And I agree. It sounds abhorrent. But note, even when the police are ripping shit up, arresting grandpa, and even shoving grandma around, to get her out of the way, no child is really harmed.

And the conventional way; the way so far, endorsed--with obvious cognitive dissonance--by the entire liberal democratic world, openly accepts that children will be harmed. And guess what? They are. But 21000 children? How's that better than a police state rounding up criminals without regard for their civil rights or due process?

While I dread both, if forced to choose, give me a police state over the massacre of the innocents.
...


Wait.


?



Nah.

, are you going by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis here...?

Ha! Fascinating. Thank you. Cannot draw conclusions from a glance, but I'll read further. I wasn't aware of that hypothesis.

Maybe unwittingly I am (like I said, need more info) but I think I'm going deeper. Not just cultures are influenced by their linguistic structures, but Mind, collectively, and particularly, is structured by (very loosely) lingustic-like structures. Our "reality" is those structures displacing our natural organic aware-ing.

To be admittedly simplistic, I hear "terrorist," (call that a Signifier) and like Pavlov's dogs it triggers other Signifiers, which following a dialectical dance, trigger organic feelings, which trigger more Signiers which form ideologies, triggering more Signifiers, triggering choices and actions. (I rushed that)

To view either side in this tragic conflict the way a given individual does, they necessarily have to have been triggered to that position by a series of Signifiers, not by anything appearing to them organically in Nature, not presumably by any revelation from a god etc.

I'm not judging that "fact" about Mind, in any way remotely nihilistically. It works amazingly. To wit, people generally eat, and we landed on the moon.

I'm just throwing some new Signifiers into the fire, certainly because (so-called) I had been triggered by Signifiers input in (so-called) me.

I'm suggesting if we are interested in being authentic in our approach to it, be conscious of the structures operating in Mind triggering feelings, pleasure or pain, causing you to fixate on ideology and make dysfunctional choices.

I’m going to reserve judgment until we know more. But it’s absolutely tragic. — Mikie

These kinds of incidents do tell something. As did for example the case where Israeli hostages taken by Hamas tried to surrender to Israeli forces (whose objective is to liberate them) by waving white flags were gunned down. Or the video shown in South Africa's case of Israeli soldiers singing "there are no civilians in Gaza". Yes, those are individual events, but when you have many individual events, then something can be said about them in general. But it's hardly an act of "the most moral" army as Netanyahu has described them. To believe so is as whimsical as the idea that the 30 000 Hamas fighters lurk in every building and under every cemetery in Gaza, which some seem to believe. Historical clarity comes later and likely in this case there's going to be a fierce battle to control the narrative.

Perhaps one way to try to put the war in Gaza into a context is to look at the urban battles that have been even more bloody. Hence to look at what this war in Gaza isn't. Naturally the obvious counterexample is the warcrime comitted by Hamas in the first place, where obviously the objective was to create civilian casualties too, even if military target were attacked (with 373 soldiers and security forces being killed). But this was done by a dash of 3 000 Hamas fighters or so, which suffered 50% losses themselves. Even Hamas has admitted that "there were excesses", hence it's obviosly a warcrime.Yet now over 30 000 killed has been reached with 70 000 wounded. That's 26 times the number of whom were killed in October 7th. I think these are somewhat credible numbers, because it's hard to fabricate 100 000 dead and wounded.

And as I noted to @BitconnectCarlos, the quelling of the Warsaw Uprising in 1944 was more bloody than the war in Gaza has been and likely similar casualty numbers aren't going to be reached (hopefully), hence Nazi warmachine with it's SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger were indeed far more heinous. Another case is the battle of Manila, where over 100 000 civilians were killed. That 100 000 civilians are killed during urban combat is very difficult to understand. Here's a good depiction of that told by the WW2 Documentary about the battle of Manila and what lengths you have to go to get so many killed:



And how is this compared to other instances of clearing cities from terrorists in the Middle East? Hence let's compare this for example to the Battle of Ramadi (2015-2016), where you had ISIS holding on to the large city and the US and UK supporting the Iraqi forces with airpower. The ISIS put a very stubborn defense, and in the end Ramadi, a city of 200 000, was destroyed. However, there was only about 150 civilians killed. As I earlier took the example of the US fighting in Fallujah, similarly the civilians casualties (800) don't come anywhere close even when you take into account that cities were smaller (basically a quarter of Gaza's population).

There's actually only one instance in the Middle East where fighting in a city has come to similar numbers of killed than now in Gaza. That is the 1982 Hama massacre, which is depicted to be a genocidal massacre by the Hafez Al-Assad regime to put down the Muslim Brotherhood's rebellion attempt. There the Syrian army had the objective of making an example of the city and not just take out the terrorists. The result was that about 20 000 - 40 000 people killed from a city of quarter of a million were killed.

I think Netanyahu has a similar ideas of making Gaza "an example" to discourage anyone thinking of doing the same as what Hamas did. Syria of course was (and is) a totalitarian regime. Not a country that people assume to be a democracy.

And that is very tragic.

But here comes the part I have tried to explain: The US had then a plan that made peace to prevail. The US didn't annex Japan or Japan wasn't cut into pieces by the allies (even if the Soviets took the Kuril islands, which has causes problems). The US left the Japanese emperor alive. The US did many things that the Japanese could accept, even if the surrendered. — ssu

Dude, you forgot the 2 nukes. Nuking countries apparently is a good method to obtain peace, sure. First, nuke, than show mercy (you can always nuke again). This reminds me a line from Hamlet: “I must be cruel to be kind”. Anyways, if nuking is a good strategy for prompting surrender and permanent peace, then that's also an option for Israel to consider, right?

And this is my point: the war had a Klausewitzian goal. After the surrender the peace worked. Imagine how well it would have worked if Japan would have been cut into to with Stalin holding one part? North and South Korea give an answer to that. — ssu

How about Germany?

Yet there's no similar goal other than to "get the terrorists" when the US invaded Afghanistan. What was the plan then for Afghanistan? Nothing, George Bush had no intention of country-building at first. How did the plan take into account Pakistan? In no way. And hence Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends and in the end got it's Taleban back into power with the US retreating in humiliation.

My point is actually very well explained by Yuval Noah Harari in the following interview from some days ago: if you don't have the time to check it out all, please go to minute 09:00 where after the question Harari explains well what in the war is lacking: an Klausewitzian goal for the war. He takes the example of the invasion of Iraq, which simply played into the hands of Iran. Again something that wasn't clearly thought over, but concocted by the neocons. — ssu

I don’t know if you read my last post in its entirety but I do not need to question the poor planning you are talking about and which is referring to specific policies, military or otherwise. Even less I question the claim that Iran benefited in Iraq, it very well fits into what I already said about Iran. However when I talk about strategy I’m referring to long-term geopolitical goals (not to what’s the best method to get as close as possible to a durable peace benefiting everybody). One my also question that Islamic jihadism was a strategic priority for the US wrt to challenges coming from the globalization. Said that, even if talking about poor (disastrous?) implementation is understandable, still I find more likely that it was for other reasons than the fact that Bush couldn’t distinguish between Sunni and Shia.

Furthermore it's exactly on the point what Harari says about the battle for the soul of the Israeli nation between patriotism and Jewish supremacy. Harari explains very well the difference between patriotism and the feelings of national supremacy. As Harari also notes, Netanyahu hasn't said what the long term plan is. That Klausewitzian goal is missing: a peace to end this war. — ssu

I can agree with Harari to some extant: war is a choice, narratives push people to war, justice depends on the narrative, militarisation gets countries in a vicious race to re-arming and eats budget that could go to health care or education or anything else that could benefit the community.
Still he seems failing to connect the dots of what he himself is saying:
- If narratives push people to war and we should NOT focus on justice because this is based on incompatible narratives, the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions. People often do not want just “peace” but a “just peace”. And even if people are willing to accept a perceived “unjust peace", at least they want assurances for a “secure peace”, which again is shaped by narratives. Anyways, if both Palestinians and Israelis would find acceptable a path toward a “secure peace” (more than a “just peace”) maybe their best chance is to give up on the idea of one or two states, and work on a confederative solution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Land_for_All_(organization)), assumed that the international circumstances will be sufficiently favourable to it as long as needed, of course.
- What’s the point of reminding us that the money thrown into military build-up is depriving us from education and healthcare, while at the same time conceding that people are pushed to re-arm when neighbours re-arm anyways?
BTW that’s a point I stressed many times also in the thread about the war in Ukraine: the Great Satan was the one which supported decades of globalization and globalization is what economically FUELED the military build-up of Russia and China under the Pax Americana. It’s the military build-up and the consequent power projection of Russia that enabled and encouraged the Ukrainian invasion WAY MORE than the trigger of NATO expansion. That’s also the part that people criticising the West conveniently forget. Indeed the US reduced its military presence in Europe, and its nuclear arsenal, and helped Russia get back its nuclear arsenal from Ukraine. And offered an opportunity to converge with Russia and China in the fight against Islamic jihadism, and possibly to democratization. So with all the wealth Russians and Chinese accumulated they could invest to grow standard of life (education and health care) and freedoms for their people. In other words, they HAD A CHOICE but then they chose to reinforce their authoritarian regime, and to purse power competition fuelled by historical grievances!
- Also the difference between true patriotism and jewish supremacy is arguably misleading. National narratives and religious narratives can lead to war, Europe knows it very well. And secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel today (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot). What however I find more plausible is that it would have been easier to deal with secular zionism at the end of the British Mandate, then with non-secular zionism today, given the greater pragmatism of the former and a shorter list of historical grievances against Palestinians back then. On the other side what was the Palestinian endgame? Always very confrontational toward a Israeli state, and expectedly so. We talk about the American failures in the middle-east, how about starting to talk about the Arab and Palestinian failures in the middle east too?
- Last but not least, if all that it takes to end this war and get a permanent peace is just to change ideas and we shouldn’t care about justice just about peace, here is the simplest solution that would grant Palestinians both peace in Palestine AND their nation state AS FAST AS POSSIBLE without Israelis' complaints: CONVERT TO JUDAISM! (And this idea is not even lacking of historical precedents offered by the Jews themselves).

Anyways, if nuking is a good strategy for prompting surrender and permanent peace, then that's also an option for Israel to consider, right? — neomac

Winning a war is one thing, what to do then is another. Winning the peace is the fact that is missing here.

Perhaps you don't get my point: there has to be a peace that will prevail in the future. If the other side loses, then it loses and it is open to hear your terms. Yet if your terms are simply "drop dead" or there are no terms, then there is no reason to subject, but simply go on, plan how you can defeat the enemy occupier. Hence a war has been quite futile, if the peace will be broken in the future.

And what's the solution you have in mind? A final solution like Mr Hitler had in mind for the Jews? There's seven million Palestinians, so 'doing away' with seven million will get you into Guinness World of Records and topple Mr Hitler's previous Holocaust. That is neither possible or sustainable and quite deplorable.

How about Germany? — neomac

Actually with Germany this becomes even more clear when you think of the two Post German states! Which one experienced a revolt against it's occupier as early as the 1950's? Which had to build the Berlin wall to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the other Germany? And which Germany basically collapsed as a house of cards and end up in the dustbin of history after the unification of the two states? And finally, which Germany is still an ally of the US and is totally happy that the US has bases in it's territory?

Picture questionnaire: Are the German throwing rocks at American or Soviet tanks in 1953?


Just having a war and winning the battles doesn't give you peace, especially if you don't think about what to do after a military victory. If you have only naive or delusional ideas that the people will thank you after you have bombed them or then just want retribution, the likelyhood that peace will continue is doubtful. Didn't the Americans find out that after invading Iraq? Mission accomplished, as you remember
! Well, there the US is still stuck, have basically given the place to Iran with the Iraqi government asking the Americans to leave.

the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions. — neomac

Exactly. And that means you really have to take into consideration what the losing side WILL ACCEPT! True peace is what both sides can accept. But if you don't care shit about the enemy you have beaten or think of them as human animals who are incapable of handling themselves and are totally irresponsible, then you reap what you sow when the enemy comes back after a decade or two. Or continues simply continues the war with the limited resources it has.

You really have to think about it this way. For Finns this is easy because we did lose a war, yet we did prevail and didn't become after the Winter War a Soviet republic and afterwards a Soviet satellite state. Stalin didn't militarily defeat Finland, Finland opted for peace and got Stalin to agree with this (which it wasn't going to accept in the case of Germany). "Finlandization" came the norm, however the Finnish military went to great lengths to prepare to fight an insurgency if the Soviets would try to invade the country afterward. This was noted by Stalin and he preferred to keep Finland neutral rather than to invade and fight a long insurgency in Finland. It wasn't about good will.

It’s the military build-up and the consequent power projection of Russia that enabled and encouraged the Ukrainian invasion WAY MORE than the trigger of NATO expansion. — neomac

Military build-up is an outcome of an agenda, it's not an agenda itself. NATO expansion was only one small reason, another was simply that there's only the narrative of Russia as an (threatened) empire. Russia simply cannot see itself as a nation state, because it isn't one made for just Russians.

Secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel today — neomac

I might have to disagree here, even if you make your point well. Religious zionism is far more intolerant at making compromises. At least the founding fathers assumed that in the future they ought to make peace with the Palestinians/Arabs.

. On the other side what was the Palestinian endgame? Always very confrontational toward a Israeli state, and expectedly so. — neomac

The pro-Israeli narrative goes to extreme lengths to tell it like this, because all that the Palestinians want push the Israel and the Israelis to the sea, right? And the Isrealis are the adults in the room here.

In truth, the PLO/FATAH and the PA would have said again and again the pre-1967 borders would be enough for them. Even Hamas would have hinted at this (for example @Benkei referred to this at the start of this thread). And there have been the Arab peace proposals, so you can look them up.

It's just one of the myths that the Arab/Palestinian side hasn't made any efforts at a negotiated peace themselves.

Nuking countries apparently is a good method to obtain peace, sure. — neomac

A bit off the topic, but this also is something not so obvious, was it the atomic bombs or was it actually the Russian attack on Japan? Or both?