Just let me know if you know where you think I'm leading here...

Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do.

Just let me know if you know where you think I'm leading here... — schopenhauer1

Be more specific then...

Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do. — BitconnectCarlos

How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy.

And if you come to the conclusion that "make a desert and call it peace", the genocide-strategy only viable way to defeat the enemy, then I think your objectives are themselves immoral.

How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy. — ssu

In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it.

Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? — BitconnectCarlos

It depends on whose land you're scorching.

In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it. — BitconnectCarlos

Nowhere is it stated that you have to provide food and shelter to an invading enemy.

And you don't have to the 8th Century. When Finns retreated in WW2 from the Red Army, they naturally withdrew all of their civilian population and basically repopulated into areas in Finland that were controlled by Finland. And then, if time, destroyed all the housing. I remember my grandfather telling a story as an officer in WW2, they were ordered to cut down the wheat in the fields and destroy it when withdrawal was inevitable. Some of the soldiers who were farmers took it very sadly such destruction of food, but nothing was to be given to the enemy. If Red Army wouldn't have been stopped where it historically was stopped, the next line of fortifications where on a line just west of my summer place, and old farm. It very likely would have been burnt down by us Finns.

Nobody has said that this was a warcrime. Especially when it meant that the Finnish civilian deaths in WW2 were very low, and there weren't numbers of Finnish women and girls then raped by the Red Army and left in their own misery in the "Workers Paradise". It would have been a little bit different if those people would have been Russians that were waiting for them to be liberated to be then forced into Finland.

Half a million refugees were moved twice from Eastern Finland. During the Winter War 1940:


After repopulation the lost areas and rebuilding the houses, they had to do it again during the War of Continuation in the summer and fall of 1944:


It's a war crime when you move people against their will with the intent of having other people there. After all, Israel has evacuated people from the Lebanese border to Central Israel and other places. Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.

I am trying to understand your own paradoxes here..
You seem to agree that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had the right to be put in a position of total surrender, no? For the perspective of the US, let's say, there were only 2,403 people actually killed in a sneak attack. Did that mean Japan should suffer many thousands to millions of deaths upon the end of the war? And if the tragic answer was, "Yes, because Japan would keep trying to expand, retaliate and become even more aggressive", then look at how a) 2,403, turned into b) millions of death for Japanese.

And there were around 111,000 Americans that died let's say, just in the Pacific theater. Lower percentage than Japanese, but if the Americans had a way to keep that number lower but still maximizing efforts against Japan, do you not think they would, if they had the advantage? Just having a greater force for example, and using it to defeat an enemy that unwisely decides that you need to be "eliminated from the map", doesn't confer that the bigger enemy shouldn't try to defeat the weaker one for foolishly attacking.. In fact, one would think the smaller army would not attack precisely because the enemy were bigger and had the potential to use their bigger force, and that would be a preventative measure for attacking the country directly in the first place.. (Not the case in Vietnam, for example, because that was a civil war that the bigger country tried to "help" in, not really an a country sneak attacked and then declaring a state of war with that country.. it was a limited military action comparatively..and same even in Iraq and Afghanistan.. If the US mission was utter an total surrender in the same terms as WW2, then we would be talking very differently about the aims and outcomes of that war.. In fact a greater discussion could be had about what it means to have a limited war and its general failures even).

So I guess my bigger point is that we see that war itself means death and destruction, and not just of soldiers involved, then how can war be legitimate, even as a defensive action against an aggressor, like one that does a sneak attack, when we know that horrible outcomes are the result of going to war (especially total wars that are about making the other country's leadership completely surrender)...

I say it is the 18th and 19th century that might be the aberration due to the technology of the time.. But you also look a little closer, internal politics might have been much bloodier.. The English Civil War preceding that time and the French Revolution were bloody as hell...And even in the 17th century, the bloody and deadly Thirty Years War...

Nobody has said that this was a warcrime. — ssu

The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china. Many "war crimes" like this are surely on the books but prosecution and enforcement are the important matters. If one country is placed under a microscope while others ignored it detracts from the legitimacy.

Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.

If the Gazans are removed and Israeli settlers move in then, yes, that is ethnic cleansing. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza or more in settlers but we'll have to see.

It's tricky though. If a formerly ethnically cleansed population were to retake their land we could call it both "ethnic cleansing" if the occupier was forced out or fled but also "decolonization."

Biblically speaking, being ethnically cleansed was often interpreted as a sign that something had gone wrong with your own people to have been conquered like that. Sometimes populations get dispossessed due to their own wickedness. Or it could just be God's plan.

Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis. Israel should do its best to remove the source of this (the governments which teach it), but even after the war the palestinian people ought to undergo a massive re-education otherwise the same problems will just emerge. You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. Arabs and Jews have both been ethnically cleansed and subject to historic injustices, yet life must continue forward.

you mean the Israeli illegal occupation, land grab, violence, oppression and hate has conditioned many Palestinians to hate their oppressors in turn? Shocking.

And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation.

And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation. — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, it might be a contributing factor. What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband?
Domestic situations are on a different scale from international situations, but both are far more complex than the you have represented.
Jews and Arabs have a history - a whole lot more of it than either of them have has had with Europe, and I'm including the Greek and Roman conquests. That land has been fought over more than any other in the world, with the possible exception of a few corners of Africa and Asia.

Actually, it might be a contributing factor.

Maybe all Palestinian maladies can be blamed on the Jews.

What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband? — Vera Mont

Surely the Jews had a role in this one too.

but both are far more complex than the you have represented. — Vera Mont

I was satirizing a position. Some users will essentially blame all Palestinian maladies on the Jews.

I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply.

You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. — BitconnectCarlos

This describes Israeli culture much better and you don't even realise it. Funny as fuck really.

Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis. — BitconnectCarlos

You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too. I think that many Jewish Israelis support the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

And this isn't something that just happened after October 7th, this is from six years ago:



Far more telling is that many liberals and non-religious Israelis are leaving Israel. That tells quite starkly how attitudes are changing in Israel.

The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china. — BitconnectCarlos

The Uighur genocide is actually quite apt example to compare here. First of all, China has simply controlled the area so that there isn't an armed struggle going on. Everything is also done in the name of anti-terrorism, in Uighuria, sorry, Xinjiang it's called Strike Hard Campaign against Terrorism. Then China obviously is a far bigger country with much more effect to retaliate on any country making the case of the obvious (that Uighurs are tried to be assimilated, even destroyed). I think the US can do this and state the obvious truths here, obviously, as China isn't it's ally.

But then again, The Chinese don't declare their intensions in the fashion as Bibi's administration has in this subject. They prefer the usual denial of everything.

Maybe so, but that didn't sound like satire. The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. Everyone who lives there (with the possible exception of a few truly evil leaders) is the victim of international events that started a very long time before they themselves were born. The major world powers have been playing silly buggers in the region for over two thousand years and won't stop any time soon.
And then, of course, one has to wonder whether one can take at face value anything Mr. Netanyahu says in public.

As long as one is wondering... Why does every discussion go from thought experiment to WWII to Israel?

I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply. — Benkei

You don't get what it's like because nobody hates you. No one hates the Dutch. No one raises their children to hate the Dutch. Be thankful you don't have to deal with that, and this begins well before the state of Israel. I don't hate Palestinians but am wary of them. You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews.

The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. — Vera Mont

You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born?

You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born? — RogueAI

Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia.

Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia. — Vera Mont

I disagree. I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles.

You disagree that oil, strategic location and the routes to gold, ivory and spices existed before 600AD?
Or that they were important then as they are still?

I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states — RogueAI

Not in its first thousand years, while Christianity was being a huge drag on Europe.

and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. — RogueAI

Obviously. Whatever threat a military or militant organization is created to counter, religion has a great deal of influence on recruitment and popular support. That worked for Israel.

If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles. — RogueAI

Except that the factions in Ireland didn't include big international players like Russia and the US. Britain may have given the lands of Catholic peasants to imported Protestants, but a foreign world power was not constantly pumping enormous quantities of arms and money into Ulster.

There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices.

You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too. — ssu

I was talking before the war. You will see Palestinian kindergarten students decked out in terrorist gear murdering Israeli hostages openly for kindergarten graduation ceremonies. You will see Palestinian mothers openly wishing their children become martyrs for palestine. It is inculcated in them from an early age and you see it in their children's shows. We've seen a generation raised on this under Hamas rule in Gaza and earlier. It is just not the same on the Israeli side. There's anger, of course, but it's not the same.

On 10/7 that the murderers rode in joyous. Jubilant. I guess it makes sense: Go have fun robbing, raping and torturing the enemy and worst comes to worst and you die you just go to Heaven as a martyr. Life is short, enjoy it! There is no parallel concept in Judaism. I once saw a Palestinian girl complain how the IDF were cowards who hid behind their tanks because God forbid they actually value their lives. Are the zionists to blame for this mindset? Did the evil Jews inculcate the Palestinians not to care about the value of material life?

Yes such violence degrades. It sows fear and hatred. So the Israeli right rises to power to protect its own. But no Jew is under the belief that all palestinians must either be killed or converted to judaism. judaism is not a religion which seeks to spread/universalize; islam is.

There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices. — Vera Mont

If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be, Muslim or Western? Obviously, Western. Now, why is it Muslim countries have lagged so far behind Western countries in recognizing basic human rights?

You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews. — BitconnectCarlos

Another misplaced comment. I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). How you conflate that with what I think about Jews is entirely on you.

I actually like you when you're not talking about this subject.

If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be? — RogueAI

Bad regimes a-plenty. Russia and Uganda, both predominantly Christian - and that's just in the present. We don't exactly know yet how the conservative backlash, so tough on women lately, will play out in the western countries.
And, of course, that has nothing whatever to do with war crimes.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike theocracies and official state religions.
But war crimes are also committed by secular nations.

I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). — Benkei

You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. It was Muslim land previously, after all. Islam already includes Judaism so Judaism is a step backwards from their perspective. I actually do understand them. God has spoken through their prophet Muhammad but the Jews will not accept the revelation. It must be frustrating.

And there is a very long, complicated history of violence that goes back well before the establishment of Israel. From the Jewish perspective things do not begin with Israel. Also palestinian attacks, for whatever reason, are very often against random civilians intentionally. It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy.

It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy. — BitconnectCarlos

It sure works for "Bibi". "We're at war!" has kept more than one corrupt politician in power and out of jail.

Good points.

I was talking before the war. — BitconnectCarlos

When?

Prior to 1948? Or prior to the Arab revolt of 1936-1939?

. It is just not the same on the Israeli side. There's anger, of course, but it's not the same. — BitconnectCarlos

I think you should notice how Israel is changing too.

When? — ssu

Before this current war on 10/7. Palestinian children shows and schools have been inculcating hate for decades. I don't ever recall Israeli television shows teaching Israelis to hate their neighbor or glorifying martyrdom. Israel does however have a beautiful three-tiered cemetery that commemorates its war dead.

I think you should notice how Israel is changing too. — ssu

Always open to hearing new info.