Israel struck first because the Egyptians closed the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping and then began mobilizing on the border after kicking out UNEF. I don't consider Israel the aggressor in this conflict, it was well known before that a closure of that strait would be an act of war and Egypt went ahead with it regardless and then began mobilizing.

The fact that a country acquired a land after a war is irrelevant as to whether they were the aggressors.

I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct? — Xtrix

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity.

There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse. — Xtrix

Israel uses many methods under normal circumstances to try to destroy and infiltrate Hamas - spies, intelligence, quick isolated raids against targets in the area; what you're seeing right now with the killing coming from Israeli is simply in response to Hamas escalating the situation earlier when they started firing the rockets after the Israelis raided al-Aqsa.

What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic? — Xtrix

Hamas stores and fires weapons from schools, hospitals, office buildings, and other populated areas. Additionally they have a large network of tunnels under civilian infrastructure so how are you going to hit those? Israel does not do this. Israel has a separate military infrastucture that exists apart form residential areas... it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly.

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. — Xtrix

I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel?

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem? — Xtrix

So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion.

https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1394900465498869762

^A real illustration of the difficulty of the situation. You want to further decrease casualties on the Palestinian side? Good luck.

What the...

So an attack that which ends up with annexations of lands from Jordan, Syria and Egypt isn't aggression? — ssu

I don't believe the Gaza or WB are technically annexed; I've heard both referred to as 'self-governing' or 'disputed territories' but not part of Israel proper.

Regardless, if I was to ask you who was the aggressor on the Eastern front in WWII, you'd say Germany, right? But what about when the Soviets pushed them all the way back to Berlin and crossed Poland in the process? The Soviets crossed into Poland and ended up controlling part of Berlin, but were they aggressors in the war? No.

Before Operation Barbarossa the two sides has a truce and it was clearly Germany who was the aggressor. I've never heard any history or historians suggesting that the Soviets had aggressive intentions towards Germany during this period before the Germany attacked. Before the 6 day war the historical circumstances between Israel and the Arab world were extremely different.

This is just a semantic issue. Yes, Israel went on the offensive but I wouldn't call Israel the aggressor (therefore they didn't aggress.) If A starts attacking B and B manages to gain the upper hand and subdues A, B is not the aggressor. A was the aggressor even despite B managing to come out on top.

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. — Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed.

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. — Xtrix

Hamas builds their military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General.

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. — Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. Also among the Palestinian victim count are Palestinians killed by Hamas rockets that misfire, which is actually around 20-25% of them. That's at least 700 rockets fired by Hamas that hit the Gaza area. Last I heard at least 8 children were killed this during one of these misfires.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior. — Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though if there was a legal procedure for that, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed.

You could not care less about the genocide of LGBTQ Palestinians by Hamas. You only care, or pretend to care, about violence when it is interracial or across ethnic lines. You do not care about flesh and blood individuals and their actual sources of suffering, only about fomenting racial tension and intergroup conflict. I'll have to look out for others like you in the future. Thanks for the discussion.

1. Palestinians have a right to self-determination as well;
2. The Arabs were opposed to any type of partition in 1948 because they believed the rule "of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants", that included Jews and Arabs at the time;
3. In accordance with Bretton-Woods, acquisition of land through warfare is illegal because aggression is illegal;
4. You cannot acquire land through defensive war, because you cannot logically defend what wasn't yours to begin with;
5. Therefore the acquisition of land beyond the 1948 partition plan is predicated on the war crime from which all war crimes stem: the act of aggression;
6. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are therefore illegal;
7. All settlements not in accordance with the 1948 lines are therefore iilegal and should be removed;
8. The Palestinians have been more than generous several times over to agree to solutions close to the 1967 borders;
9. The reason why the Israeli haven't agreed is because the right-wing political zionism, which has been in power most of the time, especially for the last 24 years, is intent on establishing an Israel from the Jordan river to the sea; — Benkei

1. Sure and Israel has offered to give them a state in the past, but with Hamas in power Israel is absolutely under no obligation to go in that direction these days. Hamas is a terrorist group, not a legitimate government. Giving them independent statehood is a serious security concern for Israel.
2. "revert to its inhabitants" is just rhetoric. they just wanted to maintain the status quo with arabs in charge. It's always been fine if there's a state where Arabs are in charge with a Jewish minority.
3. Israelis did not aggress in '67.
4. But you can uproot the forces that were trying to destroy you. russia was still defending when it pressed into germany. were the allies "aggressing" by pressing into germany? sure you can say that they were going on the offensive, but to describe them as the "aggressors" in the conflict seems strange to me.
5. In 1948 the arabs declared war on Israel and sought to wipe it out. there was talk of a second holocaust at the time. Land taken and held in '48 was a necessary security measure and I'm not going to apologize for it. Israel was extremely vulnerable w/ 1947 boundaries.
8. Could you just expound a little further on this?
9. i'll agree with you that the israeli government is more recalcitrant that it was in the past and this is due to several factors, but then again so is hamas. neither side right now has a serious interest in peace.

You're making these demands of Israel but it's never going to be your family who bears the repercussions. It's easy to tell Israel to loosen their security or to let Hamas import anything completely unrestricted or to give back half their land when you're halfway around the world. If there was a homeless problem in your community would you be willing to let some live in your home? How would you feel about fundamentalists muslims as your neighbors? They need a place to live too, why not next to you? They can invite their friends over too.

You have absolutely zero respect or care for material reality. The truth on the ground. It's honestly amazing.

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan

I wonder what counts as a "plan" here. Do they mean formal documentation like the Nazis at the Wannsee conference? In what sense do the Israelis have this plan?

Is that it? Is that your response to what I wrote? God, why did I waste my time with you? Well, I've learned now. Later.

It quite obviously doesn't follow from the fact that Arabs didn't want a Jewish state that it would therefore not have come to pass. And since the politicians and warmongers didn't try Buber's way, we can't know what would've happened if Jewish Zionism had followed his Hasidic approach from the 20s onwards. — Benkei

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting Buber here, but AFAIK he really valued consensus but there was no way Israel as a Jewish state would ever come to exist if we relied on consensus from the Arabs. As far as I can tell, there would be no Jewish state if we demanded on meeting Buber's standards. It seems to me like had we followed Buber's consensus, Jews would remain in the minority in this theoretical binational state (because that's what the Arab consensus would be) and therefore the Jews would relinquish all bargaining power. When one cedes control they are no longer in a position to implement their vision, do you agree?

Especially in '47 the Arabs were not looking to make peace or compromise; they wanted the Jews gone. Tensions had already been rising for decades. Buber's ideas seem nice to me, I just don't know how we would have ever implemented them given the political realities of the day. The environment back then was very politically charged with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem a former ally of Hitler's and a vicious anti-Semite.

While Wiesel never condemned Israel, that was as consequence of his love for the country that was unconditional and that he thought he could not judge as a Diaspora Jew. On the other hand, in his later personal memoirs he has indicated he never did enough for the Palestinian plight. — Benkei

Yeah, even ardent Zionists aren't actually anti-Palestinian... maybe there are a few but I would just call those people evil. The struggle has always been between those who wish Israel harm and those who wish to protect it. Wiesel was unequivocal in his condemnation of Hamas and had he been alive today there's no doubt where he would stand on today's conflict.

Strawman, Bitcunt, again. "David" is the dispossssed and oppressed Palestinian people and not Hamas (which is merely the goddamn "sling"). Quit appropriating my species' humanoid form, you fuckin' reptile. :shade: — 180 Proof

You lean so heavily on this oppressor v. victim framing that it's led you to be oblivious to day-to-day realities. This is characteristic of philosophy and philosophers by the way - all theory, no fact.

Here are some facts: Israel has had no troops or settlements in Gaza since 2005. It's entirely self-governed except for the borders, with virtually all internal affairs dictated by Hamas. When humanitarian funds intended for the Palestinian people are embezzled by Hamas to build tunnels and buy weapons & Palestinians starve, that's not Israel's fault. When Hamas throws gay men off of rooftops because homosexuality violates the will of Allah, that's not the Zionists. If you are a sexual minority in Palestine, Hamas is 1000% the real enemy. If you are a reporter looking to free press, Hamas will arrest you. When Hamas makes a deliberate cultural effort to indoctrinate their children from an early age to hate the Zionist enemy and glorifies martyrdom & death, that is again not the Zionists. Peace is impossible with Hamas in power. Why won't you see Hamas as the true enemy of the Palestinian people? Hamas maintains a stranglehold on its population and kills more of them with its own rockets than it does the enemy.

Get a grip of the political and historical realities of the region before throwing this empty theory at me. Hamas could murder 50% of the Palestinian population and Israel would still be the enemy to you.

This is history - no crystal ball needed. Show me where I'm wrong then. Show me that the Arabs were open to a Jewish state in '48 and I will reevaluate my position.

I haven't read any Buber, but I gleaned some of his ideas about Zionism and while they seem nice I can't help but think they're a little too idealistic. Buber highly valued consensus with the Arabs, but there would be no state of Israel if we took that seriously as the Arabs categorically refused any Jewish state in 1947-48.

In actuality under Buber's view it would seem that there would just be no state of Israel and Jews would just be under Arab rule.

Yes, Wiesel would have obviously sided with Hamas. :nerd:

Since I can't believe you're actually this stupid, I'm just going to concluded that you're a propagandist with zero intellectual honesty or commitment to accurately representing thinkers.

Quit appropriating my peoples' serious thinkers for your woke bullshit. :roll:

Now that's cultural appropriation.

The self-reflection barb wasn't aimed at you. I had others in mind.

I'm not even following the situation in the West Bank because the current violence is occurring in Gaza where the Israeli army hasn't had a presence since 2005.

Regardless of how Hamas was created the organization exists for the singular purpose of destroying Israel and creating an Islamic state in its place. We have no reason to doubt their sincerity on this matter.

But if Hamas doesn't defend itself, it loses all dignity. — Manuel

:chin: Ya know, when your "dignity" is only "defended" via trying to intentionally murder random "enemy" civilians -- with most of the actual damage & killing going towards one's own people and property -- it might be time to take a step back and re-evaluate your approach, but that would require introspection which is virtually non-existent among terrorists, as well as leftists to whom everything is black and white -- good guys versus bad guys, bully vs victim and those poor victims can't do wrong.

As long as Hamas is in power there can be no peace.

Out of a sample of 850 rockets launched by Hamas, 200 ended up over Gaza. That's 23.5%, and that figure is from a few days ago. Currently, Hamas has launched at least 3000 rockets so given that same rate that's at least 700 of Hamas' own rockets raining down on Gaza.

Come to think of it, Hamas' rockets are almost certainly more likely to kill their own people than to kill Israelis. Israel has a defense system, Palestine has none. There is zero defense from this.

Some significant % of the dead Palestinians are directly Hamas' own doing.

That does not warrant you to equate Hamas with Palestinians. You know that. — frank

That was not my intended meaning and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Sometimes in conflict people refer to the opposing military forces just via their nationality (e.g. "the Japanese invaded Manchuria") and they don't mean the Japanese people. I'm doing something similar when I say "the Palestinians."

I was just asking if he objected to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. — frank

I've never heard of him doing this.

Israel is recognized by the UN. There's no need to be defensive about its existence or worried about its future. It's not going anywhere. — frank

I'm not really worried about Israel being destroyed anytime soon.

Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. That's where the conflict is. Wiesel always supported Israel's to defend itself so unless you can dig up quotes of his that are critical to Israel your position doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, it's technically possible but it's extremely unlikely in view of his previous statements.

He blamed Hamas for using children as "human shields." He called Hamas a "death cult."

Now given this information.... what should we conclude about his position? :chin: :chin: :chin:

Eli Wiesel hated Hamas with a passion and always believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Whose side do you think Wiesel would be on today if he were alive?

Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil.
— Elie Wiesel
(Emphasis is mine.) — 180 Proof

Wiesel was an ardent Zionist throughout his entire life. Nice try, though. :wink:

Again, where do they go? They barely have room to defend themselves, unless they make themselves visible on the beach or in the border. That's suicide. — Manuel

You're asking me where Hamas should launch rockets against civilian populations. The answer is nowhere, but if they are going to pick a place then don't do in schools (yes they have done this) or hospitals. Hamas does this purposefully for the press and it is evil. Conduct your military activities elsewhere, away from children. By storing weapons in schools you are endangering your own children and using them as pawns in a political struggle. It's beyond evil. Remember, self-defense is a fundamental right for any nation.

But if we agreed that prior to settlement expansion Israel was safer, why do you think ending the blockade means they'll destroy Israel? — Manuel

I believe the blockade makes Israel safer, but that expanding settlements is a provocative move that that may very well endanger the safety of other Israelis.

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

The proportionality is because Israel actually has missile defense. 90% of rockets are stopped. If Israel didn't have that the kill count would be much closer. Attempted murder is just as bad as murder. You have no idea how many rockets are actually being launched at Israel because the vast majority are stopped, but the military does know where all those rockets are coming from.

They don't have anywhere near the sophisticated weaponry that could shoot at tanks, much less aircraft. — Manuel

This is thankfully because of the blockade.

If Hamas is planning to fight, what, they should all line up in the beach, so they could be killed and Gaza loses all defense they have? — Manuel

If they don't take precautions to conduct their military activities away from their civilians then they are partly liable in the event of response attacks. Imagine you're a military commander, how would you respond if someone was launching rockets out of an enemy hospital? Are they just safe?

Israel raided Al-Aqsa because of a weapons cache there that would later be used against Israel. In hindsight, was this the best way to go about resolving the situation? Very possibly not, I don't know. Lets say it was wrong and that Netanyahu deserves blame - ok, fair enough.

Regardless, the correct response to this is not to start launching rockets against Israeli civilians in residential areas. Now Israel is going to defend itself against those firing the rockets, who are themselves firing from inside residential areas.

Israel does allow food and medical supplies in, they just screen out the weapons. Lets stick to the first point for now though.

Now suppose that X steals your wallet, your watch and other such possessions in a violent manner. This is still an assault. Ok. You fight back maybe you throw a punch or push him back. But then the person comes with a gun shoots your leg and when you hit back, he gets furious and says he is defending himself from you. — Manuel

This analogy isn't apt because Hamas started launching rockets first. Israel did not just begin the aggression.

"99% of the killing is done by Israel" is a fatuous statement. It has zero bearing to who is right or wrong in a conflict.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. It if was defending itself worse the killing would be more 50/50 and Baden wouldn't have this stupid line to use. Is there no such thing as attempted murder?

99% of the killing is done by Israel. 99% of the children murdered are murdered by Israel. The idea that's just defending themselves from the vastly inferior power they are violently occupying is where the parody comes in. — Baden

The reason Israel suffers so many less casualties is because they have a missile defense system that intercepts the vast majority of rockets which saves countless lives. Would you support Israel more if more Israelis died and the casualty count was 50/50?

Have you also considered that around 25% of the rockets fired (200/850) by Hamas misfire and explode around Gaza killing their own civilians. A couple days ago 8 Palestinian children were killed this way.

Nonetheless, we've got posters in this thread who have little interest in doing anything except feigning moral indignation, virtue signalling and just trying to drag others through the mud. There are some interesting conversations to be had about this situation and you'd think a philosophy forum might discuss them but this thread is about as bad as it gets. — Judaka

I guess now is as good as a time as any for a post-mortem here.

For me it honestly wasn't that bad. I've had many other discussions with SL and I thought compared to those that this was one of the better ones. The key when you're talking to people like that is you've gotta translate - when he calls you a racist or genocidal you just ask him to explain what those mean to him and you'll see where he's coming from: He defines these terms is a very different sense than you or I would. It's actually a good thing if SL calls you a racist and I stopped viewing the term as a bad thing given his definition of it. I also noticed his levels of toxicity never really reached past a certain level so I just kinda gradually became accustomed to it and gave a bit of it back sometimes. There was only one other poster here who struck me as being unnecessarily hostile as well as extremely critical so I just stopped interacting with him. Most of the others were o.k. to interact with -- not comfortable -- but I think I've been called genocidal or a racist or a Nazi so many times in this thread that it just doesn't faze me anymore. You also just don't have to respond to everything.

It was a fun way to pass time on the weekend but I gotta get back to work now.

Interesting how the opposition to Israeli genocide is translated by you as a denial of its right to exist. Is the implication that Israel's existence is premised on genocide? — StreetlightX

We're at $100 now.

That's simply nonsense. — Xtrix

That's the crux of it. Everything else is peripheral. This has been going on since ancient times. Plenty of posters here - Streetlight, 180, among others refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas, the governing power of Gaza, refuses to accept Israel's right to exist and refuses to negotiate or compromise with Israel. How do you make peace under those terms?

Come to the bargaining table with us and we'll talk. We've withdrawn settlements and forces in the past and we'll do it again, just be civil.

Yes Hamas is a terrorist group. They are also the sole governing power in Gaza which is a self-governing territory. They were voted into power after the Israeli's withdrew in 2005 and have been in power ever since.

Yeah I was thinking something similar. I couldn't imagine the US tolerating rocket attacks on US citizens with their homes being bombed and neighborhoods destroyed. There'd be some major hell to pay for the aggressor.

The Israeli army withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and there aren't any settlements there either.

See my previous post. In any case, Hamas is violating the laws of war by firing rockets from within residential areas leaving Israel in a terrible position. These are not different countries - Gaza is not a country. It is a self-governing territory.



I agree I'd be totally down with a cease fire.

It's honestly a complete mess. Rockets are being fired into Israel from residential areas which basically forces Israel to respond by striking residential areas. It's a question of how much collateral damage is accepted, not whether collateral is accepted. Then many of the rockets Hamas launches ends up killing their own people because their weapons are cheap and they're idiots who don't care about their own people. I'd be curious to know how the US would respond vs. how Israel is responding now. A military expert would be welcome in this discussion.

Israel is already guilty by virtue of simply existing for most of these posters.

Haha, that's unfortunately not how it works or I'd be broke very quickly. It's one per a poster.

Because they were invaded and displaced. Still are getting displaced. And terrorized in “self defense” — khaled

You just admitted here that Palestinians are genocidal, so given that you've already accepted that, why should the Jews be willing to negotiate with a group who wants them dead? The Jews have also been displaced and invaded and terrorized. They need security, and that security needs to be their own state. The Jews have offered to end the "occupation" on several occasions in exchange for peace.

Some advice - we're going to have to be willing to put these blood feuds behind us if our groups want to make peace. Actually, Israel has already made peace with much of the Arab world which has accepted their right to exist so it is possible. That's all it's about: Accepting our right to exist. We're here and we're not going anywhere.

And why can't Palestine's Arab neighbors absorb them as immigrants? The Arab countries could fix this problem if they wanted to but they don't because it's a thorn in Israel's side. The Arab countries just don't care about the Palestinians and that not Israel's problem. If you're a Palestinian then I'm sorry your fellow Arabs have failed you.

Cool, we got $50 so far. I'll check back on this at the end of the month. Maybe I'll donate it on behalf of the forum.