The same people who will get angry when their favourite brand of ice cream is out of stock will come and criticize you for being concerned about Israeli or Palestinian civilians being butchered. How very dare you! Well, sorry, but bugger off back to your ice cream or whatever else gets your heart pumping. No one is forcing you to be here.

You don't get brownie points for not caring about stuff. I'm sure there is stuff you do care about. No idea what that is but I wouldn't get any brownie points for not caring about what you care about either. I would probably just steer clear of that thread. Anyway, thanks for not caring and good luck to you.

There's the crux of the issue: Hamas is evil, Israel isn't. Israel can be trusted with power, Hamas can't — RogueAI

Your world is a cartoon. What's evil is decided by actions not labels. The blatant disregard for human life, particularly vulnerable civilian life on both sides, is evil. Hamas have done that and the IDF have done that. They are both "evil".

Who has sided with Hamas here? Quote them. Call them out. Or drop the accusation.

We all agree Nazis = bad so when we copy paste "Nazi" onto the party we want to call bad (Israel or Palestine) we make it impossible for the interlocutor we are arguing with to both accept our framing and yet still argue for their point of view because they also (most likely) agree Nazis = bad. The irony is I'm happy to call Hamas as bad / evil as Nazis but I'm not happy with the conflation of Nazi Germany with Gaza as that only serves as a rhetorical ploy to excuse killing Gazan civilians and if that's your game (note I said "if") then you're also as morally evil as the Nazis (but that again doesn't mean you are Nazi Germany, see...?). So, it's irrelevant that Hamas are as evil as Nazis in particular. You might as well say they're as evil as Charles Manson or any other individual or group that is destructive to human life, but so what? That should be obvious from their actions, but does not in any way whatsoever make Gaza Nazi Germany. The fact that the Gazan leadership are very bad people is a separate issue to what Gaza is in its contextual relationship to Israel, which is the absolutely dominated, weaker, and more vulnerable party, just the opposite of the Nazi relationship to Jews.

Anyway, here's your fallacy

I made this clear from the start, so your confusion is again 100% yours.

I don't want to argue for it because I don't accept it. It's an example of mirroring propaganda. It frames the conversation in a way that presumes the conclusion in favour of the framer as you have done. Understand?

Deliberate quote out of context. I'm giving an example of contrary propaganda that I explicitly made clear I don't agree with.

I don't accept it — Baden

And if you don't accept it and tell me why the Jews shouldn't have been justified in breaking out of the Warsaw ghetto, I'll accuse you of handwaving and stalling.

You see what propaganda does to an argument now... ?

I'll explain one last time. Suppose I say to you: The Israelis are like the Nazis and the Gazans are like the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto therefore surely the attack by Hamas on its oppressors is as justified as Jews fighting to get out of the Warsaw ghetto? Would you accept that framing.? Because I could offer far more justification for it (even though I don't accept it myself) than you can for yours.

The analogy is utterly stupid, not to mention a malicious attempt to excuse war crimes against innocent Gazans who are not Nazis or anything close but the victims of a brutal occupation. Give it up. No one in their right mind would accept such a ridiculous framing as the basis for rational argument.

To the innocent victims, yes, and their suffering should never be downplayed. But to Israel as a country, in military and infrastructural terms which is my context, no. It continued to be able to function normally. It's military wasn't in any way degraded. Territory was retaken almost immediately etc. Contrast that with Gaza where the majority of the population has been displaced and 50% of the homes destroyed. That's significant harm on a nationwide scale.

Because the framing is apt, and still is even after these counter-arguments. — schopenhauer1

Everything in reality is the opposite of the way you framed it but the framing is apt to you? We're at a dead end here. Thanks for the conversation.

I'm not asking, but I wonder what sort of political solution is available with people committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, and have done consistently and repeatedly. — tim wood

Israel is the one inflicting the vast majority of death and destruction on Gazans and the one really able to act on it. It seems like you don't know this. Hamas are tiny and weak compared to Israel. They can never do it any significant harm. On the other hand, Israel has been killing Gazan civilians at will for years. They call it "mowing the lawn". Honestly, are you even aware of the power disparity here? Are you aware of how many Gazan civilians Israel has killed in the recent past compared to Israeli civilians Hamas have killed? Do you understand Israel is a nuclear power backed up by the U.S., whereas Hamas is a small group of extremist nutters that sometimes gets arms from larger groups of extremist nutters (e.g. Iran) but has no large scale military technology at all? Your whole mental world is on backwards. Maybe ask yourself who did that to you.

As pointed out previously, the comparison of Gaza to Nazi Germany is utterly delusional. And any argument built on that will backfire spectacularly. Hamas are a relatively tiny weak force that have only and can only inflict casualties in very low numbers relative to the larger population of Israel. What they have in common with the Nazis is that they hate Jews and would be happy to see them all dead, yes, but that becomes largely irrelevant when there is no capacity to hurt Israel militarily or kill their population in large numbers.

So, it's just propaganda and your opponents in the propaganda war can simply point out that Israel is the overwhelmingly powerful force in the region as the Nazis around the early stages of WW2 were, that Israel have the power to wipe out Gaza and have expressed their wish to do so as the Nazis expressed their wish to wipe out the Jews, that Israel is far more militarily and technologically advanced than Gaza and in the normal run of things controls it almost completely, that Israeli citizens have freedom of movement and Gazans haven't, that Gaza is and has been under a blockade and effectively policed by Israel in every aspect of their lives that matters. Your opponents in propaganda will say that the comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto or even the German concentration camps is more accurate, seeing as it's effectively an open prison. They will probably end by pointing out the fact that you have flipped reality on its head in almost every important and relevant aspect of the analogy at hand shows either your desperation or complete ignorance both of history and the present.

Why would you want to give them the ammunition to expose you like that? So, it's just a framing, and an extremely perverse one that in a blatantly false appeal to the most stupid and ignorant seeks to paint the Gazans as evil and a disproportionate threat so that Israel can be excused in slaughtering them in large numbers while we dehumanize them as Nazis (everyone hates the Nazis, right?). Not good. Try something else.

Of course there's a moral element to what "should" be done. There is by definition. And I already said the question is a good one, but it will take time to respond as it's not like right now there are any clear solutions, which is why I at least provided you with a moral framework. Anyway, I will take your premise that I have been elected Israeli Prime Minister right now and run with that when I have time. But really it's coming at things very late and what comes out of that thought experiment is going to be much less promising than one where Israel didn't decide it's best option was just to "destroy" Gaza or before that to foment Hamas's extremism through its brutal oppression and disregard of a political solution.

I understand things changed after Oct 7th, just as things changed after 9/11. And lo, the same mistakes are being made. 9/11 was a brutal crime against innocents that was tacitly excused or even cheered on by moral degenerates due to their political sympathies, and, on the other extreme, there were calls to lash out against innocents in the name of a "war on terror" and a slew of propaganda convinced the population to get behind a bevy of war crimes that resulted in civilian death and destruction. Sound familiar? Did we not learn that our "war on terror " turned us into terrorists and torturers? That in any case it only inspired more terror (ISIS etc)?

And are not exactly the same excuses being made now? We "have to" do something (let's ignore what that something is, only that we "have to" do it). We are acting in defence... etc etc. All turned out to be a bunch of bull aimed at fuelling neocons' war fantasies and profits for their military enterprises, ended up with smiling U.S. torturers at Abu Ghraib and more extremism in the region. But yes, we all saw that happen. How stupid some of us were to go along with the propaganda, right? To thoughtlessly preach that we just "must" respond and therefore (hidden premise) every atrocity on our side is justified.

I understand the psychology of this, but I don't forgive it. I don't forgive the ignorance of history, the careless forgetfulness, the inability to draw analogies, the lack of nuance, the glib repetition of the dominant line, the wilful moral blindness, all that which renders otherwise intelligent people helplessly unable to condemn the killing of civilians, even children, unless the right ones are being killed. So, yes, I'm halfway with you on your analysis but I draw contrary conclusions. My conclusion is that it's not "unfortunate" what happened after 9/11 any more than it is "unfortunate" what Israel is doing now; it is, rather, wilfully criminal and predominantly an expression of hatred and revenge that will be recognized as such in the history books and in the later consciences of those who were misguided enough to go along with it.

Nietzsche named a Christian Pope the Hohenstaufen Friedrich The II a higher human who emulated the ubermensch due to DEMOCRATIZING KNOWLEDGE away from the Catholic Church and giving it to society. — Vaskane

Ok, thanks for that.

The thing is it's impossible to discuss this with you because to me it is country A vs country B. I have no love or hatred for either the word "Israel" or "Palestine". They're just labels to me. I'm trying to look at it as objectively as I can, but to you, understandably, you need to take a side. So, yes, we are talking completely at cross purposes.

Actually how about you and @Hanover beat each other up with your uberman warmongering. I'll just sit by and watch while you savage each other. Get to it.

Thanks for providing the mirror image of Israeli propaganda with Palestinian propaganda. Maybe you and the likes of @tim wood can get a room somewhere and beat each other up while anyone sensible left on this thread tries to find a civilised middle ground.

Innocence is a matter of perspective when it comes to occupation. If I forced you out of your home, and settled on what used to be yours, I doubt you'd see me as innocent. Innocence in contested territory is just human shielding for the occupying forces to claim X Y and Z atrocities, when their human shielding is attacked. — Vaskane

When you start making excuses for one side, e.g. Hamas, killing civilians you end up excusing the other side doing the same. The people in charge of both sides think like you which is why the region is drowning in blood. Congratulations.

the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians, especially children, are equally sacred and deserve full respect regardless of the political crimes of their rulers / overlords / political exploiters — Baden

Agree or disagree people? I have no time for anyone who disagrees with this unless they are directly affected by / involved in the conflict in which case I don't expect objectivity. Otherwise, if you don't respect innocent lives, I don't respect you.

Hamas eliminated and Gaza at least somewhat pacified — tim wood

I think it's been explained to you that you can't eliminate an idea and that by killing Palestininan civilians you create more Hamas especially in the long term. Anyhow your whole shtick here seems a blithe, glib and thoughtless exculpation of Israel while blaming everything on Hamas. It's painfully ignorant.

and I do not see that they have much choice — tim wood

That's frankly stupid and exculpatory. Of course they have a choice. They could have chosen not to kill babies in Al Shifa. You're not worth talking to if you're this ignorant.

Maybe I'm banging my head against a brick wall but I want to say again, the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians, especially children, are equally sacred and deserve full respect regardless of the political crimes of their rulers / overlords / political exploiters. If we could agree on that and work forwards on that basis most of the rest would fall into place.

By the way, to any of those on the Palestinian "side" who think the hostages should be kept as bargaining chips, I say again, get your moral head out of your arse. Don't play games with the lives of innocents. But the Palestinians themselves are hardly going to listen considering what's going on, are they?

But then, the question at hand which I don't think was really answered except by way of a tangent on something else? — schopenhauer1

What question? Why the Palestinians don't want the hostages released? Israel hasn't promised a ceasefire if they are, has it? What do you think the benefit is to the Palestinians to call for this?

The confusion is 100% on your side. How hard is it to understand that civilians should be released when it's written in black and white in front of you. And obviously military personnel captured can be considered prisoners of war.

Indeed, but these aren't military personnel, unless you think a 9 month olds and 85 year old grandmas are military personnel. — schopenhauer1

I just said:

Of course the, civilian at least, hostages should be released because they are innocents and keeping them hostage is a war crime. — Baden

Don't distort my point like that.

The question isn't how you feel abut them. Instead a single simple question: what do you do about them? You're the prime minister of Israel: what do you do about Hamas? — tim wood

First of all, if I'm Prime minister of anywhere, I work within international law from the start and within a moral framework that balances national interest with a wider notion of justice. How that's done isn't a new debate. It goes back to Socrates vs Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, and Adeimantus (Book 1-2 of the Republic). I take Socrate's side. Others here seem to be on the side of his interlocutors. So, consider that as a first principle.

Secondly, where do you want me to start, now? Oct 7th? Before that?

Of course the, civilian at least, hostages should be released because they are innocents and keeping them hostage is a war crime. Military personnel taken hostage on both sides are prisoners of war and should be protected, treated humanely and released at the end of the war.

However, the question of why Palestinians aren't calling for the release of the hostages while Israel is murdering their children in hospitals and the hostages are their only bergaining chip to make the slaughter stop is naive at best.

Remember this bit of propaganda that helped cause the first Iraqi war:

"In her testimony, Nayirah claimed that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, remove the incubators and leave the babies to die."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

A shocking and horrific story that brought the world into line against Saddam Hussein. Only it was a lie. Iraq was never that brutal. Israel on the other hand has effectively done just this by cutting off the electricity to incubators in Al Shifa hospital on the basis of a claim about a Hamas "command centre" for which there is no credible evidence. And even if there was, do you think that would have mattered in the case of Saddam? Do you think the world would have said "Oh fine, they killed premature babies but there were a couple of militants nearby in a tunnel somehere, so that's acceptable..."? I doubt it. I expect it wouldn't have made a difference because the world had already decided Saddam was a bad guy and so that was the frame in which the story became real and confirmatory. Whereas, in this situation, Amercian public opinion is conditioned to think of Israel as the good guy so the frame doesn't allow for the recognition of reality but only excuses for reality. The IDF take full advantage of this by carrying out acts of absolute barbarity with relative impunity. They rely on naive apologists to make excuses for them so they can keep on getting away with it. Saddam never had that advantage so people believed the lie of what he hadn't done while they will excuse the truth of what the IDF has done.

Thinking about how many more Muslims will be radicalized watching those scenes and how much more death and destruction they'll mete out to innocents and how the innocents around them will suffer with further retaliatory attacks as the cycle continues, it's very hard to see anything at all being achieved by this bloodbath not to mind anything that would justify killing babies. Sadly though, this was predictable.

Lol. You don't care about a war where thousands of civilians are being killed but you insist on posting on the thread because you do care that someone else might care about it because then they might think their voice matters and that would really bother you. Go away, you fool.

It's a philosophy forum and we debate politics and ethics here. If you're too stupid to know that, that's your problem.

Ok, so you don't care or know much about this. The sensible thing would be not to post here then. I consider criticism of those who do care enough to get involved in what is a very obvious and current ethical and political issue to be trolling.

I understand that's your viewpoint and it's a necessarily perspectival one. But the people of Gaza can say the same and then what? Are Hamas then being moral in their further mistreatment of you and yours? I mean, yes, it's moral to protect our families but does that give us carte blanche to completely disregard the families of our enemies? And even if it did in some limited sense of being in the heat of battle, what I'm looking for here is what the ethical solution to the situation might be, one that could reasonably be agreed to by those who are not in the battle but want the battle to at some point end with the minimum of casualties on both sides. A solution that could be considered just. I think some here are claiming what's happening now meets this standard of justice but really their position also comes across as biased and would have to be to make such a claim.

If Israel had a bomb they could drop and kill every Hamas member right now and also immunize the area from the idea of Hamas forever, I'd be all for it but as it stands, Hamas are likely only going to become more dominant as Israel becomes more hated not just by the Palestinians but by all the countries in the region. This is not the most intelligent path to security. It's, if anything, a win for Hamas long term, one of whose goals seems to have been just this.

You can't "destroy" Hamas by brutalizing the Palestinian people. Hamas is an idea as much as a group. You can temporarily inhibit their capacity to hurt you but the only way Hamas could have been destroyed or deradicalised, which amounts to the same thing, would have been through support for moderate alternatives which made Palestinian lives better or a comprehensive peace deal which Netanyahu never wanted. By killing civilians (who are the majority of casualties in this conflict) you simply create the conditions for more Hamas, which what? Gives you an excuse to kill more civilians? Ethnically cleanse the area? What is the end goal of a delusional military aim?

My question is if this response is unjust, then lay me out your just battle plan, which cannot include placing your citizens at risk if you take seriously your duty to protect your citizens. — Hanover

You can't fully eliminate risk to your citizens at any cost. That would justify the killing of every Palestinian if even one Israeli citizen's life were to be put at risk. This is the moral madness at work. However, the question of alternatives is a reasonable one. I'll come back to it later with reference to Northern Ireland.