Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade. — Hanover

As I said to you before I would happily see every member of Hamas blown up with the grenades of your choosing. This is not what's happening. Most of the casualties are civilians.

They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. — Hanover

No proof of this. They didn't find one Hamas member as far as I know. But let's suppose for argument's sake they were disarming Hamas. Were Hamas members in the incubator room holding babies in front of them while Israeli soldiers shot at them as per your analogy? No. So, the analogy fails. Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort.

You can keep repeating the word "rape" ad nauseum if you like but as far as I know that's a contested claim (from my reading of wiki) and there's no evidence of a "rape plan". Besides, it's unnecessary as Hamas targeting and butchering civilians, including children, already puts them on an absolute level of depravity. The difference is I can say this and also say suffocating babies to death is depraved. You can't. All you can do is use emotive language about Hamas as an attempt to excuse Israel's atrocities. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the IDF that Hamas "forced" them to kill children in hospitals? What exactly was the proven direct threat from that hospital to Israeli citizens that justified suffocating infants to death? Why did they "have to" kill those children? Spell it out. Otherwise, you have no case for the IDF being morally superior to Hamas.

I'll talk more about the IRA later (yes, there are differences) but I want to know what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital is. Make it utilitarian, deontological, whatever you like but drop the rhetoric and say something substantial for a change.

Anyway, I'm campaigning for Trump with @NOS4A2 now. Let's go bruv.

He's going to be on his ass by the looks of things. :razz:

Good. Biden deserves to lose for facilitating the mass killing of civilians and destruction of Gaza.

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

I guess I didn't answer this. With all the qualifications above, if there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. But it is not justifiable to destroy an entire city because militants from that city attacked you. That's revenge and collective punishment.

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

How many Israelis do you authorize be killed in defence of Gaza? Israel has destroyed half of the homes and displaced the majority of the people there. Israel is an existential threat to Gaza. Israeli politicians have said they want it wiped out. So whatever number you think is appropriate on the Palestinian side, you would have to logically concede a much larger number on the Israeli side if you are to play the "Country A has a right to defend itself (hidden premise: "by any means")" card. Otherwise you are again stuck in hypocrisy. The thing is you know that Gaza actually can't defend itself because of the overwhelmingly superior military force Israel has, and so you can feel comfortable making the argument.

So, yes, any country has the right to defend itself. But not "by any means". And getting people to agree to "Israel has a right to defend itself" as a cover for "Israel has a right to defend itself + by any means" is a rhetorical ploy that can justify not only Israeli war crimes but Hamas's war crimes too. If Gaza has "a right to defend itself + by any means" then future war crimes against Israel must also consistently be excused. That's the bind you're in. I'm not in that bind because I don't accept the hidden premise.

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right?

So, every argument you make of the form "Why should we have to take it"? "Why can't we defend ourselves"? etc can be applied to any situation where a dominant power is facing an embedded guerilla force and the "obvious" answer that you seek from your interlocutor ("Of course you must defend yourself", "You don't have to take it", "Do whatever you think you need to") actually turns out to be not so obvious or uncomplicated, certainly not ethical, and not how civilised countries should react in such a situation without major qualifications.

And remember, Gaza is not an existential or infrastructural threat to Israel. The military capability of Hamas is absolutely tiny compared to Israel. Netanyahu messed up by letting border security lapse and Hamas got through in a significant way and did absolutely horrible things, but they were almost immediately defeated and had to retreat. So, razing Gaza to the ground and killing thousands of its civilians is not justifiable. It's politically opportunistic, excessive and vengeful rather than necessary, proportionate, and ethical. Also, committing war crimes is always wrong. Cutting the electricity to incubators so babies suffocate to death is wrong. Bombing refugees on routes declared safe is wrong. None of that is part of a legitimate defence and constantly trying to evade responsibility by blaming Hamas for everything as if Israel did not wilfully choose those actions is not going to fly. The blame can be shared but not escaped. If anyone has agency here, it's the IDF. So repeating the line "Israel has a right to defend itself" gets you nowhere and in fact with the hidden premise ties you into excusing any atrocity that forms part of a reaction to an attack, including reactions by Hamas to the current attack by Israel. Not a good position to be in.

Go stuff yourself with all the brownies you are withholding from everyone you think doesn't care enough. — BC

:yum: :lol:

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.