The RCC, when it had a monopoly on charitable collecting, had that covered. Tithes were set according the parishioner's income and the current cause was named by the priest.

Not everyone feels obligated to share his good fortune with those whom fate or humankind have treated unfairly. Those who do are able to decide how much they can afford to donate and choose the causes they considers most worthwhile, as well as most likely to make good use of it. Some people, consider it a kind of moral duty - something akin to a debt of honour - to give back when society has been generous to them. Some are aware enough of the larger world to realize that their material comfort came about at the expense of many other people's - perhaps not directly, but through accidents of birth, history and nationality. — Vera Mont

No. Just make up a bundle of clothes for the local thrift store or a bag of groceries for the food bank or drive a disabled person to their physiotherapy session. — Vera Mont

No, but many poor people do anyway. If you want people to donate to you directly, ask them - some might feel obligated. — Vera Mont

I get that these are practical guidelines, but not quite the clear delineations one might expect when something is claimed to be a moral obligation.

A moral obligation means one ought to fulfill it always.

That becomes rather difficult without said delineations.

Society's problems are everyone's problems. — Vera Mont

I disagree. Societies don't have problems; people, individuals, have problems. Some problems are within one's power to solve, others not.

To take it upon oneself to solve everyone's problems, or the problems of abstract concepts like 'society', is foolish and an act of hubris. That's why much do-gooding ends up not helping anyone.

That isn't to say that charity cannot be good and moral. I believe it is a moral virtue. But sometimes (often?) it seems to turn into a crusade to solve 'the world's' problems while neglecting problems at home.

One doesn't need to travel to the third world to find misery. But many find it much easier to donate some cash to anonymous charities than to pay their lonely grandma a visit.

Most, if not all, problems are human problems, and require human solutions.

While charity is generally regarded as a moral virtue, I think calling donating a moral obligation goes too far.

There are several gripes I would have with that:

- How much should one donate? How often? To what causes?

- What if money can't solve the problem? Am I morally obligated to fly over there and start digging wells?

- What if I am a poor person living in a rich country? Am I obligated to donate? Or are people morally obligated to donate to me?

This idea of donating as a moral obligation raises way too much questions and makes little sense to me.


People aren't put on this Earth to make other people's problems their own, and it is generally a good thing that they don't, especially when it comes to problems they know little about.

I strongly believe in the idea that people should first 'get their own house in order', before moving on to other people's problems. The latter often becomes an excuse not to do the former, and as such few problems actually end up getting solved, the result being nothing but a misplaced sense of moral superiority.

If problems were easy to solve, people would have probably been able to solve them on their own. Hubris in this regard has a way of creating more problems, not less. So even when one is being charitable, one should be humble.

Lastly, I dislike the idea of donating money. Simply because sending money rarely solves problems, from both a practical and an economic point of view - it may even cause them. It feels more like an easy way to feel good about oneself, without actually doing much.
It becomes an excuse not to take on problems that are closer to home - problems which one might actually have a good understanding of and be able to solve.


All in all, I believe charity is a moral virtue, but it must be done wisely and humbly, and as such cannot simply be considered a 'moral obligation' - as something to be done without second thought.

Sometimes charity is paying one's lonely grandma a visit. Sometimes charity is telling someone a harsh truth. I don't think money has much to do with it.

To be honest, I think much of the worrying authoritarian trends we have seen in the last decade are a product of a lack of conflict. Voters are lulled to sleep, and elites have no pressure to perform, allowing them to pursue selfish gain or ideological fantasies of moulding the world in their image.

With large-scale conflict on the horizon, it's becoming painfully obvious how utterly incompetent the western elites have become. After the first round of failures is over, they will likely all be ousted. We'll have to see what comes in their place, and whether it's any better.

When everything goes to hell in a handbasket, the hope is that voters will once again wake up and become engaged, and cause democracy to function better. Politicians will once again have to deal with reality, rather than fantasy.

Neither the US nor Israel is in the position to lecture anyone on human rights.

In addition, modern-day Iran is a problem Israel and the US themselves created.

So you hit the double whammy for hypocrisy. :lol:

So whenever Israel has a spat with a country, they should be disallowed from participating in UN bodies?

The UN is an Israel-hating joke. — RogueAI

Why?

Also, yesterday a resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly calling for an “immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities.”



UN General Assembly resolutions aren't legally binding, so in all likelihood will be promptly ignored by Israel and the United States, but it does show how isolated they have become in terms of global opinion.

Doesn't look good. Hopefully both Iran and the US can keep their cool. And minimize it to slaps on the wrist. — ssu

We can only hope.

Reports are that four US carrier groups are headed to the eastern Mediterranean and Red Sea. That's a massive deployment, likely not meant to scare small fish like Hamas or Hezbollah, and probably offensive in nature.

But time will tell.

Purposeful murder and accidental manslaughter are not morally equivalent.

But what group B is doing is not accidental. It is calculated, just like group A.

Both groups willfully accept that the deaths of innocents is expected and warranted in pursuit of their goals.

Especially when these it's these people that then the IDF has to safeguard in the occupied territories. — ssu

As far as I am aware, the majority of settlers are regular Orthodox Jews. The ultra-orthodox Haredi have largely (but not always) opposed settling on the West Bank due to their anti-Zionist stances.

And it's now a bit ironic that the ultra-orthodox protested against their military service. — ssu

The ultra-orthodox even protest against the existence of the state of Israel, because they believe it is claiming the land that belongs to God.

You can find images of them burning Israeli flags during protests and things like that.

I thought that was very interesting.

So various US bases around the Middle-East have been bombed and taken under fire in the past weeks. Now the US is actively bombing those who it deems responsible - Iran and its allies/proxies.

US fighter jets strike Syria after attacks by Iran-backed militia (Reuters)

The US is going to war with Syria, it seems. And probably it won't end there. The massive build up of forces and firepower suggests they might be going to war with Iran.

Many speculate that the reason Israel hasn't gone ahead with its invasion thus far, is because the US needs to complete the deployment of its carrier groups, two of which are already in the area and reportedly two more might be on the way.

That firepower is obviously way beyond what you'd expect against an actor like Hamas, hence the speculation about a widening of the conflict.


This is following a familiar pattern of US interventions - it's going to try and pummel the enemy into submission with mass airstrikes.

The real questions is whether its adversaries are prepared for it this time around, and have something up their sleeve.

And which is why I said they should have voted Netanyahu's fascist ass out a long time ago. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Perhaps, perhaps. But I do believe sane minds can resolve things peacefully. It's possible, just not easy. It's not easy to "bury the hatchet" on past wrongs. I think that was the point of the thread on vengeance, horror, and terror cycle. But you do need doves on both sides. I don't think everything works like Sadat and Begin, two "warriors" that came together. Rather, I think it calls for the doves coming together and agreeing that this has got to stop, Gandhi style. Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side. — schopenhauer1

Agreed with this also.

That would be just as bad if the UN was pro-Israel and condemning Palestinian actions and enforcing that. Because of problem 2, problem 1 cannot be achieved. — schopenhauer1

Imperfect though it may be. if we agree that we can't expect the two battling sides to come to a rational solution, we will have to accept the intervention of a third party at some point.

Please let it be sooner rather than later, for everyone's sake.

Ideally, that also means that Palestine would be an Arab/Muslim-oriented government that respects its minority citizens (both Christian and Jewish), similar to what Israel has, or even on the style of something like Turkey (pre-Erdogan). — schopenhauer1

Certainly.

At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or indifference to it. — schopenhauer1

Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s. — schopenhauer1

I think this could just as easily apply to Israel.

But honestly, I have no problem envisioning myself being in the shoes of a Palestinian or Israeli and making the exact same mistakes.

This is kind of my point.

1) It can't act as a referee unless there is an enforcement arm. In a game, the referee is final, not ignored. If it is ignored, the game is forfeited. For the game to be a game, both parties agree to give authority to to the ref. — schopenhauer1

Do you, for example, believe the US / the West during the unipolar moment should have acted as the enforcement arm of the UN and forced a two-state solution as was accepted by, among others, UN Security Council Resolution 2334?

2) The referee has to be unbiased. No way does the UN represent an unbiased body. That will be said on both "sides" North and South (the Security Council and the General Assembly). — schopenhauer1

If anything I would assume the nations currently holding permanent seats in the UNSC would be biased towards Israel, and not against it. Or am I missing your point?

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos

Rationally speaking, had the Israeli government practiced restraint there would have been no doubt at all within the international community who the villains were. It would have clearly been Hamas.

I think even after initial retaliatory strikes by Israel this view would have prevailed.

It is after the intensified siege, prolonged bombing, and questionable rhetoric by prominent Israeli leaders that opinion started to shift. (Provoking the occupying force into overreacting is a typical insurgent tactic, by the way.)

But what about practical results?

Does this type of operation actually hurt Hamas? I think it does the exact opposite.

Hamas lives in tunnel networks dug up to 80 meters underground, likely with stockpiles of food and ammunition. I think they're among the people who suffer the least from these Israeli reprisals.

The people who are hurt by these bombings are the people of Gaza.

Wishful thinking may have one believe that the people of Gaza would eventually turn on Hamas and blame them for the bombing, but this is, as stated, wishful thinking and has no real precedent in history.

Pretty much ubiquitously we find collective punishment strengthens the insurgency and doesn't undermine it.


Admittedly, I am on the sideline. It is easy for me to say these things when I don't have family members to mourn. Regardless, irrational behavior will further deteriorate the crisis.

Haven't we long been at a point where both parties need to be protected from themselves? That's why I am saying, can we really expect rational behavior from either of the actors involved in this conflict? And if not, what is the way forward?

I get a sense that maybe you'll agree with my view that neither side can be expected to act in a completely rational manner here, after all the damage that has been done. Would you agree with that?

If so, what approach would you suggest going forward?

Just to note how utterly detached from reality this US admistration is, this is National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in an interview that aired October 8th, AFTER (double emphasis) the Hamas attack:

The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades. — Sullivan

[...] the amount of time that I have to spend on crisis and conflict in the Middle East today compared to any of my predecessors going back to 9/11 is significantly reduced. — Sullivan

If you look at the relationship among countries in the Middle East, you saw – with a lot of work by the United States – countries coming together, the region integrating, hostilities diminishing. — Blinken

What happened over the last 24 hours doesn’t go to state-to-state conflict, where Jake is exactly right – it’s diminished. This goes to a terrorist attack by a terrorist organization. — Blinken

It'd be pure comedy if it weren't for the fact these two clowns are basically in charge of half the world and their incompetence is causing untold suffering.

What do you expect from the Palestinians? Their land was literally given away without their say, and their plight was only acknowledged amidst much dragging of feet when the humanitarian situation became utterly unsustainable.

But as I've noted before, the situation has deteriorated too far over the years that we can no longer expect entirely rational behavior from neither Israel nor Palestine. For these nations to come to a solution together would require nothing short of a miracle.

In my opinion, that is where the international community should have stepped in. And it did. Many UN Security Council resolutions were in fact passed, and those are legally binding.

However, the United States, mostly guided by shady and fool-hardy internal politics, refused to hold Israel to its international obligations.

And that's where we are now - at the final stop of decades of failed US Middle-East policy. And security for Israel nowhere to be found.

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. — BitconnectCarlos

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is?

Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine?

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic.

People are up in arms about a slogan that supposedly suggests ethnic cleansing, while ignoring - no, in fact proclaiming unconditional support for - actual ethnic cleansing, actual crimes against humanity taking place in the Palestinian territories under the auspices of the Israeli government.

And those aren't slogans or vague accusations, they're backed by UN Security Council resolutions and by countless reports of human rights organisations.


One might think they're aiding Israel by turning a blind eye to its rampant human rights abuses, but in fact it accomplishes the opposite. With every human rights violation that is perpetrated and subsequently ignored, reconciliation becomes more difficult, the list of Israel's enemies grows and global support for Israel diminishes.


Recent votings in the UN Security Council already show world opinion towards Israel's war on Gaza is under pressure, and when the issue is taken to the UN General Assembly I think it will become painfully clear how isolated it has become.

While I think it might not be right to ban the phrase, Palestinians chanting that ABSOLUTELY mean "from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea, Palestine will be free of Jews." — flannel jesus

I think it's best to be careful with such assumptions.

We can't read people's minds, and to say one has done so and found genocidal intent sooner betrays one's own biases.

Did you read that they voted in Dutch parliament that they consider the slogan "From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free" to be a call to violence because it would propagate the destruction of Israel?

Funny that. Where's the call to violence exactly? Maybe my English is rusty.

As if we can't be opposed to Israel as a Jewish state (which I consider inherently discriminatory and a source of many of Israel's internal problems) by peaceful means? We can't insist on a one-state solution where all people are equal regardless of their faith or mother? We can't insist on a two-state solution between equal sovereign nations?

Let alone that this is a rallying cry about stopping Israeli oppression rather than the obliteration of Israel. It was a PLO phrase, which always pursued a two-state solution. — Benkei

The slogan is a bit edgy, but I agree.

Things like these should spark a healthy public and political debate, and not be used cynically by the old cadre to try and score 'good boy' points.

Clearly the phrase itself is not an incitation to violence. Van Baarle (who used the phrase in parliament yesterday) even emphasized he believes in equal rights for Muslims and Jews in the very same sentence. They're just deathly afraid that critical voices will shatter the Dutch image of being an exemplary US vassal (which of course involves unconditionally supporting Israel, no matter what).

Dutch politics is pathetic. Ridiculous virtue signaling. — Benkei

Indeed. We're governed by toddlers.

Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations? — BitconnectCarlos

When the US stops killing off the moderates and putting extremists in charge, sure.

The use of violence in resistance is not permitted by International Law, is it? — FreeEmotion

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway, unless one believes this war between Israel and Gaza should be fought on the same terms, that is to say, on the terms of 'total war'. Obviously such logic leads nowhere except into the abyss.


But let us also take a moment to note the enabling role of the utterly incompetent Western leadership, which is beyond amateurish and clearly in way over their head.

"When in doubt, proclaim unconditional support for Israel."

By letting the Netanyahu regime run amock, rather than helping Israel, Western leaders may have set in motion events that will ultimately mean the end of Israel as we know it.

Rapprochement in the Middle-East is shattered for the foreseeable future. This future likely holds radical shifts in the geopolitical balance of power, and that balance could very well end up heavily in favor of one or more Arab states.

Meanwhile, world opinion towards Israel is tanking. Israel has oddly managed to manifest itself as the villain as it wreaks a civilian death toll several times that of the initial Hamas attack.

There might be some loud apologists - this is hardly new. What is new is that sensible people all over the world aren't buying it anymore and Israel is diplomatically isolated apart from its Western stooges, who are too incompetent to offer any kind of real support anyway.

Everything that goes up, must come down. And what Israel has done over the past weeks is ensure that when the pendulum swings the other way, the whole region is rife with resentment towards it.

If that should come to pass, I wonder how they will treat Israel. I think Israel can only hope that it won't be treated the same way as it treats the Palestinians.

Also, Israel is now committing war crimes in 'broad daylight':

Southern Gaza in Israel's sights as world leaders seek pause in fighting

First telling thousands of civilians to evacuate to the south of Gaza, only to intensify bombing there.

These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?

And indiscriminate bombing has always been the reply to terrorism everywhere because there is no other effective answer. The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel. — magritte

It's almost as though the oppression of millions of people is a proposition with no good outcomes... :chin:

The "slag heap" as it's referred to is the terrain feature that commands the battlefield over Avdiivka. That's why they are fighting over it.

Basically Avdiivka will now turn into the next Bakhmut, where the Ukrainian forces will have to choose between defending the city from a severely compromised position, or retreating.

Given the state of foreign support for Ukraine amidst the Middle-East crisis, there will be a lot of pressure on the Ukrainian forces to defend it, which how the Russians aim to attrition the Ukrainian forces.

It seems like, just like with Bakhmut, they're planning the heaviest fighting over the winter months.

Proportionality is generally associated with retributivism and Kant, ... — Hanover

Proportionality is generally associated with international humanitarian law, and it is indeed one of the fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law.

To show a blatant disregard of it is to commit war crimes, pure and simple.

It doesn't happen very often that I feel proud of something that happens in the Netherlands, my home country.

But today I saw this appeal, made by Palestinian-Dutch actor Ramsey Nasr, and felt compelled to share it with TPF. It has subtitles.

I agree that it is extremely unlikely that say, Egypt or Turkey get involved. But Hezbollah and Iran? It's looking more probable every day. And Israel would likely emerge "victorious", but they will also suffer from a very high civilian death toll, I don't see how that can be avoided if Iran and Hezbollah join.

But as this massacre continues, Egypt and Jordan and others will be heavily pressuring Israel. A very general and uninspired comment is that, after this, it seems to me that the status quo of Gaza and the West Bank may not go back to how it has been until recently.

But, in wars, almost everyone is wrong. Too many factors involved. — Manuel

My sense is indeed that Iran is heavily involved, and I don't think it's a coincidence that there are now three members of BRICS who take an adversarial stance towards the US are involved in a conflict with US proxies.

This is speculation, but I think that like Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza conflict will turn into a similarly stand-offish "forever war" (which it basically already is) that is supposed to drain US resources and resolve, and spread the US thin.

If Israel invades Gaza, it will have taken the bait that will turn the entire Middle-East against it, and essentially ensures the forever war takes place.

The question remains what the strategic endgame of this would be. In Ukraine it is more clear, but in the case of the Israel-Hamas war it is not.

The claim that an insurgent group can never lose enough traction due to bad performance to be replaced is falsified by Hamas' rise itself. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That wasn't my claim.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

This is not the case, although I think it holds true in this context. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why write a long post ignoring it? :brow:

Sure, if you're Stalin and willing to resort to mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide then everything is possible, I suppose.

Maybe. But carrying ops out in total secrecy that result in massive collective suffering while failing to accomplish any real goal outside of that very suffering? And then preplanning so that you're sitting cozy on supplies while others go without? That could spark backlash. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That might sound reasonable in theory, but in practice it never works out that way, and because Israel is seen as the occupying force it will receive most if not all of the resentment resulting of it.

Such tactics have been tried before in history, because they seem to supply an easy solution that promises few losses on the side that conducts the counterinsurgency.

In reality, bombing campaigns and collective punishments have never worked. They have always strengthened the insurgency, while simultaneously inflicting immense suffering on civilian populations.

Even the United States, the nation with by far the most, and most accurate, firepower at its disposal, eventually was compelled to devise other strategies for conducting counterinsurgency that focused on a 'Hearts & Minds' approach.

If sieges and bombings could have given the Israelis an easy out, I'm sure somewhere in the last 16 years that would have already happened.

The IDFs problem is that a siege is by far and away the safest way to destroy Hamas but also a gross violation of human rights. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Personally, I don't think a siege will do anything to destroy Hamas. If anything, the suffering of ordinary people plays right into the hands of Hamas and will increase support for them, and erode support for the actions of the Netanyahu government.

It's even reasonable to assume that Hamas, probably being prepared for these types of repercussions, is among the best supplied in all of Gaza.

The point here is that the Arab nations have been expelling Jews from "their" land historically and during modern times. That clear case of apartheid for some reason is overlooked. What's also overlooked is that while there has been a Jewish presence in Palestine for thousands of years, a large portion of today's Jews are the descendants of refugees from all over the globe. Jews currently exist in their largest numbers (although still very small) in Israel and the US, and then way down the list you come up with France and the UK, but those numbers are very low.

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go, including Israel, one of the only places available. If not for the US, where do you think they'd go? — Hanover

And how exactly does this excuse human rights abuses and crimes against humanity?

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians while shocking to you appears to overlook the fact that Palestinians butchered and burnt babies, raped women, and took the very old as hostages. — Hanover

Equating Palestinians to Hamas is tasteless. I'd love to see where you're going with this logic.

Again, rooting out bias here, ... — schopenhauer1

With all due respect, the prinicipal bias I see in this thread comes from people who are unwilling to condemn widespread human rights violations for what they are.

Condemning Israel's brutal treatment of the Palestinians does not mean one is taking sides, or that one is biased towards the Palestinian side of things.

In my view, it is a prerequisite for any reasonable discussion on the subject. The same goes for condemning terror attacks on civilians by Hamas.

If we can't agree on something as basic as the value of human rights as a bar to which we should hold nations and actors morally and politically accountable, we may as well revert back to the law of the jungle.

There is a lot of criticism in Israel itself regarding these policies. I've already linked to several articles of critical voices within Israel, and often their opinions are even more scathing of Israel's practices than any critic of Israel you'll find in this thread. Sadly, the Israeli left has little to no political power.

In 1948, ... — Hanover

You think something might have happened in and around this year that could explain a sudden souring of relations between Arabs and Jews?

Anyway, no one is denying the history of antisemitism in the Middle-East. Trying to excuse Israel's treatment of Palestinians in this way is familiar caveman logic.

Israel tells Gazans to move south or risk being seen as terrorist partner (Reuters, 2023)

[...] "ethnic cleansing" is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. To a large extent, it is carried out in the name of misguided nationalism, historic grievances and a powerful driving sense of revenge. — United Nations Report S/1994/674

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others. — United Nations

Israel's hardline is basically ultranationalist, and I think that is deeply problematic. They envision an Israel without Palestinians, or in the absence of that, an Israel where Palestinians have no political power whatsoever.

Apartheid at best, genocide and ethnic cleansing at worst.

But because it's Israel, we have to pretend that what we're seeing is not in fact violent ultranationalism.

Critical voices in Israel itself have no qualms calling it out for what it is:

Religious Ultranationalist Zionists Have Taken Over Israel (Haaretz, 2015)


To be clear, much of this the Israeli government does entirely by choice and has nothing to do with military necessity or Israeli security. If anything it fundamentally undermines Israeli security both domestically and internationally.

There is a nice map, which shows the Biblical Israel, very attractive to Christians and Jews alike, I guess. — FreeEmotion

If you thought Israeli ultranationalists were crazy, you should see some of the Christian evangelical groups that support Israel.

They support Israel literally because they believe it will fulfill a biblical prophecy that brings about the end times.

Half of evangelicals support Israel because they believe it is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy (Washington Post, 2018)

Sadly, these types of nutcases somehow hold a lot of political clout. No wonder things are a mess, eh?

You mean nearly 20 years ago when the extent of how they operate as a para-governmental entity wasn't known yet and as you stated earlier were almost co-equal with Fatah in terrorist acts? — schopenhauer1

Netanyahu receives widespread criticism for this policy.

How Benjamin Netanyahu Empowered Hamas (The Telegraph, 2023)

I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Netanyahu helped create Hamas, just like the US helped create Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.

He used Hamas specifically to sabotage the PLO to avoid having serious talks about two-state solutions and other peace plans.

It follows a familiar pattern. Trying to downplay it is senseless.

Besides the fact that your first statement sort of contradicts your second statement (did they keep fighting or not?.. The answer is yes they kept going. but they were eventually defeated.), your analysis contra my analogy just seems wrong here. — schopenhauer1

The first statement is about WW2, the second statement is about conducting counterinsurgency.

In some sense, even though Nazi Germany was extremely rigid and hierarchical (and in that sense predictable actors in war), by the end of the war, Hitler acted irrationally. Instead of giving up when it was known the defeat was all but inevitable, he encouraged the rigid compliant hierarchy to carry on to the bitter end. It was not until after he literally had to commit suicide, that the German leadership had to give up the ghost and finally declare unconditional surrender. In that sense there are some similarities of irrational actors waging war. Hitler wanted hand-to-hand street combat, all hands on deck, women and children fighting to the bitter end. He wanted nothing less than absolute maximum resistance to the end. Hamas being irrational actors, want the same thing. Death does not make a difference to them. Protecting their own people's lives makes no difference to them. The bombings in WW2 were for several reasons. The main one was to destroy weapons and manufacturing facilities. The other was to cause fear and break their will and to stop resisting. But you see, Nazi Germany wasn't representing a "just cause" JUST because they (by that point) were the underdog! I think most historians (minus very egregious examples like the fire bombing of Dresden) agree this war could only be won with full surrender of Germany. And by this point, the unbelievable amount of devastation that had taken place perpetrated by the Nazis just did not give the Allies any pause on this one. — schopenhauer1

Israel is not fighting WW2. It's conducting a counterinsurgency. The dynamics are totally different, and I don't see the point in this comparison.

In both cases the effectiveness of mass bombing is questionable (in the case of counterinsurgency, outright rejected as a viable strategy).

By far the most-widely supported method of counterinsurgency is the so-called 'Hearts & Minds' approach, in which the side conducting the counterinsurgency seeks to win over the civilian population and erode support for the insurgents.

Indiscriminate bombing achieves the exact opposite.

That's because (and justifiably), they did not have an unconditional surrender mentality as in WW2, as they knew those wars were not worth it in the end. Hot wars during the Cold Wars did indeed have very spotty (if any) justification (such as the whole "Domino Theory" during Vietnam). — schopenhauer1

The US committed de facto genocide in Vietnam, and it wasn't enough to secure them victory.

This method (sadly) has been tried, and it has failed every time. turning the perpetrators into the very monsters they claimed they were fighting.

Just to clarify, my main point is not that Israel cannot defend itself using military force (assuming the humanitarian principle of proportionality is adhered to), but that the way it is seeking to defend itself is self-defeating, and that the US cheering Israel onto this self-defeating path is only making things worse, not better, for Israel.

The Biden administration is simply too incompetent to see this. And even if it did, it doesn't have anyone that can credibly conduct diplomacy in the Middle-East anymore (which makes the situation that much worse), because they're that incompetent.

So instead it defers to the safe option which is trying to score good boy points with Israel in the hopes of securing domestic support from the Israel lobby. Again, it's utterly pathetic.