Some interesting context on the missile striking the hospital.

https://www.channel4.com/news/who-was-behind-the-gaza-hospital-blast-visual-investigation



And have backing from the US, which doesn't hurt.

This aspects of our visual system is pretty well understood. There is a somewhat complicated relationship between the wavelengths arriving at a spot on our retina and the color we see. Understanding of this relationship is what allows you to see yellow on your computer display even though your computer display doesn't emit any light with the wavelength corresponding to yellow. — wonderer1

Sure, we do have a good understanding of how vision works in terms of the processes involved. But I am talking about the experience of yellow or blue, such as seeing the sky on sunny day, that phenomenon of blueness is not encountered in the theory of how photons hit the retina and then goes to the brain and so on.

Unless you think that by saying that photons hitting the retina then proceeding to the brain is what yellow or blue experience is, then I think we may be speaking about different things.

But back to the OP, with free will it's worse. We don't even have a theory of how willed action works at all.

I understand what you mean and that risk will always lurk. But look at for instance, what happened to Soleimani. I'm not saying that it was good to kill him, that almost took us to the verge of a full out war. But it didn't get to that point. It could have, had anyone decided to make just a slightly different calculation.

It's less harmful in terms of numbers of deaths involved than a war. Nonetheless, what you say is correct, which is that such situations end up escalating because there are no clear objectives in mind, so they just continue shooting at each other until someone decides to end this silly game.

You could say that Soleimani was a clear objective- maybe, but they knew the tremendous risks involved.

There is no good solution, unless a ceasefire is declared and implemented. Short of that, anything that can, for the moment, delay something much worse, should be tolerated as a lesser evil.

But I agree that in principle it is a sign of a lack of clear thinking from those involved.

Well to speak about the intrinsic properties of the universe is very hard. We may not attain such a standard of evidence, because all the knowledge we can get, comes in the form of representation.

But this leads to a closely connected question, which I sometimes find puzzling, why do we assume that whatever happens with the micro-physical properties of the universe are relevant to the macroscopic aspects of the world?

To put it in a trivial manner, we see red and yellow objects, this is as evident as things can be, but we do not find red or yellow in the fundamental constituents of the universe. Too bad. We have to accept both.

When it comes to something like freedom, there is an evident distinction between me raising my arm vs my arm being raised because a doctor is tapping my shoulder with a device.

Maybe free will is like color. We have it but cannot see how it could possibly fit in to our description of the universe. Sucks for our understanding (or lack thereof), but nonetheless is a brute fact.

They do and that strategy of being proportional with Iran is more levelheaded than a full out war.

Now, as for the US ships - yeah, they may be used to bomb Lebanon. This issue is, if Israel continues to fire into Lebanon, either as a reply to attacks or for wanting to defend its northern border, it seems strange to me that Hezbollah would happily stay while Israel strikes.

In short, I do not know how long the "proportional" part of the Exhange of missiles can stay this way.

1. Temporary ceasefire with immediate release of hostages to the Red Cross, will be followed by humanitarian aid convoy.

(then we will end the ceasefire and kill all Hamas members including civilian Minister of Economic Affairs etc, later. But don't put that in the press release) — FreeEmotion

Yes and I think Hamas said it was willing to release all hostages minus the IDF soldiers if the bombing stops. I think that exchange is reasonable.

Now if it so happened that it was one of your family members that was in the IDF captured by Hamas, this position may be problematic.

Israel has had a decent record doing counterintelligence and stuff like that. If they want to kill Hamas, infiltrating them and doing something from the inside might work. But, it's very very hard to pull off.

2. Visit to abductees? This is not a tour of the Hollywood for God's sake, you want the Red Cross to see them alive, and then leave them, amidst heavy bombing? Where would these visits take place? On location? Maybe the Gaza hospital since either it has been bombed or will not be bombed by Israel. — FreeEmotion

I also see this as being very reasonable. One can't be sure that the hostages aren't in an extremely dire situation, so it's very sensible the Red Cross (or a similar organization) to visit them.

3.President Biden's demand? Not based on humanitarian reasons that Israel, as a modern nation, affords? President Biden's "demand"

"as long as these supplies do not reach Hamas. Any supplies that reach Hamas will be thwarted"

No offence, but this strikes me as absolutely insane. How on earth is one to say these supplies will not reach Hamas?

What does this all mean? It all sounds like the nature of the entire Israeli military approach seems to be, as I made up my mind years ago is very 'heavy handed'. It has all the hallmarks of police brutality, in short. — FreeEmotion

I would imagine that it is very hard to distinguish who is Hamas and who is not if the aid gets through. I assume they won't be wearing guerilla warfare clothes.

It seems to me that the government is reacting this way because they are extremely embarrassed by how they colossally failed to protect Israeli civilians. To cover up, or attempt to make people overlook this, they are going in guns blazing, to keep postponing serious accountability.

But with what I've read, people in your country are extremely pissed at Netanyahu and they will not forget his failure even after this is all over.

I feel sorry that you guys may have to go through yet another election(!) to get some competent leaders in the government.

And yes, I think if this continues, others will get involved, Hezbollah and maybe Iran. It's a spine-chilling situation to find yourself in.

This may sound empty, but I can do nothing else: stay safe.

Yeah, it's nuts.

But where is the evidence? :roll:

So, back to what we're talking about. What evidence do you have that the bombings could not have been the result of a Hamas weapon due to the fact that Hamas lacks the firepower? — Hanover

I have no evidence that Hamas didn't blow up the hospital.

I have no evidence that Hamas did blow up the hospital, based on the missiles they have.

Now the context is important, but you seem to want to downplay it, for lack of "official reports." The context is, there is clear as day evidence that Israel is bombing Gaza to the stone age, without care about who is killed.

I don't know if that "type of evidence" achieves the high standards you demand.

Indeed, it looks quite complicated. And obviously it will be very hard to tell apart who belongs to Hamas and who is a civilian when the aid comes through.

It could lead to a situation in which Israel closes the border or shoots civilians because there either are Hamas members with the civilians, or if it think there are Hamas members with the civilians.

If he does go into Gaza, I don't see Hezbollah not acting. Maybe Iran too. That would be a disaster.

From Haaretz:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Office released a statement saying:

"In light of the overwhelming and vital American support for the war effort and in light of US President Biden's demand for basic humanitarian aid, the reduced cabinet unanimously decided:

1 - Israel will not allow any humanitarian aid from its territory to the Gaza Strip as long as our abductees are not returned.

2 - Israel demands the Red Cross visits to our abductees and is working to mobilize extensive international support for this demand.

3 - In light of President Biden's demand, Israel will not thwart humanitarian supplies from Egypt as long as it is only food, water and medicine for the civilian population located in the southern Gaza Strip or moving there, and as long as these supplies do not reach Hamas. Any supplies that reach Hamas will be thwarted."

If I were engaging in a credibility assessment of your comments, I would be led to the conclusion that you're willing to provide reasons for Israeli misconduct that are not supported by the evidence only to withdraw those arguments when challenged, and then to rely upon other grounds to support your prejudged conclusion that it was the Israelis, meaning I would see your opinions as biased towards what you wanted to conclude anyway. . — Hanover

Based on previous actions, which have been widely reported. I can refer you to several books if you want to read the myriad of abuses and crimes committed by Israel, as well as taking a look at the Israeli human rights organization which I posted.

But - maybe when Israel finalizes its report, it will prove that Hamas has firepower, it has not shown through-out this whole war, which is a bit curious.

If such evidence does arise, then I will retract my statement. I have seen no such credible evidence, unless you count the IDF as credible during wartime.

If you see my comments all throughout this thread going back 2 years, I have never hidden whom I think is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the crimes. Which does not mean Hamas hasn't committed horrible atrocities and engages in gross conduct. As does Hezbollah.

I see these groups as reactions to Israeli actions, not as the source of Israel's problem, which is the occupation of stolen land, recognized by the whole word, resolution 242 of the UN.

Based on what I've seen you say, you appear to believe that Israel deserves all the land it occupies. IF that is indeed the case, then there is not much to discuss. If it's not, then we can talk.

Yes neomac, that is exactly what I said. Impeccable reading skills.

As a side note, this is an excellent source for human rights abuses by Israel on the occupied territories, by an Israeli Human Rights organization, very much worth looking at in general:

https://www.btselem.org/

The question then becomes whether (1) this was an accidental misfiring or (2) whether it was purposeful. It would seem the likelihood of an Israeli intentional targeting of a Palestinian hospital is unlikely, considering the political fallout that would result. It is possible it was an accident by the Israelis. In terms of whether it was accidental or intentional by Hamas, either explanation works, considering their missles are notoriously inaccurate and also it could be intentional considering the political gain they'd derive from it if the Israelis could be blamed. — Hanover

If it's something that never happened before I would agree. But the extensive documentation provided by human rights agencies in the 2012, 2014, and other Gaza massacres have shown that this is not abnormal behavior for Israel at all. See for instance the Goldstone report.

And also, keep in mind what the Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, said "We'll change the face of reality in Gaza".

Add to that starving people to death, I don't see how this is in any way accidental. You think they care about PR? If they did, they would let aid in.

And yes, I have not seen a single Hamas rocket ever fired that was that powerful. If it was Hezbollah it would be a different story.

Jeez man, this is vulgar Israeli propaganda and people believe it! Wow, suddenly Hamas has rockets that can destroy entire hospitals.

Just gross.

Thanks for those posts. :up:

Let's hope so.

It has been reported in Israeli media that they have attacked Hezbollah today and they have declared it "a day of unprecedented anger", because it is likely Israel did this to move attention away from the hospital bombing. So it could be that Hezbollah attacks soon, or after Biden leaves.

If that happens, probably no aid will get into Gaza. It's a disaster, not made better by Netanyahu's total incompetence.

Haha! Yeah, those Christians man, they're wild too. We've just become numb to the BS they spew.

But they don't have the capacity to so. They can say they want to make Israel dust, it doesn't matter. Israel IS turning Gaza into dust and is continuing to steal land, effectively making a Palestinian state almost impossible to establish.

The Ayatollah said in the end of times Israel should disappear, right? Bad comment, evil judgment. Israel is making Palestine disappear, massive difference.

They are being nebulous, they of course don't want to be destroyed, but they have issued several warnings. So far, Israel has not relented on not letting food or medicine in Gaza, the water they opened in the South of Gaza, is subject to verification - it could be PR.

It could be nothing- the Iran warning, hopefully. We will find out in a few hours.

In any case, I don't see the situation in Gaza not leading Hezbollah to act, unless Egypt and Israel agree to open the Rafah crossing, just by allowing basic necessities, would make the situation in Gaza a smidgen better. They should do it, looks unlikely.

Well...

From Reuters:

Iran says 'preemptive action' by resistance front expected in coming hours

Iran's top envoy said that a "preemptive action" could be expected in the coming hours, state TV reported on Monday, adding that Israel will not be allowed to take any action in the Gaza Strip without facing consequences.

"Leaders of the Resistance will not allow the Zionist regime to take any action in Gaza. ... All options are open and we cannot be indifferent to the war crimes committed against the people of Gaza," Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, told state TV.

Thanks frank!

They may detract Iran, but Hezbollah? That's looking tougher by the day. The didn't go in today, or yesterday because of the "weather".

The issue is, how long will they starve the people of Gaza?

And the US better start really pressuring Israel to take it easy on the civilians, they're not listening.

If Iran does get involved, oh boy....

I hope you are right.

Is there anything that has been said in this thread which would make you exclaim: "I exactly see how this helps for this situation here"? — neomac

Nope.

But there is the issue of relevance to the ongoing issue, talking about say, Hezbollah potentially getting involved or Israel proceeding with the ground invasion raises more relevant and immediate moral issues than taking about a better moral situation. At least, that's how I see the issue, others may not see it that way.

Why aren't a war in Israel or in Ukraine a good occasion to do so? — neomac

I believe each of us is sincerely attempting to deal with complex moral issues. Granted, we may be overlooking something and are almost certainly biased and have preferences and so on.

For many, in this thread, "acting on moral intuitions" seems nothing more than broadcasting moral condemnations and blame attributions AS IF thinking that a peaceful foundation of nations is morally desirable, then it must absolutely be also possible. What if it is not possible as it seems it never ever was? — neomac

Well, at least where I live, there is nothing I can do to help alleviate the situation - there aren't even protests here, we have other issues so the Gaza situation does not arise, outside of headlines.

It's a topic I've followed closely since college, so it is somewhat more impactful to me than another conflict, due to time investment. A lot of this is also venting frustration, which is not necessarily bad.

Well, I asked Baden and Frank about what could realistically be done here by the relevant actors if they choose to do so, I thought it relevant because it does not stray far from what's going on in the ground.

But, if you want to talk about this, why don't you start a thread specifically about that topic? It's not a bad one.

I don't exactly see how this helps for this situation here. Even if a Palestinian state were to be established, it would've been done so after an enormous amount of suffering.

Should we question our deepest held moral convictions? I think so, on occasion it is good to do so. Maybe not always, otherwise we wouldn't act on moral intuitions.

But I think that's a conversation for a different topic.

However, I must confess ignorance on whether the things-in-themselves adhere to mathematical principles; but I can say that our representations (of them) do (as a priori means by which we represent them in space and time). — Bob Ross

Then this is not much of a problem. I think we agree.

So, I am starting to embrace Kantianism a bit more: I find it quite plausible that causality is the necessary inference we make of (intuited) sensations and thusly is it a priori certain—albeit not necessarily pertaining to the objects-in-themselves.

However, yes, one could just argued inductively for causality; but then it doesn’t carry the necessity that the term used to mean. — Bob Ross

That it is a-priori is not in doubt. Nevertheless, it is intelligible for me to suppose that there is a reason (which we may not know, nor ever know) for why the universe acts in one way rather than another, than for no reason at all, meaning, that in a few seconds, we'd begin to see apples going back up to the trees and so forth.

In itself.... we do not know. But I also assume there is a reason why we don't have access to the world in itself, there is a why instead of a "no reason". But I could be wrong, this is my intuiton.

I think, and correct me if I am wrong, you are just noting that the concept of a chair is looser than the concept of an atom, which I agree with. — Bob Ross

It's a bit stronger. I believe an atom has mind-independent properties, a chair does not. But we do not know if an atom reaches the in itself or no.

As for the OP, let me be brief, to not make this post too, too long:

I think this is much much better, as Strawson argues that we are directly acquainted with certain experiential aspects of the world which are ultimate. That is, that consciousness as we experience it, is as it is in itself. But what it reveals of the world, is not an in itself, beyond experience.

You could try to phrase an intelligible question.

To be fair to the Israelis - of which I am being highly critical of, much more than Hamas - what you say about "all of it", goes way beyond Israel.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion.

It really is total barbarism.

Meanwhile eyes are on Hezbollah. They're continuing to respond in a tit for tat manner to Israeli attacks.

It's a powder keg. I don't know if they can keep off from entering a war if Israel goes in Gaza.

Ah. I see, that is obviously an unusual or rare way to get knowledge about this conflict. One of my oldest friends came here through Jordan as refugees of 67' war. He doesn't talk about his history much though.

Worst thing about this is that there is nothing we can do about it, or if so, virtually nothing.

Are you Israeli?

I don't think most people here are arguing that civilians ought to be targeted, that is indeed a war crime and is heinous.

Granting that - how would you if you lived in Gaza under those conditions, specifically target the IDF? How can you do it? If I were living in Gaza, I might not care, I don't have a job, nor any future prospects, I can't leave, my people are being killed weekly, nobody seems to care.

If I were an Israeli or in the government, then you should allow the Rafah crossing to open to allow desperately needed aid to Gaza, and then you try "surgical strikes", as much as you can given what Gaza is. I think this is what I would want as an Israeli. I certainly understand wanting payback for the criminals.

But what they're doing now goes way beyond that and comes closer to guaranteeing a bigger war that will be a serious issue for Israel.

So, what could be done? Unless you have different intuitions, which would be interesting to hear.

Sure, those are all important factors to take into consideration for the modern-day situation.

Now, the way forward, it seems to me, is that most of the world recognizes Gaza and the West Bank to be Palestinian territory. Obviously, they cannot get the rest of Israel - far many reasons, some of which you have stated.

I understand that Israel is basically annexing large swaths of the West Bank and that there are too many settlements there. But I don't think it's impossible for Israel to relocate them inside Israel proper.

If Palestinians do not get Gaza and the West Bank, the fighting will never stop.

This is to say, if the destruction of Gaza is necessary for the protection of Israel, then it would be unethical for Israel not to destroy Gaza. — Hanover

So, by this logic, the Palestinians are forced to destroy Israel, because the oppression and destruction brought upon the Israeli state is incomparably worse than what Hamas does to Israel.

Granted, Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"?

If someone steals your house, locks you in the bathroom and balcony, starves you, randomly kills teenagers and citizens out of spite, builds in your house, and furthermore denies you the right to live in the bathroom and the balcony, don't you as an owner of the balcony and bathroom have a right to defend yourself?

This ethical theory is dubious, in part because it starts from the wrong assumptions. It is Gaza which is defending itself, not Israel.

From Reuters:

Egypt rejects calls from Israeli army for Gaza Strip's residents to leave their homes and head south

Perhaps. But if they're telling 1.5 million people to move to the south of Gaza, in order to render it dust, something might happen. Israel confirmed (via Haaretz) that:

Military advisor: Over six days, Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza than the U.S. did over a year in Afghanistan

If this continues, I do not know about Iran, but Hezbollah may be forced to act. Otherwise, how can they say they represent the Palestinians? I know they are worried about a full scale war in Lebanon, and that they want to take care of the refugees there.

But if they do nothing, the Lebanese supporters of Hezbollah may massively riot.

And sure, nobody there wants an escalation, with the US ships in the area and all that. But motions are being put in place that could light a regional bomb. Very, very dangerous.

Israel could de-escalate somewhat. That's not what they're doing.

We'll see.

Iran says crimes against Palestinians to receive response from axis

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-says-crimes-against-palestinians-receive-response-axis-2023-10-12/

Doesn't hurt if they're Muslim. Nobody cares about them, at least in the so called "West".

I'm sounding like a broken record, but what is going on in Gaza is so grotesque, barbaric and vile, that one finds a lack of words. This is monstrous.

And I want to live in another planet. Wishes are very easy, reality is a whole different situation.

Hamas is in a large part a creation of the Israeli state, as a means to weaken and divide the Palestinian opposition and undermine the PLO.

Since then, Hamas are the only ones who can at least fight Israel. They're a barbaric and hateful organization, no doubt about that. Compared to the crimes of Israel, they're a pea.

It's just that this time, they were well organized and managed to hurt Israelis in way no one ever expected. Revenge is expected, though I think the larger historical context of Gaza is sometimes minimized.

But revenge is one thing. Starving a civilian population, mostly children. Well that's genocide. Gaza is now going to be dust.

Knowledgeable people on this issue, like Amira Haas and Gideon Levy, have been warning that if Israel continued its course of action in the occupied territories, this was to be expected. So, lots of blame to go around.

Those images in Israel, but especially in Gaza - much worse, are soul crushing.

I'll phrase this differently to what I usually say:

The interaction of res cogitans and res extensa was a problem during the 17th century and before, obviously most explicitly formulated by Descartes, whom had good reasons to do so at the time.

But then Newton came along and showed, much to his dismay, that the concept of matter, not thought, but matter, was not the matter that exists in the world.

What vanished, contrary to popular history, was the machine, the ghost remained intact, and still is around for us to deal with.

So whatever remains of the world, thought is a part of that. We could call what remains ghostly matter or naturalism, it's terminological.

So, we are a creature made of world stuff, thought being one of the properties world stuff has. Gravity, electromagnetism, nervous systems, metabolism, in short everything is a different manifestation of this world stuff.

But we have this strange, maybe innate, tendency to treat mind and matter as if these were fundamentally opposite things, but they're not.

Finally, some Finkelstein background, from yesterday, quite long but worth listening to part of it:

https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/video-recording-and-transcript-special

Also includes a transcript below, for quicker reading.