Christians have been traditionally well treated in Israel, but sadly there has been an uptick in anti-Christian activity lately. It seems to mostly come from the ultra-orthodox. Very sad, but many Jews are unlikely to be sympathetic due to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. — BitconnectCarlos

Fortunately the Jewish religious zealots aren't so deadly towards Christians as the Muslim religious zealots are towards them in many other Middle Eastern countries. And it's now a bit ironic that the ultra-orthodox protested against their military service.

Nothing that Israel has done regarding land justifies that barbarity to people, sorry. That's what you are supporting, and it's sad. — schopenhauer1

Yes, this has caused some people to lose their moral compass.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Five whys may help here.

Defining the problem:

The problem: the conflict between two armed parties, resulting in civilian deaths.

Or is this the problem?

Can we agree on the problem statement?

Here is my attempt:

1. Why is there a conflict?

Answer: because Hamas terrorists attacked civilians (and maybe military) on October 7

2. Why did they attack?

Answer: because they are committed to attacking Israel

3. Why are they committed to attacking Israel?

Answer: because Israel is attacking their citizens

4. Why is Israel attacking their citizens?

Answer: because they want them to stay quiet and peaceful and turn the other cheek and be submissive under occupation

5.Why do they want them to stay quiet?

Answer: because it will allow Israel to live peacefully with the Palestinians.

Nothing that Israel has done regarding land justifies that barbarity to people, sorry. That's what you are supporting, and it's sad. — schopenhauer1

Well, that's pretty strange. I've stated violence is permissible, gave an example of what sort and condemned the way Hamas goes about it and in the post indicated that "by any means" is problematic. What Israel does is exactly what colonisers did, including the horrible treatment of indigenous people. If history has taught us anything then violent resistance is acceptable. I really don't see why not, especially after your derogatory complaint about the lack of resistance of the Dutch during WWII. Your position is inconsistent with historically accepted practices.

I disagree. I see a very clear justification for armed resistance.

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 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.

today I learned. Interesting

Musings: It's clear Hamas' attack was barbaric and should be condemned. However, what level of oppression and colonisation are the Palestinians to accept until armed resistance becomes justified? I think we can agree that at some point violence to gain independence is justified. Historic examples include slave revolts. The US war for independence. The indo-china wars for independence. Indonesian's war against the Netherlands. History is replete with examples where violence to gain independence was acceptable. The point being that if the Palestinian cause for independence is justified, every action by Israel against that is already contaminated as something immoral. And if Israel may punish an immoral attack, then it's corollary would hold true in that the Palestinians may punish the perpetrator who caused their oppression and use some (not all!) violence. Or we conclude their cause is not justified and then I think the uncritical support of Israel is de facto proof that this really is the western position. Given that the West has basically decided it doesn't accept Palestinian independence, should we not abandon the two states solution as a viable road but instead insist on a single state in Palestine and who gets to live there?

What does independence look like in this situation for you? Does it mean their own sovereign state, as a neighbour to Israel, or does it mean no Israel?

The second option is a non starter, despite how popular the idea is. It's never going to happen, nor do I think it should happen - I don't think that's the best of the practical options, I think it's probably one of the worst. (Israel should never have existed, but now that it does exist, it cannot un-exist)

The first option is good, if Palestinians would be satisfied with it, and if Israel would stop trying to fuck it up. The assholes with power in Israel have sabotaged Palestinian independence in the past, which is just absolutely terrible. I understand WHY they sabotaged it, I understand the motivations and they make sense from a self preservation perspective, but at some point Israel has to loosen their stranglehold on Gaza and the west bank and let them live.

Unfortunately I think these recent events have set that back most likely. It's possible that the opposite is true though, and the pressure on Israel to loosen up on them will give a peaceful path forward to that. I'm not too optimistic about that though, personally. I'd bet that we don't see Palestine as a sovereign nation in my lifetime.

You look like someone who wants to referee a street fight according to chess rules.

I think we can agree that at some point violence to gain independence is justified. — Benkei

What role do you think “justification” is supposed to play?
People may feel oppressed and react against oppression, what would be the purpose of talking “justification” in this situation?

History is replete with examples where violence to gain independence was acceptable. — Benkei

It was acceptable by some, unacceptable by others. What does “being acceptable” have to do with “justification”? Do you mean that all that is acceptable is justified and/or that all that is justified is acceptable? What if X find acceptable what Y doesn't find acceptable?

The point being that if the Palestinian cause for independence is justified, every action by Israel against that is already contaminated as something immoral. And if Israel may punish an immoral attack, then it's corollary would hold true in that the Palestinians may punish the perpetrator who caused their oppression and use some (not all!) violence. — Benkei

Why do you assume that Palestinians or Israel are acting based on whatever YOU take as relevant moral reasons? If X kills Y’s child, and Y kills X or X’s child or X and X’s entire family, why do you think Y would reason in moral terms the way you do? What would be your moral reasoning anyways? Can you spell it out?

The two-state or single state solution with Palestinians, Jews and others living together both work for me, whether that state is called Israel seems irrelevant.

I can't see a single state working at all. Israeli Jews don't want to be governed by Muslims (and I can't blame them), and Palestinian Muslims don't want to be governed by Jews (also can't blame them).

If Israel lets go of their fear of a neighbouring Palestinian state, and Palestinians accept not getting all of Palestine back, then a two state solution becomes possible, but I fear we're a long way away from that.

It was acceptable by some, unacceptable by others. What does “being acceptable” have to do with “justification”? Do you mean that all that is acceptable is justified and/or that all that is justified is acceptable? What if X find acceptable what Y doesn't find acceptable? — neomac

It's a really simple concept; people find things acceptable when they are done for just reasons.

I can't see a single state working at all. Israeli Jews don't want to be governed by Muslims (and I can't blame them), and Palestinian Muslims don't want to be governed by Jews (also can't blame them).

If Israel lets go of their fear of a neighbouring Palestinian state, and Palestinians accept not getting all of Palestine back, then a two state solution becomes possible, but I fear we're a long way away from that. — flannel jesus

But a two-state solution is denied through backing Israel, which considers a Palestinian state a no-go. Let alone the insane amount of colonizer settlements in what should be Palestine for it to be remotely viable as a sovereign state. There's only one way in the direction we're going and continue to go and that is the total removal of Palestinians from Palestine. A de facto, really fucking slow, ethnic cleansing.

So if that's not acceptable then the only solution is for the West to pressure Israel into the two-state solution, which it never does. Although it does look like younger generations are wizening up to the crap Israel has been up to in the past decades.

through backing Israel — Benkei

What does this phrase mean?

I'm not sure what a solution would look like. Perhaps the Arab states can help by offering funding as a "carrot" for peace, but they don't exactly have the best credibility as negotiators for the most part.



Yes, they are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Iran began supporting them because they wanted to support parties attempting to spoil the 1990s peace process. A deal isn't good for Iran because Israel is a good wedge issue for Iran that helps keep the Gulf-US relation on the rocks and helps them with public support "on the Arab street."

It's an alliance of convenience in many ways, but it's old enough to be well cemented. The relation is in some ways akin to medieval vassalage.

Musings: It's clear Hamas' attack was barbaric and should be condemned. However, what level of oppression and colonisation are the Palestinians to accept until armed resistance becomes justified? I think we can agree that at some point violence to gain independence is justified. Historic examples include slave revolts.

Absolutely. To my mind what makes the Hamas attack unjustifiable has nothing to do with violence being used. Violent resistance can be justified in this situation. It is rather the way in which the attack fits in to over all Hamas strategy and their relationship with the people they claim to be advocates of that makes it unjustifiable.

What could Hamas possibly have expected from this situation but that Israel would respond, taking advantage of its many military advantages, bringing death and misery to Hamas' subjects, destroying Hamas' supplies of weapons, and killing their fairly limited numbers of trained fighters? In what way might this help with furthering Palestinian aims? It seems the attack has given Israel a freer hand to persecute the people of Gaza than they have had in decades vis-á-vis international opinion and internal opinion. That Likud is actually being blamed for the disaster does play to Hamas' aims, but this seems like one of the hardest responses to the attack to predict beforehand.

So it isn't the attack, but how the attack was done:

-Planned in secret with no feedback from the people Hamas claims to represent

-A brutal style of attack as one can imagine, including intentional killing of children, rapes, etc. followed immediately by retreat as soon as the military response they were baiting out arrived— retreat into their own urban areas with the obvious goal being both to hide behind the civilian infrastructure and to have that infrastructure targeted in the hopes that the reprisals would stoke local, regional, and international opinion in their favor.

Can such hiding be justified? Prehaps, but only if it's tied to a plan with decent odds of success.

This last move is reprehensible for two reasons:

A. It's claiming to represent a group you rule over by force, with torture and repression; starting a war "on their behalf;" then, immediately on contact, you flee to your well supplied tunnels while the people you claim to be "fighting for," suffer. You make absolutely no realistic efforts to stop violence against "your people." There are no sorties out to stop strikes, there was clearly no air defense system put into place first. They are completely ignoring any duty to defend their own people, leaving them prostrate before the enemy, putting all faith in the enemies' self control and mercy since they simply will not defend the people they claim to represent. It's "too high risk," to defend the people. But if it is "too high risk" for you to defend your people in any meaningful way, one might consider that it's not a good time to provoke the enemy with the most outrageous attacks possible.

I am well aware of the power imbalance that Hamas now faces. But IMO, this itself heavily militates against such attacks in the first place. It suggest using other means. They should use other means if the other choice is "attack in as provocative a way as possible, then turn and hide behind our civilians and count on Israeli restraint to save them." And, to the extent Hamas has tried to prevent people from evacuating within Gaza, which is opaque right now, this is downright criminal, akin to Stalin's moves to force civilians to stay in combat zones.

You can't attack and then immediately hides, making no realistic efforts to defend your people and then claim you are justified by the need to defend them. The same attack would be more justified if they had built some sort of air defense system they thought might work, but they clearly didn't, the game plan was always to pull back into urbanized positions, to enjoy safe tunnels and stockpiled supplies while the population "suffered for the cause."

2. Given their current diplomatic and military situation, such an attack was completely unlikely to work in their favor. While violent resistance might be justified, that doesn't mean it's always the most advisable course of action.

Israel seems like an opponent that would be particularly vulnerable to well organized non-violent resistance, which has been historically better at forcing concessions world-wide anyhow. As the hopes of military victory become less and less reasonable, it seems incumbent on the leadership to begin changing their tactics.

That their tactics don't change, despite decades of failure, I would guess has to do with the fact that foreign support is more important to their control and impunity than popular local support. That the leadership is insulated from any of the privations of the average Gazan probably doesn't help.

people find things acceptable when they are done for just reasons. — Benkei

So you think people don't find doing things for unjust reasons acceptable but do find doing things for just reasons always acceptable? I don't find either claims evidently true or mostly true, if you take acceptable as opposed to rejectable via open political resistance (violent or not) or diaspora or auto-auto-marginalisation if not suicide. I think people overall tend to be sensitive more about violation of their own freedoms or perceived rights, or at most the ones' they really care about, than random others’ and their tolerance over oppression and injustice is pretty high, higher in many non-Westerners than in many Westerners though.
Anyway let’s stick to your “really simple concept”. Why do you think the massacres and attacks on civilians by Hamas is justified or grounded on just reasons [1]? Show me the reasoning you do. Step-by-step, can you spell it out?

[1] my impression is that you equate justification with "having just reasons" where "just" refers to moral justice and "having" refers to what you acknowledge to be grounded on "just reason" independently from the actual personal reasons Hamas agents had. Am I right?

Political, economic and military support.

No. I don't need to repeat the attack by Hamas was unjustified ad nauseum for every internet rando that decides to jump in on the conversation midway. It's tedious.

What could Hamas possibly have expected from this situation but that Israel would respond, taking advantage of its many military advantages, bringing death and misery to Hamas' subjects, destroying Hamas' supplies of weapons, and killing their fairly limited numbers of trained fighters? In what way might this help with furthering Palestinian aims? It seems the attack has given Israel a freer hand to persecute the people of Gaza than they have had in decades vis-á-vis international opinion and internal opinion. That Likud is actually being blamed for the disaster does play to Hamas' aims, but this seems like one of the hardest responses to the attack to predict beforehand. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians is wrong tout court, irrespective of what Israel's possible reaction could be. In fact, we already know even attacking soldiers often invites disproportionate responses from Israel. So that is a given even if, for instance, Hamas had only raided a military outpost in what is considered Palestine under the UN partition plan and killed every soldier. And given support of relevant foreign governments, even such a "clean" strike is not going to help Palestinian aims. But I don't think it follows they shouldn't do anything in such an event.

Any way, I nitpick, I appreciate your post and reasoned responses. It grounded me in the beginning when I had a very emotional response to the situation initially (knowing full well the amount of civilian deaths that were about to follow).

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. — Tzeentch

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

I remember a great French documentary about the first Israeli soldier killed in Gaza and the first Palestinian fighter killed in Gaza. The brothers in arms of the fallen Israeli soldier remember him bitching about why they have to be there safeguarding few ultra-orthodox settlers. (The interview with the Palestinian family was also telling: the mother was extremely proud that her son was a martyr and when the little sister started to cry during the filming, the mother scolded her and told his brother was in heaven and she should be proud to have had a martyr as a brother)

↪neomac
No. I don't need to repeat the attack by Hamas was unjustified ad nauseum for every internet rando that decides to jump in on the conversation midway. It's tedious. — Benkei

Sure, but I'm less interested in the claim itself, and more in your arguing over "just reasons". So why do you think Hamas was unjustified? Do you think Hamas or Palestinians think that the massacre was not grounded on "just reasons"? Or didn't find it acceptable and yet they executed the massacre anyways? On the other side they were rebelling against the Israeli oppressor. And in war there are civilians as collateral casualties. Besides the ratio of civilian casualties between Israel and Palestine seems heavily unbalanced in favor of Palestine. Right?

. A deal isn't good for Iran because Israel is a good wedge issue for Iran that helps keep the Gulf-US relation on the rocks and helps them with public support "on the Arab street." — Count Timothy von Icarus

But it's along the lines of blasphemy for Shiites to support Sunnis, so the support isn't about ideology at all. It's just about regional strategy, right? That's just cold blooded.

So US has now made strike into two bases in Syria used by Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. fighter jets launched airstrikes early Friday on two locations in eastern Syria linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Pentagon said, in retaliation for a slew of drone and missile attacks against U.S. bases and personnel in the region that began early last week.

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.

Not really. Shias get on with Sunnis fine in some contexts. It's generally been the Sunni majority that has spawned ideologies that are extremely hostile to the other side (e.g., "they are heretics that must be completely removed.")

There is definitely bad blood on the Iranian side, but there is nothing that necessitates that they be opposed to everyone across the sectarian rift. Iran sponsored Hezbollah, who fought beside the PLO during the War of the Camps in Lebanon, against rival Shias from Amal (backed by Syria). But of course, now Iran is an ally of Syria and an enemy of the PLO.

So yes, it is largely about strategy, but there is some real zeal there too. Iran, as the vanguard of revolutionary Islam, has this sort of "sacred role" in advancing the cause that will help the faith retake Jerusalem. It's just that they go after this aim in quite self-serving ways, sort of like the United States re being a vanguard of "liberalism and democracy." Sure, people really believe it and are motivated by the ideal vision, but the shape it takes can be extremely cynical, so much so that it actively undermines the idealistic aim.

Politically, peace in Palestine is not particularly in Iran's interest. It removes the biggest issue they are popular on in the region and removes their main cat's paw for breaking up the tacit Gulf-Israel alliance and hitting Israel. If Palestine became a "Jordan," of sorts, Iran would lose out.

I disagree. I see a very clear justification for armed resistance. — Benkei

A justification for rape, torture, and murder of children? It sounds like you're not even aware of what Hamas has done.

ETA: Reading through the responses, I see you are aware of the atrocities Hamas has done. You just don't care. Or you just don't care when they happen to Jews.

Not really. Shias get on with Sunnis fine in some contexts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

They don't in Pakistan. That's interesting that they do elsewhere.

ETA: Reading through the responses, I see you are aware of the atrocities Hamas has done. You just don't care. Or you just don't care when they happen to Jews. — RogueAI

What part of some violence is acceptable and some isn't is so incredibly hard for you to grasp that you start making shit up about my position?