Honestly, you are extremely confused, you think Hamas's war crimes should be punished by Israeli war crimes and the killing of civilians seems to be not just a matter of a side effect but an actual goal of the war for you. — Baden

I don't hope Palestinians get killed anymore than I would have hoped German civilians were killed in WW2. If some of those German civilians that were killed were diehard Nazi supporters, good. If some of the Palestinians killed are die-hard Hamas supporters, good. The world is better of without them. If apolitical civilians get killed, or the kids of Nazi/Hamas loyalists, it's a shame, just like it was in Japan and Germany, but that's war.

Maybe democracies and those who are in favor of minority rights should also be against war crimes? — Baden

I see. So Hamas gets to commit civilian atrocities, but when Israel starts bombing them while they hide behind human shields, Hamas runs to the refs and cries foul? Yeah, we livestreamed raping women to death, but what Israel's doing is a war crime!!! That's pathetic enough, but what kind of useful idiot do you have to be to go along with it?

Speaking of useful idiots, your self-contradictory arguments, strawmen, and tu quoque fallacies represent a neat, if hyperbolic, summary of your more sophisticated fellow apologists' positions and helps expose them for what they are: excuses for unjustifiable and excessive violence against one side rather than the application of consistent moral principles.

I think that is quite true. Hamas isn't ISIS or just a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in general: their objectives are to fight the Israeli occupation. A bit of gaslighting from yourself there. — ssu

This is all wordplay to justify this kind of action. It is ISIS-style barbarity aimed at the Jewish state of Israel, instead of the West in general. Okie dokie.

Have you not noticed that I've said that again and again the extremists have taken over?

Or do you assume that Palestinians are somehow uncapable or perhaps so inferior they cannot form a functioning state? Is that your idea? — ssu

It sure as hell looks like they can't form a moderate state, yes. But notice that you have to throw "inferior" in there. Bad faith arguing. I am making a point about what has happened, I haven't condemned a people as eternally inferior. To say they "failed to form a moderate coalition" is so mildly putting it, it is laughable and you KNOW it. So don't put weasel words in there like "inferior". C'mon man. Stick to history not that kind of tactic.

I don't see 'moderates' in charge anywhere. What is there for 'moderate Pals' to do in Gaza or the West Bank, actually? You obviously didn't find 'moderate Germans' during WW2, but afterwards in peacetime you did find them. — ssu

Ok, now you are making Israel's (Netanyahu's government's) case right now about why they have to take over Gaza and hold it for a while and make sure it is molded to their liking ala the US to Germany and Japan after utterly defeating them after WW2.

First and foremost: Beyond their fierce rhetoric, actors in the Middle East are capable of being reasonable. But if you want to go with a line deranged babykillers cannot be tolerated and that Palestinians are them, I have to remind you that the PA did hideous terrorist attacks too and vowed to destroy Israel... until they did sit down and tried to make peace. — ssu

I think Hamas has lost the time limit on that one. At some point a line is drawn. Some authoritarian leaders can be reasonable. Some are continually belligerent. Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler could be trusted, but clearly he wasn't.

Rather strange view on police actions. At least the Israelis themselves are far more honest than you and call it a war. — ssu

Functionally a war. How else? But are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on 7 Oct. were not a crime?

"Children are Children, Whether in Israel or Gaza, they Never Deserve to Die.

In the fascist reality now sweeping Israel, even such a statement is considered treasonous and an expression of Israel hatred."

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-11-12/ty-article/.premium/in-both-israel-and-in-gaza-they-didnt-deserve-to-die/0000018b-bfcf-d03e-a3ab-bfffe07d0000

From Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. Most of it is behind a paywall but what's freely available there illustrates my point: It's not about whether you are Israeli or Palestinian or Jewish or Muslim or otherwise, it's about whether you are an apologist for unjustifiable violence / a moral ignoramus or not. It's that moral fence I'm interested on being on the right side of.

Worth quoting at length (from YT transcript):

"I'm not pro Palestinian I'm not pro-israeli I'm Pro truth and I'm Pro Justice if the truth is on the Israeli side I will support Israel if Justice is on the Israeli side I'll support Israel and the same thing goes for the Palestinians I've spent the greater part of my adult life you can say beginning 1982 so it's more than four decades researching studying the Israel Palestine conflict and it's my conclusion at the end of that research but already early on that the case that Israel makes for its crimes are in large part fabrications misrepresentations and distortions and then on the other hand the Palestinian case is very strongly supported by the evidence and when I speak about evidence I'm not talking about what Hamas says any more than when I speak about Israel I care much about what the government says if you're serious about these sorts of things first the first thing you do is you try to search out sources which have a certain amount of credibility so when it comes to the Israel Palestine conflict let's say the human rights Dimension you look at what respected human rights organizations have to say Human Rights Watch Amnesty International the bet selum the main Israeli information information center for the occupied territories you look at what the evidence shows not based on bias sources or naturally biased sources but on the available evidence and I try to be as strict adherent of the two principles of Truth and Justice and that's where I landed and I think that's frankly where most of the world has landed.

And it's also incidentally but not trivially it's where a large part of the young Jewish population has landed if you go to the demonstrations now the ones have garnered the headlines say the one in Grand Central Station was overwhelmingly Jewish was organized by Jewish organizations young people mostly but not entirely the Statue of Liberty demonstration again it was Jew, Jewish young people who organized the demonstration so this idea that it's somehow polarized ethnically is bellied by the facts now I will wholeheartedly admit that when I first started out we were a we were a handful of people Je Jews who oppose what Israel is doing but the Spectrum has radically changed in recent years I'm just one among a large number of Jews who oppose what's going on not because they're self-hating not because they're indifferent to the fate of Israelis but because the evidence is overwhelming.

[Israel has] declared a war of genocide on the people of Gaza that's not exaggerated language the prime minister of Israel said in a speech which been which has been reproduced everywhere he said this is a war against Amalek referring to the Old Testament and what's a war against against Amalek will just open up the Old Testament it obliges Israel to kill every man woman and child that's what it means to invoke a war against Amalek.

....

They make up these stories that we have to turn off the incubators in the hospitals because there's a Hamas command and control center in the basement say most recently of alifa hospital and then the spokesperson for our US Department of Defense John Kirby he gives a news conference three days ago and he says we have intelligence information confirming that there is a Hamas command and control center and that justifies in the minds of the public opinion that that's then it's okay to deny fuel to the incubators imagine ... your child is born prematurely and is put in an incubator where the fuel is cut off and your child that you've been carrying for nine months suffocates to death, was there a Hamas command and control center in Gaza? answer no, was Hamas's leadership in the basement of alifa Hospital? answer no, were there hostages beneath alifa Hospital? answer no, you just get the lies and more lies and more lies and more lies and attendant upon those nonstop lies are the sensation the termination of life because of the lies the termination of Life of thousands of Palestinian children is that complicated does it require a PhD in Middle East studies to figure these things out in my book... it's as complicated as Jews like my parents mother, mother on both sides, father on both sides sisters and brothers on both sides, it's as complicated as my family except for my mother and my father being shoved into gas Chambers that's how complicated it is in my eyes."

I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage. — ssu

Compare this to the American removal of the Native Americans. Who were the extremists, the victims, and the perpetrators? In the history of worldwide land acquisition, what other examples do you have of international judgment of who each are to the extent that opinion bears on how that land is to be used or defended?

Consider this, "Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel

This is quite a feat, considering Iran, N.Korea, Russia, and so many others. That sliver of land I am to believe results in the majority of all evil in the world.

This is to say, I don't take seriously that the condemnations of Israel are objective evaluations or that the attempts at drawing morally equivalence with Israel and its enemies are valid. Israel's killing of children is not like Palestinian killing of children. Israel kills Palestinian children in the legitimate defense of its nation and it does so out of the necessity because the children are being used as shields. Could there be a higher war crime?

Israel is not invading hospitals because the injured and dying make easy pickings. If they wanted to exact massive death tolls, they'd carpet bomb and there'd be no Gaza left. They are fighting an enemy that is actually using hospitals as military launching sites, and where is the condemnation of that? Could there be a greater war crime and crime against humanity than luring your enemy into your hospitals where children and elderly already suffer?

Is it really that difficult to figure what the outcome ought to be when an enemy invades a sovereign nation with paratroopers who rape, kidnap, and butcher.

I'm not pro Palestinian I'm not pro-israeli I'm Pro truth and I'm Pro Justice — Baden

And then he goes on to say, as if he has special access to this information:

was there a Hamas command and control center in Gaza? answer no, was Hamas's leadership in the basement of alifa Hospital? answer no, were there hostages beneath alifa Hospital? answer no, you just get the lies and more lies and more lies and more lies — Baden

Suppose that's not the truth? Suppose the hospital were a military target because Hamas operated out of there?

This comment declares that Israel just decided to attack the hospital? Why would they do that from a military or public opinion standpoint?

Are they just murderous monsters?

If Hamas did use the hospital as a military base, can I hear the unequivocal condemnation of Hamas and the acceptance that the hospital invasion was justified?

And when I imagine my child suffering in the hospital, I direct that moral outrage at Hamas, not Israel, because they are the ones that caused this.

As I said before, unless you can clarify that you care as much about the lives of Palestinian civilians and also equally assert the Palestinian's basic right to self defense, there is no point engaging because you are not presenting a moral argument but simply Israeli propaganda. I mean, if Israel has the right to kill 4,000 Palestinian children including babies in a hospital as "self defence" against its few hundred casualties of a Hamas attack then how many Israeli civilians, by your own logic, if you are to be consistent, would Hamas be justified in killing in defence of its (much much more vulnerable) population? You're caught in a moral absurdity that pretending this conflict started a month ago and Hamas are the only bad actors is part of.

Nobody here who has spent five minutes studying what's going on would deny atrocities have been committed by both sides nor would they deny the vast number of casualties and by far the most vulnerable party are Palestininan civilians. The numbers are there and whether or not Hamas is more brutal or ruthless in its methods (as I think I've intimated many times, I think they are utter scum) doesn't change the fact of the cruelty of both sides. But your twisted logic sadly mirrors the logic of Hamas and the other bad actors in this conflict that continuously paint themselves as the only victims and thus try to absolve themselves of their brutality. It's nothing more than we're the legitimate "good guys" so we can do whatever we like to the "bad guys". But there are no "good guys" among those who would kill children in hospitals or behead them in homes. Until you get past your moral delusion that you think licences your utter disregard and lack of empathy for the Palestinians then you are of no use here except as an example of a morally degraded partisan pretending to be part of a genuine conversation on the ethics of war. And I understand why you are partisan, which is why I am trying to be nice to you. Yes, this is me being nice.

The "bad guys" here are not all on one side; they are on both sides, they are the ones who cannot get their moral head out of their arse long enough even to have the basic humanity to be appalled at the mass killing of defenceless civilians no matter what label is attached to them.

Look in the mirror, apologists.

But there are no "good guys" among those who would kill children in hospitals or behead them in homes. — Baden

The Allies killed untold numbers of children with indiscriminate bombing. Is your claim then that the Allies weren't morally superior to the Axis?

mean, if Israel has the right to kill 4,000 Palestinian children including babies in a hospital as "self defence" against its few hundred casualties of a Hamas attack then how many Israeli civilians, by your own logic, if you are to be consistent, would Hamas be justified in killing in defence of its (much much more vulnerable) population? You're caught in a moral absurdity that pretending this conflict started a month ago and Hamas are the only bad actors is part of. — Baden

They aren't killing in retaliation, as if this is the Palestinians moral dessert, and so we measure their punishment against their crime.

They are protecting their citizens from attack and securing their borders.

And they're not out seeking children or hospitals to attack. They are being forced into a battle where the enemy uses human shields.

In any event, I asked previously, what would you do if this were your land? Would you just withdraw now, leaving Hamas intact and allow Iran to re-fund Hamas so that this can play out again? Do you give Hamas safety zones in hospitals and schools? Since you condemn the response, tell me what you do.

Do you sit down at the table with Hamas expecting they'll reasonably resolve this? If they don't, how many more chances do you give? If you allow a ceasefire, if they send in terrorists again, is it now game on, no more Mr. Nice Guy?

It is absolutely terrible what is happening. All war is horrible beyond compression. We can save the recitations of that, as if some of us have superior senses of empathy others don't.

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

40,000 Hamas militants who have killed some hundreds of Israelis in recent years are not Nazi Germany who had an army in the tens of millions, killed six million Jews, and took over half of Europe. Please stop talking to me. You are really not capable of intelligent conversation and I don't have any more patience for it.

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

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

40,000 Hamas militants who have killed some hundreds of Israelis are not Nazi Germany who had an army in the tens of millions, killed six million Jews, and took over half of Europe. Please stop talking to me. You are really not capable of intelligent conversation and I don't have any more patience for it. — Baden

Ah, so it's a question of scale, is it? What do you think Hamas would do to Israel if they were in charge of a Germany-sized country, hmmm? I think we both know the answer to that.

And I'm not comparing Hamas to Nazi's, even though I easily could. I'm establishing the fact that "good guys" can kill children in war and still be morally superior to their enemies. I will grant you that Stalinist Russia might not be all that good compared to Nazi Germany, but America and Britain were clearly morally superior to the Germans. I think you would agree with that. And they retained their moral superiority even though they did terror bombings that killed tens of thousands and had little strategic value.

And what exactly would you have them do? — tim wood

It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem.

Hamas leaders openly state it as it has been their position from the very beginning. — BitconnectCarlos

What Hamas thinks is completely irrelevant. Israel illegally occupies Gaza and the West Bank, period.

Israel kills the innocent as a byproduct of striking legitimate military targets. — BitconnectCarlos

That's just as intentional and murderous. Or should we try to re-frame Hamas' killing of innocents as a "byproduct of resisting occupation" also?

There is a difference between the indiscriminate, deliberate murder of civilians as Hamas does and targeting, e.g. the Hamas headquarters... — BitconnectCarlos

Unfortunately for you, Israel follows what it calls the 'Dahiya doctrine', which openly endorses the disproportionate killing of civilians, and we see that doctrine in action every day in Gaza.

What Israel is doing is eliminating a group that has fomented conflict within Israel. — BC

What Israel is doing is illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, as is confirmed by various UN Security Council resolutions, which are legally binding.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel is creating groups like Hamas through its blatant disregard for international and humanitarian law, as confirmed by various human rights organisations, including those within Israel.

Not to mention the current Israeli PM is party to what is colloquially called the 'Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance'.

-

These comments read like a bad joke. I'm sorry to say.

And I understand why you are partisan, which is why I am trying to be nice to you. Yes, this is me being nice. — Baden

And this is a kind statement, sincerely, but it does injustice to my position, as if to suggest I'm emotionally traumatized to an extent, and so a certain amount of irrationality and lack of objectivity is understandable.

My point is that morality demands partisanship. You don't go into the battlefield weighing your enemy's interests and suffering. Your enemy worries about themselves and you yourself. That is what war is: pure adversarial efforts at protecting your interests. To do otherwise is suicide.

You don't weigh your neighbor's interests like your family's, and that's not because you lack the ability to be objective. It's because being objective is not how you protect your family. Allowing your family to die a deserved death is not honorable or moral. It's the opposite.

It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem. — Tzeentch

We've been over this many times (mainly between SSU and I but you were there I think...), the moderate Pals had opportunities and they failed to take them. The issue right now is no longer about these bigger issues of a two-state (and hopefully will be at some point in the future), it is what to do about Hamas. Unfortunately the situation had to turn from containment (file missiles back and let Hamas keep building tunnels and funneling millions of dollars to the leaders and the war machine rather than the people), to destroying the group.

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally.

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally. — Tzeentch

I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. They had their own government even. They voted in Hamas who has then governed in terroristic fashion over Gaza and against Israel. They were given billions in aid from various places including the UN, and they funneled that money to their war machine, which now apparently includes ISIS style terrorist atrocities against a way more militarily powerful foe which they knew would attack. When asked about their intentions, they said they would do it again and again.

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

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

I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. — schopenhauer1

The UN disagrees.

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

‘Justification,’ the favourite term of those riddled with guilt. Actions need not be justified they speak for themselves.

None of us are privy to the details and I cannot say I actually care much about this whole nonsense. People will kill other people and those willing and able to act will act. Many will make poor choices based on biases and conditioning.

Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up.

If anyone mostly disagrees please state why.

Maybe an external party could enter the scene and enforce a kind of peace … but let’s be honest. No one looks likely to do that anytime soon for fear of public/media backlash. As per usual the under-the-table politicking will continue and deals will be made and broken.

People do seem a little too obsessed in the horror in far away lands. What are you distracting yourselves from at home. Nothing? Or is this external conflict a vent for an internal one maybe?

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

Conflicts like with the IRA were solved most likely due to a common worldview held between the opposing positions who had the power to act. I see no such common worldview present in this particular conflict and therefore no immediate way out of it. It is for future generations to try and patch up. — I like sushi

That's a good point. This is heartening:

"The 2019 Arab Youth Survey, published on Tuesday, reveals that attitudes to religion and its role in society is changing rapidly among young adults, with a more secular approach becoming increasingly appealing to 18 to 24-year-olds across the Gulf, Levant and North Africa."
https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/arab-youth-survey-religion-too-influential-in-middle-east-say-young-people-1.855341

I care that people pretend their tiny voice matters here or that back and forth moralising is in anyway useful/helpful in analysing the principle issues involved.

It could all be stopped tomorrow hypothetically. ‘Hypothetically’ not in reality.

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