I realize you don't speak for Israel, but if that's the price to pay to save the children, while I personally might be willing to pay it, is that not a brutal ransom to exact? Palestinians, in your own words, must surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel to save the children?
As I've said before, all judgement aside, there are functional ways to approach this tragedy and there are dysfunctional ways. Hamas can be the monsters that they appear to be, and still, that doesn't mean the ransom you offered would be helpful, let alone justified.
Don't you think? — ENOAH
When Japan tried to wipe off and sink whole Pacific fleet of the US, invaded the Phillipines (then a colony of the US) and Guam and Aleutian Islands of Alaska are something totally different on scale to a terrorist strike perpetrated by a non-state actor as tiny as Al Qaeda was. So it's a bit strange to say that Roosevelt responded with oversized force. There's no doubt that the US was attacked with the objective of taking it's territory (the Phillipines). The stupidity of this action from the Japanese is really a good question.
Secondly, the atomic bomb was thought as a large bomb and note that more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japanese cities. Only with the Cold War it gained it's reputation. The idea of strategic bombing wasn't purely American, Giulio Douhet had proposed it first in the 1920's and obviously the other countries believed in the concept that taking the battle to the whole enemy country made sense. — ssu
In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “empathic responses”: indeed, it’s the empathic element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world. — neomac
Yes. Assuming they make sense. Did the reason why the US had it's longest war in Afghanistan make sense? The reason given was that "If the US doesn't occupy Afghanistan, it might possibly become a terrorist safe haven." It was repeated over and over again, but in my view it's even far more crazier than the "Domino Theory" in South-East Asia. — ssu
2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed. — neomac
How about "War on Blitzkrieg”? — ssu
And then just a reminder about the "War on Terror" thinking, I assume you have seen it, but if not, it is one of the classic interview from general Wesley Clark, which btw. he absolutely hated to be reminded about during the Obama administration
That above isn't a clear strategy. It's the strategy of "We can do now everything we have wanted to do". That is unclear and will lead ultimately to failure, which it did. And actually also why there is indeed a lot to be critical about US policy. — ssu
Or this clip: here is the former secretary of Defense saying on why invading Iraq would be a stupid idea and would end up in a quagmire, which he the later promoted and then pushed through and indeed ended up as a quagmire. — ssu
It is said that prior to invading Iraq, George Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. — ssu
But let's think for a while what would the Americans would have thought if Bush had acted just by negotiating the handing over of OBL from the Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taleban), then had FBI and NYPD among other police departments working on the terrorist strikes. Not only would it looked like a weak response, but in fact extremely cold. That's the whole problem here. It's a version of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine": if you a strike leaves your country in shock, you can do anything you want. — ssu
Sure, they are not the only ones to live in refugee camps. And it is reported that they aren’t even listed in the five largest refugee camps in the World:
Yes, of course please continue, I would like to myself on occasion. But I am short of time and level of concentration at the moment due to other commitments. Also I am more someone who looks for the root of things, or bigger picture in current affairs.As I said, I’m interested in conceptual analysis, so if I can’t split hairs here, in a philosophy forum, where else can I? Besides I find it a worthy exercise as long as it helps better understand things.
You seem to impugn me here, (this is not the only time.)You do not seem able to provide a compelling argument for why it wouldn’t possible to separate moral case from a legal case.
This doesn’t need to be framed in human rights terms, not even for the international law:
I know, but you have been using it as a hammer.Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess.
It's actually the basic concept of Douhet's argument from the 20's: strategic bombing ends wars more quickly. And simply the invasion of Japan planned for late 1945 and 1946, Operation Downfall. But notice that it didn't happen as Japan did surrender. But here comes the part I have tried to explain: The US had then a plan that made peace to prevail. The US didn't annex Japan or Japan wasn't cut into pieces by the allies (even if the Soviets took the Kuril islands, which has causes problems). The US left the Japanese emperor alive. The US did many things that the Japanese could accept, even if the surrendered.I didn’t mean to suggest that the Japanese attack and the Islamist attack were on the same scale, just that the American nukes more than aiming at destroying military capabilities, strategic infrastructures or decapitating/disrupting the Japanese chain of command, were aimed at demolishing morale in the civilian population and force total surrender. — neomac
“Hamas terrorists can surrender completely!”
Yeah, and Likud (deadlier and better funded terrorists) can all resign from office immediately. Sounds equally probable. — Mikie
Now I'm even more confused. You do realize that we have been around as an independent state only from 1917, so I really don't know what you are talking about. — ssu
The typical racism that jingoists use. Reminds me of the Serbs and their fixation with Kosovo Polje and how important for Putin is ancient Rus being the craddle of Russia, hence Ukraine and the Ukrainians are so artificial. It always starts from despising the other and questioning their overall existence and mythologization of one's own past.
But seriously, what has happened to Palestinian burial grounds? — ssu
...and then continued the open air prison of Gaza by closing the land and sea borders and had the occasional bombing of the place. That just now has hit a new crescendo. — ssu
+30,000 Palestinian noncombatants killed — 180 Proof
With the support of Egypt. The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. Gazans can certainly get out of Gaza and there are beautiful homes there. Ultimately, no one really trusts them with their borders... and who would? I'm sorry, but national security comes first. Tons of aid has come to Gaza. By letting them control their own border and imports that creates a serious national security threat. It's not just Israel -- none of their neighbors want them having unfettered access to their borders where they'll be able to import whatever.
Facts?No, racism, no mythology, only the facts from me: — BitconnectCarlos
"Palestine" has always described a geographic location. It did not become a people until the 1960s. So yes that will raise eyebrows. "Palestinians" are a people without a history, at least not one that extends back further than the 1960s. They are a recent invention. — BitconnectCarlos
I think in this case they are even less willing to assist in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when their people are already outraged how Israel is killing and starving Palestinians.The Arab countries don't want them in either due to their history. — BitconnectCarlos
I think it's quite apt in this occasion.Whether "prison" is an appropriate term is debatable. — BitconnectCarlos
400,000 muslims dead in yemen. 500k-1 mil dead by assad. 1 mil muslims in concentration camps in china. much greater muslim suffering across the world — BitconnectCarlos
but how dare 1 jewish missile inadvertently kill a palestinian child — BitconnectCarlos
Israeli forces opened fire on Thursday as a crowd gathered near a convoy of trucks carrying desperately needed aid in Gaza City, part of a chaotic scene in which scores of people were killed and injured, according to Gazan health officials and an Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The details of what happened were unclear, with officials from both sides offering starkly different accounts of the event. The Gazan health ministry said in a statement that more than 100 people were killed and more than 700 injured in a “massacre.” The Israeli official acknowledged that troops had opened fire, but said most of the people had been killed or injured in a stampede several hundred yards away.
Gazans, especially in the north of the territory, have become increasingly desperate for food. The United Nations and other relief groups are struggling to deliver supplies amid Israel’s nearly five-month-old military offensive, as law and order breaks down and Israel imposes restrictions on deliveries.
The official Palestinian Authority news agency, Wafa, reported that “Israeli tanks had opened fire with machine guns at thousands” waiting for aid to arrive.
Around 100 people with gunshot wounds were brought to Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza City, according to its director, Husam Abu Safiya, and injured people were being brought to other hospitals in the north. Mr. Abu Safiya said that the hospital had also received 12 bodies of people killed by gunfire.
These kinds of incidents do tell something. As did for example the case where Israeli hostages taken by Hamas tried to surrender to Israeli forces (whose objective is to liberate them) by waving white flags were gunned down. Or the video shown in South Africa's case of Israeli soldiers singing "there are no civilians in Gaza". Yes, those are individual events, but when you have many individual events, then something can be said about them in general. But it's hardly an act of "the most moral" army as Netanyahu has described them. To believe so is as whimsical as the idea that the 30 000 Hamas fighters lurk in every building and under every cemetery in Gaza, which some seem to believe. Historical clarity comes later and likely in this case there's going to be a fierce battle to control the narrative.I’m going to reserve judgment until we know more. But it’s absolutely tragic. — Mikie
But here comes the part I have tried to explain: The US had then a plan that made peace to prevail. The US didn't annex Japan or Japan wasn't cut into pieces by the allies (even if the Soviets took the Kuril islands, which has causes problems). The US left the Japanese emperor alive. The US did many things that the Japanese could accept, even if the surrendered. — ssu
And this is my point: the war had a Klausewitzian goal. After the surrender the peace worked. Imagine how well it would have worked if Japan would have been cut into to with Stalin holding one part? North and South Korea give an answer to that. — ssu
Yet there's no similar goal other than to "get the terrorists" when the US invaded Afghanistan. What was the plan then for Afghanistan? Nothing, George Bush had no intention of country-building at first. How did the plan take into account Pakistan? In no way. And hence Pakistan could burn the candle from both ends and in the end got it's Taleban back into power with the US retreating in humiliation.
My point is actually very well explained by Yuval Noah Harari in the following interview from some days ago: if you don't have the time to check it out all, please go to minute 09:00 where after the question Harari explains well what in the war is lacking: an Klausewitzian goal for the war. He takes the example of the invasion of Iraq, which simply played into the hands of Iran. Again something that wasn't clearly thought over, but concocted by the neocons. — ssu
Furthermore it's exactly on the point what Harari says about the battle for the soul of the Israeli nation between patriotism and Jewish supremacy. Harari explains very well the difference between patriotism and the feelings of national supremacy. As Harari also notes, Netanyahu hasn't said what the long term plan is. That Klausewitzian goal is missing: a peace to end this war. — ssu
Winning a war is one thing, what to do then is another. Winning the peace is the fact that is missing here.Anyways, if nuking is a good strategy for prompting surrender and permanent peace, then that's also an option for Israel to consider, right? — neomac
Actually with Germany this becomes even more clear when you think of the two Post German states! Which one experienced a revolt against it's occupier as early as the 1950's? Which had to build the Berlin wall to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the other Germany? And which Germany basically collapsed as a house of cards and end up in the dustbin of history after the unification of the two states? And finally, which Germany is still an ally of the US and is totally happy that the US has bases in it's territory?How about Germany? — neomac
Exactly. And that means you really have to take into consideration what the losing side WILL ACCEPT! True peace is what both sides can accept. But if you don't care shit about the enemy you have beaten or think of them as human animals who are incapable of handling themselves and are totally irresponsible, then you reap what you sow when the enemy comes back after a decade or two. Or continues simply continues the war with the limited resources it has.the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions. — neomac
Military build-up is an outcome of an agenda, it's not an agenda itself. NATO expansion was only one small reason, another was simply that there's only the narrative of Russia as an (threatened) empire. Russia simply cannot see itself as a nation state, because it isn't one made for just Russians.It’s the military build-up and the consequent power projection of Russia that enabled and encouraged the Ukrainian invasion WAY MORE than the trigger of NATO expansion. — neomac
I might have to disagree here, even if you make your point well. Religious zionism is far more intolerant at making compromises. At least the founding fathers assumed that in the future they ought to make peace with the Palestinians/Arabs.Secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel today — neomac
The pro-Israeli narrative goes to extreme lengths to tell it like this, because all that the Palestinians want push the Israel and the Israelis to the sea, right? And the Isrealis are the adults in the room here.. On the other side what was the Palestinian endgame? Always very confrontational toward a Israeli state, and expectedly so. — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.