So what? War is neither a beauty contest nor a fair play contest.

You keep saying this, asymmetrical war is a reality, I’m not saying that it’s a question of morality, fair play here. But rather an imbalance in agency. The only agency Hamas has had since October 8th is the option of releasing the hostages and surrendering themselves. Israel has wide ranging agency and propaganda machinery. Not to mention the thing I said about apartheid.

Also if Hamas had surrendered, the course of this situation might not have been much better than where we are now. Certainly if they had released the hostages, but not surrendered, it may well have been considerably worse than that.

So if Palestinians are doomed to suffer whatever price Netanyahu is willing to inflict on them (at least until Hamas keeps hostages and Netanyahu is in power), who is going to help them? If it is the Great Satan to do it, what would be the benefit for the Great Satan?

I was replying to someone else.
Anyway, it looks like the Great Satan has a conscience after all. He is going to provide humanitarian assistance.

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

The population became expendable when they voted in Hamas. From that point on, it was just a matter of time before Hamas did something crazy. Israel showed remarkable restraint in waiting to take action all these years. Did the Palestinians think getting in bed with Hamas would end well? Now they know different.

This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives. — Punshhh

A question: Are Hamas the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians Hamas? Imo they're different, but not entirely different. The Palestinians (therefore) have some culpability in 7 Oct., and certainly in their harboring Hamas and in keeping the hostages. Accessories at least, then, before and after the fact. So "expendable" not at all the right word.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.
You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again? — Punshhh

What crimes? And what occupation?

The crimes of the Israelis, near as I can tell, are both to exist and be so arrogant as to suppose they might defend themselves from being murdered. The Arabs/Hamas/PLO&etc/Palestinians, of course, having manufactured for themselves their racist hatreds, are guilty of no crimes, theirs being a religious imperative to murder Jews whomever, wherever and whenever they can. And while Netanyahu may not be himself a nice guy, still I find no fault with his aggression for so long as the hostages are held and Hamas leadership is untouched. How do you think Golda Meir would have reacted to 7 Ocr.?
.

Well, that's a proposal; what do you propose Hamas and the Palestinians do for their part? — tim wood

Give the hostages back once Israeli have undone as much of the harm as they can, got all settlers out of West Bank, etc

The population became expendable when they voted in Hamas.

I doubt that was on the ballot paper.

Well there is a crime being investigated at the ICJ.

After all, none of this horror happens but for Hamas's attack on 7 Oct. — tim wood

And October 7th doesn’t happen but for decades of Israeli terrorism. But go on conveniently starting the clock if you want.

Give the hostages back once Israeli have undone as much of the harm as they can, got all settlers out of West Bank, etc — bert1

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature.

But saying something like the above is considered absurd.

No wonder the world is condemning Israel. Easy to see through such stupid propaganda.

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. — Mikie

Indeed, but it's standard rhetoric for aggressive acts. I remember Tony Blair saying something like "Saddam, by his actions, chose to be invaded." A weird denial of agency.

Saddam, by his actions, chose to be invaded." A weird denial of agency. — bert1

Right. A good example. Responsibility is removed, because what they do is inevitable, as if a law of mechanics.

And October 7th doesn’t happen but for decades of Israeli terrorism. — Mikie

What Israeli terrorism? I've been aware of middle-east news since the mid-fifties and I know of no Israeli terrorism. But I know of lots and lots and lots and lots of murderous Palestinian terrorism.

My understanding of recent history is that every time the Israelis have tried to be reasonable or to "lighten up," the Palestinians have stuck their thumb in the Israeli eye. In short, the Palestinians do not want peace, and when you're willing to fight to have war, then sooner or later you will it, reaping what you have sown. That is, they're in the position of people who wanted it, worked for it, earned it, and now they have it, so that they can wail, "Poor me!" to the gullible of the world. And if I am in Hamas, what is a few thousand or tens of thousands of my sucker countrymen to me: for so long as I can have my war let them live and die miserably, for that is nothing to me!

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature.
But saying something like the above is considered absurd.
No wonder the world is condemning Israel. Easy to see through such stupid propaganda. — Mikie

Have you even read the news of what happened on 7 Oct.? What do you think happened on that date?

And maybe so many Palestinian women and children would not be killed if those brave Arabs, those courageous Hamas, would stop hiding under skirts and behind children. As to ending the war, the Japanese and Germans and their allies in WWII chose unconditional surrender when war became to costly for their populations. I guess Hamas and the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff, and they don't need no stinkin' surrender. Every death since Oct. 7 on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians and every one of them unnecessary!

What Israeli terrorism? […] I know of lots and lots and lots and lots of murderous Palestinian terrorism. — tim wood

No kidding. Your ignorance is your business.

Have you even read the news of what happened on 7 Oct.? What do you think happened on that date? — tim wood

Says the guy who has apparently managed to avoid all information about Israeli terrorism for 50+ years.

Yes, I know what happened. And because I’m a normal human being, I can very easily condemn the deliberate murder of innocent Israeli people.

I can also condemn the deliberate murder of 30+ thousand innocent Palestinian people.

The latter strikes me as worse, especially considering the perpetrators are also the oppressors.

maybe so many Palestinian women and children would not be killed if those brave Arabs, those courageous Hamas, would stop hiding under skirts and behind children. — tim wood

:snicker: Yeah, this was already covered.

Japanese and Germans — tim wood

Yep. Check.

Every death since Oct. 7 on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians and every one of them unnecessary! — tim wood

And check. So the propaganda mentioned earlier has worked for you. Cool. :up:

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature. — Mikie

For so long as Hamas and the Ps hold hostages and protect Hamas, I consider Israeli actions to be simply a police action. But you tell me, what exactly do Hamas and the Ps think it is? What sense do the Ps make of all this - assuming Hamas has got and is getting exactly what they want.

Just to update anyone new on this thread, here’s the synopsis of 198 pages:

(1) When Israel kills people, it’s unintentional/accidental. In this they have a near perfect record.

(2) When Palestinians (whether Hamas or whomever) kill people, it’s terrorism. Why? Because even though they’re the oppressed people in this scenario — living for decades in concentration camp conditions under a superpower-backed colonial state — and have killed FAR less people, they do it intentionally.

So how many innocent Palestinian children need to die before Israeli actions count as terrorism/“bad”? No limit— because even if they dropped a hydrogen bomb on Gaza, it would be unintentional and, moreover, Hamas’ fault, since they live amongst the civilians.

Yes, that’s really what people believe.

I consider Israeli actions to be simply a police action — tim wood

Yeah, 30,000 + people killed and a mass starvation underway — easily seen as collective punishment by anyone who hasn’t carefully avoided ideologically recalcitrant information for several decades — is just a “police action.”

It’s all Hamas’ fault. When Israeli soldiers kill the hostages, that’s not them pulling the trigger— it’s Hamas. When dropping bombs from planes — the pilots are all hamas. When orders come from Netanyahu, he’s also hamas. Netanyahu’s sick Likud ideology — his neurons, upbringing and education is … Hamas?

Yeah basically it’s Hamas murdering 30,000 people. Makes perfect sense.

So what? War is neither a beauty contest nor a fair play contest.

↪neomac

You keep saying this, asymmetrical war is a reality, I’m not saying that it’s a question of morality, fair play here. But rather an imbalance in agency. The only agency Hamas has had since October 8th is the option of releasing the hostages and surrendering themselves. Israel has wide ranging agency and propaganda machinery. Not to mention the thing I said about apartheid. — Punshhh

You mean that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Israel must yield to Hamas’ demands? Or that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Hamas can’t help but fight Israel to death? Do these conditionals make sense to you?

Also if Hamas had surrendered, the course of this situation might not have been much better than where we are now. Certainly if they had released the hostages, but not surrendered, it may well have been considerably worse than that. — Punshhh

Better in what sense? For whom? If Hamas had surrendered prior to committing the 8/10 massacre, then this would have spared the Gazans the current brutal retaliation. Any time Hamas surrenders in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. If Hamas doesn’t surrender but it returns the hostages in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would still spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. So if the purpose is to spare Gazans Israelis’ brutal retaliation or further brutal retaliation, then not committing the 8/10 massacre, surrendering, returning hostages would be (or have been) all available options to Hamas. Wouldn’t they?

You mean that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Israel must yield to Hamas’ demands? — neomac

I can't speak for Punshhh, but I don't think Israel should ever yield to Hamas' demands. What Israel should do is the right thing, regardless of Hamas demands.

What Israel should do is the right thing, regardless of Hamas demands. — bert1

Well, it depends on what you mean by "do the right thing".
Ordinary citizens should act according to laws, regardless of the reasons why they have those laws. But should political decision makers take decisions, regardless of the political consequences of their decisions?

(1) When Israel kills people, it’s unintentional/accidental. In this they have a near perfect record.

(2) When Palestinians (whether Hamas or whomever) kill people, it’s terrorism. — “Mikie

The plausibility of such distinction (not its actual validity, which remains to be investigated) comes from the “principle of distinction”, which Hamas’ asymmetric warfare approach doesn’t allow.

Why? Because even though they’re the oppressed people in this scenario — living for decades in concentration camp conditions under a superpower-backed colonial state — and have killed FAR less people, they do it intentionally. — Mikie

That is consistent with what I just wrote. Hamas prefers an asymmetric warfare approach because it can’t compete with Israel in conventional ways. So Hamas purposefully exploits an asymmetric warfare approach to radicalise both the Israeli and the Palestinian population, which in turn helps Hamas perpetuate its warfare approach.

So how many innocent Palestinian children need to die before Israeli actions count as terrorism/“bad”? — Mikie

Terrorism is a warfare approach. And it is not based on comparing number of casualties or civilian casualties, but on respecting or violating the principle of distinction and the notion of proportionality that goes with it. Of course, reality is arguably much messier and uglier than this, I can concede you that. Yet that doesn’t mean decision makers can or even should try to fix it.

*sigh*

On the Gaza tragedy and the US election…

I have a theory that Trump’s criminally inept handling of the Covid pandemic in the USA cost him enough swing voters to lose the 2020 election.

I have a fear that if Israel keeps up its offensive, the Muslim nations surrounding it will start a ‘holy war’ against Israel.
Then as a side effect of the resulting massive bloodshed, Biden will look extremely culpable in the matter, and lose many swing voters (and thus the White House) to Trump.

This is Biden’s big test. There’s still time, but he’s waffling.
How long does it take to grow a spine?

How's this for a really brief summary then?

After WW2, others gave Jewish survivors places not theirs to give. Conflict. Israel established. Jews turn some desert into not-desert. Periodic escalation. Some Jews grab land at gunpoint. Israelis and Palestinians treated differently, discrimination by both. Both lay religio-historical claims to areas. Regular violence. Israel has military upper hand, larger region has non-Jewish population upper hand. Jews fear being removed for good. No peace in sight and no common law and order.

Will is required in both camps to improve the situation regardless of partisanship, yes?

You mean that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Israel must yield to Hamas’ demands? Or that since Israel is disproportionately stronger than Hamas and can erase Hamas from Gaza, then Hamas can’t help but fight Israel to death? Do these conditionals make sense to you?

I’m not proposing a solution. It’s a comment on the how the suffering of the Palestinian people can be alleviated and who of the two sides in this conflict can deliver this. The comment in bold below seems to be a claim that a Hamas surrender would deliver this. Are you sure about that?

Better in what sense? For whom?

The suffering of Palestinians.

If Hamas had surrendered prior to committing the 8/10 massacre, then this would have spared the Gazans the current brutal retaliation. Any time Hamas surrenders in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. If Hamas doesn’t surrender but it returns the hostages in exchange for a cease-fire, then this would still spare Gazans further brutal retaliation. So if the purpose is to spare Gazans Israelis’ brutal retaliation or further brutal retaliation, then not committing the 8/10 massacre, surrendering, returning hostages would be (or have been) all available options to Hamas. Wouldn’t they?

What is happening now is something more than a brutal retaliation for 07/10. It is the deliberate starvation of a captive population. A genocide.

Anyway, my comments were in response to someone else. I don’t see the point in going over this again, our positions and understanding has been aired. I’m preparing a response to your reply to me about the geopolitical situation.

It leaves out the fact Israel is a democratic respecter of women/LGBTQ rights and its neighbors are violators of them.

Will is required in both camps to improve the situation regardless of partisanship, yes? — jorndoe

Yes, as was true of the European colonizers and the indigenous peoples. Sure, will was required for peace by “both sides.”

At best it’s truism, and trivial, at worst it’s just another attempt to ignore power inequality.

(y)

Irrelevant. As if stupid people don't have a right to their life. Fucking dumb shit as usual.

As if stupid people don't have a right to their life. — Benkei

You need a pause and reset. The issue is not stupid people. The issue is murderers whose "right to life," both quality and quantity, is compromised by their own actions.

But it is: there's a clear judgment contained in the fact that Palestinians are not up to "our" level and therefore the Israelis are good and they are bad and therefore fuck them. As to all the stupid crap you've been posting in the last two pages, I refer to what I said earlier: don't discuss this with tim wood because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But it is: there's a clear judgment contained in the fact that Palestinians are not up to "our" level and therefore the Israelis are good and they are bad and therefore fuck them — Benkei

While all that's true, and Palestinian culture is inferior to Western culture (and "evil" in many respects re:women and LGBTQ), there's a bit more going on: Israel's neighbors have tried to destroy Israel. They want all the Israeli's dead. Palestinians are actively rooting for Israel's destruction and voted in murderous thugs to carry it out. That makes them not only culturally backwards but also extremely dangerous, and Israel has a right to defend herself.