7,4 million killed Americans wouldn't be a genocide, — ssu

But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x as much as the US, so suddenly 40k Gazans dead (a good chunk of who are Hamas) becomes 30 million Indians dead :gasp:

Can we just keep the number at 40k? And not try to scale everything?

Yet unlike Bibi's administration, they publicly denied of any such intent. — ssu

Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent.

because ethnic cleansing (without killing) is still considered a genocidal act. — ssu

Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. Was Israel there guilty of genocide against Jews? The territory of Alsace-Lorraine changed hands multiple times in the 20th century with population shifts (including forced exiles) entailing genocide against Germans and French. If population displacement is genocide then all war is genocide.

But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. But just look up the definitions given, which can be read from the thread.

The point here is that Israel is considered to be part of the West. Not a place like Iraq, Syria or Egypt. Hence the criticism. But perhaps we ought to see the country as simply being part of the Levant, an Asian country that hasn't much to do with Western democracies.

Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread.

For example, just read what the ICC found to be the reasons for the warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant:

The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.

The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.

In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.

Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.

Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. — BitconnectCarlos

Just like in the case of Sinai earlier, withdrawing settlers from newly established settlements isn't the same thing. And these people live in Israel, they weren't deported somewhere else and aren't refugees outside Israel.

In the seven years between 1978 and 1985, 11,500 acres of land were confiscated by the Israeli government for the establishment of settlements. By 1991, the settler population in Gaza would reach 3,500 and 4,000 by 1993, or less than 1% of Gaza's population.

And these were evacuated into Israel. Not like there was a large Jewish population living in Egyptian controlled Gaza prior the Six Day War.

I don't understand why you bother. Bitty is a zealot, fully buying into pretending Israel is a victim. Even in light of obvious power imbalances and war crimes, he will dredge up things 50 year in the past to excuse current crimes. It's pathetic.

Well, you could say I'm banging my head against a wall when discussing Ukraine with Tzeentch, but I think discussion is important. Especially with people with whom you disagree with. This way I can educate myself better of the reality and understand things far more better when I respond to arguments. Yes, it can get the thread to be put into "The Lounge" section. But now I've had to educate myself on what a genocide means and what actually Netanyahu was charged by the ICC. Thanks to Bitty, I guess.

Yet if I remember correctly, you even read through Ayn Rand, even if you knew what stupidities it would be. And it was indeed it. But since you know actually what Ayn Rand wrote, then you can better respond to someone who finds Rand's "objectivism" a great idea. Yet these people can indeed be sincere in their thoughts and be excited about libertarianism. A condescending attitude or the view "Why bother to respond?" simply isn't fruitful to anybody.

If a philosophy forum doesn't debate the hard problems of our time and sees no value in discussion about them, what does that tell of us ourselves?

A condescending attitude or the view "Why bother to respond?" simply isn't fruitful to anybody. — ssu

It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument.

If a philosophy forum doesn't debate the hard problems of our time and sees no value in discussion about them, what does that tell of us ourselves? — ssu

It's no longer a debate when people are not able to set out coherent logical arguments or deny facts.

EDIT: This is also why I have largely disengaged from the Trump thread.

moved to Ukraine thread.

Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. — ssu

If I were to learn ~40k civilians were murdered I would be horrified. If I were to learn that ~40k Hamas fighters and administrative staff were killed I would cheer.

It's sus to just give blanket figures like that. It would be like saying ~20k Germans were slaughtered by the allies in Jan 1945 when in fact it was German soldiers in the battle of the bulge. Yet we can abuse language all we want. We could say 20k Germans slaughtered if we wanted our speech to be provocative and incendiary. Soldiers without uniforms are still soldiers.

We could probably even argue today that what happened to Germany after WWII was "genocide" but it doesn't change the fundamental fact that they needed to be defeated and their government dissolved.

Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread. — ssu

I recall similar statements from Bush after 9/11 re: an "evil" enemy that must be destroyed. As well as after Pearl Harbor. We can call evil evil without it being genocidal. It's just truth sometimes. The Empire of Japan was evil. Al-Qaeda is evil. Hamas is evil.

, regardless of the murderous rampage, with unaddressed injustices, don't expect the problem to go away.
Putin's Russia employs industrialized suppression, Russification, propaganda, manufactured events/threats, whatever, to preempt eventualities (which is harder in more transparent democracies).
Anyway, the environments differ some.

Do Arabs accept Israel? As a state? (Which / how many do/don't, and how reliable is this?)
As an aside, would any of this change if, say, Israel exited the Golan Heights entirely?
Might as well get down to it: Should an Israeli state exist henceforth? And safe and with actual borders?
Your take, please. (←↑ addressed to everyone)

Do Arabs accept Israel? As a state? (Which / how many do/don't, and how reliable is this?) — jorndoe

Formal recognition has been done:
By Egypt 1979 (a peace treaty)
by Jordan 1994 (a peace treaty)
by Bahrain
Morocco
Sudan
UAE (all with the above normalization of relations)

The obvious one missing is Saudi-Arabia, and of course Lebanon and Syria aren't so warm to Israel's actions. Yet notice also Iraq after regime change hasn't come abroad and Algeria has also opposed Isreal for a long time. Here you can see what countries have embassies or consulates in Israel:



This policy has come from the Khartoum agreement of the Arab League, which has stayed on for a long time and guided the actions of the Arab states.

The 1967 Arab League summit was held on August 29 in Khartoum as the fourth Arab League Summit in the aftermath of the Arab defeat by Israel in the Six-Day War, and is famous for its Khartoum Resolution known as "The Three No's"; No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

Does the "Arab Street" accept Israel's current actions? Guess.

I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.

Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good." — BitconnectCarlos

For Finns WW2 was finding themselves as a democracy between two bloodthirsty dictators that had divided to each other countries like Finland and in the end our country had to fight them both. And we were lucky not to be "liberated" from ourselves. For us WW2 never been about "the good guys" or the "bad guys", it has always been simply of survival as a country, as a people. That is the moral justification that we have. And for the Jews that founded Israel, it was that too in the wars of the 20th Century, with more populous neighbors that were armed by the other Superpower wanting to erase the nation out and with the US starting to back Israel in earnest only after the Six Day War.

Yet now it's different, especially when the Assad regime has collapsed and Iran has been dealt a severe blow. Iran and Israel have already had their tit-for-tat. Israel's situation isn't so perilous is it was before and the criticism of people like Moshe Yaalon should be noticed. Yaalon was the former Chief of Staff when the IDF was quelling the Second Intifada and later a defense minister under Netanuyahu, hence we aren't talking about a "bleeding heart liberal pacifist".

What is happening in Israel is alarming, because Israel has been a Western country with Western values. With religious fanaticism and radicalism there is a strive to use this moment for dramatic solutions and have total disregard of the "liberal" values as international agreements and future relations. There really are more than one way to handle terrorism and an insurgents.

In a similar way this response happened already with 9/11 in the US and the global war on terror. Somehow the laws that have governed covert actions and things like the attitude towards torture changed. It was like Hollywood had taken over: the hero had to be the cutting "the red tape" of legal norms and just beating the shit out of the bad guy, because somehow that made him tell where next attack was to happen. In real life it doesn't go that way, but who cares, when people want revenge. In the end you had Intelligence Services like the CIA, which were fully aware of their legal framework, then asking from the politicians "jail free cards", that the politicians would take the blame.

In a similar way this response happened already with 9/11 in the US and the global war on terror. Somehow the laws that have governed covert actions and things like the attitude towards torture changed. — ssu

To paraphrase Mike Tyson, "Every country has a plan until they get punched in the face." It's easy to be against torture, until you have a captured nuclear bomb maker who won't tell you how to disarm the bomb that's about to go off. Do you start pulling fingernails and breaking fingers? Yes. That scenario is extremely implausible, but so what? It only takes one exception to invalidate a blanket policy like "no torture".

Ah yes, Mike Tyson. That paragon of moral philosophy. How could we forget about him?

Let's see what other gems this treasure trove of wisdom has to offer:

“I want to rip out his heart and feed it to him. I want to kill people. I want to rip their stomachs out and eat their children.” — Mike Tyson

Ok, that'll do Mikey. That'll do.

But that captured nuclear bomb hasn't happened, but the torture has. And anyway, that line IS the Hollywood line. Oh! There's a nuclear bomb, and we have to get it! And how to get it is by torture. Sorry, but the Hollywood line isn't the line in reality. With torture, you'll have anybody saying anything in the end. It's not as effective as you think.

There's a very eye opening reported exchange between Jim Mattis and Donald Trump, which Trump himself told to the press. When Trump asked "Mad Dog Mattis" about his views about the effectiveness of torture, Mattis responded that a can of beer and cigarette pack works better than torture. Trump answered that maybe, but as the American people think that torture works, then he is for torture. Yep, Trump has always been for his base.

And there is a lot of truth to this.

Just as American want their legal system to be punitive and some Americans are offended of a "liberal" penal system that tries to assist the criminal away from a criminal lifestyle, so do they have this love affair about torture and ideas that torture, if not moral, is still so effective. If it's so effective, then Assad's Syria shouldn't have collapsed? It tortured a lot of people, so that should be so effective.

Now we can see what kind of regime Assad lead from the mass graves now coming to light...


But of course, there's North Korea! Hence torture works, I guess.

With torture, you'll have anybody saying anything in the end. It's not as effective as you think — ssu

It's not effective. Period. People will do anything to stop torture, including telling you want you want to hear, which usually isn't the truth. And because I didn't feel like going through all the arguments again, here's Perplexity.ai on the scientific proof about torture:

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that torture is not an effective method for obtaining reliable information or intelligence. Neuroscience, psychology, and physiology research consistently show that torture impairs cognitive functioning and memory recall, making it counterproductive for interrogation purposes[1][4].

Neurological and Psychological Effects

Torture severely disrupts brain function, impairing the ability to accurately recall and communicate information:

1. Stress, fear, and pain caused by torture lead to major disruptive changes in the brain, damaging cognitive functioning[2].
2. The brain's ability to regulate thoughts, emotions, and behaviors is compromised under torture conditions[2].
3. Extreme stress alters memory formation and recall, making recollections less accurate and increasing susceptibility to false memories[3].

Counterproductive Outcomes

Rather than eliciting truthful information, torture often produces unreliable results:

1. Torture disorients prisoners, preventing accurate recall of past events[2].
2.Individuals subjected to torture are likely to say anything to make it stop, regardless of truthfulness[1].
3. The physiological and psychological effects of torture can lead to confabulation, where the subject may be unable to distinguish fact from fantasy[3].

Scientific Consensus

The scientific community largely agrees on torture's ineffectiveness:

1. Extensive research shows that punitive behavior encourages lying rather than truth-telling[5].
2. Studies indicate that stress modifies pain perception, further complicating the reliability of information obtained through torture[5].
3. The signal-to-noise ratio in intelligence gathered through torture is extremely low, making it an indefensible practice from a scientific standpoint[4].

In conclusion, scientific evidence from various fields consistently demonstrates that torture is not only morally and legally problematic but also ineffective and counterproductive as an interrogation method[6][7][8].

Citations:
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0077
[2] https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/review-why-torture-doesnt-work-the-neuroscience-of-interrogation-by-shane-omara/
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5198758/
[4] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5325643/
[6] https://theconversation.com/torture-isnt-necessary-our-study-suggests-an-ethical-alternative-130626
[7] https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/does-torture-work-research-says-no/
[8] https://www.science.org/content/article/torture-cant-provide-good-information-argues-neuroscientist — perplexity.ai

It's telling in any case, that however grotesque WWII was, at least on the Allied side there was no policy of torture. It happened but these were low level decisions and it wasn't systematic.

It's telling in any case, that however grotesque WWII was, at least on the Allied side there was no policy of torture. It happened but these were low level decisions and it wasn't systematic. — Benkei

Well, not on the side Western allies, at least. But in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, remember that Russian soldiers were fed propaganda that only the dogs and the unborn in Germany were innocent. The whole mass rape is a collective effort in acting revenge on the civilian populace. Remember that the German military and Nazi Germany treated totally differently the Dutch compared to the subhumans like Russians and the war attrocities in the Eastern front were on a totally different level. And the Soviet security apparatus used extensively and systematically torture.

Yet this idea that torture is effective, that it's only the bleeding heart liberal left who oppose it makes the whole thing so worrisome. War on Terror has left a stain on the West. It wasn't the intelligence services themselves that demanded secret prisons, special courts or detention centers like GITMO. It was the politicians, because they saw what the people wanted. The people wanted that "the gloves were taken off". People just don't see the ludicrous insanity of not dealing with terrorists with the normal justice system that you have (like with the terrorists that attempted to blow up the WTC the first time). That somehow it would be dangerous to have in the ordinary legal system and prisons deal with Al Qaeda terrorists shows how delusional the discourse gets.

When people want revenge and want the "gloves to come off", you won't treat terrorists that have committed mass murder or attempted it as being similar to ordinary mass murdering psychopaths that still have rights in the justice system. Norway could handle Breivik through a normal legal process. Many country have been able to combat terrorism through their legal system.

Israel's actions are the next worrisome example as Israel has been part of the West. This thread was started well before the Hamas attack and the current wars, and like you have been critical at where Israel is going. I do also understand that someone like @BitconnectCarlos, being Jewish himself, wants to defend Israel. In this world it seems that we cannot be both critical and supportive at the same time. However if a democracy ought to work, that should be how ought to be.

For example I do support my country and the Finnish government and support things they do, but at the same time I can be critical about some actions it does. That should be what citizens of a democracy should be like in my view: both critical and supportive.

Well, not on the side Western allies, at least. But in the case of Stalin's Soviet Union, remember that Russian soldiers were fed propaganda that only the dogs and the unborn in Germany were innocent. — ssu

OH yeah, fuck, I always forget they were considered the Allied back then as well. :groan: