"99% of the killing is done by Israel" is a fatuous statement. It has zero bearing to who is right or wrong in a conflict.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. It if was defending itself worse the killing would be more 50/50 and Baden wouldn't have this stupid line to use. Is there no such thing as attempted murder?

Ok. Let me try to simplify this, see if we get somewhere.

If somebody, X, comes up to you and steals your wallet or hits you that's an assault. I think it is quite reasonable to fight back against X. Such an act can be called "defense", I think, without much controversy.

Now suppose that X steals your wallet, your watch and other such possessions in a violent manner. This is still an assault. Ok. You fight back maybe you throw a punch or push him back. But then the person comes with a gun shoots your leg and when you hit back, he gets furious and says he is defending himself from you.

Is X justified in saying he is defending himself from you? I think in such a scenario, whatever else X says, he is wrong to say that he is using defense.

How would you modify such a scenario?

Now suppose that X steals your wallet, your watch and other such possessions in a violent manner. This is still an assault. Ok. You fight back maybe you throw a punch or push him back. But then the person comes with a gun shoots your leg and when you hit back, he gets furious and says he is defending himself from you. — Manuel

This analogy isn't apt because Hamas started launching rockets first. Israel did not just begin the aggression.

As a response to what happened in the Al-Aqsa mosque.

X is stealing food, electricity and water from Y. Preventing food and aid from coming in is akin to stealing.

Israel raided Al-Aqsa because of a weapons cache there that would later be used against Israel. In hindsight, was this the best way to go about resolving the situation? Very possibly not, I don't know. Lets say it was wrong and that Netanyahu deserves blame - ok, fair enough.

Regardless, the correct response to this is not to start launching rockets against Israeli civilians in residential areas. Now Israel is going to defend itself against those firing the rockets, who are themselves firing from inside residential areas.

Israel does allow food and medical supplies in, they just screen out the weapons. Lets stick to the first point for now though.

Well, you live there. It's a small country.

If Hamas is planning to fight, what, they should all line up in the beach, so they could be killed and Gaza loses all defense they have?

So the idea here would be take all the possible humiliation you can get, and be happy we let you live in pile of dirt? There's only so much people can stand after 50 years of occupation, surely you can see that, even if you disagree with them on all else...

They don't have anywhere near the sophisticated weaponry that could shoot at tanks, much less aircraft.

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. — BitconnectCarlos

You've clearly identified with one "side" and so are possibly incapable of looking at this conflict objectively, but take a few moments to consider again what you've said and see if you can at least play Devil's advocate to your own remarks.

(If you can't, there's no need in going any further -- defend Israel to the end; I'm not interested.) — Xtrix

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

Yes -- to say nothing of the decades-long brutal occupation. Apologists for Israel are incapable of seeing the reality. Anything Israel does is defensive, there's no power imbalance (and if there is it is somehow irrelevant), it's all about the "right to exist," etc. No sense in wasting time trying to convince them otherwise.

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

The proportionality is because Israel actually has missile defense. 90% of rockets are stopped. If Israel didn't have that the kill count would be much closer. Attempted murder is just as bad as murder. You have no idea how many rockets are actually being launched at Israel because the vast majority are stopped, but the military does know where all those rockets are coming from.

They don't have anywhere near the sophisticated weaponry that could shoot at tanks, much less aircraft. — Manuel

This is thankfully because of the blockade.

If Hamas is planning to fight, what, they should all line up in the beach, so they could be killed and Gaza loses all defense they have? — Manuel

If they don't take precautions to conduct their military activities away from their civilians then they are partly liable in the event of response attacks. Imagine you're a military commander, how would you respond if someone was launching rockets out of an enemy hospital? Are they just safe?

Yes -- to say nothing of the decades-long brutal occupation. Apologists for Israel are incapable of seeing the reality. Anything Israel does is defensive, there's no power imbalance (and if there is it is somehow irrelevant), it's all about the "right to exist," etc. No sense in wasting time trying to convince them otherwise. — Xtrix

Totally agree. We've learned from the same man a good deal. And others too, including women of course.

Since he's living in the country, I try to reduce as much emotion as possible, to see if we can at least agree on some basic things.

I'm afraid Carlos would be what is "the left" in Israeli, meaning people not like him are much further to the right. That's not good for them, if you include the Samson option, it's literally bad for the whole world.

I don't think we'll change minds. I won't change my posts or tone, but who knows? Others here have said pretty spine chilling things. It's madness.

This is thankfully because of the blockade. — BitconnectCarlos

But if we agreed that prior to settlement expansion Israel was safer, why do you think ending the blockade means they'll destroy Israel? Yes they're furious, with good reason, but they wouldn't want Gaza to disappear off the face of the Earth.

If they don't take precautions to conduct their military activities away from their civilians then they are partly liable in the event of response attacks. Imagine you're a military commander, how would you respond if someone was launching rockets out of an enemy hospital? Are they just safe? — BitconnectCarlos

Again, where do they go? They barely have room to defend themselves, unless they make themselves visible on the beach or in the border. That's suicide.

Or they can just be humilated time and time and time again. I'm sure no Jew would want the same thing done to them and not except a reaction.

Doesn't Israel have snipers and intel on Gaza? I'm sure they could be much less brutal. A large part of this is just nationalism gone nuts.

A thought experiment. Imagine two families both think they have booked a particular table at a restaurant, but the restaurant has a policy of double-booking for whatever reason.

The two families turn up, and the restaurant manager just gives one of the families - family A - the table and gives the other family - family B - an inferior, cramped table in a less desirable location.

Family B are understandably pissed off. They should be pissed off at the restaurant manager, but they've decided to be pissed off at family A instead. And the parents of family A are behaving a little rudely.

If you want - for it doesn't matter much for the sake of the thought experiment - make the parents of family A incredibly rude. Perhaps they even try and take the condiments from table B because their own have run out or something. Obnoxious behaviour to be sure.

Now imagine that the parents of family B, outraged at this behaviour, decide to throw spears at the innocent members of family A. The parents of family A are good at fending off the spears and preventing them hitting members of their family. But family B are intentionally throwing so many they intend to overwhelm family A's ability to fend them off and hit some of the innocent family members. That's their intention.

I think you're a moral idiot if you think that's morally ok. That is, if you think family A's tactless and unjust behavour justifies the parents of family B in throwing spears at the innocent members of family A, then you're morally bust. What the parents of family B are doing is evil, plain and simple.

Family A's parents have guns. Family B's parents are throwing spears at their innocent family members. Are the parents of family A entitled to use their guns to stop the parents of family B doing what they're doing?

I think the answer is obvious: yes, of course. Hell, I am entitled to do so, and so are you. The parents of family B are intentionally trying to kill the innocent members of family A. Their deaths are not a foreseen consequences, but intended.

Now imagine that the parents of family B have covered their bodies in little tiny innocent people. Thousands and thousands of them. Every square inch of their body is covered in a skin of innocent people. And the parents of family A know this. And so they know that should they use their guns to try and stop the parents of family B from doing what they are doing, they will inevitable kill hundreds of the tiny innocent people covering the bodies of the murderous parents.

Are they still entitled to use their guns?

Obviously they are.

Again, where do they go? They barely have room to defend themselves, unless they make themselves visible on the beach or in the border. That's suicide. — Manuel

You're asking me where Hamas should launch rockets against civilian populations. The answer is nowhere, but if they are going to pick a place then don't do in schools (yes they have done this) or hospitals. Hamas does this purposefully for the press and it is evil. Conduct your military activities elsewhere, away from children. By storing weapons in schools you are endangering your own children and using them as pawns in a political struggle. It's beyond evil. Remember, self-defense is a fundamental right for any nation.

But if we agreed that prior to settlement expansion Israel was safer, why do you think ending the blockade means they'll destroy Israel? — Manuel

I believe the blockade makes Israel safer, but that expanding settlements is a provocative move that that may very well endanger the safety of other Israelis.

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2021/05/16/New-Israeli-airstrikes-on-Gaza-destroy-roads-leading-to-key-hospital-treating-injured

181 dead, 52 children.

Roads to the major hospital bombed.

Israeli terrorism continues unabated.

Wonder who will write paragraphs of thought experiments justifying this? Probably a moral black hole of a human being - or three.

181 dead, 52 children. — StreetlightX

52 kids who won't grow up to be Palestinian terrorists.

Wonder who will write paragraphs of thought experiments justifying this? Probably a moral black hole of a human being - or three. — StreetlightX

How'd I do?

I think we're up to 95% of the killing being done by the Israelis now and rising. But they could kill every single Palestinian, man, woman and child and their apologists here would still plead self defence. It's just bizarre that some here think the idea of proportionality has no moral relevance. Apparently if a bad guy comes to my house, the powers that be are justified in killing us both and all my children too. No questions asked. He used us as a human shield. *Shrug*. Yes, that's just the way it works everywhere. Nothing to see here.

Apparently if a bad guy comes to my house the powers that be are justified in killing us both and all my children too. No questions asked. Yes, that's just the way it works everywhere. Nothing to see here. — Baden

American liberals signed off on the invasion of Iraq, which killed 1 million Iraqis who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You opposed the invasion in 2002 I hope. The evangelicals lost their soul when they signed on to Bush's war, and so did the war-supporting Democrats and liberals. A very morally clarifying moment all around.

You opposed the invasion in 2002 I hope. — fishfry

I protested it in London.

52 kids who won't grow up to be Palestinian terrorists. — fishfry

I'll just presume this is a sardonic barb. Riiiight?

181 dead, 52 children.
— StreetlightX

52 kids who won't grow up to be Palestinian terrorists. — fishfry

The moral rot is evident. :shade:

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

What hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.

Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil. — Elie Wiesel

(Emphasis is mine.)

I protested it in London. — Baden

I thank you and admire you for that.

I'll just presume this is a sardonic barb. Riiiight? — Baden

Doing my best to break through on this thread. "Civilians. They're what's for dinner," didn't even get a mention.

Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil.
— Elie Wiesel
(Emphasis is mine.) — 180 Proof

Wiesel was an ardent Zionist throughout his entire life. Nice try, though. :wink:

Yes, in the pre-'67 tradition of e.g. Martin Buber and Abraham Heschel. Again, you've made no point, BC, because your moral vacuity deprives you of one.

Eli Wiesel hated Hamas with a passion and always believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Whose side do you think Wiesel would be on today if he were alive?

Wiesel was an ardent Zionist throughout his entire life. Nice try, though. :wink: — BitconnectCarlos

What did he think about the treatment of the Palestinians?

He blamed Hamas for using children as "human shields." He called Hamas a "death cult."

Now given this information.... what should we conclude about his position? :chin: :chin: :chin:

It's just bizarre that some here think the idea of proportionality has no moral relevance — Baden

The proportionality limitation is imposed in a retributionist model, where we want to limit the punishment to fit the crime. That doesn't apply in deterrence based model, where the concept of punishment itself is irrelevant. If the goal is to deter future attacks, the limit on the response would be set at doing the least harm to achieve that result. Unfortunately, the current response, as aggressive as it is, seems to still be insufficient.

That is to say, we limit our attacks upon our enemies only when they stop attacking us. This is especially the case when we are pure, just, and righteous in all other regards and our enemy is the opposite. It is obvious both sides assume themselves righteous here and it is not part of either side's calculus to limit their attack to the degree they might be second guessing the morality of their own position.

This is a specific response to your wondering why some find proportionality irrelevant in this context. It's because it is. It's also not bizarre. What is morally repugnant to you is the unrestrained Israeli response in light of what you see as a morally bankrupt Israeli apartheid state, but it shouldn't appear at all bizarre if you assume the Israelis reject your assessment and believe their right to exist in the form in which they do is just as legitimate as any other nation.

Now given this information.... what should we conclude about his position? :chin: :chin: :chin: — BitconnectCarlos

Hamas is just a section of the Palestinian population, so he could hate Hamas and regret Israel's attacks on the rest of the P's.

Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. That's where the conflict is. Wiesel always supported Israel's to defend itself so unless you can dig up quotes of his that are critical to Israel your position doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, it's technically possible but it's extremely unlikely in view of his previous statements.

Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. — BitconnectCarlos

That does not warrant you to equate Hamas with Palestinians. You know that.

Wiesel always supported Israel's to defend itself so unless you can dig up quotes of his that are critical to Israel your position doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, it's technically possible but it's extremely unlikely in view of his previous statements. — BitconnectCarlos

I was just asking if he objected to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Israel is recognized by the UN. There's no need to be defensive about its existence or worried about its future. It's not going anywhere.

What makes someone believe that THEIR own country is a legitimate entity and yet not Israel?

What makes a country legitimate?