@Baden@fdrake@ManuelaGer@ssu
The arguments keep switching about the conflict in general (reclaiming land for both sides) and this specific round killing. If it’s just this specific round of killing, then the argument should be “What SHOULD a country do in response to THIS SPECIFIC instance of rocket attacks”. Things like go to the UN, plea with the Palestinians to stop, wait for rockets to stop and do an investigation of the perpetrators after the fact. Are these feasible? Etc. but see people have it both ways waffling between this SPECIFIC incidence of response to rockets/violence and the broader conflict.

Thus, even if your argument is sound — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

Morality may be one factor in decision-making, but it should not be the whole picture. — BitconnectCarlos

Same for the people of Palestine, since:

The central function of a state is security - the protection of its own citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

gives mandate for Hamas to force match Israel. To put it bluntly, Palestine isn't doing very well in this regard. And it can't, it doesn't have the military force. So it resorts to the guerrilla and terrorist tactics of an occupied power.

So long as morality can partially factored out for Israel, it can be factored out to at least the same extent for Palestine. Let everyone eat terror.

"According to Amnesty International, "Palestinian armed groups have repeatedly shown total disregard for the most fundamental human rights, notably the right to life, by deliberately targeting Israeli civilians and by using Palestinian children in armed attacks. Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed groups for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avenge relatives or friends killed by the Israeli army"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups

True. But at some point you're going to have to link these quotes to an argument relevant to the OP.

Except of course that linking a photo of a baby with a fake bomb vest as an example of these child suicide bombers is a deliberate misrepresentation. The youngest Palestinian suicide bomber was 16.

Deleted that.

You can't rationally discuss a conflict by portraying one side as the sole victims and with constant rants and no historical or philosophical lens applied.

I have said before that this conflict is a microcosm of the human history of warring over territory boundaries and resources, religious fanaticism and over population. Portraying one side as the enemy will harden the debate and feelings on both sides making the situation more intractable.

But I am beginning not to care.

Except of course that linking a photo of a baby with a fake bomb vest as an example of these child suicide bombers is a deliberate misrepresentation. The youngest Palestinian suicide bomber was 16. — Benkei

What possible reason is there for dressing up a baby like that? The indoctrination from Hamas starts in early childhood.

and let's not forget what that AI report said about the IDF:

More than 600 Palestinian children have been killed and thousands have been injured by the Israeli army in the past four and a half years . Some 25 have been killed this year alone. Hundreds of thousands of others have been prevented from going to school and effectively confined to their homes by Israeli army blockades and curfews. Others have repeatedly been attacked on their way to school by Israeli settlers who continue to carry out such attacks with impunity. Thousands of Palestinian children have been arrested by the Israeli army and hundreds are currently detained and accused of security offences. Many of those detained have been ill-treated or tortured by Israeli forces and some have been forced or pressured to become ‘‘collaborators’’ with Israeli intelligence services. Such practices by Israeli forces violate international human rights and humanitarian law.

Deleted that — Baden

So delete evidence that makes the Palestinian look bad, irrational and like the aggressors. The photo is mentioned in the wiki article I linked to anyway

Just repeating because you are doing again what I was noticing here:

The arguments keep switching about the conflict in general (reclaiming land for both sides) and this specific round killing. If it’s just this specific round of killing, then the argument should be “What SHOULD a country do in response to THIS SPECIFIC instance of rocket attacks”. Things like go to the UN, plea with the Palestinians to stop, wait for rockets to stop and do an investigation of the perpetrators after the fact. Are these feasible? Etc. but see people have it both ways waffling between this SPECIFIC incidence of response to rockets/violence and the broader conflict. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I've noticed you have nothing of interest to add in this discussion. Stop mentioning me in your posts.

"Ichilov Hospital announced that the daughter of Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza and deputy head of the organization's political bureau, had been treated at the medical center.

The Reuters news agency reported that this was an urgent treatment after Haniyeh's daughter suffered from complications relating to a recent medical procedure

Haniyeh's daughter has been hospitalized at the Tel Aviv hospital for more than a month and also stayed there during Operation Guardian of the Walls, when Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel, including large barrages at Tel Aviv.

The hospital said that she "is one in more than a thousand patients from Gaza and the territories, children and adults, who come for treatment every year at Ichilov Hospital."

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/307004

These are the people Hamas has called for to be beheaded in the streets.

You don’t explain how I’m doing it, so I’m gonna assume you just have no good response to my point. Dismissing out of hand doesn’t mean it’s not correct. You have moved the goalposts. Granted so do a bunch of others here.

Assume away.

I would never claim that the Palestinians are irrational or illogical for wanting what they want. I would also not say that they "don't have the mandate to fight for it." The Palestinians, like the Jews, have their own history in the land as well as their own cultural and religious traditions that are based in the region. I can object to the means that they use to attain their goal, however. Their tactics are more extreme and violent than the IRA's or the Jewish underground's ever were. I can also reasonably object to how the ruling party treats its own citizens, as should anyone who has done even cursory research on Hamas and Fatah especially in regard to human rights and corruption. These parties are not Israeli puppets and they do make important governance decisions for the Palestinian people.

You share basically nothing with your "Jewish ancestors", no history, no culture, no religion, nothing. It's like comparing 21st century British Catholics to 15th century British Catholics, how can that comparison, possibly make any sense? They have as much in common as an Englishman today and an Arab living in Saudi Arabia... who am I kidding, the Englishman shares much more with some Saudi businessman than some 15th-century peasant.

Ethnic, religious and racial histories promote and justify racism and tribalism, that's why they need to be delegitimised as valid ways of viewing history. Why are you tracking and identifying with the history of the Jews over thousands of years? The history is literally "The Jews did this, the Egyptians did that, The Arabs were here at this time...".

Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

What is "Israel", what are the "Arab countries", who are the "Palestinians"? These terms just narrativise things as though these are the names of individuals, this just allows people to ignore the reality of what these groups really are. Unthinking, unliving, concepts which can't think, act, talk or do anything. The political entities that you're referring are ruled by autocrats, who act in accordance with domestic and geopolitical goals, profits and their other individual political objectives. 99.99% of the people referred to by these group names are peons in political apparatuses which don't care about them and over which they have no control.

I understand that the middle-east, in particular, subscribes to this way of thinking, but far from that being a justification for you to do it, it's half the reason the place is such a mess. Look at the sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria, that's not something to aim for.

Their tactics are more extreme and violent — BitconnectCarlos

Opening the session, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet voiced particular concern about the "high level of civilian fatalities and injuries" from the attacks on Gaza, and warned the Israeli attacks on the enclave "may constitute war crimes".

She also said Hamas's "indiscriminate" firing of rockets at Israel was "a clear violation of international humanitarian law". — UN

The UN doesn't see it as that clear cut. Nor does Amnesty International - the UN is the UN, Amnesty International is a renowned human rights watchdog.

Would you condemn Israel's expansion into Palestine, torture, forced evictions, and discriminatory laws?

You share basically nothing with your "Jewish ancestors", no history, no culture, no religion, nothing. — Judaka

This isn't about me, this is about the Jewish people. The Jewish people have the Torah, countless prayers, numerous holidays which have been celebrated for thousands of years that signal their connection to the land.

Of course I don't expect this to serve as a complete justification. A major reason for Israel's existence is security - Israel exists to protect its citizens and provide for their welfare.

Ethnic, religious and racial histories promote and justify racism and tribalism, that's why they need to be delegitimised as valid ways of viewing history. — Judaka

They absolutely should not justify racism, but tribalism - yes, to some extent. These two things are very different: one is disgusting, the other to an extent is a part of life. You can have your own thoughts on this type of thinking but it's really just a fact of life, especially in the Middle East. I'm not going to tell the Palestinians or the Arabs or anyone else for that matter that they don't have a right to their own ethnic or cultural history (or to view things in that way.) I just wish they would tell that story in a different way, one that isn't so hostile to the Jews.

— Judaka

The political entities that you're referring are ruled by autocrats, who act in accordance with domestic and geopolitical goals, profits and their other individual political objectives. 99.99% of the people referred to by these group names are peons in political apparatuses which don't care about them and over which they have no control. — Judaka

You do know that the Israeli government is based on a parliamentary democracy? Everybody has the right to vote, even Arabs. Arabs have prominent representation in Israeli government. Israel has a legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch. This description may apply to some Arab countries, but not Israel. Israel is far from perfect, but at least it tries to balance and include these western ideals.

I understand that the middle-east, in particular, subscribes to this way of thinking, but far from that being a justification for you to do it — Judaka

I feel ties to the Jewish people and Israel - sue me. I'll present a religious/cultural justification, sure, but I would never expect everyone to be convinced by it. If that case works, great, but if not I'll fall back on principles of general statehood that would apply to any other country or group. I would never tell you that you're not allowed to engage or relate to your ancestors or ethnic history. It's all about how you do it. If you don't want to that's fine too, but don't act like no one else has a right to connect to their people's past.

Realistically, their claim to the land is only backed by UN recognition, or the recognition of the entities who have global influence.

The religious claim may mean something to Jews, but it doesn't mean anything to gentiles.

If you want to speak realistically, Israel's claim to the land is backed by its ability to defend itself - just like any other state.

If you want to speak realistically, Israel's claim to the land is backed by its ability to defend itself - just like any other state. — BitconnectCarlos

Without backing from a great power, Israel couldn't defend itself.

Who did America buy it's Land from? Who did Australia Buy it's land from? Who did Britain buy it's land from etc. — Andrew4Handel

Australia is not a person, neither is America. Technically that is not even a country.

The problem here is that lots of people want the same land for purely ideological reasons. It is an ideological conflict supported by ideologues — Andrew4Handel

Not necessarily, it is also a very real conflict about people wanting to pick olives from their own olive tree, or people being evicted from their homes. Ideology makes everything sound so nice and comfortably theoretical doesn't it?

Humans have overpopulated the world (child abuse/environmental abuse) having a child makes an unwarranted claim on resources and puts you in competition with everyone else. — Andrew4Handel

And this has to do with what exactly? By all means do not have kids if you don't want to but do not nag us with your choices.

We could just return to the the prism of survival of the fittest where nature will decide who survives and is strongest. Humans create fictional narratives to justify the claims they make such as nationality claims and ownership claims. — Andrew4Handel

Of course we could but we realized that made life nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. So presto we invented law and morality. Nature does not decide anything, it just is.

This conflict will not be resolved through ethical fictions rather it is either a war of attrition that will be resolved when people have had enough or the strongest will survive. — Andrew4Handel

That whole argument is circular. Who survives is by definition stronger so it does not say anything. By all means go call ethics a fiction, but do start wondering whether this forum is the place for you to be. Actually 'fictions' such as nationality, class, race, shared values and so on keep people together, whether they are 'fictions' or not.

I don't expect the world to be sympathetic to Israel. There's almost 2 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. 50 Muslim majority nations and 1 Jewish majority nation. Whose story do you think is going to get told more? If you were to go purely by UN resolutions you would think that Israel is worse than China or North Korea. I'm serious on this one: UN resolutions against Israel far exceed the number given to any other country.

With that last question you're just throwing way too many issues at me without the appropriate framing. For instance you ask me to condemn Israel's "expansion into Palestine" but according to the Palestinians/Arabs the existence of any Jewish state in that region is an "expansion into Palestine." The birth of Israel was the original "expansion" aka "the nakba" - the "humiliation" of the Muslims.

Obviously I condemn any racism full stop, but some of the accusations against Israel on this front are lies or propaganda to make Israel look bad. I catch one of these lies here. I don't deny that Israel has racial problems as would any nation that has been in a conflict with another group over a long history.

Maybe that was true in its past when Israel was beginning, but today Israel has quite a few partnerships with several big powers and it's not out of a sense of paternalism. The IDF is a professional, well-organized force in its own right and they help train other militaries. The support given to it by America does not make or break the IDF.

Israel's military budget is around $20-21 billion, and the US will give around $3.8 billion.

Nevertheless, if China or the US decided Israel shouldn't defend itself, it wouldn't.

It's a regional power, that's it.

It's a regional power for sure and I've never claimed Israel to be anything more than that militarily. It's not anywhere close as strong as the US, China or Russia.

Right. That's why its rights are backed by great powers. That's the political realist stance, anyway.

I think the constructivist approach is that Israel's rights emerge from the whole global soup. The world makes great powers for itself, but those powers don't actually own their influence.

I'm serious on this one: UN resolutions against Israel far exceed the number given to any other country. — BitconnectCarlos

I am amazed that you can frame it this way with a straight face! It's discrimination against Israel in the international theatre that's causing the UN to issue resolutions against Israel's continued history of human rights violations?