The other position is that they needn't justify their right to exist any more than any other nation. — Hanover

Say that's true. It's creation would nonetheless remain an injustice.

You say that

Jewish guys beat up Palestinian guys and leave them for dead. None of that ever gets into the headlines and it's been like that for decades. — frank

I wonder if things would be better if the good Jewish people would take over the government. — frank

Who are the good Jewish people you would like to see running the country? That's not a rhetorical question -- really, who/how? I've no doubt that there are Israelis who could do a better job than Netanyahu, but I suppose the dominant coalition in power keeps that from happening.

One can be pro-Israel and still admit a difficult, maybe insoluble problem: the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel as a state displaced the people who had been living under the Ottomans for several hundred years, and under the British a while before 1948. Palestine has changed hands every few centuries over the last 2500 years, so the current transaction fits the long term pattern -- a pattern in which absolutely no one is going to find any comfort.

I anticipate that Israel will continue to prosper and will have powerful allies, but I'm not sure the Two-State solution will every come to pass, or if it does, that it will solve many problems.

No serious critic of Israel is going to condone Hamas' targeting of civilians, but understand that the actions committed by Hamas - so often labeled as terrorist - have also been committed twentyfold by the Israeli government, which has indiscriminately killed Palestinian civilians, including children and the elderly, or knowingly murdered journalists and medics [with] impunity. According to UN's OCHA, from 2008-2023 (excluding the October 2023 Conflict) Palestinian causalities exceed Israeli by 21x, while Palestinian injuries exceed Israeli injuries by nearly 24x. It is equally unserious for discussion to exclude this essential context, in addition to the horrific apartheid conditions that Israeli has imposed including severe restriction on travel, an air, sea and land blockade, which placed restrictions on the goods and services that can enter including medical goods and services, food, water and energy. This is an undeniable form of quotidian violence. Furthermore, of the two million Palestinians approximately half are under 19 years old, with over half the entire population living under the poverty line - a direct result of Israel's blockade. What precisely is the onus of responsibility assumed by a territory comprised primarily of minors? — Maw

:100: :fire:

:up:

Who are the good Jewish people you would like to see running the country? That's not a rhetorical question -- really, who/how? I've no doubt that there are Israelis who could do a better job than Netanyahu, but I suppose the dominant coalition in power keeps that from happening. — BC

There are Israelis who are less hardline. I think violence keeps the hardliners in power so they don't have much incentive to make peace.

One can be pro-Israel and still admit a difficult, maybe insoluble problem: the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel as a state displaced the people who had been living under the Ottomans for several hundred years, and under the British a while before 1948. Palestine has changed hands every few centuries over the last 2500 years, so the current transaction fits the long term pattern -- a pattern in which absolutely no one is going to find any comfort. — BC

Yes. The Palestinians originally welcomed the influx of Zionists, but those Jews didn't want peace with them. They wanted them to leave. After WW2, some Jews wanted to forcibly transport the Palestinians to Jordan, but the memory of being forcibly transported themselves kept them from doing that.

So now it's just a giant mess.

So now it's just a giant mess. — frank

Sort of like life itself!

Sort of like life itself! — BC

Yep.

The assumption is that Hamas has foreign backing. — Tzeentch

How does that really help? The assumption that Egypt or any other national entity coming to assistance is highly unlikely, basically only theoretical. Hezbollah boasts having 100 000 personnel, but even that is estimated lower. It has already done it's "solidarity" rocket attack.

You talked about many hundreds of thousands to be trained. The amount of 50 000 is likely the upper limit, actually, and more probable is that we are talking about 40 000 fighters that the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades have. In the conditions of Gaza, even to train and arm 40 000 is a big achievement. Gaza is blockaded, surveyed and constantly attacked as above stated. Organizing an effective military under those conditions is difficult.

(Just to give context, in Finland (5,5 million) about 70% of males get military training amounts to a theoretical reserve (all of those, between 18-60 years) of 700 000. The actual reserve that can be adequately armed is 350 000 by an industrialized country. Israel with a larger population (9,7 million of whom 7 million are Jews) and also compulsory service has 400 000 reservists 400 000.)

And that foreign backing can basically only smuggle weapons into Gaza by tunnels. They aren't smuggling people out and in from Gaza to train them at least in the numbers you are talking about.)

(Israeli soldier in one tunnel in the Gaza strip tunnels.)

As in, now Israel will never get the Muslims to care about them now that they've gone and done this? — Hanover

If Israel moves into Gaza and it turns into a giant massacre, then yes, I assume rapprochement with the Muslim world will be set back decades. Perhaps outright inflame old tensions.

And that rapprochement matters. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who have far greater populations than itself. Unless Israel wants to live in fear of its existence forever (as it has done for much of the past), that rapprochement matters.

Seems the strategic angle would be that the Palestinians would try to gain the affection of the Israelies, considering they have the power to destroy them. — Hanover

The hardliners in Israel, many of whom are part of Netanyahu's party Likud, want Israel to be a strictly Jewish nation state.

I'd agree with you, if it were a feasible option. But the harsh truth is that many of the people who control Israel want the Palestinians gone and have consistently managed to implement policy to try and remove them.

Israel's settlement policy, which Netanyahu has steadily increased support for, is probably the most egregious example of such policies.

With the current lock down I don't think foreign backing is relevant. — Benkei

How does that really help? — ssu

Well, I think it matters.

The scale and organisation of the attacks seem to suggest some kind of foreign backing.

The attacks, while bloody, didn't achieve anything, and harsh Israeli retaliation was basically guaranteed. So if we assume rational actors are behind this attack, we might also assume the attacks themselves weren't the goal of the operation.

So perhaps eliciting an extreme response from Israel, for which preperations may have already been made, was the goal.

In 2006 we saw that Hezbollah was capable of waging war effectively against Israel. There's no reason to assume Hamas hasn't found some way to do the same.

At any rate, if I were the Israelis I would be extremely cautious about sending 300,000 reservists into Gaza. It will be a bloodbath and I don't think it is obvious the Israelis will come out on top without resorting to indiscriminate killing.

Unlike the morally upstanding Palestinians. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-music-festival-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html — Hanover

Successfully striking against an oppressor seems a good reason to celebrate.

I'm not sure the Two-State solution will every come to pass, or if it does, that it will solve many problems. — BC

The two-states solution had been made de facto impossible already. It's a good distraction though as everybody can pretend they're still in favour of peace. Which they are but only after the West Bank and Gaza have been bled dry and there's no such thing as a Palestinian any more.

The scale and organisation of the attacks seem to suggest some kind of foreign backing. — Tzeentch

What is your reasoning to argue that? I think of only a political blessing or perhaps Hezbollah showing "solidarity".

I would be very sceptic of the American accusations that Iran is behind this, that somehow this wouldn't be possible for Palestinians to do themselves. There is many reason why the US (and Israel) want to get Iran being the culprit behind this.

The news has said about hundreds of Hamas fighters infiltrating to Israel. That's basically a battalion or two. And note that these happened in small teams. No combined arms, basically. That is something you can organize. For me it looks like an attack that Palestinians could well have planned themselves. If they would have sunk an Israeli missile boat on the Mediterranean, that would surely reek of Iran arming Hamas (just like the Houthis did in Yemen sinking a Saudi warship). Or that they would have had the ability to target specific targets in Jerusalem, Beersheba or Tel Aviv (like military HQs, important structures, Bibi Netanyahu's home). That didn't happen either.

It is quite possible for them to do this as they got tactical surprise. That surprise simply because they had never done this kind of operation. However, it has been estimated that Hamas has had about 10 000 - 14 000 rockets in stock.

Now the IDF is reporting to move four divisions of reservists to Gaza to join already 35 battalions already there. Now the border with Israel is only 51 kilometers (and with Egypt Gaza strip has 11 kilometers).

And btw, the Egyptian response to the war:

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan called on Hamas and Israel to immediately end violence and protect civilians.

If Netanyahu starts pushing Palestinians in the Gaza strip into the Egyptian desert, that might raise tensions to a different level with Egypt.

The two-states solution had been made de facto impossible already. It's a good distraction though as everybody can pretend they're still in favour of peace. Which they are but only after the West Bank and Gaza have been bled dry and there's no such thing as a Palestinian any more. — Benkei

They don't have to be bled dry. Perhaps the final solution type of answer wouldn't be so great in the minds of Israelis when they have other options.

If Bibi can call Gaza "the evil city" and the Israeli defence minister calling Hamas fighters "human animals", I'm sure that the present policy to keep Palestinians as 2nd class citizens that are violated as being a security threat in the open prison type conditions will endure. There's enough horrific stories on the Israeli side for Bibi and others simply to say "we cannot make peace with people that don't want peace, but want us dead."

Hence Hamas is the more preferable representative for Palestinians than the West Bank Palestinian authorities.

Successfully striking against an oppressor seems a good reason to celebrate. — Benkei

The link wasn't to their celebration, but was to their murder of concert goers by shooting them at point blank range.

They were intentionally killing civilians.

Hence Hamas is the more preferable representative for Palestinians than the West Bank Palestinian authorities. — ssu

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8r9Pg17/

I indeed didn't follow the link. In any case, a personal tragedy for those involved, and at the same time exactly what Israel has sowed. As I've stated before: every tragedy befalling Israel is of its own making, every tragedy visited on the Palestinians is caused by Israel (or more accurately, Likud and other right wing fanatics who control Israeli politics).

If only Israeli politicians and civilians would care as much about Palestinians as you're expecting us to care about Israeli civilians. Maybe I'll just care as much about Israeli casualties as Bibi does about Palestinians. Because that seems all the care we need.

Almost any method and any means are acceptable when Palestinians are the ones actually existentially threatened through 75+ years of landgrabs and oppression. If not, then moral equivalence would lead to the absurd conclusion that we should be suing former slaves and their descendants for reparations for killing their slave owners in revolt.

I don't see your position as morally tenable. Surely, the indiscriminate killing of / targeting of civilians has to be condemned unequivocally regardless of whose "side" you're on. Being an Israeli citizen and going to a concert does not make you responsible for the policies of the Netanyahu government. This whole brutal mess reminds me of the tit-for-tat killings in Northern Ireland towards the end of the troubles. Both sides degraded themselves utterly. In this most recent case, it's Hamas who are the animals. Let's call a spade a spade.

Palestinians who immigrate to America say that the Israelis have been abusive on an on-going basis, like collections of Jewish guys beat up Palestinian guys and leave them for dead. None of that ever gets into the headlines and it's been like that for decades.

This sort of thing is in the headlines though, just not top international news. It's how many previous episodes of violence have started. And Israel's previous major crisis involved widespread riots and communal violence between Jews and Israeli Arabs (those left inside Israel's 1948 borders and given citizenship) within Israel, as opposed to within the Occupied Territories. If you look back to the 90s, there was sort of this idea that the Israeli Arabs, a large share of Israel's citizenry, represented a bridge for negotiating peace. But now they just seem to be sucked into the same vortex.

Previous "wars" and skirmishes have been kicked off by various cycles of "lone wolf," attacks, police brutality, mob violence, and lynchings, which increasingly get caught on camera, often being broadcast by the perpetrators.

That's part of what makes this attack unique. It wasn't carried out in response to ratcheting episodes of communal violence the way past attacks have been. Lately, the violence has tended to start with individuals and crowds, and only later do the IDF, Hamas, and Fatah step in. It's been one of the things that makes commentators even less hopeful, because those with power over their respective groups don't even seem to be leading with any strategy in mind, just reacting.

Although, when people said "the ostensible leaders need to take more control," they probably didn't mean "carry out a bunch of mass shootings with no larger goal," or "invade Gaza just to be doing something."



Agreed. I find it hard to see the justification of these attacks precisely because they don't seem aimed at any goals and seem unlikely to advance any legitimate goals.

People seem unable to decouple "a party is justified in resisting x group through whatever means necessary," and "a party is justified when they engage in violence that is unnecessary and counter productive for their own cause." If you're going to shoot up a peace concert, you should have a justification that relies on how that helps Gaza or larger goals, not "violence can be justified, so all violence is justified."

For example, when Hamas took control of Gaza they purged all resistance to their rule in essentially a civil war. And they continue to ensure their domination. Is it justified for Hamas to kill Palestinians? Maybe. In times of war, discipline needs to be enforced. But just become some infighting might be justified we obviously wouldn't say that Hamas would be justified in carrying out random mass shootings within Gaza because this would simply hurt their own cause, erasing any justification. But it seems to me that the same sort of thing is in play here.

If we were in 1941 the "whatever Hamas does is justified," position would be the equivalent with saying "how can you criticize Stalin's "no step back," policy, refusal to evacuate citizens from sieges, absolutely atrocious leadership, etc., look at all the evils the Nazis have done. Criticizing Stalin is tantamount to supporting the Nazis."

But it doesn't seem to me that, just because Stalin was justified in some of the cruel acts he took to win the war against Hitler, that he was justified in all of them. Many of his choices led, quite predictably, to millions more dead and wounded Russians than would have been the case with competent leadership. And his leadership showed a complete disregard for the well being of those he was ostensibly justified in acting to protect.

And that seems to be the core disagreement. It also seems to suggest that if living conditions in Israel were as poor as Gaza, if both sides had inflicted similar costs on each other, then both sides would be justified in pushing towards some mutual genocide, and that doesn't seem to be a good conclusion to reach.

Further, to the extent that this attack was done at the behest of Iran, with the goal of halting the tacit Israeli-Saudi alliance from being formalized, it seems unjustifiable. We can't know the thinking of those involved and we probably won't have good evidence for a long time. But if a major part of the calculus was the benefit of the benefactor of elite members of Hamas at the obvious expense of your average Gazan, with the goal of the operation focused on securing broader Iranian goals in the region, that simply seems atrocious. The height of cynicism in Iran's aid for its "allies."

I'm merely using the same arguments as Israel does. Seems perfectly morally tenable to me.

For me it looks like an attack that Palestinians could well have planned themselves. — ssu

I am skeptical. An elaborate operation like this prepared and carried out right under the noses of Mossad suggests to me that highly capable actors are involved.

What I do not understand about this conflict is why the Western media is obsessed about finding evidence to show that Hamas is funded by Iran or Russia. As well as 'we' (forced by the US and NATO) fund Ukraine and Israel, why aren't they able to do the same in Palestine?

Why are the Western institutions ready to block Iran financially if they discover that Iran funded Hamas? This over imposing sanctions always creates problems.

Your whataboutery doesn't answer the charge of moral untenability. It sidesteps it. You talk as if the mere fact that Israel seeks to justify the killing of civilians makes their opponents' equivalent justifications (and yours) morally tenable.

If not, then moral equivalence would lead to the absurd conclusion that we should be suing former slaves and their descendants for reparations for killing their slave owners in revolt. — Benkei

Pretty strained analogy, bringing up such things as inherited sin and the duy of reperations and such.

A more apt analogy, although not perfect, would be to hold a slave accountable for going into town and indiscriminately murdering a white person because of the slave's anger toward the priviliged class, even though that particular person was not a slave holder.

I say this is not a perfect analogy because the analogy references a single frustrated individual, whereas in the Hamas situation, the action was the intentional, directed murder by a governmental entity as part of a strategic plan to exact revenge on a civilian population.

And the net result of this plan is to lead a people to greater suffering and misery. What this military operation will accomplish, other than a few moments of elation in seeing their enemy suffer, is greater control over Gaza, less sympathy for the Palestinians, and less restraint by the Israelis.

Like it or not, if you're going to negotiate with a more powerful Western opponent who claims their primary driver is morality and justice, you have to present yourself that way to gain any momentum. I get that's a hard pill to swallow if you think Israel satan incarnate, but Israel will not respond to the murder of its citizens by reflecting upon the moral nuance of its behavior versus Palestinian and then out of a sense a fear of hypocricy change its stance. Hamas is marching Palestine towards its death.

Yes, why should I justify it for one party if the other doesn't and gets all the moral support and best wishes and guns? That doesn't seem like a level playing field to me.

Being an Israeli citizen and going to a concert does not make you responsible for the policies of the Netanyahu government. — Baden

Many young people who aren't radicalized into one side of this decades old (or thousands of years depending on perspective) conflict have been the very ones arguing for a peaceful two-state solution. These people are on both sides and the people in power driving the conflict have been killing these people either intentionally or as collateral damage over many decades.

The only moral stance that is rational in all of this is to condemn everyone who's killing and everyone who's cheering for blood and violence in retaliation. These people are all war criminals, all terrorists. To think that there's a good and bad side based on culture, geographics and ethnicity in this conflict is utterly naive.

The worst part of these past days is that things were indeed getting better. Younger people were getting more traction with a peaceful solution, but this attack has just doomed everything. Hamas has only produced a new generation of people who want retaliation and the massive bombing back at Palestine will produce more Palestinians supporting Hamas.

As throughout the decades, it will just continue on, back at square one. The only thing that would fix things is a Thanos snap to neutrally rid the world of these killers and supporters of these killings, but that's just fantasy.

Second best would be to stop looking at borders and cultures and start looking at who's doing the killing. Fight against the killers and the supporters of killers, that's the only conflict that's worth fighting in and has been for all of history.

Excellent post as always. Thanks!

It seems to me David is only guilty of using Goliath's tactics against him. "Morally tenable"? No. War, as Levinas reminds us, never is "morally tenable" – is the negation of ethics (I don't have his exact words at the moment). When locked inside the oppressor's prison, the oppressed must use the oppressor's tools – not to "escape" the inescapable (e.g. "traumas") – in order to help the oppressor to oppress, even destroy, himself ... or submit to subjugation like slaves. "They have murdered innocent civilians – defenseless women, children & old folks!" Yes, both have / will because 'the front' is everywhere in an ethnically cleansed, apartheid, US-client, police state. :death: :fire:

I'd feel a lot better if the United States stopped supporting Israel.

One reason the conflict continues is that one side is stronger than the other. And when you're stronger you don't have to listen to the weaker party -- you can just push them into submission, as has been Israel's tactic so far.

Then when the colonized inflict something back upon the innocents of the colonizers (which they certainly were -- just as has been the case for many innocent Palestinians) it all gets re-intepreted back into the more powerful's narratives: up to and including people wondering why Hamas didn't think about the electoral game of Israel (this is just what Netanyahu wants!), or wondering if this is a *truly* strategic choice because of the electoral optics, which is just an absurd belief in light of how much death is involved.

Maybe it wasn't, but hell if I know when it's the right time to stop talking even if I know what's going on "on the ground", which I surely do not know well enough here. That's not really the sort of decision I'd be able to feel good about even if I knew the full circumstances, much less so from my comfortable vantage.

But I certainly expect Israel to continue acting the bully as long as they continue to receive military support. Which is why I'd feel better if we'd stop supporting Israel. But even that is a fantasy. The United States will continue to support Israel because of its "special relationship" (strategic place within the world). And Israel will continue to colonize. Given those two truths then the Palestinian has these options: Emigrate, bow, or die. And often times "bowing" results in death -- in which case, barring emigration, one might as well die standing.

Exactly. Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist.

This whole brutal mess reminds me of the tit-for-tat killings in Northern Ireland towards the end of the troubles. Both sides degraded themselves utterly. — Baden

With the exception that the UK forces, now in hindsight calling a spade a spade and acknowledging that they did fight an insurgency war in Northern Ireland, never applied artillery and fighter bombers to take out homes of suspected IRA leaders. (Although at times they had to resort to supplying their bases with helicopters.) They even have clearly also acknowledged the proxy role that the unionist/loyalist paramilitaries had at times. Yet Thatcher after herself being targeted in a bombing never started a "war" against IRA in the way Isreal (or the US) do. Even if with the Falklands case she did so.

Even if there were indeed excesses and unlawful actions, the UK usually treated IRA members are criminals, that should be tried in the judicial process.

But then the British can keep their cool. The Israeli's as people typically in the Middle East, don't.

But I certainly expect Israel to continue acting the bully as long as they continue to receive military support. Which is why I'd feel better if we'd stop supporting Israel. But even that is a fantasy. The United States will continue to support Israel because of its "special relationship" (strategic place within the world). And Israel will continue to colonize. Given those two truths then the Palestinian has these options: Emigrate, bow, or die. And often times "bowing" results in death -- in which case, barring emigration, one might as well die standing. — Moliere

The situation in Israel is inextricable from the larger Middle Eastern spaghetti of sectarian conflict. The exit of the US probably wouldn't reduce bloodshed. It would probably increase it.

Your whataboutery doesn't answer the charge of moral untenability. It sidesteps it. You talk as if the mere fact that Israel seeks to justify the killing of civilians makes their opponents' equivalent justifications (and yours) morally tenable. — Jamal

:up:

Yes, why should I justify it for one party if the other doesn't and gets all the moral support and best wishes and guns? That doesn't seem like a level playing field to me — Benkei

That's to play a rhetorical game rather than engage philosophically though, isn't it?

Even if there were indeed excesses and unlawful actions, the UK usually treated IRA members are criminals, that should be tried in the judicial process. — ssu

True. I was referring to tit for tat between Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups actually. But I should have made that clearer.