The question for Israel is how to eliminate the threat of thousands of missles being indiscriminately launched onto its citizens followed by the raping of its women, butchering of its children, kidnapping of random citizens, and the murder of others.

Israel is the rightful possessor of its land, and its right and duty to protect its sovereign borders and its citizens is absolute. It has an ethical duty not to sympathize with its enemies, especially if that sympathy might reduce the effectiveness of its response to protecting itself. Any ethical theory that requires one endure violence and destruction from another is flawed, and doubtfully created by someone who cares at all for the persons receiving that violence.

This is to say, if the destruction of Gaza is necessary for the protection of Israel, then it would be unethical for Israel not to destroy Gaza.

Legally speaking, all Israel has to do is make a case for military necessity, and it doesn't even have to be a particularly good one. — Tzeentch

It is not a particularly good one since civilians were killed in what are now non-precision air strikes without warning. There was no military necessity there. They risked the lives of the hostages in the bombing, not sure what the case for that is.

Urban warfare does not necessitate the removal of civilians, and it is clear that Israel does not care too much, at least in this moment of rage.

If these people move, the move itself will kill some of them.

I guess Hamas could have asked the civilians of the Gaza border to move before attacking, that would have made it alright? Hamas gives Israeli towns 24 hours to move Eastwards. Also the Rave party must change its location again. How would that have been received?

Do what they must, but the honorable thing to do would be to fight street by street without heavy weapons and avoid deaths and injuries. Can the best trained army in the world do this, or are they not interested any more?

n my view, the biggest threat to Israel is if it were to become totally estranged and politically isolated from its regional neighbors. With this plan, it is coursing directly towards such a situation. — Tzeentch

That looks like the game plan, to 'exhaust Israel' and then demand some concessions.

For the record, I do not agree with the use of violence to solve problems, I believe the human intellect is great enough to devise a plan, not only to circumvent high tech border devices, but to come up with a peace plan that all agree on. I believe the Palestinians should have chosen the peaceful route, with Palestinian statehood (non-violent), but they cannot control the shifting positions of the opposing camp.

I also do not agree with interference of big powers in regional affairs, which has been a driver for this conflict actually, from the beginning. Israel did not create itself out of nothing. It was created by the powers that be, and then sustained by them, and the conflict has been intelligently managed by surrounding nations and the US, just look at the results.

It will have to be one heck of an intellect to have achieved peace in this age old conflict.

Did your know Albert Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel? He refused.
Could he have done something?

Albert Einstein, a Jew, but not an Israeli citizen, was offered the presidency in 1952,[8] but turned it down, stating: "I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. — Wikipedia

This is to say, if the destruction of Gaza is necessary for the protection of Israel, then it would be unethical for Israel not to destroy Gaza. — Hanover

So, by this logic, the Palestinians are forced to destroy Israel, because the oppression and destruction brought upon the Israeli state is incomparably worse than what Hamas does to Israel.

Granted, Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"?

If someone steals your house, locks you in the bathroom and balcony, starves you, randomly kills teenagers and citizens out of spite, builds in your house, and furthermore denies you the right to live in the bathroom and the balcony, don't you as an owner of the balcony and bathroom have a right to defend yourself?

This ethical theory is dubious, in part because it starts from the wrong assumptions. It is Gaza which is defending itself, not Israel.

the honorable thing to do would be to fight street by street without heavy weapons and avoid deaths and injuries. — FreeEmotion

I have neither served in a military nor been trained in military strategy and tactics, but it's clearly absurd to think that one can carry out urban warfare, fighting street by street, and avoid deaths and injuries. Hamas has dug in (fairly literally -- lots of tunnels). Even IF every civilian had decamped to Egypt, the fight to eliminate Hamas would be bloody for both sides.

I believe the human intellect is great enough to devise a plan, not only to circumvent high tech border devices, but to come up with a peace plan that all agree on. — FreeEmotion

It isn't that human intelligence is insufficient to come up with an agreeable peace plan. The problem (in many cases) is that people have interests which may be contrary to other people's interests, and those differences prevent agreement on peace plans. The state of Israel is a successful state. It's not going anywhere. Most likely the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not going anywhere either. They can not both have exactly what they want.

I meant reduce civilian deaths and casualties. I recall this from a question and answer from session a military person, and the idea seemed to be that you have to trade off some civilian casualties to reduce your own military casualties. There are a few examples and this seems to be the case.

Here is a long and interesting article. I have not read it in its entirety, however it raises some important moral considerations of minimizing military casualties as well as civilian casualties. The attack on retreating Iraqi army columns troubled me when I first heard about it, and is mentioned here. That is another discussion, however I quote the part related to my statement:

The foundational principle of distinction, often heralded as the humanitarian pillar of the
laws of war, grants immunity to civilians. Together, the two principles sum up the tradeoff that the law seeks to induce—sacrifi cing the lives of soldiers to protect the lives of civilians.

https://academic.oup.com/jla/article-pdf/2/1/115/23562579/2-1-115.pdf

It isn't that human intelligence is insufficient to come up with an agreeable peace plan. The problem (in many cases) is that people have interests which may be contrary to other people's interests, and those differences prevent agreement on peace plans. — BC

This is what I mean: any sufficient intelligence could overcome the settling of contrary interests. I think Israel is in a better position to enforce a stalemate or status quo. I do not think peace is an option, given the tendency of extremists to hold positions of power and the foreign machinations that typically go on. Like Europe, the region has to grow up, it took too world wars for Europe to achieve a peace-stalemate but even then we have the Russia - Ukraine conflict. War needs to go out of style, like gun duels, and the compulsory education of the watching thousands of people die on TV might help. The Japanese nation moved from war to 'peace memorials' and 'self defense force', the Germans had to 'remake themselves'.

Maybe war is chemotherapy for the soul. The desire for war is the cancer.

The question remains, if violence is not justified, if violence is eliminated, non-violent means would have to be used, which means that psychological warfare, mind control, false flag operations, bribery, all these are on the table. The argument will then move to which goals are morally justifiable, and in a war of ideas (only) something could be leisurely hammered out over tea, or games a few rounds of golf.

In any conflict, I give this question a lot of significance: "Who would you rather live under?" In this case, the answer is obvious: Israel. Nobody here would choose to be governed by Hamas, or Hezbollah, or Iran. How much significance should we give that when determining who to back in this conflict? — RogueAI

They are living under Israel, that is the point. Hamas has some support, so some may choose to live under its rule.

The question should be: how would you like to be treated, like an Israeli citizen in Israel or a Arab citizen of Israel?

Can anyone explain how

"Every Hamas member is a dead man," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after fighters from the militant group killed 1,300 people in a brutal attack on Israel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67084141


and the Israelis are capturing Hamas fighters, terrorists? What's with the absurd rhetoric?

Does he mean Hamas the political wing, is he going to kill civilian members of the Hamas organization?

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this?

The administration in Washington looks like they are in way over their head. They have no one left who can with some credibility engage in diplomacy, nor does the EU.

They're probably barely on speaking terms with any of the parties involved, and they're scared of the Israelis. Blinken looked like a schoolboy next to Netanyahu.

It's truly shocking to me, and an indicator how far along we already are with regards to the geopolitical shift that is taking place. It looks like there are no adults left in western politics. No one with a cool head, with credibility or any semblance of rapport.

It's as disgraceful as it is shocking.

The question for Palestinians is how to eliminate the threat of thousands of homes being indiscriminately destroyed, getting food on the table, having water and electricity, getting to work without harassment, followed by the raping of its women, butchering of its children, kidnapping of random citizens, and the murder of others. — Hanover

The security problem in the region goes both ways. And let's not pretend terrorism wasn't a reaction to the illegal occupation and not the other way around.

I think the question in general is idiotic. We're dealing with a question of justice not what's more comfortable or easier.

Would you rather have been African or American in 1700 Or rather a native or a European? A colonist or a coloniser?

We all know being on the wrong side of history is generally easier.

Maybe a comparison would be the US after 9-11. Got punched in the nose, things will have to change to keep this from happening again. — frank

American response: now when have people's desire for revenge, go after anybody, everywhere and make every conflict with muslims part of the fight. That' war on Terror in a nutshell.

Remember just how Cheney was going around right after 9-11 happened that the US ought to attack Iraq, even everyone informed knew it was Al Qaeda.

Did your know Albert Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel? He refused.
Could he have done something? — FreeEmotion

Do note that the President of Israel is largely a ceremonial role. Would the Israeli politicians listened to him? Not likely.

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

Is something new, @Tzeentch?

The US is the ally of Israel. It comes to help Israel when Israel needs it. (Not the other way around, actually.) Hence the "diplomacy" of the US has always been biased towards the Israeli cause and at anytime when Israel has been attacked or has made one of it's famous "pre-emptive attacks", the US has been there to stand aside it and support it. And that's the role it has now too.

Long have gone the days when some military officer called Nasser asked Kermit Roosevelt (from the CIA) if it's OK to do a military coup against the Egyptian monarch.

If you haven't noticed, the US isn't running the show anymore in the Middle East: all the countries are totally active on their own and not listening to the US.

Granted, Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"? — Manuel

Problem here is the "foreign land" and the historical legal position of the Palestinians.

The problem is, just like with the Kurds, that there was no sovereign state of Palestine to start with. That in World politics matters hugely: Russia's attack on Ukraine is different of it fighting two wars in Chechnya, even if annexing Chechnya was an imperialist land grab done in the 19th Century. And if you look at what dire situation the Kurds are, it's quite similar. Stateless people are in difficult position in a World where the rules are made for sovereign nation states.

The sad fact, which ought to be brought up here, is that when the neighboring Arab Nations started their war with Israel in 1948, they weren't fighting for the Palestinians or for an independent Palestine. They were they to do a land grab for themselves. And that's why there wasn't much coordination with the Arab states. The only really successful country was Jordan, which had a small, but professional and effective army trained and lead command by a British general, which could secure the West Bank for Jordan.

(The Jordanian king with his British general, Glubb Pasha)


Then Jordan lost the West Bank in the Six Day War and hasn't fought Israel since then. (It has had to fight the PLO later btw.) Now it isn't claiming anymore the West Bank and has announced that the Palestinians in the West Bank are Palestinians, not Jordanian citizens.

Hence the semi-recognized Palestinian state is something that has happened basically only after the Oslo peace process.

(Let's have a Palestinian Authority! Not a sovereign state, but it's a start...)

Map of the initial attacks:

Hamas practiced in plain sight, posting video of mock attack weeks before border breach
^{— Michael Biesecker, Sarah El Deeb, Jon Gambrell, Lori Hinnant, Beatrice Dupuy, Aaron Kessler, Fu Ting · AP · Oct 13, 2023}

But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"? — Manuel

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land.

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

Is something new, Tzeentch? — ssu

Well, yes and no.

The writing has been on the wall for a while, but nature of the war in Ukraine has allowed the Biden administration to play pretend for a while.

There was no real threat of escalation in Ukraine and the Russians weren't intent on pushing the Ukrainians to the brink. Also the humanitarian situation wasn't as dire as in Gaza.

However, with Israel any ideas about Washington being in control are dispelled. They are out of control. There have barely been any diplomatic conversations between Washington and players in the Middle-East - something that would be unheard of 20 years ago.

Of course the fact that the US was going to support Israel was never in question, but the US can't even really support Israel. Vacuous "we stand with Israel" statements are meaningless - in fact, makes Washington look like a bunch of stooges in the way it was presented - schoolchildren. Sending carrier battlegroups is imposing and symbolic, but in pratical terms meaningless for the type of conflict that might enfold and the players involved know that.

This might explain in part why Israel is reacting so extremely - because they realize there's no one at the wheel in Washington. No one to come and save them if the Arabs come knocking.

Honestly, up to this point I had kept the option open that Washington wasn't purely incompetent, but might be playing an extremely cynical game of 4d chess. However, given the role Israel plays in US politics, Washington can't afford incompetence or cynicism here, so what we're looking at is very real.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

But what does this mean exactly?

What lands precisely do they legitimately possess? And what about the people they inherited? Can anyone who happens to be militarily superior decide at will who has which rights?

Italy is also the legitimate possessor of it's land. Does this mean it can legally and morally put all illegal aliens into prison camps, until they are dropped off somewhere at Italy's convenience?

Clearly "legitimate possession" is not the end of the question.

This is to say, if the destruction of Gaza is necessary for the protection of Israel, then it would be unethical for Israel not to destroy Gaza. — Hanover

And vice versa?

The Malhama Al-Kubra is prophesied to be the most brutal battle in human history. It generally corresponds to the battle of Armageddon in Christian eschatology, and occurs soon before the emergence of the Dajjal (Antichrist).[1]

It looks to me as if the alignment of ethnicity and religion leads to the externalisation of negative affect, to the extent that the only solutions become 'final solutions'. The fundament of the fundamentalist is the last battle, where evil is finally defeated and the virtuous attain to paradise. End of. ... everything. The irony that the two sides of armageddon are in total agreement and desirous of the same conflict.

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there. — Hanover

Ok, so you're making a claim about Israel's annexations of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 - places that belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively at the time, and where there lived (and still live) primarily Palestinians.

What makes this annexation by Israel during the Six-Day War legitimate in your eyes?

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

State Department diplomats warned not to call for ceasefire, calm, end to violence — report — Times Of Israel

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/state-department-diplomats-warned-not-to-call-for-ceasefire-calm-end-to-violence-report/

Yeah we noticed...

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

Ha! These Westerners…

According to your own premise, Russia is legitimate to occupy Crimea, Donbas and Donetsk, right?

Oh no no boy... Putin cannot do that, he is evil.

The hypocrisy of these Western lovers and ‘seekers of freedom.’ :roll:

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

I am very glad that this statement has been made.

Now, does this include Gaza and the West Bank?

I knew it would be funny to read the arguments of the Americans backing up the massacre in Gaza, but at the same time, in the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread criticising Putin for being bloody and not letting Ukraine be free and independent...

Something that Palestine wants too...

Not sure what you mean by that. I only asked if the PM should be taken at his word or he was making a speech.

I was replying to your reply to RogueAI (one above your Bibi quote) and think RogueAI's original question was silly.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

Define "its" land.

American response: now when have people's desire for revenge, go after anybody, everywhere and make every conflict with muslims part of the fight. That' war on Terror in a nutshell.

Remember just how Cheney was going around right after 9-11 happened that the US ought to attack Iraq, even everyone informed knew it was Al Qaeda. — ssu

According to my reading it was more complex than that, but my point was that this is less like WW2 and more like 9-11.

I knew it would be funny to read the arguments of the Americans backing up the massacre in Gaza, but at the same time, in the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread criticising Putin for being bloody and not letting Ukraine be free and independent...

Something that Palestine wants too... — javi2541997

You didn't grow up to be the fine upstanding American we were hoping for. :cry:

You didn't grow up to be the fine upstanding American we were hoping for. — frank

Ha! Ha! You made me laugh, my dear pal.

The irony that the two sides of armageddon are in total agreement and desirous of the same conflict. — unenlightened

Ethnic cleansing and genocide seem to be the stated or implicit goal of both. Only Israel has the means to really follow through on that though.