I agree. When is Israel going to stop with it?

it's a different matter. Israel does face an existential threat that is only reduced by doing the things it is currently doing. I get those from the sidelines think they have a gentler way to secure Israel's security, but others disagree. — Hanover

To make an ethical argument requires that we eliminate bias and argue "from the sidelines". You can never do that which is why you never come up with anything remotely convincing to an objective observer (if the situations were reversed you would be arguing that the atrocities of the subjugated Israelis in Gaza were justified.). Leaving that aside, Israel is not under an existential threat by the party they are trying to wipe out, the people of Gaza city. So, yes, that would be genocide.

And vice versa?
— unenlightened

The existential threat to Gaza is Hamas provoking war with Israel. — Hanover

Oh, dear. One way moral rights is a rather old-fashioned look these days. Not that the other side is any different, you understand. But if you can't even see that mutuality of existential terror, then destruction must reign until the final triumph of good. Let the four horsemen ride!

The fatally biased test.

Are you fatally biased? Take the test!

They refuse to recognize even our basic right to exist.
(Fatally biased: 'That's fine'.)(Neutral: 'That's wrong').
We subjugate them and illegally settle their land.
(Fatally biased: 'Cool'.)(Neutral: 'That's wrong').
They respond by killing our civilians.
(Fatally biased: 'Sounds OK to me'.)(Neutral: 'That's wrong').
We respond to that by destroying an entire city.
(Fatally biased: 'Why not?')(Neutral: 'That's wrong').

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders?

The point that they are simply helping the Palestinians make a stand by remaining seems pretty dubious:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/arab-states-say-palestinians-must-stay-their-land-war-escalates-2023-10-13/

Why did they readily participate in the blockade and sealing off Gaza after Hamas took over the region originally?

Why wouldn't the 1967 borders be accepted for peace?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_Resolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Arab_League_summit#:~:text=The%201967%20Arab%20League%20summit,Israel%2C%20no%20negotiations%20with%20Israel.

Why didn't Egypt want (at least provisional) control of Gaza when they could have had it?

I guess I ask this in the idea that what is the end game here?

Netanyahu is a terrible dictatorial war mongering opportunist. That being said, his election was not in a vacuum. There were a series of things that push a population to the right. He ignored the existential situation.

That being said, Palestine offered no one of substance. Arafat was quite literally a bust. Abbas had potential perhaps if he actually took up the more brave position for peace. As per usual, he fears his own radicals. Also, the whole holocaust-denying doesn't really garner good will.

The inability to compromise will be the utter sticking point. As long as death and revenge is more important than simply living, it doesn't matter. It doesn't help that people on the sidelines encourage it, rather than call for moderation.

The inability to compromise will be the utter sticking point. As long as death and revenge is more important than simply living, it doesn't matter. It doesn't help that people on the sidelines encourage it, rather than call for moderation — schopenhauer1

:up:

Some folks who are not fatally biased:

''On 12 October, independent United Nations experts ... condemned the "horrific crimes committed by Hamas" and said that Israel had resorted to "indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza". They said that "This amounts to collective punishment. There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel–Hamas_war

I would like to ask you though, being that you are not biased, do you think that if Palestinians had full control of Israel, every Jew would be in danger of their life that stepped foot in that land openly if ruled by Hamas, or other radical groups (and there are plenty of them in that tiny area)?

This is just a hypothetical as I would like to talk end games rather than the usual "war of grievances".

I'm at least not ''fatally biased'', which affords the moderate achievement of not sounding like a crazy person. Anyhow, if that happened right now, yes. Both sides are consumed with bloodlust. What I object to are attempts to dress this up in an ''ethical'' disguise.

Anyhow, if that happened right now, yes. — Baden

Sorry, could you elaborate?

The way I understand the international law, Gaza is territory of Israel. Unless it's still considered Egypt, but then Egypt doesn't seem interested. — Echarmion

Then your understanding of international law is different from others. Gaza is simply territory that is military occupied by Israel.

Hence the reason why we use maps of Israel like this:


The above one from the US state department. Notice that Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights aren't drawn as part of Israel.

The Israeli gains from the Six Day war haven't been recognized. Just like we don't make maps with Western Sahara being part of Morocco.

If some magic genie gave Hamas full control over Israel right now (an impossibility for them to achieve militarily) they would seek to do to the Israelis what the Israelis are seeking now to do to the Gazans.

They wouldn't need to bomb the Israelis if they controlled the land, no? They would simply call for every in the street to kill every Jew they saw, perhaps? The scenario is that they control all of Israel/Palestine (so I guess it would just be Palestine at that point), and there were Jews left in Israel.

I am wondering if that group (and similar ones. and perhaps even so-called moderate ones), would actually be in the business of not even moderation. That would be laughably naive of us to expect, but I mean that they literally wouldn't call for the murder of Jews on sight.

Both sides are consumed with bloodlust. What I object to are attempts to dress this up in an ''ethical'' disguise. — Baden

Spot on. Why is it difficult to be critical about the actions of both sides? Religious extremists have hijacked the stage and people on both sides who would want peace are pushed aside as nearly traitors.

In Europe this bloodlust and militarism got a dent after WW1 and WW2. You simply have to have that amount of blood flowing before people truly start to question things that were unquestionable and have a very negative view about war. Even then a truly long and awful war wouldn't perhaps make it go away. This is because for both Jews and for the Palestinians fighting for existence and the suffering is an important part of their identity. For the Jews it's the Holocaust and for the Palestinians it's the Nakba. So it's really difficult just to "move on".

:up: Honestly, all anyone has to do to touch base with sanity in this conversation is reread this Reuters quote.

'There is no justification for violence that indiscriminately targets innocent civilians, whether by Hamas or Israeli forces. This is absolutely prohibited under international law and amounts to a war crime.' — Baden

Maybe I should just periodically post it instead of bothering to debate what should need no debate.

Sure, those are all important factors to take into consideration for the modern-day situation.

Now, the way forward, it seems to me, is that most of the world recognizes Gaza and the West Bank to be Palestinian territory. Obviously, they cannot get the rest of Israel - far many reasons, some of which you have stated.

I understand that Israel is basically annexing large swaths of the West Bank and that there are too many settlements there. But I don't think it's impossible for Israel to relocate them inside Israel proper.

If Palestinians do not get Gaza and the West Bank, the fighting will never stop.

Then your understanding of international law is different from others. Gaza is simply territory that is military occupied by Israel. — ssu

But territory of whom? Territory cannot devolve to statelessness. It would have to be either Egypt or Israel, since a Palestinian state doesn't exist.

The Israeli gains from the Six Day war haven't been recognized. — ssu

I don't think recognition is required, what constitutes which state is at least theoretically an objective question.

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders? — schopenhauer1

The current regime in Egypt isn't interested in caring for thousands of refugees, especially not if Hamas fighters are among them, given that Hamas is an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The current regime in Egypt isn't interested in caring for thousands of refugees, especially not if Hamas fighters are among them, given that Hamas is an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. — Echarmion

So is that the same moral equivocation of Hamas with the Palestinians? Granted it's realpolitik, but isn't that what everyone in that region engages in when it comes to preserving their interests? Israeli/Arab/Muslim/Jew?

Public opinion is awash with bad takes, so much so that it risks translating into violence beyond the shores of the present conflict. The inevitable curse of collectivism swirls around the bowl in times like these, especially there, in the cradle of collectivism. War, terrorism, apartheid, and genocide are its ultimate expressions, the same distorted logic and fallacy applied to politics and violence.

There are no sides. There are only particular perpetrators of violent acts and tyranny, and particular victims of it. This brute fact almost goes unnoticed, however.

To avoid using the same logic as the perpetrators of these crimes, and justifying the same acts, and in a sense becoming like them, a return to the principle of justice should give observers enough of an idea of who to side with, or who to condemn, whatever the case may be. Break up the typical demarcations and one will not fall prey to guilt by association. Afford rights and dignity to the flesh-and-blood human beings before their classifications. Make new demarcations; side only with the innocent and condemn only the guilty.

Hey @Baden, you didn't answer.

I agree with the quote, though I'm guilty of suggesting otherwise. There are lines in the sand here that are not easy to navigate, though being a USian I feel the compulsion to speak on them. As a citizen here I'm not directly involved, but I'm not indirectly involved either. My country acts on my behalf.

Another thought I've been struggling with is attempting to frame things in terms of numbers: I think it's important to note in the sense that we make these comparisons, but then there's this more absolutist side to me that believes there's no ethical justification for the act of killing, at least at bottom. Contingency, history, etc. gives us an excuse, but at bottom I'm skeptical that it follows.

I don't know if they would kill literally every Jew in that situation (I wouldn't be very surprised if they would though, sadly) or if Netanyahu would kill literally every Palestinian if he got the chance. Right now, the practical existential threat is towards the people of Gaza. I'm guessing Israel will kill very many of them, including civilians and children, before they're satisfied.

Maybe I should just periodically post it instead of bothering to debate what should need no debate. — Baden

Morality 101, don't bomb civilians. If you're fighting for survival, you're beyond good and evil. That's why people want to picture themselves as facing an existential threat: to allow them to proceed with immoral acts.

:100:

I don't know if they would kill literally every Jew in that situation or if Netanyahu would kill literally every Palestinian if he got the chance. — Baden

But he hasn’t called for that obviously and you just changed the focus which seems a red herring. Just the fact you “don’t know” seems pretty telling (as I think you strongly suspect too the answer).

I don't think most people here are arguing that civilians ought to be targeted, that is indeed a war crime and is heinous.

Granting that - how would you if you lived in Gaza under those conditions, specifically target the IDF? How can you do it? If I were living in Gaza, I might not care, I don't have a job, nor any future prospects, I can't leave, my people are being killed weekly, nobody seems to care.

If I were an Israeli or in the government, then you should allow the Rafah crossing to open to allow desperately needed aid to Gaza, and then you try "surgical strikes", as much as you can given what Gaza is. I think this is what I would want as an Israeli. I certainly understand wanting payback for the criminals.

But what they're doing now goes way beyond that and comes closer to guaranteeing a bigger war that will be a serious issue for Israel.

So, what could be done? Unless you have different intuitions, which would be interesting to hear.

Shooting innocent concert goers and destroying cities of millions of people are not moral actions in this context, I think we agree. Maybe we'd think they were if we were directly involved, but that's irrelevant to making that judgement. I don't know what the ideal solution is. Your suggestion sounds more reasonable than what's taking place right now. But so would almost any suggestion.

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders? — schopenhauer1

I think there are a few reasons. One is that opening up a corridor would basically allow Israel to go ahead with its ethnic cleansing and annexation of Gaza. Which, besides leading to a humanitarian catastrophe several times worse than the 1948 Nakba, is also something Egypt is politcally opposed to.

It's also not clear whether Egypt can even house this amount of refugees.

Further, among the refugees there are bound to be radical militants. Hamas has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt has struggled with in the past.

Personally, I feel like it's Israel's responsibility to act in ways that doesn't jeopardize millions of innocent lives.

Why didn't Egypt want (at least provisional) control of Gaza when they could have had it? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I followed the links but didn't find a clear explanation of what you mean by this.

Yes, Hamas are extremists and I'd put nothing past them. Thankfully, they are not and will never be in that position.

Are you Israeli?