Karma was defined by Buddha as cetana or intention or motive, not simple action alone. So the"good" motives of an individual or a nation or government can mitigate "bad" actions, and the converse is true - bad motives worsen bad actions or bad intentions weaken good actions. Here is Yogananda commenting on a line from Bhagavad Gita 10:38:

I am the rod of the discipliners

The rod is God's Law of cause and effect, karma, the ultimate discipliner. The errant man may escape the punishment of man-made laws, but karmic justice is inexorable, appeasable only by right actions which earn rewards of merit and ultimate pardon. The Bible also refers to the law of karma as "the rod": "Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me." [Psalms 23:4.] The karmic principle is a source of comfort to those who understand its discipline and rewards as pointing the way to true happiness and liberation.

Instead let's talk with the political deadweight Abbas. As if that will ever go anywhere. If you want peace, you talk to the enemy. Not a bystander. — Benkei

Morally speaking it’s wrong to reward the barbarity that Hamas did. Pointing to collateral damage in response or the whole sidelining of the two state solution doesn’t justify negotiating with that kind of group. You reward the peaceful. Thus, you vote in the dives and you work with other doves. It’s insane to equate that kind of barbarity and think they’re equivalent to Sadat or something on the brink of a 1979 peace accord :roll:.

to what Israel should do. Israel is reaping what it sowed for years. It should start with dismantling it's apartheid regime and stop it's continuous well documented human rights violations. And getting parties in power that are actually interested in a two state solution, instead of the corrupt turds they have. — Benkei

That'd be your response to your attacks? Seems like you'll be taking in heavy casualties while your dismantling and running elections.

And so is Gaza. According to reasoned third-party judgment, the terrorists and the IDF are both proceeding according to the above discussed ideals of world justice. — magritte

Let's not pretend this is a chicken or egg situation. Terrorism has always been a reply to Israeli oppression. .

Should it not be up to the people of Gaza to reject terrorists ensconced in a maze of tunnels under the city? In all the world news I still don't hear anything of the sort anywhere. Apparently it was the Israeli babies' and old women's own fault that they were massacred by righteous Gaza freedom fighters. — magritte

But they don't because Hamas until recently was more popular and would've won in the West Bank as well. And it was more popular because it didn't give away Palestinian rights during the Oslo Accords which is still opposed by a majority of Palestinians, yet inexplicably continues to be hailed as progress in the West.

That would be my response to the entire situation. You cannot demand security and refuse to give the other party the same. Reciprocity and all that. Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here.

Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here. — Benkei

:100:

Terrorism has always been a reply — Benkei

And indiscriminate bombing has always been the reply to terrorism everywhere because there is no other effective answer. The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel.

That's where Iran comes in. What is Iran's role as an instigator for Hamas to start the next regional war?

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. — Romans 12: 19-21

The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel. — magritte

A silly dichotomy but unfortunately reflects a similar lack of imagination of both the media and our political leaders.

annihilation of Hamas — magritte

Do you not think Israel is guaranteeing the survival of Hamas in some form? I wonder if Hamas can only be permanently stopped by a police force within a functioning Palestinian state. Not that I think Hamas is the most pressing problem.

It strikes me as odd that countries invading others outside their borders is frequently, perhaps always, referred to as 'defence'. In chess, attacks are attacks and defence is defence.

That would be my response to the entire situation. You cannot demand security and refuse to give the other party the same. Reciprocity and all that. Israel has been beating a dog for years and now wants to retaliate because it was bitten. I'm quite certain many now feel justified to kill the dog, looking only at the bite, but any sane person realises that's not the real problem here. — Benkei

While I'm certain you don't intent to denigrate Palestinians, I find the usage of the dog analogy somewhat troubling. Because crucially a dog is not a moral subject and we don't expect a dog to have agency.

Isn't it at the core of human dignity that humans are responsible actors regardless of their situation? That is it would be dehumanising to treat humans simply as objects caught up in some situation, which then excludes agency and responsibility as two sides of the same coin.

If we're making a moral argument - as opposed to simply discussing the correct instrumentality to reach some result - we can't ignore the agency of either side. And this of course goes for Israel as well, where politicians all too often seek to avoid the moral argument by pointing to the allegedly inexorable demands of security.

I wonder if Hamas can only be permanently stopped by a police force within a functioning Palestinian state. Not that I think Hamas is the most pressing problem. — bert1

Hama seems to me to be an embodiment of an idea. Even if you kill every last Hamas fighter, you can't kill the idea.

I do not think it is wholly in the power of Israel or the Palestinians to bury that idea. It's bound up in more global phenomena as well.

And indiscriminate bombing has always been the reply to terrorism everywhere because there is no other effective answer. The answer to bombing is either annihilation of Hamas or escalation and spreading war to the entire region with the aim to eliminate Israel. — magritte

It's almost as though the oppression of millions of people is a proposition with no good outcomes... :chin:

Also, Israel is now committing war crimes in 'broad daylight':

Southern Gaza in Israel's sights as world leaders seek pause in fighting

First telling thousands of civilians to evacuate to the south of Gaza, only to intensify bombing there.

These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please?

Even things without moral agency don't warrant that they are destroyed. And with close to 50% being minors, moral agency is even a question.

I chose a dog because most people have more respect for animals than Palestinians and the imagery seems to work. A dog barely has agency, much as oppressed people don't. And I think it also reflects how people like Bibi actually see Palestinians; not human.

5,800 dead Palestinian civilians in the meantime. All in "self defence".

Yeah. 'Attack' seems a much more apt term.

Is the continued existence of Hamas actually in Israel's interests, or at least the more colonialist strand in Israeli politics? Hamas violence can be a 'justification' or at least a distraction from settlement and annexation.

I don't think the calculus would be that cynical that they actually think it's in their interest but anything that's an obstacle to a two-state solution is not necessarily a bad thing in Likud's book (until of course when it is, like now).

Even if the analogy were apt (although I disagree with the characterization), your response is on the absurd side.

Drawing it out a bit further:

You have a pit bull tied to a chain in the yard. You underfeed it, you leave it in the cold, you poke it with a stick, and you do all you can to antagonize it. One day it breaks free from its leash, charges into your living room, starts chomping on your children, raping your parents and grandparents, and destroying all your property. No amount of "Down Fido!" seems to do the trick. Fido has arrived to give you the biggest mouthful of comeuppace he can muster and he's not backing down.

Your reponse, as you've indicated it would be, would be to dismantle the chain in the yard and to get the dog and the members in your household to figure out a way to give the dog a nice yard to live in seperate from your household so that the two of you may live peacefully.

The immediate question though seems to be what you are planning to do about the actual dog in the living room. Fido has your kid's leg in its mouth. Do you just say "Fair is fair my son. This dog, violent as he may seem, is just enjoying his just dessert. Justice demands we so endure"?

My response, contrary to your tempered and suicidal approach, is to kill the raging pit bull in my living room. While we may feel different duties to our families, and while I respect your right to let the dog settle all scores past and present on your kin, I think you can at least understand my feeling of duty, which is to eliminate the real and immediate threat threatening my family, which has become apparent through my son's severed and gnawed leg. That is, I would eliminate the dog, even if my kind hearted neighbors were shocked and dismayed because they thought I had earned this healthy dose of dog chomping.

This is to say, even if I were to buy into your argument that Israel represents an antagonizer of a helpless pup, I still don't think your response can be taken seriously. Your response does not give a nod to proportionality, as if to suggest that Israel has a right to a military response but just not as extreme as it has been. Your response is that Israel is entitled to no military response, but that it must lay down its neck and accept its punishment. If that were not your belief, I would think you would have permitted Israel some sort of responsive bombing or military attack, but here you've suggested no military response is acceptable.

An excellent way to live, for a nation or individual. The people of Israel have lived that way (not like a good Xtian of course) for decades. Now if Muslim leaders & their followers would do the same.

If we are quoting the Bible here is a text from the Old Testament, something similar probably exists in other religious texts.

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. — Proverbs 6, 16-19

Also

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16377/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

Is war permissible?

Worth quoting

War can be necessary and proportionate only if it serves an end worth all this death and destruction. Hence the importance of having a just cause. And hence too the widespread belief that just causes are few and far between. Indeed, traditional just war theory recognizes only two kinds of justification for war: national defence (of one’s own state or of an ally) and humanitarian intervention. What’s more, humanitarian intervention is permissible only to avert the very gravest of tragedies—“crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind” (Walzer 2006: 107).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#Nece

What are the ethics of peace, then? Is it better to seek a durable peace between two parties even at the expense of subjugation of one party by the other, since it saves lives, and minimizes damage? It depends on what is seen as important. Possibly the United Nations, and other parties, could focus their efforts in arranging for negotiations of peace at all costs, with the focus on a durable peace rather than justice, at least in the short term. Permitting illegal, covert operations to preserve the peace - is this allowable?

An unjust peace is better than a just war. -Marcus Tullius Cicero

But Israel was more or less safe the day after Hamas' attack wasn't it? Bombing Gaza won't get hostages back, presumably. Israel is now watching the fence. Threat over, no? More or less? Sure there would still be some rockets as always, but there is now anyway.

The problem with the dog analogy is that you can kill a dog and end the threat. You can't kill an idea while there are people left to believe it.

My response was to the situation not the attack, which you conveniently ignore so you can argue against a strawman. Context matters. And yes, I consider Israel more antagonistic, having breached more agreements than the other side, having killed more than the other side, having more power than the other side and having oppressed the other side. I consider the Palestinians to have a right to use violence against Israel to fight their oppression since quite clearly peaceful means has gotten them nothing. That doesn't mean I condone every type of violence. At the same time, the answer is not collective punishment, I don't even think - even if it were possible - that rooting out all Hamas terrorists would resolve the security issue of Israel, because it continues to perfectly create the circumstances in which terrorists will arise.

Israel is an apartheid regime: https://www.btselem.org/topic/apartheid
Israel detains Palestinians for bullshit reasons and no legal recourse: https://www.btselem.org/topic/administrative_detention In the thousands now.
Israel kills more Palestinians than vice versa by a factor of 5. The method really is irrelevant, dead is dead. https://statistics.btselem.org/en/all-fatalities/by-date-of-incident?section=overall&tab=overview&nifgaSensor=%5B%2275c9ac7%22%2C%22a14a397%22%2C%224d9ecf3%22%5D
It steals Palestinian lands: https://www.btselem.org/topic/settlements
Turns a blind eye to settler violence against Palestinians: https://www.btselem.org/topic/settler_violence

Where's your disgust with the daily targeting of Palestinian civilians by IDF forces like "Operation Home and Garden", the detentions, the murder onder the "open fire policy"? How can you condemn Hamas doing exactly what Israel has been doing for years and not do the same where it concerns Israel?

The way to kill an idea is to call it geocentrism or something.

My response, contrary to your tempered and suicidal approach, is to kill the raging pit bull in my living room. — Hanover

Very nice analogy. One may be tempted to go out and kill 2,500 pit bulls as an act of vengeance, ostensibly to prevent them attacking you, including the pups. I have a feeling that this is what we are looking at here: a political strategy, already decades old, is playing out, this is not a military strategy.

The Israeli government could simply upgrade its iron dome and station 40,000 troops at the border with the orders to shoot to kill - Hamas terrorists, motor gliders, drones, etc.

Drawing it out a bit further: — Hanover

When you shoot this particular pitbull, the whole neighborhood is likely to fall apart. That's why a giant swat team has pulled up along the coast of your house. Does pulling the trigger really seem like a rational solution?

5,800 dead Palestinian civilians in the meantime. All in "self defence". — Benkei

Civilians get killed in war. Should the Allies not have bombed German cities? The strategic bombing campaign was a great help to Russia, since it caused Germany to divert resources from the Eastern Front to try and fend off the Allied raids. Is your claim then that the Allied air campaign against Germany was wrong? What should the Allies have done then to help the Russians?

These people are unhinged. The Netanyahu regime has got to go. Can we get regime change in Israel, please? — Tzeentch

So in the end with all your immense knowledge ("Military history and military thinkers, the development of contemporary land, naval and air doctrine, irregular warfare, modern conflicts, etc. I also had the opportunity to follow courses on propaganda (euphemistically called 'information warfare') - very eye-opening.") you are gonna tell me that you can't do more than just whining over a regime change on a forum to random anonymous nobodies?! Your emotional parade is really hilarious. But I'm sure that no Palestinian bombed in Gaza could stand a second hearing you suffer that much! If that might ever comfort you.

Yes, carpet bombing was a war crime.