Al-Shifa hospital is in a catastrophic situation, the IDF is less than a kilometre away with intensive fighting, as I write. Many thousands of civilians are sheltering there.
What happens next will speak volumes.
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2023/1108/1415313-msf-gaza/

The only possibility is that Gaza gets to be a massacre, and then to improve their image Israel does something. — ssu

So you're saying it isn't already? 10,000 in the meantime right?

The fighting is far from over. After Gaza City, the northern part, then there is the southern part, the place that Israel demanded a million people to go. Bibi has hinted about occupying Gaza.

As @Punshhh remarked, it can get even uglier. Is the West Bank then to have the similar fate as Gaza?

Aha, you mean a bigger massacre.

What else? 10 000 killed in a month hardly has shocked the West.

I think the most likely outcome is permanent occupation by Israel of all or a substantial part of Gaza.

Yeah looks like it. EDIT: Netanyahu's pretty much explicitly saying it

So the concept of nations doesn't arise at least 2,000 years after Judaïsm was made up but they are a "nation-race". Of course, I totally get that people who read a right to land based on some scribbles from people that probably got high on shrooms and think it was the revelation of God then can read "nation" into their favourite piece of insane ramblings but nobody who doesn't have a horse in this race is fooled by that. Even a century after nations arose nobody spoke about Jews in that way. So yes, it's a totally politically expedient invention. Obviously. But carry one. — Benkei

I understand the claim of "nation-race" - or rather "nation people" we should say; one cannot convert into a race. The period between the 11th century BC - 6th century BC, under the independent Israelite monarchy(s) was really, I believe, when we see Judaism really "form" in terms of the major ideas and practices. Obviously these monarchies were not a nation state in the modern sense, e.g. of having clearly defined borders - but this is still clearly an issue in the middle east today. So, maybe not "nation people" but "independent kingdom in the land of Israel" people.

Something like that, I agree.

. One side accepted, the other outright didn't like the UN resolution. — schopenhauer1

You realize that anyone has the right to refuse any offer made to them, and sometimes it is entirely rational. Right now, Israel is refusing a ceasefire and has reportedly refused to take two hostages back. (These are Hamas figures). At the time, those driven out from the land objected to taking some of the land and then offering to give some of it back. Like if someone steals a car and offers some of the parts back: 90%, 80%, 50% etc.

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestment. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. — Benkei

I really cannot understand the opposition to peaceful protest, and in any case long articles have been written about how ineffective BDS is. According to reports, South Africa was supported by Western governments in its Apartheid system until public protests were made. Then, apartheid fell, replaced by an even worse situation. You can't win, but you sure can lose. Isn't the idea that you create such a mess of a country if you can't have a peaceful puppet in place, that this message will get across: you can push us out only to get scorched earth in return.

It would be instructive to look at the South African perspective:

Unemployment in the country of 56 million people soars past 25%. There are tire-burning protests almost every day over the lack of basic services like working toilets in mostly black neighborhoods. Whites still hold much of the wealth and private levers of power, while blacks trim their lawns and clean their homes.

“We find virtually no whites living below the middle class,” Fazila Farouk and Murray Leibbrandt with the Southern Africa Labor and Development Research Unit wrote last year. “Whites have, in fact, comfortably improved their economic status in post-apartheid South Africa because our economy channels such a big share of national income to the top 10%.”

Ahh yes, Bibi is smiling at the thought of a post-apartheid Israel, and his cabinet with him. "They will support anything we do, it is absurd" so it is, Mr Nettanyahu, we are all perennial, colonial victims. They are laughing much louder though, the Romans.

Record keeping is better. — bert1

You are right, yes. We have YouTube now. Reading about it in a history book never sparked a protest.

Take the side of your religion, and conscience. There seems to be no other way of settling this, and all religions concerned forbid the killing of innocents. Of course a proper theology will fix this nicely.

You realize that anyone has the right to refuse any offer made to them — FreeEmotion

And then declare war on the people you refused the offer to?

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and the City of Jerusalem.[29]

The General Assembly resolution on Partition was greeted with overwhelming joy in Jewish communities and widespread outrage in the Arab world. In Palestine, violence erupted almost immediately, feeding into a spiral of reprisals and counter-reprisals. The British refrained from intervening as tensions boiled over into a low-level conflict that quickly escalated into a full-scale civil war.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarised, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria.[36] Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organised the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[37] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni's tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed.[38] The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and north of Galilee was even more critical.

While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs,[39] the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards.

So you're saying it isn't already? 10,000 in the meantime right? — Benkei

You can't make an omelette...seriously though, Germany and Japan suffered civilian casualties many orders of magnitude higher than what Israel has dished out (and will eventually dish out) and became better countries for it. Change is messy. War is hell. Innocent people get killed. What did the Palestinians and Hamas think would happen when they decided to go down this road together? Did they think it would end well? Did they think they could pull off something like 10/7 and not get the shit kicked out of them?

And then declare war on the people you refused the offer to? — schopenhauer1

Sure, look at the war on Iraq. They were given a deadline, and if they did not agree: war.

Hostilities began about 90 minutes after the U.S.-imposed deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face war passed.

So, you the 'Imperialist' United States demands a leader of a country leave that country or face war? What kind of offer is this?

On strictly rational terms, some of the arguments seem spurious or ill informed, or maybe selective.

I cannot reasonably argue that the current Israeli government should sit by and say thank you for attacking us. This is not being pro-Israel, but being pro sovereignty. Right to defend and to engage in military operations against terrorists. By the way, apparently Syria has to sit by and say thank you when their airspace is violated (maybe with tacit agreement, who knows).

Hamas is a threat, should be asked to surrender, and if not, Israel has the right to capture or kill them. After all, Israel killed 1400 Hamas militants in one day. Quite a record. Some people may not like it, but there it is. Terrorism must be fought and defeated.

The arguments in the media seem to be based on affecting public opinion, hence the constant reference to dying civilians and war crimes. Each side needs its cheerleaders, to inspire the team. These are cheerleaders, which explains their lack of concern for the facts that do not suit them.

A question that has received much attention in the literature of the past decades pertains to whether the activity of argumentation is primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative. This question in fact corresponds to two sub-questions: the descriptive question of whether instances of argumentation are on the whole primarily adversarial or cooperative; and the normative question of whether argumentation should be (primarily) adversarial or cooperative. A number of authors have answered “adversarial” to the descriptive question and “cooperative” to the normative question, thus identifying a discrepancy between practices and normative ideals that must be remedied (or so they claim; Cohen 1995).

A case in point: recently, a number of far-right Internet personalities have advocated the idea that argumentation can be used to overpower one’s opponents, as described in the book The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization’s Last Stand (2017) by the white supremacist S. Molyneux. Such aggressive practices reflect a vision of argumentation as a kind of competition or battle, where the goal is to “score points” and “beat the opponent”. Authors who have criticized (overly) adversarial practices of argumentation include (Moulton 1983; Gilbert 1994; Rooney 2012; Hundleby 2013; Bailin & Battersby 2016). Many (but not all) of these authors formulated their criticism specifically from a feminist perspective (see entry on feminist perspectives on argumentation).

Israel could have killed the exact same amount of people but hidden their motives much better. Let me write their press statement when I have the time. It could start with

'we do no want revenge, we agonize over every decision the results in the loss of life. We love the children of Gaza. We have no choice, we are doing this to save lives.. save the lives of your children, our children, for our future, for our security...."

So PR incompetence

Maybe we should listen to the people we support to inspire us to stand with our conscience.

'we do no want revenge, we agonize over every decision the results in the loss of life. We love the children of Gaza. We have no choice, we are doing this to save lives.. save the lives of your children, our children, for our future, for our security...." — FreeEmotion

I have heard various versions of this actually, though granted much more can be said on how military tactics are decided. But maybe that’s a security consideration. There are articles you can read on how countries go about waging war in terms of how they advance, what they do before they advance into a conflict zone of a certain type.

Thousands have been killed in Gaza, with entire families wiped out. Israeli airstrikes have reduced Palestinian neighborhoods to expanses of rubble, while doctors treat screaming children in darkened hospitals with no anesthesia. Across the Middle East, fear has spread over the possible outbreak of a broader regional war.

But in the bloody arithmetic of Hamas’s leaders, the carnage is not the regrettable outcome of a big miscalculation. Quite the opposite, they say: It is the necessary cost of a great accomplishment — the shattering of the status quo and the opening of a new, more volatile chapter in their fight against Israel.

It was necessary to “change the entire equation and not just have a clash,” Khalil al-Hayya, a member of Hamas’s top leadership body, told The New York Times in Doha, Qatar. “We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.”

Since the shocking Hamas attack on Oct. 7, in which Israel says about 1,400 people were killed — most of them civilians — and more than 240 others dragged back to Gaza as captives, the group’s leaders have praised the operation, with some hoping it will set off a sustained conflict that ends any pretense of coexistence among Israel, Gaza and the countries around them.

“I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders, and that the Arab world will stand with us,” Taher El-Nounou, a Hamas media adviser, told The Times. — Behind Hamas’s Bloody Gambit to Create a ‘Permanent’ State of War

Did they think they could oppress people for decades and not get attacked? — RogueAI

I fixed it for you.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. It's a fucking dumb argument.

You can't make an omelette...seriously though, Germany and Japan suffered civilian casualties many orders of magnitude higher than what Israel has dished out (and will eventually dish out) and became better countries for it. — RogueAI

The burned and mangled corpses of men, women and children made Germany and Japan better countries? That's... a take...

Change is messy. War is hell. Innocent people get killed. — RogueAI

Which is to say, if you don't think about it, it isn't so bad.

What did the Palestinians and Hamas think would happen when they decided to go down this road together? Did they think it would end well? Did they think they could pull off something like 10/7 and not get the shit kicked out of them? — RogueAI

Hamas wants this to happen. They're not idiots, and the Israeli reaction is what anyone could have predicted. Every single dead Palestinian child helps Hamas.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. It's a fucking dumb argument. — Benkei

Agreed. Yet it's very popular. Probably because it's easier to shut your eyes and convince yourself what's happening is not really happening to people like you. They're others who have done something to deserve it. It can't happen to you, you're safe. Looking the horror in the eye is excruciating.

It's a fucking dumb argument. — Benkei

Looking the horror in the eye is excruciating. — Echarmion

Yes, there's hardly a greater horror then torturing civilians, including children, to death by burying them in rubble or burning them with white phosphorous as per the IDF or butchering them directly as per Hamas. Rather than recognize this horror though, some see it as no more than an opportunity to engage in apologism and as long as the apologists dominate, it will keep happening.

I just wanted to highlight this as an example of how a narrative is being build around evil pro-Palestinian protesters that this poor woman apparently has fallen for but it's the same narrative that gets Israeli politicians to wear the star of David at the UN. It's fabricated and often a concerted approach. I've noticed Jewish colleagues tiptoeing around answering a simple question: "in an ideal world what do you wish the lives of Palestinian children looks like?" after we went in depth into what they would like for their own children. You hear the cognitive dissonance warring with loyalty.

Yes, there's hardly a greater horror then torturing civilians, including children, to death by burying them in rubble or burning them with white phosphorous as per the IDF or butchering them directly as per Hamas. Rather than recognize this horror though, some see it as no more than an opportunity to engage in apologism and as long as the apologists dominate, it will keep happening. — Baden

It’s a weird intractable bear trap in some ways there. It’s clear that Netanyahu contributed to shitty and bad faith leadership, making moves that basically ignored the moderates rather than trying to work with them because he himself is not a moderate and doesn’t even know how that looks apparently.

HOWEVER, if we look at the situation on the ground, Hamas has festered into a it’s latest incarnation of death by barbarism (used to be suicide bombings, then rockets which seemed manageable for Netanyahu, but then the recent events of Isis style barbarism). There’s also the situation of active 240 people still hostage. According to the NYT article that wayfarer quoted, Hamas wanted to continue warfare in the region, similar to this so would repeat the attacks.

These two things are related (long term failure) but they ate not the exact same. It has two different components. The long term failures for attempts at peace are related but not the same as Hamas wanting death and causing immediate chaos. That just becomes about immediate security and regaining hostages if possible. Again, look at my Western Civilization thread. The binary good and bad, black and white, oppressors and oppressed is the fallacy that is continually made and needs to be examined. Israel’s failure with Netanyahu doesn’t negate Hamas having to be degraded and pushed from Gaza. Then the debate becomes about how to wage that war.

Israel’s failure with Netanyahu doesn’t negate Hamas having to be degraded and pushed from Gaza. Then the debate becomes about how to wage that war. — schopenhauer1

Yes, the problems of an occupier. And yes, it is about how to wage a war. For many decades now.

We would be closer to a solution if the US would treat as a normal country, an ally, but still as it treats allies like the UK or Canada or Germany...

The binary good and bad, black and white, oppressors and oppressed is the fallacy that is continually made and needs to be examined. Israel’s failure with Netanyahu doesn’t negate Hamas having to be degraded and pushed from Gaza. Then the debate becomes about how to wage that war. — schopenhauer1

But shouldn't the debate be about how not to wage the war?

Seeing as waging the war cannot but advance the objective of Hamas, and that nothing past outright genocide offers itself as a continuation of the policy of containment.

War is the default option in part because of all the prior failures. In part also because Israel, from it's conception, necessitated the construction and entrenchment of a Jewish majority.

Destroying Hamas seems ultimately more a rationalisation than an actual goal. While Hamas is a real organisation with real goals, and it does have a real and specific impact, it seems absurd to assume that it'll be the last of its kind. So to reverse Clausewitz: what's the policy that will be the continuation of this war?

Stay informed.

There are articles you can read on how countries go about waging war in terms of how they advance, what they do before they advance into a conflict zone of a certain type. — schopenhauer1

Then can I ask you if you think this is an act of revenge, collective punishment of a demonized enemy, or effective military strategy? What does it look like to you? And by the way I have no regard for terrorist acts, the country I was living in was subject to terrorist acts - where many civilians died, for years on end, so of course I was not likely to support terrorism, nor do I do so here.

Yes, the problems of an occupier. And yes, it is about how to wage a war. For many decades now. — ssu

I asked a while ago if there is someone who has actual military knowledge to analyze the tactics and strategy in Gaza and why various moves are made. I don't buy "it's all vengeance!". I think it is a sort of "all in approach", but not really because that would be completely ignoring humanitarian concerns which is not the case either. Again, I would like to know actual military tactics, not just people's reaction to various things based on their prior framework of the two sides.

We would be closer to a solution if the US would treat as a normal country, an ally, but still as it treats allies like the UK or Canada or Germany... — ssu

Well after total war was waged on Germany, the US treats them pretty well once they dropped the Nazi thing. That took a while though. Granted, the difference is you didn't have Germans constantly taking up the Nazi cause once the leaders were dead or had given up. And another thing is, they eventually did give up. But once that happened, the US allowed Western Germany to vote in their democratic government (but with army bases nearby to deter Eastern Germany). They moved on after years of war. But the US helped with something like a trillion dollars in the Marshall Plan (massive amounts of US aide basically). Without a Marshall Plan, you would not see Western Europe flourish post-WW2 as much as it did. The same with Japan. The defeated Japan was still respected. The Emperor was still able to sit in power.

If you are talking about how the US treats the UK, are you referring to Northern Ireland? I think there is a difference there because Northern Ireland was not trying to actually destroy Britain, but rather have Northern Ireland part of Ireland. A bit different situation.

Then can I ask you if you think this is an act of revenge, collective punishment of a demonized enemy, or effective military strategy? What does it look like to you? And by the way I have no regard for terrorist acts, the country I was living in was subject to terrorist acts - where many civilians died, for years on end, so of course I was not likely to support terrorism, nor do I do so here. — FreeEmotion

I just asked recently if there are any people familiar with military strategy. See above. But yeah, I'm glad you are not a fan of terrorism. My point in the West Civ thread is people think in "black and white" "underdog and oppressor" and then end up supporting some grim, illiberal, and barbaric things as a result. That's not good either.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. .... dumb argument. — Benkei

Are we all agreed on history?

On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and riots broke out in Jerusalem.[166] The situation spiraled into a civil war; just two weeks after the UN vote, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, at which point the British would evacuate. As Arab militias and gangs attacked Jewish areas, they were faced mainly by the Haganah, as well as the smaller Irgun and Lehi. In April 1948, the Haganah moved onto the offensive.[167][168] During this period 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled, due to a number of factors.[169]

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

According to this version, 'Arab militias' attacked Jewish areas. Then the 'Haganah' went on the offensive and '250,000' Palestinian Arabs 'fled or were expelled'.

What is the argument here? If one side attacks another side they have to expect them to respond?
To be more exact, they are accepting the risk that the other side may respond disproportionately?

There is a question of agency here, is the attacker responsible for the subsequent actions of the attacked? How does this work? What is the argument here exactly?

I'm not sure what you're question is. If Gaza citizens have to suffer for the crimes of Hamas then its corollary would be true as well: Israelis should suffer to.

Since I think it's a dumb argument to make I believe my position is that doesn't work.

I just wanted to highlight this as an example of how a narrative is being build around evil pro-Palestinian protesters that this poor woman apparently has fallen for but it's the same narrative that gets Israeli politicians to wear the star of David at the UN. — Benkei

I understand this point of view, some Jewish people are scared. When violence happens between two communities, some members feel threatened, some are actually threatened. Similarly Palestinians in the West Bank feel threatened. It is not really falling for the propaganda but being afraid.

Everyone has to come to the realization that there are violent extremists in every community, but the right to hold protests comes with this accepted risk. I am not sure if the case can be made to ban all protests because they may turn violent. It is, however, upto the organizers to make a statement that violence will not be tolerated.

I don't buy "it's all vengeance!" — schopenhauer1

I would guess that the military strategy is to degrade the enemies capabilities to where they no longer pose a threat, while minimizing your own casualties. I don't think there are any other restrictions except a 'nice to have' minimizing civilian casualties. My fear it that they will be successful at great cost. This seems to be the pattern - Iraq for example - but not everyone is on the same side this time.

Germany and Japan did not become occupied territory under blockade, with the allies refusing to acknowledge their elected governments. If that happened, they may have had a problem. Also, there was an outright surrender.

Since I think it's a dumb argument to make I believe my position is that doesn't work. — Benkei

Yes well, I do not agree with the argument that the civilians have to suffer for the decisions their governments or certain groups make.

Both sides knew that any attack on the other side would generate a violent response, and this is known through decades of experience. Each side, then, is responsible for risking the civilians on their own side, through violent action. But this is war, anyway. Civilians working in military factories for example, are a target, unless prior warning is given.

My point in the West Civ thread is people think in "black and white" "underdog and oppressor" and then end up supporting some grim, illiberal, and barbaric things as a result. That's not good either. — schopenhauer1

It all comes down to the question is violent resistance permissible? I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. This is a philosophical position, pacifism I think it is called.

The heart of the problem is that many people, almost universally think that violent resistance is not only permissible, but right, for example the American war of Independence. If we accept that, then we have to judge which causes are right and which causes are wrong, which is a personal thing again.

One answer would be to take extreme care to avoid oppression, or overt, visible oppression, to take the cynical view. Buying powerful influence and keeping the populace poor is one peaceful method I would think, or perhaps bribing the population, or some sort of mind control. All sordid stuff. Or a dictatorship.
I believe a statesman wise and intelligent enough could achieve such a thing.

Yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israel’s military occupation, including through armed struggle. This right was affirmed in the context of the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. Some of the most relevant UN resolutions on this matter include:

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236/

Wow.

Also, this information, which you will have to sort out, that a large number of causalities were military.

Now, detailed statistics on the casualties released by the Israeli daily Haaretz paint a starkly different picture. As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.

Of these, 331 casualties – or 48.4 percent - have been confirmed to be soldiers and police officers, many of them female. Another 13 are described as rescue service members, and the remaining 339 are ostensibly considered to be civilians.

https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october

The irony of it all is that as a Pacifist, I do not agree to the killing of one single Israeli soldier, especially the 'female soldiers' but that is a personal opinion. I state this to show that I am not for violence, and do not side with Hamas, but at the same time, it does appear to me that this was a largely military operation, with some units running out of control, friendly fire, and huge attempts to keep using the attacks to fuel propaganda to support a military operation and force the country to unite. It just seems like that to me. After all, the Israeli government was having problems with reservists threatening not to report for duty and other problems.