photo op with the US president and the leaders of Egypt and Saudi-Arabia — ssu

This picture is featured in a New York Times article.

Simply the point I am making, that however you conduct a war, the public relations needs to be done properly: this is the worst possible picture: Trump with an evil glow on his face, lighted from below, President Sisi looks like he is sharing a secret joke, and King Salman is made to look clueless.

From left, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Melania Trump and President Trump during the opening of an anti-extremist center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Credit...Saudi Press

Agency — NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html

What a PR disaster, thanks for sharing. 'Anti -extremist center'

But it's not AIPAC or the over 7 million Jews in the US, it's the 70 million Christian Evangelicas. — ssu

"While religiosity and partisanship do play a part in how Americans view each side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is important to note that support for Israel is greater than for the Palestinians in every political and religious group we analyze. And other results show Americans view Israel as a nation much more favorably than unfavorably, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio."
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/247937/americans-views-israel-remain-tied-religious-beliefs.aspx

And other results show Americans view Israel as a nation much more favorably than unfavorably, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio. — RogueAI

Indeed, so the question is, is this 'manufactured consent' or real?

Even Elon Musk, in my opinion, does not seem to be fully clear on the concept, though he has some good ideas: search for it.

Update: Here it is:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-israel-try-203718139.html

Indeed, so the question is, is this 'manufactured consent' or real? — FreeEmotion

I think it's real. Everyone knows Jewish people. Their country is similar to ours. They don't hate women or gays. They don't revel in the slaughter of innocents. They're our allies in the fight against Islamic terrorists. Do people under 30 really understand the horror of 9/11 or how much it changed America?

Israeli demonstrators protesting.

Reading from right to left... of course war has winners, and let us not forget, losers. Israel exists because they have won their wars. Israel's Arab neighbors have, so far, not won their wars against Israel. Were the Arabs to launch a successful war on Israel, who doubts that the Jews would receive the kind of treatment that Hamas is receiving--from the river to the sea.

If massacres do not justify self-defense, what in god's name does?

11000+ Palestinian men, women, and children killed? Some people think that number is exaggerated. Given the intensity of Israeli bombing of Gaza, I would be surprised if it is not significantly higher.

Is there a manner of attacking Hamas (who are literally dug in under Gaza) which would not result in a large number of civilian casualties?

Probably not. Bombing in WWII had mixed success rate -- as did bombing in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. "Precision targeting" has been the elusive goal since the beginning of WWII. A lot of dropped gravity-guided bombs do not come close to or hit their designated targets. Guided bombs do better, as do guided missiles and drones. Presumably Israel targets within fairly tight parameters. That's better than just opening the bomb bay doors over Gaza and letting loose.

I don't know to what extent Hamas represents the political opinions of the Gazan and wider Palestinian population. Do they deserve to be wiped out, at considerable human cost to the civilians they claim to represent?

Yes, for three reasons: #1, they are on record as favoring the destruction of Israel. #2, they demonstrated a willingness and ability to carry out effective attack on Israel -- 1200+ killed on 10/7. They launched 9,500 missiles at Israe over the previous month, most of which were shot down or were not heading toward a significant targets. #3, they are not uniquely able to govern Gaza. I have no knowledge about their administration, but I have not heard much in the way of positive reviews let alone rave reviews about how effectively they have governed Gaza.

My guess is that Hamas has diverted a large percentage of material imported (or smuggled in through tunnels) into Gaza for its own use, rather than for the benefit of average Palestinians. They have further endangered their own people by digging in under significant civilian buildings -- hospitals, schools, mosques, etc.

What good has Hamas done?

Is there a manner of attacking Hamas (who are literally dug in under Gaza) which would not result in a large number of civilian casualties? — BC

Since you asked the question, and military experts will different things. I say yes, it is possible. Remember that, unlike Mosul, people cannot flee to the countryside. 1 million people were given 24 hours to move. It is a question of how many casualties you are willing to take, and what your aims were. For example, if Hamas were holding Israeli hostages in the border towns would the IDF attack and kill their own civilians, firing from tanks? If so, what are they fighting for that is so important?

The military has the right to decide what course of action it will pursue, and we have the right to try to ascertain what this course of action is, rightly or wrongly. If we want, we can actually pronounce judgement on what they do as well. It is all non-violent.

I think it's real. Everyone knows Jewish people. — RogueAI

I guess then you have to ask if the support for a ceasefire is manufactured or real? Any non-partisan approach would want civilians to stop getting killed. They do not care about the causes they represent, as much as some ideological stand about self- determination - which Israel has, and was achieved partly though violent means. In any case, there are Jewish people asking for a ceasefire as well.

I can see valid arguments for each side, however some of the starting assumptions I do not agree with, and this is a matter of personal beliefs, which are unassailable under the Charter of Human Rights.
Agree?


I will place a quote here, it is instructive to see who said it:

“Let us not condemn the murderers. What do we know of their fierce hatred for us? For eight years they have been living in the refugee camps of Gaza, while right before their eyes we have been turning the land and the villages, in which they and their forefathers lived, into our land.

“We should demand his (Roi’s) blood not from the Arabs of Gaza, but of ourselves… We are a generation of settlers, and without a helmet or a gun barrel we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. Let us not be afraid to see the enmity that consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs around us… This is the fate of our generation. The only choice we have is to be armed, strong and resolute.” — Jerusalem Post

If Israel was strong, armed and resolute, would this have happened? How can you argue against a military defeat?

What good has Hamas done? — BC

Here is ChatGPT:

Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel, has been involved in both political and military activities in the Gaza Strip. Supporters argue that Hamas has provided social services and infrastructure development in the region, such as building schools, hospitals, and providing welfare programs. However, critics argue that these activities are often intertwined with their militant and political agenda, and the group has been accused of using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. Overall, opinions on the positive impact of Hamas's actions in Gaza vary, and the organization's methods and objectives are widely debated.

I don't know to what extent Hamas represents the political opinions of the Gazan and wider Palestinian population. Do they deserve to be wiped out, at considerable human cost to the civilians they claim to represent? — BC

It's an agonizing conflict. The images we're seeing daily of burned and maimed children undergoing surgery on hospital floors with no anaesthetic, sorrounded by collapsed buildings and the detritus of war, is absolutely appalling. In the past I've generally accepted that the State of Israel has a right to exist but I have to say that Israeli brutality against civilians is severely testing my belief.

As far as Hamas is concerned, their sole rationale is that Israel is an occupying enemy and that the State of Israel must be destroyed. They of course understood that their October 7th attack would provoke a terrible retribution, but their spokemen have gone on the record saying that it is an acceptable price to pay in pursuit of their ultimate aim. They're willing to martyr tens of thousands, whether they want it or not. The major motivation for the Oct 7th attack was to undermine the possible detente between Israel and Saudi Arabia and to bring about a state of chaos and perpetual war, as this is preferable in their mind to any kind of peace which accepts that Israel continues to exist.

I'm trying to keep away from the debates - we have two opposing protests in our region today - as I don't personally have any connection to the conflict, but I just want to register my feelings about this disaster.

My guess is that Hamas has diverted a large percentage of material imported (or smuggled in through tunnels) into Gaza for its own use, rather than for the benefit of average Palestinians. — BC

The building of the tunnels itself is part of their diversion of resources meant for the building of civilian infrastructure into terrorist infrastructure.

They have a network of tunnels said to be larger than the NY subway system designed for Israel's destruction and the cries for a cease fire are supposed to be taken seriously prior to the elimination of those underground tunnels.

I guess then you have to ask if the support for a ceasefire is manufactured or real? — FreeEmotion

I think it's real too. Leftists have always had a soft spot for oppressed peoples, and Israel, with it's vastly superior military, can't help but come across as a bully. I can see both sides' reasoning, and they both make compelling arguments.

Any non-partisan approach would want civilians to stop getting killed. They do not care about the causes they represent, as much as some ideological stand about self- determination - which Israel has, and was achieved partly though violent means. In any case, there are Jewish people asking for a ceasefire as well.

Agreed.

I can see valid arguments for each side, however some of the starting assumptions I do not agree with, and this is a matter of personal beliefs, which are unassailable under the Charter of Human Rights.
Agree?

"Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."


I already see a problem here. Ukraine certainly isn't going to act in a spirit of brotherhood towards Russian soldiers (or even Russian civilians who are in the way of a high value target), nor should they.

I think it's real too. Leftists have always had a soft spot for oppressed peoples, and Israel, with it's vastly superior military, can't help but come across as a bully. I can see both sides' reasoning, and they both make compelling arguments. — RogueAI

No comparison. Under the original un charter, every sovereign is to govern itself. So why is it that the Palestinian authority has been given its own sovereign land to govern, and done nothing but wreak tyrrany upon its own people, and violence to its neighbors? No excuse.

In the past I've generally accepted that the State of Israel has a right to exist but I have to say that Israeli brutality against civilians is severely testing my belief. — Wayfarer

General William T. Sherman, one of the Union's best generals, said: "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

War is hell, regardless of the combatants, without respect to the goodness of one side and the wickedness of the other. Yes, Israel is deploying massive force against an intrenched enemy in a very crowded urban setting. Israel depends on advanced weaponry (no homemade missiles). Had they opted for a ground war without using their air force, their own casualties would be very high, and there would still be many civilian deaths, and maybe an unsuccessful outcome from Israel's POV.

The legitimacy of Israel isn't negated by its battle tactics, any more than the legitimacy of Palestinians need for an secure state in which to live is invalidated by Hamas' brutality.

Some demonstrators accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing. This seems to have occurred at the time of Israel's founding when many Palestinians were displaced. What the settlers are doing on the West Bank is more 'ethnic encroachment' than ethnic cleansing. Israel ought (imho) to return the settlers' seized lands. I don't think that is going to happen, but it should happen. The Gaza war is definitely not ethnic cleansing: it's an effort aimed at regime change. (Those don't always work out very well either,).

I pretty much support Israel. I'm not very enthusiastic about the Arab block. Israel's birth could have been engineered more successfully, perhaps (don't ask me how). I'm not very enthusiastic about the increasing dominance of the ultra-conservative religious factions in Israel, but I don't know what we can do about it. I dislike the American religious ultra-conservatives too, and not much I can do about them, some of them are close relatives!

ChatGPT will have to improve its game A LOT before it becomes useful. Send it back to the drawing board,

It is only as good as the questions asked. Plus, I believe it has no real filter to determine what is or is not factually backed up only that which is reported by humans and posted online.

People are lazy and stupid. Once systems exist to eliminate what creates such laziness and stupidity (pedagogical reforms) we will all remain witnesses to the status quo fooling ourselves into believing things are changing when they are just stuck in the same old cycle.

The NY subway system is roughly 250 miles long -- all underground? I don't think so -- some of it is above ground. Isn't an above ground subway a contradiction in terms? There are roughly 310 miles of Hamas Tunnels, which like the subway lines, vary in depth quite a bit. 250 miles is not the length of trackage (since some tunnels have 4 sets of tracks -- 1 inbound all stops, 1 outbound all stops, and 1 express track in each direction).



The map doesn't include tunnels dug by smugglers from Gaza into Egypt. Those are privately built and owned, according to a YOUTUBE video, and are worth quite a bit to the owners. They are not as well built as Hamas' tunnels, and there are a lot more cave ins. But they can import cars through the tunnels -- they cut them up. Animals are brought in through the tunnels too, Well, just about everything/anything.

I have no idea how the map of the tunnels relates to the street map of Gaza. That's a problem for Israeli Intelligence to work on. Clearly though, destroying the tunnels from the air (to whatever extent that's possible) is going to be a smashing operation. Soldiers destroying the tunnels would, my guess, lead to very unacceptable losses by Israel.

People are lazy and stupid. — I like sushi

Well I read somewhere that people are stupid, and I have a long record of laziness, so... guess that's true.

Stupidity is our main redeeming quality. Only someone utterly stupid would continually try and fix the unfixable … and by pure chance sometimes the stupid succeed ;)

Just 'cause it stands repeating ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/544984 :fire:

Some demonstrators accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing. This seems to have occurred at the time of Israel's founding when many Palestinians were displaced. What the settlers are doing on the West Bank is more 'ethnic encroachment' than ethnic cleansing. Israel ought (imho) to return the settlers' seized lands. I don't think that is going to happen, but it should happen. The Gaza war is definitely not ethnic cleansing: it's an effort aimed at regime change. (Those don't always work out very well either,).

I pretty much support Israel. I'm not very enthusiastic about the Arab block. Israel's birth could have been engineered more successfully, perhaps (don't ask me how). I'm not very enthusiastic about the increasing dominance of the ultra-conservative religious factions in Israel, but I don't know what we can do about it. I dislike the American religious ultra-conservatives too, and not much I can do about them, some of them are close relatives! — BC

This might be the most sensible characterization yet :up:

I already see a problem here. Ukraine certainly isn't going to act in a spirit of brotherhood towards Russian soldiers (or even Russian civilians who are in the way of a high value target), nor should they. — RogueAI

Ah yes. I was talking about further up the chain of command. If the leader of a nation, acting in line with his freedom of opinion, religion, and conscience (like George W Bush, who stated that God wanted him to 'free the Iraqi people), then what? His human rights after all, which he is exercising freely. This is a problem, however, if a leader resorts to lies and broken promises, then, the conscience and religion aspects of the argument cannot be sustained. To be consistent, one would have to relinquish all moral responsibility, all semblance of religious belief, and then act. Both Hamas Leadership and Prime Minister Nettanyahu would have to renounce Islam and Judaism since these religions forbid the killing of children, and then proceeding on. "ye shall know them by their works".

Russians and Ukranian soldiers? Like American soldiers and Germans eventually they will become friends and 'feel at home' I suppose, but who knows. Someone has to win first.

Scott Ritter's view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPQlPBmWoA

Not to say I agree with it, I am for a ceasefire and status quo, I am not interested in war.

The legal approach. Peaceful? Non - Violent? I think they should have a case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtBN7mVO1T8

This is true. As @Punshhh remarked, the media coverage of the US media is quite one sided and pro-Israel, but things like who were the majority of the 9/11 attacks matter a lot.

Of course the adamant and extremely loyal support for Israel whatever it does can make some sense if the objective is to divide and rule in the Middle East and keep the area in turmoil... on purpose.

However true alliance building as happened in Europe, where even the former enemies were given aid and spectacularly so in the Berlin Airlift, is in my view far more better. Also in the case of West Europe, Europeans themselves were listened to, which then created a genuine alliance where the European countries have based their defense on NATO. The failure of similar American defence treaties in the Middle East and in the Far East are telling.

In truth, all the pivoting towards Asia is quite futile as the Asian countries are quite separate from each outher. Only AUKUS has happened, but otherwise any "Quad" is more of a debating club.

No comparison. Under the original un charter, every sovereign is to govern itself. So why is it that the Palestinian authority has been given its own sovereign land to govern, and done nothing but wreak tyrrany upon its own people, and violence to its neighbors? No excuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you want to characterize an elected government that is blockaded on all sides, with constant attacks from Israel, and also the PA in the West Bank, which also seems powerless to stop what it sees as an attack and displacement of its people, as sovereign, you can do so. I had something different in mind when it comes to a sovereign nation.

In any case, the UN Charter states that disputes should be resolved peacefully. No ones hands are clean here.

More to the point, though, can the moral argument for supporting the right of both sides to exist, with a permanent ceasefire, be opposed? If there is such an argument, both for killing civilians on October 7th, and every day after that, then I would like to hear it.

I'm not very enthusiastic about the increasing dominance of the ultra-conservative religious factions in Israel, but I don't know what we can do about it. I dislike the American religious ultra-conservatives too, and not much I can do about them, some of them are close relatives! — BC

Is there a moral obligation for breaking ranks with the people of this world who support war, tribalism and communalism, those who subscribe neither to any religion or moral law in thought and practice. Is there a way to protest? To call out these stands and make them uncomfortable, I think there is.

The past two centuries and before have seen an endless series of wars, a war to end all wars then another world war, with several other conflicts worldwide, what is really going on with this world we live in?

If nothing can be done at least draw dividing lines between us and them, those who want wars (very few just wars if any have been fought, Iraq was not one of them) and defend them. Oppose the teaching of a distorted history to children. Condemn the movies glorifying war and conflict, or condemn them. War should be described for what it is - hell on earth, and then going to war is going to hell, for what crime are we going to hell, then? Even today there is a disturbing trend of supporting the killing done by one side or the other, why support killing? What would it cost to say that Israel should go after terrorists but not soil its reputation? Why not call Hamas to give up terrorism also?

What is not said is as important as what is said: the nations of the word are engaged in morally corrupt, self - serving, deceitful an murderous neglect, but no one is willing to call them out en masse - the divided and conquered support on side or the other. They will never admit it, blood for oil and all.

Take Yemen for example. Which side to support? What will result in peace and the saving of lives? I do not know much about Yemen but hope to find out. What then? Nothing will change.

Don't we need to teach about peace in our schools, and ask the major corporations to help fund 'teaching peace in schools' 'teach children to hate war' 'war is a crime, a black stain on humanity' 'war is a corruption of the worst form.

Will our military masters allow that to happen?

I suggest something is radically wrong with this disgusting world we live in, only the innocents are beautiful. The good hearted should inherit the earth. Everyone else should be sent leaflets to move south - to the South Pole. That is not ethnic cleansing, but it does sound like a cleansing of some sort.

As much as you can, reassure your children that they are safe from any danger. Remind them that many people are working hard around the world to stop the conflict and find peace.

https://www.unicef.org/parenting/how-talk-your-children-about-conflict-and-war

many people are working hard around the world to stop the conflict and find peace

Many people - are not. Just the opposite. Teach your children about these devils.

Here is a start

Start by defining pacifism with your students and prompting a discussion on its merits. Pacifism is the belief that all disputes can be settled without violence, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation instead. Creating an environment where students feel safe discussing their views on peace and conflict resolution can set the stage for further exploration.

https://www.theedadvocate.org/fostering-pacifism-in-the-classroom-a-guide-for-k-12-teachers/

Or, there is the alternate approach:

Gideon Levy, a Haaretz columnist, noted the striking similarities between these photos and the Palestinian glorification of violence. “Where else do they force a little child to crawl with a backpack on his back? When Hamas treats its children like this, Israeli parents tut-tut with disgust: Look at these beasts.”

It’s a double standard all too common to the conflict.

We’re told that Palestinian maps in schools often show a unified Palestine between the river and the sea — “how awful!” — yet Israeli maps, more often than Palestinian ones in fact, don’t show the Green Line, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

We’re told that Palestinians are taught in school that the Jewish historical claims to the land, particularly the Temple Mount, don’t really exist — “how awful!” — yet in a similar tone, many Israeli children learn that “Palestinians” were only recently invented, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

We’re told that Palestinian textbooks distort history — “how awful!” — yet a recent State Department study found that many Israeli textbooks do too, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

https://forward.com/opinion/197866/when-israelis-teach-their-kids-to-hate/

Non-violence is the opposite of the PA and Hamas curriculum.

And Israel? You have gone on record as saying you support Israel, well, do you think Israel is being used? How did Israel's friends allow it to get to this? Are they really friends or just pretending?

What did the world’s Jews mostly want in 1900? Most of them just wanted to be able to live where they were and not be disturbed. To go about their business, study, pray, raise their children, and just live as Jews. That was Plan A. But increasingly, that was coming under pressure as anti-Semitism rose in Europe, and obviously by the 1940s, it had become utterly impossible. If Jews couldn’t live in peace where they were, Plan B was to migrate to someplace where they could start again. For many years, the United States was the favored destination, but also Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and other countries. But starting with Britain in 1905, and progressing into the U.S. in 1924, and Latin America in the 1930s, country after country closed its doors to immigration, just as Jews grew more desperate to migrate. So Plan B could not get the critical non-Jewish support that it needed to work. That left Zionism as Plan C: Let’s have our own state where we can go. — The Atlantic

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/deep-shtetl/62cf09b668f61f0021d786ca/biden-israel-lobby-america-walter-mead/

Pacifism is the belief that all disputes can be settled without violence

This is especially true of disputes between individuals and small groups, or disputes between nations that do not involve existential issues. The EU was formed by negotiation, and the UK exited the EU through negotiation. Stupid, but it was done nonviolently. We generally negotiate over financial matters--trade, tariffs, taxation. But if it is us or them, negotiations don't work very well.

For example:

10% of excellent agricultural land which belongs to nation A is seized by nation B. Nation A sends its top negotiators to peacefully negotiate to get its land back from Nation B. Nation B says that 1000 years ago, the nomadic bandits that would later become Nation A took the land that Nation B had ALWAYS considered its own. Our answer is, "No! you cam not have it any more. It is ours now. Go away and don't come back; we have nothing to negotiate with you."

The land is important -- it provides food for many people. What did pacifistic Nation A do?

Nation A sorrowfully accepted the loss of its farmers and most productive agricultural land. No military violence was contemplated.

A year later, Nation B seizes 10% more of Nation A, this time the land that lies over rich mineral deposits. Nation A sorrowfully accepts the grievous loss if its miners and mineral resources. No military violence was contemplated.

A year after that, Nation B seizes 15% of Nation A, this time land that has excellent timber resources. Nation A even more sorrowfully and grievously accepts the loss if its lumberjacks and timber resources. No military violence was contemplated.

After these land seizures, Nation A is 35% smaller and its economy is deteriorating rapidly. It can't produce enough food. It can't produce enough metal and wood products for export to pay for imported food. It has changed from a prosperous country to an impoverished one.

All totally hypothetical, of course, except that there are real nations who have been quite willing to seize their neighbors land (by military violence, usually) and not give it back. The United States comes to mind, but also Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, France, Italy, Turkey, and China -- and more.

Individuals can practice pacifism if they so choose. States can not, States that attempt to practice pacifism will either cease to exist or will become the exploited vassal provinces of another nation, and their citizens will suffer severely. (Switzerland is not a pacifist nation, just in case you were going to mention them. They are armed.) Consider Germany's war to acquire lebensraum and resources: It acquired Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Belgium, Holland, Poland, much of the western Soviet Union (i.e., Ukraine, Belorussia), Latvia, Estonia Lithuania, Norway, and Denmark. It planned to acquire more -- like the UK.

Russia seized a large chunk of Ukraine, and claimed that the whole place belonged to them. Ukraine is currently attempting to reclaim the seized territory.

Jesus said, "You should turn the other cheek." He didn't say Israel should, or Rome should, or Persia should, or any other nation should.

That is of course what Jews wanted, but that desire had been frustrated long before the late 19th / 20th century pogroms,

As an organized nationalist movement, Zionism is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. However, the history of Zionism began earlier and is intertwined with Jewish history and Judaism. The organizations of Hovevei Zion (lit. 'Lovers of Zion'), held as the forerunners of modern Zionist ideals, were responsible for the creation of 20 Jewish towns in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.

A bold choice for a dictatorship that won a slim plurality in a single election almost two decades ago to make for their people. Especially when so much of the leadership is safe from any of the privations of the war.