Of course it's correct to advocate for releasing the hostages. I don't see it as effective. That is I see no way such advocacy has tangible results.

I guess we could lobby our governments to pressure the gulf states to pressure Hamas.

I think it would indeed lead to some sort of cease-fire. — schopenhauer1

I'm not so optimistic. It rather seems like the policy currently is to wreck Gaza to make it unliveable. Which is arguably a more plausible plan than to somehow "pacify" it by killing Hamas fighters.

My own answer is what the Israelis are doing now - and I do not see that they have much choice. — tim wood

If only we had some historical precedent to assess the likelihood of that working.

the lives of Israeli and Palestinian civilians, especially children, are equally sacred and deserve full respect regardless of the political crimes of their rulers / overlords / political exploiters — Baden

Agree or disagree people? I have no time for anyone who disagrees with this unless they are directly affected by / involved in the conflict in which case I don't expect objectivity. Otherwise, if you don't respect innocent lives, I don't respect you.

Innocence is a matter of perspective when it comes to occupation. If I forced you out of your home, and settled on what used to be yours, I doubt you'd see me as innocent. Innocence in contested territory is just human shielding for the occupying forces to claim X Y and Z atrocities, when their human shielding is attacked. — Vaskane

When you start making excuses for one side, e.g. Hamas, killing civilians you end up excusing the other side doing the same. The people in charge of both sides think like you which is why the region is drowning in blood. Congratulations.

Thanks for providing the mirror image of Israeli propaganda with Palestinian propaganda. Maybe you and the likes of @tim wood can get a room somewhere and beat each other up while anyone sensible left on this thread tries to find a civilised middle ground.

I understand that's your viewpoint and it's a necessarily perspectival one. But the people of Gaza can say the same and then what? Are Hamas then being moral in their further mistreatment of you and yours? — Baden

You're fighting a war, not having an internal debate, paralyzed to respond as you wring your hands over the dictates of righteousness. Your passion for being moral strikes me as a Nietzschean described tragedy where you can no longer self defend because you trouble yourself with the thought that all the world are equally lambs, so who am I to ever be a wolf?

The deaths of the Palestinians I lay at the feet of Hamas, not Israel.. Men drape themselves in Palestinian babies with guns blazing toward the innocent and the world stands in shock at those who return fire and not at those men? That is a world gone mad.

And this impassioned plea you make for the children of Palestine as the innocent victims, they don't make for themselves. Where are the Palestinian protesters chanting their hatred toward Hamas and love and support for the children of Israel? I hear these arguments only among those trying to intellectualize this debate, but not by actual protesters and Palestinians.

Your solution is appeasement so that we don't aggravate the situation so that we can limit the population of future terrorists. Here's the reality: the problem can't be aggravated, appeasement will not lead to peace, and the people who need to worry are not the Israelis. You'd think from your description, Hamas has Israel where it wants them. From my chair, Hamas is being devastated and their only hope is in winning a political battle on the streets that will convince Israel to stop the onslaught.

But anyway, no one has actually responded by providing a real battle plan as the bombs fall. They just recite what they think caused it and what they think the consequences will be. They say the response must be proportionate, but can't describe that in concrete terms because it will mean acknowledging Israel's right to defend and allowing a certain number of Palestinian deaths.

Actually how about you and @Hanover beat each other up with your uberman warmongering. I'll just sit by and watch while you savage each other. Get to it.

Actually how about you and Hanover beat each other up with your uberman warmongering. I'll just sit by and watch while you savage each other. Get to it. — Baden

This is just you regretting entering this fray and wanting to bow out. Not that I blame you. I took some time before entering it as well and not sure what headway gets made in these sorts of debates anyway.

The thing is it's impossible to discuss this with you because to me it is country A vs country B. I have no love or hatred for either the word "Israel" or "Palestine". They're just labels to me. I'm trying to look at it as objectively as I can, but to you, understandably, you need to take a side. So, yes, we are talking completely at cross purposes.

I think it's been explained to you that you can't eliminate an idea and that by killing Palestininan civilians you create more Hamas especially in the long term. Anyhow your whole shtick here seems a blithe, glib and thoughtless exculpation of Israel while blaming everything on Hamas. It's painfully ignorant. — Baden

I think it is partly that the kind of intensity of Hamas' continued attacks has changed character to this ISIS style. This has made the arguments prior to October 7th change as well. Before October 7th I didn't really step into this kind of thread, because it seemed like status quo and everyone can debate and make points on how policies were being carried out in the West bank, or how the rocket attacks in response were over proportional and unnecessary, or whatnot. But then October 7th was so brutal that it indeed does become about what you do in that situation. On October 8th there were some people (not saying you Baden) who tacitly were silent or some even cheered (those images of college posters with parachutes and "Free Palestine"). Then of course Israel is going to retaliate. Hamas has their stuff inevitably imbedded in civilian targets, and Israel has now changed the strategy from containment and retaliation to literally destroying all their infrastructure and fighters. Destroying does not mean "eliminate" because as you stated, an idea can never be destroyed. But they are going to destroy the personnel and infrastructure, and they see it more like a war whereby in order to achieve this mission with an evil enemy, you have to be willing to do very unfortunate things. In that sense it is apt to make analogies to various other wars where the aim is to get rid of a governmental/military entity completely.

In the meantime, Hamas knows Israel will go all out, but they don't care. I think they have given up using the prisoners as some bargaining chip. Indeed they will use the media cycle and try to cause chaos in the region.

Nietzsche named a Christian Pope the Hohenstaufen Friedrich The II a higher human who emulated the ubermensch due to DEMOCRATIZING KNOWLEDGE away from the Catholic Church and giving it to society. — Vaskane

Ok, thanks for that.

My base of operations for this discussion is in a neonatal intensive care unit, so I should be good.

My base of operations for this discussion is in a neonatal intensive care unit, so I should be good. — frank

Just make sure it isn't a kibbutz either.

Just make sure it isn't a kibbutz either. — schopenhauer1

But then I'd have the freakin US Navy backing me up!

But then I'd have the freakin US Navy backing me up! — frank

You'd be dead first, apparently. Don't ask how.

Would it change your view if instead Hamas was hiding in Israel using civilians as human shields there? Should the IDF kill its own citizens to get at Hamas? — bert1

Possibly. It would have to be done very carefully and legally, though. Countries have duties to their own citizens that go way beyond duties to innocents in foreign lands.

What if Hamas was hiding in New York?

Same thing. Countries have duties to citizens in allied countries that go beyond duties to citizens in non-allied or hostile countries. Israel can be very vicious when it comes to killing terrorists. I would not put it past them to clandestinely take out an American citizen that they knew was funneling lots of money to Hamas.

Germany and Japan were not civilised before 1945? — Echarmion

No. Are you claiming Nazi Germany was a civilized country? We could argue about Japan after I see your answer on this one.

That's frankly stupid and exculpatory.... — Baden

Maybe you and the likes of tim wood.... — Baden

I think it's been explained to you.... — Baden

This, but no answer to a simple question, and as it was asked twice, no reason to ask it a third time.

It appears to me you have permitted yourself to become entirely confused. With 7 Oct. (at least) it ceases to be a question about what is good or right, or bad or evil, but instead a question as to an action to be taken. Not, that is, what is or should be, but what to do. And if you want to fly your grey owl over a battlefield, you can, but you have forgotten in that case when that flight is appropriate/possible. And if you cannot articulate a "do," then it would be more becoming of you to pay more attention and think more (and more clearly) about what is being done. Or if you like, you can assay an answer.

Your passion for being moral strikes me as a Nietzschean described tragedy where you can no longer self defend because you trouble yourself with the thought that all the world are equally lambs, so who am I to ever be a wolf? — Hanover

:100:

The deaths of the Palestinians I lay at the feet of Hamas, not Israel.. Men drape themselves in Palestinian babies with guns blazing toward the innocent and the world stands in shock at those who return fire and not at those men? That is a world gone mad. — Hanover

It should probably be considered a compliment that people think you're susceptible to moral appeals.

You'd think from your description, Hamas has Israel where it wants them. From my chair, Hamas is being devastated and their only hope is in winning a political battle on the streets that will convince Israel to stop the onslaught. — Hanover

I don't think Hamas had any illusions as to their ability to fight the IDF head on. Perhaps they were counting on a more limited response, or perhaps not. Ultimately I don't think they care either way.

But anyway, no one has actually responded by providing a real battle plan as the bombs fall. — Hanover

Seems like an odd requirement on the philosophy forum.

But anyways I think the battle plan would involve not fighting the Hamas directly but instead setting up a scheme that incentives the Gazan citizens to withdraw their support for Hamas.

Probably take back direct rule over the Gaza strip, start with an area and show that you can provide something more tangible than hate.

You just justified the Holocaust. Congratulations.

I understand things changed after Oct 7th, just as things changed after 9/11. And lo, the same mistakes are being made. 9/11 was a brutal crime against innocents that was tacitly excused or even cheered on by moral degenerates due to their political sympathies, and, on the other extreme, there were calls to lash out against innocents in the name of a "war on terror" and a slew of propaganda convinced the population to get behind a bevy of war crimes that resulted in civilian death and destruction. Sound familiar? Did we not learn that our "war on terror " turned us into terrorists and torturers? That in any case it only inspired more terror (ISIS etc)?

And are not exactly the same excuses being made now? We "have to" do something (let's ignore what that something is, only that we "have to" do it). We are acting in defence... etc etc. All turned out to be a bunch of bull aimed at fuelling neocons' war fantasies and profits for their military enterprises, ended up with smiling U.S. torturers at Abu Ghraib and more extremism in the region. But yes, we all saw that happen. How stupid some of us were to go along with the propaganda, right? To thoughtlessly preach that we just "must" respond and therefore (hidden premise) every atrocity on our side is justified.

I understand the psychology of this, but I don't forgive it. I don't forgive the ignorance of history, the careless forgetfulness, the inability to draw analogies, the lack of nuance, the glib repetition of the dominant line, the wilful moral blindness, all that which renders otherwise intelligent people helplessly unable to condemn the killing of civilians, even children, unless the right ones are being killed. So, yes, I'm halfway with you on your analysis but I draw contrary conclusions. My conclusion is that it's not "unfortunate" what happened after 9/11 any more than it is "unfortunate" what Israel is doing now; it is, rather, wilfully criminal and predominantly an expression of hatred and revenge that will be recognized as such in the history books and in the later consciences of those who were misguided enough to go along with it.

Possibly. It would have to be done very carefully and legally, though. Countries have duties to their own citizens that go way beyond duties to innocents in foreign lands. — RogueAI

I think legally Gaza is Israel. So the Gazans are Israeli citizens, whether either likes it or not.

No. Are you claiming Nazi Germany was a civilized place? We could argue about Japan after I see your answer on this one. — RogueAI

Germany existed prior to 1936.

But also yes, Nazi Germany was "civilised". The Nazis weren't some alien species that suddenly appeared in the middle of Europe. While Nazism was a peculiarly German ideology in some ways, it's also recognisably a product of european civilisation.

That's what makes it so scary: it unleashed the murderous ideas that European powers had confined to their colonies on the heart of Europe itself.

I understand the psychology of this, but I don't forgive it. I don't forgive the ignorance of history, the immediate forgetfulness, the inability to draw analogies, the absolute lack of nuance, the wilful moral blindness, all that which renders otherwise intelligent people helplessly unable to condemn the killing of civilians, even children, unless the right ones are being killed. So, yes, I'm halfway with you on your analysis but I draw contrary conclusions. My conclusion is that it's not "unfortunate" what happened after 9/11 any more than it is "unfortunate" what Israel is doing now; it is, rather, wilfully criminal and predominantly an expression of hatred and revenge that will be recognized as such in the history books and in the later consciences of those who were misguided enough to go along with it. — Baden

Well said!

Of course there's a moral element to what "should" be done. There is by definition. And I already said the question is a good one, but it will take time to respond as it's not like right now there are any clear solutions, which is why I at least provided you with a moral framework. Anyway, I will take your premise that I have been elected Israeli Prime Minister right now and run with that when I have time. But really it's coming at things very late and what comes out of that thought experiment is going to be much less promising than one where Israel didn't decide it's best option was just to "destroy" Gaza or before that to foment Hamas's extremism through its brutal oppression and disregard of a political solution.

History is messy indeed. Should Chamberlain have let Hitler keep enlarging his territory at the price of peace? In hindsight that was not the answer. Hitler was not someone whose aims were purely for making the "trains run on time" and to improve the economy. He had other aims. They were right there in his manifesto, in fact.

First I wish there was no war ever, and we resolved conflict peacefully. That isn't the case here, unfortunately.

Second, I wish if there ever had to be a war, they would fight it in a battlefield whereby no civilians were ever harmed. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.

The US, Britain, France, and the Allies, had to fight a regime doing evil and in doing so unfortunately killed civilians in the process. It's horrible. One major difference is that Nazis by and large didn't want their own citizens to die (though they didn't mind them being used as military fodder). However, arguably, towards the end of the war, Hitler wanted every German to fight to the death, so perhaps he did... Either way, what do you do in the face of such atrocious enemies? Some people wished Israel would lay down and die already so that Palestine can be "free" (of them). But Israelis may feel differently about that notion. The threat of another 10-7 is not quite the same as a 9/11. Mexico and Canada are not sending suicide attackers, missiles and rapist, baby-beheading murderers over to regain their "rightful" territory and kill as many Americans as possible. So where the aftermath of 9/11 was indeed a poorly thought out game of wackamole and carrying plans for the benefit of X cause that may have not had much to do with the "War on Terror", this indeed is a live threat, right there, in your face, (yes "existential") threat, in that it can and will happen again and again. You can say that getting rid of Hamas by overwhelming force will cause more Hamas, but as some have already commented on this thread, it took many years for Western Europe to get to a peaceful ennui and just be sick and tired of it all.

Again, because of 10-7 it really does change the equation from debating rockets and West Bank policies from Likud, to how does one deal with groups who want to keep maiming, torturing, killing and not governing or enriching the lives of their actual citizens that they supposedly represent and govern.

But also yes, Nazi Germany was "civilised". — Echarmion

:roll:

but it will take time to respond as it's not like right now there are any clear solutions, — Baden

Fair enough. I note, though, that waiting for clear solutions is sometimes a luxury not available in the moment.

and disregard of a political solution. — Baden

I'm not asking, but I wonder what sort of political solution is available with people committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, and have done consistently and repeatedly.

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out.

As pointed out previously, the comparison of Gaza to Nazi Germany is utterly delusional. And any argument built on that will backfire spectacularly. Hamas are a relatively tiny weak force that have only and can only inflict casualties in very low numbers relative to the larger population of Israel. What they have in common with the Nazis is that they hate Jews and would be happy to see them all dead, yes, but that becomes largely irrelevant when there is no capacity to hurt Israel militarily or kill their population in large numbers.

So, it's just propaganda and your opponents in the propaganda war can simply point out that Israel is the overwhelmingly powerful force in the region as the Nazis around the early stages of WW2 were, that Israel have the power to wipe out Gaza and have expressed their wish to do so as the Nazis expressed their wish to wipe out the Jews, that Israel is far more militarily and technologically advanced than Gaza and in the normal run of things controls it almost completely, that Israeli citizens have freedom of movement and Gazans haven't, that Gaza is and has been under a blockade and effectively policed by Israel in every aspect of their lives that matters. Your opponents in propaganda will say that the comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto or even the German concentration camps is more accurate, seeing as it's effectively an open prison. They will probably end by pointing out the fact that you have flipped reality on its head in almost every important and relevant aspect of the analogy at hand shows either your desperation or complete ignorance both of history and the present.

Why would you want to give them the ammunition to expose you like that? So, it's just a framing, and an extremely perverse one that in a blatantly false appeal to the most stupid and ignorant seeks to paint the Gazans as evil and a disproportionate threat so that Israel can be excused in slaughtering them in large numbers while we dehumanize them as Nazis (everyone hates the Nazis, right?). Not good. Try something else.

people both committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, — tim wood

A fantastical depiction of Palestinian and Jews in one sentence. Well done.

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out. — tim wood

Maybe start with the detail that what you just wrote is inherently contradictory.

So, it's just propaganda and your opponents in the propaganda war can simply point out that Israel is the overwhelmingly powerful force in the region as the Nazis around the early stages of WW2 were, that Israel have the power to wipe out Gaza and have expressed their wish to do so as the Nazis expressed their wish to wipe out the Jews — Baden

Did the US try to "wipe out" Nazi Germany? They wanted to wipe out the Nazi regime, indeed. And they did at great cost. And by the end of the war, the US didn't say "Ok, well the Nazis are sufficiently pushed back to their own accepted borders... let's go home now". At that point, past 1941, it was all but over for the Nazis, and certainly by 1945.

Your opponents in propaganda will say that the comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto or even the German concentration camps is more accurate, seeing as it's effectively an open prison. They will probably end by pointing out the fact that you have flipped reality on its head in almost every important and relevant aspect of the analogy at hand shows either your desperation or complete ignorance both of history and the present. — Baden

Indeed, and that would be propaganda for sure being that it is a "prison camp" because Hamas funnels the money to enrich their leaders and to build tunnels, obtain missiles, munitions, and the like. Instead of vying for a peace to stop it, they kept attacking and not stopping from their goal...

Why would you want to give them the ammunition to expose you like that? So, it's just a framing, and an extremely perverse one that in a blatantly false appeal to the most stupid and ignorant seeks to paint the Gazans as evil and a disproportionate threat so that Israel can be excused in slaughtering them in large numbers while we dehumanize them as Nazis (everyone hates the Nazis, right). Not good. Try something else. — Baden

Because the framing is apt, and still is even after these counter-arguments.

I'm not asking, but I wonder what sort of political solution is available with people committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, and have done consistently and repeatedly. — tim wood

Israel is the one inflicting the vast majority of death and destruction on Gazans and the one really able to act on it. It seems like you don't know this. Hamas are tiny and weak compared to Israel. They can never do it any significant harm. On the other hand, Israel has been killing Gazan civilians at will for years. They call it "mowing the lawn". Honestly, are you even aware of the power disparity here? Are you aware of how many Gazan civilians Israel has killed in the recent past compared to Israeli civilians Hamas have killed? Do you understand Israel is a nuclear power backed up by the U.S., whereas Hamas is a small group of extremist nutters that sometimes gets arms from larger groups of extremist nutters (e.g. Iran) but has no large scale military technology at all? Your whole mental world is on backwards. Maybe ask yourself who did that to you.