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. — schopenhauer1

When are we talking about? Germany still had warfighting capacity in 1945. Heavily degraded, yes, but it's not like they could not rebuild.

Anyways one of the relevant differences is that defeating the German military and occupying their territory was a reasonable plan to prevent Germany from fighting another war of aggression.

The challenge is that Israel's plan for Gaza is not a rational path to security for Israel.

How much one cares about Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, et al is a distinction that doesn't make a difference. "Caring" sounds a lot like "our thoughts and prayers" offered for the families of mass-shooting victims. Pffft. There is stuff I care about, and Israel is among that stuff. But my caring, as such, doesn't help Israel. Your caring doesn't help either. Perhaps our discussions in the public space matter a little. Each individual's effect is minuscule, but multiplied by a billion or two, it adds up, and perhaps, possibly, maybe it might affect national policy. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

To be honest, we are sidewalk superintendents, by-standers, kibitzers at a long distance from the war. For us, our caring and concern is low-cost.

Go stuff yourself with all the brownies you are withholding from everyone you think doesn't care enough.

Go stuff yourself with all the brownies you are withholding from everyone you think doesn't care enough. — BC

:yum: :lol:

"Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank strongly support Hamas, October 7 attack
A total of 75% of respondents agreed with the October 7 attack and 74.7% agreed that they support a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”"
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/article-773791 — RogueAI

And yet only 7.6% of Gaza residents, in answer to the question, What would you like as a preferred government after the war is finished in Gaza Strip?, replied ‘government by Hamas’.

Where are the Palestinian protesters chanting their hatred toward Hamas and love and support for the children of Israel? — Hanover

Oddly enough thousands of Palestinians did demonstrate against Hamas in July/August this year, as reported by the Times of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/protests-against-hamas-reemerge-in-the-streets-of-gaza-but-will-they-persist/

I used to think liberals sided with Hamas because of a reflexive sympathy for the underdog, but the pro-Palestinian arguments advanced here by normally sober-minded progressives are so divorced from reality, the logic is so tortured, I'm thinking some latent antisemitism is at play. — RogueAI

I would be tempted to agree. However, I don't want to get to that level of guessing the intentions of interlocutors, though it seems to come out that way. I was called a "white supremacist" (or something about my thread on Western civilization was) because I suggested that Middle Eastern nation states, being that they are already made up from European colonizing idea of "nation-state" should perhaps take on some of the good things from the West such as liberal democracy. My point was there is indeed a reflexive sympathy for any group that represents to them the "underdog". Normally what this group stands for is not at all what "progressive-minded" people would stand for.

So it all comes down I guess to land. Land is the fetish that people will stake their moralities on. You can do ANYTHING as long as you feel your land was stolen. But you can't do anything in response to that.

I think we all agree though, Hamas is evil. But the difference is Israel's response. How does one respond to Hamas? The reality is they are entrenched in that region and their goals are to do it again. If Israel did very little and Hamas did another October 7th attack, what then? How about after that? How about after that? In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives?

I think the other argument is Hamas will reform its views. You see, their stated goals and actions are just temporary. They are really waiting to transform. Apparently they will calm down, like a child that has to learn a bit and they'll grow up. Don't you see? They're just having a tantrum and Israel should just look at them like a lost child that will find their way one day. They got to give them space to grow.

Oh I guess I should add @Baden to the above post.

In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives? — schopenhauer1

But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country.

But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country. — bert1

So this is why RogueAI might have a point...

I think we all agree though, Hamas is evil. But the difference is Israel's response. How does one respond to Hamas? The reality is they are entrenched in that region and their goals are to do it again. If Israel did very little and Hamas did another October 7th attack, what then? How about after that? How about after that? In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives? — schopenhauer1

Why do we have to start form the position that the obvious thing is what Israel is doing, that is all-out war? Why is that the default outcome we somehow have to accept, even though we have plenty of historical precedent that it just doesn't work? Or rather it can work, if you follow it up with ethnic cleansing.

Shouldn't it be incumbent on the people who argue for violence - any violence - to first prove conclusively at least that it'll be effective? Oh sure in war you cannot second guess for evey bullet you fire. But you should at least have a coherent and plausible strategic aim.

Asking for a justification isn't condoning Hamas, nor does one need to accept responsibility for further atrocities by concluding that there's no good answer to the problem. The default should not be to go ahead and kill people because you just have to do something.

From what you quoted I asked a series of questions. Israel took it as all out war on Hamas. If they give up, that would end. They could give up no? Just curious, what if Israel just went into a hornets nest to get Hamas and were massacred?

From what you quoted I asked a series of questions. Israel took it as all out war on Hamas. If they give up, that would end. They could give up no? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure how that would work. Who would have the authority to do that? Someone might have the theoretical authority, but practically they'd just be ignored.

Of course every individual fighter could give up, sure.

Just curious, what if Israel just went into a hornets nest to get Hamas and were massacred? — schopenhauer1

Then they'd have to adjust their tactics. But still the core idea here seems to be you just have to "get Hamas", because they're evil and did something terrible. But that's the emotional reaction. Why is that the baseline we have to accept?

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. — Baden

Sort of.

If we were back in the 60s debating America's involvement in Vietnam, with you the uninvested non-American and me the invested, blindly patriotic American, I could at least understand your position that American interests in the region were limited, and a communist Vietnam would not pose any real threat to the US. With that, you might argue that full withdrawal from Vietnam were the correct thing because it posed no threat to the US.

I might then argue otherwise, adopting the domino theory of the time, insisting that if Vietnam falls, soon will the entire region and eventually Americans would eventually lose all their freedoms.

Our respective arguments would be speculative, with neither of us knowing what a communist Vietnam would mean going forward in terms of Western interests, but that would be the focus of our arguments.

What's important here is what you would not be arguing. You would not be arguing that you agree the US will likely fall to communism if Vietnam falls, but that should be allowed because too many Vietnamese women and children will die when the US defends itself, and Vietnamese children are just as precious as American ones.

That is, my partisan position would be squared against your contrasting one, with the correct position ultimately being determined by whose prediction will happen to be right. Neither of us though would be arguing about whether the US has the right to protect its interests. That would be a given. The question would be whether a war in Vietnam will do that.

Back to Israel.

The threat to Israel, unlike in the Vietnam example, isn't a speculative fear of being overtaken by a foreign ideology, but it's of actual rapists on actual parachutes dropping in on concerts and kibbutzim.

So while you could reasonably say in the Vietnam example we need to stop and rethink strategy and withdraw, you can't say the same of Israel. Actual bombs are falling and you have to respond even if it pangs your conscience that maybe you've not been a perfect neighbor in the past.

My position is that Israel's right to protect itself is a given, just like the US's. The question is whether a full scale invasion of Gaza does that. I say it does. If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? This seems the question that won't be answered without backtracking on the assumption that Israel has the right to defend itself. All I've heard here is that Israel must concede its sins and accept its spanking.

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel?

Then they'd have to adjust their tactics. But still the core idea here seems to be you just have to "get Hamas", because they're evil and did something terrible. But that's the emotional reaction. Why is that the baseline we have to accept? — Echarmion

Actually, @Hanover is paralleling my argument so I’ll defer to his post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/854677

So while you could reasonably say in the Vietnam example we need to stop and rethink strategy and withdraw, you can't say the same of Israel. Actual bombs are falling and you have to respond even if it pangs your conscience that maybe you've not been a perfect neighbor in the past. — Hanover

You just have to respond, and that's that? No further argument is necessary other than "something happened, therefore a response must happen"?

My position is that Israel's right to protect itself is a given, just like the US's. The question is whether a full scale invasion of Gaza does that. I say it does. If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? — Hanover

But why do we need to supply a strategy in order to be allowed to criticize? It should rightly be the other way around. It should be incumbent on the one who exercises violence to justify that violence. If they can't, then they're wrong. Whether the other party can supply some alternative means of resolution is irrelevant.

This is not an argument for absolute pacifism. But you can't turn around and turn the moral onus for your position on your interlocutor.

Had Israel re-established security outside Gaza and then done nothing, a whole lot fewer people would be dead now. Of course the conflict would not be solved and Hamas could then kill even more people in the future. But if you want to make that argument then at the very least you need to be pretty sure whatever you're doing will a) destroy Hamas and b) not result in another similar group taking its place.

When will Israel be protected? Are there any limits on what it can do?

If you say it doesn't, again I ask, what does? — Hanover

A political solution.

A political solution. — bert1

Explain how that works. Hamas attacks and you pick up the phone and call their leadership and you discuss how they ought stop raping concert goers?

Are you under any illusion that had Israel not responded as they did that the Hamas attack would not have ended?

I don't think the invasion is going to defeat Hamas. If they kill all the present crew, a new bunch of Iranian backed wackos will takes their places. Israel would have to occupy Gaza, and Blinkin has already signaled that that's not going to happen.

Bottom line is that Israel is ultimately going to have to rectify what they created in Gaza. Bombing the shit out it first is just going to make that harder. Going after Hamas by first securing the welfare of the civilians would have been smarter.

You just have to respond, and that's that? No further argument is necessary other than "something happened, therefore a response must happen"? — Echarmion

You have to respond because your country is being attacked.

But why do we need to supply a strategy in order to be allowed to criticize? It should rightly be the other way around. It should be incumbent on the one who exercises violence to justify that violence. — Echarmion

It's my position that the Israeli response is necessary to protect Israeli interests. If you disagree, you can present one of two arguments: (1) the Israeli response is disproportionate to the threat, meaning it excessively exacts damage beyond what is necessary to achieve safety for its citizens, or (2) Israel has no legitimate interest to protect because it is either an illegal occupier of the land or because it deserves this comuppance.

If you choose #1, you've got to set out what the proportionate response is. That no one can seem to do this leads me to believe that #2 is the real position everyone here actually has. The #2 position calls for the eliminatation of Israel, which is why Israel is ignoring the protests.

Going after Hamas by first securing the welfare of the civilians would have been smarter. — frank

Hamas uses the civilians as shields and then stopped them from fleeing south to avoid the IDF. You can't assure the safety of the civilians without first engaging Hamas because they use them as their weapons.

Hamas uses the civilians as shields and then stopped them from fleeing south to avoid the IDF. You can't assure the safety of the civilians without first engaging Hamas because they use them as their weapons. — Hanover

@Count Timothy von Icarus

Do you agree with Hanover's assessment that bombing was the only way to defend Israel?

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

How many Israelis do you authorize be killed in defence of Gaza? Israel has destroyed half of the homes and displaced the majority of the people there. Israel is an existential threat to Gaza. Israeli politicians have said they want it wiped out. So whatever number you think is appropriate on the Palestinian side, you would have to logically concede a much larger number on the Israeli side if you are to play the "Country A has a right to defend itself (hidden premise: "by any means")" card. Otherwise you are again stuck in hypocrisy. The thing is you know that Gaza actually can't defend itself because of the overwhelmingly superior military force Israel has, and so you can feel comfortable making the argument.

So, yes, any country has the right to defend itself. But not "by any means". And getting people to agree to "Israel has a right to defend itself" as a cover for "Israel has a right to defend itself + by any means" is a rhetorical ploy that can justify not only Israeli war crimes but Hamas's war crimes too. If Gaza has "a right to defend itself + by any means" then future war crimes against Israel must also consistently be excused. That's the bind you're in. I'm not in that bind because I don't accept the hidden premise.

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right?

So, every argument you make of the form "Why should we have to take it"? "Why can't we defend ourselves"? etc can be applied to any situation where a dominant power is facing an embedded guerilla force and the "obvious" answer that you seek from your interlocutor ("Of course you must defend yourself", "You don't have to take it", "Do whatever you think you need to") actually turns out to be not so obvious or uncomplicated, certainly not ethical, and not how civilised countries should react in such a situation without major qualifications.

And remember, Gaza is not an existential or infrastructural threat to Israel. The military capability of Hamas is absolutely tiny compared to Israel. Netanyahu messed up by letting border security lapse and Hamas got through in a significant way and did absolutely horrible things, but they were almost immediately defeated and had to retreat. So, razing Gaza to the ground and killing thousands of its civilians is not justifiable. It's politically opportunistic, excessive and vengeful rather than necessary, proportionate, and ethical. Also, committing war crimes is always wrong. Cutting the electricity to incubators so babies suffocate to death is wrong. Bombing refugees on routes declared safe is wrong. None of that is part of a legitimate defence and constantly trying to evade responsibility by blaming Hamas for everything as if Israel did not wilfully choose those actions is not going to fly. The blame can be shared but not escaped. If anyone has agency here, it's the IDF. So repeating the line "Israel has a right to defend itself" gets you nowhere and in fact with the hidden premise ties you into excusing any atrocity that forms part of a reaction to an attack, including reactions by Hamas to the current attack by Israel. Not a good position to be in.

So, how many Palestinians do you authorize be killed in the defense of Israel? — Hanover

I guess I didn't answer this. With all the qualifications above, if there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. But it is not justifiable to destroy an entire city because militants from that city attacked you. That's revenge and collective punishment.

Imbedded in that response is that the appropriate Israeli response to the 3,000 missles launched in 4 hours on 10/7, the paratrooper invasion of rapists, butchers, and kidnappers onto civilian areas was to kill just those terrorists who made it over and then build a bigger iron dome and then set up a conference to hash out the future with the orchestrators of the rape?

If there were a case where Hamas posed a direct threat to Israel from a military position and the only way to neutralize that threat risked some civilian lives, then it could be justifiable to destroy that position even if some civilians were killed. — Baden

I do believe being raped and butchered qualifies as a direct threat, so that leads me to destroying those military posts that offer Hamas that ability.

Hamas fortifies its positions behind its citizens, builds tunnels throughout Gaza, uses hospitals as military bases, and transports weapons in ambulances.

Those positions have to be destroyed under this logic.

It is a tragedy of epic proportions that Hamas is sacrificing helpless Palestinians, but that tragedy does not extend to the Israelis because they are not helpless, nor are they made helpless by the barbaric tactics of Hamas.

They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable — Baden

Do you truly view the Catholics of Northern Ireland as sufficiently similar to Hamas to make this comparison? This isn't a rhetorical question, but do you really believe the same folks who authorized the rape plan can be trusted at the negotiation table?

I mean think about that. You're sitting there with your leadership team and some guy says "let's rape concert goers and burn the babies on the collective farm," and the ayes have it, so it's approved, the parachutes then get packed, and then you tune in to CNN to watch it unfold.

That's kinda fucked up beyond repair, right?

You can keep repeating the word "rape" ad nauseum if you like but as far as I know that's a contested claim (from my reading of wiki) and there's no evidence of a "rape plan". Besides, it's unnecessary as Hamas targeting and butchering civilians, including children, already puts them on an absolute level of depravity. The difference is I can say this and also say suffocating babies to death is depraved. You can't. All you can do is use emotive language about Hamas as an attempt to excuse Israel's atrocities. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the IDF that Hamas "forced" them to kill children in hospitals? What exactly was the proven direct threat from that hospital to Israeli citizens that justified suffocating infants to death? Why did they "have to" kill those children? Spell it out. Otherwise, you have no case for the IDF being morally superior to Hamas.

I'll talk more about the IRA later (yes, there are differences) but I want to know what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital is. Make it utilitarian, deontological, whatever you like but drop the rhetoric and say something substantial for a change.

I'll talk more about the IRA later but I want to know right now what the specific proven justification for killing children in the hospital i — Baden

They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. Hamas had no justification to put children in harm's way under any ethical theory. Self defense was Israel's justification.

If I invade a country with a baby in my backpack, and you shoot me but I'm saved by my baby shield, the ethical violation is on me.

Two factual disputes from what you said above: (1) babies were evacuated from the hospital, meaning the IDF is working to reduce casualties to allow safe passage from an active war zone and (2) Hamas raped Israelis. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/world/israel-investigates-sexual-violence-hamas/index.html

The only known bombing of a Palestinian hospital was by a stray Hamas rocket, which hit the parking lot, but was first reported by Hamas and on this thread as a direct attack by Israel on the hospital itself.

This is a horrible war. It's painful to read the reports. Hamas should never have bombed, raped, butchered, and burned Israeli citizens, but really, this is child's play as to what happened after 9/11. The whole Middle East got re-sorted out. By some reports, the total deaths attributable to 9/11 was 4 to 5 million. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/

Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade.

Hamas knowingly threw themselves on this grenade. — Hanover

As I said to you before I would happily see every member of Hamas blown up with the grenades of your choosing. This is not what's happening. Most of the casualties are civilians.

They were disarming Hamas who attempted to use a hospital as a safety zone where the IDF said was a Hamas operational center. — Hanover

No proof of this. They didn't find one Hamas member as far as I know. But let's suppose for argument's sake they were disarming Hamas. Were Hamas members in the incubator room holding babies in front of them while Israeli soldiers shot at them as per your analogy? No. So, the analogy fails. Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort.

Try again, specifically tell me why they had to suffocate the babies to death and also kill other children. Details please. We're talking about you justifying the killing of babies. You'll need to actually make an effort. — Baden

Palestinians report 4 babies died in the hospital. Assuming that valid information, I assume it occurred as the result of power outages or other events secondary to the IDF"s attempt to remove Hamas from the hospital, or maybe they died of things unrelated to the war.

The IDF did not intentionally suffocate babies, and to the extent babies died collateral to the war efforts, responsibility rests with those who brought the war front to hospital, not the IDF. I don't justify killing babies, which is what I said before, which makes Hamas all the more despicable because they are responsible for that.

31 babies were evacuated, lending support to IDF"s claims they are doing all they can to reduce innocent casualties, which is extraordinary in comparison to what other nations do.

On the other hand, Hamas intentionally killed babies by their very hands, not as collateral damage, but intentionally and purposefully. That menace has to be eradicated, and the government of the Palestinian people cannot be removed without Palestinian casualties. That is always the case with war. The citizens suffer for the decisions of their government.

Hence why I was asking whether anyone agreed with my brief analysis of why things won’t be resolved anytime soon. The peace holds in Northern Island and view is that this is due mostly to cultural homogeny … what other reasons? What other factors are important? Are any relatable to the middle east?

People care about other people dying. That is a given. Who ‘cares’ more? Pfft is exactly my reaction to that.

All defence must be proportionate. You are fighting an embedded guerilla force. When Britain was doing the same with the IRA, they also had a right to defend themselves but not "by any means". They did not do it by killing Catholic civilians en masse or bombing and destroying their homes because that would have been madness and completely unacceptable. Instead, they did it by infiltrating and gathering intelligence on the IRA as well as beefing up their security systems so they could thwart IRA operations and negotiating in the background to make peace. This eventually worked. British civilian casualties remained relatively low, the IRA lost political support, and peace was achieved. If they had slaughtered babies in hospitals etc (regardless of their excuses) the IRA would have gained support including in the South of Ireland and in America, peace would have been impossible, more British civilians would have been killed, and Britain would have become an international pariah. That would have been stupid and self-destructive, right? — Baden

Thank you.

Exactly how comparable is this to the situation in the middle east though. Both conflicts span great swathes of time, but I think it is a hell of a lot easier for people who basically share the same traditions and history to come together and talk. I get the overall impression that this is not at all the case in the middle east as there is entrenched and despotic hatred held by many groups. Plus, there are multiple groups involved.

I would also state that it is very difficult to turn the other cheek (so to speak). The IRA were mostly acting at a distance. Hamas literally went into people houses and gunned them down. Israel has, on occasion I believe, done something similar but mostly at a distance. I am not sure there is an incredible amount of value in asking if it is ‘better’ to kill someone face to face with a gun or drop bombs on them from afar.

What could peace look like for future generations? What could be initiated now to allow the next generation to sit at a table and shake hands?