A moderate Palestinian state would not have these human rights abuses:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/palestine-state-of/report-palestine-state-of/ — RogueAI

Even a 'moderate Palestinian state', if by meaning that democratic elections are held and political opposition isn't persecuted, I guess there's much in the insurgency that human rights organizations won't look as to be OK.

And there surely is loads of evidence of warcrimes, human rights abuses and so on October 7th, even if Israel has now degraded the number of killed during that day. But it's not good either how Israel is fighting this war.

TEL AVIV, Israel — In a text message to journalists on Friday, a spokesperson from Israel's Foreign Ministry said "around 1,200" is now what he called "the official number of people" killed by Hamas militants on Oct. 7. That's about 200 fewer victims than Israel had been citing for more than a month.

* * * * *

As I see it, you’re reiterating my points, not countering them. If you’re trying to say America responsibly reintegrated Germany and Japan and Israel should do the same, I agree. — schopenhauer1

Hopefully you have noticed, that I'm not disagreeing with everything you say.

But there's the real problem, which makes me so pessimistic about this conflict: How can Israel do this?

Does it have the urge to do this? What is dominant view now is that the other side only understands lead. This goes also with the Palestinian side. The PA is sidelined and the West Bank surely isn't now a tranquil sea of modesty and respect. And Gaza? Well, what is there to talk? Who is there to talk to?

The only reason, in my view, is that Bibi and IDF go too far with the military operation of destroying Hamas and aren't prepared to take care of the 2,2 million people in which a lot more than just now children and civilians die. A lot more that finally it looks bad in the US. So bad that the question goes beyond the general culture war lines of being pro-Israeli or not, and something has to be done. And then it's so embarrassing to Israel, that they have to do something. People will die if they don't get food and water, hence the issue has to be solved.

There are hints that this could happen as the mood is starting to change in the US.

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - U.S. public support for Israel's war against Hamas militants in Gaza is eroding and most Americans think Israel should call a ceasefire to a conflict that has ballooned into a humanitarian crisis, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Some 32% of respondents in the two-day opinion poll, which closed on Tuesday, said "the U.S. should support Israel" when asked what role the United States should take in the fighting. That was down from 41% who said the U.S. should back Israel in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Oct. 12-13.

The share saying "the U.S. should be a neutral mediator" rose to 39% in the new poll from 27% a month earlier. Four percent of respondents in the poll said the U.S. should support Palestinians and 15% said the U.S. shouldn't be involved at all, both similar readings to a month ago.

Of course, one solution is to try to keep the whole issue out of sight.

Or then declare that Hamas is finished and try to stick to that line and hope people don't question it. :roll:

What a disgusting and pathetic display of political opportunism by Washington:




First giving Netanyahu a blank check to commit his evil, blocking UN resolutions calling for a cease-fire, and with the Israel lobby appeased now going back to whinging about a two-state solution which will never happen anyway (and they know it) to avoid dropping too much in the polls.

:vomit:

So, what's the plan? Starve everybody? Just had an acquaintance from Gaza confirm his cousins were killed yesterday, parents and children, just like that.

Hezbollah so far has not escalated, Iran said they weren't going to get involved for now. So, what gives? Biden not going to do anything? Just let them all die?

The survivors of one of the worst massacres in history will reply in kind to others? Great.

Anyhow, I'm going to let Hanover have the final say in our debate if he wants it and bow out of the thread for a while. I'm saying this here to make it harder for me to be tempted to post more because I think I've said enough for now. — Baden

I too will bow out for the time being, leaving with this final comment to ponder: quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

Right, so is the argument that, through an occupation of the Gaza strip, Israel might be able demilitarise it and then develop occupation policies that'll lead to a long-term rapprochement? — Echarmion

Yes.

Well then we're probably in agreement that Israel's stated intention to not occupy Gaza likely means things will be much worse for whoever is left there, since it seems to imply Israel will destroy all the "Hamas infrastructure" (which probably means just all all the infrastructure) and then just leave.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread.

South Africa

https://www.dirco.gov.za/south-africa-has-maintained-a-consistent-position-on-the-israel-palestine-question/

"unfinished decolonisation struggle"

India

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/palestine-israel-conflict-india-unsc-jerusalem-clashes-aqsa-7320652/

"Hours after Hamas' first attacks on Gaza on October 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on a post on X, expressed shock at the Palestinian offensive, and conveyed “solidarity with Israel”. He wrote, "“Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour." However, five days later, in its first official statement on the Israel-Hamas war, New Delhi has sought to nuance this. Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, in response to questions at the weekly briefing, said that there is a “universal obligation to observe international humanitarian law,” and there is also a global responsibility to fight the menace of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel."

China

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1302191.shtml

China urged an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, expressed opposition to any forced displacement and relocation of Palestinian civilians and emphasized that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of the Palestinian people must have their consent, Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi told visiting Arab and Islamic foreign ministers on Monday.

Brasil

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2023/nov/14/brazils-lula-says-israel-committing-equivalent-of-terrorism-in-gaza-2632858.html

Lula: Israel is committing the "equivalent of terrorism" in Gaza by killing innocent women and children in its war on Hamas

& other south american countries

Have cancelled arms deals with US and other Israeli supporters for their unrepenting support of Israel.

None of these "non-Western" countries (except for Paraguay) designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation other than via the OAS, which is of course dominated by the northern American countries. That aside, no Asian country but Japan and no African country. In other words, the favoured position here is a minority position in the world. Posters would do well to acquaint themselves with other narratives instead of the implicitly racist assumptions in the Western narrative where the more people look like us the more support they get (Ukrainian refugees vs others, Israel vs Palestine etc.) or because of historic guilt trips for crimes committed by our grandfathers. My country doesn't owe Israel allegiance or support just because a bunch of Jews live there.

how a path can be created for future generations.

I meant in something like 50-100 years at least! — I like sushi

No problem! In 100 years the world will be in the midst of a 3ºC - 5ºC overheating crisis; the stormy chaotic weather will be hot; the oceans will be rising rapidly; food production will be disrupted; coastal cities will be regularly or chronically inundated; many millions of climate refugees will be on the move if thy have not died already... We are living in the "good old days"! Israel who?

The folk-singer Billy Bragg used the phrase "the vanity of nations" in his version of the International. Nationalism, religion, ethnocentrism (whether it's black, white, Palestinian, Jewish, Han Chinese. English, Mestizos, etc.). All the specificities that occlude our common, unitary species-relatedness are a piece of the problem. Unfortunately, BOMFOG (the Brotherhood Of Man under the Fatherhood Of God) went out of style years ago. and I don't see anything similar on the horizon.

Maybe a global heat crisis will help us drop our focus on specificities, but I would be surprised if that helps.

I do not look for a cessation of conflict on earth, no matter how good the climate is or how bad, because "whatever it is that people want or need" won't be distributed equally. and therein lies an insoluble problem.

Does there have to be a resolution to ethnic conflict? There does if the relevant ethnics want a decent future, but...

How about an ethnographic and ethnological analysis of the state of affairs in that particular region then? :D

Just looking for some productive discussion :)

Like I said, the IRA managed to cease terrorist attacks but I am largely convinced the common traditions of peoples involved were common enough. In the middle east what kinds of commonalities exist because the various factions, and what apart than my broad statement might I have been neglecting?

I do not for a second believe it is almost entirely due to ONE point. What can we learn here? What information can we glean from these constant hostilities that can better equip us to avoid them elsewhere or help us understand conflicts of this type?

In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel." — Benkei

Yeah right, that will happen.

From: Wartime-Poll-Results-of-an-Opinion-Poll-Among-Palestinians-in-the-West-Bank-and-Gaza-Strip
"Do you support the solution of establishing one state or two states in the following formats:"

One-State Solution for Two Peoples: 5.4%

Two-State Solution for Two Peoples: 17.2%

A Palestinian state from the river to the
sea: 74.7%

At least for now Hezbollah and Iran has been out of the conflict... apart a few rockets.

There's two ways to look at this. On the other side, one could say that the Israeli response has deterred from Hezbollah joining the attack (and the two US carriers on the Mediterranean). From the other perspective, Iran's unconventional deterrent Hezbollah has kept Israel and the US from attacking itself (unlike Syria, which is a free range for bombing).

But then there's the Houthi hijack of a ship that has an owner that is Israeli. Bibi is accusing the Iran of terrorism.

Hopefully this doesn't escalate.

I've made this point before, but as an (imperfect but sufficiently apt) analogy, the IRA engaged in a long guerilla war with the British army in which it committed atrocities against British civilians. It had widespread support among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland and in certain cities, such as Derry, it dominated politically as does Hamas in Gaza. The British government wanted to eliminate and defeat the IRA but no one in their right mind ever suggested bombing Derry and slaughtering masses of Irish civilians as a means to kill IRA operatives because you cannot "eliminate" an embedded guerilla force without committing war crimes against the civilian population in which they are embedded. And trying to do so simply creates more extremism among the remaining population. The British and anyone with any common sense knows this and they remained within international law in dealing with the conflict. But by the logic of the apologists on here, their reaction could excusably have been "Oh well, it's a war" and they could have sent the bombers over Derry. — Baden

The moment that the Royal Air Force would have started bombing villages or houses in North Ireland, it would have been over. There would have not been the appetite for a new civil war in Ireland at all and the insurgency couldn't have been hided. Now the UK government achieved a huge victory in the discourse of the conflict: it was "The Troubles", not an insurgency (even if now the British Army openly says that it indeed was an insurgency. And the assassination attempt of Prime Minister Thatcher, didn't make "the gloves to come off". Yes, you had even British tanks deployed in Northern Ireland, but I don't think they ever used their main armamnet.

What is very telling is that in the conflict more British soldiers and policemen died than IRA terrorists. This ratio favoring the IRA terrorists doesn't tell about them being superior, but the British government sticking to the laws it had and using that restraint. And the British officials have later admitted that there have been killings by it's proxies and has made apologies for this.

The reality that having less restraint and using more firepower usually inflicts less casualties for you at the moment, but those actions can make you lose the war.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread. — Benkei

The US backing anything that Israel does isn't anything new. And It should be noted that not all in the West take the line of Biden.

Speaking the day after a humanitarian aid conference in Paris about the war in Gaza, Mr Macron said the "clear conclusion" of all governments and agencies present at that summit was "that there is no other solution than first a humanitarian pause, going to a ceasefire, which will allow [us] to protect... all civilians having nothing to do with terrorists".

"De facto - today, civilians are bombed - de facto. These babies, these ladies, these old people are bombed and killed. So there is no reason for that and no legitimacy. So we do urge Israel to stop."

Ireland is once again an outlier in the West, home to some of the loudest criticism of Israel and support of Palestinian rights, as the Middle East conflict rages.

After Hamas launched an assault in Israel on October 7, Irish Prime Minister Leo Varakdar decried the deadly incursion, during which about 1,200 people were killed and 240 were taken captive.But less than a week later, he became one of the few European officials to raise alarm.

“Israel doesn’t have the right to do wrong,” he said in something of a play on words as most European leaders were stressing Israel’s “right” to self-defence during its bombing campaign on Gaza, the enclave ruled by Hamas.

In just 41 days of war, more than 11,400 Palestinians have been killed by Israel.

Varadkar has also said Israel’s bombardment “amounts to collective punishment”, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

Varadkar has also said Israel’s bombardment “amounts to collective punishment”, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.

If your enemy isn't abiding by the Geneva Conventions, why should you? Does a nation have a moral duty to take the "high ground" in a conflict? Even if it increases their chances of losing the conflict? What about if their existence is truly at stake? If the Axis had used chemical weapons, wouldn't the Allies have been justified using them in retaliation? Or suppose Germany had gone through with Sea Lion and invaded Britain after the fall of France. Would the Brits have been justified in using gas against the German invaders? Doesn't the British high command have a duty to its people to fight a Nazi invasion with every means at their disposable? If the British generals decide that chemical weapons will give them a decisive edge against Nazi soldiers, don't they have a duty to use those chemical weapons in defense of their citizens?

If your enemy isn't abiding by the Geneva Conventions, why should you? Does a nation have a moral duty to take the "high ground" in a conflict? — RogueAI

Generally, nations are not moral subjects, individuals are.

But yeah I'd say you have the moral duty to take the high ground, always and in every situation. That is
what moral philosophy is ultimately about, isn't it? To have a framework that applies over and above what your current desires or interests are.

If we can throw it by the wayside when it doesn't suit us, why have it in the first place?

Even if it increases their chances of losing the conflict? What about if their existence is truly at stake? — RogueAI

Morality in war is a tricky business, especially since there's not necessary a good argument to treat your enemy at large differently than your allies. You might have taken extra obligations towards your allies, but those could hardly result in your enemies having less moral standing.

I think we would need to employ the logic of self defense, expanded to groups since against an organised attacker, only an organised defense could succeed. And in that context we could argue that, in a justifiable cause, one does not need to accept undue risks. Since those that are fighting for the aggressor have by this act placed themselves outside the moral framework themselves, and thus cannot demand for themselves it's full protection.

But it's a difficult argument to carry forward without contradiction, as obviously not all victims of war really chose to be on either side in a meaningful way.

If the Axis had used chemical weapons, wouldn't the Allies have been justified using them in retaliation? — RogueAI

I think you could make the case that a counterattack is justified if it has a plausible military objective that you judge you could not meet any other way.

Or suppose Germany had gone through with Sea Lion and invaded Britain after the fall of France. Would the Brits have been justified in using gas against the German invaders? Doesn't the British high command have a duty to its people to fight a Nazi invasion with every means at their disposable? If the British generals decide that chemical weapons will give them a decisive edge against Nazi soldiers, don't they have a duty to use those chemical weapons in defense of their citizens? — RogueAI

They probably have that duty, but I do think they'd also have to weigh their duty towards humanity in general, which even includes the enemy soldiers.

If the use of a gas weapon provides the decisive edge, and you have also considered the probable long term consequences, maybe such use could be justified. At the same time we can probably conclude that lobbing gas grenades at starving and undersupplied Germans who are barely holding their perimeter might be a step too far.

If we can throw it by the wayside when it doesn't suit us, why have it in the first place? — Echarmion

But to many, the point of morality IS to suit us (us being the larger picture, humanity as a whole - morality exists to improve our lives).

So if some moral rule is making lives worse and not better, would it not be a worthwhile argument that we should put it to the side?

I'm not saying this particular situation is necessarily like this, but it COULD be.

Well that would the the utilitarian perspective. My problem with that is that "improving our lives" is subjective and utilitarianism doesn't itself provide any framework to reconcile the different positions people might have on "the greater good". Hence I prefer the deontological approach.

I would still say that the purpose of moral philosophy is to make the world better, just not in the sense of trying to optimise any particular metric.

This is a gross misinterpretation of IHL.

It is unsurprising one might find terms like 'voluntary human shield' in a DoD manual, but please refrain from using such terms in a serious discussion about IHL.

To make a long story short, Israel has no right to order Gazans to move, and forcing Gazans to move would in many cases constitute war crimes under the articles pertaining to forced displacement and ethnic cleansing. Resisting foreign occupation, and resisting war crimes, does not make a civilian population a legitimate military target or 'voluntary human shields'.

I feel a sudden urge to wash after having to explain this on a philosophy forum.

Please refrain from being an emotional idiot. — Vaskane

An ironic statement, considering the content of your post. :chin:

It wasn't clear to me you were disagreeing with Schmitt. You could have just said so and taken my post as an argument in support of your position.

But to each their own.

So now we have a pause.

Hopefully the four days will be used so that the offensive won't restart and continue for another 8 weeks.

At least the sides are talking.

It's all good.

For a while rumors have gone around about the IDF / IAF itself being responsible for a large amount of civilian casualties during the attacks of October 7th.

A recent Haaretz interview with IAF Colonel Nof Erez now seems to lend credence to that idea, referencing the Hannibal Directive that essentially authorizes the Israeli armed forces to take out Israeli hostages to avoid them being used in bargaining for hostage exchanges. Erez called it a "Mass Hannibal".

Erez was presumably directly involved (the interview seems to imply as much) though the full article by Haaretz does not seem to be available yet.

Worrying, to say the least.

Seems like levelling Gaza has been achieved in the northern part (Gaza City), literally.




Temporary truce what they call this lull in the fighting.

Fingers crossed. The size of the prisoner exchange is at least a good indication that it might hold though.

But I do wonder when/how Israel will withdraw IDF losses reported so far are suprisingly light, but the cost of a lengthy occupation would seem likely to ramp up quickly. It's also probably the best way to destroy Hamas' credibility though.

I've heard speculation that Hamas' political leadership was not made aware of the attack before it happened. It certainly seems like they didn't let their allies know, so that has some level of credence. If that's true, it speaks to quite literally catastrophic issues within the groups C&C.

Using artillery and going in house-by-house first by robots and dogs and taking the time will lower substantially the losses. Speed and rapid overtaking houses would be what would cause Israeli casualties. Shoot first and then inspect works to keep the attackers casualties low. Totally different for the civilians.

A telling interview from the Jordanian ambassador Dina Kawar. And this is an ambassador whose country has made peace with Israel:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gatekeepers_(film)

:mask: :fire:

2012 ...


2013 ...


(will post full documentary when i find it)

Nobody asked us our opinion... but yeah, why not? Pedro is always there, even if nobody expects him.

Spain's Pedro Sánchez tells Netanyahu number of deaths in Gaza 'truly unbearable'

@Hanover

Say there was a situation where one of your loved ones was being used as a human shield by villainous entities. Would you still say it's ok to blow the shields up for the purposes of defense?

Thanks! A great documentary.

Yes, usually the generals and the intelligence officers tell the truth ...afterwards when retired. Naturally when in service they are loyal "team players" for the political leadership.

A good reminder that the West isn't the US.

In fact, Finland has gotten it's share of flak by earlier deciding to get an air defense system from Israel. When asked about it by Al Jazeera and reminded that the leftist alliance party has criticized this, the foreign minister could only say: "Finland is a democracy and we have a multiparty system - all politicians have the right to also oppose the decisions of the government". What else could she say? Yet the message is still quite the same as from Spain.

Yes, the situation is similar here. The government is composed of eight different political parties, and some of them criticised Pedro for not being more critical towards Israel. We had tough weeks because he was elected a few days ago, and there were a lot of debates in Congress.

What I don't understand is why this international conflict took part in the investiture. I think my country is not that relevant, and I believe that Netanyahu doesn't care about what Spain would say at all. But you know, we have to say 'something', and Pedro decided to be brave and criticised Israel.

I think this is even a strategic move because he promised that he would recognise Palestine as a sovereign nation in the future...

I am afraid of the long term consequences. It is not cool to be targeted by Israel and his 'partners'...

Say there was a situation where one of your loved ones was being used as a human shield by villainous entities. Would you still say it's ok to blow the shields up for the purposes of defense? — frank

You don't turn to the least objective to ask what is most objective. That is, a judge who has an interest in the outcome of the case cannot sit on that case. So, might I be irrational in that circumstance? Likely.

I would, though, place 100% of the blame of the death on the enemy, and would find them additionally immoral for forcing a moral person into a situation where he had to kill an innocent person.