Fyi: The sixth Shit Bet chief in the documentary was on the job at the time he'd given his interviews.

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. — Hanover

I guess where we differ is that I don't think questions about morality can ever be answered objectively. It has to be about how you feel personally. It has to be based on love for life and love for humanity. To the extent that you act out of love, you're as moral as you can be. But I can see how if you do think in terms of an objective answer, you would put rational imperatives first?

Just to put things into scale, the war in Gaza has now killed more Palestinians than were killed in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. In the scale of the 80-year conflict, that is much.

So a very successful operation if you ask Bibi.

I think he's just overcompensating for the fact his name sounds like baby.

Edit: probably too soon but shitty jokes is how I cope.

I am pretty disturbed by the sheer number of defenses of a terrorist attack targeting civilians throughout the thread.

Other discussion has been incredibly insightful, however.

I am pretty disturbed by the sheer number of defenses of a terrorist attack targeting civilians throughout the thread. — AmadeusD

Who has defended Hamas actions?

If you were forced to live under an apartheid system and brutalized for protesting against it, I imagine you might be tempted to take up arms against it. I condemn all attacks on civilians on both sides without reservation. The underlying cause of this conflict though is the unrelentingly and largely unrecognized violent oppression of the Palestinians. Try the trivial thought experiment of putting yourselves in their place and you might come up with a more objective viewpoint. — Baden

The number of posts similar to this, is what im talking about. |
Equivocating, essentially saying "Yeah, but..." at every turn. Justifying. It's harsh. Just don't get it.

Who has sided with Hamas here? Quote them. Call them out. Or drop the accusation. — Baden

I'm standing back from this then. I can't get on with this type of disguised motive.

@AmadeusD

Nobody who's read my comments here would say (except as a juvenile attempt at provocation) that I've in any way defended Hamas. Troll failed.

So a very successful operation if you ask Bibi. — Benkei

Do remember that this is just a very temporary truce. So temporary, that the EU and the UN quarreled for long which words they could use: ceasefire / truce / humanitarian pause. And this is so temporary, they are still discussing if the extension of the 'humanitarian pause' can be continued past Thursday.

If (when) Bibi continues the operation, I wonder what countries will continue repeating the line that Israel has the right to defend itself if we reach new heights in the numbers of killed civilians.

Destroying the south of Gaza Hamas in the southern part of Gaza is the now the aim for Bibi ? ? ?

And I wonder how more enthusiasm for the 'just cause' Bibi will get when he returns to the war... :death:

Ok, so what you're saying is "a very successful start if you ask Bibi"?

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

No, particularly if we widen the window for when different policy interventions could occur. The easiest way to defend Israel would be to have the border properly garrisoned and monitored. It would not have taken a particularly onerous amount of resources to push back the initial Hamas assault. The heavy equipment they used would be extremely vulnerable to even older AT weapons and the paragliders were so low as to be easily taken down by simply having infantry with a GPMG there.

So they did so much damage because it was a surprise attack.

Ok, so what you're saying is "a very successful start if you ask Bibi"? — Benkei

The longer this 'pause' continues, the more flak Bibi will get when he restarts it. Especially if there still are kidnapped Israelis to be exchanged. But from the military point of view, naturally the operation isn't anywhere near to the end.

Here actually Joe Biden did say some words of wisdom to Bibi, but the natural response is to milk October 7th dry and unleash the IDF as long as their is the support.

What is Israel's end goal here? Are they planning an occupation? That would imply some sort of rebuilding effort.

What is Israel's end goal here? — RogueAI

To be a sovereign state that can exist without its next-door neighbor threatening its women and babies with rape and mutilation. :grin:

Breaking News: Hamas did not rape a Jewish baby in the past hour. What exemplars of humanitarianism.

Breaking News: IDF won't bomb the women and babies next-door tomorrow. What exemplars of humanitarianism.

And more anti-zionist propaganda from the evil United Nations, here from "the head terror-apologist" as Isreali leaders have put it:



At least they've gotten more UN workers killed than in any conflict. Remember October 7th!

What is Israel's end goal here? Are they planning an occupation? That would imply some sort of rebuilding effort. — RogueAI

Well they have so far insisted that a second occupation is out of the question.

The pessimistic version is that the decision-makers in Israel know full well the problems that have been discussed re "pacifying" Gaza, and that the talk of the "second Nakba" is not just empty rhetoric. That is wreck Gaza, then leave and hope that the crisis forces people to leave and perhaps more importantly pressures Egypt to actually let them leave.

The optimistic version I have trouble seeing. Hamas is destroyed and some other authority rebuilds Gaza with the help of Israel?

To be a sovereign state that can exist without its next-door neighbor threatening its women and babies with rape and mutilation. :grin: — Merkwurdichliebe

Unfortunately for Israel it's sovereignty extends over Gaza (at least I have not heard a convincing argument to the contrary). So even in a legal sense, Israel cannot simply wash it's hands of Gaza and pretend it's some foreign country they don't have any responsibility for.

The optimistic version I have trouble seeing. Hamas is destroyed and some other authority rebuilds Gaza with the help of Israel? — Echarmion

An inconsistency when your actual policy is to revenge a large terrorist attack, yet you want to have nothing to do with giving real independence/autonomy to the Palestinians (the feared two-state solution). Of course when you assist terrorists like Hamas and then think you can control them, this is the end result.

So even in a legal sense, Israel cannot simply wash it's hands of Gaza and pretend it's some foreign country they don't have any responsibility for. — Echarmion

Unfortunately the conquered land Israel loves so much seems to come with these human animals.

Goddammit man, use a smiley or something so we understand when you're getting cynical.

:smile: (Well, you did notice that I'm cynical.)

On the other hand, here's a clear headed interview of Ami Ayalon, who is one of the former Shin Bet directors and previously commanded of the Israeli Navy. Some points about this interview: Ayalon, who worked with Netanyahu for several years actually says Bibi's approach is risk-averse, meaning that he tries to manage things, not solve them (as this usually involves risk taking). Obviously managing the situation didn't work now.

Then he makes an interesting note: as both the Israeli and Palestinian narratives don't meet each other, the solution here would be outside pressure. Ayalon says that Biden here has credibility in Israel. He reminds that it took years to go from the Yom Kippur war to the peace deal with Egypt. It is leadership what is needed in the region, as this isn't just a conflict between Palestinians and Israel, but it has effects on the region and hence to the World.



What is so interesting in Israeli politics is how many of these former intelligence directors and generals have actually been part of the labour party, the left, in Israel. Perhaps it's that they do see that a two state solution is really the solution here while the right seems to have been hijacked by the fundamentalists and Bibi's type of populism.

In the long run, maybe in a decade or two, I would like to see a two state solution but not in the near future. Don't forget Egypt also supports the blockade. The Palestinian education system needs to be fundamentally reformed; anti-semitism and violence is inculcated at an early age. One can't help but be pessimistic to see the hostage handovers involving palestinian civilians harassing and shouting death to the hostages. Elon suggested a three pronged approach: eliminate hamas, reform education system, build prosperity. But this will take time.

In the long run, maybe in a decade or two, I would like to see a two state solution but not in the near future. — BitconnectCarlos

Isn't that the official line: a two state solution always in the future perhaps, but not now?

Perhaps we can have the two-state solution, if Hamas would hit the jackpot: hence not only succeeding in making a devastating attack on Israel, but having then made Israel to make such a retaliatory strike with so much force, that the death toll would alienate the World and even the US to demand a two-state solution. Then Israel would have to choose the South Africa option, especially if the Evangelists and AIPAC wouldn't carry through in the US. Well, if you make supporting Israel a "culture war" issue, that can kill debate about the issue quite quickly.

But likely you are right. The two state solution will be a dream and the conflict will just go on: surely the children that survive this war in Gaza will remember it. And then we can have the next 'mowing of the lawn' in 2030's, perhaps 2040's, when they are adults?

Well, that's for the temporary truce then and back to bombing Gaza.

Interesting to note if in the US this will cause more critique or not in the democratic party.

Interesting to note if in the US this will cause more critique or not in the democratic party. — ssu

It will split the Democratic party and hand Trump a victory.

Isn't that the official line: a two state solution always in the future perhaps, but not now? — ssu

You talked about not talking about states as individuals but the inverse is also true, you can’t talk about statehood, without individuals. That is to say the venom of individuals has to be largely absent to actually have a state. A state isn’t much unless it recognizes its borders and recognizes its neighbors’ borders (or right to even exist). As Golda Meir said:

When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us. — Golda Meir

You can point to Netanyahu being a dick and this or that, but this sentiment goes a long way back before Netanyahu’s policies.

That is to say, it isn’t enough for leaders to be ok with peace, it largely has to be driven by the people. They keep saying Abbas is ineffective, why is that? And certainly Netanyahu has sidelined him but that’s not the only reason…

So you would need enough willpower from leadership to teach that the other side is your equal. Your friendly neighbor. Your ally. You need to see them as not occupiers, colonizers, etc. the narrative for individuals has to change. You then have to have the willpower to maintain a peacekeeping force that prosecutes its own bad actors who act against their neighbor. You then need to have elections that don’t vote in extremists again. That’s all driven by the people and their general will, not just the people recognized as the leaders.

And don’t get me wrong, this peace would have to include settlements being dismantled and Israel would have to enforce its own policies if that happens. Certainly someone who is not Netanyahu would need to be in charge if or when that happens. But as @Merkwurdichliebe points out here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857402

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same…

They keep saying Abbas is ineffective, why is that? — schopenhauer1

Well, what has going along with the peace plan given to the people in the West Bank, the apartheid system continues, there new settlements are built.

You can point to Netanyahu being a dick and this or that, but this sentiment goes a long way back before Netanyahu’s policies. — schopenhauer1

Certainly, the Likud has all had this strategy where a two state solution would be a capitulation to the enemies of Israel. It has been the left that has honestly tried the two-state solution. Thus wanting peace, the Likud has fallen off from the political map and become a very tiny party in Israel.

Revenge and fear prevails and is the source where Likud politicians get their support. And it is ironic, that the former Shin Bet hopes that the US would here steer clear Israel to peace.

It will split the Democratic party and hand Trump a victory. — Hanover

Trump win is a possibility, although I hope Americans would choose something else than frail old men like Biden or Trump.

Yet I think the younger generations of Americans aren't as steadfast in their unwavering support of Israel, but do understand that perhaps not all the time America's objective as synonymous with Bibi's Israel. Assuming there isn't another terrorist attack.

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. — schopenhauer1

You simply cannot deny that the occupied/occupier issue does matter here. It is imbalanced, because one being the occupier and the other side being the occupied with very limited resources is imbalanced!

It would be totally different if we would talk about Iran-Israeli relations. WTF has Israel done to Iran? That the Shah had good relations with Israel, that is it? Where this hypocrite grandstanding comes from? Trying to push your own Islamic revolution in muslim countries and that's why pick a fight with Israel? This is the classic case where a revolution had to go to desperate lengths to get that enemy they can then show they are so good to everybody else. In reality many young Iranians are totally OK with America, so pretty urgent to make your own "axis-of-evil" with US-Israel.