I see you skipped this post, which I believe the strongest against your case:

Would it be "off topic" if by comparing them it might reveal that the definition becomes too wide? — schopenhauer1

Too wide for your narrow mind? It seems to function s a legal definition. I am objecting to the ruling out of language in common use — can you explain your objection to my objection?

Too wide for your narrow mind? It seems to function s a legal definition. I am objecting to the ruling out of language in common use — can you explain your objection to my objection? — unenlightened

Define something however you want to fit your case, man. I'm just giving you the other side regarding that usage in this case.

Gaza is an "open air prison" because of various moves that are not fully (nor even mostly) Israel's fault or intention. Rather, Hamas was voted in. It used money to build bombs and not economic development, and then proceeded to harass a much more powerful neighbor in the process. That more powerful neighbor, then responds when they are attacked by the government that heads that area. Thus comes the blaming of Israel for this or that for their own undoing because (insert generic anti-Zionism thing in here). Okie dokie.

But you completely discount the event in which it was coined The Genocide of Armenians which Armenians still refer to it as "the Genocide." — Vaskane

Yes, I discount it, because even to the extent that it is in common parlance as you speak it it is qualified as "of Armenians", it does not rule out that there may have been other genocides of other peoples. Every people think of themselves as 'The People'. My parents talked about The War; their parents talked about The Great War, to distinguish it from the little difficulty with the nazis, that my parents called "The War"

Define something however you want to fit your case, man. — schopenhauer1

No, man. I do not define something however I want, and I have not really made a case for anything except the allowance of common usage in this thread. I think you must be confusing me with the international court or something. Rather it is you who are trying to change the definitions. I observed that there is a futile argument over the mere words, and sought to resolve it. I wasn't even addressing you particularly.

Now when it comes to "open air prison", that is an emotive and unclear term, that may have some legitimacy in describing the feelings that some, maybe many Palestinians have about their situation - that they cannot get out, and cannot work to improve their situation. But it is not a clear or exact description of anything, and probably not very useful therefore to a political or philosophical discussion.

I observed that there is a futile argument over the mere words, and sought to resolve it. I wasn't even addressing you particularly. — unenlightened

Ok, well, we can just drop this line of argument I think. I was trying to make a point about using semantics to then fit the case into the semantics, but now this is solely eating up our energy discussing semantics, the thing I was against doing anyways. Rather, look at the substance. What should be done. How should Israel proceed? How should Hamas proceed? etc.

Israel's goal: End Hamas.
Hamas' goal: (Besides end Israel which is NOT in their capacity but is in their intent), to stay alive and not let Israel destroy them.

I already gave my substantive proposal.. To follow more-or-less Thomas Friedman's proposal as I quoted earlier.

And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too. — 180 Proof

Have you been paying attention? Bibi's regime is not the one getting fucked

I guess the Armenians aren't out here flaming down people with the Anti-Armenian League propaganda. — Vaskane

Yes indeed. Successful genocides are quickly forgotten, because history is written by the winners. And this is a thread about Gaza today. I have forgotten the Armenians, because the language has forgotten them. You would cause a deal of confusion, — and god knows there is enough already — if you started to try and talk about The Genocide, and insisting it was something that happened elsewhere and to other people than the places and peoples we are discussing. This is called "context". In a discussion of Armenian history, it would be entirely appropriate, here it is an irrelevant and confusing dispute.

And now i am bored already, so carry on at your pleasure.

Thoroughly offensive comments like this add to your charm.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.

“Woops, total accident.”

“Good enough, carry on.”

Apparently, you've not been paying attention ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk
Worth the listen.

Apparently, you'be not been paying attention — 180 Proof

I only have to hear the lame ass bitching and whining from you Hamas symps to know Hamas is fucked.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting. — Mikie

Boo hoo

What Western countries have always had a hard time figuring out is how to conduct asymmetrical warfare whereby the enemy hides amidst the population, uses tunnels, and in the case of groups like Isis and Hamas, use a variety of barbaric terrorist methods, no matter the cost to their own people. — schopenhauer1

Good point. That is one of the things makes the West so historically unique, that it seeks to hold itself to strict standards of humane warfare. The idea of war crimes, is as insane as it is brilliant because it creates an objective moral highground in relation to the brutality and savagery of total war.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.
— Mikie

Boo hoo — Merkwurdichliebe

What a truly repugnant response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
Another worth the listen/watch.

The genocide — oh, sorry, I mean that very just “war” on innocent children — continues. Eight thousand dead and counting.
— Mikie

Boo hoo — Merkwurdichliebe


What a truly repugnant response. — Mikie

@Merkwurdichliebe's “boo hoo” reply makes me envision someone eating popcorn with a brewsky in their hand in front of their TV set while joyfully laughing out loud at every instance of a child being maimed or dying, and always drooling at the mouth for more children’s blood being shed.

There's a chance this might not be Merkwurdichliebe, but such is the image his comment produces.

In my experience, such individuals have no guilt and can do no wrong, irrespective of what their actions might be. They’re in their own eyes pure angels - angels that want for others to be ruthlessly obliterated with as much bloodlust and spin of reality as is required to do so.

Honest observations from someone who knows himself to be no angel - of the type just addressed or any other. :naughty:

----

The numbers you talk about alone sometime bring me close to crying rather authentic tears. But then, this turns into anger - which can in principle be put to good use.

Basically wanted to second your comment.

you Hamas symps — Merkwurdichliebe

Cite where I "sympathize with Hamas" or retract your slander.

WW2 history must turn you into a quivering wreck. — RogueAI

Well, unlike some others, there indeed is something about concentration camps that I deem wrong. This especially when they turn into extermination camps. No quivering on my part, but sorrow, yes - this mixed with some anger at those who don't give a fuck.

In now long-gone history, this concentration camp turned extermination camp thing was once done by the Nazis toward the Jews - in case some have not heard. But this is only meaningful to those who care, of course.

In the present moment, this concentration camp turning into extermination camp is being directly done by the Israelis with the Palestinians - if not strictly via direct killings then via intentional starvation and disease. But this is also strictly meaningful to those who have a heart and thereby care.

The past is unalterable. The present, however, is. But I somehow already know your reply: almost 10,000 children killed in a few months time, to not mention those maimed both physically and psychologically ... boo-fuckin-hoo you privately reply, because you just don't give a fuck.

And no, I don't shed tears for people that hate children.

Yes, I understand you live in reverse land where arguing against the continued murder of civilians under false pretenses of defence is wrong because it's Jews doing it. It's ubermensch and untermensch all over again. Open your eyes and realise the shame where you've learned more from the Nazis than the resistance fighters that saved Jews. But of course as a non-Jew it's just something offensive which you can then ignore which fits right in your brand of ultranationalist racism. Here's a reminder where other Jews already pointed that out:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/1948/12/02.htm

Perhaps. And it is this is why I bring it up. The arguments should be made for how hard one should use military force, not other issues that are not the case, like "this is a genocide", which again given the history of actual genocides, seems like a cynical ploy. I think the inaccuracy of that framing, means it should be dropped for a more apt argument about how war is to be conducted. — schopenhauer1

Why is calling Israel's conduct in Gaza a genocide a cynical ploy or inaccurate framing?

It fits the IHL definition of a genocide.

Israeli officials themselves are busying overtly genocidal language.

I think Netanyahu would be found guilty of genocide if he were put infront of an impartial international court.

As I've noted before, several Bosnian Serbs were convicted for the crime of genocide by an international tribunal for their roles in the Srebrenica massacre. What Israel is doing today in Gaza and has done over the course of several decades is of a scale far greater.

As such, jurisprudence supports my argument that what Israel is doing today falls within the realm of a genocide.

This isn't an exaggeration on my part at all.

I would say that there is a middle ground where "War is never justified", and "Maximum force is necessary to achieve objective". — schopenhauer1

My view of what constitutes acceptable use of force and civilian casualties correspond roughly with the guidelines IHL provides. Israel is blatantly ignoring IHL and committing war crimes.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your position as a middleground. If you believe what Israel is doing today is justified I think your views are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

On what basis can you condemn Hamas for its attacks if you see no problem with what Israel is doing today? They're simply using "maximum force necessary to achieve objectives" as well.

But this again assumes EVERY insurgency is morally justified. That is a ridiculous notion. "You represent the underdog, and are willing to fight for a cause, and do so using terrorism, therefore your cause is right". That doesn't make sense. Just because, for example, Isis, or the Lord's Resistance Party, or Islamist insurgency in the Sahel, or the Sandinistas, or Contras, or the Shining Path, or the represents an "insurgency" or some "underdog" doesn't mean they are morally justified to carry on with their operations. — schopenhauer1

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong.

If people are more informed on the history, they couldn't just use the latest headline as their newest political cudgel. That would mean a nuanced understanding on the fact that it was a series of wars started by neighboring Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. etc.), who annexed the West Bank and Gaza and never did anything themselves to make these territories into their own self-determining state,.

Then when the Arab countries like Jordan and Egypt and the rest stopped attacking, and it became only Palestinians left with Israelis to make a deal, the Palestinian side, when given a chance to make a state, never took any deals. But yes, for those who do understand some of the history, the terms of these deals will be said by them, as "unreasonable" for Palestinians and thus implies it seems "reasonable" for the asymmetrical warfare "intafadas" that ensued of of suicide bombings, and terrorist rampages and kidnappings into Israel by Palestinians jihadists and terrorists. Meanwhile of course, any Israeli responses to being attacked, like striking the network of dug-in underground tunnels filled with ammunitions, Hamas fighters, and hostages (purposefully built under densely populated areas) will be decried as wrong for exactly the reasons Hamas built the tunnels under these infrastructures in the first place.. to make it near impossible to get to without killing civilians, enacting world outrage, and purposefully entangling their own civilian's lives into the conflict itself, all the while using children and women as soldiers and shields. And they did this with the aid of Iran and their para-military proxies- not to mention the funneling of funds from US, Europe, and Arab states into their rat's nest apparatus, designed perfectly to wrap Gaza's own population into a no-win, deadly situation.

Israel thus now has to balance Gazan's civilians with its military goals, but this is the situation that the Hamas-run Gaza has set up. Being that they have no scruples or moral compass other than "jihad" and "fuck the Jews and the Jewish state", it is all on Israel to make sure they can achieve their objectives while also worrying about the civilians, being Hamas and their undetermined but large number of sympathizers, don't care about their own population, other than how they can be used to stoke world outrage by making sure they are entangled in their war apparatus.

I think every insurgency fought against a foreign occupation can be justified. That doesn't mean the insurgents are the 'good guys', but a foreign occupier has no right to be there in the first place and are by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your insurgency is about setting up something like an Isis or death squads or any pretty much dysfunctional or evil or totalitarian or fundamentalist society, the moral justification for that insurgency becomes suspect or negated. Combine that with consistently evil means, then the entire argument looks tendentious and arbitrary. And again, goes back to my point of why underdog is justified JUST because they’re an underdog. I can form a posse of evil insurgents and that commit acts of terrorism for my cause and I wouldn’t be right because I’m the “little guy” in the situation throwing bombs and putting a mask on and shooting ak47s in the air and I’m pissed and I have people from other governments prop me up.

I could not possibly go through all of the posts in this mega-thread, but you seem to believe that there is a difference in the moral character of Israel, and the ones supplying them weapons, and Hamas. I think differences exist, but also that one's intentions can be inferred from their actions sometimes. On a surface level it is claimed to be a war, but this "war", at least for the Palestinians, has resulted in a ratio of around 90% civilian deaths to combatants according to some sources, and hundreds of thousands displaced. This looks like a genocide, largely because so many civilians are killed, but also because Israel is adhering to an ineffective strategy in bombarding Gaza. If it was about beating Hamas they would have done something else.

Hamas actually has a better civilian to combatants killed ratio and they are explicitly terrorist. That says a lot. And just because they antagonized Israel, use human shields, deprive their people of aid, etc., doesn't justify terror or wanton killing on the part of Israel. Clearly. Tit for tat stops at war crimes.

Israel's actions indicate either wild incompetence, or a concerted effort to displace and murder Palestinians. Given that it is Israel, I doubt it could only be incompetence. So, it's genocide.

On what basis can you condemn Hamas for its attacks if you see no problem with what Israel is doing today? They're simply using "maximum force necessary to achieve objectives" as well. — Tzeentch

Yes, true, but Hamas carries the added baggage of being Islamic fundamentalists, many of whom hate Jews for reasons not tied to the oppression of the Palestinians. Although that doesn't help.

Hamas actually has a better civilian to combatants killed ratio and they are explicitly terrorist. That says a lot. And just because they antagonized Israel, use human shields, deprive their people of aid, etc., doesn't justify terror or wanton killing on the part of Israel. Clearly. Tit for tat stops at war crimes. — ToothyMaw

If you looked on the thread I’m not endorsing this heavy handed approach either, I’m just not calling it a genocide. It’s a debate about how hard to hit on war. Most generals want a maximal approach.

I already stated I would rather see Thomas Friedman’s solution enacted ASAP as described in that article. Its goals to degrade Hamas would take too long and is too costly at this point, but they’re probably set in for this to go on for months or more. I’ve stated that the Israeli leadership needs to change and they need an end goal in mind politically that involves international and Arab neighbors.

However, yeah look at my previous post before this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866806

any Israeli responses to being attacked, like striking the network of dug-in underground tunnels filled with ammunitions, Hamas fighters, and hostages (purposefully built under densely populated areas) will be decried as wrong for exactly the reasons Hamas built the tunnels under these infrastructures in the first place.. to make it near impossible to get to without killing civilians, enacting world outrage, and purposefully entangling their own civilian's lives into the conflict itself, all the while using children and women as soldiers and shields. — schopenhauer1

Okay, so what is the takeaway? Yes, Hamas is going to do whatever it takes to win, but we have zero capability to change them, and it has long been known that support for Hamas among the Palestinians has gone up when conflict flared up between them and Israel. Whichever Generals decided to just go ahead and bomb hospitals and UN schools and what not are not only responsible for specific war crimes, but also give zero fucks about winning in a way that doesn't include the annihilation of the Palestinians.

I mean, what is Hamas supposed to do? Not use every advantage they have? I wish they would just surrender too, but they are the closest thing to freedom fighters (albeit shitty freedom fighters) that the Palestinians have.

Israel thus now has to balance Gazan's civilians with its military goals, but this is the situation that the Hamas-run Gaza has set up. Being that they have no scruples or moral compass other than "jihad" and "fuck the Jews and the Jewish state" — schopenhauer1

Is that attitude not kind of understandable minus the jihad part? I mean, I see nothing too wrong with saying "fuck the Jewish state", for instance, if not "fuck the Jews". That would definitely be antisemitic. But there are reasons, and I'm sure you know them well, for the anger towards Israel. You say we hold Israel to a really high standard. Well, I say we hold the Palestinians to too high of a standard. That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.

That would definitely be antisemitic. — ToothyMaw

Haha, I don’t know why but this right there is so oddly obvious, in its characterization of Hamas and its rhetoric, it is oddly out of place. Like calling Osama bin Laden only slightly anti-America. What was it that tipped you off? Was it the actions or the rhetoric?

That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people. — ToothyMaw

That’s a farce. Hamas was the organizations that killed thousands of Israelis in the 90s and 2000s amidst Oslo peace process not even wanting to give it a chance. They want all of Israel. Then when Sharon pulled Israeli settlements out of Gaza and they held elections, instead of voting in a moderate government, they voted in Hamas and sent rockets to Israel. They also burned down the greenhouses that Israel were left for them to use for their economic benefit. They don’t care about development or a thriving culture for their people. Purely about war. They ran that economy into the ground with all the aid they got.

They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people. — ToothyMaw

The first part of your sentence negates the second part. Isis or Boko Harem aren’t righteous SIMPLY because they are fighting a perceived oppressor. That’s an oddly amoral argument for a relation dynamic that doesn’t consider the means and ends of the people involved.

Hamas is going to do whatever it takes to win, but we have zero capability to change them — ToothyMaw

Well shit, isn’t that part of their strategy? If you are run by a leadership with a death cult mentality that provokes a more powerful neighbor, better appeal to the neighbor to not do anything about it. Well, if Hamas leadership was left to their devices they would want to repeat the carnage and if given the chance, would get bolder. Their neighbors would also perceive this as weakness and attack as well seeing as there was little resistance. Rather, Israel decided their goal was destroying all the infrastructure and fighters. The other allies like Hezbollah balked.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. If your insurgency is about setting up something like an Isis or death squads or any pretty much dysfunctional or evil or totalitarian or fundamentalist society, the moral justification for that insurgency becomes suspect or negated. — schopenhauer1

It's up to people themselves how they want to govern their state. The United States has proven how futile the attempt is to decide for other people how they should govern themselves. The US wanted to turn the Middle-East into a sea of democracy, and instead turned it into a sea of Muslim fundamentalism.

But moreover, occupation and oppression breed extremism, and certainly in the case of Hamas it is a direct result of how the Palestinians were treated by Israel over the course of decades.

If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas, it should end the occupation. Hamas' reason for existence disappears, and moderates will take their place.

Of course, this is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Israeli right-wing political establishment, and that is the problem.

Haha, I don’t know why but this right there is so oddly obvious, in its characterization of Hamas and its rhetoric, it is oddly out of place. Like calling Osama bin Laden only slightly anti-America. What was it that tipped you off? Was it the actions or the rhetoric? — schopenhauer1

If you read what I was saying, I was differentiating between one thing that might be construed as antisemitic and one thing that definitely was. That's why I said it.

That something as repugnant as Hamas would be voted in was a likely consequence of the way Israel treated the Palestinians. They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.
— ToothyMaw

That’s a farce. Hamas was the organizations that killed thousands of Israelis in the 90s and 2000s amidst Oslo peace process not even wanting to give it a chance. They want all of Israel. Then when Sharon pulled Israeli settlements out of Gaza and they held elections, instead of voting in a moderate government, they voted in Hamas and sent rockets to Israel. They also burned down the greenhouses that Israel were left for them to use for their economic benefit. They don’t care about development or a thriving culture for their people. Purely about war. They ran that economy into the ground with all the aid they got. — schopenhauer1

Did Israel not occupy Gaza and treat the Palestinians like shit for decades? And I said that Hamas is bad and doesn't benefit the Palestinians, so we agree on that. If you are saying that the Palestinians wanted a seemingly endless conflict that would eventually conclude with their near destruction, you are patently wrong. What is happening now is largely the result of Israel's actions, actions like sniping civilians at peaceful protests and attacking people's funerals. These are the actions of a terrorist regime, and terrorism invites more terrorism.

Furthermore, Netanyahu actually supported Hamas, so there's that.

They might not have scruples, but they will take up arms against the oppressor fearlessly, and that could be appealing to an oppressed people.
— ToothyMaw

The first part of your sentence negates the second part. Isis or Boko Harem aren’t righteous SIMPLY because they are fighting a perceived oppressor. That’s an oddly amoral argument for a relation dynamic that doesn’t consider the means and ends of the people involved. — schopenhauer1

I'm not advocating for Hamas, I'm saying that that is how many Palestinians see it probably. I think Hamas sucks. But clearly the Palestinians have some sort of relationship with Hamas that is somewhat neutral, and I can only explain that as a function of the Palestinians wanting men to fight on their behalf.

But moreover, occupation and oppression breed extremism, and certainly in the case of Hamas it is a direct result of how the Palestinians were treated by Israel over the course of decades. — Tzeentch

So then I can use that argument for why Israel kept voting in right wing parties.

If Israel wants to get rid of Hamas, it should end the occupation. Hamas' reason for existence disappears, and moderates will take their place. — Tzeentch

That seems naive. Gaza was given to them and the gesture was “fuck you not good enough” and “fuck your economic gift, we don’t want anything from a Jewish state”. Not engendering good will there when Israel acts in a way that loosens it’s direct control. Also Israel did try to negotiate and got bombed repeatedly and then rejected by the moderates who still pay their radical suicide bomber families pensions. Real moderate!

Of course, this is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Israeli right-wing political establishment, and that is the problem. — Tzeentch

Because I think that moderates should prevail, I’ll agree that there should always be a good faith effort.

So then I can use that argument for why Israel kept voting in right wing parties. — schopenhauer1

One group was initially wronged and wronged more severely over a period of time by another group. If the first group starts attacking the second, maybe the initial wrong-doers should try to stop it instead of escalating?