If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all. — BitconnectCarlos

Actually not.

I've started from the reasonable (or at least in my opinion a reasonable) stance that Israel should show restraint against civilians and civilian targets like the US did while it was fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS.

It hasn't. Proof: you didn't hear about civilians starving to death in Iraq or accusations of it used as a tool by the US while fighting the insurgents. Besides, the US was assisting the civilian populace at the same time it was fighting Al Qaeda and later ISIS.

Not something the IDF is doing... especially when it doesn't allow the normal flow food and supplies to the area it has all the ability to check.

But if it's too much for you that the IDF isn't "the most moral army" in the World as Bibi has said, then just defend them, if it makes you feel better.

OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land? — neomac

It doesn't and we can't. At the time, I was responding to a particular post, not solving the middle east mess. It shouldn't have been created; the major powers should have had more foresight, but pursued their short-term advantage instead. Once committed, they've been obliged to keep feeding the fire, and nobody seems inclined to stop. It won't end until one or all of the combatants die.

But that's all incidental to the topic of the thread.

If war crimes are justifiable, then what's the point of labelling any actions "war crimes"?

Is there an implicit "except as a last resort" attached to each proscribed action? In that case, any warring entity that is at a strategic disadvantage are justified.

If there's an implicit "unless the opponent is truly evil" - how is this to be judged objectively, in general? Couldn't any warring entity claim the other side is evil?

I've started from the reasonable (or at least in my opinion a reasonable) stance that Israel should show restraint against civilians and civilian targets like the US did while it was fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS. — ssu

It absolutely has and I've seen Israel avoid conducting strikes because there were civilians around. I've seen them ship in boatloads of aid. I've seen then provide medical care for wounded Palestinians. Israel has shown restraint.

you didn't hear about civilians starving to death in Iraq or accusations of it used as a tool by the US while fighting the insurgents. — ssu

There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there.

There were also rumors going around of the IDF raping. These were shown to be false. Also rumors of the IDF harvesting organs from palestinians. When much of the world hates you they'll throw any charge at you. It doesn't matter whether it's true; only that it sticks in the mind of others. If you charge someone or some place with enough crimes of such a gruesome nature, truth doesn't really matter anymore. The association is already there. — BitconnectCarlos

This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous.

What do you make of the fact that Hamas steals most of the aid and keeps it for themselves? Or sells it at a much higher price? The problem with the aid is the distribution. Israel can send it in but Hamas takes it.

How many have actually died of starvation? Are we able to get facts on this?

What do you make of your reflex to deflect every criticism of Israel?

Starvation is slow. At this time it probably is 2 per 10,000 per day.

Israel can send it in but Hamas takes it. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel could send it in, but doesn't.

https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports-briefs/siege-and-starvation-how-israel-obstructs-aid-to-gaza/Despite its claims to be facilitating humanitarian aid, research and analysis by Refugees International shows that Israeli conduct has consistently and groundlessly impeded aid operations within Gaza, blocked legitimate relief operations, and resisted implementing measures that would genuinely enhance the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.

Is this a psychology forum or a philosophy one?



Weasel words by a biased organization. :yawn:

Weasel words by a biased organization — BitconnectCarlos

Biased in favour of fleeing civilians? Shame!!

Being oppressed does not make one good or right. Tens of thousands of Israeli civilians have also been displaced by rockets so they are also refugees.

Summing up 13 pages:

When we do it, war crimes are justified (or simply not crimes).

When they do it, war crimes aren’t justified. It’s terrorism.

:ok:

Is this a psychology forum or a philosophy one? — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, I could've said tu quoque is a fallacy if that makes you happier.

Oh and every human rights organization and…checks notes…every country in the world is biased.

The whole world is out to get me. The teacher hates me.

It's not tu quoque Hamas is stealing the aid and preventing its distribution.

It's not tu quoque Hamas is stealing the aid and preventing its distribution. — BitconnectCarlos

Sez Bibi. All I could find on this is one shipment from Jordan (not Israel) being held up for a while, than released.

It is as a reply to atrocities by Israel. "but Hamas does bad things too" is a fallacy to argue for the permissibility of Israeli crimes, which you - and others - do all the time.

Is Israel not allowed to bomb them? Is that the main atrocity? Or is shooting them also an atrocity?

Oh for fucks sake. It's disproportionate, targets civilians etc. You know, all of the things I've consistently said from the beginning.

The fatality ratio is about 1:1 combatant:civilian so historically quite good and not at all unreasonable.

Fallacious reasoning again. In this case an argument from ignorance. You're assuming other conflicts were fought correctly and we know the majority were not.

Maybe read some Illan Pappé to put all the Israeli crimes and intent of its Zionist leadership into historic perspective.

It absolutely has and I've seen Israel avoid conducting strikes because there were civilians around. I've seen them ship in boatloads of aid. — BitconnectCarlos

This is quite a whimsical statement.

FYI the UN or any aid organization didn't make the statements that the aid to the civilians of the cities where the US was fighting the insurgents was actively limited or said that the situation had lead to starvation.

It's been clear since day one that the logistical support given to the civilian populace isn't anywere close to avoid famine.

This is such a bonkers reply. That Israel is starving Palestinians in Gaza Isn't a rumour. Trying to equate that fact with rumours nobody even mentioned here is absolutely ridiculous. — Benkei

I think that here @BitconnectCarlos has to be given the strawman argument of the month.

* * *

On the positive side, Biden's proposals have been at least not been shot down immediately.

(REUTERS, 1st June) Hamas said it was ready to engage "positively and in a constructive manner" with any proposal based on a permanent ceasefire, withdrawal of Israeli forces, the reconstruction of Gaza, a return of those displaced, and a "genuine" prisoner swap deal if Israel "clearly announces commitment to such deal".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said he had authorized his negotiating team to present the deal, "while insisting that the war will not end until all of its goals are achieved, including the return of all our hostages and the destruction of Hamas' military and governmental capabilities."

Yes, that's not much (if any), but at least it's something else than the "evil city" that has to cut of everything -rhetoric or the "We'll do Oct 7th again and again" -rhetoric.

That's according to the Israeli news outlet. The IDF releases have said 1combatant to 1.5 or 2 civilians. Unbiased outside authority has insufficient access to the actual numbers. However:

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, said: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."

The fatality data for the current conflict from the Gaza health ministry shows a sharp increase in the proportion of women and children among the dead compared with previous wars.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864

I don't think we're going to get anywhere if you have zero sympathy for the victims on the Israeli side. Dead Israelis might just be faceless oppressors to you but they are my people. You dehumanize Israelis.

You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."
— BitconnectCarlos

No, oppressors don't get sympathy.
-- Benkei

No need to continue.

Do you have sympathy for a criminal when the victim hurts him? Most people don't. Because that's what you're asking.

It's not dehumanizing at all; it's consistent application of ethical principles: I don't side with the wrong side especially if they have zero self reflection with respect to their own actions.

I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent. But Israel as a political entity doesn't get my sympathy. There wouldn't be any resistance if there wasn't injustice. So it's a conscious choice by Israeli leadership to put their own civilians in harm's way in a conflict they have every ability to resolve, if there was a will. But we know there isn't because Israeli leadership is currently made up of criminals.

Do you have sympathy for a criminal when the victim hurts him? — Benkei

Is this a good comparison for, say, a 7 year old Israeli child who happened to be born and raised near the Gaza border or anywhere in Israel? For this "crime" they are considered valid targets by Hamas.

I can sympathize with the persons that were attacked on 7 Oct. because on a individual level they are innocent. — Benkei

Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland.

But Israel as a political entity doesn't get my sympathy. — Benkei

Fine with me I don't feel sympathy or empathy towards states or abstract entities either. It is individuals that matter.

There wouldn't be any resistance if there wasn't injustice — Benkei

Hamas openly seeks Jerusalem as its capital according to the charter. There will be resistance as long as that is not the case.

Good. That's what matters. Individuals murdered. Not killed; murdered. Slaughtered in house to house violence deliberately on their ancestral homeland. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise.

And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same but then 30 times worse except you're always making excuses why Palestinians deserve it because apparently you think they are all Hamas.

It's not their ancestral homeland. That's an idiotic religious claim that anybody that isn't a Jew doesn't recognise. — Benkei

Question: Let's say a group of Jews are expelled by the Romans from Judea in 135 AD. The community goes to Alexandria and continues to preserve those traditions and maintains its distinctiveness & maries among itself. In 235 AD is Israel still their ancestral homeland or have they lost it? Are they now indigenous to Alexandria? How about 335 AD?

And what do we say about African Americans? Indigenous to a Georgia plantation?

And it would be great if you'd recognise that Israel does exactly the same

It does not as Israeli soldiers do not go from house to house murdering Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It does not commit rapes. It does not take Palestinians hostage and bring them to rape dungeons. It does not aim for civilians. If it did there would be no more Palestinians.

Let's say a group of Jews are expelled by the Romans from Judea in 135 AD. The community goes to Alexandria and continues to preserve those traditions and maintains its distinctiveness & maries among itself. In 235 AD is Israel still their ancestral homeland or have they lost it? — BitconnectCarlos

They've lost it. Like a whole lot of other people. You win some wars and you lose some. If you lose a big one, you lose the land you're living on - which is ancestral through some finite number of generations, just as it was ancestral to the people who lived there before.

Are they now indigenous to Alexandria? How about 335 AD? — BitconnectCarlos

You don't become indigenous, but if you're willing, you can assimilate to a country that let your ancestors in.

And what do we say about African Americans? Indigenous to a Georgia plantation? — BitconnectCarlos

We call them African Americans for the reason that their ancestors were transplanted to a different country and successive generations have adapted and assimilated. There is no large contingent of African Americans descending on Ghana to claim it as their ancestral home, and if there were, the US would not finance and arm them.

It does not as Israeli soldiers do not go from house to house murdering Palestinians because they are Palestinians. It does not commit rapes. It does not take Palestinians hostage and bring them to rape dungeons. It does not aim for civilians. If it did there would be no more Palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

Those are excellent reasons not to fund or facilitate the funding of Hamas. Could be time to consider a change of leadership.

If you lose a big one, you lose the land you're living on - which is ancestral through some finite number of generations, — Vera Mont

Yes they were expelled from their ancestral homeland in 135 AD. They lost possession of their ancestral homeland.

There is no large contingent of African Americans descending on Ghana to claim it as their ancestral home — Vera Mont

Yet if they do have an ancestral homeland it is in Africa.