In other news: this video on Young Turks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBLjOXkKAnE

Quoting the video:

Obama: What the Palestinians are going through is 'unbearable'.

Remember that supposed to be private exchange between the then French president
3:25 and Obama in 2011, Sarkozy saying, I cannot bear Netanyahu. He's a liar. Obama responding.
But I have to deal with them even more often than you.

Trump:

Now the world and me, before I met with both of them, 4:56 I thought it was the exact opposite. I thought the Palestinians were impossible and the Israelis would do anything to make peace and a deal. I found that not to be true.

Then there is Jared Kushner. This is after October 7th, by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcAwqIZoxeU

So the attacks were absolutely vicious, terrible that occurred.

But the end state has to look something like this and it has to have two
elements. Number one, Israel has to have the security to not be threatened by its neighbors and to be able to protect its citizens. That is absolutely crucial, has is non-negotiable. And I do think a lot of the world agrees that that's something that should exist. The second element is that the Palestinian people have to have the opportunity to live a better life. And I think that if you go through the element, it's not just saying let's create a state. It has to be a state that can function and thrive, because if you don't create that, then the people will again find ways to blame other people instead of the leadership that's putting it there.

Jared Kushner, speaking after October 7th, wants a "Palestinian state that can function and thrive".

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister.

So the question is, whom is he working for, apart from himself? The Wikipedia article makes for some interesting reading.

After the 2022 election, Netanyahu was sworn in as Prime Minister again as the leader of a hardline coalition.[238] He officially started his sixth term on 29 December 2022

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

Apparently there are no term limits, which some countries think is a good thing.

And Israel? You have gone on record as saying you support Israel, well, do you think Israel is being used? How did Israel's friends allow it to get to this? Are they really friends or just pretending?

What did the world’s Jews mostly want in 1900? Most of them just wanted to be able to live where they were and not be disturbed. To go about their business, study, pray, raise their children, and just live as Jews. That was Plan A. But increasingly, that was coming under pressure as anti-Semitism rose in Europe, and obviously by the 1940s, it had become utterly impossible. If Jews couldn’t live in peace where they were, Plan B was to migrate to someplace where they could start again. For many years, the United States was the favored destination, but also Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and other countries. But starting with Britain in 1905, and progressing into the U.S. in 1924, and Latin America in the 1930s, country after country closed its doors to immigration, just as Jews grew more desperate to migrate. So Plan B could not get the critical non-Jewish support that it needed to work. That left Zionism as Plan C: Let’s have our own state where we can go. — The Atlantic

https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/deep-shtetl/62cf09b668f61f0021d786ca/biden-israel-lobby-america-walter-mead/

Here is a start

Start by defining pacifism with your students and prompting a discussion on its merits. Pacifism is the belief that all disputes can be settled without violence, emphasizing dialogue and cooperation instead. Creating an environment where students feel safe discussing their views on peace and conflict resolution can set the stage for further exploration.

https://www.theedadvocate.org/fostering-pacifism-in-the-classroom-a-guide-for-k-12-teachers/

Or, there is the alternate approach:

Gideon Levy, a Haaretz columnist, noted the striking similarities between these photos and the Palestinian glorification of violence. “Where else do they force a little child to crawl with a backpack on his back? When Hamas treats its children like this, Israeli parents tut-tut with disgust: Look at these beasts.”

It’s a double standard all too common to the conflict.

We’re told that Palestinian maps in schools often show a unified Palestine between the river and the sea — “how awful!” — yet Israeli maps, more often than Palestinian ones in fact, don’t show the Green Line, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

We’re told that Palestinians are taught in school that the Jewish historical claims to the land, particularly the Temple Mount, don’t really exist — “how awful!” — yet in a similar tone, many Israeli children learn that “Palestinians” were only recently invented, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

We’re told that Palestinian textbooks distort history — “how awful!” — yet a recent State Department study found that many Israeli textbooks do too, and Jews don’t really seem to care.

https://forward.com/opinion/197866/when-israelis-teach-their-kids-to-hate/

We stayed at a tourist resort just over the weekend. People eating and drinking and having a good time, despite, or maybe because of the suffering that is going on in the world.

I do not hold anything against them, charity must be voluntary, not under compulsion. Some day they might decide to do more but maybe they may be doing enough already. Who knows?

What about the rest of us, whose day and night is haunted by the reprehensible wars and famines, the sufferings that are currently going on, what can we do? Is raising awareness enough?

At the reception of the hotel we stayed in, I saw a box with a picture of a child - it was a box for contributions for a day out at a resort for children from 'child care centre'

The box was not even half full.

What does it cost?

Update: So between 50% and 65% donate money, worldwide

https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2022-publications/caf-world-giving-index-2022

No comparison. Under the original un charter, every sovereign is to govern itself. So why is it that the Palestinian authority has been given its own sovereign land to govern, and done nothing but wreak tyrrany upon its own people, and violence to its neighbors? No excuse. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you want to characterize an elected government that is blockaded on all sides, with constant attacks from Israel, and also the PA in the West Bank, which also seems powerless to stop what it sees as an attack and displacement of its people, as sovereign, you can do so. I had something different in mind when it comes to a sovereign nation.

In any case, the UN Charter states that disputes should be resolved peacefully. No ones hands are clean here.

More to the point, though, can the moral argument for supporting the right of both sides to exist, with a permanent ceasefire, be opposed? If there is such an argument, both for killing civilians on October 7th, and every day after that, then I would like to hear it.

I'm not very enthusiastic about the increasing dominance of the ultra-conservative religious factions in Israel, but I don't know what we can do about it. I dislike the American religious ultra-conservatives too, and not much I can do about them, some of them are close relatives! — BC

Is there a moral obligation for breaking ranks with the people of this world who support war, tribalism and communalism, those who subscribe neither to any religion or moral law in thought and practice. Is there a way to protest? To call out these stands and make them uncomfortable, I think there is.

The past two centuries and before have seen an endless series of wars, a war to end all wars then another world war, with several other conflicts worldwide, what is really going on with this world we live in?

If nothing can be done at least draw dividing lines between us and them, those who want wars (very few just wars if any have been fought, Iraq was not one of them) and defend them. Oppose the teaching of a distorted history to children. Condemn the movies glorifying war and conflict, or condemn them. War should be described for what it is - hell on earth, and then going to war is going to hell, for what crime are we going to hell, then? Even today there is a disturbing trend of supporting the killing done by one side or the other, why support killing? What would it cost to say that Israel should go after terrorists but not soil its reputation? Why not call Hamas to give up terrorism also?

What is not said is as important as what is said: the nations of the word are engaged in morally corrupt, self - serving, deceitful an murderous neglect, but no one is willing to call them out en masse - the divided and conquered support on side or the other. They will never admit it, blood for oil and all.

Take Yemen for example. Which side to support? What will result in peace and the saving of lives? I do not know much about Yemen but hope to find out. What then? Nothing will change.

Don't we need to teach about peace in our schools, and ask the major corporations to help fund 'teaching peace in schools' 'teach children to hate war' 'war is a crime, a black stain on humanity' 'war is a corruption of the worst form.

Will our military masters allow that to happen?

I suggest something is radically wrong with this disgusting world we live in, only the innocents are beautiful. The good hearted should inherit the earth. Everyone else should be sent leaflets to move south - to the South Pole. That is not ethnic cleansing, but it does sound like a cleansing of some sort.

As much as you can, reassure your children that they are safe from any danger. Remind them that many people are working hard around the world to stop the conflict and find peace.

https://www.unicef.org/parenting/how-talk-your-children-about-conflict-and-war

many people are working hard around the world to stop the conflict and find peace

Many people - are not. Just the opposite. Teach your children about these devils.

Scott Ritter's view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYPQlPBmWoA

Not to say I agree with it, I am for a ceasefire and status quo, I am not interested in war.

The legal approach. Peaceful? Non - Violent? I think they should have a case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtBN7mVO1T8

I already see a problem here. Ukraine certainly isn't going to act in a spirit of brotherhood towards Russian soldiers (or even Russian civilians who are in the way of a high value target), nor should they. — RogueAI

Ah yes. I was talking about further up the chain of command. If the leader of a nation, acting in line with his freedom of opinion, religion, and conscience (like George W Bush, who stated that God wanted him to 'free the Iraqi people), then what? His human rights after all, which he is exercising freely. This is a problem, however, if a leader resorts to lies and broken promises, then, the conscience and religion aspects of the argument cannot be sustained. To be consistent, one would have to relinquish all moral responsibility, all semblance of religious belief, and then act. Both Hamas Leadership and Prime Minister Nettanyahu would have to renounce Islam and Judaism since these religions forbid the killing of children, and then proceeding on. "ye shall know them by their works".

Russians and Ukranian soldiers? Like American soldiers and Germans eventually they will become friends and 'feel at home' I suppose, but who knows. Someone has to win first.

What good has Hamas done? — BC

Here is ChatGPT:

Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Israel, has been involved in both political and military activities in the Gaza Strip. Supporters argue that Hamas has provided social services and infrastructure development in the region, such as building schools, hospitals, and providing welfare programs. However, critics argue that these activities are often intertwined with their militant and political agenda, and the group has been accused of using civilian infrastructure for military purposes. Overall, opinions on the positive impact of Hamas's actions in Gaza vary, and the organization's methods and objectives are widely debated.

Is there a manner of attacking Hamas (who are literally dug in under Gaza) which would not result in a large number of civilian casualties? — BC

Since you asked the question, and military experts will different things. I say yes, it is possible. Remember that, unlike Mosul, people cannot flee to the countryside. 1 million people were given 24 hours to move. It is a question of how many casualties you are willing to take, and what your aims were. For example, if Hamas were holding Israeli hostages in the border towns would the IDF attack and kill their own civilians, firing from tanks? If so, what are they fighting for that is so important?

The military has the right to decide what course of action it will pursue, and we have the right to try to ascertain what this course of action is, rightly or wrongly. If we want, we can actually pronounce judgement on what they do as well. It is all non-violent.

I think it's real. Everyone knows Jewish people. — RogueAI

I guess then you have to ask if the support for a ceasefire is manufactured or real? Any non-partisan approach would want civilians to stop getting killed. They do not care about the causes they represent, as much as some ideological stand about self- determination - which Israel has, and was achieved partly though violent means. In any case, there are Jewish people asking for a ceasefire as well.

I can see valid arguments for each side, however some of the starting assumptions I do not agree with, and this is a matter of personal beliefs, which are unassailable under the Charter of Human Rights.
Agree?


I will place a quote here, it is instructive to see who said it:

“Let us not condemn the murderers. What do we know of their fierce hatred for us? For eight years they have been living in the refugee camps of Gaza, while right before their eyes we have been turning the land and the villages, in which they and their forefathers lived, into our land.

“We should demand his (Roi’s) blood not from the Arabs of Gaza, but of ourselves… We are a generation of settlers, and without a helmet or a gun barrel we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. Let us not be afraid to see the enmity that consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs around us… This is the fate of our generation. The only choice we have is to be armed, strong and resolute.” — Jerusalem Post

If Israel was strong, armed and resolute, would this have happened? How can you argue against a military defeat?

And other results show Americans view Israel as a nation much more favorably than unfavorably, by more than a 2-to-1 ratio. — RogueAI

Indeed, so the question is, is this 'manufactured consent' or real?

Even Elon Musk, in my opinion, does not seem to be fully clear on the concept, though he has some good ideas: search for it.

Update: Here it is:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-says-israel-try-203718139.html

photo op with the US president and the leaders of Egypt and Saudi-Arabia — ssu

This picture is featured in a New York Times article.

Simply the point I am making, that however you conduct a war, the public relations needs to be done properly: this is the worst possible picture: Trump with an evil glow on his face, lighted from below, President Sisi looks like he is sharing a secret joke, and King Salman is made to look clueless.

From left, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Melania Trump and President Trump during the opening of an anti-extremist center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Credit...Saudi Press

Agency — NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/world/middleeast/trump-glowing-orb-saudi.html

What a PR disaster, thanks for sharing. 'Anti -extremist center'

Yet in the 9 years that Yemeni Civil war has gone about 150 000 have been killed in the fighting and over 300 000 from disease and malnutrition. — ssu

Then we agree. Some of my Twitter feeds (following the UN) alert me on Yemen, Sudan.. etc. It is very alarming and really horrific.

Maybe we need to reduce Global Warring before we reduce Global Warming.

While we are concerned, lets not neglect the other areas of conflict: here is an incomplete list:

Special rapporteurs and independent experts addressing human rights situations in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Ethiopia, Burundi, and Eritrea defended their methods and mandates amid a chorus of opposition during interactive dialogues today with the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), while they warned of severe human rights violations, war crimes and disappearing civic space in those countries.

https://press.un.org/en/2023/gashc4391.doc.htm

Maybe...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-we-end-wars-a-peace-researcher-puts-forward-some-innovative-approaches/

https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-war-and-conflict-with-a-little-help-from-social-psychology-83189

In fact, the GIs felt so at home in Germany, that the US Army had to make a video to remind them that they were in enemy territory and that the Germans were up to no good and shouldn't be trusted. It's just fascinating how have to dehumanize the occupied, because otherwise the soldier might be too friendly with them: — ssu

Much more to it than that. The disease of world domination is alive and well. "They are not your friends"

" some day the German people might be cured of their disease the super race disease the world conquest disease but they must prove that they have been cured beyond the shadow of a doubt"

but there are millions of Germans some
12:07
of those guys must be ok
12:09
perhaps but which ones just one mistake
12:13
may cost you your life trust none of
12:17
them some day the German people might be
12:20
cured of their disease the super race
12:23
disease the world conquest disease but
12:27
they must prove that they have been
12:29
cured beyond the shadow of a doubt
12:31
before they ever again are allowed to
12:34
take their place among respectable
12:35
nations until that day we stand god we
12:42
are determined that their plan for world
12:44
conquest shall stop here and now we are
12:48
determined that they shall never again
12:50
use peaceful industries for warlike
12:52
purposes we are determined that the
12:55
vicious German cycle of war phony peace

I am not sure the likelihood of anything, but the point you and I were making I think was that Germany and Japan essentially went along with the program after defeat. Will Gazans take up that position as well? Will they hold West German or Japanese style Parliamentary liberal democracies at some point? Will Israel aid them in some sort of Marshall Plan? — schopenhauer1

These are excellent questions. The question as to whether any nation, forget the Palestinians, would go along with an occupied power indefinitely is a question that answers itself. I think not. Are they under a moral obligation to simply give up and be eradicated? I do not think so.

History has shown that either a brutal military victory or what is commonly caused genocide, can lead ultimately to a peaceful (but unjust) coexistence. Because there is no choice. This gets both sides speaking the same language. We have, as examples, the native Americans, and the aborigines in Australia, and many many other nations and ethnic groups. That was 'conquest'. In the case of Japan and Germany military victories settled the issue.

Speaking of morality, it occurred to me that Gaza can be represented by the classic trolley problem. And it is.

Gaza Is The Ultimate Trolley Problem
And it’s telling us we clearly value some lives more than others

https://aninjusticemag.com/gaza-is-the-ultimate-trolley-problem-72898439f378?gi=2f98b0f64bd8

There is also the morality of not interfering while 10,000 people have been bombed to death without doing a thing. The cost of intervening may be too high, that is understandable. Prevention is better than cure, and much of the world is morally complicit in letting things get this far down the road, when there were clear indications that the responsibility to put pressure on Israel was simply ignored.

To quote Craig Mokhiber

In one of his first interviews since leaving his post, Mokhiber tells Democracy Now! the U.N. follows a “different set of rules” when addressing Israel’s violations of international law, refusing to utilize its enforcement mechanisms and thus “effectively” acting as “a smokescreen behind which we have seen further and worsening dispossession of Palestinians.”

What I see are daily revelations of the ethics and morality of the nations of the world and the people and power. They have surprised me, in fact. Didn't we all expect a better outcome than this, which was predictable to some extent? They took the risk of escalation, that is for sure.

What have also surprised me is the news bias. Fox news, which I used to watch, is disgustingly silent about any of the civilian deaths in Gaza, take sides, that is OK, but report the news, you are news channel are you not? Are people that prejudiced? Insular?

All local news, and this:

Netanyahu tells Bret Baier why Hamas must be totally eradicated
ANTISEMITISM EXPOSED — Fox News

Eradicated, yes, but they have informed the enemy that there will be no shooting from their side for four hours. Feel free to shoot back, though. Do they know what they are doing?

When you are recounting the points I made differently as if I wasn’t making those points, that’s a sort of a straw man. Because, similarly I stated: — schopenhauer1

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The question then remains, what is the likelihood that Israel will treat the Palestinian terroritories the same as Germany or Japan, and why not?

My point in the West Civ thread is people think in "black and white" "underdog and oppressor" and then end up supporting some grim, illiberal, and barbaric things as a result. That's not good either. — schopenhauer1

It all comes down to the question is violent resistance permissible? I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. This is a philosophical position, pacifism I think it is called.

The heart of the problem is that many people, almost universally think that violent resistance is not only permissible, but right, for example the American war of Independence. If we accept that, then we have to judge which causes are right and which causes are wrong, which is a personal thing again.

One answer would be to take extreme care to avoid oppression, or overt, visible oppression, to take the cynical view. Buying powerful influence and keeping the populace poor is one peaceful method I would think, or perhaps bribing the population, or some sort of mind control. All sordid stuff. Or a dictatorship.
I believe a statesman wise and intelligent enough could achieve such a thing.

Yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israel’s military occupation, including through armed struggle. This right was affirmed in the context of the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. Some of the most relevant UN resolutions on this matter include:

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236/

Wow.

Also, this information, which you will have to sort out, that a large number of causalities were military.

Now, detailed statistics on the casualties released by the Israeli daily Haaretz paint a starkly different picture. As of 23 October, the news outlet has released information on 683 Israelis killed during the Hamas-led offensive, including their names and locations of their deaths on 7 October.

Of these, 331 casualties – or 48.4 percent - have been confirmed to be soldiers and police officers, many of them female. Another 13 are described as rescue service members, and the remaining 339 are ostensibly considered to be civilians.

https://new.thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-on-7th-october

The irony of it all is that as a Pacifist, I do not agree to the killing of one single Israeli soldier, especially the 'female soldiers' but that is a personal opinion. I state this to show that I am not for violence, and do not side with Hamas, but at the same time, it does appear to me that this was a largely military operation, with some units running out of control, friendly fire, and huge attempts to keep using the attacks to fuel propaganda to support a military operation and force the country to unite. It just seems like that to me. After all, the Israeli government was having problems with reservists threatening not to report for duty and other problems.

Since I think it's a dumb argument to make I believe my position is that doesn't work. — Benkei

Yes well, I do not agree with the argument that the civilians have to suffer for the decisions their governments or certain groups make.

Both sides knew that any attack on the other side would generate a violent response, and this is known through decades of experience. Each side, then, is responsible for risking the civilians on their own side, through violent action. But this is war, anyway. Civilians working in military factories for example, are a target, unless prior warning is given.

I just wanted to highlight this as an example of how a narrative is being build around evil pro-Palestinian protesters that this poor woman apparently has fallen for but it's the same narrative that gets Israeli politicians to wear the star of David at the UN. — Benkei

I understand this point of view, some Jewish people are scared. When violence happens between two communities, some members feel threatened, some are actually threatened. Similarly Palestinians in the West Bank feel threatened. It is not really falling for the propaganda but being afraid.

Everyone has to come to the realization that there are violent extremists in every community, but the right to hold protests comes with this accepted risk. I am not sure if the case can be made to ban all protests because they may turn violent. It is, however, upto the organizers to make a statement that violence will not be tolerated.

I don't buy "it's all vengeance!" — schopenhauer1

I would guess that the military strategy is to degrade the enemies capabilities to where they no longer pose a threat, while minimizing your own casualties. I don't think there are any other restrictions except a 'nice to have' minimizing civilian casualties. My fear it that they will be successful at great cost. This seems to be the pattern - Iraq for example - but not everyone is on the same side this time.

Germany and Japan did not become occupied territory under blockade, with the allies refusing to acknowledge their elected governments. If that happened, they may have had a problem. Also, there was an outright surrender.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. .... dumb argument. — Benkei

Are we all agreed on history?

On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and riots broke out in Jerusalem.[166] The situation spiraled into a civil war; just two weeks after the UN vote, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, at which point the British would evacuate. As Arab militias and gangs attacked Jewish areas, they were faced mainly by the Haganah, as well as the smaller Irgun and Lehi. In April 1948, the Haganah moved onto the offensive.[167][168] During this period 250,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled, due to a number of factors.[169]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

According to this version, 'Arab militias' attacked Jewish areas. Then the 'Haganah' went on the offensive and '250,000' Palestinian Arabs 'fled or were expelled'.

What is the argument here? If one side attacks another side they have to expect them to respond?
To be more exact, they are accepting the risk that the other side may respond disproportionately?

There is a question of agency here, is the attacker responsible for the subsequent actions of the attacked? How does this work? What is the argument here exactly?

Stay informed.

There are articles you can read on how countries go about waging war in terms of how they advance, what they do before they advance into a conflict zone of a certain type. — schopenhauer1

Then can I ask you if you think this is an act of revenge, collective punishment of a demonized enemy, or effective military strategy? What does it look like to you? And by the way I have no regard for terrorist acts, the country I was living in was subject to terrorist acts - where many civilians died, for years on end, so of course I was not likely to support terrorism, nor do I do so here.

And then declare war on the people you refused the offer to? — schopenhauer1

Sure, look at the war on Iraq. They were given a deadline, and if they did not agree: war.

Hostilities began about 90 minutes after the U.S.-imposed deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face war passed.

So, you the 'Imperialist' United States demands a leader of a country leave that country or face war? What kind of offer is this?

On strictly rational terms, some of the arguments seem spurious or ill informed, or maybe selective.

I cannot reasonably argue that the current Israeli government should sit by and say thank you for attacking us. This is not being pro-Israel, but being pro sovereignty. Right to defend and to engage in military operations against terrorists. By the way, apparently Syria has to sit by and say thank you when their airspace is violated (maybe with tacit agreement, who knows).

Hamas is a threat, should be asked to surrender, and if not, Israel has the right to capture or kill them. After all, Israel killed 1400 Hamas militants in one day. Quite a record. Some people may not like it, but there it is. Terrorism must be fought and defeated.

The arguments in the media seem to be based on affecting public opinion, hence the constant reference to dying civilians and war crimes. Each side needs its cheerleaders, to inspire the team. These are cheerleaders, which explains their lack of concern for the facts that do not suit them.

A question that has received much attention in the literature of the past decades pertains to whether the activity of argumentation is primarily adversarial or primarily cooperative. This question in fact corresponds to two sub-questions: the descriptive question of whether instances of argumentation are on the whole primarily adversarial or cooperative; and the normative question of whether argumentation should be (primarily) adversarial or cooperative. A number of authors have answered “adversarial” to the descriptive question and “cooperative” to the normative question, thus identifying a discrepancy between practices and normative ideals that must be remedied (or so they claim; Cohen 1995).

A case in point: recently, a number of far-right Internet personalities have advocated the idea that argumentation can be used to overpower one’s opponents, as described in the book The Art of the Argument: Western Civilization’s Last Stand (2017) by the white supremacist S. Molyneux. Such aggressive practices reflect a vision of argumentation as a kind of competition or battle, where the goal is to “score points” and “beat the opponent”. Authors who have criticized (overly) adversarial practices of argumentation include (Moulton 1983; Gilbert 1994; Rooney 2012; Hundleby 2013; Bailin & Battersby 2016). Many (but not all) of these authors formulated their criticism specifically from a feminist perspective (see entry on feminist perspectives on argumentation).

Israel could have killed the exact same amount of people but hidden their motives much better. Let me write their press statement when I have the time. It could start with

'we do no want revenge, we agonize over every decision the results in the loss of life. We love the children of Gaza. We have no choice, we are doing this to save lives.. save the lives of your children, our children, for our future, for our security...."

So PR incompetence

Maybe we should listen to the people we support to inspire us to stand with our conscience.

. One side accepted, the other outright didn't like the UN resolution. — schopenhauer1

You realize that anyone has the right to refuse any offer made to them, and sometimes it is entirely rational. Right now, Israel is refusing a ceasefire and has reportedly refused to take two hostages back. (These are Hamas figures). At the time, those driven out from the land objected to taking some of the land and then offering to give some of it back. Like if someone steals a car and offers some of the parts back: 90%, 80%, 50% etc.

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestment. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. — Benkei

I really cannot understand the opposition to peaceful protest, and in any case long articles have been written about how ineffective BDS is. According to reports, South Africa was supported by Western governments in its Apartheid system until public protests were made. Then, apartheid fell, replaced by an even worse situation. You can't win, but you sure can lose. Isn't the idea that you create such a mess of a country if you can't have a peaceful puppet in place, that this message will get across: you can push us out only to get scorched earth in return.

It would be instructive to look at the South African perspective:

Unemployment in the country of 56 million people soars past 25%. There are tire-burning protests almost every day over the lack of basic services like working toilets in mostly black neighborhoods. Whites still hold much of the wealth and private levers of power, while blacks trim their lawns and clean their homes.

“We find virtually no whites living below the middle class,” Fazila Farouk and Murray Leibbrandt with the Southern Africa Labor and Development Research Unit wrote last year. “Whites have, in fact, comfortably improved their economic status in post-apartheid South Africa because our economy channels such a big share of national income to the top 10%.”

Ahh yes, Bibi is smiling at the thought of a post-apartheid Israel, and his cabinet with him. "They will support anything we do, it is absurd" so it is, Mr Nettanyahu, we are all perennial, colonial victims. They are laughing much louder though, the Romans.

Record keeping is better. — bert1

You are right, yes. We have YouTube now. Reading about it in a history book never sparked a protest.

Take the side of your religion, and conscience. There seems to be no other way of settling this, and all religions concerned forbid the killing of innocents. Of course a proper theology will fix this nicely.

I watched the entire Piers Morgan vs Israeli President Isaac Herzog interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_hoV-_SoT0

Despite his statement that he heard about the attacks over TV and that he never heard of the refugee camp attack, something that Israeli armed forces spokesperson confirmed, and other possible 'errors', the interview was very useful, thought difficult to listen to, useful as information: a different point of view.

He 'cares about Gaza children'. So he says.

I found something unexpected in this interview: I actually felt sorry for the guy. When he says that Israel has been under attack since the beginning, I realized what he said was true. 1948, 1977, 1973... Intifadas etc. Rocket attacks. I have always found that the Israeli people speak of living in fear, not knowing whether to plant an olive tree. President Herzog seems upset about the world opinion, ganging up on them.

Are they victims?

Let's see my reading on how this came about, you can agree or disagree, but there seems to be forces behind the Israeli and Palestinian camps, I sense it.

Here is what I think happened: (from memory)

In 19xx Lord Bafour suggested a land for the Jews. This was suggested in some part of Africa (which shows how serious they were about claim to the land) then Palestine was suggested. Jews migrated in, and it caused, predictably, problems for them. Then, an evil thing occurred - the persecution of the Jews in Europe, chiefly by the Nazis. The founder of Zionism 'preferred integration' but but because the dislike for the Jews was so great, he thought the second option of a land for the Jews was a good idea. No-one expected the Holocaust. That brought in millions of Jews into the land. Jewish militant groups attacked the British Army, which caused them to give up control of that territory.

I suggest that the creation of Israel was fueled by Jew- hatred, by anti-Semitism, by telling them to go back where they came from. Christian theologians, some of them, using the Biblical ties that Christians had to the land, started pushing Christian Zionism. Israel's cause of existence is what could be called the 'evil way in which many nations treated the Jews'. They had no right to cause it to exist, born of hate, racism.

The United Nations vote on Israel was also, if Wikipedia is to be believed, made under pressure, but from whom? Zionists? Not Orthodox Jews.

Zionists launched an intense White House lobby to have the UNSCOP plan endorsed, and the effects were not trivial.[81] The Democratic Party, a large part of whose contributions came from Jews,[82] informed Truman that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine would constitute a danger to the party. The defection of Jewish votes in congressional elections in 1946 had contributed to electoral losses. Truman was, according to Roger Cohen, embittered by feelings of being a hostage to the lobby and its 'unwarranted interference', which he blamed for the contemporary impasse. When a formal American declaration in favour of partition was given on 11 October, a public relations authority declared to the Zionist Emergency Council in a closed meeting: 'under no circumstances should any of us believe or think we had won because of the devotion of the American Government to our cause. We had won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States'

Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US Senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.[85] The US Senate was considering a large aid package at the time, including 60 million dollars to China.[86][87] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[88]
India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".[89] Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.[90]
Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[91] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[77][85]
Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, Philippines representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility." After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[85]
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[92]
France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.[75]
Venezuela (Vote: For): Carlos Eduardo Stolk, Chairman of the Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .[93]
Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition "in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us" because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.[94]
Siam (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25 November.[76][95]
There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray put pressure on several "banana republics" to change their votes.[96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Now, these people have been placed in a lions den, given weapons and soothed will words such as "We Stand By Israel' Very convenient if you are out of rocket range. Benjamin Nettanyahu speaks at the US Congress and gets an ovation thirty-five-times. For what reason? Is he being played like a puppet?
Who is behind all of this?

I do not think there will be peace until either the wolves behind the puppeteering feel they have had enough or find another prey.

**** Do we all agree?***

Just so you know where I stand: I will welcome an Israeli. I will welcome a Jew. I will welcome a Palestinian. I will speak to a Hamas terrorist but he has to leave his weapons outside the door. If he did not live in Gaza - and where you live affects who you are - he would most probably not be a terrorist. His motor glider will not have the range.

I leave you with this.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/officer-dismissed-as-idf-blames-deadly-egypt-border-attack-on-easily-opened-gate/

What a haunting image of a young woman. 19 years of age.

People say God is in control. I think not I think Satan is in control of this entire situation now.

Ask me any questions you want.

Both sides will cry foul here, but there are "human shield laws" if one cares about international law, which people seem to use pretty heavily against Israel, but not Hamas. These Laws state that it's illegal to use civilians as shields or cover: — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between what a warring party, or terrorists ought to do, and what they will. Hamas should not have killed civilians. But terrorists are by definition killers of civilians. What I meant is that Hamas has no rationale for following any laws, given that it is committed to terrorism.

It is a funny argument, terrorists should not engage in terrorist acts. Terrorists should not exist. Since they were allowed to exist, then it follows that they were propped up for a reason. Or maybe the could not be suppressed, but why is that? After 70 years or so rockets are flying into your country? What if Canada started firing rockets into the United States? What do you think would have happened?

The Cuban Missile crisis - that got solved didn't it?

The attacks are as talking points for generating public opinion for bombing Gaza. Don't you think it strange that a nation keeps talking about its worst intelligence and defense failure ever, as if to parade it in front of everyone, for what reason?

Notice how the military casualties are never never mentioned? Killing military personnel is OK, not an atrocity, but killing civilians is not OK? Why they never come out and say it? Over 200. And 200 'missing' what does that mean, they searched for them on their own territory and found nothing? Hostages? Is 400 hostages too much for the PR machine to bear?

You can claim the attack was justified and still say your soldiers might have "acted rashly," and blame it on the combat environment, etc. Diplomatically, claiming executing toddlers is "totally justified," is a non-starter. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Successive Israeli governments allowed Hamas to exist. It may have been in their interest to create a beast and then use it as an excuse for excessive force. If you do not care about lives, then it is all very rational.

I always wonder how high tech 2020s military intelligence allowed the vast number of weapons to be smuggled in, not bad for a blockade.

Paragliders? Technically, motorized paragliders.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/middleeast/hamas-weapons-invs/index.html

Solutions abound, it may just no be the solutions we want. The following article seems to be the most likely, objectively, as to the likely course of the 'war', let's see if it is accurate. Everything points to the continued attacks by Israel until they have had enough, then pick up the pieces and move on. Eliminate Hamas? Notice The "Arab world" have issued empty threats and if they have stood by while 10,000 people were bombed to death they have solidified their cowardice or indifference or complicity. What have they done in the past 10 years except normalize the situation?

Analysts say the language being used by Israeli authorities indicates that there will no return to the status quo of sporadic violence, rocket attacks, skirmishes and short-lived but intense fighting between Israel and Hamas that have characterized the last 18 years. Hamas took full control of Gaza in 2007 following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory in 2005.

“The Israeli military response will reflect that reality, with ground operations accompanying air strikes. The likely result will be a significantly degraded Hamas and substantial destruction within Gaza,” he noted

“Jerusalem is unlikely to accede to that request unless it views that it has achieved at least some of its objectives,” he noted.

He noted that while Saudi Arabia may be “privately supportive” of Israel’s efforts to quash Hamas, the Arab world is unlikely to be, “especially as images from television, print, and X (formerly Twitter) highlight death and destruction in Gaza and potentially Lebanon.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/12/how-will-the-israel-hamas-war-end-here-are-several-possible-outcomes.html

This time the Arab winter that followed the mess created in the middle east may engulf Israel as well.

Let's come back to this October 7, 2024

They are misdirected and trained to respond to misdirection. The organs of propaganda give plausible (more or less) explanations for the troubles of other people (poor life choices, lack of moral fibre, laziness, irresponsibility) and far more abstruse ones for the troubles of other countries: why shit-holes like Haiti fail is too complicated to follow, but it's all their own fault. — Vera Mont

I object to describe a country like you describe Haiti.

I think that governments represent their people in the sense that they care for their own well being more than any causes overseas, for example the wars that are currently ongoing, or global warming for that matter. When something shocks the moral conscience of people then maybe people think. The Pandemic for example, and the wars that are going on. Maybe that is the way it has to be. People respond to violence one way or another, either to prevent it or continue the cycle.

The question of agency is an interesting one: I would think that course of a nation is determined by a series of historical accidents, rather than the will of personalities. This makes it more difficult to blame nations or leaders. Of course attempts can be made to change the course of history but these are hit and miss. Protests, elections, what happens? Transnational actors?

See this:

Increasingly international, transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is, acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no longer desirable to limit one’s understanding of political representation to elected officials within the nation-state. After all, increasingly state “contract out” important responsibilities to non-state actors, e.g. environmental regulation. As a result, elected officials do not necessarily possess “the capacity to act,” the capacity that Pitkin uses to identify who is a representative. So, as the powers of nation-state have been disseminated to international and transnational actors, elected representatives are not necessarily the agents who determine how policies are implemented

deleted post, delay results in double post

Looks like we are all powerless fools, typing letters when people die. They must be all laughing at the peace protests, toying with them.

Why do I picture a bunch of men in mustaches sipping their tea, thinking they are civilizing the world drawing arbitrary lines on maps? Why is this connection to colonialism downplayed in Britain nowadays and shoved onto Israel and the US? — schopenhauer1

Another semi-powerless enterprise, made even more powerless by the state.

https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-will-the-murder-of-peace-activists-mean-the-end-of-the-peace-movement-215973

By the way, who is in control of your respective countries?

Is it you or some human/animal?

Curious.

But despite grief, sorrow and disbelief, some Israeli organisations and individuals continue to speak out against Israel’s massive military operation in Gaza. They advocate for contextualising the violence they are now experiencing, emphasising that not all in Gaza are guilty or supportive of the violence.

B’tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, tweeted on October, 13: “No. A million people in northern Gaza are not guilty. They have nowhere else to go. This is not what fighting Hamas looks like. This is revenge. And innocent people are being hurt.”

https://theconversation.com/israel-hamas-war-will-the-murder-of-peace-activists-mean-the-end-of-the-peace-movement-215973

The peace movement - the powerless

Any reason it can't be both? It's not so unusual, in my experience, for a society or community to reflect the personal attitude of its members. — Vera Mont

Yes, it can be both.

I want to discuss the idea of control here, though. Given either the moral obligation or the voluntary act, why are ordinary citizens so powerless to prevent mass suffering or other people?

The conflicts raging around the world are a case in point. Did any of you vote for these wars?
I was shocked to realize that the total number of civilians dead in Syria is over 500,000. That is half a million people. No - one is morally obligated to start and fuel conflicts.

10 Conflicts to Watch in 2023
1. Ukraine
2. Armenia and Azerbaijan
3. Iran
4. Yemen
5. Ethiopia
6. The Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes
7. The Sahel
8. Haiti
9. Pakistan
10. Taiwan — Crisis Group

So they manufacture consent. The WMD fiasco, for example was widely opposed. While ordinary citizens live and work for the well being of their families and themselves, what are those in control doing? Is there no antidote?

It sometimes seems that people have a better chance of removing Stalin from power, and he is dead.

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/3/19/photos-millions-protested-against-invasion-of-iraq

As to whether that obligation extends to people other than one's own family, community or nation, that is a matter of individual world-view. One may feel an interdependence with all of humankind, or life, or the planet - or one may feel that he is not even his own brother's keeper. If that sense of obligation is absent from one's personal morality, it cannot be imposed or instilled by suasion or compulsion. — Vera Mont

I agree with that.

I think we can remove the problem of difficulty by framing the question like this:

If you could provide a meal to a hungry child by pressing a button, would it be unethical not to do so?
This is almost cost-free. Would you be morally obligated to do so? Is there a difference?

If you do so, then you have to look at your motivation: is it an inner feeling that you have, based on your
social programming, or your internal impulses?

So let’s condemn the brutality of Hamas and then turn around and do the same things. All perfectly fine, however, because all Palestinian children killed are killed defensively and accidentally— i.e., with good intentions. — Mikie

By the same argument, if the Israelis crossed the fence into Gaza and killed 1400 civilians in exactly the same way, then it would be fine. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, revenge perfected.

Why do so few agree with the above argument? What are the issues here?

Then we have to ask, why is this?

If it is a reasoning machine, then it is fed by the same facts it should come up with the same answer the same conclusions on the other side. What is this reasoning machine made up of? What are its initial settings? What are the filters used?

I would like to see everyone's assumptions : let's start with the Wikipedia history of the conflict.
Are we all agreed on history?

Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area.
— RogueAI

Can't argue with that, not many terrorist acts being perpetrated by radical Hebrews — Merkwurdichliebe

I reject the idea that we can judge which countries are decent and which ones are not.
I have a list of decent countries as well, and it will not be the same as yours. These are errors of reasoning here, practical and moral reasons supposes that the morality of Israel is better than the morality of everyone else.

If there is a conclusive way to settle which countries are moral and better than other countries I like to hear it, however I may not agree on the criteria, then what?

So what do we follow? The United Nations Charter, and Bible, other religious texts? Which one should we follow?

I would like to hear your suggestions.

And while you are at it, maybe highlight the lies and deliberate distortions and omissions on both sides.
Or just watch the news channels - all of them.

If you are interested in Philosophy, at least realize that certain lines of argument are prohibited by the laws of reason, these are fallacies of reason. At least they are entertaining.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/logical-fallacies/

Question: are there any logical fallacies or omissions, unsupported claims made here in this interview?
Is the speaker presenting a certain point of view? I think that is why it is upsetting watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMkA--JpO7c

About the rhetoric of Israeli politicians and the question of genocide commented on MSNBC: — ssu

I watched that incredibly balanced view on the accusations of genocide, and the conflict.

causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part — UN definition

Obviously since these words alone, and it looks like we can only state our opinions and not convince anyone, then I would say guilty on two counts.

That's just my opinion, based on a totally disinterested reading of the definitions.

In any case my opinion that the ongoing carnage should stop, whether or not there is genocide or not, so I was objective going in to reading. I did not need to draw the conclusion at all.

In this, the history of the conflict over Palestine does not seem like a genocide, with the possible exception of both parties' attempts at ethnic cleansing in 1948. This doesn't make their actions any less heinous, but the distinction has to remain meaningful. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well then it seems like genocide to me. Is this what we are down to, discussing what it feels like to each person? Opinions? Based on what?

Maybe the best thing to do is to state our underlying views as simply as possible, and let everyone see that the conclusions follow from the assumptions.

Here I my assumptions:

I assume that this is the best thing for all parties concerned.

Both sides should immediately enter into a permanent ceasefire and come to a peace agreement. Hamas should give up its arms and stand trial for war crimes. Hamas fighters should surrender. Israelis and Palestinians should live in a permanent peace between themselves as it was alleged they lived before the creation of Israel. How this is to be done are just details.

Of course this is all fantasy, but this is what my thinking is.

It might be best if everyone presents their axioms, then we can make up the arguments themselves, the arguments that follow from the initial assumptions.

↪Benkei

It could be that the reason Amnesty and B'tselem refer to it as Apartheid is because the international community took action against Apartheid and that is what they believe is needed now.

Good point; I hadn't thought of that. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There won't be any sanctions, though, even BDS is deemed illegal. Is it because South Africa is so far away, and was a Dutch territory?

However, until there is a vociferous outcry not only of Israel's "get Hamas no matter what the cost" response to Hamas, but of Hamas and their actions itself, then nothing changes. Perhaps starting with using one’s own population’s lives as a pawn by putting caches of weapons and military command centers as a strategy is one place to start. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure outcry is going to change anything. At least not for the exaggerated numbers of civilians allegedly killed.

Where is Hamas supposed to put its weapons, in specially demarcated areas?

I don't see the point here, you are saying that everyone should follow the rules of war, or just Hamas?

Sometimes the reasoning is difficult to folllow.

For example you rarely see the Per Capita of any nation plunge back fifty years. But in Yemen, you can! — ssu

I wondered what happened in 2010. Now I know

2011: Arab Spring Reaches Yemen

https://nypost.com/2023/11/01/news/hamas-terrorist-admits-to-killing-women-and-children-in-oct-7-massacre/

Like the previous terrorist interviewed by Israel, Abu Rusha said he was aware Islam forbids the killing of women, children and seniors, but said that Nukhba officers still gave them the order to kill everyone.

The captured terrorist then admitted that his parents were unaware that he’s a member of Hamas.

“If my father sees me, he will shoot me,” he said. “He will kill me … because I did those actions.”

After being shown images and video of Hamas brutality on Oct. 7, the terrorist also said his group was no different from ISIS. — New York Post

In wars atrocities are committed, what is surprising is that people forget that this situation was not unique to Hamas. In Vietnam, for example, but they were not 'only following orders'

Any explanation why if the elimination of Hamas was the goal, this man was not executed?
That would constitute revenge would it not?