Which should have been obvious after they managed to sink a Saudi warship with an anti-shipping missile, which isn't the usual repertoire of a Yemeni faction. — ssu

I did not know that. Thanks.

Ah! Well, the gauches are the perfect example of how critically Westerners (here the Spanish) do look at their past actions — ssu

We are all the same, we are all different.

Human societies, and nations, are not all homogeneous. The proof of this is the kind of arguments that take place within societies, among friends, among relatives, among brothers, even. It is vitally important to recognize this. I recognize the Lindsey Grahams. There are many. There is the Zionist Jew and the Anti-Zionist Jew. Why is it that only a few people even think of reparations to the indigenous people of an island? I am the few who have ever mentioned it, let alone thought of it. Being educated is one thing, but we as a people of a society have to insist that history is taught - history is common to all, and history is true, and it can be found, because we know it has been found and suppressed.

I feel for the Israelis, I feel for the Palestinians, the young men ( I am not 50+) like I was, eager for battle and glory, without fear.

Highlighting the inhumanity of the common history of the world, and anyone can agree or disagree, is one step. The reaction to killing of children is the litmus test of humanity and all that needs to be preserved in our race.

What we need is a world government with courts and a police force. Then the Palestinians and colonists can both make their submissions to the court and the matter decided on accordance with law. — bert1

What we need is for each human being to properly govern themselves. Atrocities begin in the heart.

The cost of war also includes the cost of refusing it. History shows unequivocally that it is always better to conquer than to be conquered. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do you mean wars of defence or wars of offence that go against the UN Charter. It becomes a matter of opinion.

Tell me, what have wars preserved that was more important than the lives of people? Is there something so valuable to send your children against the children of others to have them kill each other?

I'm ignorant, but where does Sun Tzu speak about the possibility of any universally sustainable peace amongst nations? — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh yes.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Sun Tzu

Read more at https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/sun-tzu-quotes

Now, does this include peaceful, bloodless coups orchestrated by a foreign enemy?

It all descends into a matter of opinions.

Note: edited misquote

the Holocaust also affected Socialists, homosexuals, gipsies, etc. — javi2541997

This is a great point. I think it is to our peril that we ignore history, and do not condemn atrocities, wherever they are carried out.

Found this horrific detail

Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about 1.5 million Jewish children and tens of thousands of Romani (Gypsy) children, 5,000–7,000 German children with physical and mental disabilities living in institutions, as well as many Polish children and children residing in the German-occupied Soviet Union. Jewish and non-Jewish adolescents (13–18 years old) had a greater chance of survival, as they could be used for forced labor.

The fates of Jewish and non-Jewish children can be categorized in the following ways:

children killed when they arrived in killing centers
children killed immediately after birth or in institutions
children born in ghettos and camps who survived because prisoners hid them
children, usually over age 12, who were used as forced laborers and as subjects of medical experiments
children killed during reprisal operations
children killed in mass shootings conducted by the Einsatzgruppen and other forces in the German-occupied Soviet Union

Good people must stop doing nothing. Do something good.

Any suggestions? Getting a correct view of history is a first step.

I hope he is wrong, really. I don't think this is just propaganda to lull the enemy into a sense of security, though that is possible. When faced with Armageddon, people tend to tell the truth I think.

"Israel will Face Destruction if this Continues"-Col. Macgregor Warns of Armageddon on Tucker Show

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrazXS2f34Y

"Killing people is not going to solve the problem, but it is very attractive at the moment..."

Under most ethical theories (Kantianism, Utlitarianism, virtue ethics, most religious based ethical systems), providing some form of charity to others is obligatory. — Hanover

Yes, so what worries me is that people are not true to their own religions or their own ethics. Of course one could give in secret.

Elon Musk, at least thought about it. Then again, he had billions in change.

Elon Musk gave a mysterious $5.7 billion donation weeks after he dared the UN to show him its plan for solving world hunger
BYAMIAH TAYLOR
February 15, 2022 at 10:06 PM GMT+5

Where Israel is going, there will be no coming back from. — Tzeentch

I fear it is the path the self-destruction or at the least, self-harm. I do not want to see lives lost on either side, anymore.

If that is accurate, then Israel would be crazy to agree to a cease-fire. — RogueAI

Israel is acting crazy anyway, don't be surprised.

“There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“who wishes to fight must first count the cost”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Also

“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”
― Sun Tzu

Notice in the actual war of Independence that total lack of any "special relationship" between US and Israel, no urging of the special "Judoe-Christian heritage" that makes the US the greatest ally of Israel and Israel a most important ally for the US — ssu

The establishment of Israel had everything to do with the doctrine of replacement theology and Christian Zionism. Ever heard of the founding of Singapore, and who cares?

Here is what is the most sensible explanation of how the Bible does not support Zionism,a sermon preached in Bethlehem, after all. Dr. Hank Hannegraaf states that unfortunately the dominant Christian view is one that supports Zionsim.

Hank Hanegraaff: A Gospel Response to Christian Zionism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q51sL-2SOmo

It is terrible to think that today's atrocities are the result of pig-headed preaching and deception of vast numbers of believers. That is a crime. I know the nonsense I have had to hear.

It's interesting that scholars have concluded that the Gospel of Luke was written 10 years or so after the Roman siege of Jerusalem and their destruction of the Second Temple and most of the city in 70 A.D. or C.E. It explains the reference to the encirclement of the city. — Ciceronianus

Indeed, but it does not preclude the possibility that Jesus predicted it, if you believe that Jesus actually existed.

My point is that Zionists never talk about the disasters and exile as God's doing, only the return. If you accept that bombing a hospital is God's will then you have to accept that the Hamas attacks were God's will as well, as I mentioned, the Bible is full of examples of Israel being punished for not following their God, not being faithful to the Almighty.

In the meantime conservatives that champion family values are now displaying extreme prejudice.
Gaza is a litmus test for the soul, it is. Disappointing and indefensible.

Jesse Watters: We've had it with the Middle East

To refuse to block Nazis marching through the streets and then block any other group is simply inconsistent if not hypocritical. Inquisitions are alive and well, this time it is the secular ones that prevail. Jordan Peterson is obviously unaware.

This actually happened:

The Skokie Case: How I Came To Represent The Free Speech Rights Of Nazis
In 1977, the ACLU of Illinois received a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. The ensuing legal battle, and the controversy around it, would test the organization’s commitment to the First Amendment.
By David Goldberger
March 2, 2020 — ACLU website

The irony is suffocating, though.

"a call from a Nazi leader complaining that his planned demonstration had been blocked. "

This has to be made up, but no, it isn't.

The demonstration was to last for about 30 minutes, after which the Nazis would return to their headquarters on the south side of Chicago.

Quite common, I know. How else explain why one's God-given homeland hasn't been home for thousands of years? But I assume you're aware that many people don't consider the Bible or the Torah to be determinative, especially when it comes to ownership of land — Ciceronianus

Some Orthodox Jews, and I have posted a link to the video earlier, consider that the it is God's will that Jews be in exile until "God gathers them back", God, meaning not the British or the United States, although some will worship these entities. These are anti- Zionists, and adherents to the Jewish religion.

As a Christian, I have been unimpressed with the idea that these are "God's people" therefore they have the right to expand their territories, my memory goes back to 1973 when I remember first hearing this sort of comment. Years later, again, talking to an evangelical in New York, he had to agree that "Not everything Israel does is right". Again, in around 2013 or so, I would hear again statements from a minority, how the IDF at that time was nice enough to warn people that their building was going to be blown up. We learn later "We need to bomb your building".

As a reasonable human being I was not impressed.

The 2023 Netanyahu Right Wing Government seems to be intent on revenge, not only revenge, but more of its motivation is to colonialist. Nothing special to 2023 Israel but it has all the hallmarks. An effort for ensure a military victory plus a peaceful solution would look very different, I think.

Florida Governor Ron de Santis was interviewed on PBD recently, and he correctly pointed out that Israel has a great deal of support among Evangelical Christians in the United States.

It is called Christian Zionism.

Christian support for Israel is not a recent development. Its politcal roots reach as far back to the 1880s, when a man named William Hechler formed a committee of Christian Zionists to help move Russian Jewish refugees to Palestine after a series of pogroms. In 1884, Hechler wrote a pamphlet called “The Restoration of Jews to Palestine According to the Prophets.” A few years later, he befriended Theodor Herzl after reading Herzl’s book The Jewish State, and joined Herzl to drum up support for Zionism. Hechler even arranged a meeting between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II to discuss Herzl’s proposal to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. The two men remained close friends up until Herzl’s death in 1904.

An important milestone in the history of Christian Zionism occurred in 1979, almost a century after William Hechler approached Herzl and offered to mobilize Christian support for a Jewish state: the founding of the Moral Majority. Founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority was an organization made up of conservative Christian political action committees that succeeded in mobilizing like-minded individuals to register and vote for conservative candidates. With nearly six million members, it became a powerful voting bloc during the 1980s and was credited for giving Ronald Reagan the winning edge in the 1980 elections. One of the Moral Majority’s four founding principles was “support for Israel and Jewish people everywhere.”

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/christian-zionism

https://newlinesmag.com/argument/israels-current-crisis-exposes-christian-zionisms-contradictory-ideals/

On the other hand, it is a Biblical truth that God deems it necessary to let His people suffer - slaves in Egypt, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end-times in any case are times of horrific suffering.

How many of you are familiar with these words?

Luke 19:41-44
New International Version
41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” — Luke 19:41-44

Who are we to condemn for this?

Palestinians in Gaza in free elections in 2006 elected Hamas as their government. And I remember clearly being astonished that they had done so. That is, they did, have been. and are self-determining, presumably with no external interference other than what they choose to be interfered with by. — tim wood

I think it is worth pointing out that the United States had free elections in 2016 and 2020 "according to some accounts" . Does that mean that everyone is responsible for the result?

After those free elections, if Canada blockaded your coastline, and prevented ships from delivering goods, and no-one was allowed to leave, what do you think would have happened?

A real insurrection, this time.

I think you need to state all the relevant facts here.

One of the great ironies of the 1948 war is that it was largely fought by the Israelis with Czech surplus Kar98k rifles donated by the Soviets, rifles which had been stamped with swastikas for their intended Nazi users (a dark premonition of the apartheid state perhaps?) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am glad you brought this up. Wars are always proxy wars, it seems, which technically constitutes interference in the affairs of other nations, probably violating the UN Charter.

Hell, they might be in a better place without US support because it could have forced them to make more concessions for peace. Alternatively, they might be a significantly more repressive and violent regime owing to increased existential anxieties. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I tend to agree. Everyone seems to forget that Israel at that time negotiated with terrorists - the PLO - and reached a peace agreement, the Oslo accords. Temporal discrimination is needed, the Israel of 2023 needs to be labelled as such (and I will do so in future posts).

While perceiving somatic stimuli from the external environment, the ability to accurately discriminate their spatial (i.e., spatial discrimination, SD) and temporal (i.e., temporal discrimination, TD) properties is essential for human behavior, but the underlying cerebral mechanisms remain unclear — Oxford Academic

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/32/7/1480/6356877

The big question is, what unfortunate turn of events followed the Oslo accords? A series of worldwide protests may have saved lives earlier, and the actions of governments may have done so also, provided they wanted to.

By the way, I value human life above causes.

I think this is a good discussion, good points made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIEI2eEHPg&t=1056s

Better arguments could be made by the Israeli government, but they are not doing so, not all united in their messaging. Not that it is a problem, but it does upset people even more, maybe that is the plan.

The government of Israel is not obviously trained in sophisticated lying and public relations. First step is not saying it out loud.

More info:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQdBoAJWV8

Oh they have been planning revenge for some time. I didn't know government was about revenge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj6EDEMlQzQ

↪FreeEmotion Yep, it does create a cycle of violence. But the cycle continues precisely because both parties are left with no choice. You can't step in and say, "Break the cycle by allowing the other guy to hit you and get away with it!" That just ain't gonna work. — Pneumenon

I guess they should have protested when the first Palestinian was killed.
Breaking the cycle should have been done many many years ago. I think the real enemy is indifference.
Protesting now, when it gets so bad, what happened in the preceding years? Attempts should have been made even to Hamas to give up violence.

Could nothing have been done? Was this all inevitable? Pre-destined?

Between now and tomorrow morning, 40,000 children will starve to death. The day after tomorrow, 40,000 more children will die, and so on throughout 1992. In a "world of plenty," the number of human beings dying or suffering from hunger, malnutrition, and hunger-related diseases is staggering. According to the World Bank, over 1 billion people—at least one quarter of the world's population—live in poverty. Over half of these people live in South Asia; most of the remainder in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more-focus-areas/resources/world-hunger-a-moral-response/

I doubt it, at this juncture. The world is daily more turbulent; the obscene profits of megabusiness keep sucking resources out of working people's reach; between climate and internecine conflict, more people keep being displaced and dispossessed. The need keeps growing, while the disposable income of compassionate people keeps shrinking. — Vera Mont

This is, I believe a good description of what is happening.

I want to look at this from a personal angle.

As children we are taught to share. Sometimes each child is given the identical toy in order to be 'fair'.
We are told not to throw away food, because of starving children somewhere.

After several decades of seeing terrorism, civil war, financial crises and lock-downs, with people (in the Global South at least) finding it very difficult to live day to day, due to rising costs and fewer opportunities, with a war in Ukraine and in Gaza, the suffering continues.

We - and I mean this loosely - about immediate family - can go through an entire holiday eating, drinking, visiting resorts and watching dolphins, without one word, one word, mind you, about the starving people of the world. Give lip service at least. Think about them. At least Elon Musk tried, and he says 'its not the money - there are wars...'.

I seem to be the only one thinking about this.

I have a challenge: put aside 1 cent every time you have a meal, for the poor.

https://www.wvi.org/newsroom/hunger-crisis/humanitarian-organisations-estimate-one-person-dying-hunger-every-four

9 million people die every year from hunger.

https://www.actionagainsthunger.org/the-hunger-crisis/world-hunger-facts/

Whether we are morally obligated or not to donate, this is not the solution for countries like Bangladesh. The problem is deeper and more complex than just giving them loans or food supply — javi2541997

I agree, however the reasons for failure need to be looked at separately. I think some reasons have been suggested.

Individually, we can support organizations that make sensible contributions to local improvement: water, shelter, agricultural improvement, education, hunger relief, medical aid and micro loans. We can also vote for candidates who put forward benevolent and fair policies, instead of tax cuts and more military spending. — Vera Mont

These are great ideas, but people are starving due to wars, and lack of giving. Is there something that can be done on to change the status quo?

Yes Benkei yes, have you not heard of Gandhi?

This whole thing can be summarized as follows: if you walk up to someone and slap them do they have to turn the other cheek?

I say yes. Jesus did that, and that is what the Christian in the video said.

But still: what are they supposed to do? Just sit there and take it? Thus encouraging a second strike? No. They have to hit back, and it has to hurt. — Pneumenon

Remember this works both ways. It is not called a cycle of violence for nothing, it has that name for a reason. If they are all human, then, they will hit back when hit.

I hope you are wrong. I hope against hope for a immediate and permanent ceasefire, and the repair of Gaza and its infrastructure. Too bad about the people, right?. I do not care if they return to peaceful oppression, at least it is peaceful.

If you say, knowing human beings, hitting back when hit, then, assuming there are human beings on both sides, then the probability of escalation is high. I wish I could hold them back, but I can't. Based on what happened before, it looks likely.

The most difficult part is believing human beings could act this way? Which ones? Find out.

France or Germany or Japan?

Which one will it be? Can you foretell the future?

Even if it means another Dresden or Hiroshima, it will be worth it, but not for me.

I have a difference of opinion here.

If Gazans surrendered — Chisholm

Like the French in June 1942

The EU is quite divided in this issue and for example France and Macron don't share the views of the US. — ssu

Yes, there is some division on this issue, the question is why. Is it the humanity?

The news sites are also divided, that's OK, but deliberately refusing to address the issue is something else altogether, I must say I am rather surprised and disappointed that those supporting the "Evangelicals" are so very unscrupulous.

Fox News - war is approaching second phase, and further down the page, reports a horrific event:

"32 dead, more than 60 injured in horror vehicle pile-up in Egypt"

Israel-Hamas war: Thousands raid Gaza aid centers, UN says - DW

BBC reports same thing.

Is the news now changing? Interesting to see what twists the news takes in the next few days.

The Palestinians are back in the center of focus. — ssu

This is one point of agreement. I feel bad that I have not been aware of all the conflict and suffering that has gone on around the world. Not the 'center of focus'. Maybe if people were aware of things and starting protesting earlier, maybe things could have been different. Look at all the other conflicts- Yemen for example, or Sudan. Azerbaijan. What is happening there?

Christians will find it hard to believe that the Israel has treated Palestinians this way.

How Evangelicals Betray Christians In The Holy Land [Pt. 2]

And for the Palestinian Christians who would say to you,
10:32
“We are actively being oppressed by the state of Israel. We're persecuted here.”
10:35
What do you say to them?
10:37
I would say,
10:38
take a look at the scriptures and love them and be a blessing in any way you can,
10:42
even if you're being persecuted. What did Jesus say?
10:45
He said, “Turn the cheek.”
10:47
You think they should love their oppressor?
10:49
I don't believe that Israel is oppressing them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHT-SjIM0tA

"I don't believe that Israel is oppressing them."

I have heard this all before, "they are not being oppressed" therefore they are fighting over nothing, they have no reason to engage in terrorism, they should stop. Later, you learn that there was a reason, many years later. Then, you do not hate terrorists, you see them as a rational human beings recruited and inspired into violence. They never plead insanity. Those pulling the strings are the ones responsible, you think. If the reason for terrorism is mental illness, we have a problem, if it is oppression, there is a solution, stop oppressing.

If everyone had known what they know now, things would be so different.

An insight from today's NY Times (gift link provided) — Wayfarer

Thank you for sharing your point of view. I would not have imagined it possible.

By the same token, if another country in the same situation, say Great Britain in the second world war, if they were cut off on every side and being bombed with no food and water coming in, no electricity, the British Armed forces are supposed to use their supplies to support the civilian population, and degrade the only defense they have against an armed invasion? Fuel, for example?

Why don't they simply stop fighting and surrender?. That is the question that should be asked.

No mention in that long article that the "Israeli blockade is ineffective, since Hamas has all this food and supplies. Suppose Hamas starts sharing and caring, what happens, does it neutralize the isolation?

Neither Nettanyahus extreme right wing Zionist government cares about the Gaza, it would seem, no-one cares.

This conflict is a acid test for humanity. Maybe that is its purpose.

An insight from today's NY Times (gift link provided) — Wayfarer

Thank you for sharing your point of view. I would not have imagined it possible.

By the same token, if another country in the same situation, say Great Britain in the second world war, if they were cut off on every side and being bombed with no food and water coming in, no electricity, the British Armed forces are supposed to use their supplies to support the civilian population, and degrade the only defense they have against an armed invasion? Fuel, for example?

Why don't they simply stop fighting and surrender?. That is the question that should be asked.

No mention in that long article that the "Israeli blockade is ineffective, since Hamas has all this food and supplies. Suppose Hamas starts sharing and caring, what happens, does it neutralize the isolation?

Neither Nettanyahus extreme right wing Zionist government cares about the Gaza, it would seem, no-one cares.

This conflict is a acid test for humanity. Maybe that is its purpose.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Five whys may help here.

Defining the problem:

The problem: the conflict between two armed parties, resulting in civilian deaths.

Or is this the problem?

Can we agree on the problem statement?

Here is my attempt:

1. Why is there a conflict?

Answer: because Hamas terrorists attacked civilians (and maybe military) on October 7

2. Why did they attack?

Answer: because they are committed to attacking Israel

3. Why are they committed to attacking Israel?

Answer: because Israel is attacking their citizens

4. Why is Israel attacking their citizens?

Answer: because they want them to stay quiet and peaceful and turn the other cheek and be submissive under occupation

5.Why do they want them to stay quiet?

Answer: because it will allow Israel to live peacefully with the Palestinians.

So here's my position: I do not condemn the Israeli response to the Hamas/Palestinian attack and I do not believe the Israelis to be the instigators in this conflict. My stand with Israel is clear here and you can condemn it as you will and find it unsustainable. — Hanover

Could you clarify this stand? Do support the goal of a decisive victory over Hamas, despite the civilian deaths and destruction, or do you support the apparent revenge bombings and attacks by Israel that are clearly punishing civilians and the total blockade?

I believe the instigators of this conflict were the British Mandate of the 19xx. I feel sorry for these pawns in the front line while Kings and Queens and Bishops stay safe.

I consider the Palestinians to have a right to use violence against Israel to fight their oppression since quite clearly peaceful means has gotten them nothing — Benkei

The use of violence in resistance is not permitted by International Law, is it?

There may have been a non-violent, though possibly illegal method to fight the oppression, and achieve their goals, no-one can prove that there was not. I am sure that among 1 million people something could have been devised.

Should the Allies not have bombed German cities? — RogueAI

World War II (1939–1945) involved sustained strategic bombing of railways, harbours, cities, workers' and civilian housing, and industrial districts in enemy territory. Strategic bombing as a military strategy is distinct both from close air support of ground forces and from tactical air power.[29] During World War II, many military strategists of air power believed that air forces could win major victories by attacking industrial and political infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[30] Strategic bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians, and some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations in order to terrorize them and disrupt their usual activities. International law at the outset of World War II did not specifically forbid the aerial bombardment of cities – despite the prior occurrence of such bombing during World War I (1914–1918), the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939), and the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

Strategic bombing during World War II began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.[31] As the war continued to expand, bombing by both the Axis and the Allies increased significantly. The Royal Air Force, in retaliation for Luftwaffe attacks on the UK which started on 16 October 1939, began bombing military targets in Germany, commencing with the Luftwaffe seaplane air base at Hörnum on the 19-20 March 1940.[32] In September 1940 the Luftwaffe began targeting British civilians in the Blitz.[33] After the beginning of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, the Luftwaffe attacked Soviet cities and infrastructure. From February 1942 onward, the British bombing campaign against Germany became even less restrictive and increasingly targeted industrial sites and civilian areas

The answer would be yes, if there was no other way to win the war, or for that matter, shorten the war.
One possibility is development of the atomic bomb earlier.

No one knows if there was another way, and no one knows how long the war would have lasted.

There is even a difference of opinion on who should have won WWII.

My response, contrary to your tempered and suicidal approach, is to kill the raging pit bull in my living room. — Hanover

Very nice analogy. One may be tempted to go out and kill 2,500 pit bulls as an act of vengeance, ostensibly to prevent them attacking you, including the pups. I have a feeling that this is what we are looking at here: a political strategy, already decades old, is playing out, this is not a military strategy.

The Israeli government could simply upgrade its iron dome and station 40,000 troops at the border with the orders to shoot to kill - Hamas terrorists, motor gliders, drones, etc.

If we are quoting the Bible here is a text from the Old Testament, something similar probably exists in other religious texts.

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. — Proverbs 6, 16-19

Also

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16377/jewish/Chapter-6.htm

Is war permissible?

Worth quoting

War can be necessary and proportionate only if it serves an end worth all this death and destruction. Hence the importance of having a just cause. And hence too the widespread belief that just causes are few and far between. Indeed, traditional just war theory recognizes only two kinds of justification for war: national defence (of one’s own state or of an ally) and humanitarian intervention. What’s more, humanitarian intervention is permissible only to avert the very gravest of tragedies—“crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind” (Walzer 2006: 107).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#Nece

What are the ethics of peace, then? Is it better to seek a durable peace between two parties even at the expense of subjugation of one party by the other, since it saves lives, and minimizes damage? It depends on what is seen as important. Possibly the United Nations, and other parties, could focus their efforts in arranging for negotiations of peace at all costs, with the focus on a durable peace rather than justice, at least in the short term. Permitting illegal, covert operations to preserve the peace - is this allowable?

An unjust peace is better than a just war. -Marcus Tullius Cicero

Anyone have the official Israeli statement on protection of civilians? Between their statements on allowing humanitarian access to Gaza and 'we don't kill civilians' the case can be made they can plead incompetence or insanity. Maybe both.

Found this:

Herzog, however, argued that the rhetoric that civilians in Gaza were unaware of Hamas' attacks or were not involved in them is untrue, and explained the deaths of civilians as "they could have rebelled against the malicious regime that took over Gaza in a coup attempt, they could have fought against it." — AA

Either an insane or incompetent human being? Any guesses?

Another official, better this time. Did he mean minimize or maximize?

"We are in a huge effort... to minimise the civilian consequences of this conflict. But, and I say this very sadly, there will, and it is unfortunate and inevitable that this will continue to happen."

https://news.sky.com/story/israel-hamas-war-idf-says-civilian-deaths-inevitable-as-dozens-killed-in-southern-gaza-strikes-12986401

I don't think Iran will risk its oil tanks. If they have not done anything now I don't think they will.

No one is protesting Israel killing Hamas fighters either, but typically killing families of soldiers is a war crime, assuming not everybody in the family is part of the military. — ssu

This is an interesting ethical problem, were it not so serious. Is war itself not a violation of human rights?

Sorry, but to kill over 1400 civilians, you really have to make the effort. It's not just civilians getting into crossfire and a conditional that "some may have — ssu

Most of the effort was directed there, however there were exceptions, that is what I am saying. Some witnesses do mention getting caught in the crossfire. Following orders allows no exceptions. I do not think the Hamas terrorists were asked to catch and release.

I find it interesting that killing an armed person in uniform in cold blood is somehow acceptable. Its curious. Is there some gentleman's agreement to kill or be killed, sounds macabre. Duels were once legal.

Umm, actually ISIL and Tamil Tigers actually were destroyed. There was no "peace deal" with them in the end. — ssu

There were many ceasefires and peace deals. At the end, the loss of life is very tragic.

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

Oct 23, 2023 07:35 AM IST

US President Joe Biden held a telephonic conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday, with both leaders affirming the need to ensure the continued flow of humanitarian aid and relief materials into Gaza. — Hindustan Times

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-president-biden-israeli-pm-netanyahu-agree-to-continue-flow-of-humanitarian-aid-into-gaza-101698026717166.html

The statement that humanitarian aid might help Hamas terrorists is not relevant here, if these words are to be taken at face value, then 'continued flow of humanitarian aid and relief materials into Gaza' has been stated as official policy by the Israeli and US governments.

Given that statement, it means that the aid has to be flow in in sufficient quantities does everyone agree?

A ceasefire will help the trucks not get destroyed, but it would seem to be smart move if they want the relief to get through in sufficient quantities.

If they are going to 'destroy Hamas' I don't think they will mind giving them a few last meals.

I think the above states quite obviously the reasons why Hamas made this all out attack. It was because the whole Palestinian issue was starting to be sidelined. It was because of even Saudi-Arabia was coming closer to officially normalize relations with Israel. Well, the Palestine cause is back now thank to them. — ssu

These are some reasons. There are others. I think no-one is paying attention to that, you can find it if you search.

Firstly, as in the past, 1,000 Hamas fighters were exchanged for 1 Israeli soldier. Now Hamas has taken hostages, and initially wanted some sort of swap,

Secondly, their stated goal on a TV interview is to 'weaken' Israel.

The killing of civilians? This is speculation, but I think some of the Hamas fighters (some in civilian clothes as you can see) and other 'volunteers' may have crossed the fence and with the same spirit of revenge that is in the air today, may have attacked and killed civilians. Also, some civilians may have been killed in the crossfire.

If the order was given to kill as many civilians as possible, why were some released before Hamas went back over the border? It proves someone was not following orders.

Notice no-one is protesting the killing of Israeli soldiers, some off-duty, and when a Hamas leader is killed along with his family, that is alright, but if an Israeli soldier is killed along with his family it is a horrific atrocity.

It is, as I stated, a very callous and suicidal method of operation, but then they are used to that, this was a suicide mission, after all.

The stated goal of Hamas is not peace, or a two-state solution. For some reason Israel propped them up, in their wisdom.

Why now?

Before Saturday, three quarters of Israeli troops were in the occupied West Bank due to the upsurge in Palestinian attacks over the past year, exacerbated by the ultra-nationalist Israeli Netanyahu government in the total absence of any prospect of a settlement.

The question is, who funded them, who supported them? The cold blooded planners have used them as pawns. Nothing new here.

Other views ( I don't agree with everything here, though)

https://warontherocks.com/2023/10/a-major-pivot-in-hamas-strategy/

Found this about the border fence. In 2022

Terror attack bared West Bank barrier’s gaps, but some say holes help keep the peace
Experts say despite tough talk from army, unspoken policy of allowing Palestinian laborers to enter Israel illegally for work will remain as a vital pressure release valve
Emanuel Fabian
By EMANUEL FABIAN
7 April 2022, 6:24 am

https://www.timesofisrael.com/terror-attack-bared-west-bank-barriers-gaps-but-some-say-holes-help-keep-the-peace/

The righteousness of of any people is directly proportional to the amount of blood they are prepared to sacrifice. — unenlightened

Their own, or the blood of civilians?

I would like to know what everyone's basic assumptions are, axioms will determine the rhetoric, so the basic beliefs regarding war, peace and government, colonialism, these all apply.

Here is what I subscribe to at the moment:

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. — UN Charter

Everyone agree?

An American-Israeli Jew tells it like it is on the ground — 180 Proof

Sari Bashi's statements are the most objective and fair statements I have ever heard on this conflict, and from a totally humanitarian point of view. Thanks for the video.

I like to hear Finkelstein's point of view, however I am 1 hour into the 2 hour video.

I watched Dr. Gabor's view one I can agree with.

ChatGPT may flag questions regarding Gaza as violating its policy. So watch out.

A girl posted on Instagram that she asked Chat GPT “Do Palestinians Deserve Justice?” and “Do Israeli Deserve Justice?”. Chat GPT stated that freedom and justice should be applied to individuals and groups regardless of their nationality, yet when the tool answered the Palestinian-related question, it said that justice for Palestinians is a highly complex and debated issue!

https://thinkmarketingmagazine.com/chat-gpt-joins-the-list-of-israel-biased-platforms/

How will this end, possibly? Did you know the war in Lebanon killed over 20,000 people?

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

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

Are the nations of the world complicit? Were they?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/6/1/the-uns-responsibility-to-protect-doctrine-in-palestine