War in the Middle East, again

[bradrn]

It is excellent that four hostages were released from unspeakable brutality. It is horrific that 274 people were killed. Beyond these raw facts, I do not feel able to make any definite judgement. For one thing, I don’t know how many of those 274 people were civilians, and how many were armed members of Hamas.

Have you bothered to find out? Because reporters did (despite Israeli efforts to prevent them). They spoke with dozens of eyewitnesses who were present in Nuseirat at the time or who worked in hospitals where the casualties were brought, and their testimonies are horrifying.

I’ve seen some articles, yes. The testimonies are indeed horrifying. But I’ve yet to see any source which can state with any definiteness how many of the dead were civilians: only that there were many dead and injured people. They might have been civilians or combatants — hospitals treat them all. We simply don’t know.

It’s also worth noting that we don’t know the IDF’s reasons for performing the operation at this time and place. ‘Bombing the market in the middle of the day’ certainly sounds horrific — but might there have been some reason why it would have failed at night? The IDF cannot risk failure here: Hamas guards have standing orders to murder their hostages if they detect a rescue operation in progress. In such a situation, it becomes very difficult to know what to do, and I find it difficult to say that the IDF has misplanned a hostage rescue which, ultimately, was successful.

So how many civilians killed before it becomes an atrocity? This isn't a rhetorical question; it's a practical one.

The only answer I can give is: ‘it depends’. It’s not a question which has a single answer applicable to all cases. Even in this case, I can’t say for sure: there are too many unknowns.

(Also, beware of the sorites paradix… there can never be any exact number for ‘how many civilians makes an atrocity‘.)

So we need people like you and your relatives there to find their moral centre and then act on it.

Hah, Netanyahu and his ilk have no ‘moral centre’. They have no interest in listening to the people, except for that little segment which tells them what they want to hear. Just look at the enormous protests which have been going on for months… and look at how they’ve been responded to.

(Also, as for ‘my relatives’, most of them support the war far more emphatically than I do. They would probably be horrified at some of the things I’ve been saying here. In particular, they would probably dispute the existence of ‘innocent civilians’ in Gaza at all: for them, if you’re not actively helping the IDF, you’re a Hamas collaborator. Mostly I find that view repugnant — but at the same time, somehow I can’t quite find it in myself to call it entirely wrong, either…)

I'm glad you're at least conflicted on this.

Make no mistake: I’ve been conflicted right from the beginning of this conflict. I distinctly remember, in the first days after October 7, oscillating between despair at the atrocities carried out by Hamas, and despair at the inevitable horror we would see when Israel invaded. Like I’ve said many times in this thread, Hamas put us into an impossible position, where any action Israel did would lead to utter horror. I think Israel made the right choice, because its responsibility to protect Israelis, but it’s difficult to stomach.

To be completely honest, I’m not even sure that I support continuing the war any more. Earlier on I did, back when it looked like there was some kind of plan to achieve our aims. Now, it is clear that there is no plan. It seems that Netanyahu wants to keep the war going on forever, and if true, that is something I cannot support. Sure, stopping it would leave in place a genocidal terror state, and cause the release of hundreds of murderers, but at least we could salvage some chance of getting our people back, and that‘s important.

Either way, this can’t go on. Hamas must accept the ceasefire deal which has been offered.

Must they? When the Israeli government has been signalling all along that it won't abide by its terms? That's the US government's official line, so I guess it must be correct. They've made every right call during this conflict so far.

I don’t understand what you mean by these comments, sorry.

[rotting bones]

I know Jews constantly spread the rumor that Muslims are out to kill them, but that is simply not true. I promise you, conservative Muslims are only out to enslave and extract taxes from the Jews should the opportunity arise.

Recently, I heard a Jew ask a rabbi why Hashem grants the prayers of Ishmael when they beg Him to let them kill Israel. The rabbi said something about Ishmael's dark spiritual powers. However, in mainstream interpretations, it is thought that prayers to harm others are forbidden in Islam. This is not to say Muslims don't pray to harm others. When that's what they want, they pray for things like justice.

Palestinians would accept a deal that doesn't completely screw them over. Whenever they say yes to deals, Israel says something like, "The lack of details in their acceptance showed us they weren't serious," and mainstream media glosses over the story.

[bradrn]

I know Jews constantly spread the rumor that Muslims are out to kill them, but that is simply not true. I promise you, conservative Muslims are only out to enslave and extract taxes from the Jews should the opportunity arise.

If you think we should consider this even remotely reassuring, then you’re an idiot.

(Or it could be sarcasm; hard to tell on the Internet. I desperately hope you mean it as sarcasm…)

[rotting bones]

If you think we should consider this even remotely reassuring, then you’re an idiot.

(Or it could be sarcasm; hard to tell on the Internet. I desperately hope you mean it as sarcasm…)

Eh, all religions have immoral things if you insist on dredging up ancient laws. People do that as a response to existential terror. Thankfully, strategies that worked in the past become ineffective as social systems change.

My point is: What you should do, instead of supporting or opposing Muslims, is to minimize terror. The more you terrify Muslims, the more conservative they will get. Ultimately, they will falsely attribute things to Islam that would have made Muhammad piss his pants.

Jews is not much better with all the talk we hear of Amalek. At least those paying for protection are not required to pay for charity.

PS. Besides, do you really believe the US charges Israel nothing for its protection?

[rotting bones]

PS. Besides, do you really believe the US charges Israel nothing for its protection?

In case anyone's curious about what conservative Islamic apologetics sounds like, here's a paraphrase of something I was told: "We are the only honest people in the world. We play the same power games that every other power plays. The difference is that we will not cheat you. We will not try to win your hearts and minds. We tell you what we are trying to do upfront even though it hurts us. We tell you what we will do if we win. We will stand by our word and refuse to extract more from you than what we promised in advance. It is right to play these games because that is what powers must do to survive in this world. God will reward us for our honesty."

It was a combination of both chilling and naive.

[rotting bones]

if you’re not actively helping the IDF, you’re a Hamas collaborator. Mostly I find that view repugnant — but at the same time, somehow I can’t quite find it in myself to call it entirely wrong, either…

I didn't like parts like these. Imagine a Palestinian American saying he's conflicted about wiping out the Israelis.

[keenir]

PS. Besides, do you really believe the US charges Israel nothing for its protection?

In case anyone's curious about what conservative Islamic apologetics sounds like, here's a paraphrase of something I was told: "We are the only honest people in the world. We play the same power games that every other power plays. The difference is that we will not cheat you. We will not try to win your hearts and minds. We tell you what we are trying to do upfront even though it hurts us. We tell you what we will do if we win. We will stand by our word and refuse to extract more from you than what we promised in advance. It is right to play these games because that is what powers must do to survive in this world. God will reward us for our honesty."

It was a combination of both chilling and naive.

I imagine it'd be more chilling if we knew which part or parts were altered. You said it was a paraphrase - so, which part or parts did you change?

[Travis B.]

The big thing to me is that in Israeli apologetics they have made "Palestinian" and "Hamas terrorist" practically synonymous, so whenever the IDF massacres a whole bunch of Palestinians, they fall back upon the rhetoric that it was justified because some of them must have been Hamas terrorists ─ even if it is a hospital or a school that they have bombed ─ no matter how many Palestinian civilians they've killed. Hundreds of Palestinian deaths in one fell swoop is somehow okay if just one Hamas terrorist is killed in the process.

[bradrn]

if you’re not actively helping the IDF, you’re a Hamas collaborator. Mostly I find that view repugnant — but at the same time, somehow I can’t quite find it in myself to call it entirely wrong, either…

I didn't like parts like these. Imagine a Palestinian American saying he's conflicted about wiping out the Israelis.

Honestly, this is a part of my thinking I don’t like either. That’s why I consider it so important to be honest about it: once I admit these feelings, I’m able to work to keep them from impacting my reasoning.

(Also: I don’t feel at all ‘conflicted about wiping out’ the Palestinians. I’m quite certain that would be genocide, and I always have been.)

[rotting bones]

I imagine it'd be more chilling if we knew which part or parts were altered. You said it was a paraphrase - so, which part or parts did you change?

Can't say. An ethical commitment to inequality is chilling enough for me.

[keenir]

I imagine it'd be more chilling if we knew which part or parts were altered. You said it was a paraphrase - so, which part or parts did you change?

Can't say. An ethical commitment to inequality is chilling enough for me.

you can't say? but...isn't it your paraphrase?

[Linguoboy]

I’ve seen some articles, yes. The testimonies are indeed horrifying. But I’ve yet to see any source which can state with any definiteness how many of the dead were civilians: only that there were many dead and injured people. They might have been civilians or combatants — hospitals treat them all. We simply don’t know.

We know. We know with as much certainty as we can in this situation that a large number were civilians and your continuing efforts to sow doubt are really looking like the worst kind of atrocity apologism.

It’s also worth noting that we don’t know the IDF’s reasons for performing the operation at this time and place. ‘Bombing the market in the middle of the day’ certainly sounds horrific — but might there have been some reason why it would have failed at night? The IDF cannot risk failure here: Hamas guards have standing orders to murder their hostages if they detect a rescue operation in progress. In such a situation, it becomes very difficult to know what to do

How about negotiate a settlement which allows for the hostages to be released without having to fire a single shot? Seems like a lot less failure-prone than going into an armed stronghold guns a-blazin'.

(Also, as for ‘my relatives’, most of them support the war far more emphatically than I do. They would probably be horrified at some of the things I’ve been saying here. In particular, they would probably dispute the existence of ‘innocent civilians’ in Gaza at all: for them, if you’re not actively helping the IDF, you’re a Hamas collaborator. Mostly I find that view repugnant — but at the same time, somehow I can’t quite find it in myself to call it entirely wrong, either…)

I'm going to quote a friend of mine's response to this. He's been posting about the conflict (and about human rights in general) with terrific moral clarify

But good news isn't enough for some people. It's not enough for the hostages to be home. The deaths cannot be tragic. They cannot be regrettable. The Palestinians who died must also be guilty, and I have watched people I know personally, people who I thought of as friends, once again work their way by steps to the position that there are no innocent Palestinians.

The first stage is arguing that anybody involved in the keeping of hostages isn't really a civilian. I don't even disagree. But this pretty clearly doesn't stretch to cover up to 100 deaths so another step is necessary. Surely, the other people who lived nearby must have known about the hostages. Therefore, they are indirectly involved in their keeping and therefore also guilty.

We've already left the realm of what is ordinary expected, the realm for which examples can be given. Even the people who commit the most heinous crimes have neighbors, and coworkers. We almost never hold those bystanders responsible by default because of how little we actually know about what happens even just on the other side of an apartment building wall. People are always shocked to discover that their neighbors, their coworkers, people they thought they knew were violent, abusive, or otherwise criminal. We allow them their surprise. We don't hold them guilty.

But then it becomes clear that much of the fighting was not in the building. The nearby streets, including a market area, were involved. The people impacted were not just close neighbors. You can't stretch "surely the neighbors must have known" to include people who were just shopping nearby or just passing through. So another step is necessary. We've already left the realm of comparable examples, so there's a real risk we'll next leave reality entirely.

So it must be the case, those bystanders shouldn't have entered an area where hostages might be. They should have made sure there were no hostages first. They should have demanded to know where the hostages were. Then they could have freed the hostages themselves. Then they could have risen up against Hamas. None of those bystanders would have died this way if they'd just been heroes first. And then at last we have arrived. There are no innocent Palestinians because they're each and all guilty of failing to rise up. If they wanted their deaths to be tragedies, then they should have been heroes.

Nobody owes it to anyone else to become a hero. Rights do not depend on heroism. The value of life and the tragedy of death do not depend on heroism.

If what you want is the hostages rescued, then it is utterly unnecessary to argue that any bystanders who died must be guilty. Therefore it is serving some other purpose, and none of those purposes are good.

You say you find your relatives' view repugnant and yet I see very little light between their argument that anyone who doesn't rise up against Hamas is de facto collaborator and your argument that we can't condemn the slaughter of innocents because we "just can't know" how many of the dead children inventoried at local hospitals were agents of Hamas. Effectively, your rhetoric is serving the same "not good" purposes David condemns here.

To be completely honest, I’m not even sure that I support continuing the war any more. Earlier on I did, back when it looked like there was some kind of plan to achieve our aims. Now, it is clear that there is no plan. It seems that Netanyahu wants to keep the war going on forever, and if true, that is something I cannot support. Sure, stopping it would leave in place a genocidal terror state, and cause the release of hundreds of murderers, but at least we could salvage some chance of getting our people back, and that‘s important.

So I guess we'll all just sit back and watch Netanyahu turn Israel into a genocidal terror state instead.

Either way, this can’t go on. Hamas must accept the ceasefire deal which has been offered.

Must they? When the Israeli government has been signalling all along that it won't abide by its terms? That's the US government's official line, so I guess it must be correct. They've made every right call during this conflict so far.

I don’t understand what you mean by these comments, sorry.

I'm mocking the USA's stance that solely Hamas is to blame if the deal falls through. As for a source on Bibi's rejection of the terms of the deal, here's the Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-a ... age-talks/.

You said it yourself: Netanyahu wants to keep the war going forever. As long as he remains in powers, he will find pretexts to relaunch hostilities whenever it is political convenient for him. So why is it only Hamas that's being condemned for preventing an agreement from being reached? Why am I being forced to accept that the Israeli regime is negotiating in good faith when it transparently is not?

[bradrn]

It’s also worth noting that we don’t know the IDF’s reasons for performing the operation at this time and place. ‘Bombing the market in the middle of the day’ certainly sounds horrific — but might there have been some reason why it would have failed at night? The IDF cannot risk failure here: Hamas guards have standing orders to murder their hostages if they detect a rescue operation in progress. In such a situation, it becomes very difficult to know what to do

How about negotiate a settlement which allows for the hostages to be released without having to fire a single shot? Seems like a lot less failure-prone than going into an armed stronghold guns a-blazin'.

We tried. In fact, ‘negotiate’ isn’t really the right word — we just wholesale accepted a ‘deal’ which was, in Blinken’s words, ‘nearly identical to one Hamas endorsed last month’. And yet Hamas has rejected it.

Let’s be clear here: Hamas is not a group of peace-lovers looking for any chance they can get to end the war — far from it. Hamas wants this war quite as much as Netanyahu does… in fact, they may want it rather more, since with each passing day they somehow manage to accrue even more positive PR. And as such, by this point it looks almost certain that they will never, ever agree to any deal other than ‘unilateral Israeli surrender’. So, what do we do?

I'm going to quote a friend of mine's response to this. He's been posting about the conflict (and about human rights in general) with terrific moral clarify […]

I find myself agreeing with everything he says here. As he says at the end, what I want is the hostages rescued. And by this point I see no other way to do it. ‘Depressing’ doesn’t even begin to express the situation.

You say you find your relatives' view repugnant and yet I see very little light between their argument that anyone who doesn't rise up against Hamas is de facto collaborator and your argument that we can't condemn the slaughter of innocents because we "just can't know" how many of the dead children inventoried at local hospitals were agents of Hamas. Effectively, your rhetoric is serving the same "not good" purposes David condemns here.

The difference is that I’m willing to be persuaded, as I just have been.

To be completely honest, I’m not even sure that I support continuing the war any more. Earlier on I did, back when it looked like there was some kind of plan to achieve our aims. Now, it is clear that there is no plan. It seems that Netanyahu wants to keep the war going on forever, and if true, that is something I cannot support. Sure, stopping it would leave in place a genocidal terror state, and cause the release of hundreds of murderers, but at least we could salvage some chance of getting our people back, and that‘s important.

So I guess we'll all just sit back and watch Netanyahu turn Israel into a genocidal terror state instead.

Firstly: a huge number of Israelis are not ‘sitting back’. They’re actively protesting, in some of the biggest protests in Israeli history! Not being in Israel, I can’t personally do anything about Netanyahu, but I applaud those who can.

Secondly, re ‘turning Israel into a genocidal terror state’: Ben Gvir wants that, and Smotrich wants that. Netanyahu, as far as we can tell, does not (however bankrupt his sense of morality is in every other way). Indeed, it seems that he’s been taking enormous effort to minimise Ben Gvir’s influence, though of course it would have been more moral to not ally with these monsters in the first place.

[keenir]

It seems that, as a new factor in the current war, Israel is going to require members of the Ultra-Orthodox to enlist.

If I understand correctly, prior to now, they were exempt from having to do military service, though they were allowed to be settlers who could live in the Palestinian Territories with the protection of the Israeli military.

[Torco]

Let’s be clear here: Hamas is not a group of peace-lovers looking for any chance they can get to end the war — far from it. Hamas wants this war quite as much as Netanyahu does… in fact, they may want it rather more, since with each passing day they somehow manage to accrue even more positive PR. And as such, by this point it looks almost certain that they will never, ever agree to any deal other than ‘unilateral Israeli surrender’. So, what do we do?

maybe stop the collective punishment of the palestinians for being ruled by the guys the israelis maneouvered into ruling them would be a nice start. ending the apartheid regime would help.

but speaking about the protests... I honestly don't have the stomach to become well informed about the ins and outs of israeli politics. the first pages of the wikipedia page for ben gvir -man, what a nazi- are themselves quite a bit. for those better informed, does it look like there's any possibility the protests might do something? more precisely, for example, a change in government?

[rotting bones]

Linguoboy: Of course they bombed a path through civilians. We had estimates to that effect on the very first day. The real question is, do enough people care, or are they only interested in weaponizing accusations of genocide to prevent economic democracy?

[bradrn]

Let’s be clear here: Hamas is not a group of peace-lovers looking for any chance they can get to end the war — far from it. Hamas wants this war quite as much as Netanyahu does… in fact, they may want it rather more, since with each passing day they somehow manage to accrue even more positive PR. And as such, by this point it looks almost certain that they will never, ever agree to any deal other than ‘unilateral Israeli surrender’. So, what do we do?

maybe stop the collective punishment of the palestinians for being ruled by the guys the israelis maneouvered into ruling them would be a nice start. ending the apartheid regime would help.

And — even accepting the premises here, which I don’t — would this really stop Hamas from doing terrorist stuff? More likely they’d say, ‘wow, look at what our terrorism achieved, let’s terrorise even harder until we reach our goal of expelling or murdering every last Jew’.

but speaking about the protests... I honestly don't have the stomach to become well informed about the ins and outs of israeli politics. the first pages of the wikipedia page for ben gvir -man, what a nazi- are themselves quite a bit. for those better informed, does it look like there's any possibility the protests might do something? more precisely, for example, a change in government?

It’s hard to say. At the very least, it seems likely that the protests have convinced the government to make a much greater effort to negotiate with Hamas. But changing government? Netanyahu knows he’s going to jail if he loses the PM-ship, so he’ll probably never resign voluntarily, or kick out the people who are propping up his coalition. The only way I can see him leaving is if someone manages to cobble together a non-confidence motion, and that’s already been attempted and failed.

[rotting bones]

And — even accepting the premises here, which I don’t — would this really stop Hamas from doing terrorist stuff? More likely they’d say, ‘wow, look at what our terrorism achieved, let’s terrorise even harder until we reach our goal of expelling or murdering every last Jew’.

IIRC Hamas didn't originally start out as a terrorism club per se, and many of their new recruits are clearly joining in an effort to make a last stand. If you create social institutions that help people enjoy productive lives, what would be the motivation to become Hamas terrorists for a majority of the population?

What you should do is to stop terrorizing civilians*, and take out the core terrorist structure in targeted strikes. You only need to do enough damage to let you replace Hamas with more progressive institutions. The problem is that there is no political will in Israel to implement this solution. ("What? They attack us and we help them out???")

*Even you can't deny that Israel is terrorizing Palestinians. They are even using this as an excuse to expand operations in the West Bank.

[bradrn]

IIRC Hamas didn't originally start out as a terrorism club per se

I’m going to stop you right there. Let’s have a look at their original 1988 charter, shall we:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. […]"

The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

An organisation which started out by encouraging ‘killing the Jews’, and wishes ‘death for the sake of Allah’, is not terrorist? To say so is quite deeply disingenuous.

[rotting bones]

An organisation which started out by encouraging ‘killing the Jews’, and wishes ‘death for the sake of Allah’, is not terrorist? To say so is quite deeply disingenuous.

Do you want me to pull out unfortunate Talmud references? I really don't want to do it.

Hamas said these things because they wanted to attract supporters considering the environment they were in. What I meant, specifically, is that they did not start out specializing in terrorist activities.

Like in Judaism, people can say things without acting on them until the environment makes them think, "Oh shit, they were right!"