War in the Middle East, again

[keenir]

this counts as a personal attack, right? a fairly severe one that not only hits Godwin, but seems to encompass even more.

should the thread be locked, a time-out be issued for participants, or...?

Keenir has already addressed this idiotic comment. (I try to avoid invective, but honestly, that’s the only word for it.)

To be perfectly honest, the fact that you see stupidity as intelligence and intelligence as stupidity scares me more than the fact that you are Hitler.

[bradrn]

this counts as a personal attack, right? a fairly severe one that not only hits Godwin, but seems to encompass even more.

I may be biased, but it appears that way to me. (As it happens, I’m very hard to offend, but that doesn’t make it right.)

[Torco]

smirkwise... i've always suspected i might be on the spectrum (the conlanger programmer guy who owns both a cello and a stanley plane? nooooo). I don't think i see it.

You mean you own an airplane?

I wish lmao.

I’m not suggesting that genocide always results in 100% fatalities: that would be obviously false. I’m suggesting that genocide requires an intention to kill 100% of the targeted people. And people are just not thinking about what that kind of utter horror would actually look like, in the context of Gaza.

It would look much worse, admittedly, but no, that is also not what a genocide is: it's not accidental official definitions say in whole or in part: the final solution as a policy was put into effect much after the treatment of the jews by the third reich had become genocidal. and even after the final solution policy no sane nazi -and most were, see arendt- would have thought that the policies they were carrying out would reasonably result the death of all the jews in the world. again you end up excluding the holocaust in order to absolve israel, because it's like trying to define mammal in a way that includes dogs but excludes cows.

That’s why Israel hasn’t done them

so a thing being genocidal somehow entails that israel does not do it... see what I mean when I say there's nothing israel such that it would be enough for you to call this genocide a genocide? this is just inconditional support. pointing about the fact that israel could genocide the palestinians harder in an possible world or in the future or this one, besides being repugnant, also is not an argument for why this isn't a genocide. furthermore Israel could not finish off all the palestinians realistically: some live down the street from me, and I'm pretty sure Israel is not going to invade chile soon.

What kinds of weaponry is Israel buying from America? Predominantly, precision missiles:

factcheck: the US accounted for 69% of Israel's imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023.

Everything that the IDF has done is consistent with their war aims: to (1) rescue the hostages, and (2) destroy Hamas’s ability to govern. There is nothing to suggest that they have the murder of Gazans as a primary aim.

* over 10% of gazan people killed, if rotting's 8% is correct: this is obvious upon simple analysis: the lancet figure of 186 is obtained by multiplying by four the direct casualties last reported by the local ministry of health, which stopped counting months ago. it's multiplied by four in order to include indirect deaths, which are always more than direct ones by about that margin, it's going to be more than four considering *most buildings are destroyed*, a good correlate for the breadth of the damage. there have been more deaths since the ministry stopped counting, the math is dead simple.
*demolishing three quarters of all residential buildings and four fifths of commercial ones. hostages could and been -and almost certainly were- in residential or commercial buildings that were bombed.
*cutting off power to a bit under two million people, including the hostages, who may too have needed medical attention.
*killing 70% of livestock in the region. who gets meat first, your hostage or your mum.
these are all outcomes that actively oppose war goal (1). there are also not the inevitable result of a just war. they are, to the point, the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a people. they are genocide. (2) is a goal which can be pursued through genocide: therefore, that it is being pursued does not entail this genocide is not a genocide. if the IDF kills enough palestinians so that few enough remain, especially if for each one that they kill there's at least one more that wants to emigrate the region, then hamas cannot govern. genocides are always, in the mind of the genocider, carried out in the pursuit of some other goal: the nazis did not (do not) want to exterminate the jews axiomatically, or for the sole glee of it: they want to do it because...

More: show

in case you've not talked to nazis or read their fora or watched their youtube, and fucking why would you what's wrong with me why do i want to understand these cunts help. to be clear, what follows are nazi ideas, you know, the shit nazis believe. I'm saying this to make a point, I don't belive these, this is not me being antisemitic, i'm not saying jews are guilty of these things, they're not. nazis think the jews control the world, or are trying to with some nontrivial success. the jews have harmed the white race in this and that manner, notably bolschevization. the jews have prevented and will prevent it from thriving through this and that, the jews spread degeneracy, they are bankers and caused the inflation in 29. they are our enemies, because of this and that and the other

. the conclusion is that israel is not seriously pursuing (1), but rather, (2), by the means indicated. Speaking of anticommunism

Even Hitler tried to pretend to everyone, inside Germany and to the outer world, that his genocide wasn't as bad as it sounded. It was only when the Auschwitz footage was screened that people finally grasped what Hitler had done.

it was when auschwitz footage came out that liberals, moderates and conservatives realized. hitler had mentioned . as far back as 39, as well as bolschevization. nazism was always about anticommunism, later pragmatical treaties notwithstanding. hitler was always saying it's hamas that he was fighting. wait, no, the IDF invasion of gaza was always about combatting the threat of bolschevism. you know what I mean.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

and by marxism he meant jews. the way when israelis say they need to kill every last hamas, they mean palestinians. dogs and cows are both mammals

Why is everyone being Hitler?

shit, man, i wish i knew. maybe hitler is the friends we made along the way. my best guess is this: the cause is the same thing the last time people were being hitler (I mean sociologically, not in thread of course): a combination of a few decades of laissez faire capitalism, inevitable crisis and reduction in standards of living for most people though not for the ruling class, strong anticommunism, high housing prices and the emergence of a significant eastern power of the socialist persuasion. history doesn't repeat, but i think it sometimes can rhyme.

[bradrn]

Let’s start here:

this is just inconditional support.

What, precisely, does this mean? If you’re talking about unconditional support of all Israel’s actions, then no, I don’t. Just because it isn’t a genocide, doesn’t make it good. It’s still terrible, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of a genocide. I’ve been voiciferous in criticising Israel’s current government and their conduct of the war, and it’s been horrible seeing what’s happened in Gaza. (Hamas makes it difficult by hiding behind civilians, but a state as capable as Israel should be able to figure out a way to cope with that.)

I do, however, unconditionally support Israel’s right to exist. When I see country after country sliding into the grip of the far-right, when I see more antisemitism than I’ve ever seen before in my life… it is vital to have a country where I am guaranteed to be accepted, if things go pear-shaped elsewhere. More than that, it’s important to have a country which will never fail to protect me and my people.

Would I move there now? No, I cannot justify a lot of what’s going on there. But I might in the future, if things get sufficiently bad elsewhere.

I’m not suggesting that genocide always results in 100% fatalities: that would be obviously false. I’m suggesting that genocide requires an intention to kill 100% of the targeted people. And people are just not thinking about what that kind of utter horror would actually look like, in the context of Gaza.

It would look much worse, admittedly, but no, that is also not what a genocide is: it's not accidental official definitions say in whole or in part: the final solution as a policy was put into effect much after the treatment of the jews by the third reich had become genocidal.

Even before the Nazis put the so-called ‘Final Solution’ into action (a miserable euphemism, I hate it), they had been targeting Jews for a long time. The intention was, quite clearly, to murder or work to death as many Jews as possible. It may have taken them a while to do so openly, but it’s very clear that this was always their intention.

By contrast, I’ve already explained how we know that Israel is not targeting Gazan civilians. It’s disregarding their lives, yes, but that’s not the same thing. The target of Israeli operations is always military in nature.

That’s why Israel hasn’t done them

so a thing being genocidal somehow entails that israel does not do it...

No, other way round. It is evidence that Israel is not genocidal that it has not done these actions which are characteristic of genocide.

What kinds of weaponry is Israel buying from America? Predominantly, precision missiles:

factcheck: the US accounted for 69% of Israel's imports of major conventional arms between 2019 and 2023.

Yeah, this doesn’t contradict what I said. I’m talking about the makeup of those 69% of imports.

Everything that the IDF has done is consistent with their war aims: to (1) rescue the hostages, and (2) destroy Hamas’s ability to govern. There is nothing to suggest that they have the murder of Gazans as a primary aim.

* over 10% of gazan people killed, if rotting's 8% is correct: this is obvious upon simple analysis: the lancet figure of 186 is obtained by multiplying by four the direct casualties last reported by the local ministry of health, which stopped counting months ago. it's multiplied by four in order to include indirect deaths, which are always more than direct ones by about that margin, it's going to be more than four considering *most buildings are destroyed*, a good correlate for the breadth of the damage. there have been more deaths since the ministry stopped counting, the math is dead simple.
*demolishing three quarters of all residential buildings and four fifths of commercial ones. hostages could and been -and almost certainly were- in residential or commercial buildings that were bombed.
*cutting off power to a bit under two million people, including the hostages, who may too have needed medical attention.
*killing 70% of livestock in the region. who gets meat first, your hostage or your mum.
these are all outcomes that actively oppose war goal (1). there are also not the inevitable result of a just war. they are, to the point, the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a people. they are genocide.

The enormous death toll and destruction is an inevitable consequence of the fact that this is a war in a highly urbanised area, with one of the highest population densities in the world. Not to mention their terrorist government which actively desires its citizens’ deaths. Yes, I want Israel to do better, but really, there’s only so much an army can achieve in the circumstances, which are about as bad for avoiding civilian deaths as you could possibly imagine.

Cutting off power? Half the power in the Gaza Strip came from Israel, before the war. And I’m not aware of any obligation for a state to actively supply electricity to its enemy. (This may be simple ignorance, of course; tell me if I’m wrong.)

As for killing livestock, it’s already been established that Gazans are getting adequate food. Presumably livestock are not a military target but were killed in the course of other operations.

The only thing here which even vaguely suggests a genocide is the first point. And that can be fully explained by the circumstances. So, no, this is not a genocide.

(2) is a goal which can be pursued through genocide: therefore, that it is being pursued does not entail this genocide is not a genocide.

Not necessarily: a genocide would be a poor way of doing this. Hamas leadership hides out in tunnels, so they can simply come out and reestablish themselves after the destruction has passed. Actually destroying their governance ability requires a more careful approach.

genocides are always, in the mind of the genocider, carried out in the pursuit of some other goal: the nazis did not (do not) want to exterminate the jews axiomatically, or for the sole glee of it: they want to do it because...

More: show

in case you've not talked to nazis or read their fora or watched their youtube, and fucking why would you what's wrong with me why do i want to understand these cunts help. to be clear, what follows are nazi ideas, you know, the shit nazis believe. I'm saying this to make a point, I don't belive these, this is not me being antisemitic, i'm not saying jews are guilty of these things, they're not. nazis think the jews control the world, or are trying to with some nontrivial success. the jews have harmed the white race in this and that manner, notably bolschevization. the jews have prevented and will prevent it from thriving through this and that, the jews spread degeneracy, they are bankers and caused the inflation in 29. they are our enemies, because of this and that and the other

.

You know, this is the really funny thing about antisemitism. It’s never because Jews are Jews. What an absurd notion that would be! It’s always because we’re too bolshevik in the capitalist countries (or too capitalist in the communist countries). It’s always because we have a grand conspiracy to control the world and sully the impurity of the white race, except when it’s because we keep ourselves clannishly apart. It’s always because we spread degeneracy, or alternately it’s because people want to be freed from the morality of our commandments. But it’s never, ever, ever, because we’re Jewish.

Or, abandoning the sarcasm: whether you mean to or not, you’re swallowing Nazi propaganda here and you’re a fool if you think those are their real reasons. Yes, they do simply hate Jews, as a terminal goal, and what you see is their minds flailing around for any excuse to justify it.

Even Hitler tried to pretend to everyone, inside Germany and to the outer world, that his genocide wasn't as bad as it sounded. It was only when the Auschwitz footage was screened that people finally grasped what Hitler had done.

it was when auschwitz footage came out that liberals, moderates and conservatives realized. hitler had mentioned . as far back as 39, as well as bolschevization. nazism was always about anticommunism, later pragmatical treaties notwithstanding. hitler was always saying it's hamas that he was fighting. wait, no, the IDF invasion of gaza was always about combatting the threat of bolschevism. you know what I mean.

No, I don’t know what you mean, except that you seem thoroughly confused about what Nazism involved.

In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.

and by marxism he meant jews. the way when israelis say they need to kill every last hamas, they mean palestinians.

I’d be lying if I said that no-one used ‘Hamas’ when they mean ‘Palestinian’. But the majority of people are clever enough to know the difference. This includes the leadership of the IDF and most of the government (except for those extremists who, as I said, have been marginalised). It’s pretty clear who’s being dishonest here — it is reflected in the actions they suggest.

[Torco]

As for killing livestock, it’s already been established that Gazans are getting adequate food. Presumably livestock are not a military target but were killed in the course of other operations.

nothing of the sort has been established. the only concept of adequate that i can think of that fits the data is the assertion that palestinians ought to starve, because a million of them are in IPC 3, crisis (where people routinely skip meals, for example) and 340k of them are in outright famine, IPC 5. to deny this is identical to denying genocide, and morally equivalent to denying other genocides.

What, precisely, does this mean?

That there is not, in my estimation, a level of lethality, systematicity, or intentionality credibly ascribed to IDF operations in gaza after oct7 that would prompt you to call it what it is. for example that 20%, or 50%, or 77% of gazans could be dead as a result of IDF operations in faza after oct7 (that's too long to write entire, let's just call it X). that zero food could be allowed to enter gaza for a month as a result of X, that wikileaks could publish a credible leak of IDF documents where he entire war cabinet signs the order that says "look, just make sure none of them survive after X". and it would not matter, you would still say X is not genocide. you would still disagree some actions of the IDF, but it would continue to be the your position that

The enormous death toll and destruction is an inevitable consequence of the fact that this is a war in a highly urbanised area, with one of the highest population densities in the world.

that since reducing the population of gazans to 90% is acceptable collateral in pursuit of israel's war goals, in your estimation. would it not be if 80%, which could -though we can't know- be the case right now? how about to 70% in a few months. how about to 20% a year from now?

Don't say the mass killing of a people is inevitable in the pursuit of goals you agree with, btw, it comes off cartoonishly evil. It is, i'm afraid, you who is confused about nazism. see in order to know what nazis thought and think the best way to do it is the same as when you want to understand what other hmans think: you read what nazis said and say, read what they wrote and write, and you look at their behavior. a bad way to do it, on the other hand, is to just assume whatever makes them sound the most evil is the truth. You are under the impression that they want to exterminate the jews literally for no reason, which is incorrect, simply in order to ascertain that they are different from zionists who want to exterminate the palestinians, who instead according to you do have reasons for X, which is a genocide. but in reality, while it is true that adherents to all ideologies tend to engage in a big amount of motivated reasoning where they just believe X and proceed to work out what would have to be true in order for X to make sense, this does not mean that people don't believe things for reasons. of course that doesn't mean that nazis are rational in the sense of what they believe being true or correct, but it does mean that they were humans who believed things, not evil machines who want the most evil thing for the sake of it being evil. untestables aside, the point is that it doesn't make the idf offensive not a genocide because they say they're trying to protect the hostages, or defeat their enemies, just like it doesn't make the holocaust not a genocide just cause the nazis said they were doing it in the pursuit of, for example, de-bolschevization. just like it doesn't make the rwandan genocide not a genocide just cause Interahamwe said what they were trying to do was trying to protect hutus, and defeat their enemies. just like it doesn't make the bosnian genocide not a genocide cause the serbians said what they were doing was trying to protect the serbs, and defeat their enemies. see, zionists have a strong exceptionalist bent, so they tend to think so, but in reality the holocaust was both an enormous evil and not sui generis just like the nazis are a group of contemptible and very dangerous humans, while at the same time not being sui generis: the shoah was one of a long list of genocides perpetrated by one of a long list of ethnic groups against one of a long list of others, all with common features. all genociders control the territories where they effect genocide, they all claim the goal is something else, very often a war goal such as defeating their enemies. they all have a complicated ideological system that justified their genociding. none of those facts make them not a genocide and none of this is new. history has heard all of the same justifications over and over again. they all say the mass killings they defend are the inevitable result of war goals they agree with.

the important thing is this: what you do to determine if a thing is genocide or not is you look at outcomes, death counts as proportion of population, you look at the behaviour of people in a position to exterminate, such as soldiers or other armed persons. you look at the food intake of the population at risk, and at whether or not the actors accused of doing a genocide are making it harder for that food to reach the people at risk. you look at who dies and how they die, and you look at whether or not they died as a result of the coordinated actions of a group, institution, organization, political movement, army, government, etcetera. then you look at whether or not those actions could be, to the knowledge of the actors accused of doing the genocide, expected to effect outcomes that amount to the destruction, in whole or in part, of a people, or to effect the expulsion of an ethnic group from a given territory. or whether or not they can be expected to impose on said people conditions of life incompatible with survival. if those conditions obtain, you call it what it is. if those condition obtain, you call it what it is. it those conditions obtain, it does not matter if the actor is the only democracy in the middle east, and it does not matter if the actor "has an unconditional right to exist", whatever that means. it does not matter if the ethnic group destroying the other ethnic group was itself genocided in the past or not. if the genocider is a us ally, or if it is more queer-friendly than the group being genocided. it does not matter that how common genocidal attitudes are in the ethnic group being genocided, or if there are hostages, or if the genociders are, to use your framing, pursuing war goals which. it even more does not matter if, as you think, those goals, which you agree with, are incompatible with not causing mass death. if the conditions obtain, then they obtain.

on this latter point I also disagree, though: I believe you can pursue the defeat of criminal groups without exterminating the civilian populations amid whom they operate, and evidence to this is plentiful). why do i call hamas criminals, and not 'terrorists' or 'an enemy state' you ask? I don't use terrorist cause I don't think it means anything, it's just a feelings word that means "my enemy", far as I can see, plus "boooo" in a very strong voice. I don't call it an enemy state because, legal fictions aside, let's talk seriously now: there is one state in israel, and it is israel: a political entity and legally autonomous territory that, as you say, can't even provide its own electricity or water is not a state, or if it is, it is suzerain the way new jersey or the donbass republics are states. legal mumbo jumbo aside, the reality is that israel conquered palestine a long time ago, and therefore palestinians are the population of the state of israel as much as people from arica are part of the population of the republic of chile (we conquered them somewhat recently). a population that is, obviously, of a different legal status, an inferior one, vis a vis israeli israelis. therefore, again legal mumbo jumbo aside, oct7, the hostages etcetera were crimes commited by the population of a state against that same population, just like the crimes of the cartels, the maras, or sendero luminoso. and neither mexico, nor honduras, nor peru bombed 70% of residential buildings nowhere in order to fight them. no, israel is not "forced" to exterminate the palestinians. we're living in the world of the one state "solution" already, i'd just like for the one state to be a solution.

okay, peru did do something that's genuinely close to a genocide in fighting sendero. i think the point stands though: you don't need to bomb two million people to stop a powerful criminal organization, even if you might need the military involved from time to time.

[rotting bones]

If you say "don't bomb hospitals taken over by paramilitaries", he will say those are Hamas bases. If you point out the discredited claims of being Hamas bases, he will ignore you or say you're spouting Hamas propaganda.

If you talk about IDF torture, rape and targeting civilians, he will say breakdown of command structure, what happens in war or just ignore you.

...

Because this is what smart people do, apparently.

I once read a book by Luhrmann about how religious people train themselves to have religious experiences. bradrn wants to be a Zionist. He reads Zionist propaganda and trains himself to be a good Zionist. I'm not sure he really wants to understand information that conflicts with this goal. When he sees something like that, he tries to play a game of talking point bingo.

You can keep arguing with him, but it might be best to have realistic expectations.

[Ares Land]

Because this is what smart people do, apparently.

I once read a book by Luhrmann about how religious people train themselves to have religious experiences. bradrn wants to be a Zionist. He reads Zionist propaganda and trains himself to be a good Zionist. I'm not sure he really wants to understand information that conflicts with this goal. When he sees something like that, he tries to play a game of talking point bingo.

You can keep arguing with him, but it might be best to have realistic expectations.

You know that people can have opinions of their own, right? People can disagree with you; it doesn't mean they're brainwashed.
I think it'd help to understand that 'Zionism' can mean a wide variety of things and what it means when people call themselves that. Zionism isn't necessarily Kahanism, or Religious Zionism.

People won't call Hamas 'terrorist' because apparently this is a 'booo' and 'feelings word', then act surprised when people object to the word 'genocide.'

Following the developments, though... it's pretty clear that Israeli policy is genocidal in intent. It's also obvious by now they're not interested in peace and don't give a fuck about the hostages.

[Darren]

I once read a book by Luhrmann about how religious people train themselves to have religious experiences.

Literally everyone does this with regards to everything

[bradrn]

As for killing livestock, it’s already been established that Gazans are getting adequate food. Presumably livestock are not a military target but were killed in the course of other operations.

nothing of the sort has been established. the only concept of adequate that i can think of that fits the data is the assertion that palestinians ought to starve, because a million of them are in IPC 3, crisis (where people routinely skip meals, for example) and 340k of them are in outright famine, IPC 5.

OK. Clearly I had misunderstood the findings of the report. My apologies.

What, precisely, does this mean?

That there is not, in my estimation, a level of lethality, systematicity, or intentionality credibly ascribed to IDF operations in gaza after oct7 that would prompt you to call it what it is. for example […] that zero food could be allowed to enter gaza for a month as a result of X, that wikileaks could publish a credible leak of IDF documents where he entire war cabinet signs the order that says "look, just make sure none of them survive after X". and it would not matter, you would still say X is not genocide.

You are wrong. All of these cases would certainly be genocide, and I would have no hesitation in calling them out as such.

that 20%, or 50%, or 77% of gazans could be dead as a result of IDF operations in faza after oct7 (that's too long to write entire, let's just call it X). […] that since reducing the population of gazans to 90% is acceptable collateral in pursuit of israel's war goals, in your estimation. would it not be if 80%, which could -though we can't know- be the case right now? how about to 70% in a few months. how about to 20% a year from now?

The word ‘acceptable’ is one which sits uncomfortably with me. I think ‘unavoidable’ is a better reflection of my thoughts. Can I truly accept a war which results in 1 in 10 people dead? No, I can’t: in fact, I’ve already talked about how the IDF’s conduct is unacceptable and needs to change. But I do think that a high level of civilian deaths is unavoidable, given Hamas’s tactics.

As for ‘genocide’, I’m not willing to give a single number, below which it’s non-genocidal and above which it’s genocidal, because it’s not so clear as that. Let’s say that at 20% I would be twice as concerned about it as I am now (and I’m already very concerned). At 25%, I could see myself concluding that it is indeed genocide (depending on the circumstances). At 30% I would probably not hesitate to apply that label.

However, I hope that it never gets there, because I hope for the war to stop and for a ceasefire to be implemented soon.

untestables aside, the point is that it doesn't make the idf offensive not a genocide because they say they're trying to protect the hostages, or defeat their enemies, just like it doesn't make the holocaust not a genocide just cause the nazis said they were doing it in the pursuit of, for example, de-bolschevization. just like it doesn't make the rwandan genocide not a genocide just cause Interahamwe said what they were trying to do was trying to protect hutus, and defeat their enemies. just like it doesn't make the bosnian genocide not a genocide cause the serbians said what they were doing was trying to protect the serbs, and defeat their enemies.

You’re right. What makes this not a genocide is that — as I already explained — the IDF’s actions are fully in line with their stated aims, not going beyond them. (And that those aims are reasonable ones.) This is unlike the other cases you mention, in which their actions went far beyond their stated aims.

the important thing is this: what you do to determine if a thing is genocide or not is you look at outcomes, death counts as proportion of population […] if those conditions obtain, you call it what it is. if those condition obtain, you call it what it is.

But those conditions do not obtain. This is the whole point I’m making.

I believe you can pursue the defeat of criminal groups without exterminating the civilian populations amid whom they operate, and evidence to this is plentiful). why do i call hamas criminals, and not 'terrorists' or 'an enemy state' you ask? […] there is one state in israel, and it is israel: a political entity and legally autonomous territory that, as you say, can't even provide its own electricity or water is not a state, or if it is, it is suzerain the way new jersey or the donbass republics are states. […] the hostages etcetera were crimes commited by the population of a state against that same population, just like the crimes of the cartels, the maras, or sendero luminoso.

Taking a very charitable reading, I think you’ve confused the West Bank with Gaza. The situations are entirely different.

The classic definition of the state is ‘having a monopoly on violence’. Was this the case in pre-war Gaza? Yes it was. But it wasn’t Israel who had the monopoly — it was Hamas. Even if there were some agreements between Gaza and Israel for vital resources, the government and policing of Gaza were run entirely by Hamas. Israel had no control there.

Like, I can’t understand how you don’t see this. Hamas has been literally launching rockets at Israel for years. Would it be tolerated if NJ started bombing DC? Or if the Donbass were to point their rocket launchers at Moscow? No and no — the police (or even army) would simply come in and arrest people. This can’t happen in Gaza, because Israel and Gaza are de facto not ‘one state’: they are two opposing states, which for the past 20 years have been violently at war.

The West Bank is a different story. It’s much more comparable to your examples: the army can simply come in and detain people who are plotting bad stuff. This situation comes much closer to being a ‘suzerainity’ of Israel (though the details get complicated, as always). This is, incidentally, why we haven’t seen any big wars in the West Bank recently: if there’s a better way to solve problems, Israel will take it. (Yet more evidence that Israel has no interest in killing Palestinians as a primary goal!) It just so happens that Israel can’t do that in Gaza, because Israel has no control there.

It's also obvious by now they're not interested in peace and don't give a fuck about the hostages.

Thankfully, the peace process seems to have started up again. Hamas has, astonishingly, offered more compromises (or so the reports say). Now that idiot Netanyahu just needs to stop sabotaging everything…

[Ares Land]

This is, incidentally, why we haven’t seen any big wars in the West Bank recently: if there’s a better way to solve problems, Israel will take it. (Yet more evidence that Israel has no interest in killing Palestinians as a primary goal!) It just so happens that Israel can’t do that in Gaza, because Israel has no control there.

Thankfully, the peace process seems to have started up again. Hamas has, astonishingly, offered more compromises (or so the reports say). Now that idiot Netanyahu just needs to stop sabotaging everything…

The question is: is he an idiot, or is doing away with Gaza, or I should say Gazans, his primary goal now?

I don't claim to understand much about politics. One bit I gathered from Israeli is that Netanyahu's only aim and only tenet is to be Prime Minister. That seems pretty consistent with what I see.
The one question I don't know enough to answer is how prevalent is the view that it would be easier to just do away with Gaza altogether (to use a pretty bad euphemism), among politicians and in the IDF and hasn't Netanyahu struck some sort of deal to that effet?
The presence of the far-right in government suggests unpleasant hypotheses. You know what they say about what happens when 10 people is at the table, one of them a Nazi.

[bradrn]

One bit I gathered from Israeli is that Netanyahu's only aim and only tenet is to be Prime Minister. That seems pretty consistent with what I see.

This is correct. Netanyahu is an unscrupulous, amoral politician whose only aim is to stay in power so that he doesn’t get thrown in jail for corruption. His views weren’t far-right to start off with, but he’s quite happy to ally with Kahanists if that keeps him in power.

So, in answer to this:

The question is: is he an idiot, or is doing away with Gaza, or I should say Gazans, his primary goal now?

Netanyahu knows that he’s going to be out as soon as the war stops. His primary goal is therefore to make sure that the war goes on forever. Killing Gazans isn’t actually a primary goal in and of itself, but he doesn’t care one bit about what happens to them. Similarly, he doesn’t actually care about the hostages, except insofar as he can claim rescued ones as political successes.

(Unfortunately, ‘negligence of civilian deaths’ doesn’t seem to be separately defined as a crime under international law. It should be: it describes this situation a lot better than ‘genocide’ does.)

The one question I don't know enough to answer is how prevalent is the view that it would be easier to just do away with Gaza altogether (to use a pretty bad euphemism), among politicians and in the IDF and hasn't Netanyahu struck some sort of deal to that effet?

Amongst politicians: I’d estimate that maybe 10–15 MKs believe this, mostly from Otzma Yehudit. This is too many — up to 20% of those MKs which nominally make up the government. But that doesn’t mean they have that much influence! The ‘government’ has effectively ceased to exist during the war, and Netanyahu has been pushing back aganst Ben-Gvir’s attempts to gain himself power. (Though not too hard, of course, because then he would no longer be PM.)

(If I may make the comparison, Otzma Yehudit’s position in the Knesset seems roughly comparable to LFI’s position in the National Assembly. Everyone hates them, but they have to work with them. Though of course LFI is a great deal less objectionable.)

Amongst the IDF: hard to tell, but IDF leadership is much more sane than the government. Never mind even ‘doing away with Gaza’: they’ve consistently spoken out against the narrative that the aim is to ‘destroy Hamas’ (on the quite correct basis that this makes no sense). But whether that gets through to the individual soldiers is very hard to know… the chain of command seems to have become too weak.

The presence of the far-right in government suggests unpleasant hypotheses. You know what they say about what happens when 10 people is at the table, one of them a Nazi.

I don’t know what they say, as it happens. But it is deeply worrying and unpleasant, and is the main reason that I would like to see new elections.

[Ares Land]

Thanks for the information!

The presence of the far-right in government suggests unpleasant hypotheses. You know what they say about what happens when 10 people is at the table, one of them a Nazi.

I don’t know what they say, as it happens. But it is deeply worrying and unpleasant, and is the main reason that I would like to see new elections.

"If 9 people sit down at a table with 1 Nazi without protest, there are 10 Nazis at the table."
Supposedly a German saying, but it probably isn't.

One idea I have on this -- and it seems to be consistent with the facts, anyway -- is that there is a far-right takeover currently in progress worldwide, and Israel is no exception... Except things went further in Israel and the takeover is mostly complete.
Netanyahu trying to contain, work around or use the far right is in itself extremely worrying -- because you can't contain or work with the far right.

I'm aware this is largely a product of the Israeli constitution; and I know terrorist attacks have a way of driving people crazy.

[bradrn]

One idea I have on this -- and it seems to be consistent with the facts, anyway -- is that there is a far-right takeover currently in progress worldwide, and Israel is no exception... Except things went further in Israel and the takeover is mostly complete.

I agree with this. My own interpretation has been that the takeover started a lot earlier in Israel than it did in other countries.

(Possibly because religion is a far more important factor in Israel than elsewhere? Or perhaps because people feel less safe in general? I don‘t really know why.)

Netanyahu trying to contain, work around or use the far right is in itself extremely worrying -- because you can't contain or work with the far right.

Yes. I suspect he’s one of those people who hates the left more than the far-right.

I'm aware this is largely a product of the Israeli constitution

Hmm, how so? Because it has proportional representation? (Also Israel doesn’t really have a constitution in the usual sense.)

[Torco]

If you talk about IDF torture, rape and targeting civilians, he will say breakdown of command structure, what happens in war or just ignore you.

that's what I'm saying, yeah, there's not a limit sometimes.

at 20% I would be twice as concerned about it as I am now (and I’m already very concerned). At 25%, I could see myself concluding that it is indeed genocide (depending on the circumstances). At 30% I would probably not hesitate to apply that label.

Let us then try to remember to compare population figures after this shitshow is over. it may be that when the dust settles, and better data becomes available, you'll come to see what you've defended.

The word ‘acceptable’ is one which sits uncomfortably with me. I think ‘unavoidable’ is a better reflection of my thoughts.

but your usage of unavoidable here entails acceptable. cause like, one could think that the shoah was unavoidable, because of the vast forces of history blabla. i don't, but even if i did, i'd still consider it a genocide. you're here saying that the mass killings and damage are unavoidable in the pursuit of valid and necessary war goals which you support, and this amounts of acceptable or else the war goals would not be valid or necessary. I propose, instead, that if a war goal inevitably entails the destruction, in whole or in part, of a people, then that war goal ought not to be pursued and pursuing it is genocide.

(Unfortunately, ‘negligence of civilian deaths’ doesn’t seem to be separately defined as a crime under international law. It should be: it describes this situation a lot better than ‘genocide’ does.)

almost all genocides are perpetrated in pursuit of some other further goal and with as much plausible deniability as possible, which is why it isn't and oughtn't be: it would amount to abandoning the concept.

regarding the difference between the west bank and gaza, I don't think it matters that suzerain states like gaza matter much. south africa had its bantustans, germany its protectorate of bohemia and moravia, and japan had the jingwei regime, all of which it created. that hamas rules gaza at least partially because of israeli policy has been extensively documented. to focus on the parallel with mexico, yes, hamas shoots rockets, but the extent of the damage hamas has done to the population of israel is not unlike that which the cartels have caused the population of mexico. nevertheless, sinaloa has not been flattened by however many millions of tons of bombs, and sinaloans have not been treated the way gazans have. the current situation is not, in fact, unavoidable.

One idea I have on this -- and it seems to be consistent with the facts, anyway -- is that there is a far-right takeover currently in progress worldwide, and Israel is no exception... Except things went further in Israel and the takeover is mostly complete.
Netanyahu trying to contain, work around or use the far right is in itself extremely worrying -- because you can't contain or work with the far right.

broadly, I think this is correct. israel is also not special in having veered towards fascism lately (the everyone is being hitler thing from before). factors contributing to the fascistization being especially strong there include the war climate, israel being an ethnostate, the ideology of zionism itself and the open-air prison where two million people were being kept.

[Ares Land]

I'm aware this is largely a product of the Israeli constitution

Hmm, how so? Because it has proportional representation? (Also Israel doesn’t really have a constitution in the usual sense.)

That's true; I should have said 'Israeli institutions'. It's not just proportional representation (though of course proportional representation has its problems), but also the lack of effective counter powers -- and if I followed developments correctly, the Supreme Court may end up powerless, leaving the Knesset entirely unchecked. Passing Basic Laws seems too easy as well -- constitutional change in most countries is intentionally difficult.

I agree with this. My own interpretation has been that the takeover started a lot earlier in Israel than it did in other countries.

(Possibly because religion is a far more important factor in Israel than elsewhere? Or perhaps because people feel less safe in general? I don‘t really know why.)

broadly, I think this is correct. israel is also not special in having veered towards fascism lately (the everyone is being hitler thing from before). factors contributing to the fascistization being especially strong there include the war climate, israel being an ethnostate, the ideology of zionism itself and the open-air prison where two million people were being kept.

One factor is that the Israeli far-right and populist right-wing are uniquely well-placed to deal enormous damage. The populist right-wing and far-right are and have been almost equally powerful in, say, Italy. But Italy isn't at war.

Another factor is terrorism. I remember how French politics went to shit after the recent terrorism wave; we still haven't recovered. And frankly, it didn't even compare to the regular threat level in Israel. So the success of the far right in Israel is really not surprising.
I'm pretty convinced one of the objectives of Hamas was and is to push Israeli politics off the cliff.

[Raphael]

I'm pretty convinced one of the objectives of Hamas was and is to push Israeli politics off the cliff.

IMO Israeli politics has been over the cliff for quite a while.

[Ares Land]

I'm pretty convinced one of the objectives of Hamas was and is to push Israeli politics off the cliff.

IMO Israeli politics has been over the cliff for quite a while.

To mix metaphors boldly, in politics it's perfectly possible to fall down the cliff, hit rock bottom, and then start digging.

[Torco]

nah, hamas or no hamas, a country like israel, a recent settler colonial state with apartheid, settlements and the rest of it, it's extremely unlikely that it will not have some form of resistence, which means the far right can do their "extraordinary measures in the fight against terror" blabla

[Torco]

so basically one year of ceaseless bombing of an open air prison full of civilians. men, women and children living for a year amidst bombed-out rubble while more bombs falling everyday.

two million people internally displaced and starving, with death their only way out. no one knows how many dead, but we can all guess.

the armed forces of "the only democracy in the middle east" bombing aid workers and anyone else trying to stop the famine and the pestilence has become the new normal.

the west bank was invaded. i'm sure that's where all the hostages are

isn't ethnonationalism great.

[Linguoboy]

And now a dozen people (including two children) killed and over two thousand requiring hospitalisation in a country that Israel isn't even at war with. I don't know how you can describe this as anything other than state-sponsored terrorism.

I mean, kudos to Shin Bet for pulling off such a dramatic and comprehensive comprimisation of Hezbollah's communications network, but it only goes to show how the Israelis' complete disregard for civilian casualties knows no borders.