War in the Middle East, again

[Linguoboy]

But I don’t think there’s a total moral equivalence here. It is true that Gaza is currently controlled by factions with nasty and near-genocidal ideologies… but there is a huge diversity of opinions in the territory, and many Gazans find that ideology repugnant. It is possible to support the aims of Palestinian resistance to Israel, while at the same time opposing any atrocities which may have taken place.

Sorry, I may have changed one or two words when quoting you, but I think the paragraph still reads the same.

Of course, just like it is possible to support Israel while rejecting the Kahanists and other extremists

Is it though, when extremists have captured the government? I guess it all depends what you means by "support Israel". I can see how one can support Israel's right to exists without condoning extremism. I can see declaring solidarity with the Israeli people, who have the same right to live in security and safety as any other people. But "supporting Israel" at this point in time means, to a greater or lesser degree, condoning the current regime's actions in the occupied territories--actions which I think quite clearly constitute war crimes.

As for supporting "the aims of Israel’s war against Hamas", what are those exactly? Bibi seems to think he can permanently destroy Hamas and its capacity to commit atrocities. Most analysts seem to think this is impossible, given that leaders of Hamas are safely holed up elsewhere (primarily in Qatar), but even if it were, why does he think that it (or some equally extremist organisation) won't simply rise from the rubble? Already before 7 October Hamas was losing support among younger Palestinians because it was seen as being not proactive enough in the face of unprecedented levels of settler violence in the occupied territories. Maybe he thinks that by completely immiserating the people of Gaza he can destroy both their will and their capacity to resist? That sort of collective punishment clearly constitutes a war crime. So, from where I'm sitting, Israel's "aims" in bombing, invading, and possibly reoccupying Gaza are both impractical and immoral, so how could I in good conscience support them?

Have any of the great thinkers of history ever tried to explore this particular conundrum?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has been the de facto foreign policy of the USA for as along as I can remember. I'm not sure you'd consider any of our policymakers "great thinkers", however.

[Travis B.]

I for one am of the view that I sympathize with both the Palestinians and the Israelis while simultaneously hating both the Israel gov't (and of course the settlers) and Hamas. The only thing that makes Hamas seem better than the Israeli gov't is that the Israeli gov't has the power to kill more people than Hamas does; I would expect it to be no different were things the other way around. At the same time, I sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people (which the Israeli gov't has killed by the thousands and has put in a position where soon thousands more will likely die, if by starvation or lack of medical care than by force of arms) while deploring what Hamas has done to the Israelis (only ~1200 of them were killed simply because that's what Hamas could pull off - if Hamas could have killed more Israelis they would have). I also am of the view that the Israeli gov't and the factions in control of Gaza do not effectively represent the Israeli and Gazan peoples.

[Raphael]

I also am of the view that the Israeli gov't and the factions in control of Gaza do not effectively represent the Israeli and Gazan peoples.

That, frankly, sounds like wishful thinking to me. On the Israeli side, yes, right now, Netanyahu personally isn't that popular because October 7th happened on his watch, but that appears to be more about him personally than about the policies he stands for. As for the Palestinian/Gazan side, well, I've got the impression that one of Hamas' main worries before the current period of warfare was that they might lose support to more radical groups.

[Travis B.]

Another thing I should note is that I am utterly disgusted by sentiment which equates the actions of the Israeli gov't and the settlers with the Jewish people as a whole, or the actions of Hamas and similar factions with the Palestinian people on the other hand. Just because what the Israeli gov't and the settlers on one side and Hamas on the other have done has been awful does not justify anti-Semitic or anti-Palestinian canards whatsoever. It is very hard for me to sympathize with the likes of anti-war protesters who pull out the old anti-Semitic views (even if hopefully those people are just a very visible minority).

[Linguoboy]

I also am of the view that the Israeli gov't and the factions in control of Gaza do not effectively represent the Israeli and Gazan peoples.

That, frankly, sounds like wishful thinking to me. On the Israeli side, yes, right now, Netanyahu personally isn't that popular because October 7th happened on his watch, but that appears to be more about him personally than about the policies he stands for.

A recent poll of Israelis conducted on behalf of Channel 12 found that 72% think that all humanitarian aid to Gaza should be withheld until the hostages are released. (Margin of error: 4.4%) This would constitute--and I really can't stress this enough--an indisputable war crime. Recently Israeli protesters have been blocking the crossings into Gaza in an attempt to prevent aid trucks from entering. Just typing that sentence sickens me.

As for the Palestinian/Gazan side, well, I've got the impression that one of Hamas' main worries before the current period of warfare was that they might lose support to more radical groups.

As I say above, polling supports this conjecture, as does the fact that Hamas' approval rating has increased in both Gaza and the other occupied territories since the initial terror attack.

[Raphael]

Pretty sick. Thank you for the heads-up, Linguoboy.

[Travis B.]

Pretty sick. Thank you for the heads-up, Linguoboy.

Same thought here. Even with that in mind, though, there are those who wrongly conflate Jews with Israeli Jews, the whole "dual loyalty" crap, and then selectively associate them with the very worst that Israel has done.

[bradrn]

But I don’t think there’s a total moral equivalence here. It is true that Gaza is currently controlled by factions with nasty and near-genocidal ideologies… but there is a huge diversity of opinions in the territory, and many Gazans find that ideology repugnant. It is possible to support the aims of Palestinian resistance to Israel, while at the same time opposing any atrocities which may have taken place.

Sorry, I may have changed one or two words when quoting you, but I think the paragraph still reads the same.

Yes, you are correct. The ordinary people of Gaza have my full sympathy. (Or at least, those who don’t support Hamas or other extremists.)

Of course, just like it is possible to support Israel while rejecting the Kahanists and other extremists

Is it though, when extremists have captured the government? I guess it all depends what you means by "support Israel". I can see how one can support Israel's right to exists without condoning extremism. I can see declaring solidarity with the Israeli people, who have the same right to live in security and safety as any other people. But "supporting Israel" at this point in time means, to a greater or lesser degree, condoning the current regime's actions in the occupied territories--actions which I think quite clearly constitute war crimes.

I think they equally clearly don’t constitute war crimes. Argument on this point is probably useless, though, since I doubt either of us will convince the other of our viewpoint.

As for supporting "the aims of Israel’s war against Hamas", what are those exactly?

Freeing the hostages, and eliminating Hamas (or at least destroying its capability to ever again attack Israelis like this.)

Bibi seems to think he can permanently destroy Hamas and its capacity to commit atrocities. Most analysts seem to think this is impossible, given that leaders of Hamas are safely holed up elsewhere (primarily in Qatar), but even if it were, why does he think that it (or some equally extremist organisation) won't simply rise from the rubble?

It may, but such an organisation would be much smaller and less organised, hence much easier to dismantle. Preventing terrorism entirely is probably impossible; managing small groups, and stopping them from committing atrocities, is not as difficult.

I also am of the view that the Israeli gov't and the factions in control of Gaza do not effectively represent the Israeli and Gazan peoples.

That, frankly, sounds like wishful thinking to me. On the Israeli side, yes, right now, Netanyahu personally isn't that popular because October 7th happened on his watch, but that appears to be more about him personally than about the policies he stands for.

A recent poll of Israelis conducted on behalf of Channel 12 found that 72% think that all humanitarian aid to Gaza should be withheld until the hostages are released. (Margin of error: 4.4%) This would constitute--and I really can't stress this enough--an indisputable war crime. Recently Israeli protesters have been blocking the crossings into Gaza in an attempt to prevent aid trucks from entering. Just typing that sentence sickens me.

This is missing important context: that Israel is still doing everything it can to get the aid through, including declaring Kerem Shalom a closed military zone. In other words, Israel is acting against its own citizens in order to get food to its enemy — and ‘enemy’ is correct: Hamas ends up looting most of the aid. Israel is doing everything it can to get aid to Gaza.

But also… imagine how the ordinary Israeli citizen feels. They’ve had relatives murdered and raped, friends taken hostage. The hostages — we know well from their testimonies — have been deprived of food, water and medicine for 133 days. Hamas is still actively doing that to the 130 remaining hostages. And yet the world cries: why are you not feeding the people who are holding your countrymen hostage? I think it’s perfectly understandable for people to get angry about this hypocrisy and want to block aid, even if by law that is a war crime. It’s sickening, indeed, but is it any more sickening than what Hamas has done to our people, and actively continues to do?

To be quite clear, I personally reject that logic as whataboutism: ‘the atrocity they did to us excuses the atrocity we are doing to them!’. That is why I support aid to Gaza. But thinking that way is hard, when I know that the hostages are still being kept there.

[Raphael]

But also… imagine how the ordinary Israeli citizen feels. They’ve had relatives murdered and raped, friends taken hostage. The hostages — we know well from their testimonies — have been deprived of food, water and medicine for 133 days. Hamas is still actively doing that to the 130 remaining hostages. And yet the world cries: why are you not feeding the people who are holding your countrymen hostage? I think it’s perfectly understandable for people to get angry about this hypocrisy

I don't think it's hypocrisy to dislike the idea of more than a million people starving, even if among them, 130 people are being held hostage.

[bradrn]

But also… imagine how the ordinary Israeli citizen feels. They’ve had relatives murdered and raped, friends taken hostage. The hostages — we know well from their testimonies — have been deprived of food, water and medicine for 133 days. Hamas is still actively doing that to the 130 remaining hostages. And yet the world cries: why are you not feeding the people who are holding your countrymen hostage? I think it’s perfectly understandable for people to get angry about this hypocrisy

I don't think it's hypocrisy to dislike the idea of more than a million people starving, even if among them, 130 people are being held hostage.

It’s hypocrisy to demand that Israel gives Gazans food and medicine while not demanding that Hamas gives its hostages the same. Many demands for aid to Gaza tend to be strangely one-sided in that regard. I think it’s understandable for Israelis to demand that Hamas reciprocate in return for aid, even if I disagree.

(In fact, there’s been quite a lot about the international response which has been peculiar in this way. For instance, demands for Israel to unilaterally surrender have been much more common than demands for Hamas to lay down its arms.)

[masako]

(In fact, there’s been quite a lot about the international response which has been peculiar in this way. For instance, demands for Israel to unilaterally surrender have been much more common than demands for Hamas to lay down its arms.)

Given that almost all of the outlets that I have seen/heard (and I listen to news from various sources throughout the day) are talking about a "ceasefire", your version sounds a lot like Israeli apologists' talking points.

Hamas is a despicable group that deserves retribution, but well over 95% of the dead Palestinians have had no direct affiliation with Hamas. The unavoidable fact is that Israel is using weapons of war against civilian populations and killing thousands at a time. That is not proportional to the number of hostages that are being held. It's a completely lopsided and asymmetrical conflict. To ignore that, and that Palestinians have no control over their own borders, no access to imports, while the IDF has a steady stream of beans and bullets, and most Israelis have only been mildly impacted (as far as food and water, electricity, medical care), is to suggest that the mass killing of civilians, including children is somehow justified.

Not ok.

[bradrn]

(In fact, there’s been quite a lot about the international response which has been peculiar in this way. For instance, demands for Israel to unilaterally surrender have been much more common than demands for Hamas to lay down its arms.)

Given that almost all of the outlets that I have seen/heard (and I listen to news from various sources throughout the day) are talking about a "ceasefire", your version sounds a lot like Israeli apologists' talking points.

A permanent ceasefire, without equivalent guarantees from Hamas, amounts to a unilateral surrender. Remember, Hamas has vowed to repeat the atrocities of October 7 ‘a second, a third, a fourth’ time. Israel cannot stop fighting if that allows Hamas to continue killing citizens. (And, of course, if Hamas can no longer murder Israelis, then Israel’s war aims are satisfied and it has no reason to continue the war.)

People seem to grasp this point a bit better when it comes to the other major conflict at the moment. Various people have called for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, which has been widely (and correctly) rejected on the grounds that it would be all but a win for Russia. Same thing applies between Hamas and Israel.

Hamas is a despicable group that deserves retribution, but well over 95% of the dead Palestinians have had no direct affiliation with Hamas. The unavoidable fact is that Israel is using weapons of war against civilian populations and killing thousands at a time. That is not proportional to the number of hostages that are being held. It's a completely lopsided and asymmetrical conflict. To ignore that, and that Palestinians have no control over their own borders, no access to imports, while the IDF has a steady stream of beans and bullets, and most Israelis have only been mildly impacted (as far as food and water, electricity, medical care), is to suggest that the mass killing of civilians, including children is somehow justified.

If Hamas hadn’t placed its key military infrastructure under hospitals, schools and houses… if it hadn’t launched rockets from UN safe zones… if it hadn’t held hostages in ordinary houses and apartments… if, in fact, it hadn’t committed every war crime in the book… then you would have seen far fewer civilian deaths.

Of course, some of the civilian deaths were surely avoidable. I cannot say that the IDF has conducted itself completely morally. But I think that most of the deaths were in pursuit of necessary military targets.

It’s utterly horrific, of course. All war is, even ‘lawful’ war (and what an oxymoron that phrase is). I think of the Israelis who were killed and tortured and raped and held in the most abominable conditions, and then I think of the Gazans who are bombed constantly and have nowhere to run and are starving and ill and are dying slowly by degrees, and it just makes me want to cry forever. We are trapped in this awful situation where no matter what we do we are murdering people, and amidst the horror all I can do is hope that it’s not any more of my family and friends who are murdered. But the blame for all the horror, all the devastation, lies squarely at the feet of Hamas. Not Israel, a country which now must choose between murdering its own citizens and murdering others’. I can’t blame it for choosing the latter.

[masako]

We are trapped in this awful situation where no matter what we do we are murdering people, and amidst the horror all I can do is hope that it’s not any more of my family and friends who are murdered.

That you think "we are trapped" in this scenario let's me know that you're not listening. There is very much something that can be done to NOT be murdering people.

If all you can do is "hope", you ain't doin' nothin', except making yourself feel better.

[bradrn]

We are trapped in this awful situation where no matter what we do we are murdering people, and amidst the horror all I can do is hope that it’s not any more of my family and friends who are murdered.

That you think "we are trapped" in this scenario let's me know that you're not listening. There is very much something that can be done to NOT be murdering people.

If you have a plan which can end the war while keeping everyone safe, by all means enlighten me! I would welcome nothing more than an end to this horror.

(Note that I do not consider ‘Israel stops the war and leaves Hamas as it is’ to be a plan for ending the war. That’s merely an excuse for Hamas to commit more atrocities.)

[Linguoboy]

Bibi seems to think he can permanently destroy Hamas and its capacity to commit atrocities. Most analysts seem to think this is impossible, given that leaders of Hamas are safely holed up elsewhere (primarily in Qatar), but even if it were, why does he think that it (or some equally extremist organisation) won't simply rise from the rubble?

It may, but such an organisation would be much smaller and less organised, hence much easier to dismantle. Preventing terrorism entirely is probably impossible; managing small groups, and stopping them from committing atrocities, is not as difficult.

"Not as difficult" as what exactly? The current standard of comparison is asymmetrical war that--even if you accept unverifiable Israeli claims that "10,000 Hamas fighters" have been killed--has slaughtered twice as many innocent people as combatants and destroyed an estimated 70% of the civilian infrastructure in Gaza. I guess the aim is to shrink this back to the scale of the 2014 invasion, where I think the figures were closer to 2000 (again, mostly civilians) killed and 25% of the civilian infrastructure destroyed? And then just keep on doing that every 5-10 years indefinitely?

Israel is doing everything it can to get aid to Gaza.

That's really more of an article of faith than anything else. There's always more that could be done.

And, yes, Hamas does loot the aid, but that's still no excuse. Israel created the situation where they're in a position to do that.

But also… imagine how the ordinary Israeli citizen feels. They’ve had relatives murdered and raped, friends taken hostage. The hostages — we know well from their testimonies — have been deprived of food, water and medicine for 133 days. Hamas is still actively doing that to the 130 remaining hostages. And yet the world cries: why are you not feeding the people who are holding your countrymen hostage? I think it’s perfectly understandable for people to get angry about this hypocrisy and want to block aid, even if by law that is a war crime. It’s sickening, indeed, but is it any more sickening than what Hamas has done to our people, and actively continues to do?

I'd say it's about as sickening as what Israel itself continues to do to the remaining hostages. Saving them is an ostensible goal of this whole operation, right? But so far the IDF has murdered more hostages outright than it has saved. If the government are so concerned about their welfare, why did they flood the tunnels under Gaza where many are believed to be held? (The military claims it "has intelligence" that the decision wouldn't harm any hostages; hands up everyone who continues to put their faith in Israeli military intelligence at this point.) If making sure they get medical attention is a priority, why is the IDF bombing and laying siege to hospitals? When it comes to rescuing hostages, by far the most successful operation so far has been the cease-fire and negotiated settlement last November, yet the government point-blank refuse to contemplate another. I'm trying not to become cynical here, but if freeing the hostages is so paramount a concern, then I really don't understand why the government isn't engaging in the one thing with a proven record of freeing hostages.

To be quite clear, I personally reject that logic as whataboutism: ‘the atrocity they did to us excuses the atrocity we are doing to them!’. That is why I support aid to Gaza. But thinking that way is hard, when I know that the hostages are still being kept there.

And, frankly, the logic of the current assault seems nearer and nearer to "We had to destroy the town in order to save it."

[bradrn]

I guess the aim is to shrink this back to the scale of the 2014 invasion, where I think the figures were closer to 2000 (again, mostly civilians) killed and 25% of the civilian infrastructure destroyed? And then just keep on doing that every 5-10 years indefinitely?

I’ve seen suggestions that the goal would be for Gaza to become something like the West Bank, where the government is more willing to cooperate with Israel, and the IDF has the ability to do much smaller-scale and more targeted operations. There are still regular terrorist attacks from the West Bank, but they’re much smaller, and more often nipped in the bud.

And, yes, Hamas does loot the aid, but that's still no excuse. Israel created the situation where they're in a position to do that.

You’re correct, of course, I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to forgive Netanyahu for allowing this to happen.

[…] so far the IDF has murdered more hostages outright than it has saved.

Does anyone outside Hamas and Islamic Jihad really know what the precise statuses of the hostages are? To me, this statement sounds more like Hamas propaganda than anything else.

If the government are so concerned about their welfare, why did they flood the tunnels under Gaza where many are believed to be held? (The military claims it "has intelligence" that the decision wouldn't harm any hostages; hands up everyone who continues to put their faith in Israeli military intelligence at this point.)

On the other hand, they did just rescue two. So maybe their intelligence is better now.

If making sure they get medical attention is a priority, why is the IDF bombing and laying siege to hospitals?

The one doesn’t follow from the other. Hamas, by and large, isn’t keeping the hostages in hospitals. If Hamas had wanted the hostages to get medical attention, they could have done that with their own private stash of medicine irrespective of whether the IDF targets hospitals or not. Or, you know, they could have cooperated in good faith with the various attempts to ship medicine to the hostages.

When it comes to rescuing hostages, by far the most successful operation so far has been the cease-fire and negotiated settlement last November, yet the government point-blank refuse to contemplate another.

Something which makes me extremely angry, let me tell you. And has sparked huge protests, too, so I’m clearly not the only one.

Although, Israel is not the only guilty party here… it sounds like Hamas has been refusing to compromise too.

I'm trying not to become cynical here, but if freeing the hostages is so paramount a concern, then I really don't understand why the government isn't engaging in the one thing with a proven record of freeing hostages.

Because freeing the hostages doesn’t seem to be a particular priority of this government. It’s a priority of the IDF, and of all reasonable people, but the government doesn’t seem to care one way or another as long as they can stay in power. God help Israel if that happens.

[rotting bones]

Not content with genocidal rhetoric about Amalekites, shooting groups waving white flags or lying about evidence of Hamas presence (like the Arabic calendar incident), looks like Israel is literally sniping babies now. It will be difficult to prevent Israel's plan to concentrate the Gazans on artificial islands and sell Gaza's beachfronts for building condos as long as American politicians keep using Israel as a front to launder tax money. MORALITY!

[rotting bones]

Another thing I should note is that I am utterly disgusted by sentiment which equates the actions of the Israeli gov't and the settlers with the Jewish people as a whole, or the actions of Hamas and similar factions with the Palestinian people on the other hand. Just because what the Israeli gov't and the settlers on one side and Hamas on the other have done has been awful does not justify anti-Semitic or anti-Palestinian canards whatsoever. It is very hard for me to sympathize with the likes of anti-war protesters who pull out the old anti-Semitic views (even if hopefully those people are just a very visible minority).

Many Jewish groups openly support Palestine. IIRC I've heard Bundists say Neturei Karta now "holds the menorah" or something. Neturei Karta has also met with the Iranian leadership, so I don't know about that.

[xxx]

as in the Ukraine, in Gaza the logic of war has replaced the logic of men...
(unless they are identical, under the veneer of morality self-interest is the law...)

[Ares Land]

Many Jewish groups openly support Palestine. IIRC I've heard Bundists say Neturei Karta now "holds the menorah" or something. Neturei Karta has also met with the Iranian leadership, so I don't know about that.

That's one of the few things discussed here I know something useful about... the Neturei Karta story has been doing the rounds for at least ten years, probably more.
The Neturei Karta are a fringe religious group. They are a fanatic ultra-Orthodox religious group and to an outside eye they frankly seem more than a little insane. AFAIK they're a really tiny group.
In any case, they don't support Palestine. They are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel on religious grounds but they don't care one bit about the Palestinians or what happens to them.