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?