ADVERTISEMENT

Israel under attack from Hamas

Israel isn’t killing everyone, isn’t setting out to impose collective punishment as a deterrent to future attacks, and won’t kill near 2 million people.

Israel is carrying out a military mission to ensure it is safe. It is telling the innocent to leave and giving warning (very unlike your German example). If Hamas and the Palestinians ensure a lot of civilian deaths to bolster their argument of disproportionate response, that’s their fault, not Israel’s.

The problem is that it has always been the case that among the people being bombed, it is the country that drops the bomb that gets the blame. If you were Palestinian there is just barely above 0% chance you would blame Hamas. So another entire generation will grow up hating Israel.

Crazy thinks if enough are killed, the rest will give up forever. Maybe, though some countries have tried that without great success. Maybe, it worked for Russia in Chechnya. It hasn't worked in other places.

No one is tackling the central point. Every time a target is hit AND innocent's are killed, what do you (and I mean everyone) think the families of those Innocents think? Do you really think they believe "damn Hamas did this"? And that assumes Israel ALWAYS has perfect intel. That is very unlikely, we (the US) have certainly blown up wedding parties and other innocent gatherings by mistake.

It has always been the problem in guerilla warfare, killing of innocents as either accidents or collateral creates more guerrillas. Am I wrong about that? It has not been addressed. If that thesis is wrong, my concerns are wrong. We have crushed militaries and won where a government surrendered. But destroying German cities did not force Germany to surrender, her military death did. Japan's military was also totally crushed, the last bit by the Soviets.

As to collective punishment, Gaza as a whole has been blockaded since 2007. Isn't that collective punishment?

This is still not an argument that the line has been passed, but that there is a line. It seems many believe that if every Palestinian is killed, that is just the fate of war on a stubborn people. I am not sure world opinion will hold out for that.
 
The problem is that it has always been the case that among the people being bombed, it is the country that drops the bomb that gets the blame. If you were Palestinian there is just barely above 0% chance you would blame Hamas. So another entire generation will grow up hating Israel.

Crazy thinks if enough are killed, the rest will give up forever. Maybe, though some countries have tried that without great success. Maybe, it worked for Russia in Chechnya. It hasn't worked in other places.

No one is tackling the central point. Every time a target is hit AND innocent's are killed, what do you (and I mean everyone) think the families of those Innocents think? Do you really think they believe "damn Hamas did this"? And that assumes Israel ALWAYS has perfect intel. That is very unlikely, we (the US) have certainly blown up wedding parties and other innocent gatherings by mistake.

It has always been the problem in guerilla warfare, killing of innocents as either accidents or collateral creates more guerrillas. Am I wrong about that? It has not been addressed. If that thesis is wrong, my concerns are wrong. We have crushed militaries and won where a government surrendered. But destroying German cities did not force Germany to surrender, her military death did. Japan's military was also totally crushed, the last bit by the Soviets.

As to collective punishment, Gaza as a whole has been blockaded since 2007. Isn't that collective punishment?

This is still not an argument that the line has been passed, but that there is a line. It seems many believe that if every Palestinian is killed, that is just the fate of war on a stubborn people. I am not sure world opinion will hold out for that.

You misrepresent my argument. The only way to crush a non-traditional army (i.e. Hamas which is a terrorist army that fights in civilian clothes) is to hit civilian areas. That is where the Army is. They aren't going to march out into the Sinai to have it out with Israel because this thing would be over in a day if they did.

My actual argument is to utterly destroy Gaza until the point where they unconditionally surrender. You seem to indicate that is where my argument ends. It is only the beginning. Full disarmament, de-Islamization (this would be where the supposedly moderate Islam I hear about would come into play), punishment of the terrorist leadership (read: I would hang them all), seizure of their assets to help rebuild, and finally a "Marshall" plan for the area to build actual commerce they could support themselves with. It would be a decades long project. The UNRWA would be out as well. Their schools help spread the hate.

That is the nice option. The not so nice option would be to kick them out. If as Marvin says there is no way to settle this in a military fashion, I would be done doing the whack a mole crap that has been done for decades. I am convinced that on this trajectory the Palestinians would never be good neighbors and the only way to resolve the conflict would be to relocate them to an area with people who share their beliefs.

What I would not do is another "ceasefire" where my opponent spends the next several years preparing for another 10/7 to hit me with. Something he has promised to do again and again and again until they are able to repopulate my people. That would be a nonstarter at this point.

The world would flip out about the relocation so the best option is to kill a whole bunch of people and make them suffer enough that capitulation is viewed as the only way to survive. At a certain point they will grow to hate Hamas as much as Israel and that is the point you need them at so they can accept defeat.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DANC
I wouldn't listen to them about winning a war (finishing off your enemy) either. Their methods lost us Afghanistan as well.

The US sucks at winning insurrections.
But damned good at fomenting domestic upheaval and violence.
 
Putin is heading to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. If he's able to cobble together some initiative it will be a big score. If Israel accepts it, he's the hero who brought peace. If they don't, he scores big with the Arab world for trying. Pretty smart move, combined with Ukraine soon to be forced out of the war due to no money, he's back in the running for 2024 Man of the Year.


 
That wasn't the part I was screaming about. It was the parts (sprinkled throughout) treating "the Jews" or "Israel" as a thing, to be thought of as a timeless moral agent with desires and achievements and responsibilities, rights, etc. It is a tribal view that treats the tribe as an actual thing, not just a pragmatic linguistic shortcut.

I don't buy that. I think it is a gross logical error.
Didn't think of it that way. So you would think the same thing if we were talking about 'America' or 'the Christians'?

I think they are a thing. Are you saying they shouldn't be referred to as a group?
 
Putin is heading to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. If he's able to cobble together some initiative it will be a big score. If Israel accepts it, he's the hero who brought peace. If they don't, he scores big with the Arab world for trying. Pretty smart move, combined with Ukraine soon to be forced out of the war due to no money, he's back in the running for 2024 Man of the Year.


Ukraine will get their money as soon as this Administration gets serious about our southern border.

Additional funding for border control is a condition for Ukraine getting theirs.

I don't necessarily agree with linking the two, but both are worthy of additional funding, imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Didn't think of it that way. So you would think the same thing if we were talking about 'America' or 'the Christians'?

I think they are a thing. Are you saying they shouldn't be referred to as a group?
Yes, I would.

No, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to things in a short hand as a group (or, if you prefer, in mathematical/logical terms as a set). But when you start anthropomorphizing a group or set, you are going to mix things up and start making generalizations that won't hold at a moral level. It is at its worst when people start treating these groups as a monolithic agents across time.

Re America, for example, I read about people from our country's past with curiosity. But I am not proud of anyone's accomplishments, guilty of anyone's actions from a 100 years ago. Even if I'm a descendant. I'm just not responsible for what those people did. I am responsible, however, for how my nation treats people if I have an ability to change things in the here and now.
 
I'm just not responsible for what those people did. I am responsible, however, for how my nation treats people if I have an ability to change things in the here and now.
I don't think the guest was arguing that.
 
I don't think the guest was arguing that.
I think he was. In fact, right up front, he says Israel's whole claim to legitimacy fails if the Palestinians are right that "the Jews" created the conflict in the 1880's:

"From the Palestinian side, of course the Jews started. 'We Palestinians were living here peacefully, minding our own business and you began to show up with this crazy idea that you were here 2,000 years ago and saying that this was your land.' You imported the conflict. If you hadn't come, there would be no conflict. That's the ground.

And so, if you accept that point of view, then Israel really has no legitimacy, not only in terms of defending itself, but it's right to exist. If we don't belong here, then there's no such thing as Israeli self-defense. And, that's crucial for understanding a Palestinian rejectionist mindset: You showed up and began settling this land just like a European colonialist, one more wave of colonialism."

I disagree with this notion. Even if the Jews of 1880's had no "right" to come to Israel, given what's happened in the intervening years, and the fact that Israeli's now living there are not those of the 1880s, they have a legitimate right to defend themselves and to exist.

I don't think their "belonging" there--as in they belong and deserve it because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago and Jewish people have, in the past, always desired to return--matters as to the here and now at a moral level.
 
I think he was. In fact, right up front, he says Israel's whole claim to legitimacy fails if the Palestinians are right that "the Jews" created the conflict in the 1880's:

"From the Palestinian side, of course the Jews started. 'We Palestinians were living here peacefully, minding our own business and you began to show up with this crazy idea that you were here 2,000 years ago and saying that this was your land.' You imported the conflict. If you hadn't come, there would be no conflict. That's the ground.

And so, if you accept that point of view, then Israel really has no legitimacy, not only in terms of defending itself, but it's right to exist. If we don't belong here, then there's no such thing as Israeli self-defense. And, that's crucial for understanding a Palestinian rejectionist mindset: You showed up and began settling this land just like a European colonialist, one more wave of colonialism."

I disagree with this notion. Even if the Jews of 1880's had no "right" to come to Israel, given what's happened in the intervening years, and the fact that Israeli's now living there are not those of the 1880s, they have a legitimate right to defend themselves and to exist.

I don't think their "belonging" there--as in they belong and deserve it because their ancestors lived there thousands of years ago and Jewish people have, in the past, always desired to return--matters as to the here and now at a moral level.
I don't think Israel 'deserves' it because of their ancestors. I think they 'deserve' it because they came into an area in large numbers, where fellow Jews already lived, and bought up land that Arabs voluntarily sold them. Then offered state autonomy by the UN that they accepted and the Arabs didn't. That point was brought up in the interview. I don't remember them saying they 'deserved' a country because Jews already lived there or just because they're Jewish.

I see nothing wrong with referring to Israel or 'Jews' as entities. That doesn't meant what happened 2,000 years ago should affect today.

History evolves into what we have today, no matter what country we're talking about. Historically, groups of people have banded together in certain places that are no longer countries, the Kurds being an example that first comes to mind. There are countless others. There are many who refer to certain American Indian tribes as a group when arguing they should have their own countries or have America back.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
The problem is that it has always been the case that among the people being bombed, it is the country that drops the bomb that gets the blame. If you were Palestinian there is just barely above 0% chance you would blame Hamas. So another entire generation will grow up hating Israel.

Crazy thinks if enough are killed, the rest will give up forever. Maybe, though some countries have tried that without great success. Maybe, it worked for Russia in Chechnya. It hasn't worked in other places.

No one is tackling the central point. Every time a target is hit AND innocent's are killed, what do you (and I mean everyone) think the families of those Innocents think? Do you really think they believe "damn Hamas did this"? And that assumes Israel ALWAYS has perfect intel. That is very unlikely, we (the US) have certainly blown up wedding parties and other innocent gatherings by mistake.

It has always been the problem in guerilla warfare, killing of innocents as either accidents or collateral creates more guerrillas. Am I wrong about that? It has not been addressed. If that thesis is wrong, my concerns are wrong. We have crushed militaries and won where a government surrendered. But destroying German cities did not force Germany to surrender, her military death did. Japan's military was also totally crushed, the last bit by the Soviets.

As to collective punishment, Gaza as a whole has been blockaded since 2007. Isn't that collective punishment?

This is still not an argument that the line has been passed, but that there is a line. It seems many believe that if every Palestinian is killed, that is just the fate of war on a stubborn people. I am not sure world opinion will hold out for that.
In the attack by Hamas innocents were specifically targeted. Many on the world don't care about this. It's not like the 40 babies who were beheaded were soldiers or just accidental deaths.
 
That wasn't the part I was screaming about. It was the parts (sprinkled throughout) treating "the Jews" or "Israel" as a thing, to be thought of as a timeless moral agent with desires and achievements and responsibilities, rights, etc. It is a tribal view that treats the tribe as an actual thing, not just a pragmatic linguistic shortcut.

I don't buy that. I think it is a gross logical error.
Is anyone saying Israel is always above board? What nation is completely above board. In fact we as individuals have a problem with this too. We all fail in some way morally. What I would like to know is what did the rape victims do to deserve it? What did the 40 babies who were beheaded do? What about those who were murdered in their homes? None of these were soldiers dying on the field of battle.
 
Israel isn’t killing everyone, isn’t setting out to impose collective punishment as a deterrent to future attacks, and won’t kill near 2 million people.

Israel is carrying out a military mission to ensure it is safe. It is telling the innocent to leave and giving warning (very unlike your German example). If Hamas and the Palestinians ensure a lot of civilian deaths to bolster their argument of disproportionate response, that’s their fault, not Israel’s.
If Israel wanted to they could wipe out all of the Palestinian state. They are showing restraint. What the Palestinians should do is to give every member of hamas up. Cleanse the land of them.
 
I don't think Israel 'deserves' it because of their ancestors. I think they 'deserve' it because they came into an area in large numbers, where fellow Jews already lived, and bought up land that Arabs voluntarily sold them. Then offered state autonomy by the UN that they accepted and the Arabs didn't. That point was brought up in the interview. I don't remember them saying they 'deserved' a country because Jews already lived there or just because they're Jewish.

I see nothing wrong with referring to Israel or 'Jews' as entities. That doesn't meant what happened 2,000 years ago should affect today.

History evolves into what we have today, no matter what country we're talking about. Historically, groups of people have banded together in certain places that are no longer countries, the Kurds being an example that first comes to mind. There are countless others. There are many who refer to certain American Indian tribes as a group when arguing they should have their own countries or have America back.
Yeah, but they went there because of 2000 years ago. It was a combination of a desire to undo the diaspora and provide a humane answer to the Jewish question (tragically prescient thinking) that sent them there. But there was never any question that the Jewish homeland should be in Palestine, and ancient history is what determined that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BradStevens
Yeah, but they went there because of 2000 years ago. It was a combination of a desire to undo the diaspora and provide a humane answer to the Jewish question (tragically prescient thinking) that sent them there. But there was never any question that the Jewish homeland should be in Palestine, and ancient history is what determined that.
And that's fine as an explanation of why those people at that time did what they did. But I don't think it serves as a justification for anything in the present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

The funny (not ha ha funny) thing about this is that these same people are the "micro-aggression" people. The ones who believe that things said with no offense intended are horrible things when received by a person in a wrong way and that people need re-education in things like DEI or antiracism to make sure they don't make an innocent mistake (if even really these are mistakes at all). They built entire DEI apparatuses on their campuses for that stupidity and yet they cannot even come out and condemn this.

This is why conservatives have been railing against this idiotic nonsense for years. It isn't "antiracism" it is just plain old racism. This isn't about diversity or inclusion, it is a power hierarchy intended to put people in their place based on immutable characteristics. And if you happen to be someone lower on the hierarchy, they are more than happy to be as bigoted and racist against you if your group is perceived to be a threat to someone higher on the chain.

I pray we get a competent Republican in office in 2024. Title VI and federal funds need to be looked at for all of these schools. Our Universities are supposed to churn out our best and brightest and instead they have become division factories that turn us all against each other and even spread their stupid nonsense to the rest of the world to be weaponized against US interests abroad.

Stop funding this bullshit.
 
Yeah, but they went there because of 2000 years ago. It was a combination of a desire to undo the diaspora and provide a humane answer to the Jewish question (tragically prescient thinking) that sent them there. But there was never any question that the Jewish homeland should be in Palestine, and ancient history is what determined that.

The Jewish presence in Israel was never broken. They have been there in some shape or form the entire time. The historical roots and that presence is what drew them back, spurred on by how they get treated everywhere they go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The Jewish presence in Israel was never broken. They have been there in some shape or form the entire time. The historical roots and that presence is what drew them back, spurred on by how they get treated everywhere they go.
Correct, although the continued existence of a few Jewish communities didn't really matter. Zionists wanted to return to Eretz Israel, and whether or not some were already there was irrelevant.
 
And that's fine as an explanation of why those people at that time did what they did. But I don't think it serves as a justification for anything in the present.

21st century colonialism. Not sure how much more present it could be. Interesting that Israel’s defense ministry oversees these projects…

 
21st century colonialism. Not sure how much more present it could be. Interesting that Israel’s defense ministry oversees these projects…

I don’t think you’re understanding the point I’m trying to make.

In my mind, the moral worth of what these settlers are doing has nothing to do with how long people who think like them or who might share some common DNA were in the region or wanted to come back. It has to do with present day norms, effects, laws, etc. and these particular people’s particular actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
The funny (not ha ha funny) thing about this is that these same people are the "micro-aggression" people. The ones who believe that things said with no offense intended are horrible things when received by a person in a wrong way and that people need re-education in things like DEI or antiracism to make sure they don't make an innocent mistake (if even really these are mistakes at all). They built entire DEI apparatuses on their campuses for that stupidity and yet they cannot even come out and condemn this.

This is why conservatives have been railing against this idiotic nonsense for years. It isn't "antiracism" it is just plain old racism. This isn't about diversity or inclusion, it is a power hierarchy intended to put people in their place based on immutable characteristics. And if you happen to be someone lower on the hierarchy, they are more than happy to be as bigoted and racist against you if your group is perceived to be a threat to someone higher on the chain.

I pray we get a competent Republican in office in 2024. Title VI and federal funds need to be looked at for all of these schools. Our Universities are supposed to churn out our best and brightest and instead they have become division factories that turn us all against each other and even spread their stupid nonsense to the rest of the world to be weaponized against US interests abroad.

Stop funding this bullshit.
This is ridiculous. Calling for Jews to be eliminated is fine, but use the "wrong" pronoun and you will be hounded off campus.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I don’t think you’re understanding the point I’m trying to make.

In my mind, the moral worth of what these settlers are doing has nothing to do with how long people who think like them or who might share some common DNA were in the region or wanted to come back. It has to do with present day norms, effects, laws, etc. and these particular people’s particular actions.

I might still be missing your point. Neither Hamas nor Israeli right-wingers act within present day norms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Yeah, but they went there because of 2000 years ago. It was a combination of a desire to undo the diaspora and provide a humane answer to the Jewish question (tragically prescient thinking) that sent them there. But there was never any question that the Jewish homeland should be in Palestine, and ancient history is what determined that.
People stay in an area for centuries. There are Britons that trace their DNA back to Roman times and they live in the same area their ancestors live.

Nothing unique about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
On the one hand, "It is so horrible that you kill our kids...."

Then again on the other....

 
  • Wow
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT