I’m not arguing, and made many pains to point out over hundreds of the earlier posts in this thread, that Israel occupies a moral high ground. I’ve instead attempted to belabor the point that it is a two sided conflict of two parties both with valid interests and valid grievances, and in which both have acted regrettably at times. I do object to Israel being blasted for things that are innately not considered seriously problematic when done by basically any other country. Israel isn’t drone striking random targets 10,000 miles away on fishing expeditions for al Qaeda leaders like the U.S. has spent the last 10 years doing. It is literally launching strikes against a party actively launching strikes against them.
Two things can be true at once:
That Israel’s military response is entirely in line with reasonable standards of behavior and international law.
Israel’s larger strategic and policy approach to the Occupied Territories is fucked up and immoral in many areas.
I feel like to some degree @k9bfriender rolled into the thread multiple pages in, ignored the reasoned discussion that had been going on and just started throwing rhetorical grenades at Israel. Given other comments they’ve made I have decided to no longer engage with them, but the tenor, and actual quality of the thread declined dramatically at that point.
While I agree with some of that, I’d like to point out that the nation state Israel is effectively waging war on its own citizens (Somehow this is a somewhat asymmetrical war) : Nominally Israel is the “owner” of Gaza. I would propose Israel has a duty to care better for its citizens. Or accept that Gaza is effectively “Palestine” and give them proper independence. Whatever you call what they are doing now is not beneficial to anyone.
So… are you proposing that Israel do nothing about all those rockets fired from Gaza? Just sit there and accept THEIR civilian deaths without reacting? Why should they tolerate that any more than anyone else would?
This could be true, and it could also not be true.
This is very true.
Nah, I read through the whole thread, found it interesting, and made some observations when I got caught up. Your calling of them as rhetorical grenades is entirely a product of your own making. You didn’t point to anything in particular, just one of those, “some of these comments” type of remark, that when asked, you couldn’t actually back up.
Calling me out is a form of engagement. You didn’t have to do that, but you did.
I disagree. Some of our back and forths have gotten a bit tense, as you continually misconstrued what I was saying in order to fit into your preconceived biases, but I’ve had good quality interactions with many others in this thread.
Isn’t there a rule about posts that start with so? That what follows is going to be entirely different from what was said?
No and no. That is not what I am proposing.
But the civilians of the Gaza strip are expected to tolerate it?
That’s all I’m saying here, is that the civilians of the Gaza strip are the ones who are being punished, who are paying the price for the aggression of others.
Israel can and should defend itself from attack. Absolutely. But Israel could better differentiate between a people who require basics, including immunizations - and those who govern badly or benefit from promoting conflict. I do not think they are always one and the same. I support Israel, but do not much like recent provocations, even if the response was excessive.
Hamas is indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel without caring about where they land, in fact they likey want to inflict the highest number of casualties possible.
Israel is not trying to intentionally target civilians or media organizations with counter-strikes, but they also aren’t losing any sleep over killing any innocent Palestinians in the process.
There are major powers on both sides that deep in their hearts think total annihilation of the other is the only realistic eventual outcome.
This argument only works if you’re saying that Gaza as a whole is at war with Israel. Is that what you’re saying? And if not, who is the “you” you are referring to?
Also, this:
…works as a perfect justification for the Hamas attacks against Israel as well. Did you mean to do that?
Why should the US be involved in this dispute at all? It’s halfway round the world from the US. Well, yes, Israel is supposed to be our alley, but it’s still not our fight.
Although US support for Israel is why Israel has things like the Iron Dome, so withdrawing US support is a serious hitch to Israel.
The big issue is that isn’t really true, Gaza has its own civil government and military, and that military actively fights against Israel. Israel is not recognized by any international body as the owner of Gaza, and most Gazans reject the principle as well.
There is a major effort underway to build popular support for the idea that the Israeli occupation is apartheid. This is, I suspect, because supporters of Palestine have had virtually zero success rallying much real support for Palestine in the West despite multiple efforts. Mayhap they hope, because South African apartheid was the target of a significant international campaign arrayed against it, they some day can use such a pressure campaign to force Israel to grant the Palestinians various things they want.
I’m not even entirely opposed to the conception that in some respects the fact that the occupation appears to be open ended, does create a sort of guardianship responsibility with Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Where I think it breaks down a lot though, is if Gaza was just Israel, then Hamas would be a rebel army in a civil war. That’s actually a much easier problem for Israel to solve. In a civil war you are entitled to go in with ground forces and basically suppress the rebels with overwhelming force, and begin to forcefully pacify the populace–pacify in this case means impose regulations and procedures on them designed to bring their behavior in compliance with Israeli law. This would be akin to the Russian suppression of Chechnya’s rebellion, as a comparison.
Where it breaks down is while the interminable occupation creates some of the same negatives of apartheid, the actual reality that these are not Israeli citizens, they have their own military force, most of them are opposed to being part of Israel, and the international community would not approve of Israel treating Gaza as part of Israel. So in very important material ways, thus the two situations are dissimilar, and likewise Israel cannot do the sort of things with rebellious citizens because there are different international norms in place for a military occupation.
I believe in the ordinary sense of what a war is, yes, Gaza was at war with Israel. We acknowledge for example that the United States was at war with Iraq in 2003, despite heavy opposition from many liberal Democrats, including major anti-War rallies.
Gaza is governed by Hamas, and Hamas is at war with Israel. Ergo yes, I do think Gaza has been in a perpetual state of war with Israel for many years.
Did you mean to intentionally misrepresent my post? Let me bold the entire salient passage, not just the section you cherry picked:
Retaliatory strikes, targeting military targets, is allowed. They are not constrained only to the launch sites of the bombs
So if it is your assertion Hamas was firing at military targets, then yes under the laws of war they are justified. Is there any particular evidence you have to suggest that is true? Or, as has been widely reported, is Hamas just firing indiscriminately at the civilian population of Israel? If it is the latter, then no, Hamas’ strikes are not justified by Israel attacking Hamas military infrastructure.
Not a rule that is to be modded, but a rule that seems to get followed quite often, as you did.
Altho, it was a mod that came up with it.
I do not claim that there are not aggressive parties in Gaza. There clearly are. I am, however, saying that the ones paying the highest price here are not the aggressive parties.
Sure, but it’s far less fair to one side than the other. Give Gaza an Iron Dome, then maybe it’s a bit more fair. Then maybe some resources to rebuild, electricity more than a couple of hours a day, fresh water. You may even let them leave and try to make it somewhere else in the world.
If some Jewish residents of Israel proper wish to build settlements in Gaza, then let them with the provision that they will be subject to the government of Gaza, not Israel.
What a strange thing to pick up on from so much earlier in the thread.
In context, it was clearly the set up for a rhetorical point. Nevertheless, while you’re asking, no I don’t think in practice it’s always obvious. In a real debate, it can take a bit of examination to determine what facts are not even in dispute, and then what explicit and implicit claims are being made by either or both sides.
So while, clearly, it’s always possible to determine where the burden of proof lies, it is not always obvious ; sometimes it takes a bit of work to figure out.
As for the West Bank, a solution like this would either be possible through a negotiation or would just be the default absent any political protection given to settlers if the Israeli government had the goal of opposing settlements. The reason it doesn’t happen is that the Israeli government supports settlements and the occupation.
As Mitch Hedberg once said “I got a good idea for sweatshops - air conditioning!”