Democratic members discussion: the Israeli-Palestinians conflict

[pppolitics]

Fellow Democrats:

Since we can’t go into 2024 completely divided on this issue and hope to win, let’s work this out.

[pppolitics]

Let me start: How do you justify Israeli indiscriminate bombing that has now killed >10,000 Palestinians (67% of which are women and children)?

Is this really an appropriate response to the killing of 1,400 Israelis?

It seems more like simply revenge and has nothing to do with justice.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Let me start: How do you justify Israeli indiscriminate bombing that has now killed >10,000 Palestinians (67% of which are women and children)?

First of all, why do you believe that 10,000 figure is true (I have not checked, but I presume that is the latest estimate from the Gaza health ministry)? I would certainly grant that it is possible it is more or less correct, and certainly many civilians have been killed (how could that not be the case?). But why on earth would anyone who is unbiased just take that figure at face value? Hamas runs the Gaza health ministry, and we already have one very clear example in this war where Hamas has deliberately exaggerated civilian casualties. When the Al-Ahli hospital was bombed (in reality, hit by a stray rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad). The initial reports, fed to the media from the Gaza health ministry, were that an estimated 200-500 or 500-800 or so people had been killed at the hospital.

The reality is it was more like 10-50. This is a good article that I would encourage everyone to read in full:

Israel did not bomb that hospital, according to the latest intelligence. It's a reminder that in war, all sides engage in propaganda.

The photos that emerged in daylight, of a hospital intact and a parking lot with a crater far too small to be from an Israeli airstrike, called into question everything that most reporters and their readers had taken for granted — and lent credence to the earlier, adamant denials from the Israel Defense Forces. A senior European intelligence official also said the actual death toll was likely between 10 and 50 people, while an initial US assessment placed the number at the "low end of the 100-to-300 spectrum."

...

What also emerged on Thursday, however, was a possibility that some could not process: One, that the IDF was telling the truth, this time, when it blamed the explosion near the Ahli Arab Hospital on a misfired rocket from Islamic Jihad; and two, that the international media had actually challenged the assertions of Israel, a Western ally, and in this case deferred to the claims of Hamas authorities in Gaza.

It is not surprising that Hamas would seek to exaggerate civilian casualties, as they did in that case, and as would not be surprising if they are also doing with that 10,000 figure. Provoking an Israeli response that would lead to the deaths of Palestinians was, after all, the deliberate Hamas plan when they planned the atrocious 10/7 attacks, with the explicit goal of winning the sympathy of people such as yourself. This is what they wanted.

So certainly, you should understand that about Hamas, and you should not sympathize with them in the slightest. Now, does that mean you should not sympathize with Gazan civilians? Absolutely not. But it is at the minimum something you should reflect upon and which should give you pause and lead you to adopt a more nuanced position, which should include some recognition that these civilian deaths are not just happening because Israel wanted this, but also because it was the explicit Hamas plan.


I'll respond to the second question in a separate post.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Let me start: How do you justify Israeli indiscriminate bombing that has now killed >10,000 Palestinians (67% of which are women and children)?

Is this really an appropriate response to the killing of 1,400 Israelis?

It seems more like simply revenge and has nothing to do with justice.

There is a third possibility besides revenge or justice. Perhaps it has something to do with self-defence?



Now, let's suppose hypothetically that the 10,000 figure which Hamas' health ministry claims is in fact accurate. How can we justify indiscriminate bombing that killed 10,000, as compared to 1,400. After all, 10,000 is a larger number than 1,400, right? That seems to be what your question is asking. And I can understand the thought behind it, and there is something to your thought process. In a strictly blind utilitarian sense, if you knew nothing else other than the number, the death of 10,000 is a very bad thing, worse than the death of 1,400.


How then can we justify this indiscriminate bombing?

First of all, we can start off by saying that it is not in fact indiscriminate. What is happening is not the same thing as the German bombing of London or the American bombing of Dresden or Tokyo. Israel is currently targeting one half of the Gaza strip after having repeatedly warned that they would do so and having done whatever they reasonably could to try to encourage civilians to evacuate. Does that mean there are not still some civilians there, and that Israel does not know that? Of course not. And it is also true that Israel has done some airstrikes in the southern part of the Gaza strip, in cases where they had a particular identified target (put yourself in their shoes - if you had clear looking intelligence of Hamas leadership or something just to the south of the line, would you not bomb it?). But it is also simply not true that they are going out of their way to kill civilians, or just randomly shooting all over the place into the Gaza strip without consideration for civilians.


Secondly, I bet you have probably never heard of "roof knocking." Roof knocking is something that, if we lived in a perfect world, would not happen. But it is something that is also a lot better than normal bombing. It is harm reduction. Same principle as giving drug addicts access to safe injection sites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking

Roof knocking (Hebrew: הקש בגג)[1] or "knocks on the roof" is a term used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to describe its practice of dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs of targeted civilian homes[2] in the Palestinian territories as a prior warning of imminent bombing attacks to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The practice was employed by the IDF during the 2008–2009 Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 to target the homes of police officers or Hamas political or military leaders.[10]

Roof knocking occurred during some strikes in the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict.

So basically, with roof knocking, you drop a dud bomb on a building 10-15 minutes before bombing the building with a regular bomb. The dud bomb will make a very loud thud, and people in the building will become aware of that quickly.

Of course, even given that it is a dud bomb, it can still kill people, in the same way that dropping a large rock on a building can still kill people. And it is also true that even if many civilians in a building can be warned and get out, some will not be able to (e.g. elderly/disabled people may not be able to evacuate with 10-15 minutes warning). But still, it is a heck of a lot better than dropping a high explosive bomb on a building without giving any prior warning at all. It's not what would happen in an ideal world (where there would be no bombing and no terrorism). But it's a lot better than what otherwise could be.

In addition or instead to dropping a dud bomb, another way Israel has done this in the past is to make a telephone call or other form of communication to people in the building to give them that same warning prior to dropping a bomb, so they can evacuate.

Doing this is clearly detrimental to Israel's purely military objectives. By roof knocking a building that is suspected to have both terrorists and civilians in it, that means that not only the civilians can evacuate and escape, but also the terrorists can. The thinking behind it though, is that by doing that Israel can at least still destroy most of the equipment of the terrorists they are targeting (which they won't be able to evacuate in time), while avoiding a lot of civilian casualties (even at the cost of not killing the terrorists themselves either).

And Israel does want to kill the terrorists, and they have every right to want to do that. But they sacrifice that when they do roof knocking instead of dropping a bomb without warning.

And yet, Israel invented this practice of roof knocking. Ask yourself why they would ever have done anything at all like that if they were just wanting to indiscriminately bomb civilians? The answer is that they would not. In a bad world where nothing is perfect, this is the sort of thing that is an example of how you can at least try to be less bad. So while acknowledging that it is still not ideal, let's give the IDF some credit for this, and recognize that there is a clear difference between how they have acted with regards to civilians and how Hamas has acted.

Where feasible, the IDF has and does try to avoid civilian casualties. Whereas Hamas explicitly wants civilian casualties - both Israeli and also Palestinian!!!

Hamas made no attempt to just target Israeli military targets on 10/7. If they did, at least personally, my attitude towards them would be very different (and prior to 10//7, I would also have been hesitant to just say things are as simple as calling them "terrorists"). There is a big difference between e.g. attacking an Israeli military base and paragliding into a music festival and massacring and kidnapping everyone there that you can.


Anyway, back to roof knocking. (same wikipedia link):

2023 Israel–Hamas war

During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, CNN reported that many people in Gaza said the IDF had abandoned the "roof knocking" policy.[19] In October 2023, a senior Israeli official stated that the practice would no longer be the norm and would only be used under certain circumstances.[20] An IDF officer told the New York Times that instead of the "roof knocking" policy, Israel is issuing mass evacuation orders and leaflets stating that "anyone who is near Hamas fighters will put their lives in danger."[21]

So it is true that Israel is no longer using roof knocking for most of the bombs in Northern gaza. That is mainly because the war is simply too large scale, and they can't feasibly do it everywhere, and they have clearly given similar warning by dropping leaflets etc and having publicly warned for weeks prior to the start of the ground offensive.

But yet, even now they are still doing roof knocking in some of the cases where they have particular reason to suspect there will be harm to civilians, and that they could avoid it with roof knocking.

And use of roof knocking is, of course, more common in the (much smaller number) of strikes Israel is doing south of the line.

Anyway, so I think if you are objective, you need to give Israel some credit for this, and acknowledge that they are in fact not being indiscriminate.


I'll add a bit more in a 3rd post, but this one is getting too long.

[pppolitics]

Let me start: How do you justify Israeli indiscriminate bombing that has now killed >10,000 Palestinians (67% of which are women and children)?

First of all, why do you believe that 10,000 figure is true (I have not checked, but I presume that is the latest estimate from the Gaza health ministry)? I would certainly grant that it is possible it is more or less correct, and certainly many civilians have been killed (how could that not be the case?). But why on earth would anyone who is unbiased just take that figure at face value? Hamas runs the Gaza health ministry, and we already have one very clear example in this war where Hamas has deliberately exaggerated civilian casualties. When the Al-Ahli hospital was bombed (in reality, hit by a stray rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad). The initial reports, fed to the media from the Gaza health ministry, were that an estimated 200-500 or 500-800 or so people had been killed at the hospital.

The reality is it was more like 10-50. This is a good article that I would encourage everyone to read in full:

Israel did not bomb that hospital, according to the latest intelligence. It's a reminder that in war, all sides engage in propaganda.

The photos that emerged in daylight, of a hospital intact and a parking lot with a crater far too small to be from an Israeli airstrike, called into question everything that most reporters and their readers had taken for granted — and lent credence to the earlier, adamant denials from the Israel Defense Forces. A senior European intelligence official also said the actual death toll was likely between 10 and 50 people, while an initial US assessment placed the number at the "low end of the 100-to-300 spectrum."

...

What also emerged on Thursday, however, was a possibility that some could not process: One, that the IDF was telling the truth, this time, when it blamed the explosion near the Ahli Arab Hospital on a misfired rocket from Islamic Jihad; and two, that the international media had actually challenged the assertions of Israel, a Western ally, and in this case deferred to the claims of Hamas authorities in Gaza.

It is not surprising that Hamas would seek to exaggerate civilian casualties, as they did in that case, and as would not be surprising if they are also doing with that 10,000 figure. Provoking an Israeli response that would lead to the deaths of Palestinians was, after all, the deliberate Hamas plan when they planned the atrocious 10/7 attacks, with the explicit goal of winning the sympathy of people such as yourself. This is what they wanted.

So certainly, you should understand that about Hamas, and you should not sympathize with them in the slightest. Now, does that mean you should not sympathize with Gazan civilians? Absolutely not. But it is at the minimum something you should reflect upon and which should give you pause and lead you to adopt a more nuanced position, which should include some recognition that these civilian deaths are not just happening because Israel wanted this, but also because it was the explicit Hamas plan.


I'll respond to the second question in a separate post.

How do you know that 1,400 Israelis really died?

How do you know that the Israeli government (who is known to lie) didn't inflate the numbers and hired crisis actors to play the family of the victims?

--> You are missing the big picture here which is the indiscriminate bombing that has shocked so many outside observers.

[pppolitics]

Let me start: How do you justify Israeli indiscriminate bombing that has now killed >10,000 Palestinians (67% of which are women and children)?

Is this really an appropriate response to the killing of 1,400 Israelis?

It seems more like simply revenge and has nothing to do with justice.

There is a third possibility besides revenge or justice. Perhaps it has something to do with self-defence?



Now, let's suppose hypothetically that the 10,000 figure which Hamas' health ministry claims is in fact accurate. How can we justify indiscriminate bombing that killed 10,000, as compared to 1,400. After all, 10,000 is a larger number than 1,400, right? That seems to be what your question is asking. And I can understand the thought behind it, and there is something to your thought process. In a strictly blind utilitarian sense, if you knew nothing else other than the number, the death of 10,000 is a very bad thing, worse than the death of 1,400.


How then can we justify this indiscriminate bombing?

First of all, we can start off by saying that it is not in fact indiscriminate. What is happening is not the same thing as the German bombing of London or the American bombing of Dresden or Tokyo. Israel is currently targeting one half of the Gaza strip after having repeatedly warned that they would do so and having done whatever they reasonably could to try to encourage civilians to evacuate. Does that mean there are not still some civilians there, and that Israel does not know that? Of course not. And it is also true that Israel has done some airstrikes in the southern part of the Gaza strip, in cases where they had a particular identified target (put yourself in their shoes - if you had clear looking intelligence of Hamas leadership or something just to the south of the line, would you not bomb it?). But it is also simply not true that they are going out of their way to kill civilians, or just randomly shooting all over the place into the Gaza strip without consideration for civilians.


Secondly, I bet you have probably never heard of "roof knocking." Roof knocking is something that, if we lived in a perfect world, would not happen. But it is something that is also a lot better than normal bombing. It is harm reduction. Same principle as giving drug addicts access to safe injection sites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roof_knocking

Roof knocking (Hebrew: הקש בגג)[1] or "knocks on the roof" is a term used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to describe its practice of dropping non-explosive or low-yield devices on the roofs of targeted civilian homes[2] in the Palestinian territories as a prior warning of imminent bombing attacks to give the inhabitants time to flee the attack.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The practice was employed by the IDF during the 2008–2009 Gaza War, Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012, and Operation Protective Edge in 2014 to target the homes of police officers or Hamas political or military leaders.[10]

Roof knocking occurred during some strikes in the October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict.

So basically, with roof knocking, you drop a dud bomb on a building 10-15 minutes before bombing the building with a regular bomb. The dud bomb will make a very loud thud, and people in the building will become aware of that quickly.

Of course, even given that it is a dud bomb, it can still kill people, in the same way that dropping a large rock on a building can still kill people. And it is also true that even if many civilians in a building can be warned and get out, some will not be able to (e.g. elderly/disabled people may not be able to evacuate with 10-15 minutes warning). But still, it is a heck of a lot better than dropping a high explosive bomb on a building without giving any prior warning at all. It's not what would happen in an ideal world (where there would be no bombing and no terrorism). But it's a lot better than what otherwise could be.

In addition or instead to dropping a dud bomb, another way Israel has done this in the past is to make a telephone call or other form of communication to people in the building to give them that same warning prior to dropping a bomb, so they can evacuate.

Doing this is clearly detrimental to Israel's purely military objectives. By roof knocking a building that is suspected to have both terrorists and civilians in it, that means that not only the civilians can evacuate and escape, but also the terrorists can. The thinking behind it though, is that by doing that Israel can at least still destroy most of the equipment of the terrorists they are targeting (which they won't be able to evacuate in time), while avoiding a lot of civilian casualties (even at the cost of not killing the terrorists themselves either).

And Israel does want to kill the terrorists, and they have every right to want to do that. But they sacrifice that when they do roof knocking instead of dropping a bomb without warning.

And yet, Israel invented this practice of roof knocking. Ask yourself why they would ever have done anything at all like that if they were just wanting to indiscriminately bomb civilians? The answer is that they would not. In a bad world where nothing is perfect, this is the sort of thing that is an example of how you can at least try to be less bad. So while acknowledging that it is still not ideal, let's give the IDF some credit for this, and recognize that there is a clear difference between how they have acted with regards to civilians and how Hamas has acted.

Where feasible, the IDF has and does try to avoid civilian casualties. Whereas Hamas explicitly wants civilian casualties - both Israeli and also Palestinian!!!

Hamas made no attempt to just target Israeli military targets on 10/7. If they did, at least personally, my attitude towards them would be very different (and prior to 10//7, I would also have been hesitant to just say things are as simple as calling them "terrorists"). There is a big difference between e.g. attacking an Israeli military base and paragliding into a music festival and massacring and kidnapping everyone there that you can.


Anyway, back to roof knocking. (same wikipedia link):

2023 Israel–Hamas war

During the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, CNN reported that many people in Gaza said the IDF had abandoned the "roof knocking" policy.[19] In October 2023, a senior Israeli official stated that the practice would no longer be the norm and would only be used under certain circumstances.[20] An IDF officer told the New York Times that instead of the "roof knocking" policy, Israel is issuing mass evacuation orders and leaflets stating that "anyone who is near Hamas fighters will put their lives in danger."[21]

So it is true that Israel is no longer using roof knocking for most of the bombs in Northern gaza. That is mainly because the war is simply too large scale, and they can't feasibly do it everywhere, and they have clearly given similar warning by dropping leaflets etc and having publicly warned for weeks prior to the start of the ground offensive.

But yet, even now they are still doing roof knocking in some of the cases where they have particular reason to suspect there will be harm to civilians, and that they could avoid it with roof knocking.

And use of roof knocking is, of course, more common in the (much smaller number) of strikes Israel is doing south of the line.

Anyway, so I think if you are objective, you need to give Israel some credit for this, and acknowledge that they are in fact not being indiscriminate.


I'll add a bit more in a 3rd post, but this one is getting too long.

IDF has already said that it is “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-is-one-day-at-a-time-life-on-israels-frontline-with-gaza

For example, the 31 October 2023 bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp killed hundreds and injured even more.

Israel said that dozens of Palestinian militants were killed but wouldn't name them.

You may say: well, they (civilians) should have gone somewhere else.

Where are they supposed to go? Gaza is heavily populated.

Israel wouldn't let the Palestinians evacuate into Israel and Israel has cut food, water, and internet into Gaza.

[Florida Man for Crime]

How do you know that 1,400 Israelis really died?

How do you know that the Israeli government (who is known to lie) didn't inflate the numbers and hired crisis actors to play the family of the victims?

Is this a serious question that you are actually wondering about, or are you legitimately unsure of this?

You realize, this is a similar question to ask as asking whether 3000 people were actually killed on 9/11 or whether 6 million Jews (as well as millions of non-Jews) were killed in the holocaust? If you are genuinely unsure about those things, they would be fair questions to ask, and then we could tell you the reasons why you should believe those things. But if you are not genuinely unsure, and are just trying to make some "how can you be sure of anything" point, then that is not the sort of question you should be asking.

--> You are missing the big picture here which is the indiscriminate bombing that has shocked so many outside observers.

That's why I said there was a 2nd (and also a 3rd) post coming.

[Florida Man for Crime]

3rd post -

Last thing is I think that the question of whether military action, which will inevitably also result in civilian casualties, is an appropriate response is both of the following:

1) It is a legitimate question to be asked.
2) But it is also a question that you only can really ask if you do not really understand and accept what war is, and it is also a question much more likely to be asked by people who have been fortunate enough never to experience war themselves. War is hell.


And before I go on, I will repeat again that I think you absolutely should empathize with Palestinian civilians who are victims in this war (as well as civilians of any nationality who are victims in any war). However, what I am going to do now is also ask you to try and empathize with the soldiers as well - it could be soldiers of any nationality in any war, but in this case, Israeli soldiers.

I am going to ask you to watch a war movie, either today or at your soonest opportunity. Watch something which is very vivid, such as the opening scene to "Saving Private Ryan" where they are assaulting Omaha beach.

However, instead of just watching it like a movie, how you might normally watch a movie, make your best attempt to imagine that it is real. That it is happening, in reality. Not to someone else, but to you. You, personally. You are there. Whatever your real name is, this is happening to firstname lastname. And not to just someone else who randomly shares that same name, but to the actual one you.

It is probably impossible to truly imagine that, especially if you have been fortunate never to be in a similar situation, but make your honest best effort at it. Try to put yourself in the shoes. Try to empathize with soldiers in that situation.

Your friend sitting next to you just died. You could very well be next.

Let's say that the way your friend just died is that they were hit by a bullet or some sort of explosive shell which came from a building. You are quite sure that this building contains enemy soldiers, but you think there are also some civilians there.

What happens next? Maybe you are in fact killed, or wounded.

Or another possibility is maybe your "side" can call in some sort of air strike or artillery strike on the building.

Another possibility is maybe your "side" can frontally charge head on into a hail of machine gun and mortar fire coming from the building, and you can try to shoot the "enemy" soldiers with your small arms while hopefully being more likely to avoid civilian casualties.

Remember, this is real, and this is you. Let's also say that you are a sergeant or something and the higher commanding officer has been killed, and you are the one that will decide whether to call in the air/artillery strike, or to frontally charge at the building in the face of enemy fire.

In an ideal world, maybe it would be better and more moral if you charge the building and storm it and try to take it and kill the enemy using your small arms. Though this may well cost you and your fellow soldiers your lives, you may well end up saving innocent civilians who certainly do not deserve to die.

If you frontally assault the building without air or artillery support, I would regard your choice and your actions as (relative to the alternative, and given the situation) heroic and very brave.

On the other hand, if you chose to call in an air strike or an artillery strike, personally I would have a hard time being too critical of that choice. It would be easy for me to be critical of you sitting behind my keyboard, in safety. But I have some capacity to empathize with you, to imagine what that situation was like for you, and to wonder (and genuinely not know) what I would do in that situation.

Let's say you call in an airstrike.

In the abstract of discussing this on a forum, maybe you should not have, in a perfect world, have called in that air or artillery strike. But clearly, we do not live in a perfect world, otherwise you would never be in this situation in the first place. And it is a lot easier to judge than to be judged, especially if you, the judge, has never experienced and never will experience a similar situation or had to face a similar choice.

So I think even if I judged that your decision was the wrong one, I would still have empathy with you and understand why you did it, and why it would not be reasonable for me to expect or demand that you make the other choice (provided, of course, that you are not doing it because you actively and viciously want to kill civilians).

And yet, soldiers do often make the other choice, including Israeli soldiers.



Remember also that many of the soldiers in the IDF are not volunteers, they were drafted, they don't really want to be there, and in many cases they were reservists who were civilians a month ago.

Of course, (while given my avatar, I am clearly pro-Ukraine), exactly the same thing applies to Russian soldiers in Ukraine (and to Ukrainian soldiers). And we should similarly empathize with them, and understand that there is a difference between judging them from behind our keyboards, and actually being there.

So I think we should show a bit of humility and empathy amidst all of this, for the civilians, but also for the soldiers as well.

[pppolitics]

How do you know that 1,400 Israelis really died?

How do you know that the Israeli government (who is known to lie) didn't inflate the numbers and hired crisis actors to play the family of the victims?

Is this a serious question that you are actually wondering about, or are you legitimately unsure of this?

You realize, this is a similar question to ask as asking whether 3000 people were actually killed on 9/11 or whether 6 million Jews (as well as millions of non-Jews) were killed in the holocaust? If you are genuinely unsure about those things, they would be fair questions to ask, and then we could tell you the reasons why you should believe those things. But if you are not genuinely unsure, and are just trying to make some "how can you be sure of anything" point, then that is not the sort of question you should be asking.

--> You are missing the big picture here which is the indiscriminate bombing that has shocked so many outside observers.

That's why I said there was a 2nd (and also a 3rd) post coming.

What I am saying is that Israel has a long history of lying.

For example, Israel said that it doesn't white phosphorus.

Weeks later, it finally admitted that it used white phosphorus.

[Florida Man for Crime]

IDF has already said that it is “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-is-one-day-at-a-time-life-on-israels-frontline-with-gaza

For example, the 31 October 2023 bombing of the Jabalia refugee camp killed hundreds and injured even more.

Israel said that dozens of Palestinian militants were killed but wouldn't name them.

Of course. As I clearly said, war is hell. If that is surprising to you, you do not understand what war is.

At the same time, however, let's acknowledge that Israel did not carpet bomb the Jabalia refugee camp, and let's also acknowledge that this was just one out of many strikes. And let's acknowledge that if Israel actively wanted to kill civilians in the Jabalia refugee camp, they could and would have done so many years ago, and could have killed many more. What should we conclude from the fact that they did not do that? That provides some evidence that should lead you to believe that Israel - unlike Hamas - does not actually actively want to kill Palestinian (or Israeli) civilians. Clearly that does not mean that they will not kill civilians, but at the same time you should acknowledge there is a difference between actively wanting something horrible to happen, and something horrible happening that you don't really want to happen, but which you judge to be less horrible than the plausible available alternative.

You may say: well, they (civilians) should have gone somewhere else.

Where are they supposed to go? Gaza is heavily populated.

Here is the line:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_the_northern_Gaza_Strip



They are supposed to go south of the line. Presumably after Israel has cleared the north, they will switch things up, and ask the civilians to go back north of the line, while they clear the south.

Is trying to get civilians to go south of the line a perfect solution? Clearly not. In war, I don't think much of anything is perfect. War is pretty much the polar opposite of perfection; it is organized disaster.

Clearly, not all civilians in the northern area can, have, or will evacuate to the southern area. So similarly to the way that in roof knocking still does not allow elderly or disabled people to evacuate a building before it is bombed, this is certainly not perfect either.

And yet, despite all that, I think you should acknowledge that it is a heck of a lot better than if Israeli did not draw this line and were not focusing on clearing the north of the line, but were just going in everywhere at once.

Israel wouldn't let the Palestinians evacuate into Israel and Israel has cut food, water, and internet into Gaza.

I would agree that Israel should not cut these things off in southern gaza, but it makes more sense at minimum for them to do so in the north. Hamas is hiding in tunnels, which makes the warfare there siege warfare. In siege warfare, one of the ways to win is by starving out the enemy.

Starving out the enemy is not pretty (especially to the degree it also involves starving out civilians), but I don't think you can seriously say it is so much less pretty than blowing people up or shooting them.

And of course, let's also remember that Hamas wanted this to happen, which is why they built the tunnels in the first place. They wanted to force or encourage Israel to cut off food and water, which would include cutting it off to civilians to some degree and provoking an outcry from well-meaning international people such as yourself.

This is complicated by the fact that the tunnels which Hamas built connect areas in the north to the south. Given that Israel knows that they can't cut off Hamas militants in the north perfectly due to the tunnel connections they have to the south, at least I personally would give them some credit for at least trying to do it as best as they can. It is a lot better than what else they could be doing, and there is a military cost (and extra IDF casualties) which are resulting from them doing that.

Remember that those extra IDF casualties are real people, and back to my point about empathy, try to empathize with them, put yourself in their shoes, and ask yourself seriously what you would do if you were them.

Let's acknowledge that, at a minimum, if you ask them to avoid some extra civilian casualties at some extra cost to their own lives, that is a difficult thing to ask. It may well be right to ask it anyway, but let's acknowledge that it is not an easy ask, and to the degree they are hesitant, it should be understandable why they are hesitant.

[pppolitics]

3rd post -

Last thing is I think that the question of whether military action, which will inevitably also result in civilian casualties, is an appropriate response is both of the following:

1) It is a legitimate question to be asked.
2) But it is also a question that you only can really ask if you do not really understand and accept what war is, and it is also a question much more likely to be asked by people who have been fortunate enough never to experience war themselves. War is hell.


And before I go on, I will repeat again that I think you absolutely should empathize with Palestinian civilians who are victims in this war (as well as civilians of any nationality who are victims in any war). However, what I am going to do now is also ask you to try and empathize with the soldiers as well - it could be soldiers of any nationality in any war, but in this case, Israeli soldiers.

I am going to ask you to watch a war movie, either today or at your soonest opportunity. Watch something which is very vivid, such as the opening scene to "Saving Private Ryan" where they are assaulting Omaha beach.

However, instead of just watching it like a movie, how you might normally watch a movie, make your best attempt to imagine that it is real. That it is happening, in reality. Not to someone else, but to you. You, personally. You are there. Whatever your real name is, this is happening to firstname lastname. And not to just someone else who randomly shares that same name, but to the actual one you.

It is probably impossible to truly imagine that, especially if you have been fortunate never to be in a similar situation, but make your honest best effort at it. Try to put yourself in the shoes. Try to empathize with soldiers in that situation.

Your friend sitting next to you just died. You could very well be next.

Let's say that the way your friend just died is that they were hit by a bullet or some sort of explosive shell which came from a building. You are quite sure that this building contains enemy soldiers, but you think there are also some civilians there.

What happens next? Maybe you are in fact killed, or wounded.

Or another possibility is maybe your "side" can call in some sort of air strike or artillery strike on the building.

Another possibility is maybe your "side" can frontally charge head on into a hail of machine gun and mortar fire coming from the building, and you can try to shoot the "enemy" soldiers with your small arms while hopefully being more likely to avoid civilian casualties.

Remember, this is real, and this is you. Let's also say that you are a sergeant or something and the higher commanding officer has been killed, and you are the one that will decide whether to call in the air/artillery strike, or to frontally charge at the building in the face of enemy fire.

In an ideal world, maybe it would be better and more moral if you charge the building and storm it and try to take it and kill the enemy using your small arms. Though this may well cost you and your fellow soldiers your lives, you may well end up saving innocent civilians who certainly do not deserve to die.

If you frontally assault the building without air or artillery support, I would regard your choice and your actions as (relative to the alternative, and given the situation) heroic and very brave.

On the other hand, if you chose to call in an air strike or an artillery strike, personally I would have a hard time being too critical of that choice. It would be easy for me to be critical of you sitting behind my keyboard, in safety. But I have some capacity to empathize with you, to imagine what that situation was like for you, and to wonder (and genuinely not know) what I would do in that situation.

Let's say you call in an airstrike.

In the abstract of discussing this on a forum, maybe you should not have, in a perfect world, have called in that air or artillery strike. But clearly, we do not live in a perfect world, otherwise you would never be in this situation in the first place. And it is a lot easier to judge than to be judged, especially if you, the judge, has never experienced and never will experience a similar situation or had to face a similar choice.

So I think even if I judged that your decision was the wrong one, I would still have empathy with you and understand why you did it, and why it would not be reasonable for me to expect or demand that you make the other choice (provided, of course, that you are not doing it because you actively and viciously want to kill civilians).

And yet, soldiers do often make the other choice, including Israeli soldiers.



Remember also that many of the soldiers in the IDF are not volunteers, they were drafted, they don't really want to be there, and in many cases they were reservists who were civilians a month ago.

Of course, (while given my avatar, I am clearly pro-Ukraine), exactly the same thing applies to Russian soldiers in Ukraine (and to Ukrainian soldiers). And we should similarly empathize with them, and understand that there is a difference between judging them from behind our keyboards, and actually being there.

So I think we should show a bit of humility and empathy amidst all of this, for the civilians, but also for the soldiers as well.

Let's say that we have an 8-year-old Palestinian boy, Ahmed.

Israel bombing destroyed his family home, his school, and his father's workplace.

His best friend, Omar, and Omar's family died in an Israeli bombing.

Is Ahmed going to grow up into a productive member of society or into a terrorist?

Likely the latter.

Israel is breeding a new generation of terrorists right now.

[emailking]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

[pppolitics]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

[Florida Man for Crime]

Let's say that we have an 8-year-old Palestinian boy, Ahmed.

Israel bombing destroyed his family home, his school, and his father's workplace.

His best friend, Omar, and Omar's family died in an Israeli bombing.

Is Ahmed going to grow up into a productive member of society or into a terrorist?

Likely the latter.

Israel is breeding a new generation of terrorists right now.

As far as I am aware, nothing I said in any of my posts contradicts that.

I do agree it is quite plausible, if not likely, that this is entirely true (but if it is true, it would be an argument that Israel is acting against its own self-interest to some degree, not an argument that Israel is acting in an unjustified way or an argument that Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians, which was your earlier point as I understood it).

At the same time, however, I think you are making a mistake if you make it out to be some sort of ineluctable historical inevitability that all of this can only result in a new generation of terrorists.

Think about World War 2, for example. The Allies inflicted utter destruction on Germany and Japan, and killed huge numbers of civilians (as did, obviously, the Axis).

With your same logic, you would think that Hans and Haruto, both of whose parents were killed by American bombing in World War 2, would inevitably grow up to be deeply hostile to the United States, and would support making renewed war against the United States to get revenge.

But this is not what happened.

It depends on the choices made by the people who are left standing at the end of it.

After world war 2, the survivors had the wisdom and foresight to make choices which led to sustained peace. On the other hand, after world war 1, the survivors made choices which led to renewed war (World War 2).

So it can go either way.

I agree that there is plenty of reason to worry that it will go the wrong way, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

[pppolitics]

Let's say that we have an 8-year-old Palestinian boy, Ahmed.

Israel bombing destroyed his family home, his school, and his father's workplace.

His best friend, Omar, and Omar's family died in an Israeli bombing.

Is Ahmed going to grow up into a productive member of society or into a terrorist?

Likely the latter.

Israel is breeding a new generation of terrorists right now.

As far as I am aware, nothing I said in any of my posts contradicts that.

I do agree it is quite plausible, if not likely, that this is entirely true (but if it is true, it would be an argument that Israel is acting against its own self-interest to some degree, not an argument that Israel is acting in an unjustified way or an argument that Israel is indiscriminately killing civilians, which was your earlier point as I understood it).

At the same time, however, I think you are making a mistake if you make it out to be some sort of ineluctable historical inevitability that all of this can only result in a new generation of terrorists.

Think about World War 2, for example. The Allies inflicted utter destruction on Germany and Japan, and killed huge numbers of civilians (as did, obviously, the Axis).

With your same logic, you would think that Hans and Haruto, both of whose parents were killed by American bombing in World War 2, would inevitably grow up to be deeply hostile to the United States, and would support making renewed war against the United States to get revenge.

But this is not what happened.

It depends on the choices made by the people who are left standing at the end of it.

After world war 2, the survivors had the wisdom and foresight to make choices which led to sustained peace. On the other hand, after world war 1, the survivors made choices which led to renewed war (World War 2).

So it can go either way.

I agree that there is plenty of reason to worry that it will go the wrong way, but it is not a foregone conclusion.

The Allies rebuilt Germany after the war.

Germany wasn't left a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Most people don't want to become terrorists.

The best way to make sure they don't become terrorists is to give them better lives.

Israel is doing the opposite of that by making their lives worse.

[Florida Man for Crime]

The Allies rebuilt Germany after the war.

Yes, and the question is what Israel will do after the war, as well as what others like USA, European countries, China, etc will do afterwards.

In addition, it was not only the Allies... it was also up to the Germans (and Japanese) what to do afterwards. The ones that survived ended up deciding that the whole Hitler thing wasn't really so great after all. Perhaps Gazans that survive will end up deciding that the whole Hamas thing wasn't really so great after all. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but it is not like they don't have a choice in the matter.

Germany wasn't left a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Wat?!?!?!?!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ww2+ruins+germany+japan&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

Israel is doing the opposite of that by making their lives worse.

Well that's exactly the question, isn't it? What will Israel (as well as others) do afterwards?

[pppolitics]

The Allies rebuilt Germany after the war.

Yes, and the question is what Israel will do after the war, as well as what others like USA, European countries, China, etc will do afterwards.

In addition, it was not only the Allies... it was also up to the Germans (and Japanese) what to do afterwards. The ones that survived ended up deciding that the whole Hitler thing wasn't really so great after all. Perhaps Gazans that survive will end up deciding that the whole Hamas thing wasn't really so great after all. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but it is not like they don't have a choice in the matter.

Germany wasn't left a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Wat?!?!?!?!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ww2+ruins+germany+japan&t=ffab&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

Israel is doing the opposite of that by making their lives worse.

Well that's exactly the question, isn't it? What will Israel (as well as others) do afterwards?

It is Israel's job to rebuild Gaza, not other countries'.

Israel should be planning to rebuild Gaza right now.

I say this because Israel should use a scalpel approach, not a meat cleaver approach.

Right now, using a bazooka to kill a fly

Using a scalpel approach means less rebuilding (as well as a lower human toll).

In reality, the Netanyahu government is just trying to exact revenge and probably has no plan to rebuild Gaza (leaving it a post-apocalyptic wasteland). This leaves Israel even more unsafe than before.

[Vosem]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

This is actually what warfare is for. The Israeli government and the Gazan regime are working out their differences right now.

[pppolitics]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

This is actually what warfare is for. The Israeli government and the Gazan regime are working out their differences right now.

Since when are you a Democrat?

[Aurelius2]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

This is actually what warfare is for. The Israeli government and the Gazan regime are working out their differences right now.

Since when are you a Democrat?

Anyone is free to post in any Atlas thread.

[pppolitics]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

This is actually what warfare is for. The Israeli government and the Gazan regime are working out their differences right now.

Since when are you a Democrat?

Anyone is free to post in any Atlas thread.

Yes, but that is not the point of this thread.

The point of this thread of for Democrats to talk over this issue.

We all know that Republicans would support Israel even if it slaughtered every Palestinian in reach.

[It’s so Joever]

Honestly seems like you just want to argue your side rather than "work it out."

How do you work it out without talking about it?

This is actually what warfare is for. The Israeli government and the Gazan regime are working out their differences right now.

Since when are you a Democrat?

Anyone is free to post in any Atlas thread.

Yes, but that is not the point of this thread.

The point of this thread of for Democrats to talk over this issue.

We all know that Republicans would support Israel even if it slaughtered every Palestinian in reach.

The 2000s called they want their coalitions back.

[Dr. MB]

I’m a registered democrat. I voted for my rep, Val Hoyle, in 2022 but she’s been very disappointing on this issue among other (more significant) beef I have with her. I guess I’ll evaluate the mood next fall but not super optimistic she’s gonna improve. So we’ll see.

I won’t vote for Biden in the primary but this has been established for a while. As for the general we’ll see. Oregon’s not really an important state.

[pppolitics]

I’m a registered democrat. I voted for my rep, Val Hoyle, in 2022 but she’s been very disappointing on this issue among other (more significant) beef I have with her. I guess I’ll evaluate the mood next fall but not super optimistic she’s gonna improve. So we’ll see.

I won’t vote for Biden in the primary but this has been established for a while. As for the general we’ll see. Oregon’s not really an important state.

Contact Rep. Val Hoyle, Sen. Wyden, and Sen. Merkley to talk about how you feel.

Sen. Merkley is 1 of the 26 senators who has signed a letter to Biden expressing concern.

https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_president_biden_on_gaza.pdf

[Meclazine for Israel]

Why do you keep making a new post a day on the Israeli conflict?

The megathread post has been set up and is available for discussion. As soon as you don't think your point is more important than others, you are just making a new daily thread about your new argument.

It's just an advanced form of attention seeking.