DawnC

@Karmadhi Consider approaching the study of Israeli society with an open mind. You seem to be delving into areas of absurdity, connecting loosely related things that you may not fully understand.

That is not a serious claim. This is similar to saying you can't take America seriously because there is racism towards African Americans.

The link is broken. Note that there are more than two options - this isn't precision vs. destruction. Disabling Hamas involves disrupting their ability to rule, govern, initiate attacks, control the Gaza strip, set traps for ground forces, manage the battlefield and many other abilities. This requires more than just precision and cannot be labeled as merely unjustified destruction. If the ratio they aimed for was 1-80, the percentage of civilian casualties would be 99%. This extreme ratio is not supported even by the most biased anti-Israeli sources, which often fail to address any of the complexities I mentioned earlier (Hamas deceptions). I didn't observe any attacks resulting in 80 to 1 ratios. Even if such incidents occurred, don't mistake isolated cases for a continual policy. I think this is an exaggeration that again fails to see the big picture. Btw, if an IDF spokesperson actually admitted to an attack with such a ratio, I think it's actually making them more reliable. Consider whether nations like Russia, would openly admit to similar actions. A country with a deliberate intention to indiscriminately kill civilians (or even with a 1 to 80 ratio policy) wouldn't likely publicize this. I think you should also address the very difficult dilemma and genuinely ask yourself questions about it, as it's easy to simply suggest they should be more precise. Ask yourself: What would Hamas do if they knew that surrounding themselves with 50 civilians would grant immunity? Wouldn't they exploit it to protect themselves? When facing adversaries who exploit civilian shields, what alternative strategies can be employed? Can a strict policy of never attacking, regardless of circumstances, be a sustainable approach in such warfare? To what extent should military forces prioritize the protection of civilians over achieving strategic objectives? Can there be effective military deterrence without causing significant civilian harm when you are fighting an organization that uses civilians like Hamas? Are there historical examples of successful military campaigns that minimized civilian casualties in the way you suggest? How would you respond if adopting a policy to never attack (regardless of the circumstances) in situations with such ratios meant that every Hamas militant, particularly those in high-ranking positions, would consistently surround themselves with as many civilians as possible? What would you do if avoiding those attacks meant putting your soldiers in life-threatening situations by the thousands? What would you do if the precision tactic you were advocating made it impossible to carry out any attacks at all? I can go on and on. These are not abstract philosophical questions, these are the actual dilemmas the Israelis are confronting. I think It's important to understand the militant situation, to understand what Hamas is, and then to contemplate those questions seriously. I'm not sure people actually do that before suggesting their simplistic solutions. Should the US and the world pressure Israel to minimize the ratio? From a global perspective, I think they should. I think it's good to have oversight and prevent getting carried away. But that doesn't change any of the points I mentioned earlier (including the moral stance on this matter and Hamas deceptions). And just to be clear again, I don't think every attack by Israel is moral, and that Israelis are angels. I'm not in the business of searching for angels and devils but rather in choosing the lesser evil. And after contemplating the questions above, in my view, Israel's actions fall within the spectrum of reason. I try not to suggest moral restrictions to others that I believe I wouldn't apply to myself. In this case, I think that's what most people are doing. And let's not even delve into the UN . A place where countries like Syria get to condemn Israel for bombing civilians, and nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia get to vote on matters of women's rights. This is not an organization that can be taken seriously in any way.

But you see, I don't think your perception here is accurate at all. Comparing Israel to Russia is simply absurd. Doesn't it bother you that this is exactly what Hamas wants? They want people in the West to pressure Israel so they can get away with what they are doing. See what I wrote here a few days ago: The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. You don't take into account that Hamas dresses its militants in regular clothes to later classify them as civilians. You also don't address the fact that Hamas pays civilians to participate in war efforts and then counts them as civilians (as seen 7/10). From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children and civilian casualties possible and doesn't place much value on civilian's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily. So, in your view, the right thing for Israel is to provide electricity and water to enemy bunkers during war (where their civilians are being targeted by intentional rocket attacks) and to put their own soldiers' lives in incredible danger because Hamas tactics involve placing civilians in the crossfire. Do you think that's a reasonable criterion to set? Should Israel also avoid shooting at any location where there are civilians? This is not how conflicts operate. If Israel were to adopt such measures, any Hamas militant could take advantage of the situation, and they will not be able to get even to one of them. Should Hamas be granted immunity because of their horrific tactics? Should the Israelis be more receptive to Western critics influenced by Hamas propaganda? What do you think? Anyway, I can still have criticism about an attack here or there. But I believe the important thing here is that I'm not conflating criticism of the accepted level of collateral damage (with people who actually care about that) in some specific attacks with moral equivalence. The fact that I have criticism about the Allies bombing Dresden doesn't make them morally equivalent to the Nazis. It's not solely about examining individual tragedies (which can be heartbreaking). The broader picture is more important.

@Loveeee Memes aside, What I wrote genuinely reflects my perspective. I believe it's neither superficial nor rooted in ignorance or prejudice. If you have a mature counter perspective, I'm all ears.

I think that these points are routed in two misconceptions. Essentially, I think that you believe that the root cause of Palestinian aggression is the situation with Israel, and you think Israel has the power to solve it due to their position of strength. I don't think that's true at all. First of all, you have to consider the possibility that Palestinian society and leadership don't want peace and they don't want anything that will maintain the state of Israel. Westerners have difficulty grasping this, but the reality is that some cultures actually embrace violence and some societies actually value war and even the killing of the innocent. Westerners tend to think that 'everybody just wants to have peace' or 'everybody is like us because we are all human.' This is a fundamental misconception. Yes, we are all human. So was Stalin, and so was Saddam Hussein. The Mongols and Nazis were also human. That doesn't mean that they didn't value genocide or brutal raiding and territorial expansion. The second thing is, that I know it makes sense to claim that Israel's control radicalizes them, and if Israel didn't control them, this wouldn't happen. I just don't think that's entirely true. And I think there is nothing worse for Palestinian society than self-governing. The situation will deteriorate into something like what happened in Syria or Yemen. Take a look for example at Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Palestinian society is no different (in fact, it's worse). Consider also the internal conflict between Hamas and the PLO in 2006. The events of the past 100 years suggest that this is a deeply ingrained aspect of Palestinian society. They exhibit violent behavior, not just towards Israel but towards themselves. And this pattern persists no matter what happens with Israel. Regardless of whether Israel had a state or not, regardless if in was during the occupation or not, before and after Israel left Gaza. This violent mentality has persisted. I think there is nothing that Israel can do, within the realm of reason that will not result in their own existential serious risk, which would change this fundamental issue. I'm not saying it can't change, but there is no indication from the past century that this change is foreseeable. Israel can make wise or unwise policy choices, but the power to fundamentally resolve this issue is beyond their reach. The second misconception is the belief that understanding someone's perspective implies the need to appease them. I can understand why Germany descended into Nazism after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles humiliated them, there were dire economic conditions, and some other factors. But that doesn't mean their regime wasn't utterly barbaric and didn't need to be dealt with using force. You see, when someone is at your door with a rifle, intent on brutally killing you and your family, you kill them. Afterwards you can investigate if he had a difficult childhood. That is what any reasonable, life-cherishing actor would do. Some more specific points: 1.I understand what you're saying. But historically, it wasn't always the case. Jews endured a Holocaust and did not commit such atrocities systematically. 2. + 3. Israelis have endured ongoing terror attacks since the establishment of their state, including many suicide bombings and tens of thousands of rockets targeted at the civilian population over the years (imagine growing up with the constant sound of rocket alarms). Terrorism has a profound effect on a society (consider 9/11 as an extreme example). For many years, their state also faced a genuine survival challenge. This is not a walk in the park, and it profoundly impacts a society. In any case, in reality, they are actually much less ruthless (much much less) and much more inclined towards seeking peace (much much more). This is not solely a consequence of the power imbalance btw. These differing moral standards were present before 1948. 4. I don't see it that way because I believe that historical decisions made by the Palestinians have led to the current situation, making it nearly unavoidable. In my view, a society that initiated war and subsequently lost it is not in a position to dictate the terms. And when they continue with violence, they shouldn't be viewed as the victims (and thus I don't view the Israelis as the aggressors). Anyway, of course I hold Israel to a higher standard because it is a liberal democracy. But I understand the very difficult military situation they are facing, and I recognize Hamas's manipulation of numbers and civilian statistics, as well as militant tactics that deliberately endanger civilians. I also acknowledge that in any conflict, atrocities unfortunately occur. In relative terms, I believe Israel is acting reasonably. They are not intentionally targeting civilians. They are allowing them to evacuate. And yes, they are determined to neutralize Hamas's militant capabilities and secure the release of their hostages. This is war, and it's not a pleasant situation.

I think Olmert's and Barack's offers were more than fair, considering they had lost multiple wars and continued to insist on violent approaches. But in your opinion, what would constitute a fair offer? Those were not peaceful protests. They involved throwing stones, Molotov cocktails, and explosive charges (and rockets on civilian populations from time to time to spice things up). And even if they were peaceful, those marches originated from Gaza after Israel withdrew from the area. Do you believe that marching on the border of a sovereign state by the thousands is a peaceful move?

@zazen We already know that we disagree on that, but I genuinely wonder: what's your view of the time before '48 regarding the Jewish perspective? Do you find it inconceivably wrong in your view? If so, Why? What would you do before '48 if you were responsible for the situation (as a UN outsider)? Would you advocate for separation? How do you perceive the 1948 war? How do you view the militant, violent course the Palestinians took in '47? And what, in your opinion, should have been the Jewish response to that? And if you want to elaborate - How do you view the time period from '48 to '67? What are your thoughts on the peace proposals suggested by Israel since 67'? And what is your opinion on the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip? What do you believe would be a wise and reasonable move for Israel moving forward giving what we have seen so far?

@Loveeee I think this is worth watching. He doesn't neglect things that you consider immoral actions by Israel, but rather analyzes the situation from a broader moral perspective.

This is good. It's my first time encountering this guy (Coleman), so I'm not familiar with his stance on other issues, but I think his perspective on this matter is very mature and nuanced.

What about it?

Dealing with such life-threatening hostility as a nation is no picnic. Assess the morality as you wish, but note that what I wrote is not a commentary on morality. It addresses the nature of conflict and war strategy. Where does this notion of an outpost come from? This is not the situation at all. Israel shares Western values and receives support from the West, but it is definitely not 'nothing but a Western outpost'. Study the relationship between Israel and Western powers and it's history, you might be surprised.

With violence. In '48, this might have been a smart approach because they were not much weaker than the Israelis. But it has consequences - they lost the war they initiated. Persisting with a violent strategy is not a wise course of action for the weaker side (especially when the stronger side offers a relatively fair deal). Their continued use of violence in their fight has brought them to this moment. Only to some extent. Israelis will not engage in something they believe poses a major danger to their survival, regardless of public opinion in Western countries. Actually, There is a strong sentiment in Israeli society that goes like 'We will do what we think is right even if people won't like us'. And although public opinion may shift (I'm not entirely sure about that), strategic considerations remain. This holds greater importance in policy decisions.

I think it's clear that we have different moral perspectives regarding the origins of this conflict. You perceive the act of Jews returning to the land where there where already people as highly immoral. I am more sympathetic to the Zionist movement and their desire to establish sovereignty in a land they feel a connection to, given the circumstances of that time. I don't disregard anything. I think It's completely fine that we hold this moral disagreement. On my part, the issue arises when you view the actions of the Jews as an 'ancient sin' committed by Israelis, and from that point onward, it seems that nothing else matters to you. It doesn't seem to matter what actions the Palestinians or Israelis take. The entire span of history, from that supposed ancient sin until today, appears to hold little weight in your assessment. Your focus seems solely on rectifying this perceived historical wrong, zero regard for how the course of history and the current situation demonstrate the dangers and impracticality of your approach. But the discussion here wasn't about that at all. It was about the reasons why this conflict is widely discussed. Even if Israel is wrong about everything and is to blame for everything, it doesn't explain that. Of course the conflict had an effect on the hatred of Jewish people amongst the Arab & Muslim world, that is not relevant to the fact that this hatred was a contributing factor to the world's obsession with this conflict. Btw, antisemitic sentiments in Muslim societies are not solely because of 'Israel's atrocities' or because 'the region got destabilized.' It is present even in the Quran.

True. But note that this phenomenon didn't begin solely after 7/10. The duration may play a part in the explanation, but there are other reasonable factors. One of them is the influence of antisemitism and anti-western sentiments in major parts of the world (especially the Arab world) and their influence on Western society, as we have discussed here.

There are many other cases where nations treat other nations or minorities with very little compassion in very biased ways. In relative terms, the world has seen worse and was much less obsessed. Your suggestion doesn't explain why this particular conflict is being discussed more then others.

I've thought about it more, and that's actually a very good point. It's a crucial element in why this conflict is so widely discussed. In a sense, Israel, and its perceived superiority over the Palestinians, serve as a living reminder of the failure of the Arab world and the success of the West. This generates a great deal of hostility.

Good point. I agree. The feeling of humiliation is very strong in the Muslim world, especially in Arab societies, and it does create fertile ground for extreme ideologies. I'm not certain about what would be a wise policy to address this issue. I'm not convinced that absolving the Palestinians of responsibility for their problematic policies and actions, attempting to establish a moral equivalence, or aligning with the Muslim world's hostility towards Israel, for the sake of avoiding further provocation, is the right decision. But genuinely, Idk. I'm no sure because I believe those feelings arise from a genuine failure and a noticeably less developed and just social order, that is also less successful. I'm not sure that encouraging the notion of finding someone to blame is very wise.

I'm not entirely sure, but research the entire organization in all matters. The cause can be debated, but the existence of the pattern is pretty obvious.

It's fine to hold Israel to a higher standard than non-democratic regimes. The thing is, the UN is not an organization solely run by Western countries and responsible for upholding Western values in the Western world. In realistic analysis, the UN is a global organization also influenced by China, Russia, and over 50 Muslim countries, providing a platform for countries to pursue their own interests (many of these countries couldn't care less about human rights and western values). And it is unwise to overlook the fact that many of these countries harbor societies with antisemitic inclinations. Consider, for example, the motto of the Houthi movement, read Hamas' charter, examine Iran's society, explore Pakistani society, and observe Russian propaganda these days - the antisemitic sentiments in these societies are not negligible. They manifest in actual political policies, and this is evident in many other countries (there are even patterns in Latin America). I don't think that the western world is antisemitic in general. There is antisemitism present in both the far right and the far left (ironically), but these are both negligible in the West. But I do see two influences of antisemitism in the West. First, there are immigrant communities in these countries with non-negligible influence that exhibit antisemitic inclinations, especially certain Muslim communities. The other factor is that western countries are very susceptible to anti-Israeli messages that allegedly stem from concerns about human rights violations, but are actually rooted in antisemitism. This includes many proposals to condemn Israel in the UN originating from the Muslim world. The fact that countries like Syria or Saudi Arabia can initiate a proposal to condemn Israel over human rights is absurd. The BDS movement is another example of this. The influence of Qatar on the media and academia in the West is another. This cannot be dismissed as negligible. And the last thing - Yes, it's fine to hold Israel to a higher standard than non-democratic regimes. Unfortunately, even without concrete antisemitism, these so-called 'higher standards' are often a slippery slope towards a hostile approach that reflects a deep confusion about which is the liberal democracy that genuinely cares about human rights (even when you consider them to violate some), and which is the terroristic, barbaric, cult-like, non-democratic society with zero regard for human life and human rights.

"As of 2013, the State of Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Since the UNHRC's creation in 2006, it has resolved almost as many resolutions condemning Israel alone than on issues for the rest of the world combined. The 45 resolutions comprised almost half (45.9%) of all country-specific resolutions passed by the UNHRC, not counting those under Agenda Item 10 (countries requiring technical assistance)." Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel. And this time period includes: The war in Darfur, Iraq war, Houthi insurgency in Yemen, Chadian Civil War, Fatah–Hamas conflict, Iraqi Civil War, war in Somalia, Libyan civil wars, Syrian civil war, Russo-Ukrainian war, war against ISIS and many many more. You don't see a problem here? Do you not find it concerning that Israel (a liberal democracy) has received more condemnation regarding human rights than Syria, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, China, and Russia all combined?

@Loveeee After our entire discussion, you're going to insist on this absurd terminology? . There's nothing wrong with admitting you chose the wrong words.

I never said there are no problems in Israeli society. Clearly, this guy and his position are a serious problem. Again, as I understand the Israeli society, I think most of them understand this. Those weapons are distributed to emergency squads in difficult areas. The places with equipped and prepared emergency squads were the only ones that were not completely slaughtered in 7/10 in the south of Israel, so I don't hold it against them. I think that presenting this as militarizing settlers is actually misleading.

I believe most Israelis understand this. The discussion about settler violence may be somewhat exaggerated. There are very strong efforts in Israeli society to contain and completely stop such incidents. It does exist, and it is dangerous and disgusting, but I don't believe it's on the scale often portrayed. And there is an issue with appearances in this regard. Anyway, I don't think it's realistic to expect any society, even a Western one, to be entirely free of extremists. I mean, even Europeans and the US struggle with this issue. Just look at what happens in Europe due to a portion of immigrants. Israelis are dealing with a 20% Arab population and an occupation, and yet they have managed to maintain a relatively healthy society. It's a precarious situation for their society, but the last 70 years shows they have managed well enough in this regard. I hope for them I'm not mistaken in my assessment.

I agree that it's important for them to be cautious about it. But note that even after enduring what they have, this individual was condemned across almost the entire political spectrum and got suspended from office. And Hamas terrorists have been glorified in the majority of Palestinian society, including in the West Bank. This is the crucial difference I consistently emphasize here (and nag people about ).