Israel Hamas War, West Bank, Etc. | Hostilities resume

[superrific]

You also continue to focus on Oct 7th as the start date, but there were hundreds of Palestinians killed leading up to Oct 7th in 2023. Do they not matter?

You've asked this question dozens of times now. I think the answer is clearly no. Those hundreds of deaths are inconvenient for the current narrative and thus will those deaths be ignored. They will be given lip service, like, "it was definitely wrong to do that but . . . " There will be no meaningful effort to synthesize these other facts and realities into the narrative that has been spun.

 

[ZenMode]

The answer to any question about "acceptable" civilian deaths should be 0.

In a perfect world, yes, there would never be war to cause civilian deaths.

We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where war happens and civilians are part of the collateral damage of war. So, given that the war IS happening and there IS collateral damage, some of which is in the form of civilians deaths, how many do you believe is an acceptable number at this point?

Even if there was a Hamas leader hiding underground, it is not worth killing dozens of people in a bombing to reach him. That makes no sense. And this isn't a once time thing, it's been happening for nearly 20 months.

Yes, it has been happening for nearly 20 months and will likely continue until Hamas is destroyed or as close to being destroyed as possible.

You also continue to focus on Oct 7th as the start date, but there were hundreds of Palestinians killed leading up to Oct 7th in 2023. Do they not matter?

Yes, because October 7th is by far the largest escalation of violence in the ongoing dispute and is the reason for the current war.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Ah yes, how many of those missiles have actually killed any Israeli civilians? How much damage have those thousands of missiles caused? Now compare that to Israeli missiles. There is no comparison.

and lol at you still believing that it was one of those missiles that blew up a Palestinian hospital after Israel has bombed every hospital since then multiple times.

The only reason Israelis haven’t been killed en masse by those missiles is because Israel invested in a missile defense system. I know it is surprising to learn that one of the two parties in this war actually cares about the lives of its people.

And every single western intelligence outlet independently confirmed that the hospital was blown up by a PIJ rocket. Shame the Palestinians are being bombed by their own people like that.

 

[ZenMode]

You've asked this question dozens of times now. I think the answer is clearly no. Those hundreds of deaths are inconvenient for the current narrative and thus will those deaths be ignored. They will be given lip service, like, "it was definitely wrong to do that but . . . " There will be no meaningful effort to synthesize these other facts and realities into the narrative that has been spun.

What are the alternatives to Israel doing the best they can to minimize civilian deaths? Should they just not respond to the October 7th attack and 'hope' that Hamas has a sudden change of heart and stops being terrorists?

 

[superrific]

What are the alternatives to doing Israel doing the best they can to minimize civilian deaths? Should they just not respond to the October 7th attack and 'hope' that Hamas has a sudden change of heart and stops being terrorists?

1. Well, India did that after the horrifying Mumbai massacre. They responded diplomatically, but did not give the terrorists the big counterattack the terrorists wanted.

The terrorism died down almost immediately thereafter. Then Modi came in with his race- and religion-baiting and tensions gradually increased and now they have come to a head. but the "non-response" to the Mumbai attacks stands as probably the most effective response to a major escalation this century.

2. The thing that the "hit them back" crowd doesn't seem to grasp is that the terrorists know it's coming. Not only that, they want it to come. It's not as if they are idiots who think, "we'll infiltrate, and kill 1000 of their people, and they will do nothing to us." They kill 1000 people in order to start a war, because war serves their purposes. This isn't to say that retaliation is never in order, but it just shouldn't the default, go-to position every time. As Gandhi said, eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

3. We don't get enough study (or reporting on) the sociology of terrorism. To understand terrorism, of course, you have to understand the terrorists. We usually approach this from the perspective of the young recruited suicidal bomber. But what about the top brass?

Here's something worth thinking: both the military wing of the IRA and Hamas REALLY did not want to disarm. It took almost a decade for Sinn Fein, having recognized the need for peace and an end to the troubles, to convince the terrorists to lay down arms. Same with Hamas, probably considerably more so. Is that because the IRA and Hamas are similar organizations? Not at all. Their enemies are very different; their complaints very different; their identities very different. And yet. Throw in the PKK into the mix as well. Why can't these leaders see the right thing to do?

When you think about the terrorist leaders as human actors, the answer becomes obvious: they are soldiers, and what is a soldier when the war is over? Nothing. Hamas leaders have given their lives for the struggle. To call off the struggle, then, requires a huge act of self-sacrifice. Are the people who ascend to the top of terrorist organizations likely to be invested in self-sacrifice? I would think not. Thus do they keep fighting; they literally have nothing else in their lives.

This also explains the bizarre persistence of tiny factional groups that persist in their fight even after history had long abandoned them. I'm thinking here about Shining Path in Peru, among other splinter groups. Shining Path has been engaged in an insurrection against the imperialist lackey Peruvian government since 1980. Fine -- in 1980, the prospect for revolution was bright enough to spawn many insurgencies in various places around the globe. I wouldn't have agreed with them, but whatever. Anyway, Shining Path has had less than 500 members for over a decade. And yet they are still out there in the mountains, doing some kidnappings and preaching against capitalist oppression and even the occasional bombing. Why? What are they hoping to achieve? I would say: nothing. They are just doing what they do. They're finishing their careers, so to speak.

4. In order for terrorist policy to be effective, we need to take better account of this phenomenon. An economist might call this the "agency costs of terrorist organizations," not unlike the agency costs of government officials or corporate executives. I've chosen not to feature that terminology because it seems a bit perverse to think of Hamas as an agency cost issue, but whatever.

I don't have any concrete ideas on what policies need to change as a result of these considerations. I do think it should be a significant consideration, much more than it appears to be now. Two possible lessons that might be taken, which point in contradictory ways:

A. You cannot assault a terrorist group into submission. The terrorists live to fight.
B. The terrorists are likely to continue terror until either some superior political force supplants them (e.g. the rise of Sinn Fein to dominate the IRA) or they are dead.

 

[ZenMode]

1. Well, India did that after the horrifying Mumbai massacre. They responded diplomatically, but did not give the terrorists the big counterattack the terrorists wanted.

Ok.

The terrorism died down almost immediately thereafter. Then Modi came in with his race- and religion-baiting and tensions gradually increased and now they have come to a head. but the "non-response" to the Mumbai attacks stands as probably the most effective response to a major escalation this century.

The difference here is that is that neither October 7th, nor the previous Hamas attacks on Israel, are just one-off terrorist attacks due to "general dislike" for Jews or Western culture or whatever. They are tied the fact that Israel is occupying Muslim holy land.

2. The thing that the "hit them back" crowd doesn't seem to grasp is that the terrorists know it's coming. Not only that, they want it to come. It's not as if they are idiots who think, "we'll infiltrate, and kill 1000 of their people, and they will do nothing to us." They kill 1000 people in order to start a war, because war serves their purposes. This isn't to say that retaliation is never in order, but it just shouldn't the default, go-to position every time. As Gandhi said, eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

3. We don't get enough study (or reporting on) the sociology of terrorism. To understand terrorism, of course, you have to understand the terrorists. We usually approach this from the perspective of the young recruited suicidal bomber. But what about the top brass?

Here's something worth thinking: both the military wing of the IRA and Hamas REALLY did not want to disarm. It took almost a decade for Sinn Fein, having recognized the need for peace and an end to the troubles, to convince the terrorists to lay down arms. Same with Hamas, probably considerably more so. Is that because the IRA and Hamas are similar organizations? Not at all. Their enemies are very different; their complaints very different; their identities very different. And yet. Throw in the PKK into the mix as well. Why can't these leaders see the right thing to do?

When you think about the terrorist leaders as human actors, the answer becomes obvious: they are soldiers, and what is a soldier when the war is over? Nothing. Hamas leaders have given their lives for the struggle. To call off the struggle, then, requires a huge act of self-sacrifice. Are the people who ascend to the top of terrorist organizations likely to be invested in self-sacrifice? I would think not. Thus do they keep fighting; they literally have nothing else in their lives.

This also explains the bizarre persistence of tiny factional groups that persist in their fight even after history had long abandoned them. I'm thinking here about Shining Path in Peru, among other splinter groups. Shining Path has been engaged in an insurrection against the imperialist lackey Peruvian government since 1980. Fine -- in 1980, the prospect for revolution was bright enough to spawn many insurgencies in various places around the globe. I wouldn't have agreed with them, but whatever. Anyway, Shining Path has had less than 500 members for over a decade. And yet they are still out there in the mountains, doing some kidnappings and preaching against capitalist oppression and even the occasional bombing. Why? What are they hoping to achieve? I would say: nothing. They are just doing what they do. They're finishing their careers, so to speak.

4. In order for terrorist policy to be effective, we need to take better account of this phenomenon. An economist might call this the "agency costs of terrorist organizations," not unlike the agency costs of government officials or corporate executives. I've chosen not to feature that terminology because it seems a bit perverse to think of Hamas as an agency cost issue, but whatever.

I don't have any concrete ideas on what policies need to change as a result of these considerations. I do think it should be a significant consideration, much more than it appears to be now. Two possible lessons that might be taken, which point in contradictory ways:

A. You cannot assault a terrorist group into submission. The terrorists live to fight.
B. The terrorists are likely to continue terror until either some superior political force supplants them (e.g. the rise of Sinn Fein to dominate the IRA) or they are dead.

Based on the entirety of your response, I'm left to believe that, in your opinion, Israel should essentially do nothing in response to 10/7?

 

[superrific]

Ok.

The difference here is that is that neither October 7th, nor the previous Hamas attacks on Israel, are just one-off terrorist attacks due to "general dislike" for Jews or Western culture or whatever. They are tied the fact that Israel is occupying Muslim holy land.

Based on the entirety of your response, I'm left to believe that, in your opinion, Israel should essentially do nothing in response to 10/7?

The Mumbai attacks were part of a longstanding terrorist campaign over disputed land. Kashmir isn't exactly "holy" but it's pretty close in importance. India has been dealing with terrorism for the same amount of time as Israel. We just didn't pay much attention because it's only recently that we've had a significant domestic population with ties to South Asia.

As for your last point, have you really learned nothing at all about me over all these posts? My opinion is that I don't know nearly enough about the situation on the ground to know what Israel should have done. I would have looked for options between "do absolutely nothing" (which isn't what India did; it did plenty, but not militarily -- though it's doubtful those solutions would work in Gaza) and "destroy and/or ethnically cleanse Gaza." It is entirely unclear to me that the Israeli cabinet has ever realistically given consideration to other alternatives. Pretty much everything Israel has done is consistent with that maximalist goal and inconsistent with anything more targeted and narrow.

I can say that the current treatment of Palestinians is evil, illegal and in no way justified. A policy of forced or induced starvation/extreme hunger is wrong, full stop. It should never exist. Full stop. It's the sort of thing we expect from savages in Darfur, not a supposedly civilized government. It doesn't matter how horrible O7 was. Food blockades are wrong. Forcing malnutition and hunger upon a population is evil, and there's nothing more to say about it. I don't even have to get into some of the other stuff to condemn this with as much outrage as I have.

It's not as if forced starvation has never been used as an oppressive tactic. Famously Stalin did to Ukraine. Famously Mao did it (though some of that was incompetence, not retribution). Now Israel joins those two luminaries in the Evil Deeds Hall Of Fame.

 

[ZenMode]

The Mumbai attacks were part of a longstanding terrorist campaign over disputed land. Kashmir isn't exactly "holy" but it's pretty close in importance. India has been dealing with terrorism for the same amount of time as Israel. We just didn't pay much attention because it's only recently that we've had a significant domestic population with ties to South Asia.

As for your last point, have you really learned nothing at all about me over all these posts? My opinion is that I don't know nearly enough about the situation on the ground to know what Israel should have done. I would have looked for options between "do absolutely nothing" (which isn't what India did; it did plenty, but not militarily -- though it's doubtful those solutions would work in Gaza) and "destroy and/or ethnically cleanse Gaza." It is entirely unclear to me that the Israeli cabinet has ever realistically given consideration to other alternatives. Pretty much everything Israel has done is consistent with that maximalist goal and inconsistent with anything more targeted and narrow.

I can say that the current treatment of Palestinians is evil, illegal and in no way justified. A policy of forced or induced starvation/extreme hunger is wrong, full stop. It should never exist. Full stop. It's the sort of thing we expect from savages in Darfur, not a supposedly civilized government. It doesn't matter how horrible O7 was. Food blockades are wrong. Forcing malnutition and hunger upon a population is evil, and there's nothing more to say about it. I don't even have to get into some of the other stuff to condemn this with as much outrage as I have.

It's not as if forced starvation has never been used as an oppressive tactic. Famously Stalin did to Ukraine. Famously Mao did it (though some of that was incompetence, not retribution). Now Israel joins those two luminaries in the Evil Deeds Hall Of Fame.

I agree about the denial of aid/food, but I'm not talking about just that portion. I'm talking about whether or not a military response to 10/7 is justified and whether or not the corresponding civilian deaths are reasonable or excessive.

 

[RaiGuy]

In a perfect world, yes, there would never be war to cause civilian deaths.

We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where war happens and civilians are part of the collateral damage of war. So, given that the war IS happening and there IS collateral damage, some of which is in the form of civilians deaths, how many do you believe is an acceptable number at this point?

My answer will always be 0. Maybe it's different for me because i know many people from there and many are families of my friends. None of them are dispensable to be "collateral damage". How many of your family, or family of friends would you be ok sacrificing to potentially eliminate a terrorist?
How else would you expect me to answer that question?

Yes, it has been happening for nearly 20 months and will likely continue until Hamas is destroyed or as close to being destroyed as possible.

Again, how will we know when that is done? Does Israel have the latest Hamas roster? You can't destroy an ideology without changing the status quo.

Yes, because October 7th is by far the largest escalation of violence in the ongoing dispute and is the reason for the current war.

By escalation of violence, you mean for the white people. It's clear by your statements and your questions that Palestinian deaths mean nothing to you, except that they are an "unfortunate cost of war". Why don't you call the Israeli deaths an "unfortunate cost of war"?

 

[superrific]

I'm talking about whether or not a military response to 10/7 is justified and whether or not the corresponding civilian deaths are reasonable or excessive.

You know me to be someone who wants to have a sound basis for my opinions where possible.

What basis do you suggest for any opinion on this question. How am I supposed to know what type of response is justified when I don't know the details that would factor into that decision? My instinct was that a military response was justified and the civilian deaths were excessive. Those are simplistic positions that prove very little -- given that the important question is how much and what type of military response.

I reiterate: none of us know nearly enough to make sophisticated judgments about thorny tactical and strategic issues. That's why it's important for us (and other countries) to elect leaders who are capable and responsible enough to make those judgments. Obviously Trump is not; nor W before him (at least until W realized how Rummy was manipulating him). Clearly Obama was. Even if you disagree with some of the judgments, they were made in good faith with full information and careful deliberation.

One reason that I am so skeptical of Israel and its motives is that its government is made up of Laura Loomer types. Crazy, uninformed people who are where they are because of the hate they espouse. Elect Greater Judea ideologues, and you're going to get a policy that's wonderful for Greater Judea and really shitty for people living through this conflict.

 

[RaiGuy]

The only reason Israelis haven’t been killed en masse by those missiles is because Israel invested in a missile defense system. I know it is surprising to learn that one of the two parties in this war actually cares about the lives of its people.

And every single western intelligence outlet independently confirmed that the hospital was blown up by a PIJ rocket. Shame the Palestinians are being bombed by their own people like that.

Ah yes, the old "Palestinians are savages and want their loved ones killed" myth. Maybe the Palestinians should invest in a missile defense system. Oh wait, they can't, they aren't allowed anything to defend themselves.

We have discussed this a million times. The western intelligence outlets were basing their theories on Israeli intelligence. Tell me, which of those agencies were actually allowed to enter to investigate? And who was blocking them from entering? I am done talking about this point because a wall has better listening skills.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Ah yes, the old "Palestinians are savages and want their loved ones killed" myth. Maybe the Palestinians should invest in a missile defense system. Oh wait, they can't, they aren't allowed anything to defend themselves.

We have discussed this a million times. The western intelligence outlets were basing their theories on Israeli intelligence. Tell me, which of those agencies were actually allowed to enter to investigate? And who was blocking them from entering? I am done talking about this point because a wall has better listening skills.

Yes we have discussed this a million times, and you have repeated the same debunked Hamas conspiracy theories each time. Tell me, what kind of bomb that is dropped from an aircraft doesn't leave a crater or any discernable damage aside from a broken window? The intelligence is clear - the Palestinians accidentally bombed their own hospital while launching rockets towards Israel. This wasn't based on Israeli intelligence. It was based on forensic analysis of video and photographic evidence from the scene, satellite imagery, and videos from PIJ launching rockets towards the hospital moments before it was hit. An estimated 20% of Palestinian rockets never make it to Israel and hit Palestinian territories instead. So perhaps you should ask Hamas why instead of investing in defense they have invested in terror tools that often hit and kill their own people? I think we both know the answer to that question.

 

[ZenMode]

My answer will always be 0. Maybe it's different for me because i know many people from there and many are families of my friends. None of them are dispensable to be "collateral damage". How many of your family, or family of friends would you be ok sacrificing to potentially eliminate a terrorist?
How else would you expect me to answer that question?

I agree that no civilian lives are dispensable. That can be true and we can acknowledge that a) wars happen and b) civilians will die as a result.

Your claim has been, basically since the beginning, that Israel is "targeting" civilians and you've question nearly every reported action by Israel that resulted in a civilian being killed. So, while you personally may have a vested interest in civilians and civilian deaths in Gaza and you may believe, in theory, that no civilian should ever die in war, that is independent from your claims about Israel and the claims of their wroingdoing, seemingly by virtue of the fact that there's a single civilian death.

So, objectively speaking, what would be an acceptable number of civilian deaths at this point in the war?

Again, how will we know when that is done? Does Israel have the latest Hamas roster? You can't destroy an ideology without changing the status quo.

That is a separate discussion from what, in your opinion, is an acceptable number of deaths per day or total, or through 20 months of war, given the logistics of the war.

By escalation of violence, you mean for the white people. It's clear by your statements and your questions that Palestinian deaths mean nothing to you

I have no opinion about Palestinian or Israeli civilian lives other than the fact that they are being needlessly killed.

, except that they are an "unfortunate cost of war". Why don't you call the Israeli deaths an "unfortunate cost of war"?

The Israeli deaths weren't an "unfortunate cost of war". The Israeli civilians were the intended target of the Hamas attack.

 

[RaiGuy]

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Cool. Now do Hamas.

 

[RaiGuy]

Cool. Now do Hamas.

Huh? Your default answer is what about Hamas and that makes no sense here. Show me an example of them committing a genocide. I won’t hold my breath.
Also, just because Hamas is shit, doesn’t excuse Israel to be worse.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Huh? Your default answer is what about Hamas and that makes no sense here. Show me an example of them committing a genocide. I won’t hold my breath.
Also, just because Hamas is shit, doesn’t excuse Israel to be worse.

Their stated goal is to murder every Israeli man, woman, and child. Their incompetence does not excuse them.

 

[RaiGuy]

Their stated goal is to murder every Israeli man, woman, and child. Their incompetence does not excuse them.

But Israel is actively doing it by bombing and starving the whole population. But you’re fine with that because Hamas. You really are brainwashed.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

But Israel is actively doing it by bombing and starving the whole population. But you’re fine with that because Hamas. You really are brainwashed.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[superrific]

Their stated goal is to murder every Israeli man, woman, and child. Their incompetence does not excuse them.

That would put them on the hook for attempted genocide, which isn't a thing.

Look: I have no particular rooting interest here because they all suck. What I know is that there is no way to describe Hamas as genocidal. Again, attempted genocide maybe, but what they have actually done is nowhere close. They don't have that kind of power. It would be like describing 9/11 as a genocide. It wasn't.

It's obviously not a question of incompetence. Being able to conduct a genocide is a very dark way of complimenting a nation's power but it's kind of true. Germany could kill that many Jews because it controlled most of Europe. Even if the leaders of San Marino wanted to conduct a genocide, how? They don't have the power to do it if they tried. If you mean their intent is abhorrent even if they are unable to act on it, I agree.

I've been skeptical in the past about describing Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal, even as reprehensible as they are. But what they are doing now with the blockade and mass starvation absolutely qualifies. It's also a crime against humanity, which amounts to the same thing. Anyone involved in making or executing this policy would be properly sentenced to death at a Nuremberg style hearing if one ever were to happen.