Of course, a lot of criticism of Israel is rooted in antisemitism. But saying all criticism of Israel is antisemitic deflects legitimate criticism, and makes it harder to identify legitimate antisemitism.

Who is saying this? All I've heard are people on one side insisting that people are saying this, sounds like a straw man

1. https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres894/BILLS-118hres894i...

This is not the same as being critical of that state, being anti-Israel isn't antisemitic (except when it is, obviously), but nor is it anti-Zionism. Saying Netanyahu should be dragged before the Hague, that the international community should demand an immediate ceasefire or force a two-state solution, that Israel must uphold the right of return: none of these are anti-Zionism, nor antisemitic.

If your position is not that Israel must be destroyed, good, don't call yourself anti-Zionist though. If it is, then yes, that's antisemitic, or the word is meaningless.

Similarly, find another slogan besides "From the river to the sea", because that is, in fact, a call to ethnically cleanse all Jews from Israel. It has meant that since the establishment of Israel, and you don't get to wander in and say it means something different at this point. If you don't mean that, don't say it. Find literally any other way to express yourself.

I think being anti-Zionist means being against both prongs, meaning that there should no longer be a Jewish state. Given the practical implications of that, it seems hard to justify without antisemitism.

Wikipedia has a whole section [1] on "View that [anti-Zionism and antisemitism] are not interlinked", but those supporting that view seem to be using an overly-broad definition of anti-Zionism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#View_that_the_two...

Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin is professor of Jewish History at Ben-Gurion University. He criticises Zionism, and promotes binationalism as an alternative–the idea of a single state shared equally by two nations (Arab and Jewish)–also known variously as the "one state solution" or "Israeltine" or "Isratin". [0] Obviously if he had his way, there would no longer be a Jewish state–if by that one means an exclusively Jewish state. But, I find it hard to take seriously the idea that a Jewish Israeli academic is antisemitic – his views may well be impractical and overly idealistic, but where is the evidence he's an antisemite? And I think this is just one example of the several different forms of contemporary non-antisemitic opposition to Zionism.

[0] https://www.forum-transregionale-studien.de/kommunikation/de...

> [The belief that] the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way

This is very different from "Israel must be destroyed".

Similarly, your interpretation of "From the river to the sea" is extreme. It's only really been a scrutinized slogan since Hamas started using it in 2017. Its previous ~60 years of use were consistently about creating a secular, multi-ethnic, democratic state for all the people inside its borders.

There has never been an official Palestinian position calling for the removal of Jews.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

If we did take that to be the definition of anti-Zionism, then it seems one could be both a Zionist and an anti-Zionist, if they supported the existence of a Jewish state but didn't approve of the particular way Israel was established.

Anti-Zionism was the mainstream Orthodox Jewish position prior to the Holocaust; and contemporary mainstream Haredi anti-Zionism essentially continues that historical position largely unchanged. According to that viewpoint, it is a sin to establish a Jewish-ruled state in Eretz Yisrael prior to the coming of the Messiah. So, classical Jewish anti-Zionism supports the existence of a Jewish state (in the future messianic age) but doesn’t approve of the particular way Israel was established (by mostly secular Zionists in 1948 instead of by a divinely appointed Messiah at some point in the future). Still, it clearly is an anti-Zionist position not a Zionist one.

The majority of contemporary Haredim are neither anti-Zionist (the mainstream being Satmar, Edah HaCharedeis, Central Rabbinical Congress, and then there are extremists such as Neturei Karta) nor explicitly Zionist (as in the Hardal), rather non-Zionist. Haredi non-Zionists agree with the anti-Zionists that the 1948 creation of the State of Israel was a sin, but now it exists, they say (contrary to the anti-Zionists) that it is okay to cooperate with it by voting in its elections, running candidates in the Knesset, accepting its handouts, etc. Sometimes the boundary between non-Zionism and soft Zionism is rather murky - my impression is that is particularly true of contemporary Chabad, whose non-Zionism has grown closer to Zionism over time

I think there is an important (but often ignored) distinction here between theory and practice - whatever one thinks of the rights or wrongs of Zionism as an ideology in the abstract, doesn’t necessarily decide one’s practical attitude towards the State of Israel - e.g. a person (whether Jewish or non-Jewish, whether in Israel/Palestine or on the opposite side of the planet) can theoretically oppose Zionism as an erroneous ideology, yet simultaneously decide to support the State of Israel on pragmatic grounds-and there is no necessary logical inconsistency in that

Say one supported the establishment of Israel in Palestine in 1948, but took issue with the expulsion of Palestinians from some areas. How would you characterize their view? In my mind it's still a Zionist view, not anti-Zionist (or both?) as the definition above would suggest.

What I’m saying is that position could be either Zionist, anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist, depending on the particular reasons why one thinks it was “flawed or unjust in some way”

The phrase was also used by the Israeli ruling Likud party as part of their 1977 election manifesto which stated "Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

So it hasn't always meant that, really.

That’s not true. Rebbe Teitelbaum was an anti-Zionist, he opposed the creation of the modern state of Israel as sinful, and he opposed Haredi Jews cooperating with the state (such as by being elected to the Knesset or accepting government benefits.) But he did not support the physical destruction of Jewish communities in Eretz Yisrael. And that remains to this day the mainstream anti-Zionist position of Satmar, Edah HaChareidis in Israel, and the Central Rabbinical Congress in North America - the belief that the existence of the state of Israel is a sin, and that it is a sin for Jews to cooperate with it, but at the same time strongly condemning extremist anti-Zionist groups such as Neturei Karta who ally with non-Jews who seek to physically harm Jews who live there, and rejecting any cooperation with the Palestinian cause-Rebbe Teitelbaum viewed his anti-Zionism as an internal Jewish issue, and in any violent conflict between Jews and non-Jews he would pray for the Jewish side, even though those Jews happened to be his Zionist opponents.

As well as mainstream Haredi anti-Zionism, there are other varieties of anti-Zionism which don’t entail support for the physical destruction of Israel. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Some people have a principled ideological opposition to all forms of nationalism - they are anti-nationalists - and a consistent anti-nationalist must also be an anti-Zionist. That principled opposition to all nationalist ideologies does not entail any particular position on practical questions, and is completely compatible with pacifism, and hoping that the majority of the population of Israel/Palestine eventually comes to peacefully reject nationalism.

Nationalism comes in many varieties - civic, linguistic, ethnic, religious, ethnoreligious, etc - and Zionism is a nationalism of the ethnoreligious kind. As well as anti-nationalists who consistently oppose all nationalisms, there are also those who support some types but oppose others - for example, many civic nationalists have a principled opposition to non-civic nationalisms. A consistent civic nationalist who took such a position would have to be an anti-Zionist, but would have no in-principle objection to Israeli civic nationalism.

It is undeniable that many people who identify as “anti-Zionist” do end up espousing antisemitic views, and sometimes even use “anti-Zionist” as a more socially acceptable synonym for antisemite - at the same time, there are several ways someone can be anti-Zionist without necessarily being antisemitic, and many people who are. The kind of simplistic equation “all anti-Zionism is antisemitism” which the US Congress is promoting here is a horrendously ignorant oversimplification

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Israel#Suppressio...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/05/0...

[1] https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1720501916088590704

There are plenty of people in Israel who are opposed to Netanyahu and were protesting against him before the war started, but don't doubt that destroying Hamas is justified.

What does "making peace" with Israel look like? Why don't you consider the West Bank to be at peace with Israel?

Was modern Israel established by making peace with its occupants?

Israel was established by consent of the legal owner of Palestine that day, British Empire, and was attacked by what you would call Palestinians today (Arabs living in former British Palestine) on the first day of existence - and never had a day of peace since then.

I in all honesty don't know what peace could look like today. It should embrace recognition of State of Israel in its borders (that's the easy part, but was never delivered from the Arab side) and realistic guarantees that it will not be attacked again (that one is hard).

What state attacked what state?

Gaza is not a state, Hamas is not a state government, it's a terrorist organization.

But also, what of the West bank, which has been at peace with Israel for decades. Why don't the Arabs living there have rights? Why are they without state? Because of the actions of terrorists in gaza? Should you share a punishment because you share an ethnicity?

Wannabe Palestinian state in 1948. Alliance of Arabic states in 1967. That's irrelevant detail IMO.

> Hamas is not a state government, it's a terrorist organization.

Tell that WHO that sees Hamas Ministry of Health as reliable source of information. Or current leadership of the West Bank that sees Hamas as legitimate partners moving on.

> Why are they without state?

Because they themselves don't see themselves separate from Gaza population. Never in the history did the leadership of West Bank go to Israel and say "we recognize you as a state, and want to make peace with you. Oh, and don't worry about Gaza, they don't have anything in common with us apart from ethnicity". Without recognition it's not a peace, it's a forced ceasefire.

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are orthogonal ideas. Conflation of them is pure propaganda.

[1] "Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

Why is it weird to mention non-Israeli jews when being Anti-zionist? The point is to NOT conflate Zionism with being Jewish.

The matter of what should happen in Israel/Palestine is separate from this discussion. Anyway, they wouldn't (in theory) necessarily have to go anywhere. Jews and Arabs could have lived together in a single democratic country where one religion/ethnicity isn't favored over another.

Israel can and should be a place for Jews to be safe but it doesn't have to be favor one religion or ethnicity. I think Anti-semitism can be controlled especially in a place with a large minority (or even majority) of Jewish peoples.

Before the founding of Israel, Jews, Christians and Muslims generally co-existed with tolerance in the Middle East.

As for peacefully coexisting, would you say that Christians and Muslims peacefully coexisted in Ottoman Balkans too?

Sorry, I don't know about Christians and Muslims in the Ottoman Balkans.. I was more talking about Jews and others in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc.

Ottoman rule in Balkans was quite horrific. E.g. Christian’s having to pay tax in young kids most of whom would never see home again. Yet it was rather peaceful with ottomans enforcing the peace :)

I’m not that familiar with Jews in Middle East up to 19th century. But IIRC there were plenty of pogroms. And taxes differentiated by religion was common in most Muslim regimes. As well as overall relation with government, ability to make a career etc.

And you’re conflating being pro-Palestine with being anti-Zionist :)

At least, if one discussed pro- or anti-Israel sentiments, it’s a little bit clear what “Israel” means. It’s a country, with something vaguely resembling identifiable borders, with a particular government, citizens, a military, etc.

What, exactly, is “Palestine” if one is pro-Palestine or anti-Palestine? Is it the people? (If so, which people? Those who lived in the area currently known as Israel + Gaza + the West Bank and their descendants, but not the descendants of the Jews who settled in the region since the Zionist movement got started? Is it Palestinian refugees as defined by UNRWA? Is it the current civilization in Gaza and the West Bank? What about the multigenerational refugees in camps in nearby countries? [0]. Is it the land itself? Is it the current governments (plural!)? Is it the idea that Israel ought not to exist? (If so, what does Israel not existing even mean?). Is it the idea that innocent Gazans ought not to feel safe in their homes and have access to food, clean water, electricity, and medicine?

The whole situation is an unbelievable mess, both because the present situation is a mess and the history is a mess. I don’t a critically considered opinion can be summarized by a single hyphenated term or even two of them.

[0] Yes, there are people born in refugee camps in a couple of neighboring countries who are somehow not citizens of those countries. From a US perspective, this is very strange. The descendants of people who fled to the US are most definitely citizens. I don’t think most of them consider themselves to be refugees, nor do many other people consider them to be refugees, nor do they live in refugee camps.

Even this definition is associated with what seems to me to be a biased agenda, for two different reasons.

First, while the history seems pretty muddled, I don’t think all the people (or their ancestors, anyway) were forced out of what is modern Israel, nor is it particularly clear that Israel or those fighting on Israel’s side did anywhere near 100% of the forcing.

Second, there’s something quite bizarre about the “elsewhere” part of this. As an analogy, there’s a rather notable war going on, and there is a group of opinions referred to as “pro-Russian.” I suspect that most people with Russian ancestors but who live far from Russia, including those whose ancestors were, in some sense, forced out, do not want to be lumped in with the “pro-Russian” opinion. A lot of them don’t identify as Russian except by heritage. None of them get to vote in Russian elections, I imagine that very few of them would want to vote in Russian elections, and precious few indeed would want anything to do with a unified Russian + Ukraine.

Now I don’t know how actual people of Palestinian heritage but who live far from Palestine feel, and I bet it’s generally pretty complicated. But I think a lot of nuance is lost here.

Here’s an interesting article:

https://rli.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2021/07/20/refugee-ever-after-wh...

I also don't think Russia/Ukraine is comparable to Israel/Gaza. I find it hard to believe Palestinians living far from Gaza/West Bank/Middle East would have anything but total sympathy for those in Gaza... but that's just a feeling.

Thanks for the link.

I’m mainly saying that calling that opinion “Pro-Palestine” or “Pro-Palestinian” seems problematic. There has been no particular shortage of screaming matches in the US in which people accuse other people of being horrible for not being correctly pro- or anti- the right things, and I think this encourages factionalism where none need exist.

My point re: Russia and Ukraine isn’t that that situations are analogous. It’s that one’s heritage may be quite different from where one is now, what views one has, where one wants to live, etc.

US citizenship law says that everyone born in the US is a citizen of the US (jus soli, "right of the soil"). (With some rare and obscure exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.) But, most countries worldwide don't define citizenship in terms of birthplace, they define define it in terms of descent. So it doesn't matter if you are born in the country, you are only a citizen if at least one of your parents is (jus sanguinis, "right of the blood"). So the real reason it is strange is because the US is unusual by global standards, not because what is happening in these countries is really that unusual by those standards.

If you look at the Middle East, most countries in that region define citizenship in terms of descent not birthplace – which can result in people who have lived in the same place for generations but lack citizenship. It occurs in cases which have nothing to do with Israel-Palestine at all - for example, the stateless "Bidoon" people of Kuwait. It also occurs in Israel - Israeli law says that (non-Jewish) people born in Israel's sovereign territory only become Israeli citizens if one of their parents is, with the result that the majority of Arabs/Palestinians who live in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are living in land which Israel legally claims to have annexed (not merely militarily occupied), yet without Israeli citizenship – Israeli law says they have to apply for naturalisation, most don't want to, and even of those who do apply, only around a third have their applications approved (commonly denied either due to insufficient fluency in Hebrew, or vaguely defined "security reasons").

The goal, in my opinion, is division. Without it, they have nothing.

Peace above all!

So Israel = Jews. Without it, even in the USA genocide of the Jews will start promptly. Those university presidents just proved so.

It's sad, and in the long run completely self-defeating, but nobody seems to realize that. The more Israel and their lobby overreacts to honest, legitimate and peaceful critique of their actions, the more extreme that the responses will inevitably be....especially in times like these where Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be angry with Israel, and when Israel's citizenry has the right to be angry with their government.

Nobody is right, and everyone is wrong. Everyone has blood on their hands. Pretending otherwise is dumb. Likud and Hamas are responsible, not the innocent Israelis nor the innocent Palestinians.

Fuck Hamas, fuck Likud.

With Palestine and Israel, we were able to see it with our own eyes. I remember specifically watching TikToks of a teenage girl in Gaza posting about the evacuations, hearing the bombs in the background, etc. It felt "real" to us, which is a terrible way to put it, but I believe that is why the protests are much larger than other conflicts.

We, as a world, are seeing civilian life and casualties during a war in near real-time. This is something that many of us have never experienced before.

Good question. 75 years of history those other two conflicts lack

If we compare # of people in each country. 10/07 for Israel was like 15 9/11s (this is a quote from a President Biden speech).

So not only is it worth asking - how many Americans didnt want to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But how many would be against some sort of war like that, if tomorrow morning they woke up to a 9/11 sized attack in 15 of the biggest US cities, happening at the same time

Not only did the US go far from home to destroy Afghanistan, but the whole world joined them to do it together

> Iraq never attacked anyone

I am not sure Kuwait would agree.

[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/9994/public-opinion-war-afghani...

US foreign policy isn't nice or morally sound, but one thing it was not doing in the run-up to 9/11 and its subsequent invasion of Afghanistan was directly fucking up Afghani lives and killing Afghani children. Same can't be said for Israel in its relationship to the Palestinians.

But that said, I agree with your general point: The relationship between the US and Afghanistan is and was very different to the relationship between Israel and Palestine.

Indirectly, perhaps, but yeah, not directly and not with basically the purpose of fucking them up.

A lot of people were upset about China and the Uyghurs as well, for a while, but not until after it became a thing influencers talked about. And then they stopped caring after social media moved on. Even on HN, where anti-China sentiment is rampant, people no longer seem to mention it.

They secretly introduced nuclear weapons into the Middle East and refused to sign any of the treaties which are responsible for humanities current existence.

According to Snowden the NSA provides them with whatever data they'd like, even that on Americans, without any filtering whatsoever.

Bibi clowned all over Obama for years and yet he still had to agree with nearly every policy he pushed. Biden has been practically begging them to cut back on West Bank settlements. They won't even meet us there and still we send over money for them to do whatever they please.

As an American it's embarrassing.

However, criticizing our government as weak would require believing it cares about Palestinian lives in the first place, which is a highly questionable assumption at this point.

Now, remember - you are running Israel. And, most people on the right agree with you that there should just be one land, one humanity.

But, the folks in the camps - they don't want to surrender and accept citizenship to your "one land, one humanity" country.

Or do something else, I don't care; at this point one has to try anything but this slow-motion ethnic cleansing and "two states" bantustans.

There are Arabs who are full citizens of Israel, who have elected representatives in the Israeli parliament. There are also Arab judges in the Israeli supreme court. Oh, and the population of the muslim Arab citizens of Israel is much greater now than when Israel was formed. So, no ethnic cleansing there.

The Arab population in the Palestinian areas has also multiplied. So, no ethnic cleansing there either.

Israel is good at many things but it seems to be really bad at ethnic cleansing.

But they don't live in the occupied territories, duh. They are also second-class citizens de-facto, with a constant need to go through the courts to do everything they are technically entitled to but denied in practice. They are a fifth of the population but don't express anything near a fifth of the ruling classes - to pick the example you chose, 1 out of 15 supreme court judges is Arab.

It's very much like the condition of black people in the "separated but equal" era in the US, when theoretical legal equality was simply denied in the field.

> the population of the muslim Arab citizens of Israel is much greater now than when Israel was formed.

And this is the source of much public anguish in Israeli public discourse.

> The Arab population in the Palestinian areas has also multiplied.

But their land keeps shrinking. The land claimed by settlements is cleansed indeed.

> it seems to be really bad at ethnic cleansing.

Attempted murder is still a crime.

Answering more to the spirit of the question: I believe that the situation between Israel and Palestinians is broken and can't be fixed until something unexpected happens. Neither side has an acceptable way forward.

As a rule of thumb, people who talk about right and wrong don't want peace. Those concepts are far more useful for justifying wars than ending them. Peace is achieved by compromises that make both parties lose interest in the war. There was a genuine desire for peace in the 90s, but it failed, because nobody could find an acceptable compromise. The leaders of both parties realized that the sacrifices required to make the compromise acceptable to the other side were worse than status quo.

There are so many other conflicts going on with many more dead, but if it's not interracial then somehow it is not talked about.

I'd note the Ukranians worked very hard to draw attention to their war as well, and they were quite successful at that.

- Jerusalem (and more globally Israel and Palestine) is holly for Jews, Muslims and Christians ; more than half of the word population and more than 90% of US population

- Israel is a key ally of the USA, and this is a topic important in US politics for long time - including for some evangelical voters for religious question

- Westerners have colonized (or inflicted violence to) most of the non western countries on this planet in "recent" history... Israel is seen by some as a Western country colonizing just another developing country, with support of other western countries... echoing recent history for many. It is as such a symbol for a long time.

- USA, France... have had some big Islamist attack, what happened in Israel echoed to this for some people... and echoes to the clash of civilization western word vs Muslim which is central in the ideology of a growing number of westerners

- It is easier to understand, more divisive, with more people or causes we can identify with, than in Syria (everybody hates ISIS) or Yemen (arabs fighting arabs fighting other arabs in a desert ?)... And we have more images

Imagine if you will someone going to start large scale bombing NYC. Or London. Or Rome.

The Hamas attack was unprecedented and horrific. I don’t know that it justifies declaring all out war on and entire city.

I can say that without being anti-Semitic.

In Gaza, Hamas may be preventing civilians from leaving (but I’m not there to verify). It would help to have civilian corridors into the south and into Egypt, but again that’s not in the best interests of Hamas.

I’d like the IDF to do their best. They are indeed responsible for trying not to kill civilians. There’s only so much they can do, short of a so-called “ceasefire”.

Such a corridor is in nobodies interest but Israels, as they would happily expel the entire Gaza population and then forbid them from returning. It's not like high ranking Israeli officials haven't alluded or outright said this, and Israel has quite a history of illegal annexation in the West Bank.

Providing such a corridor would just be asssisting in ethnic cleansing.

I have to say that it's also unclear to me personally whether the current rate of civilian deaths could be justified under any circumstances. Since Israel has not stated what it wants the end-goal of the war to be, we don't know how it could justify it either.

This is clearly not the case - the IDF is still actively fighting Hamas militants, Hamas is still firing rockets at Israel, IDF soldiers are getting killed every day, etc. Not to mention, the population itself is not fully cooperating with the IDF, I believe.

For contrast, Israel has ordered many Israelis to leave areas for their own protection, I believe around 100-150k Israelis have evacuated their homes. No one is talking about them being "ethnically cleansed", and whil there is internal political pressure to help them, no one thinks it's immoral that they were asked to relocate. Clearly the situation in Gaza is different, because many people are outraged that Gazans were similarly asked to evacuate their cities for their own protection.

> I have to say that it's also unclear to me personally whether the current rate of civilian deaths could be justified under any circumstances. Since Israel has not stated what it wants the end-goal of the war to be, we don't know how it could justify it either.

Israel has stated it wants the hostages returned, and Hamas destroyed. Whether this is achievable, or what exactly counts as "Hamas being destroyed", are open questions, but not impossible to answer. (And frustrating as it is, it makes sense that Israel doesn't want to publicize its exact goals.)

Regarding the rate of civilian deaths - this if of course hard to exactly know, given the incentive of both sides to manipulate numbers. I trust the Israeli side far more, and I think everyone should given that the other side is Hamas, but I'm also obviously biased.

That said, the IDF has said it thinks it's killing 2 civilians per 1 Hamas fighter. This is a ratio that, as far as I know, is roughly in line with other conflicts by Western countries. The rate itself is fairly high but it's likely to be far shorter and lead to orders of magnitude less killed than in other conflicts.

I do want to mention that, while I talk about these numbers as statistics, every civilian death is a tragedy. Hell, every death is a tragedy - if Israel could manage to not kill any militants, it would be morally better, because every death is a tragedy.

The idea that this war is winnable seams incredibly naive. The idea that hitting hard now prevents future conflicts is an untested hypothesis at best.

Are there any examples of a war where an entrenched gorilla group with broad civilian support have been successfully "defeated"?

I'm not sure you can call it an entrenched guerilla group given that it is effectively the government of Gaza.

And yes, there are many examples where wars ended when one side surrendered, just to state the obvious, Japan and Germany in WW2.

I don't think an organisation which is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation are a government in any real sense of the word.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making here. More importantly, I'm not sure why you think that makes the war unwinnable. Presumably there is a scenario in which Hamas surrenders, and if not, that Hamas are slowly all taken out. This is a pretty awful scenario, and would probably involve Israel having to govern Gaza for a while, but it is something that can happen.

There's a chance it won't because Hamas doesn't really care about anyone, including its own populace.

The distinction is that militaries typically fight wars on battle fields, even the current Russia / Ukraine war looks like this with battle lines being pushed this way and that way as one side advances or retreats.

There is nothing like that in Gaza. The difference between a Hamas militant and a civilian is simply whether they are currently holding their AK-47.

The more civilians are killed the more angry young men are drawn to the cause. Short of flattening the whole area and killing everyone I don't see an end.

It is much more aptly compared to the battles against Al-Qaida, ISIS or the Vietcong than the Nazis.

Two points we disagree on:

> The difference between a Hamas militant and a civilian is simply whether they are currently holding their AK-47.

That's true in terms of what they seem like visually (which is maybe what you meant). Not true in the sense that most Gazans are not members of Hamas.

That does make it a lot harder to know who is Hamas and who isn't, but it's still possible (maybe) to effectively take out Hamas by capturing/killing all the known leaders, anyone who is actively holding hostages, anyone in tunnels, etc. I don't think Israel would need to kill literally every Hamas militant, nor should it.

> The more civilians are killed the more angry young men are drawn to the cause. Short of flattening the whole area and killing everyone I don't see an end.

I hope you're wrong, for everyone's sake.

But it really is true that the US killed a lot of Germans and Japanese, and now the Germans and Japanese are allies. It's not automatic that everyone will turn to violence. Also, if there is no organizational structure around it, then "angry young men that turned to violence" don't actually have anything to do with their anger.

Yes, sorry I didn't mean to imply that everyone is Gaza is a member of Hamas. That's clearly not true. But visually they are indistinguishable, or could very easily become so.

That said, I do suspect that these organisations are much more fluid than the binary distinction we're prone to make in the west.

I was thinking about what the process was after the second world war by which people normalised relations with the German people. Unfortunately my amateur conclusion was that we just created new enemies to redirect the anger.

Isn't it a bit silly to complain about their lack of adherence to conventional military practices?

Today it sounds highly hypothetical, but was definitely possible at many points in Israel's history.

However, my point was based on the situation today. The import of building materials into Gaza is strictly controlled because those materials could be used to build and fortify military positions.

It is contradictory to prevent the creation of military positions and also complain about civilian structures being used for military purposes.

I believe what OP is saying is that most other countries would have done the same. And for you to impart hatred on Israel for doing what most other countries would have done is anti-semitism.

Which is kind of what the article is talking about.

The response to Sep 11, 2001?

When Palestinians protested nonviolently at the gates of Gaza and were shot to death, was that an act of war?

When Israeli West Bank settlers burned a home in Duma with a family still inside and laughed about the small child who burned alive their and taunted onlookers, was that an act of war?

In that Israel bombed and destroyed Gaza's airport in 2001? Yes.

In that the Israeli Navy has blockaded the Port of Gaza since 2007? Yes.

But regardless, as more of the truth has been teased out it's become plain that what Israel said happened on October 7th was... well, absolutely riddled with lies. Beheaded babies, baked babies, babies hung up on washing lines, mass rapes - all of it debunked, but still being used by the Israeli propaganda machine. We've also learned that of those killed, civilians were in the minority - most were Israeli soldiers, then armed "settlers". And now we know that Israeli tanks and helicopters killed a lot of Israeli civilians that day. It's also been reported that Israeli intelligence was forewarned of the attack, a month before and the day before - and chose to do nothing except extend the Nova festival for an extra day.

As it looks so far (IMHO): Hamas militant freedom fightets broke out of Gaza with the aim of taking hostages to swap for Palestinian hostages held by Israel. They find the Nova festival still on, and the plan falls to shit - civilians are killed by both sides in the firefight, but militants manage to escape with some hostages before helicopters arrive on the scene and start shooting every fucking thing that moves. And then Israel pumps it up like a balloon, and many fall for it (I'm ashamed to admit I believed it all at the start) - it's used as the pretence for genocide (or at the very least, ethic cleaning) and a land grab, and the US is happy to supply the bombs because money,

Since then, the Israeli lobby and propaganda machines have been working overtime! While much Israeli propaganda is comically bad, the tactic of slandering any anti-genocidal comments as anti-semetic has been quite successful. The lobbying has been incredibly successful, managing to control celebrity messaging, buy US politicians and control mainstream media in a truly alarming way. Hell, Israeli politicians are even openly making calls for genocide and other war crimes, and what major US or UK papers/channels have even reported it?

From a tech standpoint, the genocide being carried out by Israel, with full support of the US and UK, has shown how powerful and important Twitter and Instagram are - without them, many of us (likely myself included) would have no idea what Israel is doing now, or indeed has been doing in the recent past. IMO channels like these are simply too important to be controlled by billionaires - and indeed we're now starting to see pro-Palestine content being censored on Twitter and Instagram (I'm not on Facebook, but I heard it's heavily censored?).

FWIW, it's included in a definition from the last ~20 years that is favored by pro-Israel groups.

Possibly, it's just rhetorical and diversionary, putting critics on the defensive to carefully defend and establish all speech as non-anti-Jewish, which diverts time and attention.

I think those tactics work for Israel when the issues aren't so stark and prominent, and so few people see the critique of the critics (i.e., few see the accusation that the speech is antisemitic). With everyone watching closely, the apparent rhetorical tactics become noticeable.

Also Israel critics also tend to be _much more likely_ to condemn the actions of other states (e.g. Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Indonensia in Papaua, etc). The issue is that the press is less interested in this and the general American public is much more interested in Israel than they are in Saudi Arabia.

It isn't even a high standard, "don't commit genocide" has been the bare minimum requirement for any modern country, much less democracy, for nearly a century. It would be antisemitic to believe that Israel is uniquely incapable of meeting that minimum standard.

If anything, Israel is given more slack in the west than any other nation. More civilians died in Gaza than in Ukraine yet clearly, only one nation has been condemned officially by western states and that's not Israel

Absolutely nothing, and if anything boycotting Israel is literally ground for getting fired in the USA.

Now that I think about it, no other country in the world has that privilege of being shielded from consequences like that either.

Again, Russia trying to annex Ukraine isn't just "not seen as acceptable". We saw very very clear and concrete actions from almost the entire west against that. What does Israel get when it colonizes its neighbors? Unwavering support that completely overlooks said colonies.

Okay - then what should be Israel's response? For me what they are doing is the bare minimum with the minimum casualties from the options they have. Hamas is Gaza's government. Hamas has intertwined the civilian and the military infrastructure. Hamas has made sure that the civilian Palestinians will suffer if you target Hamas. And it was Hamas that made sure with organized rape, torture and atrocities on Oct 7 that it can't be overlooked or forgiven.

Here is a good rule of thumb - if you are going to stir shit - stick to just killing. Don't livestream torture and rape, so diplomacy will have something to work with.

Really? Israel routinely turns off Gaza's electricity (to the entire country) for days. It has also turned off all fresh water for similar durations.

I think we have different definitions of "bare minimum". That comes across looking a lot more "punitive".

In this conflict it told Gazan civilians to move to Southern Gaza because of the extensive bombing in Northern Gaza. Then it began increasing bombing in Southern Gaza.

There is a lot of Gazan support for Hamas. But Hamas also makes up a very small minority of Gazans (I believe 40,000 in a country of 2.3 million). Hamas is also the people who are armed (thanks to both Israeli blockades, oh, and when Israel found it politically expedient to encourage Hamas' militancy because a more moderate Palestinian Authority would make the far right Israeli government look worse by being more willing to compromise).

So what should Israel do specifically in Gaza?

The conflict is not limited to Gaza. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel continues to build its illegal settlements, to subject the Palestinian population to a humiliating and brutal military occupation, and to kill Palestinians regularly (several hundred in the West Bank this year).

Until Israel leaves the occupied territories and allows the Palestinians to live as normal people, there will be Palestinian resistance. A few years ago, the people of Gaza tried nonviolent resistance, protesting at the border fence. Israel responded with live ammunition, killing hundreds of protestors.

The Palestinians have tried every way to obtain their freedom: protest, negotiation, armed resistance. Nothing works. Israel is, by far, the stronger party, and it does what it wants to the Palestinians with no consequences.

Israel is stronger than Palestine, sure, but that's not the most relevant comparison to think about. Think about all the neighboring countries that do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Think about their financial and military support for Hamas. Think about all the extremists that come from Syria and Iran to help Hamas.

Notes: I'm offering these statements in a self-contained way that I hope is fair. / I'm not claiming any one side is blameless. / I reject any moral equivalence between the IDF and Hamas. / I reject belief systems that say adherents should kill non-believers. / I don't support Netanyahu; he's not fit for the job. / I want to reduce the suffering of all people, including the people of tomorrow. / The past is gone; we can only work for a better future. / I hold out hope for a moderate 'middle' of everyday Israelis and Palestinians wanting peace. / Moderate views can only traction if the extremist elements on all sides are reduced. / By reduced I mean with minimum coercion. / But I'm not a pacifist; violence is sometimes necessary albeit never to be celebrated.

The blockade is for fear of Hamas gaining even more weapons, a fear that seems incredibly justified given what Hamas did. The bombing campaigns were mostly responses to Hamas firing rocket attacks at Israel.

> The conflict is not limited to Gaza. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Israel continues to build its illegal settlements, to subject the Palestinian population to a humiliating and brutal military occupation, and to kill Palestinians regularly (several hundred in the West Bank this year).

Yes, I completely agree that Israel's actions in the West Bank, the settlement program and the resultant military rule are terrible and should be condemned.

> The Palestinians have tried every way to obtain their freedom: protest, negotiation, armed resistance. Nothing works. Israel is, by far, the stronger party, and it does what it wants to the Palestinians with no consequences.

I'm sorry, but this is a misread of history. The Palestinians have been offered a state multiple times, and have walked away from the negotiations every time. Israel has successfully negotiated a peace with historic enemies like Egypt, given back huge amounts of land in the process, these peace agreements have lasted for 40 years now.

Only with the Palestinians this negotiation has not worked, despite Israel having offered between 95% and 99% of the land Palestinians claimed they wanted.

Though to be clear, Hamas's official position, near as I can tell, remains that Israel itself must be completely destroyed and all the land given "back" to Palestinians.

The backdrop of most Israeli's having "given up" on the idea of a peace agreement was the failure of multiple attempts at reaching a deal, attempts that the Palestinians walked away from, and that resulted in terror attacks killing Israeli citizens.

That all said, Israel has more-or-less checked out of the peace process for the last 15 years, if not actively undermined it by weakening any serious leader that could've helped achieve peace. And given that Israel is the stronger party, I think it's not morally justified to "give up", Israel must keep striving for peace, and trying to make conditions on the ground that will allow for an eventual peace agreement.

No Israeli government has yet offered the Palestinians a sovereign state. The offers that have been made have been for some sort of entity with limited autonomy, but under effective Israeli control. The Palestinians have not simply "walked away" from negotiations. They have repeatedly tried to negotiate something better. After the Camp David negotiations broke down, the Palestinians returned to negotiate at Taba. Those talks ended because of the upcoming Israeli elections (which were won by the hard Right, which absolutely opposes any Palestinian state).

If you go back and read about the history of the Oslo process, the Israelis systematically reneged on their promises throughout the 1990s. The PLO made major concessions which were not reciprocated, and it ultimately got nothing.

Israel didn't just make peace with Egypt out of the goodness of its heart. Egypt gave Israel an enormous scare in the 1973 war. That experience made the Israelis realize that it was possible for them to lose a war against Egypt in the future. The Israelis have no such fear of the Palestinians now. If the Palestinians had an army like Egypt, things would be very different.

Israel is also able to make peace with Egypt, Jordan and the other Arab states because Israel doesn't covet their land. But the desire to have all of historic Palestine is fundamental to Zionism, and Israel never intends to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

I'm not sure why you think that, that's exactly what the peace process of the 1990s and early 2000s was about. E.g. the Camp David Summit.

> If you go back and read about the history of the Oslo process, the Israelis systematically reneged on their promises throughout the 1990s. The PLO made major concessions which were not reciprocated, and it ultimately got nothing.

That's not at all true. The Palestinian Authority was formed and given control in the West Bank, independently of this Israel left Gaza and gave Palestinians control there. The peace process broke down in part due to the terror attacks that were happening in Israel, many carried out by Hamas in order to stop the peace process.

> But the desire to have all of historic Palestine is fundamental to Zionism, and Israel never intends to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Some people in Israel certainly think this. Not a majority of Israelis. And the peace processes did offer land to the Palestinians including the WB.

I'm not saying Israel has done everything right, it's certainly done a lot of things wrong, and the for the last fifteen years has done things against the peace process. But it is still a true fact, attested to by people involved in the peace processes, that Israel did make offers, the Palestinians did reject them and walk away. And that has happened multiple times, including the founding of the state of Israel. (People like to relitigate this one, and there's certainly a compelling reason that Palestinians disliked the UN's partition plan - but it's still a fact that the Palestinians and Arabs generally rejected the peaceful offer, chose war instead, lost the war, and therefore lost more territories than they could've had had they accepted the partition plan to begin with.)

Actually, one of the fundamental flaws of the Oslo process was that Israel did not have to commit, at the outset, to recognizing a Palestinian state. The PLO recognized the state of Israel, and in return, Israel agreed to negotiate with the PLO. What the final status of the Palestinians would be was very much up in the air.

Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, said that there would be a Palestinian "entity," by which he meant something with partial sovereignty, under significant Israeli control.

Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist, and Netanyahu came to power. Netanyahu was totally opposed to the peace process, and both he and his party have always fundamentally opposed any Palestinian sovereignty. Netanyahu refused to carry out the promised military withdrawals, and generally stalled and sabotaged the peace process at every turn. He simply didn't believe in the process.

Ehud Barak won the elections in 1999, and tried to revive the Oslo process. However, he was unwilling to make an offer that met the Palestinians' bottom line: a sovereign Palestinian state based on 1967 borders. The "state" that the Palestinians were offered in 2000 at Camp David would not have controlled its own borders, airspace or water. The Israeli military would have maintained bases in the Palestinian state, overseen the Palestinian borders, and had the right to conduct military incursions into the Palestinian state. The Palestinian state would have been demilitarized (except for the IDF, of course), and the Israelis would have had veto power over its foreign policy.

Beyond that, Barak was demanding major territorial concessions (the Palestinians would have had to give up the most important parts of East Jerusalem, and Palestinian territory would have been cut up by corridors annexed to Israel), and refused any meaningful right of return for Palestinian refugees. That's the offer the Palestinians rejected at Camp David.

The Palestinians continued negotiating with Israel in 2001 at Taba, but those negotiations ended because Barak was facing another election.

The hard Right won again in the Israeli elections in 2001, and that was really the end of any peace process.

> The Palestinian Authority was formed and given control in the West Bank, independently of this Israel left Gaza

The PA was given partial control in a minority of the West Bank. To put it crudely, the Israelis offloaded the duty to take out the garbage and do the laundry to the PA, but maintained ultimate control. The PA has no army, and its police forces act to a large extent as auxiliaries of the Israelis, tasked with keeping the Palestinians quiet.

But.. there wasn't a Palestinian state to recognize. Agreeing to negotiate with the PLO was what made the PLO the internationally-recognized party representing the Palestinians, which didn't exist before.

> Netanyahu refused to carry out the promised military withdrawals, and generally stalled and sabotaged the peace process at every turn. He simply didn't believe in the process.

Yes, I'm hardly a fan of Netanyahu (I think Hamas is responsible for the murders on October 7th, but if any one person is most responsible for there not being peace, it's Netanyahu).

As for the rest of your post - yes, Palestinians were offered terms that they didn't like. That's part of negotiations - you don't like an offer, you come back with demands you will accept. And more importantly, it's part of compromise.

Some Israelis also believe Israel should own the entire land. Israel agreed to compromise on that. In 1947, Israel agreed to the UN partition plan, which was also a compromise.

Look, the Palestinians are in a shitty situation that's only getting worse, and there's a lot of legitimate grievances (on both sides), there really are. But at multiple times in this history, Israel agreed to what it views as compromises in order to get peace, and Palestinians have not agreed to similar compromises. This is, as far as I can tell, an accurate read of history, as told both by Israelis, but also by e.g. participants of the process.

Israel has done a lot of crappy things that minimize the chance at peace, especially over the last 15 years, but the Israeli left really did have the majority buy in in the country and the country really did try to make peace, the Palestinians could've had their own sovereign state by now, but they rejected it. I don't think in hindsight you can possibly consider this justified, given where it's lead.

There actually was - the PLO declared a state in 1988. More than that, Israel did not commit to future recognition of a Palestinian state, or declare that the Palestinians had a right to a state. Those are things the Palestinians pushed for in the lead-up to Oslo, but the Israelis refused to do them. On the Israeli side, the dominant view was that the Palestinians could maybe get some sort of autonomy within Israel, but not a state. Up until this day, no Israeli government has ever recognized the right of the Palestinians to a state.

> That's part of negotiations - you don't like an offer, you come back with demands you will accept.

That's exactly what the Palestinians have done, over and over again. Arafat walked away because Barak gave an ultimatum: either accept this offer, or nothing. Arafat didn't accept that offer, so that was it.

The Palestinians and Israelis met again several months later to restart negotiations in Taba, Egypt, and those continued until the Israelis walked away (because of the upcoming elections).

> the Palestinians could've had their own sovereign state by now, but they rejected it.

Again, I don't know what you're referring to, because no Israeli government yet has ever offered the Palestinians a sovereign state. If you think a demilitarized entity with highly non-contiguous territory (broken up by Israeli settlements and military corridors), with Israeli military bases, Israeli control over all border crossings, Israeli control over airspace, and Israeli veto power over foreign policy is sovereign, then we disagree about the meaning of that word.

> But at multiple times in this history, Israel agreed to what it views as compromises in order to get peace, and Palestinians have not agreed to similar compromises.

Giving half of Palestine to the Zionists was not a "compromise." It was an unbelievable imposition by outside powers on the local population of Palestine. Remember that in 1947, the overwhelming majority of the native population of Palestine was Arab. Almost the entire Jewish population was made up of recent European arrivals (i.e., within the last decade). The demand that the native population accept that a foreign people get half the territory was objectively insane, and no people anywhere would ever have accepted it. The Zionists accepted it because they believed that it was a springboard towards obtaining all of Palestine - Ben Gurion was very clear about that.

Leading up to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians gave up most of their central demands, forswore armed resistance to the occupation, and limited their aspirations to a Palestinian state on just over 20% of their historic land, leaving the other 80% to Israel. The Palestinians recognized the state of Israel, without reciprocal recognition from Israel, and simply asked the Israelis to let the Palestinians have their little bit of Palestine in peace. It took years for the Palestinians to even persuade the Israelis to agree to negotiate on those terms. Until 1993, the Israelis refused to meet with the PLO. It was only the outbreak of widespread civil disobedience, protests and riots in the occupied territories that finally led Israel to begin negotiations with the PLO.

> I don't think in hindsight you can possibly consider this justified, given where it's lead.

My view is that the PLO made a fatal error in agreeing to the Oslo Accords. They gave up almost everything Israel wanted, with only vague hints that the Palestinians would get something at the end. The Palestinian Authority has no real power, and actually lessens the burden of the occupation for the Israelis, since the Israelis no longer have to provide basic services to the occupied population. The Israelis did not promise to accept the 1967 borders. They did not promise that they would recognize a sovereign Palestinian state. They only really promised to negotiate a "final status," which was left vague.

As I said a few comments above here, Israel is, by far, the stronger party. It holds almost all the cards: it has overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians, is able to operate almost unhindered in most Palestinian land, is far richer, and is backed by the world's foremost superpower. Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land with almost no consequences. It can continue to expand its settlements in the occupied territories and to build new settlements, without having to fear anything more than the occasional wagging finger from some American or EU diplomat. The Israelis really believe they can have it all. The only problem, from the Israeli perspective, is that the Palestinians still exist on the land, but the Israelis will eventually move to "solve" that problem. We may be seeing their solution now in Gaza, as Israel destroys almost every single building and pushes the remaining, 100% homeless Palestinian population towards the Egyptian border.

I guarantee that Palestinian resistance won't stop if Israel maintains its occupation.

What you're doing here is just giving a justification for unlimited military repression of the Palestinian people by Israel. It reminds me of the phrase, "The beatings will continue until morale improves." The Palestinians will take their beatings until they completely prostrate themselves before their oppressors and accept what they're being offered: nothing.

From Wikipedia: > The Palestinian legislative election took place on 25 January 2006 and was judged to be free and fair by international observers.[18][19] It resulted in a Hamas victory, surprising Israel and the United States, which had expected their favoured partner, Fatah, to retain power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)#2006_Pal...

To my eyes, there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation to determine if Palestinian civilians have been criminally murdered and forcibly relocated en masse.

Also to my eyes, there is enough evidence that Hamas military murdered, kidnapped, raped, and brutalized Israeli civilians such that an Israeli military response was justified.

Israel "ordered" 1.1 million residents of Northern Gaza (Hamas makes up <40,000 people) to flee south due to their bombing of Northern Gaza on October 13.

It then increased bombing of Southern Gaza in the ten days following that evacuation order by eighty five per cent.

That's not "collateral damage".

Source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

> Pillage is prohibited.

> Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...

A. 1,000 people killed in the name of religion

B. 1,000 people (civilians) killed despite efforts to target only military targets

I don't claim to know the _quality_ of the IDF's efforts to minimize civilian deaths, but I do know that intent matters here. The IDF has attempted (imperfectly of course) to reduce civilian deaths. Hamas does nothing of the sort. They are happy to kill non-combatants; any infidel will do.

I want fewer deaths. Yes. It is heartrending to see the suffering on both sides. I welcome pressure on the IDF to minimize non-military casualties.

Would any amount of public opinion stop Hamas from murdering again? Only to the extent it reduces their funding, recruiting, and operations. Israel, OTOH, is much more receptive to public opinion, inside and out.

Hamas has designed their entire operation so that innocent people take the brunt of even the most targeted military operations. If the IDF attacks, there will be collateral damage and lost Palestinian lives. It is awful. However, this does not mean than IDF attacks are immoral in the big picture. Allowing Hamas to continue risks future violence. So what response is ethically warranted?

Netanyahu and the IDF arguably could do better. No major actors in the region are blameless. But blamelessness isn't the standard here; I reject any claims of moral equivalence. Hamas massacres indiscriminately. The comparison matters.

The basic argument in favor of Israel goes like this: some degree of IDF incursion into Palestine and aggression against Hamas is required to save future lives from more massacres. It is only question of how much and when.

Perhaps the IDF should have waited some length of time to build more of an international coalition? I'll grant this. I'm not an expert. If it were possible to merely assume a defensive posture and stop them, I would say, sure try that. But I think that has been tried and it cannot work. Am I missing something?

Minimizing death isn't the perfect ethical metric, but it is a reasonable starting approximation. To do so, we have to factor in all deaths, across a long time scale. I don't think there is any neat way to do it. It is a fucking mess; we chose the least worst option.

I have no hate. If someone I knew had been killed, it might be impossible to have any emotional distance. I reject ideas that cause people to hate each other. I don't claim to know the right answers. But I know some answers are worse than others.

I'm also less interested in blame. I'm interested in the future. What options might work? What actors would undermine the potential for a lasting peace? Find extremists wherever they are: Palestine, Israel, or the surrounding region. Neutralize them in the least invasive way possible. Use public opinion if possible. Condition aid if needed. Use coercive action, including military action, if the previous options don't work.

What was the IDF's "intent" in ordering 1.1M Northern Gazan residents to flee to "safety" in Southern Gaza, and then spending the next ten days increasing the bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?

What is the "intent" in "minimizing civilian deaths" by (even before this conflict) routinely turning off Gaza's electricity, often for several days to as much as a week? Or for turning off its fresh water?

I'll try to clarify: I don't I care as much about any vague notion of "intent". I care about reasonableness in the sense of paying attention, gathering reliable information, and acting rationally based on the probabilities.

I can speak about some rough criteria for thinking about the moral tradeoffs, but unless I was very close to the situation, I wouldn't have the specificity to comment on particular choices. For example, did your example about cutting off electricity serve a military purpose? What was the analysis?

Again, criticizing the details is important, but we can't forget that the IDF is making some effort. And Hamas is using human shields. So it isn't correct to put the blame solely on the IDF.

I get the sense that Hamas' evil is simply taken for granted while the IDF is held to a higher standard. That asymmetry is problematic; it would lead to world public opinion turning against even against the best-possible-version of the IDF. There simply is no amount of civilian deaths that is a good thing. It is all awful. We have to compare this against the horror that would come from the continued existence of Hamas. We have to chose the lesser of the evils.

Again, I'm supportive of better options. I'm just not close enough to know what they are. Israel should hunker down and ramp up defenses? Wait until there is an international coalition to manage the attack on Hamas while providing services so that civilian impact isn't as tragic? Maybe that could work. Who would lead that? The UN?

I should certainly have included a source: https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

> I get the sense that Hamas' evil is simply taken for granted while the IDF is held to a higher standard. That asymmetry is problematic

Of course it is. One is considered a terrorist organization. The other is meant to be the disciplined military of a civilized country (Note here I am not trying to imply the Palestinian people are any way uncivilized).

Part of this also ignores that for a long time, Israel fostered and encouraged Hamas because it was politically expedient to do so. For them to pull the "woe is us, whatever are to we to do" is a little on the nose.

The long and the short of it is that:

a. Israel does not care how many Palestinian civilians die in its air strikes this time around.

b. The Israelis actually positively want to inflict a huge amount of pain on the Palestinian population in this conflict. That is one of the political goals, in order to demoralize the Palestinians. Israeli officials have publicly said that they want to teach the Palestinians a lesson that they will remember for 50 years.

If you just listen to the vicious, dehumanizing way Israeli politicians and media talk about Palestinians, and look at how indiscriminately Israel is bombing Gaza, all the claims by internet commentators that Israel is trying to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties look absurd.

0. https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-cal...

> Israel knowingly strikes civilian targets.

I prefer to use the term IDF, largely under the control of Netanyahu. This emphasizes the role of his brand of politics. Netanyahu's political aims are despicable, evidenced by his attempt to upend the Israeli Supreme Court. It is also encouraging to see the IDF protest Netanyahu's moves. (Aside: Doesn't this protest by the IDF give you some comfort that they won't succumb to the worse impulses of Netanyahu?)

Now to respond... I'm not trying to zing you in any way, deny atrocities, or oversimplify. I do this out of genuine curiosity. (I'm lucky that I'm relatively removed from the situation. If I was closer, my rationality would probably be out the window. If I were to make one point it would be this: I want people to recognize the clouding effect of emotion more often. Some ethicists call for cooling off periods after tragedies for this exact reason.)

I'm not trying to promote a particular course of action. My aim is to tease apart the ethics, and hopefully I can get a better understanding of the moving parts.

> Israel knowingly strikes civilian targets.

How often, roughly? Percentages matter. All civilian deaths are horrible, but practically, military operations can be assessed by the numbers. I'm sorry if this sounds callous, but it isn't. Not caring about numbers at all would be even worse.

What are the causes? Seems to me:

1. Hamas uses human shields. This changes the decision space for the IDF. I'm leaning towards the view that these deaths cannot be mostly pinned on the IDF, morally. They belong mostly on Hamas. I don't like my intellectual attempt to somehow split culpability like this, but I'm not sure of a better framework. What do you think?

2. You are claiming there is another factor: demoralization of the Palestinians. I would like to think this is small percentage, but I have not looked at it in detail. To the extent this is true, it is abominable. To the extent Netanyahu's warped ideology and corruption are culpable, he should be stopped.

You're talking about this in such a sanitized, anodyne manner.

Israel is systematically destroying all civilian infrastructure in Gaza. At the end of this campaign, there will be almost nothing left standing in Gaza. That's the obvious goal of the campaign.

To then look at the Israeli military campaign and talk about it as if it were some highly targeted action is just detached from reality.

This is not just Netanyahu's war. The main opposition parties also support it, as does the large majority of the Israeli population.

> You are claiming there is another factor: demoralization of the Palestinians. I would like to think this is small percentage, but I have not looked at it in detail. To the extent this is true, it is abominable.

Have you been following statements by Israeli politicians, government ministers, media personalities, etc.? This is how the campaign is seen and talked about in Israel. Revenge and teaching the Palestinians a lesson are the major motivations.

From this I would guess you are very close emotionally to the situation. Please recognize that not everyone has the same proximity nor the same kind of emotional response. Some cry, some hate, some oversimplify, some want heroes and villains. Some analyze it to death, trying to find a way through. We struggle with it in different ways.

I strive to look at the overall situation. This includes suffering all around. It also includes culpability, which isn't the same as harm. Then I try to make sense of it. From different lenses: ethical, legal, geopolitical, and humanitarian. They all matter and all have different blindspots.

What I'm seeing you do here is very common. You want me to recognize the pain. I try, but I can't: the scope is impossible and overwhelming. You want me to recognize your pain. Again, I can try. But I will never be able to satisfy you. I cannot; this is too awful.

Nor do I really want to feel all of the pain. It would be completely immobilizing. I do not want to be paralyzed by the emotions. I strive to use reason in service of ethics, for reason informed by emotions. I oppose rationalization and oversimplification, which tend to be driven by emotions.

I'm not crafting a political message here. I'm seeking the truth, best I can. Relatively few people do this. Most people have an agenda in play. My agenda is this: we need clearer thinking and less exaggeration. We need to be guided by reason in _service_ of our values. Emotion alone, particularly short-term outrage, would steer us wrong.

You may seize upon any perceived difference of opinion to criticize me. Because I'm here in front of you, because it is something you can do, something that will make you feel better. I get it.

And I'm listening, I'm considering your points. I just can't respond to _all_ of them all at once.

Back to your claim:

> You're talking about this in such a sanitized, anodyne manner.

I can do both: I can talk about percentages, and I can care about people as individuals.

It a common flaw in people to think that asking mathematical questions is somehow fundamentally callous or perhaps even immoral.

In my conception of ethics, the deliberate _avoidance_ of rigorous thinking is a huge mistake. Mathematical thinking is part of the toolset for rigorous thinking. We need to avoid reasoning errors lest me make poor moral decisions. To ignore mathematical aspects (such as probabilities and statistics) would only leave language, which is notoriously imprecise, loaded. We don't need to avoid mathematical analysis; we need _better_ analysis.

As an example, how does the organ transplant system work? By having everyone call in favors and try to sort out an impossibly sad situation with _words_? No, there is a big component of mathematics involved, such as expected lifespan for each candidate.

Please, let go of any claims that mathematical thinking is inherently callous. Of course the application mathematics to any real world situation tends to be imprecise. But typical language is much worse! And, it depends on how you frame up the math. Choose the better ways rather than rejecting the entire approach. At least mathematics can be written down and criticized clearly. In this way, it is just a more precise form of language. So don't blame the math nor people that want to consider it as one lens. I'm not saying mathematical calculations are the _only_ lens. I'm saying that avoiding all mathematical thinking is clearly worse.

When I hear people say (not your words but I think it conveys your feeling) 'stop being mathematical; use your heart' ... to me that comes across as often (a) a false dichotomy; (b) making too many assumptions about that other person; (c) a rhetorical technique that discourages careful thought; (d) as I explained above, actually a flawed way of doing ethical reasoning to the extent it avoids rigor.

It is hard to do proper ethical reasoning shortly after your neighbors are killed. Emotions are too high. But that it is when it is most needed; to temper some of our worst instincts.

Clear thinking and reasoning invites _more_ information, not less. But when you look at purely emotional reasoning, it too often takes the form of e.g. "Listen to my emotions! Acknowledge them! Treat them as central!". However, doing that would be to fixate on emotions only. We don't want to exclude the full range of useful perspectives on the situation, which include mathematical analysis.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not trying to be offensive, but what I'm saying is that I don't think you're at all aware of what's going on in Gaza and Israel. Take this statement you made earlier, for example:

> You are claiming there is another factor: demoralization of the Palestinians. I would like to think this is small percentage, but I have not looked at it in detail. To the extent this is true, it is abominable. To the extent Netanyahu's warped ideology and corruption are culpable, he should be stopped.

Israeli officials at all levels have been saying since October 7th that they will take revenge, that they will punish the Palestinians, etc. It's not just Netanyahu. The President of Israel has said that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza. The defense minister has said that the Palestinians must be taught a lesson that they don't forget for 50 years. People in the IDF who are involved in targeting say that inflicting suffering on the civilian population is a deliberate aim, because they think that that will force Hamas to give in.

You wrote a lot of text to say that you're the only one being rational here. It's not a question of being rational vs. irrational, but rather of knowing vs. not knowing what's happening.

I didn't mean that. It is unfortunate you took it that way; I hope you will consider a more charitable reading.

It seems like we're talking past each other.

I'll be as polite as I can about this, and take it one step at a time.

> Okay - then what should be Israel's response?

The world has been clear about this. Stop killing civilians and treat Palestinians as humans with rights.

> what they are doing is the bare minimum with the minimum casualties from the options they have.

That's not remotely true. Human rights groups and genocide experts around the world are screaming at world leaders to take action. Schools and refugee camps and humanitarian corridors and civil infrastructure and entire residential blocks are being vaporized without warning.

> Hamas is Gaza's government

The last election was in 2006, so this talking point is real stale.

> Hamas has intertwined the civilian and the military infrastructure.

The only proof that has been offered of that has been incredibly shoddily made, as if daring people to believe it.

> Hamas has made sure that the civilian Palestinians will suffer if you target Hamas.

That doesn't excuse war crimes, and it's highly fucked up to think that it does somehow.

> And it was Hamas that made sure with organized rape, torture and atrocities on Oct 7 that it can't be overlooked or forgiven.

The only evidence of organized rape that I've seen presented turned out to be a 10 year old photo of Kurdish women [0]. Torture? No evidence. By atrocities, do you mean the debunked beheaded babies? Or the debunked babies in oven claim? The debunked pregnant women cut open claim?

What Hamas did was atrocious, killing civilians and kidnapping people. So why embellish so devilishly? Only to excuse genocide, and grab land.

> Here is a good rule of thumb - if you are going to stir shit - stick to just killing. Don't livestream torture and rape, so diplomacy will have something to work with.

Again with the claims of "livestreamed torture and rape", which no one has actually seen.

You know who can be documented to have tortured and raped people in the last couple decades? Israel and the US. On many, many occasions. But in your view, at least they're smart enough not to livestream it - they only took photos.

0 - https://twitter.com/MaxBlumenthal/status/1724688009293873502

The problem from Israel's perspective regarding a ceasefire is that Hamas isn't just an ideology that can be charmed out of existence with good behavior. It's also an autocratic/theocratic government. These government structures don't go away even if the conditions that lead to their initial support are addressed, because they have a regime survival incentive to maintain power. For example, Iran. Some of the reasons (colonial interference) that caused the Iranian revolution are no longer there, but the governance structure is nevertheless perpetual because that's how autocracies work.

Maybe Hamas can moderate in the future, but this moderation historically has happened after the nationalist (and in this case, irredentist) aims are fulfilled, such as in Vietnam or with the IRA. I don't know if that can happen with the continued existence of Israel and lack of right of return, which, let's face it, it's a pipe dream, Jews will never accept being an ethnic minority after the last few thousand years of endless pogroms including from MENA countries, literal survival will always trump everything else. Right or wrong, that's the reality, and we only have reality to work with.

I lean towards the idea that Israel shouldn't invade but instead build a DMZ around Gaza to contain Hamas. While simultaneously sowing the seeds for peace in the next generation by withdrawing from the West Bank, and implementing a Marshall-like plan with oversight from the UN to lift the standard of living. Then hoping hoping the West Bank doesn't fall to Hamas in the power vacuum (and if it does, another DMZ around the West Bank might be a practically unfortunate necessity pending Hamas' moderation...).

Thoughts? I want to hear from the "ceasefire" people the practical steps required and what it may actually look like along with an assessment of where it can go wrong, and what should happen in the cases where it goes wrong.

> that's the reality

I'm not convinced that you're actually looking for a peaceful solution. The best you can imagine is a permanent DMZ so that Israel maintains an ethnic majority? Do Palestinians get to decide what they want to do at all, or is that just for Israel?

A ceasefire is not really optional. If Israel continues with this genocide, as they seem committed to doing, then America's support will grow untenable. All Israel's atrocities - undeniable, caught on video and seen by the world atrocities - are only possible with the support of the US war machine.

The US just vetoed the UN's call for a ceasefire, despite 61% of Americans wanting a ceasefire. Do you see that?? That's 61% of Israel's staunchest ally, telling them they're going way too far. People are waking up, and they're wondering why the fuck we're complicit in war crimes in full view of the world (again).

How long do you think America can sustain this support of mass murder? It's morally indefensible, and a permanent stain on our history.

The DMZ is to keep Hamas on one side of the border following any ceasefire, because Hamas aren't going to moderate overnight, and Hamas aren't going away because of their autocratic structure. What's the alternative? This is why I asked you to sketch out your plan. If there is a realistic alternative to what I'm suggesting, I want to hear it. To convince the median Israeli (excluding the religious zealots) that a ceasefire is a good idea, you need to address their #1 (by far) issue, which is security concerns. Without attempting to do this, we are just yelling at clouds.

The same response I have concluded should have been the US' response to 9/11: turn the other cheek, and invest heavily in reconciling with "enemy" forces while rebuilding "enemy" infrastructure and institutions, while dealing with individual bad actors on a case-by-case basis as a matter of legal (rather than martial) procedure.

And I'm not joking.

I feel bad for Israelis who have let their government doom them to a generation of government mismanagement and expensive, arduous military adventure. My single-payer health insurance and my friends' free college education went into a couple Patriot missiles, and I do wonder what they're going to have to give up.

We both know that solution only works if the other side wants peace. Most gazans want death to Israel and death to all Jews globally (see the recent polls). The schools teach it is good to kill a Jew in America, Europe, or Israel.

nobody will immediately make friends after a massacre and mass rape. Especially after decades of tensions and double especially when the muslim world once descended on Israel at once.

2) Quiet reminder that there are 1B followers of Islam and there has always been a wish (especially from Iran) to end the existence of Israel: the Palestinian people are unfortunately a pawn in that game. - Winning over the palestinians wont actually win you over anything. Instead you will have terrorist attacks by “palestinians” until the tensions are stoked again.

Establishment of a Palestinian State with a stake in peace and stability would win you something.

> Instead you will have terrorist attacks by “palestinians” until the tensions are stoked again.

One of the things this would win you is someone with interest and capacity to respond to this where the occupation/colonialism/ethnic-/religious-conflict narrative would not be applicable.

But, I empathise fully with Israel and also with the Palestinian people.

On Israels side you have what amounts to a large motivated but not universal contingent of people who will literally slaughter themselves to make you look bad on the world stage, pulling out long protracted altercations where the intent is clearly to provoke the most disgusting outcome and whom have a history of invading, slaughtering and rioting. Sometimes bringing in half the Muslim world to do it.

I would be fucking terrified.

But for the Palestinians, you have an interloper, stealing the best of your ancestral lands, relegating you to tiny torrid stretches of impoverished city because they claim that they “don't trust you” based on nothing but your accident of birth. living every day knowing that this tiny population of privileged people who dont look like you at all and are so heavily financed that they live significantly better lives on your land. Meanwhile hearing constantly that they continuously kill your countrymen. For all you know: for the crime of existing.

I’d be pissed too, and I wouldn't let up either.

Both sides feel like the victim, its easy for us to sit here half a world away and conjure up idealised scenarios. But Israel is scared of the entire middle east and having an irate and catastrophically motivated population bent on its eradication and tries to handle it the best it can.

Palestine is scared of being obliterated and is outright hateful towards what it considers oppressors.

Trust is hard earned and fragile, and there are external actors involved that would like this tension to go on indefinitely.

Lets also not pretend that 141sq miles is tiny. It's small sure, but there are many other countries that have and do make do with it.

Beyond that, "ancestral homeland" is stupid. Jordan is their ancestral homeland and the Jordinians keep them in camps as second class citizens. The impoverished city thing is self inflicted too. They receive bilions in aid.

The real issue is that the Palestinians cause has been hijacked by Iran and other governments that hate israel in order to engage a proxy war. Other than that, other muslim countries want nothing to do with the Palestinians

Many? Here’s a full list of independent states that are not larger in land area than that:

Vatican City, Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, Maldives, Malta, and Grenada

There's nothing about contrivance. The initial claim was that Gazans should be happy in a country of 141 sq miles, with 2.4 million people, making it one of the densest populations on earth...

... while the Israel government routinely turns off electricity to the entire country for days at a time, and at times the fresh water. The miracle there is that there aren't epidemics just ravaging the population.

This argument carries no weight.

Countries smaller than Gaza, and their populations:

1. Vatican City (0.19mi^2): 764 (4,038/sq. mi.)

2. Monaco (0.78mi^2): 39,050 (48,624/sq. mi.)

3. Nauru (8.1mi^2): 10,834 (1,243.2)

4. Tuvalu (10mi^2): 11,900 (1,232.5)

5. San Marino (24mi^2): 33,660 (1,346)

6. Liechtenstein (62mi^2): 39,584 (613.8)

7. Marshall Islands (70mi^2): 42,418 (603)

8. Saint Kitts and Nevis (101mi^2): 47,606 (424.8)

9. Maldives (120mi^2): 590,297 (5,130.4)

10. Malta (122mi^2): 519,562 (4,270.9)

11. Grenada (133mi^2): 124,610 (825.1)

Gaza: 2,375,000 @ 16,853/sq. mi.

Most of those countries with three exceptions have less than one per cent of the population of Gaza (even the biggest exception is at less than 24%). With the exception of Monaco, the population density of these countries is approximately seven per cent of Gaza.

The only countries in the world that are more dense than Gaza are Macau, Monaco and Singapore and no-one with a straight face could credibly claim that they are remotely comparable.

The commentary of "they should be able to make do just fine" is insulting to the extreme.

Certainly, Israel has seen to it that it will be much more difficult. Which would be my point.

>Quiet reminder that there are 1B followers of Islam and there has always been a wish (especially from Iran) to end the existence of Israel: the Palestinian people are unfortunately a pawn in that game.

As a black American, I understand the Israeli hypersensitivity to even the whiff of anti-Semitic violence as the harbinger of a possible repeat of history that should never be repeated. I also understand that lashing out at every perceived slight as the harbinger of a possible repeat of history that should never be repeated is a great way to make allies unsympathetic, as they get caught in the crossfire. The real enemy is the war you want.

I would like Israel to reach a state where it doesn't constantly fear for its existence. The road there passes through, "Not doing another Nakba."

Here’s the passage from Matthew 5:38-39 KJV:

“38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

What Jesus is advocating is nonviolent resistance, not walking away. MLK Jr. understood this passage well.

Good thing I'm not one of them. The point is that the way to resist effectively is to not let yourself be drawn into a quagmire or an opportunity to show the world your ass (which is what Israel and the US have done). Responding with the intent to do good works (which you will admittedly fall short of, because you're human, landing you somewhere at least justifiable) is better than responding with the intent to wipe out the opposition, indiscriminately and by any means necessary, and accidentally committing a form of genocide. (Note: we (Americans) did that too. The fire next time, and I hate it.)

Admittedly, some of this could credibly be attributed to some aspect of Japanese culture and its approach to defeat. On the other hand, we made a point not to bomb Kyoto because of its status as an important historical and cultural treasure. Meanwhile, in Palestine: https://www.npr.org/2023/12/09/1218384968/mosque-gaza-omari-...

Which isn't a one sided phenomenon. The reverse is true as well, where often the most vocal voices rationalizing Israel's actions and behavior around civilian casualties often have anti-Muslim perspectives crop up as back and forth conversation goes on.

One of the litmus tests I've noticed is the capacity to acknowledge and condemn the civilian suffering of both sides. The commenters who recognize and condemn both the Oct 7th terrorist attack and the targeting or indiscriminate killing of civilians in the response to it tend to be rational and level headed driven by humanitarian concerns.

Those who only recognize the suffering of one side and dismiss, dehumanize, or rationalize the suffering of the other side - or worst of all propagandize the denial of it's occurrence or scope - tend to quickly fall into revealing rather abhorrent views with a mere scratching of the surface.

Not everyone who criticizes Israel is antisemitic nor everyone who criticizes Hamas is anti-Muslim, but many who are antisemitic or anti-Muslim seem keen to defend their respective side of the conflict quite emphatically and unilaterally.

Which is, I suspect, the point - to weaken those viewpoints.

And to address others in this thread around US actions around the world, I am critical of the U.S. war on Afghanistan and the second Iraq war as well as the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

One can be critical of a government without despising it.

And not that perhaps my point is to highlight the opposite effect, by which the continued rhetoric of anti-Zionism as distinct from anti-Semetism weakens the voices of those experiencing a documented rise in genuine anti-Semitism by dismissing it as mislabeling?

Polarization around the human tendency for tribalism and side picking has led to increases in both anti-Muslim and antisemitism - people have been stabbed, had homes invaded, attacked, etc because of both those identities as rhetoric has become increasingly inflamed.

As I said - the times that I tend to see good faith discussion on this topic typically correlate with the voices that recognize the humanity of the civilians on both sides of the conflict, with the voices unilaterally humanizing one side while dismissing the suffering of the other side far more often tending to extend significantly greater underlying biases.

Denying the rise of antisemitism and trying to label it all as simply Zionism upset it isn't in favor has its own impact of conversation weakening I'd encourage you to consider.

To me, it seems pretty easy to both recognize that there's been a marked increase in antisemitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric tied to this topic without impacting my ability to both recognize and condemn actions of people in power in this conflict when targeting civilians or not taking internationally recognized measures to prevent civilian harm.

No where. It’s ONLY about Israel, and no less after a 9/11 scale attack happen. And you don’t see how it’s antisemitc? Really?

I’m sorry, people who aren’t Jewish or Palestinians are not allowed to have opinions on this?

I’m sorry, but Israel can’t just pull out their “anti-Semite” card at will and do what they want without the world reacting.

The Israeli government - like any government - can make mistakes. And can be criticized. Criticizing the government is in no way anti-Semitic. To believe otherwise would be to believe the Israeli government is divinely chosen and can do no wrong, like the Pharohs of old. Sorry, but they are people and people can make mistakes.

Which again does not excuse Hamas.

But Israel cannot wage unlimited war on the people of Gaza at will forever.