Israeli-Hamas war

[Asmodean]

I disagree with this.

I think the "best" realistic path-to-a-solution is Israeli control of Gaza, but it's best the way chlamydia is the "best" STD.

They are not doing a particularly clean job, to be sure, but it does need doing to safeguard Israel's citizens, and even if "done better," the nature of their opponent means more civilians will die.

I think... How do I put it? That they should achieve military success, then the international bureaucracies can try to sort out the war crimes. It's a war - there will be plenty.

I don't think it will go down like this though. It "never" really does, does it?

Out of curiosity, if you could end Israel, what would you put in its place? What would be the implications of that action? Would there be oceans of hypothetical blood on your hypothetical hands because of it within a few generations? I mean, I suppose one might bring the British Empire back... That would probably be... A lesser disaster.

[billy rubin]

Out of curiosity, if you could end Israel, what would you put in its place? What would be the implications of that action? Would there be oceans of hypothetical blood on your hypothetical hands because of it within a few generations? I mean, I suppose one might bring the British Empire back... That would probably be... A lesser disaster.

no solution of mine can be more than a fantasy.

there are about 9.5 million israelis, and about t
14 million palestinians.

i would draw a line straight east-west through jerusalem across transjordan into modern jordan. the entirety of the west bank and current israel north of thst line would be given to the palestinians as a sovereign state. their borders would be with lebanon and syria. they would have access to the mediteranean sea. they would lose gaza.

to the south, the territory would be given to the current israelis. they would have a border with egypt and jordan, and have access to the red sea at elat to the south, and to the mediterranean sea to the west. enough of the west bank would be ceded to israel and palestine to give both factions exactly equal territory proportional to their current populations. all israeli settlers would be expelled from the palestinian lands, and all palestinians from land adminustered by israelis.

doing this will separate the israelis from the northern levant, where they do not get along, and give them a border only with egypt and jordan, with which they do. the palestinians have better relations in the north and will not suffer from losing contact with egypt.

jerusalem would become a united nations protectorate. both israel and palestine could establish their capitals there, but they would be permitted administrative offices only-- neither side would maintain police or military.

this simplistic two-state solution would be objected to by everybody, which is a sign of a good start to coexistence. it is impossible to impose, but it would be whst i would do.

failing that, i would eliminate israel and send all the israelis to  the countries that currently support them militarily or financially. we could fit all the israelis into the american state of wyoming without anybody noticing.

[Asmodean]

Hmm... A variation on the "original" post British Empire plan, eh...

It's not completely without merit, but has had a history of failure, resulting in pretty much here and now.

Ok, option 2. The Israeli pack up their stuff and fuck the fuck off. Wyonimg prospers like never before. What's happening in Palestine?

EDIT: "Wyonimg." That misspelling amuses me, so I'll let it stand.

Actually, since I was on the phone, I left a few critical points out. One is that it's not a matter of what land or whatever else it may be you can give to somebody, as much as it is a matter of what they can and will take and hold. You do suggest a UN route, but UN is toothless by virtue of having to cater to directly-opposing interests. Even "palestinian lands" is a somewhat tenuous notion. There is no Palestine. Some people and nations recognise that there is, and there is nothing wrong in itself with creating a new nation. However, being a new nation, what are the territorial claims based on? Syria held the northern part, but they are not Syrian lands. Jordan held the south even before it was Jordan, but they are not Jordanian lands. "Palestinian" is an umbrella rather than a specific ethnicity. Israel used to control the lot, (my case being maybe the lesser of all disasters is a return to that) but certain territories later gained autonomy. The claims extend beyond those territories, and so no two-state solution materialises, quite possibly because it would establish a status quo in which the then-nation of Palestine has to settle for less than it is prepared to do.

Bottom line is, even if it were possible, the solutions you aspire to within the area of conflict would likely lead more-or-less nowhere (rather, more or less of the same as today) even if they could be implemented as described.

[billy rubin]

in the meantime, the israelis murder civilians with impunity

[The Magic Pudding..]

in my opinion, israel has forfeited the right to exist.

its not within my power, but i would end israel if it were.

A most excellent post, what wisdom, he's seen to the heart of the problem and seen the final solution, kudos Billy. I don't hardly bother thinking a thought these days, I just check what our gun toting Quaker pacifist thinks everyone should be thinking, good enough for me.

[billy rubin]

pudding old buddy, one of several life lessons youve never learned is that its impossible to insult someone who doesnt respect you.

toddle off, my friend.

[Tank]

The argument please not the person please.

[billy rubin]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/29/dozens-killed-injured-by-israeli-fire-in-gaza-while-collecting-food-aid

More than 100 Palestinians have been killed and some 700 others wounded after Israeli troops opened fire on hundreds waiting for food aid southwest of Gaza City, health officials say, as the besieged enclave faces an unprecedented hunger crisis.

The Gaza Ministry of Health said on Thursday said at least 112 people were killed and more than 750 wounded, with the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning what it said was a cold-blooded "massacre".

[Asmodean]

in the meantime, the israelis murder civilians with impunity

So drag them to the human rights court. Actually, I believe South Africa already did.

They are not murdering anybody until the individual war crimes are established as such. There are some cases more obvious than others, but the overall strategy does seem to revolve around ridding the place of the militants. It is a heavily-populated urban area, however, and said militants tend to be where civilians are, so there it becomes a matter of weighting mission objectives, the safety of own troops, the safety of civilians, the functionality of supply routs and a whole mess of other variables against each other.

"You" may have done it differently, but then "you" may have left the war with its objectives unachieved, which could (actually, would, if history is anything to go by) result in a different kind of disaster. Also, it is still a possibility, so there is that...

[billy rubin]

you know what, asmo?

when people are dying, its worthwhile to cut to the chase.

i regard moral imperatives as more easily identified than you seem to do.

i regard pain as real. death is real.

killing grandmothers is real. burying children alive in rubble is real.

if morality exists, i dont see difficulties in identifying right versus wrong.

this is an easy moral question for me. i do not see subtle nuances.

at all

[Asmodean]

i regard moral imperatives as more easily identified than you seem to do.

Perhaps. I don't find them difficult to identify - only complex to weigh against the sum total of concerns.

i regard pain as real. death is real.

...Nor have I claimed that either was illusory or imaginary.

this is an easy moral question for me. i do not see subtle nuances.

Herein lies the difference, I suppose. I would urge you to consider that not seeing the subtle nuances does not remove them from their respective equations.

[billy rubin]

you are correct. i do not see the subtle nuance here

Grandmother shot and killed fleeing Gaza. Watch CNN's investigation

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2024/01/25/palestinians-gaza-shooting-investigation-ward-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn

[Asmodean]

Those right there may well be examples of one or several war crimes. Or "just murders." Or civilians disobeying an order to stop and turn around, or mistaken identity, or a whole mess of things I - or you or CNN, for that matter - haven't even considered.

You may say that the result is the same, but moral dilemmas are about the journey to conclusion at least as much as about the conclusion itself. To pre-emptively TL:DR myself, from that report, I sort-of know "how it ended," but at best only half a story of "how it went down."

Let us say that the facts surrounding the shooting itself are not in question, though stuff like determining the direction of the shot from riccochet/round impact seen in 2D, about on the plane of where the shots could come from could and should be questioned. I'm inclined to think that it was, in fact, one of the vehicles that fired its ancillary weapon, so let's blanket-grant them their research as valid and even say that we know who was firing at whom down to the name. What is in question is the motive of the shooter and the extended circumstances surrounding the shooting. Within those, there may at its extremes lie the difference between combat and a war crime.

Beyond that, it's more of a portrait report than a fact-finding one. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, it's just that they spend a lot of time talking to and about people and comparatively little talking about the specifics surrounding those deaths. If I were to assume the reason, it would be that they simply don't have "the rest of the picture," and present what they do have. Is it the full story? It might be. It might not. As the evidence stands (referring to the evidence I have been made aware of) this jury of one is hung.

EDIT: I guess I might tack on the reasoning. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that there are thousands - maybe even tens of thousands of sociopaths who "just like killing" in the Israeli armed forces. However, when looking specifically at Raviv the Tank Gunner (completely fictional name as it relates to this case - just sounds Israeli-army-ish) and his actions relating to a specific shooting, negligence or ill[egal] intent would need to be demonstrated - otherwise, Raviv didn' do no crime. Now, if he didn't check the target or knowingly aimed at civilians or his finger slipped or he was under specific orders and so on and so forth, then there may be something there. The CNN report addresses nothing of the sort, however, so if I were to conclude one way or the other - what would I be basing it on? That's why I say leave it to someone who knows and understands the standard of evidence in such matters - preferably someone who does not care either way besides, though I guess that's a tall order. Me? I'm not that, and so any condemnation I may come up with at this point in these cases would be as hollow ("knee-jerk emotional" and perceived as such) as a newly-emptied supertanker.

I wouldn't mind seeing a ceasefire and some sort of resolution to the conflict, but it takes two to do that tango and when neither is prepared to be led by the other... They end up tripping bystanders and passers-by to their death. There should be accountability for those actions. There probably will be "none," practically speaking, but any accountability there is should be rooted in enough demonstrable evidence, as opposed to how seeing someone die a violent death makes me feel.

[Tank]

you know what, asmo?

when people are dying, its worthwhile to cut to the chase.

i regard moral imperatives as more easily identified than you seem to do.

i regard pain as real. death is real.

killing grandmothers is real. burying children alive in rubble is real.

if morality exists, i dont see difficulties in identifying right versus wrong.

this is an easy moral question for me. i do not see subtle nuances.

at all

I agree

[Asmodean]

There is black. There is white. There are infinite shades of gray in-between.

Without a detailed understanding of the situation, how could you pinpoint where it falls?

It is a nasty conflict, fought in "no-man's land." There are inconvenient realities there pretty much whatever side of it you look at it from. Had Israel invaded a sovereign nation in this manner, things may have been different. Then again, an organized army may not have been as ready to use the civilian population and the threat of international outrage as cover quite as readily.

In my view, Hamas sufficiently demonstrated that they fight for Hamas - not the people of Gaza. Conversely, Israel fights for Israel. Those very people of Gaza, being caught in the middle... Yeah, it's a messy situation.