War, what is it good for?

[Jamiet99uk]

That's enough what-aboutery for the next few hours, I have things to do.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This was going to be my answer to your question to me. Israel should not have done these things. Israel has empowered and encouraged Hamas by virtue of its constant undermining of the peace process and the undermining of the more moderate Palestinian leadership.

Not to mention Israel perpetuated the Nakba in 1948, an act of enormous theft, displacement, and murder - the catastrophic act which initiated the great suffering and sense of injustice felt by the Palestinians to this day.

Okay, but I wonder if you could address my second point in that post: What does any of this matter right now?

Do Israeli citizens deserve to be terrorized until they've made amends to the Palestinians and, if so, what's the limit? If Israel withdrew from Gaza today, Hamas would immediately start preparing for Oct. 7 round two. If Israel laid down its arms, it would be invaded by Iran and its proxies in an eliminationist war. Maybe it is Israel's fault that there is no partner for peace (I personally think that is going too far), but it's just factually true right now that peace with Hamas is impossible.

And if the ethics of this are so clear, what's your stance on other supposed de-colonization movements? Would it be okay for my family to be killed in the name of decolonizing Canada? Certainly we could enrich an Indigenous family by giving them my house. Maybe justice demands that I return to Scotland, though its only part of my heritage and even then that was 5 generations ago. Is Canada absolved of these crimes because they happened further in the past, or because we pour a bit of money into Indigenous issues?

Why is the Jewish colony the only one that deserves to be undone violently?

I favour a two-state solution in Israel (something the current Israeli government does not). I do not favour, and have not advocated for, the removal of all non-Palestinians from the region.

Canada has a low population density and there is plenty of land for both indigenous people and more recent arrivals to Canada to live there. However it is certainly the case that from the 18th Century until the second half of the 20th Century, European Canadians and the Canadian government aggressively perpetuated shocking human rights violations, en-masse, against First Nations, and Inuit peoples who had been present well before serious colonisation took place. Some of these policies were explicitly racist and deeply bigoted, including the forced kidnapping of around 20,000 indigenous children, and the forced "Christianization" of many people and a deliberate attempt to erase their culture. Some scholars have described these policies, collectively, as an attempted genocide.

In the past 20 years Canada, unlike Israel, has begun to take meaningful strides to undo some of these wrongs. In 2008 the Canadian Government formally apologised for some of the above-mentioned acts, and put in place a Truth and Reconciliation commission. It is my understanding that around 2 Billion Canadian Dollars has been paid in compensation to indigenous families. I imagine your family's tax dollars contributed to this - and rightly so. This is not enough, and much more is needed, but it's a damn sight more than anything Israel has done.

I favour a two state solution too, but what does that have to do with the current assault on Gaza? There's an immediate problem that needs to be solved here so long as you agree that Israelis aren't going to pack up and leave en masse and if you're willing to admit that Hamas is a genocidal organization itself. There are live hostages for God's sake.

There actually wasn't room in Canada for both populations. Turns out First Nations groups relied on huge swathes of hunting land, which was intrinsically incompatible with the agricultural and industrial society settlers were creating. Canada got off scot free for 200+ years of brutal, genocidal colonization. Then, once we eliminated 95% of the Indigenous and used the state to disempower and de-indigenize the remainder, we get credit for spending literally 1/1000 of a single year's GDP on programs for the remainder? And if we hadn't given this pittance, then you would be okay with terror attacks against non-Indigenous Canadians until we had met this exceedingly low moral bar?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Also, if your claim that any historical analysis that isn't completely flattering to Palestinians is "whataboutery" then you're guaranteed to have a poorly informed view of the situation.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

If you think that Canada situation is whataboutery okay, fair enough. I think there's an interesting parallels, but it is a very different case.

But your constant suggestion that Israel deserves what it gets because of historical wrongs, while refusing to ever actual own up to this view, is also playing a game of hide-the-ball.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Sorry to spam the forum, but I'm eager to put this conversation back on track because I'm genuinely curious: what do you think Israel should do right now?

Not what should they have done in the past, but what should they do this afternoon?

[Jamiet99uk]

No, I just don't have 12 hours a day to devote to responding to your impatient demands. I'll come back to this tomorrow. I have things to do.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No, I just don't have 12 hours a day to devote to responding to your impatient demands. I'll come back to this tomorrow. I have things to do.

I didn't ask for a rapid response. This isn't instant messaging, get back to it whenever. And if I've annoyed you, just don't respond. I'm not at all upset myself.

I suspect you're a smart and thoughtful guy. I know a ton of informed people have the same view as you. It's very impolite to ask these questions irl, so I'm taking this opportunity to understand what people with your view think is the best near-term solution. I don't feel I have a good answer myself, since what I think probably should happen (wage war on Hamas until it goes the way of ISIS) also involves war crimes and child graves.

[CaptainFritz28]

Careful, Bertissimmo, he might just up and mute you.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Careful, Bertissimmo, he might just up and mute you.

Maybe I deserve it. Writing a bunch of messages on a forum, rather than taking the time to come up with one well thought out one, was my mistake.

[CaptainFritz28]

Careful, Bertissimmo, he might just up and mute you.

Maybe I deserve it. Writing a bunch of messages on a forum, rather than taking the time to come up with one well thought out one, was my mistake.

Perhaps. Whether that would be worth a mute as opposed to just a light reprimand seems like a simple answer to me, but each has their own thoughts on such matters.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

You know what, at risk of further spamming this thread, I'm going to wrap up my previous points to Jamie in a better thought out post. Of course his response is optional, but I want to wrap my head around my own thoughts on this issue regardless + maybe this will make it easier for him to respond to the substantive points if he chooses to do so.

- I was sad that, in response to "what should Israel do now?", Jamie went straight to "Israel has behaved badly in the past". The fact that Israelis have mistreated Palestinians is not a sufficient explanation, and is definitely not an excuse, for the horror of Oct. 7. I believe these historical wrongs have absolutely no bearing on what Israel ought to do right now in November 2023. I'm curious whether Jamie feels otherwise.

- Israel has to eliminate Hamas. No country with the power to stop such a group would refrain from doing so after an Oct. 7-style attack. But Hamas hides behind civilians in Gaza. When Israel commits war crimes it absolutely should be called out and punished by the international community. But painting Israel as evil because of the fact of Gazan civilian deaths, without any qualification, implies that Israel is a wanton aggressor (in a conflict that it didn't provoke) and that it shouldn't defend itself (at a time when it faces existential military risks on 3 of its borders). Does Israel have the right to defend itself even if it results in civilian and child casualties? I think yes, within reason. I wonder what Jamie believes.

- Jamie says Israelis *want* to kill Gazan babies. I can't imagine him saying that to an IDF soldier who, while trying to rescue hostages and prevent further terror attacks in their own community, had the life-ruining misfortune of attacking an enemy that purposefully uses civilian human shields. It's borderline anti-Semitic to think that Israelis are gleefully murdering Palestinians. The fact that some Israeli bigots exist does not tar the entire group. It also doesn't accord with the fact that such a genocide would have been trivially easy for Israelis to do at any point in recent decades if you really think they're the analogue of Nazi Germany. Does Jamie actually believe that Israelis are glad this war started because it will let them enact some Final Solution to the Palestinian problem?

- Obviously nobody wants more civilian deaths. I believe the most realistic way to get there is for Israel to completely dismantle Hamas, which will mean some number of dead Palestinian civilians and children. How many innocent Palestinians die will depend on Israel's tactics and how much the international community can pressure Israelis to trade IDF lives for Gazan civilian lives (because there will be a trade-off). The focus is on Israel's actions not because Israelis are inherently evil or genocidal, but because we already know that Hamas is 100% committed to its own genocidal project and cannot be swayed by the outside world. I suspect Jamie has a different view about what should happen in the coming days and weeks and I would be extremely interested to hear it!

- My point re: Canada was very poorly stated. The point I was trying to make is that I'm always struck by how Palestinians gets 1000x the attention that Houthis, Uighurs, and other victims of state violence receive. Of course the situation in Gaza is intense now and it warrants a lot of attention, but those other situations were similarly intense in the recent past and got almost no attention at all. There is a certain fascination with the wrongness of Israel's colonial project in particular that often feels disproportionate. I would frankly love it if, when this dies down, white girls on Instagram would share posts like "Divest from China" or "Dethrone MBS". That this won't happen says to me there is something troubling about how Israeli's supposed whiteness or Jewishness plays into folks moral intuitions about the situation. What would Jamie's WebDip signature be if the plight of Palestinians were ended tomorrow?

[Jamiet99uk]

- I was sad that, in response to "what should Israel do now?", Jamie went straight to "Israel has behaved badly in the past". The fact that Israelis have mistreated Palestinians is not a sufficient explanation, and is definitely not an excuse, for the horror of Oct. 7. I believe these historical wrongs have absolutely no bearing on what Israel ought to do right now in November 2023. I'm curious whether Jamie feels otherwise.

Yes I do feel otherwise. To attempt to paint this as an event which began on 7th October 2023 is to rob it of vital historical context and present Israel as the victim. That is a false narrative. Israel is the aggressor. Israel is an oppressive occupying force. We must keep making reference to the Nakba because the pro-Israeli narrative wants the world to forget Israel's crimes. This situation is not a random event to be viewed in isolation.

Do you know anything about the Nakba? Do you know what happened in 1948?

You might as well argue that we should never talk about the Holocaust because it happened ages ago, it's old news, it doesn't matter now.

- Israel has to eliminate Hamas. No country with the power to stop such a group would refrain from doing so after an Oct. 7-style attack. But Hamas hides behind civilians in Gaza. When Israel commits war crimes it absolutely should be called out and punished by the international community. But painting Israel as evil because of the fact of Gazan civilian deaths, without any qualification, implies that Israel is a wanton aggressor (in a conflict that it didn't provoke) and that it shouldn't defend itself (at a time when it faces existential military risks on 3 of its borders). Does Israel have the right to defend itself even if it results in civilian and child casualties? I think yes, within reason. I wonder what Jamie believes.

Israel is not defending itself, its actions have gone far beyond self defence. They are murdering thousands of civilians.

Senior Israeli Military spokesperson, Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, said on 10th October that the Israeli approach in Gaza was that "the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy." Are those the words of someone who gives a shit about Palestinian civilian casualties?

(Sources: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/11/israel-abandon-precision-bombing-eliminate-hamas-officials/

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

Israel is not being punished by the international community because of the influence of a small number of countries, chiefly the US and UK, despite clear evidence that Israel is committing war crimes.

- Jamie says Israelis *want* to kill Gazan babies. I can't imagine him saying that to an IDF soldier who, while trying to rescue hostages and prevent further terror attacks in their own community, had the life-ruining misfortune of attacking an enemy that purposefully uses civilian human shields. It's borderline anti-Semitic to think that Israelis are gleefully murdering Palestinians. The fact that some Israeli bigots exist does not tar the entire group. It also doesn't accord with the fact that such a genocide would have been trivially easy for Israelis to do at any point in recent decades if you really think they're the analogue of Nazi Germany. Does Jamie actually believe that Israelis are glad this war started because it will let them enact some Final Solution to the Palestinian problem?

"Israelis" as a citizenry aren't necessarily wilfully murdering Palestinians. The Israeli Government, which is an ultra-right fascist government, is wilfully murdering Palestinians. There are Israeli Government Ministers who have said in public that it is heroic to kill Palestinian civilians, as I have already evidenced in this thread.

Do I think that some of those people, who are in Government in Israel today, see this as an opportunity to scorch Gaza forever? Yes. Yes I think that.

- Obviously nobody wants more civilian deaths. I believe the most realistic way to get there is for Israel to completely dismantle Hamas, which will mean some number of dead Palestinian civilians and children. How many innocent Palestinians die will depend on Israel's tactics and how much the international community can pressure Israelis to trade IDF lives for Gazan civilian lives (because there will be a trade-off). The focus is on Israel's actions not because Israelis are inherently evil or genocidal, but because we already know that Hamas is 100% committed to its own genocidal project and cannot be swayed by the outside world. I suspect Jamie has a different view about what should happen in the coming days and weeks and I would be extremely interested to hear it!

Israel's tactics, as referenced above, are to cause as much destruction in Gaza as possible, irrespective of civilian casualties.

You ask me, what should Israel do now, at this moment in time?

At the very minimum it should show respect for international law; it should engage meaningfully with UN agencies in Gaza, the Red Cross, and others who are desperately trying to save civilians while Israel is murdering them.

Israel should allow meaningful supplies of aid into southern Gaza, and it should stop bombing and shelling southern Gaza. They told Palestinian civilians to evacuate from Gaza City into the south of the strip, and yet they then continued to bomb and shell the southern area where they had told civilians to evacuate to.

But Israel does not care about any of that, of course.

- My point re: Canada was very poorly stated. The point I was trying to make is that I'm always struck by how Palestinians gets 1000x the attention that Houthis, Uighurs, and other victims of state violence receive. Of course the situation in Gaza is intense now and it warrants a lot of attention, but those other situations were similarly intense in the recent past and got almost no attention at all. There is a certain fascination with the wrongness of Israel's colonial project in particular that often feels disproportionate. I would frankly love it if, when this dies down, white girls on Instagram would share posts like "Divest from China" or "Dethrone MBS". That this won't happen says to me there is something troubling about how Israeli's supposed whiteness or Jewishness plays into folks moral intuitions about the situation. What would Jamie's WebDip signature be if the plight of Palestinians were ended tomorrow?

If you know my history on WebDip (and anywhere else) you would know that I have loudly spoken out against many injustices in the world. For example human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and the situation in Syria, about which I have posted at length on this forum before, not to mention British oppression in Ireland, and the ongoing climate catastrophe.

It merely happens that what is occurring in Palestine is the burning topic of the moment because thousands of civilians, including thousands of children, are being murdered before our eyes.

If the plight of Palestinians were ended tomorrow, my signature would probably go back to being a joke about JMO's mom, but who knows.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Thank you for indulging me Jamie! I found this super interesting.

There are a few thing I don't think we could ever agree on. "Israel is the aggressor" is frankly a disgusting thing to say in the aftermath of Oct. 7. How is a 17 year old party goer at a peace rave responsible for the sins of Israel, let alone the babies who were murdered in cold blood? How could Hamas' attack on civilian targets have even conceivably advance the Palestinian cause? Why do you hold Palestinians in such low regard that you think the best they can do is baby killing? Why can't you hold onto your other views about this situation, while also plainly condemning the objective wrongness of Hamas' terror attack?

On other points I can definitely see where you're coming from. Israel's current government has been horrible towards Palestinians and that has been reflected in their decision making about how to respond to this horrific Hamas attack. It's probably wrong to call the Bibi administration "fascist", although the recent judicial reforms were anti-democratic - e.g., Israel will probably peacefully transfer power to a new ruling coalition once the intense part of this conflict subsides. If determining who the "fascists" are in this fight is morally clarifying for you, I've got some bad news about Hamas.

I don't believe that Israel's tactics are maximally targeting civilian deaths, because it is simply true that Israel has the firepower to kill every single Gazan if they wanted to. I think you're factually wrong to tar the government of Israel as being interested primarily in killing Gazans. But I'm very open to an extremely critical view of the way in which the Israeli government/military is waging this war. I think international criticism is an effective tool to force some restraint on Israel and I agree with you that the US and UK have asked way too little of Israel in return for what looks like blanket support (e.g., how can US support not be conditional on an unequivocal end to illegal settlements? It boggles the mind). I'd love if some outside power could enforce aid corridors. I understand Israel's skepticism that "aid" wouldn't at least be partly weaponized, but I feel as though there must be a solution that respects Israel's legitimate security concerns while still providing food, water, medicine, etc., to Palestinians.

I have no expertise in knowing what level of force is appropriate and we're in a political and media environment where I'm suspicious about the objectivity of anyone's take, including the UN. But I can sign onto the idea that bombing south Gaza after telling everyone to go there seems monstrous. In addition, though, I believe that Hamas is an unusual adversary in its willingness to encourage civilian deaths on its own side cynically and I don't know how to account for that when I see the death tolls roll in.

And I guess you're one of the good ones who care about everything all the time. I personally think that sounds exhausting. I look forward to your vocal criticism of the CPP, the House of Saud, etc., once this blows over.

[Octavious]

An alternative view on the Israeli conflict

Oct 7 was a false flag Hamas "attack" on Israel - when the "Impenetrable" gates were open for Israeli-funded Hamas operatives to enter and leave with "hostages" to whip up hysteria to back GENOCIDE (not War) of Gaza, and plunder of Oil recently found under Gaza.

Armistice = ceasefire = peace.

All who want to save Gaza should go peacefully to Whitehall and the Cenotaph.

- Piers Corbyn (brother of the former Labour leader and man who nearly became UK Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn)

[Jamiet99uk]

Piers Corbyn is a nut. His brother is a good man.

[Octavious]

His brother was thrown out of Labour and banned from standing again as a Labour MP for allowing antisemitism to thrive in the Labour Party

[Jamiet99uk]

Thank you for indulging me Jamie! I found this super interesting.

You're welcome.

There are a few thing I don't think we could ever agree on. "Israel is the aggressor" is frankly a disgusting thing to say in the aftermath of Oct. 7. How is a 17 year old party goer at a peace rave responsible for the sins of Israel, let alone the babies who were murdered in cold blood? How could Hamas' attack on civilian targets have even conceivably advance the Palestinian cause? Why do you hold Palestinians in such low regard that you think the best they can do is baby killing? Why can't you hold onto your other views about this situation, while also plainly condemning the objective wrongness of Hamas' terror attack?

Whether deliberately or not, you are putting words in my mouth here, which is not a helpful approach. Israel was not the aggressor in the moment of Hamas's attach on 7th October, but Israel has been the aggressor, the oppressor, since 1948. I made it clear in my previous post why I think it is important to state this, because Israeli propaganda for decades has attempted to paint Israel as a victim in every aspect of the conflict. It is a conflict that Israel started in 1948 and it has been ongoing, sometimes with periods of cease-fire, ever since.

I did not state that 17 year old party-goers are individually responsible for "the sins of Israel". The loss of their lives is upsetting too, and I have stated multiple times in this thread that I do not agree with Hamas's actions. Here I am saying it again.

On other points I can definitely see where you're coming from. Israel's current government has been horrible towards Palestinians and that has been reflected in their decision making about how to respond to this horrific Hamas attack. It's probably wrong to call the Bibi administration "fascist", although the recent judicial reforms were anti-democratic - e.g., Israel will probably peacefully transfer power to a new ruling coalition once the intense part of this conflict subsides. If determining who the "fascists" are in this fight is morally clarifying for you, I've got some bad news about Hamas.

They're fascists. They are rabidly right-wing, violently militaristic, and openly practice Apartheid in the territories they occupy. They even wear black shirts. Call a fash a fash.

I don't believe that Israel's tactics are maximally targeting civilian deaths, because it is simply true that Israel has the firepower to kill every single Gazan if they wanted to. I think you're factually wrong to tar the government of Israel as being interested primarily in killing Gazans. But I'm very open to an extremely critical view of the way in which the Israeli government/military is waging this war. I think international criticism is an effective tool to force some restraint on Israel and I agree with you that the US and UK have asked way too little of Israel in return for what looks like blanket support (e.g., how can US support not be conditional on an unequivocal end to illegal settlements? It boggles the mind). I'd love if some outside power could enforce aid corridors. I understand Israel's skepticism that "aid" wouldn't at least be partly weaponized, but I feel as though there must be a solution that respects Israel's legitimate security concerns while still providing food, water, medicine, etc., to Palestinians.

I have no expertise in knowing what level of force is appropriate and we're in a political and media environment where I'm suspicious about the objectivity of anyone's take, including the UN. But I can sign onto the idea that bombing south Gaza after telling everyone to go there seems monstrous. In addition, though, I believe that Hamas is an unusual adversary in its willingness to encourage civilian deaths on its own side cynically and I don't know how to account for that when I see the death tolls roll in.

Thank you for a nuanced appreciation of the situation. I respect that you've put some thought into this. I suppose I should nuance my analysis as well. I accept that Israel is going after Hamas and that they haven't gone into Gaza *just* to kill as many civilians as possible. I concede that point.

However, Israel's tactics, and the statements made by their military commanders and spokespeople, some of whom I have quoted in this thread, very clearly do not care at all how many thousands of Palestinian civilians die. They are making no effort whatsoever to limit civilian casualties. They do not care. Their own spokesperson said their focus was "on damage and not on accuracy". This is a war crime. Deliberately cutting off water supplies to a civilian population is also a war crime.. Israel is knowingly and uncaringly committing atrocities, and the entire Israeli Government should be brought to an international tribunal and put in jail for life (as should the commanders of Hamas).

This, of course, will not happen.

And I guess you're one of the good ones who care about everything all the time. I personally think that sounds exhausting. I look forward to your vocal criticism of the CPP, the House of Saud, etc., once this blows over.

The Cambodian People's Party? Screw those guys. They abandoned any commitment to socialism in the early 1990s. Call themselves revolutionaries? Not anymore. Down with them.

[Jamiet99uk]

His brother was thrown out of Labour and banned from standing again as a Labour MP for allowing antisemitism to thrive in the Labour Party

I disagree with this narrative.

[Jamiet99uk]

Specifically:

First of all, Jeremy Corbyn is still a member of the Labour Party, so the phrase "thrown out" is inaccurate.

Second of all, the reason for preventing him from standing again for election as a Labour MP is because Kier Starmer wishes to purge the Labour Party of socialists. The antisemitism allegations were a convenient vehicle. Jeremy Corbyn is not an antisemite.

[Jamiet99uk]

On the subject of the Labour Party, the BBC reports that 68 Labour MPs have publicly expressed support for Palestine in a manner which is at odds with Keir Starmer's pro-Israeli Government stance. 17 of those MPs are members of Labour's front bench. Yesterday Imran Hussain MP resigned from his front bench position over the issue.

It will be interesting to see how power-mad Starmer deals with this situation.