Israel, Hamas, etc

[Oscar_Kipling]

We're discussing it. I'm talking about how Jews are defending themselves from a genocidal enemy, and you want to talk about the consequences of Jews defending themselves from a genocidal enemy.

You want to talk about the consequences of Israel's actions.

Why doesn't anyone ever want to talk about the consequences for attacking Israel? As if Israel is just supposed to suck it up and tolerate the murder of her citizens because it would make people like you happy? How about no?

Yes, I want to talk about consequences, at least that is a significant part of what I want to talk about. We are in fact not discussing the topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that instead of discussing the topic, you prefer to instead point out that we should be discussing a different much better topic.

My assertion is that one fights a war to win. What happens after will happen after. Nobody said "let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war". They bombed enemy capitals knowing full well that civilians would die, because the enemy state had to be smashed. But somehow Israel alone, of every state ever in the history of the world, is supposed to worry more about the enemy than itself. How about no?

Well okay first off my assertion was:

 "Of course people worried about German and Japanese civilians and made at least some decisions based on post war civilian considerations."

Which was in response to your assertion: "Nobody was worried about German or Japanese civilians during the second world war, because there was a war to be won"

and is fundamentally different than:
"let's not bomb Tokyo or Berlin because of what will happen after the war"

But as I said, I accept that we are doing completely different things here. I do not believe that the literal meaning of your words directly map onto the point you are trying to get across.

I could talk about how many things 'win' can mean in this context, but I also believe that the particulars of how a 'win' is defined is not going to matter to you because you are not interested in discussing your ideas in detail or how those details can be construed.

That's true, and Gaza has to be deradicalized in the same way that Germany post 1945 was deradicalized. That means occupation and a revamped education system and a forced acceptance of at least some western values.

This is actually the sort of thing I wanted to discuss, thanks for actually stating that something outside of simply 'wiping out Hamas in Gaza needs to happen'. I appreciate that you even put a little detail into what exactly that 'something' is. I wish our conversations went more like this.

I would say that you care more the Palestinians than the Israelis. Which is sick, but you're entitled to your opinions.

Yes, I know you would say that, you have said that, like a bunch..

They react to it the way any other country reacts to the murder of it's citizens by an enemy state.

You seem to want to impress upon me that historical practice affirms the virtuousness of this reaction, okay. The reaction that you had appeared to adamantly assert as the only one that matters is 'Hamas is destroyed in Gaza'. I've been saying that I think there are some additional considerations that are worth discussing.

Why do you think a different set of rules should apply to the Jewish state than anyone else?

There's a name for that, you know.

At some point, I did say that I have higher expectations of Israel than I do of Hamas, and I stand by that. Hamas is a terrorist organization pantomiming as a government, Israel is an actual government. However, I have the same expectations of the Palestinian people as I do of the Israeli people. What is that called?

You seem to think that Jews should be more Christian than Christians.

No I don't. Do you have me confused with someone else? I don't think Christianity should be the basis for any government policy, much less Israeli policy.

Were Palestinians ready for a state on 10/6, mere hours before they carried out the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust?

Okay, so did he support it in September? if not, when was the last time that he did, and what happened?

What's interesting is that you place all the responsibility for improving the situation on Israel. Not Hamas, or the Arabs generally, or the Iranians. Just Israel. Why?

Yeah, I didn't say that, moreover this is a classic example declining to discuss the topic in order to point out that the topic of discussion is wrong and should in fact be a different better topic. 

Or maybe, just maybe, Israel is trying to fight a moral war with moral means. Or is that too far fetched? 

   
Are you saying that it would be immoral for Israel to go against the US' desires and 'have at it'? If so why? if not then I do not understand your point and I ask that you phrase it differently because your post is unclear to me.

So the untrained and unarmed Jews, including women, children, and the elderly, being transported by a vast industrial machine to their own demise, should have removed Hitler from power.

I mean if they had opportunities then yeah, for instance I half remember that there was some amount of sabotage that the enslaved Jews engaged in when they were forced to work in German war manufacturing. They did not have much if any opportunity, but I consider this to be an example of making the most out of a very dire set of circumstances. Of course if a Jew in this situation didn't sabotage the bolts in a V2 rocket or whatever because they were afraid of repercussions, I certainly wouldn't go on to claim any casualties of that particular rocket's attack were their fault.

I'm not a 1940's Jewish physicist, but some of my most favorite Physicists were 1940's Jewish physicist, in part because without 1940's Jewish physicists the Manhattan project never succeeds. I do not speak for 1940's Jewish physicists that directly or indirectly contributed to the Manhattan project, but to say that some of them were partially motivated by the fact that they were Jewish people whose intellectual aptitudes positioned them to take advantage of an opportunity to remove Hitler from power does not seem at all off base to me. To say that at least some of them at the time felt that the opportunity granted them by their intellectual aptitudes made their contributions a responsibility would also not be a particularly fantastical take. 

With that out of the way, pretending that I said that Hitler or Iran
was the lone responsibility of the Jews is churlish at best. I do not think that the Jewish people of the world were solely responsible for removing Hitler any more than the Chinese were solely responsible for removing the byzantine set of committees and generals that ran the Japanese war effort.

Perhaps I can put it in a way that you can connect with: We just saw thousands of Hezbollah pagers blow up, we can crudely approximate what it must have taken to pull that off. The idea that the folks that pulled that off would choose to sit out an opportunity to drastically affect their circumstances, that is a coup in Iran, is almost inconceivable to me. I believe Israel would demand to be a part of it. The idea that the US and the EU would prohibit Israel from participation in such an operation on the basis that Israel does not and should not bear any responsibility is only slightly less inconceivable. However all of that is beside the point, Israel is responsible because the existential threat that Iran poses and the consequences that a regime change could have on Israel, makes Israel responsible for their own security.

And again, just to be clear, I do not subscribe to the assertion that it would be easy or even a good idea, I think it is fraught and dangerous and could very well leave everyone in an even more precarious position in the long run.   

Are you only immoral or also foolish?

At times I can be neither, either or both.

[Fenris]

Yes, I want to talk about consequences, at least that is a significant part of what I want to talk about. We are in fact not discussing the topic. You have repeatedly demonstrated that instead of discussing the topic, you prefer to instead point out that we should be discussing a different much better topic.

So you think we should separate the consequences of the Hamas attack from the consequences of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack.

No. I am not going to do that. I'm so very tired of the world at large ignoring what the terrorists do and just want to talk about the Israeli response.

But as I said, I accept that we are doing completely different things here. I do not believe that the literal meaning of your words directly map onto the point you are trying to get across.

Because you and you alone get to decide what words mean.

This is actually the sort of thing I wanted to discuss, thanks for actually stating that something outside of simply 'wiping out Hamas in Gaza needs to happen'.

Hamas has to be destroyed first. That's step one.

I appreciate that you even put a little detail into what exactly that 'something' is.

I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that nothing "afterwards" could happen with Hamas still in power.

Yes, I know you would say that, you have said that, like a bunch..

Because words, they mean things.

You seem to want to impress upon me that historical practice affirms the virtuousness of this reaction, okay. The reaction that you had appeared to adamantly assert as the only one that matters is 'Hamas is destroyed in Gaza'. I've been saying that I think there are some additional considerations that are worth discussing.

Yes. After, you know, Hamas is destroyed in Gaza.

At some point, I did say that I have higher expectations of Israel than I do of Hamas,

Those "higher expectations" always seem to come at the price of being able to wage war effectively.

Hamas is a terrorist organization pantomiming as a government

In what way is Hamas not an actual government? Please do tell.

However, I have the same expectations of the Palestinian people as I do of the Israeli people.

No, you clearly don't. Because you have not expressed a single responsibility for the Palestinian people. So you have, actually, zero expectations of the Palestinian people.

No I don't. Do you have me confused with someone else? I don't think Christianity should be the basis for any government policy, much less Israeli policy.

You expect Israel to turn the other cheek, and not take actions against people who are trying to murder them.

Okay, so did he support it in September? if not, when was the last time that he did, and what happened?

When was the last time the Palestinians behaved like they were willing to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors?

Are you saying that it would be immoral for Israel to go against the US' desires and 'have at it'?

I'm saying that Israel is already fighting a moral war with moral methods. But that's not enough for most countries, including the US, who would rather Israel not defend themselves at all.

I mean if they had opportunities then yeah, for instance I half remember that there was some amount of sabotage that the enslaved Jews

Almost all Jews were slated for extinction. What should they have done, walk slower into the gas chambers? 

Perhaps I can put it in a way that you can connect with: We just saw thousands of Hezbollah pagers blow up, we can crudely approximate what it must have taken to pull that off. The idea that the folks that pulled that off would choose to sit out an opportunity to drastically affect their circumstances, that is a coup in Iran, is almost inconceivable to me. I believe Israel would demand to be a part of it.

Unfortunately nobody is trying to affect regime change in Iran. And the whole project should not fall on Israel's shoulders.