Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I expect an explanation for that put-down. Specify. Evading what?

The explanation you have it. Under your nose. Just follow the link. Everything is there.

You have already done the same, in June 2022: linked to a Russia Today's presentation of a RAND Corp study, instead of linking to the study itself.  Russia Today's (misre)presentation was a sinister joke, as I showed at the time.

And now you relapse. Why should anyone be interested in RT's summaries of anything instead of the real thing?

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:
On 12/20/2023 at 11:55 PM, AlexL said:

Then show it [that Israel does not have a competent military]! Are you a military expert? What level of knowledge do you have specifically about Israeli military?

Israel has been in a constant state of war with gaps of maybe only a few years. I can't think of examples of countries that are unable to defeat their enemies for such a long period of time. What more do you want me to say? 

So: you admit that are not a military expert, that you know - next to - nothing about the Israeli military. Therefore: why claim that it is the incompetence of  Israeli military that is at the origin o lack of decisive military successes of Israel after the 1973 war?

It is not the army that decides about the start of war, about its end, about the tactics, methods, rules of engagement etc. It is the politicians who do these. And they are subject to pressure from all sides: from the "allies", from its own public opinion, from the world-wide "public opinion" and what not. And thus too often take wrong, or even criminal decisions. Like for example put to risk their own soldiers in order to spare enemy's "civilians". 

The resounding Israeli military successes before and up to 1973 prove that the army in itself can perform very well. One cannot win a politically correct war.

But you do know all this - that the army is fully under the control of the government. It is useful to remember this, from time to time.

 

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
On 12/20/2023 at 8:37 PM, AlexL said:
On 12/20/2023 at 7:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. ... now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza

OK, let's see the arguments.

On 12/20/2023 at 7:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now.

What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing?

On 12/20/2023 at 7:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven.

OK, let's see the arguments.

On 12/20/2023 at 7:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy.

Cannot discriminate 100%.

The arguments will ultimately rest on the issue of "Is Hamas a legitimate entity to negotiate with or not" regardless of the issue of indiscriminate killing.

You changed the subject, which was "indiscriminate killings". Your Performance is disastrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

So: you admit that are not a military expert, that you know - next to - nothing about the Israeli military.

I'm assuming you're saying this because you know something more than me. Rather than a cryptic message that simply implies facts that are out there, just tell me the facts that you are thinking of. Obviously not being an expert doesn't mean I know nothing. 

But by comparison to other countries, how is it that, by your own number, Israel has not been able to shape up in 50 years? 

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

It is not the army that decides about the start of war, about its end, about the tactics, methods, rules of engagement etc.

Then the Israeli military is incompetent because generals and commanders are not able to make any decision without first asking for permission. (Or worse yet, people within the government without military expertise are telling military commanders to flatten Gaza when perhaps the intelligent military decision is something far more nuanced and calculated). I don't really think this is the case but going by your reasoning, this is what I would conclude.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
1 hour ago, AlexL said:

So: you admit that are not a military expert, that you know - next to - nothing about the Israeli military.

I'm assuming you're saying this because you know something more than me. 

Wrong assumption. Sharpen your logic.

 

Quote

 just tell me the facts that you are thinking of.

I know next to nothing about the Israeli military, but it is not me who claimed that "Israel does not have a competent military".

Quote

Obviously not being an expert doesn't mean I know nothing. 

Maybe you know "something", but for such categorical pronouncements as "Israel does not have a competent military" one has to know a lot more than "something".

 

25 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
2 hours ago, AlexL said:

It is not the army that decides about the start of war, about its end, about the tactics, methods, rules of engagement etc.

Then the Israeli military is incompetent because generals and commanders are not able to make any decision without first asking for permission.

"Any decision" ?You have a very serious problem with your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AlexL said:

The explanation you have it. Under your nose. Just follow the link. Everything is there.

You have already done the same, in June 2022: linked to a Russia Today's presentation of a RAND Corp study, instead of linking to the study itself.  Russia Today's (misre)presentation was a sinister joke, as I showed at the time.

And now you relapse. Why should anyone be interested in RT's summaries of anything instead of the real thing?

You are paranoid about "RT". The very least, read the other side to see what they are thinking; which information " they " propagate. . Do you want to learn or to be told what to think?

With such recall, you should remember I - twice at least- linked directly to RANDCorp's own website and its page Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. (pub. 2019). No misrepresentation, there it is, in its own words. I asked WHY? Their mission statement as laid out was "a sinister joke" and I thought it shocking. The Cold War over, but the anti-Russian enmity continued, up until the invasion and of course, hugely more, after.

What cannot be denied, the West was intent on *making* Russia its enemy - without miltary, ideological or geopolitical cause and necessity. Now, naturally that enmity runs both ways.

The Western strategy has been proven "wrong" (in practical and moral terms". Whatever the attempts to undermine/weaken/overthrow Russia by leading it to exhaust itself militarily, economically, forcing a regime change etc., etc.  - did not work. The price paid for that failure was and is colossal. The effects of the 'experts' failure to properly identify their ooponent will be around for a long while.

The world is being divided by a new fault line, put simply.

Worse - it did not work, but predictably would not work. The possible outcomes were high-risk, anyway.

And too, the misinformation disseminated by the West to encourage/ prolong the fighting - has been proven practically wrong and immoral - sacrificial. The consequences show that. The dark side, e.g. RT propaganda, was greatly more realistic, matching Russia's general hard realism concerning the war and their economy, it must be concluded.

Stunning that you and everyone cling to that - evasive - western "narrative" against all present evidence of their false or omitted information.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The point is indiscriminate killing as a policy, I think that's what he's getting at. Not a failure of discrimination, but no attempt at it. This follows from the premise of "all actions in self-defense are justified, any bad consequence is purely in the hands of the initiator" makes it so that making any discrimination is going to get in the way of self-defense. Therefore, the best action is always to flatten and delete entire regions, without regard for innocent civilians or collateral damage. 

The fact is, that there is some rational limit is not really a barrier to self-defense. It's actually possible to negotiate with terrorists, not in the sense of giving them what they want, but taking advantage of their short-term goals so that your long-term goals win out in the end. With modern technology, we can be so discriminant that innocent deaths are almost always catastrophic failures, and sometimes engaging in war is not even necessary. Imagine destroying Hamas without killing any civilians. It is possible. This is a more effective way to dismantle modern terrorism.

I would argue that killing Hamas operatives without killing civilians is highly unlikely. It was possible before the war started, even before Hamas was brought into power. Now it's practically impossible and therefore unintended killings will occur. That is the accepted policy, justified in ethnic cleansing terms. Hamas will probably say the Thai citizens that were killed were unintended too. That Jews are evil for a reason de jour.

The basic point I'm making is that it's too late to prevent indiscriminate killings. They are happening, they will happen ... intended or not, this is predictable and expected. Granted, Hamas led the killings. But it was also negligent behavior on the part of Israel that created this mess. They had the maneuvering power to prevent it. They manipulated in bad faith since the Oslo agreement. Preventing the pressure cooker was an option, a choice that was not taken. I can't condone what Hamas did, but Israel is also responsible for what happened to its citizens. Most likely its voters will hold their government to account. But as a third party, we cannot simply take the side of Israel basically because they are "more like us". Israel has far more leverage and power and it cannot be supported to dictate rules. The IDF is not suited to carry out surgical strikes. It can't be a dependable deal-maker to cause Hamas to lose its grip on power. Our interest is the cliche "a lasting peace" which requires behavior that convincingly discriminates between innocent vs. not innocent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral judgments being made, without reference to the implicit and explicit normative doctrines . .

It often appears that O'ists defer to the default doctrine, altruism.

This ~moral~ debate at large is between altruists and all others everywhere who maintain any degree of self-worth:  i.e. my life is *no less* important than any others.

It's demanded of Israel that it leaves this battle uncompleted.  Its sworn enemy of Jews, Hamas, mustn't be completely defeated, they indicate.

But since these attacks will only recur at a later stage, prompting another war --- it's not just Israelis' right to self-defense -- it's in their rational self-interest to finish the heavy task now. 

The Islamists plainly are widely admired for their ~extremist~ altruism, for martyrdom of civilians and their own families in "the cause" [of murdering Zionists] - by regular altruists, who wouldn't go quite so far...

To go to that degree, amid all the general (ultimately, self-created) suffering of Palestinians resisting Israel's peace efforts - HAS TO demonstrate the supreme righteousness of the Hamas 'cause', runs the warped moralizing of altruists all over. .

Israel, otoh, is being "selfish". They actually believe their lives matter more than the self-sacrificial Islamist enemy.

Best for all concerned, the Jews offer themselves up for the slaughter, or just go back to where they came from.

Everyone is doing it. The common debate I see outside, is moral equivalence and moral equivocation made between a terrorist group with submissive civilians under their totalitarian control and the most liberal democratic country in the area. But why here? Its imperfect politics aside, It isn't a ~morally~ just evaluation of Israel. .

With a rational ethics based on "the standard of value, man's life" from which to form value-judgments on any issue, why do Objectivists not use the code? 

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The very least, read the other side to see what they are thinking

You already forgot what the subject was.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are paranoid about "RT"

No, it's Russophobia😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For chrissakes, killing 5 civilians to one, or even 10: 1, will be usually considered indiscriminate.

They are not unheard of in other, just wars.

But you can take this to the bank-- the Gazan casualty ratio is very closely two to one.

In that concentrated terrain, I repeat, that is abnormal. The IDF is having to fight with great self-restraint. And will make mistakes, to under-react or over-react to the sudden presence of a person. Too slow, you and your men could be killed, too fast you might kill an innocent or a fellow soldier. Again, anticipated and exploited by Hamas.

Out of there, fighting in open ground, they'd be defeated and surrender in one or two days. They obviously will not budge.

We have self-styled military experts passing unfounded claims. One does not ~need~ like me to have been in that kind of urban, guerrilla conflict situation with civilians all around to understand better, but use your imagination.

In the war context, "indiscriminate" goes with "disproportionate": anti-concepts. You must fight not to defeat an enemy and end their threat to you, one also is dutybound to minimize ~their~ losses, to approximate your own.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bad faith"? (In Oslo) Excuse me, but wrong.

-What the world saw:

SEPT. 13, 1993 The historic Oslo Accord is signed at the White House. Palestinians and Israelis agree to recognize the other’s right to exist: “It is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict” and “strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.” Soon Israel begins its promised withdrawal from lands occupied since the 1967 war; Jericho and Gaza are transferred to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat — Israel’s implacable enemy for 30 years — returns from exile to establish the Palestinian Authority. The parties agree that the most sensitive “final status” issues — permanent borders, Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees, and Jerusalem — will be addressed later.

OCT. 14, 1994 Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat are awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the Oslo Accord...".

-And what occurred shortly after, in May '95: Arafat speaks to Johannesburg Muslims. The peace accord was a ruse - he calls for a jihad.

Whose bad faith?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinkfSWy6WDAxW0XUEAHW3nBXEQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Farchive%2Fopinions%2F1994%2F05%2F26%2Farafats-loose-lips%2Fffd735a8-fe5f-4172-87fa-a77b4261c820%2F&usg=AOvVaw3cznRZjF4-EVl2OYqckfhZ&opi=89978449

The lengthy trickery of Jihadist revisionist propaganda won't be refuted, I'm afraid, it is too entrenched.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Our interest is the cliche "a lasting peace" which requires behavior that convincingly discriminates between innocent vs. not innocent. 

I find that many people think anything short of absolute war (ie flatten and delete the entire area) is self sacrificial, or is giving into terrorists. But that is a very shortsighted way of thinking, ignoring that this can in fact create more violence, or fail to secure individual rights. The US has improved in this regard since Vietnam, so even though I said killing no innocents is possible, my idea was that military actions can be more efficient over time. 

I get what you are saying about indiscriminate killing, but it usually refers to a policy of killing without an attempt to distinguish who you kill. Anyway, the more important point is that Israel can and should do better. It's better overall to destroy less things, people included, it creates opportunity for growth and trade. Distinguishing who you kill is a good thing in war. 

On 12/22/2023 at 6:05 PM, AlexL said:

"Any decision" ?You have a very serious problem with your logic.

If you just want to nitpick that overall it is the government and not merely the military, fine. In that case, the Israeli government is completely incompetent, military included. I should have said those making military decisions are incompetent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2023 at 8:42 AM, Easy Truth said:

Go to war with Iran, while financing the war in Ukraine. Of course, we should also eradicate North Korea while we are at it. 

No, of course we shouldn't eradicate North Korea. North Korea is a communist state. We can trust them to act the way communists usually act: with self-preservation as their principal goal. We can also trust them to remain an isolationist state, with a very limited sphere of influence, and very little ambition to expand that sphere of influence.

Just as we can trust Iran to act the way Islamists usually act. To reach out to every point on the planet, and commit increasingly larger scale and more horrific acts of mass murder.

Hence, the different treatment: we have no reason to go to war with North Korea, we have very good reason to go to war with Iran.

Quote

Get rid of all of the evil in the world.

Of course not. And, frankly, if you can't be bothered to understand that I'm not suggesting to "get rid of all the evil in the world", you're not worth talking to.

Quote

As if all of this is free and without any regretful consequence. 

I assume that, like most people with even a modest degree of rationality and an IQ above ~80, you make decisions after you consider all your options. For instance, when deciding to go shopping, you weigh the consequences of both the action (you might catch a cold, you might get hit by a car, etc.), and inaction (you'll starve to death).

So why are you being stupider than your usual self, in this conversation? Why are you failing to keep this conversation at your usual level of intelligence and rationality, by considering both the consequences of action and inaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservative intellectuals ask (and answer) the right question: how did the secular, radical Left get into bed with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists to enable the comeback of virulent Judeophobia? Intellectual agnostics need to get off the fence. Israel (etc.), is not the cause it's a symptom of the ideological rot.

https://youtu.be/8Um4Hq1HLWo?si=JFQ_dtk_M5u0PbB6

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Conservative intellectuals ask (and answer) the right question: how did the secular, radical Left get into bed with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists to enable the comeback of virulent Judeophobia?

I guess when you have room temperature IQ, it's easy to answer that Muslims having rights is equivalent to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.

And of course, Judeophobia never existed when Conservatives were chanting "Jews will not replace us", but Jews are virtually genocided as soon as some leftist says Muslims have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Which "Muslims"; what "rights"?

I logically distinguish "Islamists" or Islamic fundamentalists from others - as in: all Islamists are Muslim but not all Muslims are Islamists. That's not a distinction recognized by collectivists. (I have mixed with many Muslims in most areas and apply the same individualist principles of personal merit to each as to any one in an ostensible 'group').

But according to collectivists, all that matters is "race" (etc.) and whether that race can claim victimhood from 'oppressors' in their past. 

Most selectively.

Here are displayed the hypocrisy and self-contradictions of this bunch isolating and tormenting the most victimized, least belligerent and least numerous people in history, in this newfound anti-Jewish racism. 

Second, what "rights"? where? All American and other westernized Muslims apparently enjoy the same rights as any 'group'. Do Muslims in theocratic countries enjoy proper rights too? Do other religions there, e.g. Coptic Christians and a few remaining Jews or atheists and unbelievers partake, as well? Usually, where some tolerance exists, dhimmi status is applied . 

But - who protects one's (individual) rights - or 'grants' - and therefore has the power to arbitrarily remove any entitlements, as in "human rights"?

One's nation-state.

Which is exactly what the Palestinians and Gazans, after being displaced and abandoned by their countries (e.g. Jordan and Egypt) following the latter's failed wars of aggression on Israel do not have - AND have refused every opportunity to achieve. In the case of Gaza, they completely were left to determine their future as a nation, by Israel, although, rightly, after continuing violent attacks, were distrusted and embargoed to prevent weapons and materiel entering. 

Becomng very clear, most Palestinians actually desire "river to sea", and "two-state" was the fantasy only of the Israelis, who bent over backwards with compromises to pursue that. A productive people and its government will always tend to seek peaceful relations with their neighbors, avoiding the human cost and expense, energy, and worries of strife.

The "rights" of Gazans are and have been, particularly abused. Not by Israel. When a regime regularly and deliberately incites a conflict inviting a reaction from its powerful neighbor, until the most savage attack and violent response of all, it's the innocents who will pay - who will have any existing basic "rights to life" obliterated.

In this war, all the rights abuses as well as moral culpability for the citizens' losses lies with their rulers.

But according to the alliance of radical Left-plus - Islamists , it has (somehow) become incumbent upon - the Israelis - to uphold the human rights Gazans never possessed from their Islamist regime.

The shock to leftist Jews has been how their traditional fears of the "right wing anti-Semites" have been misplaced. The racist new Left is the growing menace. 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Valid query by one speaker in the video.

"How are people who are so bright, so well educated, the finest that Western society has to offer, be not just so stupid, but also downright prejudiced and racist?" 

Objectivists could answer that intelligence and education don't alone propel the certainty of thinking, they may more often be the recyclng of others' thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Do Muslims in theocratic countries enjoy proper rights too? Do other religions there, e.g. Coptic Christians and a few remaining Jews or atheists and unbelievers partake, as well?

So minorities in Islamic theocracies experience a worse enforcement of rights than the majority? Totally not happening in Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The racist new Left is the growing menace. 

The year is 2023. College kids and twitter posts have assumed absolute, dictatorial power. Guns, bombs and military aid have stopped working. Genocide by words is the new norm. Whites in the US and Jews in Israel are channeling their inner Dodo.

- The Smartest Conservative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, human_murda said:

So minorities in Islamic theocracies experience a worse enforcement of rights than the majority? Totally not happening in Israel.

Are Arab Israeli citizens maltreated in Israel by its government? Does Israel practice apartheid within its borders/jurisdiction?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Are Arab Israeli citizens maltreated in Israel by its government?

Arabs don't have the same rights as Jews. They don't have "Birthright Israel" (and related travel/migration rights), for example, even if they were actually born there and got kicked out. They also don't have the same experience with law enforcement as Jews.

This is also a meaningless question. The Muslims who used to live in Israel and whose rights have been violated the most are not physically there, because they have been kicked out by Jews (1948 Palestinian expulsion). Just because they're not physically in Israel now doesn't mean that the rights of Muslims who had lived in present day Israel hadn't been violated. So yes, the property rights of "Israeli Muslims" have also been violated, but you won't find them in Israel.

The reason you won't find as many "maltreated" Muslims in Jewish majority regions is because the Israeli Muslims whose rights were violated were also ethnically cleansed and no longer exist, not because they weren't maltreated. Acting like the rights of Muslims in Israel weren't violated is equivalent to saying that the rights of murdered (or deported) people weren't violated because they no longer exist (or exist in the same place). Just because these people don't have Israeli citizenship because of being Muslim doesn't mean they aren't from Israel or that their rights weren't violated.

 

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Does Israel practice apartheid within its borders/jurisdiction?

Where are Israel's borders?

If you mean the Jewish majority areas with citizenship, there used to be Muslims there who got kicked out (1948 Palestinian expulsion). The rights of Muslims who used to live in Jewish majority regions still got violated, even if they're not physically there now (and don't have Israeli citizenship, even though they're from Israel). Jews took over homes of Muslims using laws such as "Land Acquisition (Validation of Acts and Compensation) Law (1953)". This is a violation of rights "within Israel's borders".

If you mean West Bank, Israel occupies it militarily. Israel is also continually expanding into the West Bank and Jews living in the West Bank have Israeli citizenship, but Muslims don't. Israel de-facto controls West Bank and still kick out Muslims from their homes, as of 2023 (these homes are then taken over by Jews who have Israeli citizenship with help from the Israeli police force and military). What's happening in West Bank already happened in "Israel".

If you mean Gaza, Israel has no direct military control over it, but controls their economy and resources.

Israel doesn't just practice apartheid. It's a mix of ethnic cleansing (in Israel, 1948), apartheid (in West Bank, ongoing) and imperialism (in Gaza, ongoing).

Edited by human_murda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...