DawnC

@Karmadhi Consider approaching the study of Israeli society with an open mind. You seem to be delving into areas of absurdity, connecting loosely related things that you may not fully understand.

That is not a serious claim. This is similar to saying you can't take America seriously because there is racism towards African Americans.

The link is broken. Note that there are more than two options - this isn't precision vs. destruction. Disabling Hamas involves disrupting their ability to rule, govern, initiate attacks, control the Gaza strip, set traps for ground forces, manage the battlefield and many other abilities. This requires more than just precision and cannot be labeled as merely unjustified destruction. If the ratio they aimed for was 1-80, the percentage of civilian casualties would be 99%. This extreme ratio is not supported even by the most biased anti-Israeli sources, which often fail to address any of the complexities I mentioned earlier (Hamas deceptions). I didn't observe any attacks resulting in 80 to 1 ratios. Even if such incidents occurred, don't mistake isolated cases for a continual policy. I think this is an exaggeration that again fails to see the big picture. Btw, if an IDF spokesperson actually admitted to an attack with such a ratio, I think it's actually making them more reliable. Consider whether nations like Russia, would openly admit to similar actions. A country with a deliberate intention to indiscriminately kill civilians (or even with a 1 to 80 ratio policy) wouldn't likely publicize this. I think you should also address the very difficult dilemma and genuinely ask yourself questions about it, as it's easy to simply suggest they should be more precise. Ask yourself: What would Hamas do if they knew that surrounding themselves with 50 civilians would grant immunity? Wouldn't they exploit it to protect themselves? When facing adversaries who exploit civilian shields, what alternative strategies can be employed? Can a strict policy of never attacking, regardless of circumstances, be a sustainable approach in such warfare? To what extent should military forces prioritize the protection of civilians over achieving strategic objectives? Can there be effective military deterrence without causing significant civilian harm when you are fighting an organization that uses civilians like Hamas? Are there historical examples of successful military campaigns that minimized civilian casualties in the way you suggest? How would you respond if adopting a policy to never attack (regardless of the circumstances) in situations with such ratios meant that every Hamas militant, particularly those in high-ranking positions, would consistently surround themselves with as many civilians as possible? What would you do if avoiding those attacks meant putting your soldiers in life-threatening situations by the thousands? What would you do if the precision tactic you were advocating made it impossible to carry out any attacks at all? I can go on and on. These are not abstract philosophical questions, these are the actual dilemmas the Israelis are confronting. I think It's important to understand the militant situation, to understand what Hamas is, and then to contemplate those questions seriously. I'm not sure people actually do that before suggesting their simplistic solutions. Should the US and the world pressure Israel to minimize the ratio? From a global perspective, I think they should. I think it's good to have oversight and prevent getting carried away. But that doesn't change any of the points I mentioned earlier (including the moral stance on this matter and Hamas deceptions). And just to be clear again, I don't think every attack by Israel is moral, and that Israelis are angels. I'm not in the business of searching for angels and devils but rather in choosing the lesser evil. And after contemplating the questions above, in my view, Israel's actions fall within the spectrum of reason. I try not to suggest moral restrictions to others that I believe I wouldn't apply to myself. In this case, I think that's what most people are doing. And let's not even delve into the UN . A place where countries like Syria get to condemn Israel for bombing civilians, and nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia get to vote on matters of women's rights. This is not an organization that can be taken seriously in any way.

But you see, I don't think your perception here is accurate at all. Comparing Israel to Russia is simply absurd. Doesn't it bother you that this is exactly what Hamas wants? They want people in the West to pressure Israel so they can get away with what they are doing. See what I wrote here a few days ago: The numbers you are taking seriously originate from Hamas (which had no problem lying to you about the hospital bombing). You don't take into account the fact that Hamas uses teenagers as militants and later regards them as children casualties. You forget that there are hundreds of misfired rockets, like the one fired at the hospital. You don't take into account that Hamas dresses its militants in regular clothes to later classify them as civilians. You also don't address the fact that Hamas pays civilians to participate in war efforts and then counts them as civilians (as seen 7/10). From a strategic perspective, you misunderstand the fact that Hamas has a strategic goal of having the most children and civilian casualties possible and doesn't place much value on civilian's lives, while Israel is genuinely concerned about their image as they need European and US support. So, even if they were to desire such actions, they are aware that it would be a major strategic mistake. You also fail to consider the fact that Hamas uses children as human shields to protect its militants when they are targeting civilians (for example, shooting rockets from schools or civilian houses) and that is a very difficult situation to deal with militarily. So, in your view, the right thing for Israel is to provide electricity and water to enemy bunkers during war (where their civilians are being targeted by intentional rocket attacks) and to put their own soldiers' lives in incredible danger because Hamas tactics involve placing civilians in the crossfire. Do you think that's a reasonable criterion to set? Should Israel also avoid shooting at any location where there are civilians? This is not how conflicts operate. If Israel were to adopt such measures, any Hamas militant could take advantage of the situation, and they will not be able to get even to one of them. Should Hamas be granted immunity because of their horrific tactics? Should the Israelis be more receptive to Western critics influenced by Hamas propaganda? What do you think? Anyway, I can still have criticism about an attack here or there. But I believe the important thing here is that I'm not conflating criticism of the accepted level of collateral damage (with people who actually care about that) in some specific attacks with moral equivalence. The fact that I have criticism about the Allies bombing Dresden doesn't make them morally equivalent to the Nazis. It's not solely about examining individual tragedies (which can be heartbreaking). The broader picture is more important.

@Loveeee Memes aside, What I wrote genuinely reflects my perspective. I believe it's neither superficial nor rooted in ignorance or prejudice. If you have a mature counter perspective, I'm all ears.

I think that these points are routed in two misconceptions. Essentially, I think that you believe that the root cause of Palestinian aggression is the situation with Israel, and you think Israel has the power to solve it due to their position of strength. I don't think that's true at all. First of all, you have to consider the possibility that Palestinian society and leadership don't want peace and they don't want anything that will maintain the state of Israel. Westerners have difficulty grasping this, but the reality is that some cultures actually embrace violence and some societies actually value war and even the killing of the innocent. Westerners tend to think that 'everybody just wants to have peace' or 'everybody is like us because we are all human.' This is a fundamental misconception. Yes, we are all human. So was Stalin, and so was Saddam Hussein. The Mongols and Nazis were also human. That doesn't mean that they didn't value genocide or brutal raiding and territorial expansion. The second thing is, that I know it makes sense to claim that Israel's control radicalizes them, and if Israel didn't control them, this wouldn't happen. I just don't think that's entirely true. And I think there is nothing worse for Palestinian society than self-governing. The situation will deteriorate into something like what happened in Syria or Yemen. Take a look for example at Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Palestinian society is no different (in fact, it's worse). Consider also the internal conflict between Hamas and the PLO in 2006. The events of the past 100 years suggest that this is a deeply ingrained aspect of Palestinian society. They exhibit violent behavior, not just towards Israel but towards themselves. And this pattern persists no matter what happens with Israel. Regardless of whether Israel had a state or not, regardless if in was during the occupation or not, before and after Israel left Gaza. This violent mentality has persisted. I think there is nothing that Israel can do, within the realm of reason that will not result in their own existential serious risk, which would change this fundamental issue. I'm not saying it can't change, but there is no indication from the past century that this change is foreseeable. Israel can make wise or unwise policy choices, but the power to fundamentally resolve this issue is beyond their reach. The second misconception is the belief that understanding someone's perspective implies the need to appease them. I can understand why Germany descended into Nazism after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles humiliated them, there were dire economic conditions, and some other factors. But that doesn't mean their regime wasn't utterly barbaric and didn't need to be dealt with using force. You see, when someone is at your door with a rifle, intent on brutally killing you and your family, you kill them. Afterwards you can investigate if he had a difficult childhood. That is what any reasonable, life-cherishing actor would do. Some more specific points: 1.I understand what you're saying. But historically, it wasn't always the case. Jews endured a Holocaust and did not commit such atrocities systematically. 2. + 3. Israelis have endured ongoing terror attacks since the establishment of their state, including many suicide bombings and tens of thousands of rockets targeted at the civilian population over the years (imagine growing up with the constant sound of rocket alarms). Terrorism has a profound effect on a society (consider 9/11 as an extreme example). For many years, their state also faced a genuine survival challenge. This is not a walk in the park, and it profoundly impacts a society. In any case, in reality, they are actually much less ruthless (much much less) and much more inclined towards seeking peace (much much more). This is not solely a consequence of the power imbalance btw. These differing moral standards were present before 1948. 4. I don't see it that way because I believe that historical decisions made by the Palestinians have led to the current situation, making it nearly unavoidable. In my view, a society that initiated war and subsequently lost it is not in a position to dictate the terms. And when they continue with violence, they shouldn't be viewed as the victims (and thus I don't view the Israelis as the aggressors). Anyway, of course I hold Israel to a higher standard because it is a liberal democracy. But I understand the very difficult military situation they are facing, and I recognize Hamas's manipulation of numbers and civilian statistics, as well as militant tactics that deliberately endanger civilians. I also acknowledge that in any conflict, atrocities unfortunately occur. In relative terms, I believe Israel is acting reasonably. They are not intentionally targeting civilians. They are allowing them to evacuate. And yes, they are determined to neutralize Hamas's militant capabilities and secure the release of their hostages. This is war, and it's not a pleasant situation.

I think Olmert's and Barack's offers were more than fair, considering they had lost multiple wars and continued to insist on violent approaches. But in your opinion, what would constitute a fair offer? Those were not peaceful protests. They involved throwing stones, Molotov cocktails, and explosive charges (and rockets on civilian populations from time to time to spice things up). And even if they were peaceful, those marches originated from Gaza after Israel withdrew from the area. Do you believe that marching on the border of a sovereign state by the thousands is a peaceful move?

@zazen We already know that we disagree on that, but I genuinely wonder: what's your view of the time before '48 regarding the Jewish perspective? Do you find it inconceivably wrong in your view? If so, Why? What would you do before '48 if you were responsible for the situation (as a UN outsider)? Would you advocate for separation? How do you perceive the 1948 war? How do you view the militant, violent course the Palestinians took in '47? And what, in your opinion, should have been the Jewish response to that? And if you want to elaborate - How do you view the time period from '48 to '67? What are your thoughts on the peace proposals suggested by Israel since 67'? And what is your opinion on the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip? What do you believe would be a wise and reasonable move for Israel moving forward giving what we have seen so far?

@Loveeee I think this is worth watching. He doesn't neglect things that you consider immoral actions by Israel, but rather analyzes the situation from a broader moral perspective.

This is good. It's my first time encountering this guy (Coleman), so I'm not familiar with his stance on other issues, but I think his perspective on this matter is very mature and nuanced.

What about it?

Dealing with such life-threatening hostility as a nation is no picnic. Assess the morality as you wish, but note that what I wrote is not a commentary on morality. It addresses the nature of conflict and war strategy. Where does this notion of an outpost come from? This is not the situation at all. Israel shares Western values and receives support from the West, but it is definitely not 'nothing but a Western outpost'. Study the relationship between Israel and Western powers and it's history, you might be surprised.

With violence. In '48, this might have been a smart approach because they were not much weaker than the Israelis. But it has consequences - they lost the war they initiated. Persisting with a violent strategy is not a wise course of action for the weaker side (especially when the stronger side offers a relatively fair deal). Their continued use of violence in their fight has brought them to this moment. Only to some extent. Israelis will not engage in something they believe poses a major danger to their survival, regardless of public opinion in Western countries. Actually, There is a strong sentiment in Israeli society that goes like 'We will do what we think is right even if people won't like us'. And although public opinion may shift (I'm not entirely sure about that), strategic considerations remain. This holds greater importance in policy decisions.

@Loveeee After our entire discussion, you're going to insist on this absurd terminology? . There's nothing wrong with admitting you chose the wrong words.

I never said there are no problems in Israeli society. Clearly, this guy and his position are a serious problem. Again, as I understand the Israeli society, I think most of them understand this. Those weapons are distributed to emergency squads in difficult areas. The places with equipped and prepared emergency squads were the only ones that were not completely slaughtered in 7/10 in the south of Israel, so I don't hold it against them. I think that presenting this as militarizing settlers is actually misleading.

I believe most Israelis understand this. The discussion about settler violence may be somewhat exaggerated. There are very strong efforts in Israeli society to contain and completely stop such incidents. It does exist, and it is dangerous and disgusting, but I don't believe it's on the scale often portrayed. And there is an issue with appearances in this regard. Anyway, I don't think it's realistic to expect any society, even a Western one, to be entirely free of extremists. I mean, even Europeans and the US struggle with this issue. Just look at what happens in Europe due to a portion of immigrants. Israelis are dealing with a 20% Arab population and an occupation, and yet they have managed to maintain a relatively healthy society. It's a precarious situation for their society, but the last 70 years shows they have managed well enough in this regard. I hope for them I'm not mistaken in my assessment.

I agree that it's important for them to be cautious about it. But note that even after enduring what they have, this individual was condemned across almost the entire political spectrum and got suspended from office. And Hamas terrorists have been glorified in the majority of Palestinian society, including in the West Bank. This is the crucial difference I consistently emphasize here (and nag people about ).

Yes, But it is important to understand that for many Jewish people, it was a choice between returning to their historical homeland or remaining at the mercy of other nations, enduring what they had endured. I don't believe this can be disregarded, especially considering that there were no distinct Palestinian people at that time but a larger Arab society that included Syria and other regions. This is actually a very interesting point we've reached, because I believe it's a fundamental area of disagreement that may persist even when the complete historical background of the peoples and region is known to us both. I suppose it comes down to biases and the difference in value preferences. Anyway, the historical context from the beginning up until today is crucial in forming a solid moral standpoint. Even if you consider the foundational stance of the Zionists to be immoral, it's essential to reassess your moral position as circumstances evolve. This is what I meant when I wrote 'you can sympathize with whomever you want, but you have to understand the current situation and history'. For instance, would you consider destroying Israel now to be moral just because you don't agree with their original moral stance? From my understanding, when you examine the historical trajectory and the current state of affairs, even under the assumption of Zionism's immorality, the entire perspective shifts. And I've written quite a bit about it, so I think I'll leave it at that.

It is a form of danger. But you're jumping into the middle of the conversation. The conflict could have been avoided entirely, and it could have been resolved on several occasions if they were open to compromise.

Maybe, I don't entirely agree. Read what I just wrote to Lina...

The question of legitimacy is tied to your moral assessment.. I believe that a people striving to return to their historical homeland and establish sovereignty, especially after enduring such cruelty and indifference from the world, is not illegitimate. It does pose challenges and complexities, but I don't find it unwise either. Yes, I do think it is a nuanced issue, even from a moral perspective. And my point is, that regardless of your moral stance, historical decisions from the beginning of this conflict suggest that, as collectives, the Israeli vision has been to coexist peacefully with everyone, while the Palestinian vision has been to live in peace without Israelis and they have been solely focused on that. If Israelis were to abstain from using violence, they would face peril. The opposite is evidently not the case.

I never dismissed the Palestinian point of view. I understand their perspective, their hostility, and their desires well enough. It's just that they are not alone. It is actually you (and the Palestinians) who completely disregard the feelings and history of the other party involved. These are people who attempted to assimilate in other nations around the world, only to endure a real holocaust. They also have both emotional and historical connections to that land, and even if you consider it to be bullshit you still fail to realize it is genuine. Yes, I empathize with the Palestinian point of view and believe they have valid grievances. But their perspective does not justify the history of the past 100 years. It doesn't justify engaging in violent acts for 100 years, many time intentionally against civilians, consistently rejecting compromises, initiating a war with the aim of destroying Jewish aspirations, evading the consequences of a lost war, avoiding criticism regarding their lack of interest in the development of their own people, refusing to negotiate, engaging in massacres and terror, supporting irresponsible leadership, or perpetuating refugee status for multiple generations.

There was a slight Jewish majority (~55%)

This is either ignorance and self-deception in the better case, or deliberate lying in the worst. It has more value to learn about the speaker's tendencies and deceptions than to learn about Zionism from this video.

I think that when you are researching an ongoing conflict, you have to consider the fact that people often have a strong inclination to persuade others to their side. Many individuals may be misinformed and simply repeat things they have heard, but there are also those who are willing to manipulate, conceal important details, and even deliberately deceive you. This video is a very low quality source. It is replete with inaccuracies, manipulations, and it fails to address many details that do not support its narrative, among other forms of deception. A tip: set aside the blame game paradigm and focus on understanding what was truly happening. You can establish your moral stance later. Some points: Regarding the partition plan as a displacement plan is inaccurate. There was a call for Arabs in the Jewish part to choose their citizenship (and for the small Jewish portion in the Arab part) and there were suggestions over the years before about transfers but it wasn't the proposed partition plan. I recommend reading the actual proposal or attending an academic lecture with an unbiased lecturer, this is a very difficult topic to learn about. Btw, I believe it's reasonable to think that the partition plan favored the Jews (in many aspects it did). One question is why. If you will research that, you will discover for example, that the Arab leadership refused to negotiate terms and sought the entire country for themselves (this was a pattern that began then and continues to this day). Even if it does favor the Jews, does that justify starting a war to entirely suppress the Jewish nationality? Would you recommend that side to initiate a war in order to quash the aspirations of Zionists and establish a Palestinian state from the river to the sea? Is it immoral for the Zionists to fight in that war in order to secure a victory? Saying that the Israelis knew they had a stronger army or wanted the war in order to displace the Arabs is also not true. They feared the entry of the Arab countries very much, and their triumph was far from obvious. What would have happened if the Palestinians and Arab countries had their way? The narrative that the British and Zionists worked together against the Palestinians is historically inaccurate. The British relationship with Arabs and Zionists evolved over the years. There were times when the British were actually hostile towards the Zionists. The narrative that it was the British who prevented the Palestinians from laying the foundations needed for a nation is also inaccurate historically. The Palestinians faced significant internal challenges even during that period. There was no established 'Palestinian nationalism' at that time, and society's focus was not primarily on nation-building. While it's true that British rule was in place, they were not the primary reason for the Palestinians' difficulties in building the foundations for a nation. It's important to ask: Who were the leaders of Palestinian society at that time? Did they cooperate effectively? What were their primary focuses? Why didn't the Palestinians advocate for a Palestinian nation when they were under the rule of Jordan and Egypt? The reason Israelis didn't allow Palestinian refugees to return is because they are not suicidal. They did permit a small number to come back, and they were willing to negotiate the return of more only in the context of a peace agreement with the surrounding Arab countries. Would you have welcomed a large population into your country if you knew they had previously initiated a war against you, with the likelihood of more conflicts to come? It's also worth considering why, three to four generations later, these individuals are still classified as refugees. Is there a comparable situation in history? Why or why not? Who benefits from the Palestinians remaining refugees? why are the Palestinians still under occupation? They are indeed subject to Israeli occupation, but they have had opportunities to end it on three separate occasions. What factors might be influencing their decision? Could it be that the destruction of the Israeli state is deemed more important to them than the establishment of their own nation? Essentially, the video (and Lina's perspective) is rooted in the narrative that views the Zionist movement as a form of colonialism supported by external powers. This perspective also distinguishes the Arabs in the land of Israel and Palestine (in the early days of the conflict) from other Arabs and treats them as a separate cultural entity, attributing to them separate national aspirations (Palestinian nationality) and weaker capabilities that are solely a result of colonialism. I believe this narrative simply doesn't present an unbiased research of history. What emerges from that research is a complex conflict, marked by two conflicting national aspirations that both struggled and had complicated relations with the British power. These national movements are not classical in the sense of a typical European national movement, they are both unique in many ways. And there is a general pattern of one side (The Palestinians) refusing to acknowledge the fact that the other side is gonna get his share and having many internal difficulties with nation building.