by tome | 2025-08-02 19:37:42+00:00
> > Furthermore, normally in times of war, third countries allow civilians to flee to safety. Why won't Egypt? Why won't other countries take in refugees via Egypt? Why do they insist that civilians must stay in harm's way?

> Isreal has a well established history of refusing to allow refugees to return to their homes.

Hmm, I don't want to put words into your mouth here, but ... surely you can't be saying "I believe those civilians are being slaughtered/collectively punished/genocided and it's better to keep them where they are rather than let them flee to save their lives because they might not be able to come back"?

> I agree that Egypth should be allowing them in and does share some moral responsibility.

Just out of interest, would you say that the proportion of moral responsibility that Egypt has is equal to the proportion of news coverage and Hacker News discussion Egypt gets on this issue? And if not, do you have an idea why not?

> When an occupying power destroys all the local infrastructure, deliberately destroys the police force and assume defacto control of the country, they assume the responsibility as well.

Yes, "when". Israel is not yet in control of the Gaza Strip. Hamas still retains fighting capability and the war is ongoing.

> The hostages were almost released. It is people like you that insist on unconditional surrender that are the reason they aren't home. That and Netanyahu's malicious desire to hang on to power.

Almost? What stopped it? I doubt I had anything to do with it. I don't think Hamas or Israel are listening to me. Furthermore I doubt Netanyahu has any incentive to keep the hostages in Hamas hands. If there's one thing that could make him even more hated, even more punished in the next election, it's hostages remaining in the Gaza Strip.

> I seriously dont unsterstand the stance that Hamas has ALL moral responsibility for civilian deaths. That doesn't match any moral framework I have ever read or heard about and seems be be just a jingoistic talking point.

Well, fair enough. You're welcome to your moral framework. It's one reason I don't think there's much basis for discussion here. We simply disagree on fundamental things. My view is that if Israel is conducting itself according to international norms on war, then any harm that comes to civilians is the moral responsibility of Hamas.

> > You're in good company. It is very common to believe that "might makes wrong".

> I believe power comes with responsibility, yes.

Ah, but that's something different. I agree that power comes with responsibility. There is a common belief that in any conflict the party in the wrong is the more powerful one. I don't agree with that.

> What I can't understand any moral individual believing what Isreal is doing is ok.

I can't understand how any moral individual can believe what Israel is doing is not OK! But I guess there are a few reasons for that, including having different beliefs about what Israel is actually doing. If I believed what I saw on the BBC, Sky News, CNN, NYT, WaPo etc. then I'd probably feel the same as you do.

(Individual actions of Israel or Israeli combat units may not be justifiable. In fact, I don't see how that's realistically avoidable in war. Israel should punish its soldiers that commit war crimes. I think the strategy of limiting aid is flawed: they should flood the Strip with aid so there is no risk of food insecurity.)

> my government isn't supplying Hamas with weapons to commot those war crimes with

Do you live in the west or the middle east? If so then your government probably has funded Hamas, actually. In fact if your country is a member of the UN then it probably has given at least some small amount of funding to Hamas. Billions and billions in (so called) aid have been poured into the Gaza Strip. Who is in charge of how it is spent? Hamas. Is that how they funded their military tunnels and weapons? Yes.

> I've answered most of your questions, so I have a question for you: What percentage of the Gaza population needs to be killed before you will call it genocide or even just stop supprting Israel? 2% isn't enough so is it 5%, 20%, 50% or even higher? Will you continue to support Israel until they've killed 100% of the Gazans and achieved peace?

As I said, I do not believe absolute numbers of casualties determine justifiability in war. I believe war goals and means determine justifiability. I support Israel's just war goal of eliminating Hamas's military capability and securing the release of the hostages. I think that this war goal is the most just I am aware of in my lifetime, and Oct 7th was one of the most abhorrent events of my lifetime. Hamas's military capability must be utterly destroyed. Israel must not deliberately target civilians or civilian infrastructure. According to internationally accepted norms of law if the enemy military hides amongst civilians or uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes (including hiding military tunnel entrances in or booby trapping schools, mosques and hospitals) then they no longer have special protection.

I hope that everyone would agree with me in this point of view, but maybe not, particularly not people who believe that absolute numbers of casualties are a relevant consideration.

Someone might say: "but they're already deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure!". OK, maybe they are, in which case I no longer support Israel. But maybe they're not, in which case I do support them. I don't think any of us here on this thread truly know, because we're not there. We haven't seen it. The best we can do is make a determination of what to believe based on different sources of information that we trust, and the arguments that we hear. Israel has many more detractors than supporters globally (I would guess the ratio is something like 100:1) so I simply don't expect most of the reporting to be fair to Israel. Furthermore, I find that many anti-Israel claims simply don't hold water, such as the one that started my participation in this thread. After such scandals as the so called "Jenin massacre" (which turned out to be just a normal military confrontation) I'm not quick to jump to conclusions.