Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Arctish]

A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

If you say so. So what conclusion do you propose that we should derive from somebody being a descendant?

(The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the rights and wrongs of the modern conflict aren't determined by genetics. Politesse had it right: "But I don't think the concept of indigeneity applies to the situation at all." ...

I do think the concept applies.

How would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity? If being a descendant makes you indigenous then the Ashkenazi and Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews who immigrated in the 30s and 40s were indigenous too. A descendant is a descendant is a descendant.

Being a descendant does not imply indigeneity. It only implies some degree of ancestry.

The term indigenous means something else.

From your link:

"...considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of the definition or understanding of “indigenous peoples”. But no such definition has ever been adopted by any United Nations-system body.​

...​

observers from indigenous organizations developed a common position that rejected the idea of a formal definition of indigenous peoples at the international level to be adopted by states. Similarly, government delegations expressed the view that it was neither desirable nor necessary to elaborate a universal definition of indigenous peoples. Finally, at its fifteenth session, in 1997, the Working Group concluded that a definition of indigenous peoples at the global level was not possible at that time, and this did not prove necessary for the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.​

...​

Article 1 indicates that self-identification as indigenous or tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply."​

​

So yes, it means something else: it evidently means whatever a speaker wants it to mean. So how would you apply it? What follows from indigeneity?

The Ashkenazi are of mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry. They might be considered indigenous in parts of Europe where their families lived for thousands of years but they don't have the same heritage as the Palestinian Jews who are part of the indigenous population of Palestine.

The Palestinian Jews and Arabs also have mixed European and Middle Eastern ancestry.

From your link:

"One of the most cited descriptions of the concept of “indigenous” ... Martínez Cobo offered a working definition of “indigenous communities, peoples and nations”. In doing so, he expressed a number of basic ideas forming the intellectual framework for this effort, including the right of indigenous peoples themselves to define what and who indigenous peoples are. The working definition reads as follows:​

​

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with​

pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves​

distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them.​

They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop​

and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the​

basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns,​

social institutions and legal system.​

This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into​

the present of one or more of the following factors:​

​

a. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them​

b. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands​

c. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system,​

membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.)​

d. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means​

of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or​

normal language)​

e. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world​

f. Other relevant factors.​

​

On an individual basis, an indigenous person is one who belongs to these indigenous populations through self-identification as indigenous (group consciousness) and is recognized and accepted by these populations as one of its members (acceptance by the group)."​

​

The Israelis clearly satisfy Cobo's criteria.

As I said back in October, not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews are Israelis.

Not all Jews and not all Israelis are primarily descended from the ancient Canaanites.

If you don't understand those two points, you'll never unravel the mystery of why people who worship Ahura Mazda can claim the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as their ancestral homeland and Steven Spielberg's wife can't.

Coco's explanation of what he means by indigenous communities, peoples, and nations begins with indigenous communities having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories. European Jews (Ashkenazi and Sephardic) did not, and do not, have that continuity. They have thousands of years of European heritage, European cultures, and most individuals have a significant amount of European ancestry. So even though they have a lot of Middle Eastern ancestry and a religion that originated in the area around Jerusalem, they aren't indigenous.

So, no, the Israelis in general do not satisfy Cobb's criteria. Some Israelis are members of the indigenous Palestinian population, but most Israelis are immigrants, or the children and grandchildren of immigrants.

Golda Meir once called Palestine "a land without a people for a people without a land".

That's anachronistic. Cite? ...

You're right. I apologize for the error.

She said:

"There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist." <link>

She later said this:

"When were Palestinians born? What was all of this area before the First World War when Britain got the Mandate over Palestine? What was Palestine, then? Palestine was then the area between the Mediterranean and the Iraqian border. East and West Bank was Palestine. I am a Palestinian, from 1921 and 1948, I carried a Palestinian passport. There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians, There were Jews and Arabs." <link>

Then she made a bit of a quibble:

"I don't say there are no Palestinians, but I say there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people."

So first she says Palestinian people did not exist,

"a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people". So no, she said "a" Palestinian people did not exist.

As I said, using "people" in the singular is always propaganda. Her words in no way imply Palestinian people did not exist. The Arabs and the native Jews and the Ukrainian immigrant Jews like herself were all Palestinian people and she did not say any of them didn't exist. She was simply rejecting the "a Palestinian people" propaganda narrative. (In favor of her own propaganda narrative, of course.)

even as she admits there were people in what she herself calls Palestine

"admits". Nice. Shall I describe you as "admitting" Israelis are capable of human speech? Of course there were people there; when is Meir supposed to have denied it, or made some argument it's a point against?

and that the Zionists threw them out.

Not seeing where she admits that. Her point appears to be quite the contrary: that the Israelis never threw the Arabs out of Palestine, because the people supposedly thrown out are still in Palestine. The Jews and the Arabs were all Palestinians, all living together in Palestine, and since they weren't getting along, it was partitioned:

The Palestinians were getting along just fine. You can look into the history of Palestine yourself. Don't expect it to be a very exciting read. Apart from the usual problems with bandits and bad weather, not much happened there. And don't expect to read about a frigid standoff between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The neighbors got along and interfaith marriages were commonplace.

The recently arrived Jewish Zionists were the ones not getting along, mostly because of the economic and social upheaval of the end of the Ottoman Empire and imposing of British rule, and because they made their intention to take over the region by force very apparent.

The UN Partition Plan (and BTW the UN had no authority to divide Palestine) was devised by European nations that wanted to control and exploit it for their own benefit which is why it gave more than 1/2 of the land to less than 1/3 of the population, most of whom were recently arrived Europeans.

the Jews getting a fifth and the Arabs getting four fifths. This was the original two-state solution -- the Arab Palestinians already got their own Arab Palestinian state, which was renamed "Jordan".

The people who lived in the coastal area did not get their own State. The proposal was for them to be evicted and relocated to 'their' State under the rule of a king they did not want, who had been appointed by the European powers with exactly zero input from them.

Then she asks "what was all this before Britain got the Mandate over Palestine?" Obviously the answer is, it was Palestine. And then she pivoted to talking about "a distinct Palestinian people", which begs the question, distinct from what? Egyptians?

Distinct from Jordanians, presumably. Perhaps she meant Egyptians too, since the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian control then.

She was denying the existence of the indigenous population of Palestine

That is not a reasonable interpretation. "There was no such thing in this area as Jews, and Arabs, and Palestinians, There were Jews and Arabs." is explicitly asserting the existence of the indigenous population; what she's denying is that "Palestinians" is a more appropriate term for the non-Jews than "Arabs".

She was promulgating a Euro-centric Zionist view about 'Arabs'. Zionists labelled the Palestinians 'Arabs' so they could say that the 'Arabs' should go live in their own country and leave the Jewish State to the Jews, and nevermind the fact that the Palestinians were living in their own country, the place that had been called Palestine for more than two thousand years.

Also, calling them 'Arabs' makes it easy to criticize them for what 'Arabs' thousands of miles away have done, which I presume is the reason why some posters here have tried to use the actions of Algerians and Moroccans to attack the character of Palestinians. Peak racism.

so she could hand wave away the "we came and threw them out and took their country from them" part.

From her perspective, it was "we came and took control of a fifth of their country and those who didn't want to be in a place we controlled were free to move to the other four fifths." Why should she have accepted a "we came and threw them out and took their country from them" narrative, which plainly implies the Jews took their whole country, when they only got a fifth of it? Can you show Jordan was objectively not part of Palestine?

Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO bigwig, said the following to a Dutch newspaper:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism."​

Was he denying the existence of the indigenous population of Palestine? Was he hand waving away the "came and threw them out and took their country from them" part? Was he claiming Palestinian people did not exist, with no "a"? Golda Meir appears to have simply been agreeing with the PLO's real views instead of with a narrative the PLO peddled for propaganda purposes.

If that translation is accurate, then he was denying the existence of a distinct Palestinian people while at the same time affirming one exists. I don't know exactly what he was getting at, but it appears he was employing Muslim Brotherhood talking points, as in 'we're all brothers in Islam so let's all work together to defeat Zionism' or some such.

Yeah, I'd put him in the same category as Meir, denying the existence of an indigenous population in Palestine and/or refusing to call them Palestinians in order justify a political stance.

The denial that there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people has direct bearing on the current conflict.

"such a thing as an"? "People" is plural for "person". Using it in the singular is always an exercise in propaganda,

It's the word sociologists, anthropologists, Native Alaskans, and probably quite a few others use when talking about communities of individual persons who share a common ancestry, history, heritage, culture, and long term occupation of a specific area across multiple generations. For example: the Zuni people, the Scottish people, the Alutiiq/Sugpiaq people, etc.

Yes, I'm familiar with the usage, thank you. So can you show that Palestinians and Jordanians were objectively two "peoples" and not "a people", or can't you? Sociology and anthropology rarely rise to the level of sciences. What falsifiable prediction can be derived from labeling Scottish persons "a people"?

What falsifiable prediction? I suppose a prediction of the prevalence of a particular genetic condition among persons of Scottish ancestry would be falsifiable, but a prediction about liking fried food and bagpipe music wouldn't. As you note, anthropology and sociology don't utilize the same scientific method as biology, physics, etc.

whether you're claiming the Palestinians aren't "a people", or are. There exists no "truth-maker", no objective criterion, for one group of people having "a people"-hood and another group not. Whether "there even is such a thing as an indigenous Palestinian people" is irreducibly a matter of subjective opinion.

Ah, semantics.

Ah, another entry for the 'Phrases that mean “I have no argument but I want to post a neener-neener.”' thread.

Ah, another useless response that does nothing to explicate your point or request clarification of mine.

You are correct, there exists no "truth-maker", no ultimate decision regarding words and terms in a living language or a field of research that has not yet reached the final, ultimate, godlike understanding of all possible variations in all possible circumstances. There is only current and common useage, and discussions of meaning and concepts.

IOW, semantics.

 

[Arctish]

As most regulars here probably know, I'm a fan of anime. One of my favorite films is Princess Mononoke, the movie that brought Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli to the attention of American audiences.

I'm also a fan of the You Tube channel Cinema Therapy, where a licensed therapist and a film maker discuss movie plots, themes, directorial choices, etc. Their recent video, See With Eyes Unclouded By Hate, which focuses on the character of Ashitaka from Princess Mononoke and how he deals with conflict, really hits on a lot of points people have been discussing in this thread, which is why I have linked to it here.

It's a great little video about a great movie that explores an important topic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Accord to Israeli friends the Israelis are very angry with Netanyahu for not bringing the hostages back faster. They're also angry over an impopular judicial reform last year. Those are the two big things the people are the most pissed off about. They're not particularly upset about the suffering of the Palestinians now.

Most Israelis are so psychologicaly exhausted by the continual suicide bombings by Palestinians (and other terror attacks) that they just don't care anymore about the suffering of the Palestinians. Most Israelis think its a waste of time negotiating or making any deals with the Palestinians. Based on precedents they think Palestinians won't honor their side of the bargain, and it'll just be the Israelis who gave something away for nothing. That's how dealing with Palestinians tends to work out.

It's a pretty bleak outlook.

Anyway... that's what they said

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That the people support 10/7.

Just because we don't have unobtainable information doesn't mean we should ignore what we do have.

The fact people support 10/7 ex poste does not mean they supported it ex ante or would support another one.

But why should we think they wouldn't??

Human nature. I do not support 10/7. But if I saw my friends or family getting bombed to hell and children getting killed, I can see how someone might react with "Hamas did not do enough to the fucking Israelis". It is part of many people's nature to react that way to perceived injustice. It doesn't mean they are actually in favor of murder and destruction. As anyone who participates in an online forum should know by now, talk is cheap.

Reality check: They perfectly well know that there was no way 10/7 could have done enough to the Israelis to avoid retaliation. And furthermore, unless they are idiots they realize the bigger the poke the more Israel is going to go stomp. Thus supporting 10/7 means they consider it worth it. It's worth sacrificing 30,000 Palestinians to kill 1,100 Jews.

So, I don't take those polls to mean that the participants necessarily are in favor of terrorism. Some or all may be, but they may be expressing their displeasure of what they perceive as grave injustice towards their group.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away. And note that very few consider such attacks wrongful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And many people here feel the death and destruction in Gaza is an acceptable result when considering the current and future safety of Israelis. We can all get numbed to some degree of violence we ourselves are not subject to or partaking in.

Note that it was Gaza that chose to initiate the exchange of fire. They chose to take on a mechanized infantry platoon with a flintlock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Palestinians were getting along just fine. You can look into the history of Palestine yourself. Don't expect it to be a very exciting read. Apart from the usual problems with bandits and bad weather, not much happened there. And don't expect to read about a frigid standoff between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The neighbors got along and interfaith marriages were commonplace.

Continuing to pretend that Jim Crow was proper practice doesn't make it so.

The recently arrived Jewish Zionists were the ones not getting along, mostly because of the economic and social upheaval of the end of the Ottoman Empire and imposing of British rule, and because they made their intention to take over the region by force very apparent.

No, it's just we have more history from the more modern pogroms. It's not like they were something new, or something limited to Palestine.

 

[Arctish]

The Palestinians were getting along just fine. You can look into the history of Palestine yourself. Don't expect it to be a very exciting read. Apart from the usual problems with bandits and bad weather, not much happened there. And don't expect to read about a frigid standoff between Jews, Muslims, and Christians. The neighbors got along and interfaith marriages were commonplace.

Continuing to pretend that Jim Crow was proper practice doesn't make it so.

Support your claims, Loren.

Show us the resource(s) you used to inform your opinion of how well Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims, and followers of other faiths got along in Palestine before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate years.

The recently arrived Jewish Zionists were the ones not getting along, mostly because of the economic and social upheaval of the end of the Ottoman Empire and imposing of British rule, and because they made their intention to take over the region by force very apparent.

No, it's just we have more history from the more modern pogroms. It's not like they were something new, or something limited to Palestine.

Well don't just hoard it. Share that history with the rest of us. With links to your sources, of course.

 

[laughing dog]

That the people support 10/7.

Just because we don't have unobtainable information doesn't mean we should ignore what we do have.

The fact people support 10/7 ex poste does not mean they supported it ex ante or would support another one.

But why should we think they wouldn't??

Human nature. I do not support 10/7. But if I saw my friends or family getting bombed to hell and children getting killed, I can see how someone might react with "Hamas did not do enough to the fucking Israelis". It is part of many people's nature to react that way to perceived injustice. It doesn't mean they are actually in favor of murder and destruction. As anyone who participates in an online forum should know by now, talk is cheap.

Reality check: They perfectly well know that there was no way 10/7 could have done enough to the Israelis to avoid retaliation. And furthermore, unless they are idiots they realize the bigger the poke the more Israel is going to go stomp. Thus supporting 10/7 means they consider it worth it. It's worth sacrificing 30,000 Palestinians to kill 1,100 Jews.

Your argument assumes a level of dispassionate rationality that is inconsistent with human psychology. After seeing the horrendous destruction and carnage that the IDF is inflicting on their friends and family, it is a realistic human reaction to express after the fact approval of the 10/7 terrorist attack.

I don’t know how many Palestinians expected such an inhumane attack by the IDF that even included them shooting their own people. To the extent any did, it doesn’t soeak highly of tge gov’t of Israel.

So, I don't take those polls to mean that the participants necessarily are in favor of terrorism. Some or all may be, but they may be expressing their displeasure of what they perceive as grave injustice towards their group.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away.

Neither does quoting idiotic memes cover up bigotry.

And note that very few consider such attacks wrongful.

So what? I wouldn’t consider kicking Trump in the nuts wrongful but I wouldn’t condone it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Accord to Israeli friends the Israelis are very angry with Netanyahu for not bringing the hostages back faster. They're also angry over an impopular judicial reform last year. Those are the two big things the people are the most pissed off about. They're not particularly upset about the suffering of the Palestinians now.

It is a problem when neither side sees the other as human.

Most Israelis are so psychologicaly exhausted by the continual suicide bombings by Palestinians (and other terror attacks) that they just don't care anymore about the suffering of the Palestinians.

Suicide bombings? That was 20 years ago.

Most Israelis think its a waste of time negotiating or making any deals with the Palestinians. Based on precedents they think Palestinians won't honor their side of the bargain, and it'll just be the Israelis who gave something away for nothing. That's how dealing with Palestinians tends to work out.

It's a pretty bleak outlook.

Anyway... that's what they said

We'll file that under non-statistically significant hearsay. Is that under N or H?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That the people support 10/7.

Just because we don't have unobtainable information doesn't mean we should ignore what we do have.

The fact people support 10/7 ex poste does not mean they supported it ex ante or would support another one.

But why should we think they wouldn't??

Human nature. I do not support 10/7. But if I saw my friends or family getting bombed to hell and children getting killed, I can see how someone might react with "Hamas did not do enough to the fucking Israelis". It is part of many people's nature to react that way to perceived injustice. It doesn't mean they are actually in favor of murder and destruction. As anyone who participates in an online forum should know by now, talk is cheap.

Reality check: They perfectly well know that there was no way 10/7 could have done enough to the Israelis to avoid retaliation. And furthermore, unless they are idiots they realize the bigger the poke the more Israel is going to go stomp. Thus supporting 10/7 means they consider it worth it. It's worth sacrificing 30,000 Palestinians to kill 1,100 Jews.

How many hundred IDF dead as part of the military response?

There are many different types of reality checks. For instance, the reality check that just because Netanyahu orders it, doesn't mean it is making Israel safer. The globe gave him a blank check and looked the other way... he didn't get anything done of value in that time... other than potentially set the path to taking Gaza in whole. Hamas has been weakened a little. Their infrastructure has been disturbed. But the losses for Hamas seemed disproportionately small relative to the damage in general. I don't see how Israel is significantly better off now than they were.

So, I don't take those polls to mean that the participants necessarily are in favor of terrorism. Some or all may be, but they may be expressing their displeasure of what they perceive as grave injustice towards their group.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make it go away. And note that very few consider such attacks wrongful.

You make that claim, but I feel as if you don't actually know the positions (you have made a great deal of presumptions based on anecdotes and flawed analogies), as they were, are, and will be. Excluding and including the IDF assault.

 

[TomC]

Human nature. I do not support 10/7. But if I saw my friends or family getting bombed to hell and children getting killed, I can see how someone might react with "Hamas did not do enough to the fucking Israelis". It is part of many people's nature to react that way to perceived injustice. It doesn't mean they are actually in favor of murder and destruction. As anyone who participates in an online forum should know by now, talk is cheap.

Take this paragraph. Substitute "IDF" for Hamas and "Gazans" for Israelis.
It not only still makes sense from the human nature standpoint, it far better reflects the well established reality of the current situation.

The mess in Gaza is a direct result of the attack launched from Gaza on October 7. The pretence that there is some sort of moral parity between the two sides is painful to see.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Suicide bombings? That was 20 years ago.

If it had been your family and friends blown up by a Palestinian, while at a market, might you have "gotten over it"?
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

And many people here feel the death and destruction in Gaza is an acceptable result when considering the current and future safety of Israelis. We can all get numbed to some degree of violence we ourselves are not subject to or partaking in.

Note that it was Gaza that chose to initiate the exchange of fire. They chose to take on a mechanized infantry platoon with a flintlock.

So you agree?

 

[TomC]

And many people here feel the death and destruction in Gaza is an acceptable result when considering the current and future safety of Israelis. We can all get numbed to some degree of violence we ourselves are not subject to or partaking in.

Note that it was Gaza that chose to initiate the exchange of fire. They chose to take on a mechanized infantry platoon with a flintlock.

So you agree?

Speaking for myself, I do.
The current destruction in Gaza is an unfortunate but very predictable result of both the October 7 attack and the preceding history. The attack was launched from Gaza, so that's where the brunt of the response will fall.

Acceptable isn't quite the right word, understandable and predictable is closer. But the bottom line remains, Hamas and their supporters chose this for Gaza.

I don't understand why, but they clearly did.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

And many people here feel the death and destruction in Gaza is an acceptable result when considering the current and future safety of Israelis. We can all get numbed to some degree of violence we ourselves are not subject to or partaking in.

Note that it was Gaza that chose to initiate the exchange of fire. They chose to take on a mechanized infantry platoon with a flintlock.

So you agree?

Speaking for myself, I do.
The current destruction in Gaza is an unfortunate but very predictable result of both the October 7 attack and the preceding history. The attack was launched from Gaza, so that's where the brunt of the response will fall.

Acceptable isn't quite the right word, understandable and predictable is closer. But the bottom line remains, Hamas and their supporters chose this for Gaza.

I don't understand why, but they clearly did.
Tom

If the level of response by IDF is the best option, since there is clearly no other option ever presented by anyone anywhere, why isn’t the death toll acceptable? The opposite would be “unacceptable” and that clearly isn’t what you and Loren are portraying.

If this is what it takes for Israel to defend itself and to destroy Hamas then we must accept the level of death and destruction as a necessary, even if tragic, consequence, right?

 

[TomC]

If the level of response by IDF is the best option, since there is clearly no other option ever presented by anyone anywhere, why isn’t the death toll acceptable? The opposite would be “unacceptable” and that clearly isn’t what you and Loren are portraying.

Perhaps you didn't understand my second paragraph, beginning with "acceptable".

Acceptable and unacceptable aren't a binary. They're a subjective spectrum. What Israeli Zionists find acceptable is probably quite different from what western pearl clutchers find acceptable.

Let me ask you this. Of these four options,

A) Israelis start executing all Palestinians in Israeli jails until every hostage has been released.
B) Israel launchs random bombs into Gaza until the death toll is comparable.
C) The current measured response targeting military installations, but hitting lots of human shields.
D) Completely destroying Gaza with carpet bombing everything possible.

Do you see any varying degrees of acceptability? If so, is your opinion the important one?

Obviously, the best option would be prevent the October 7 attack before it happened. But that's not on the list anymore.
Tom

 

[TomC]

If this is what it takes for Israel to defend itself and to destroy Hamas then we must accept the level of death and destruction as a necessary, even if tragic, consequence, right?

Yes.
Rather like the horrors of Dresden and Tokyo.
Utterly terrible, in a better world such things wouldn't happen. But we don't live in that world.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

If this is what it takes for Israel to defend itself and to destroy Hamas then we must accept the level of death and destruction as a necessary, even if tragic, consequence, right?

Yes.
Rather like the horrors of Dresden and Tokyo.
Utterly terrible, in a better world such things wouldn't happen. But we don't live in that world.
Tom

Ok. Thanks. It seemed like some were unwilling to state the obvious ramifications of their stances.

 

[TomC]

OK. Thanks. It seemed like some were unwilling to state the obvious ramifications of their stances.

That's a big problem across the board and on this thread.
Lots of people seem to think that Israelis just need to learn to get along with their Islamic neighbors. Stop responding to violent Islamic terrorist attacks. Without quite being willing to acknowledge the obvious ramifications of that stance.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Human nature. I do not support 10/7. But if I saw my friends or family getting bombed to hell and children getting killed, I can see how someone might react with "Hamas did not do enough to the fucking Israelis". It is part of many people's nature to react that way to perceived injustice. It doesn't mean they are actually in favor of murder and destruction. As anyone who participates in an online forum should know by now, talk is cheap.

Take this paragraph. Substitute "IDF" for Hamas and "Gazans" for Israelis.
It not only still makes sense from the human nature standpoint, it far better reflects the well established reality of the current situation.

Ah, a tacit admission there is much more than simple defense of Israel in the war in Gaza. Revenge is an integral part of the human nature component.

The mess in Gaza is a direct result of the attack launched from Gaza on October 7. The pretence that there is some sort of moral parity between the two sides is painful to see.
Tom

The willingness to excuse the unnecessary massive civilian deaths and destruction in Gaza is nauseating.