3 ms·

As much as it hurts even writing it, I don't think its a rare story there these days. History will not look kindly at both sides here, they really have no highe

by jajko 3y ago

As much as it hurts even writing it, I don't think its a rare story there these days. History will not look kindly at both sides here, they really have no higher moral ground than the other

drdrek 3y ago
The moral high ground is for the rich and safe. Both Israel and the Palestinians are under real threats and thus do not care much for morality that is disconnected from PR. Terror is an extremely good tool to dispose of foreign power that takes economic interest in an area, as it makes the endeavor unprofitable. But backfires horribly when it is a local hegemon.
vharuck 3y ago
>History will not look kindly at both sides here, they really have no higher moral ground than the other There are four sides here: the Israeli government, Hamas, Israeli citizens, and Palestinian citizens. The first two are the active combatants. The third group were victims in October. The fourth group are still victims today. Killing unarmed and non-hostile citizens is absolutely immoral. Acting in such a reckless way that the majority of casualties are citizens is still immoral. History will look harshly on Hamas for slaughtering thousands of Israeli citizens, and Israel for slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian citizens. No rational person should think those citizens were at fault.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  I think this is absolutely right, so please don't take this as a disagreement with the point you made. But what I think a lot about is the precursor years to these kinds of events. I have a deep well of sympathy for the people of Gaza who have long despised being governed by Hamas, but haven't been able to figure out how to throw them off. They knew Hamas was a disaster waiting to happen, they could see it coming, but still couldn't stop it. And just the same for the opposition in Israel, who have come so close to getting rid of Netanyahu and his ilk on so many occasions. They knew he was a disaster waiting to happen too. I just recently had a friend tell me that many of their Israeli friends and family are leaving the country in disgust. But of course that means that they won't be there to vote against Netanyahu. By losing, he wins. And some of the leaders of Hamas, watching from other countries as the people of Gaza are slaughtered, also get to enjoy the spectacle of young people in the west hoisting their flags and chanting their slogans. By losing, they win too. But what's maddening is that seeing disasters waiting to happen doesn't make it easy to keep them from happening. It can be obvious that it's a disaster waiting to happen to have a presidential candidate in the US refuse to accept the results of elections, and openly plan for an authoritarian consolidation of power, and that might make it less likely to happen, it might make it easier to stop it, but still not easy. Obvious encroaching disasters can still happen, and frequently do. I hate that!
- mistermann 3y ago
  > No rational person should think those citizens were at fault. Did you read some sort of an impressive proof for this fact prior to epistemically & cognitively (consciously &/or subconsciously) upgrading it to Objectively True? Because for something to be labeled as True in a strict system of logic, it requires a proof. Note also that Consensus Belief of Truth is not identical to Proven Truth, even though it typically appears that way due to our cultural conditioning.
- flakeoil 3y ago
  You forgot the United States who provides the weapons to Israel.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Compared to other recent conflicts like Iraq and Checnya war etc, the collateral damage in Gaza is pretty good. Israel have done a good job at minimising civilian deaths, if Hamas didn't frustrate the civilians efforts to evacuate or let civilians shelter underground with them, the numbers would be a lot lower still.
  - racional 3y ago
    The horrendous civilian casualties we are seeing in Gaza are not collateral damage, or otherwise unintended byproducts of the operation. They are the coolly chosen effective means -- along with the destruction of housing, hospitals, schools and so on -- of promoting its expressly stated goal: what the government refers to as "humanitarian emigration" from the Strip. As articulated by Likud MK / Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel back in January: On Tuesday, Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel told Zman that “voluntary migration is the best and most realistic program for the day after the fighting ends.” On Tuesday, during a conference held in the Knesset to examine possibilities for postwar Gaza, Gamliel said: “At the end of the war, Hamas rule will collapse. There are no municipal authorities; the civilian population will be entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. There will be no work, and 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land will become security buffer zones.” Gamliel said that Gaza must not be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, and Gazans must not be left in the Strip to be educated to hate, as that would mean that further attacks on Israel are only a matter of time. While rejecting the PA’s return, the government has offered few details on what political entity it wants to rule Gaza. “The Gaza problem is not just our problem,” Gamliel said. “The world should support humanitarian emigration, because that’s the only solution I know.”
lyu07282 3y ago
I don't think so, it's rare that you have such an extreme power imbalance in conflict, only for it then to be viewed as "both sides are equally bad" a hundred years later. We just have a skewed perspective on the proportionality of violence -in the present day-, we tend to gain context over time. Like we can judge a larger struggle over many decades as a congruent whole, instead of only the narrow present instance of a conflict. This also explains why there are so many historical examples of people in the past seemingly be so obviously on the "wrong side of history". It's not that they didn't have largely the same morals than most people today, it's more a cognitive dissonance.

by jajko 3y ago

As much as it hurts even writing it, I don't think its a rare story there these days. History will not look kindly at both sides here, they really have no higher moral ground than the other

drdrek 3y ago

The moral high ground is for the rich and safe. Both Israel and the Palestinians are under real threats and thus do not care much for morality that is disconnected from PR. Terror is an extremely good tool to dispose of foreign power that takes economic interest in an area, as it makes the endeavor unprofitable. But backfires horribly when it is a local hegemon.

vharuck 3y ago

>History will not look kindly at both sides here, they really have no higher moral ground than the other There are four sides here: the Israeli government, Hamas, Israeli citizens, and Palestinian citizens. The first two are the active combatants. The third group were victims in October. The fourth group are still victims today. Killing unarmed and non-hostile citizens is absolutely immoral. Acting in such a reckless way that the majority of casualties are citizens is still immoral. History will look harshly on Hamas for slaughtering thousands of Israeli citizens, and Israel for slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian citizens. No rational person should think those citizens were at fault.

sanderjd 3y ago
I think this is absolutely right, so please don't take this as a disagreement with the point you made. But what I think a lot about is the precursor years to these kinds of events. I have a deep well of sympathy for the people of Gaza who have long despised being governed by Hamas, but haven't been able to figure out how to throw them off. They knew Hamas was a disaster waiting to happen, they could see it coming, but still couldn't stop it. And just the same for the opposition in Israel, who have come so close to getting rid of Netanyahu and his ilk on so many occasions. They knew he was a disaster waiting to happen too. I just recently had a friend tell me that many of their Israeli friends and family are leaving the country in disgust. But of course that means that they won't be there to vote against Netanyahu. By losing, he wins. And some of the leaders of Hamas, watching from other countries as the people of Gaza are slaughtered, also get to enjoy the spectacle of young people in the west hoisting their flags and chanting their slogans. By losing, they win too. But what's maddening is that seeing disasters waiting to happen doesn't make it easy to keep them from happening. It can be obvious that it's a disaster waiting to happen to have a presidential candidate in the US refuse to accept the results of elections, and openly plan for an authoritarian consolidation of power, and that might make it less likely to happen, it might make it easier to stop it, but still not easy. Obvious encroaching disasters can still happen, and frequently do. I hate that!
mistermann 3y ago
> No rational person should think those citizens were at fault. Did you read some sort of an impressive proof for this fact prior to epistemically & cognitively (consciously &/or subconsciously) upgrading it to Objectively True? Because for something to be labeled as True in a strict system of logic, it requires a proof. Note also that Consensus Belief of Truth is not identical to Proven Truth, even though it typically appears that way due to our cultural conditioning.
flakeoil 3y ago
You forgot the United States who provides the weapons to Israel.
mikrotikker 3y ago
Compared to other recent conflicts like Iraq and Checnya war etc, the collateral damage in Gaza is pretty good. Israel have done a good job at minimising civilian deaths, if Hamas didn't frustrate the civilians efforts to evacuate or let civilians shelter underground with them, the numbers would be a lot lower still.
- racional 3y ago
  The horrendous civilian casualties we are seeing in Gaza are not collateral damage, or otherwise unintended byproducts of the operation. They are the coolly chosen effective means -- along with the destruction of housing, hospitals, schools and so on -- of promoting its expressly stated goal: what the government refers to as "humanitarian emigration" from the Strip. As articulated by Likud MK / Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel back in January: On Tuesday, Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel told Zman that “voluntary migration is the best and most realistic program for the day after the fighting ends.” On Tuesday, during a conference held in the Knesset to examine possibilities for postwar Gaza, Gamliel said: “At the end of the war, Hamas rule will collapse. There are no municipal authorities; the civilian population will be entirely dependent on humanitarian aid. There will be no work, and 60% of Gaza’s agricultural land will become security buffer zones.” Gamliel said that Gaza must not be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, and Gazans must not be left in the Strip to be educated to hate, as that would mean that further attacks on Israel are only a matter of time. While rejecting the PA’s return, the government has offered few details on what political entity it wants to rule Gaza. “The Gaza problem is not just our problem,” Gamliel said. “The world should support humanitarian emigration, because that’s the only solution I know.”

lyu07282 3y ago

I don't think so, it's rare that you have such an extreme power imbalance in conflict, only for it then to be viewed as "both sides are equally bad" a hundred years later. We just have a skewed perspective on the proportionality of violence -in the present day-, we tend to gain context over time. Like we can judge a larger struggle over many decades as a congruent whole, instead of only the narrow present instance of a conflict. This also explains why there are so many historical examples of people in the past seemingly be so obviously on the "wrong side of history". It's not that they didn't have largely the same morals than most people today, it's more a cognitive dissonance.