Almost all Israelis are IDF members, members of various intelligence and defense companies. If we plotted a map of a suitable attack radius around all valid combat targets in Israel, almost the entirety of their "civilian" regions would be covered.
The idf doesn't fight near civilian infrastructure - it deploys to the borders. Military bases in israel are far from civilian infrastructure. I think you're probably just wrong here.
That's another fun one. Israel doesn't seem to mind launching missiles at non-serving non-military officers who are living in neutral countries like Qatar, and killing unrelated Qatari civilians in the process. So I would say by the same precedent, anyone has served or is serving in the IDF, which obviously would live in the cities as most of the population is a valid target.
I misunderstood your point earlier. Not that international law is necessarily always a valid philosophy we should accept, but international law does only consider people to be combatants if they're actively serving. Regardless of what international law says, I would argue that ethically, retired/non-serving army members should not be considered combatants or fair wartime targets (I think I mostly feel this way on the basis that targeting them causes civilian strife - e.g. the company they work for, family/community they support etc. is harmed - with zero war value). And I would say reservists are a more complicated case.
I care more about equality than international law. If Israel uses a tactic or policy, then its valid and just for those fighting Israel to not tie their hands behind their backs and avoid the same tactic.
>Khalil al-Hayya, a reported target of this air strike, was previously targeted by a 2007 assassination attempt, which killed at least seven of his family members.[33][34][35] His home in Gaza was struck by an airstrike in the 2014 Gaza War.
Israel hardly has difficulties with killing innocent family members. So "civilian strife" is irrelevant in my view, as symmetrically Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, etc are permitted to do the same against Israel. The people targeted in the Qatar strike were all political office holders not soldiers. So for instance it is valid for these countries to bomb the home or place of stay of Ben Gvir or Benjamin Netenyahu and kill them and their family members for the sake of just and fair combat.
Saying "I accept X using any tactic against Y that Y used against X" is meaningless in an ongoing tit-for-tat conflict unless you pick an arbitrary historical starting point. You may naturally lean towards picking an anti-israel starting point, but that isn't the only option.
Strikes against hamas leadership have war value, and I personally find proportional collateral damage justifiable.
Netanyahu is roughly (not legally but comparable) a commander in chief and targetting him likewise has war value and is justifiable. I'm not sure of ben gvir's role in military matters, but that's what I would base my answer on.
How does historical starting point matter? If Y started using traditionally inadmissible tactics then it is pure foolishness for X to constrain himself. Clearly Israel saw some benefit in killing the innocent family members of this non-military personnel. And then to lob a missile at him in a civilian building in an unrelated country that is in no conflict with Israel, killing further innocents. Ben Gvir is an equivalent example in Israel, so these countries are justified in killing Gvir's family. These countries are wholly justified in attacking Israel's sites whether military or civilian for Israel struck a civilian site in a neutral country. Its very simple, military tactics themselves depend on the combatants feeling morale, it would be quite unjust and a drain on morale for them to be unable to respond in kind to inadmissible actions.
I'm saying I could give you an example of unconstrained attacks against israel prior to this incident - so is X sinking to the level of Y, or vice-versa? The answer is, I believe, neither - the mental model simply isn't functional. And certainly we should still both advocate against tactics that are unjustified at baseline, no? Does that make sense?
We can naturally trace the history of back and forth violence, until we reach the point where we see the political entity had been founded by ingrates committing terroristic violence against the country that generously gifted them some of its colonial land.
You can trace it back much earlier than that - until at least the 1500s, when the conflict was present but at much less of a boil. I'm assuming you concede that "if X does it to Y, it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. You should at least ask yourself, "how would I need to change my outlook if I learned it was impossible to resolve who started it?"
Of course, we can go all the way back to the first cavemen fighting each other. But the difference here is that there is a very clear dividing line. The locals may nor may not have liked the Ottomans or British very much but they were clearly living their lives. Until some European invaders came and illegally took over their land by force. If the peoples before this event seem mostly satisfied, and after this event inflamed, then we have the key marking point for all the nonsense.
Jews have had a presence in the area that is today israel/palestine for thousands of years, and jews from the diaspora have been moving to israel/palestine gradually.
I would challenge you to name an initial inciting incident, which you believe was not preceded by or in reaction to an earlier incident. I can almost guarantee you I'll be able to name an inciting event, prior to it (and you will be able to find another one before that, etc.)
Why not? You tell me why committing acts of terrorism against its benefactor country with an ingrate sense as if its your own land not British land is valid or any previous precedent makes it valid? The reason why I don't go thousands of years back eg to Saxons and Vikings is that modern Britain and modern Denmark have long made peace, whereas Israel the state was formed itself as an act of ingratitude and terroristic thievery and is still illicitly expanding to lands clearly not its own.
Would you agree and support a group of people who wanted to immigrate to the United States but the USA decided for whatever reason to deny them immigration/citizenship and these people start bombing, kidnapping and torturing American officials and civilians? If not why is Israel special?
I love discussing this stuff, but I'm not interested in guessing what your non-specific language is referring to; I'll likely silently ignore that stuff.
I generally support israel because:
- I don't think it corresponds to your hypothetical (which I obviously disagree with)
- It was internationally recognized by the UN, and I find the collective jewish effort put towards nation-building to be legitimizing
- I support a jewish state, and I think jews, including those from the diaspora (based on genetic tests - dietary preferences are irrelevant to me), are indigenous to roughly the territory of modern-day israel
- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights
- I think its war efforts are usually justified
I'm sure you disagree with all of these ^ and it's better to avoid a breadth-first conversation. I assume you've conceded that "X did it to Y, therefore it's fine for Y to do it to X" is not a functional model here. The ball is in your court.
Saying Israel is a “functioning democracy with human rights” is not a truthful statement.
First, Israel still has no single written constitution and instead operates through Basic Laws, something its own parliament acknowledges. So, not a democracy.
Second, Israel was established through armed Zionist paramilitary groups conducting terror campaigns. Look up the Irgun and Lehi, both of which carried out bombings and other attacks that were described as terrorism by contemporary governments and organizations.
Third, the claim that it “has human rights” is impossible to square with reality. Israel maintains a decades-long military occupation of the West Bank, where Palestinians live under military law while Israeli settlers living in the same territory are governed by Israeli civilian law. Human rights organizations document torture and abuse in Israeli detention facilities holding Palestinians. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published extensive reports documenting systematic violations of Palestinians’ rights. both organizations completely reject the characterization of Israel as a state that upholds human rights. What evidence are you prepared to put forward that Israel “has human rights” in the face of the evidence that its human rights are reserved for one class of people?
What is vague about what I said? I am talking about how Israelis repaid Britain back for fighting the nazis and then granting them a parcel of British owned land completely free by violent terroristic attacks on British officers and civilians. History may trace back centuries, but what history of wrong doings did the British have with European white jews that they started terrorizing the Brits? It shows just how insane the level of ingratitude and entitlement was in this group that they behaved as if its their own owned land they are entitled to and not a gift given out of pure generosity. I think its fair for Britain to have retaliated with extreme violence against these immoral crimes. Its a shame Britain had lost the political will for these actions due to WW2. Which is why I asked, would you be fine with some people who were denied immigration to the USA launching a terror campaign of bombings and violence against the USA? That's what Israelis did during the 40s.
International recognition of Israel is a point you should be careful with. Just as Israel was formed with violent illicit methods but accepted by the UN later, the reverse could as well happen and "illicitly" retaken Israel will in time be recognized by the UN.
I do not support ethnic or religious states, but it's fine, many disagree. They could have gone anywhere they wanted, as long as it was legal immigration with consent of those already living there.
Explain me again how if these white jews were supposedly so deeply culturally connected to the place, they were whining about lack of European food and had to reverse engineer local food from native Arabs and Jews living there? Do you think eg if I had a scottish great great great grandfather and I lived in America all life, I'd suddenly unlock some knowledge of scottish culture hidden inside my blood somehow? And does it grant me rights to carve out a parcel of Scotland for myself forcing out locals violently against their wishes? The question can also be flipped, if it is just for Israel to kick out people from their so called ancestral home, then I believe it is perfectly justified for eg France or Netherlands to kick out jews living there as it is not their ancestral land and it is the just home of the French or Dutch peoples.
>- It is a decently functioning democracy with human rights
Meaningless if it is not justifiably their land and property. Its the opposite of democracy, its a violation of property rights.
>- I think its war efforts are usually justified
Do you think the present Lebensraum campaign is also justified?
It's easy to argue jews terrorized the british to reclaim their indigenous land, i.e the british had no right to jurisdiction there in the 1st place. Your analogy of denied US immigrants is different if it turns out the US was their original land they were displaced from, they all genetically trace back to it, there has consistently been a presence of that people living there, that people's artifacts are buried under the ground throughout the land, etc etc - no?
The British had perfect rights to that place, both legally, and I would say practically and morally. I am not personally black and white against colonialism as a concept anyways if they were better administrators than the natives. Many places in Africa, and yes Israel/Palestine itself would have been much better if it was British. (Even considering their blunder of promising the land to multiple groups, the aftermath would have been much better managed by them.)
Let me find that one patch of Africa where human life originated then. We should all have a right to that place.
What's so special about the value of 2000 years or whatever number Israel prefers? Why not 4000 years and therefore Babylonians/Iraqis? There is no naturalistic or scientific significance to the value selected by Israel. Let us take Israelis like Netenyahu back to their real homeland, the Steppes of Ukraine. A big portion of Israel trace their genetic origin there, their peoples artifacts are buried in Ukraine, etc etc.
Why do you not protest in support of British people of Norman ancestry forcibly taking over France?
The british withdrew from the palestinian mandate under economic and insurgent pressure.
The land which is modern day israel/palestine is the only historically jewish land; if not that land there is no other. The connection between jews, and the land which was judea, is very strong - even after thousands of years jews have a powerful cultural desire to to inhabit that native land, to enact nation-building there, and to defend it.
I feel sorry for normans who feel displaced from what is currently french land - it seems they lack either the passion or ability to return, unlike jews vis-a-vis israel (although jews were uniquely catalyzed by the holocaust).
Does that make sense and address what you were saying?
(Netanyahu would genetically test as levantine descent, not ukrainian steppe - ashkenazis have consistently avoided assimilation and the connection to the levant remains; as a person he also culturally resembles an ashkenazi jew, not a ukrainian)
Why? Why what's special about 2000 years? Why not 100000 years? Why aren't jews protesting to return to the whatever patch of Africa everyone came out of? And why should not other countries that are hosting jews right now deport them saying its the ancestral land of natives not for jews? If we are to accept Israel's framing, then we must accept these too. Britain should kick out normans and danish blood people. American natives should kick out any white persons, etc etc.
Are you sure about netanyahu? How can you say that about a clearly polish looking person without dna test results? What percentage of his dna is Levantine? If it is 10% Levantine and 90% Steppe why is it not laughed out the room if he claims the extreme minority portion of his dna as his primary identity?
Judea is central to jewish ethnogenesis. That's ~3000 years ago, not 100000.
Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. We know who his parents, grandparents, etc are - he's also claimed to have taken a genetic test, which registered him as primarily ashkenazi. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Why? Why 3000? Smells like a rationalization for a convenient number. There is no natural or scientific reason 3000 is special. That's an arbitrary self defined point they like to use. Yes, he is a second gen Polish immigrant. Its not his generation itself that is criminal by itself (though of course Netanhayhu is plenty criminal) but the original ingrate europeans who launched a series of vile terror attacks against British people to capture land that was never theirs and drive out those already living there and those with legal ownership of the land.
3000 as that is the age of judea, the state central to jewish ethnogenesis.
Netanyahu is an ashkenazi jew. His family traces back to ukraine and lithuania, where it remained jewish; unassimilated. Trace ancestors back further, and you will get to judea. The culture in judea provides a lens which very strongly helps to explain who netanyahu is today. If you trace back earlier than judea to e.g. canaanites, you will lose any useful lens for understanding jews today. This is why judea is not an arbitrary point in the timeline; it is the center of jewish ethnogenesis. Does that make sense?
He is a second generation illegal immigrant of course. I am not making any DNA arguments, I don't support ethnostates. That's Israel's argument, and by Israel's argument, I believe it should be completely justified to deport jews from other countries, since purportedly all jews are genetically and culturally Israeli, and its not proper for a person to have dual loyalties in terms of the countries they are loyal to.
You are making a straw-man argument about Israel, which is 20% Arab and is not calling for them to be deported. The “dual loyalties” bit is something you got out of your side’s trope archive.
Someone with continuous presence and cultural ties to the place wouldn't be cooking European dishes there and having trouble adapting to local cuisine to the point of having to reverse engineer food from locals for instance.
