Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

FWIW, the danger of the post-colonial lens and employing the tools and strategies of CT to the situation in the Middle East is you can sit back and critique what you perceive are the power structures in the Middle East, and you pick and pick at Israel until you disarm Israel of any kind of response to defend itself from the Islamic death cult. While all the focus and energy is devoted to critiquing those with perceived power, putting the spotlight on Palestinian story telling to establish them as the oppressed ones, the bloodthirsty Islamic regimes that ignite these conflicts don’t have to meet any demands.

The issue here is the bloodthirstiness of the Islamic regimes in Gaza, Syria, and Tehran. Israel has a right to depose of them given the continual bloodshed on their lands. Until then the Middle East will continue to be a bloody mess.

 

Outline the alternative course of action that does not amount to Israel being a perpetual sitting duck, and I am all ears.

 

@mutz87 do you believe every war where an innocent person has died was an unjust war?

 

I get that it's discomforting when "might makes right" arguments are challenged, which is why CT disturbs the powerful and those who parrot their talking points.

Fact remains that Palestinians are oppressed (both by Hamas and the Israeli govt), as are numerous other Muslims & Arabs in the region because almost all live under oppressive regimes. Even if Israel is successful in ending Hamas, it won't solve the larger problems that haven't been solved throughout history.

 

I’ve been thinking a lot about this too. You don’t just send not one but TWO aircraft carriers to one location unless you anticipate having to make some use of them. Those things are too valuable and so large, it takes days, weeks to move them somewhere else in the world if needed. Also, I would be shocked if Iran didn’t enter the fray directly once Israel invades Gaza.

 

War is an inherent part of human existence. What I've tried to get at is the way in which humans seek to justify the morality of war, which isn't so neatly moral or just.

 

Sending one or two is a show of deterrence, not necessarily a plan to use them.

 

A truly ridiculous question.

Innocent people will be killed in every war, that's a given. What makes that war unjust is when the innocent noncombatants are targeted or the war is conducted with a reckless disregard to the killing of innocent noncombatants. That not only renders the war unjust, it renders those who conducted it in such a fashion as guilty of war crimes. Putin, and the manner in which Russia has conducted the war in Ukraine, are the current, prime examples.

 

This has some disturbing parallels to the conditions that led to World War I, the so called entangling alliances, whereby numerous powers felt constrained to go into war because they had made pre-existing security commitments if they didn't want to they had to go to war.

From what I can tell based on a lot of reading, and I'm mainly speculating, the US has made sure to tell Iran and Hezbollah that they will support Israel if Hezbollah attacks from the north. Originally, the rumors were going that Iran was not going to risk Hezbollah for Hamas, who they may support, but remember is Sunni, not Shiite, and is not part of the Shiite crescent that they cannot let go. It's more part of pressuring Israel.

Obviously, Iran is now feeling like they don't have that option. They probably thought they would also deter Israel from such a scorched earth approach to Gaza, and now they feel like they cannot abandon Hamas altogether. Too much public opinion on the Arab Street even though they're not Arab. Obviously Hamas is Arab but Iran is Persian and people keep forgetting that.
Either way, Hezbollah keeps trying to provide limited support and deterrence but tries to make clear they don't want a general war with Israel. They made a few shows of force of their precision guided anti-tank missiles I think to try to show Israel that they can take out Merkavas at will. Maybe not at will, but either way at amounts that would be unacceptable in terms of losses. But at the same time they put out statements that they're not trying to get into a war but just to establish deterrence.

The US has said they don't want to go hot unless Hezbollah attacks Israel from the north. Hezbollah has said they don't want to attack Israel unless Israel goes heavy into Gaza. But Israel is going heavy into Gaza, or at least they're saying that now. I really think they want to, but it's not abundantly clear they could do so safely.

Hamas has already shown they have drones that can take out armor and I don't know if they'll get some of the same anti-tank missiles that Hezbollah has proven they have and can work. In any event, it feels like a lot of parties don't want to go to war but may get forced into a pretty costly war. I haven't heard anyone else say this but I really worry about the effectiveness of Hezbollah and Hamas and taking out a lot of significant Israeli and maybe even US assets if it goes full hot.

 

When you’ve lost the Beast …

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-w...63AFLLpj8lYV7c9HTunkwaHbgc8tk6p83W3AIY1h1bM5Y

 

Sounds rather self serving to me.

 

The question is simply asking where the line between moral and immoral is drawn. Your response at least takes a much larger step towards clarifying where the line is drawn in the sand compared to his.

His answer to the question is obscure, showing he does not want to say where that line is. The fact he hasn’t stated where that line is drawn is why the question was asked in the first place. Whether or not he hits the agree, winner, or best post ever icon in reaction towards your post will be telling.

 

FWIW, your answer betrays the critical theory lens because it puts knowledge of oppression into the realm of objective reality.

That is a bigger deal than you think it is. It betrays a critical analysis of the subject, i.e. like CRT or in this instance post-colonial theory, if that is what @mutz87 adheres to. In CT knowledge of oppression is only attainable through the experienced of the oppressed. Your claims to know objective morality in this area are a form of intellectual imperialism if that worldview is correct.

He would betray the CT framework which he is beholden to in other disciplines if he agreed that knowledge of oppression was objectively expressed in the statement you made.

 

There is no world war without Russia and or China and neither is going to war with the US over the Middle East. My opinion.

 

What a bunch of gobbledygook. We live in “objective reality”. To some extent we can see the suffering on both sides through various forms of media. This isn’t some imagined “walk a mile in their shoes” theorizing. It’s a war for crying out of loud. This is why there are visceral reactions - the graphic image of death. First the obvious reaction to the atrocity of the terror attacks, and predictably public opinion swings the other way when they see a rising civilian body count or suffering in Gaza. All that is easily predictable with common sense.

I don’t think it takes a deep dive into CT, whatever that is, to see the Palestinians have gotten a raw deal from all sides (not just the Israelis, but also the Arab states who have either done nothing for them, or try to use their suffering as a proxy). All it takes is a little recollection of history. Almost all of the people in Gaza are displaced essentially by decree (and many displaced by Israel’s illegal settlements in the decades after, some of these Israeli “settlements” aren’t much better than squatters, but the Palestinians rarely win in Israeli courts… so in effect it’s state sanctioned taking).

There are really no good guys here. I don’t think it excuses terrorism, the population of Gaza is *very* young, most of the terrorists probably weren’t alive when those injustices actually happened. But 1948 isn’t exactly ancient history either. Seems like you have millions of people living essentially as refugees, many with the belief their land was taken from them (either in a direct “property rights” sense, or a religious sense). It’s going to be a recipe for rancor - especially if there’s really no way for them to “move on” (theoretically the “two state solution” would have at least ended their perma-refugee status - I do believe the PLA walked away from their best deal decades ago, but Israel has also gone the wrong way since then).

 

Agree. Don't mean that kind of parallel. Just the entangling alliances drawing forces into wars they would otherwise avoid.

 

Russia probably loves this distraction. Timing seems suspect to say the least. Esp with it being public knowledge Iran had been aiding Russia in Ukraine with drones and such.

Iran I don’t believe is a military threat, but they are definitely a nuisance in the region and state supporter of terrorism. I have little doubt they were more directly involved in this attack than we can “confirm”, more than just smuggling arms. I’d be shocked if Iran didn’t pretty much green light and supply intel for the terrorist plan, perhaps with some blessings from Russia.

 

Do not underestimate Iran as a threat. Not conventionally straight up, but they have a lot of asymmetric abilities, not to mention some fairly threatening weapon systems. Plus they can shut off the Strait of Hormuz at will

 

What the hell is wrong with this guy??

"Now, Iran constantly supports Hamas and Hezbollah," Biden said. "I don't mean that. But in terms of were they, did they have fore knowledge; did they help plan the attack? There's no evidence of that at this point."

 

They can do that in the sense that I can walk down to the local Montgomery Police Headquarters with my AR-15 and shut down the main entrance at my will. Literally, anytime I want to. Would anyone like to start an office pool on how long I’ll be able to do it?