I'm curious, do you know of a war in which there was a lower ratio of civilian to combatant casualties? I've yet to see anyone name one.
Do you believe the Allies were wrong to have gone to war against the Nazis? Millions of civilians were killed as a consequence.
How do you propose to deal with an enemy who intentionally sacrifices their entire civilian population to protect themselves? Against an opponent who refuses to accept any risk of collateral civilian casualties, this strategy would be absolutely dominant.
Once again, you're overlooking the fact that Israel is facing Hamas which not only completely disregards civilian casualties but actually craves for them.
I don't think there's a precedent in history. There are countless exemples of conquerors who exterminated their enemies. There are some exemples leaders who got a large part of their population killed by sheer incompetence or because they wanted to quench a rebellion (Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot...) But I can't think of any past tyrant who saw the death of their own people as a major, if not their main path to victory.
Of course they only do this because they are facing Israel. You mention Syria. Nobody would use the Hamas strategy against Assad because he'll happily slaughter any number of civilians and nobody cares about Arabs killing other Arabs.
On a purely logical point of view, you do a good job of proving that Israel doesn't do "everything it can" to prevent civilian casualties (a position I haven't seen anyone hold), then conclude wrongly that they just happily bomb the shit out of Gaza.
My perception is that Israel obviously shifted the cursor of the (military value) / (civilian risk) ratio after 10/7 but I don't think it's clear they're morally or legally wrong (of course, Hamas completely ignores such bourgeois topics, and nobody holds it against them). Interestingly you chose to illustrate your post with Sakakini's story but the parallel you're trying to build doesn't hold. Sakakini praised the deliberate targeting of civilians with no remote military interest (akin to 10/7 without the barbary); I don't see Israeli supports praising the slaughter of Palestinian civilians even though the military interest is plausible. If there were a clear cut instance of Israelis deliberately killing civilians absent any military interest, I think the vast majority of Israel supports would condemn it. I certainly would.
Before I finish, I too oppose the killing of civilians. I believe the moral responsibility for the Palestinian deaths squarely rests on Hamas for starting this whole mess with the barbaric attack of 10/7 and keeping it going by refusing to release the hostages. My great-grandfather was killed by an allied bombing in August '44. My family didn't blame his death on the British, it was obviously the fault of the Germans.
I grieve for the Palestinians as I don't think they could have a worse leadership than Hamas (maybe Kim Jong-Un). I sincerely believe that their best hope for peace and prosperity is to get rid of Hamas, renounce violence and trade with Israel.
You said "If there were a clear cut instance of Israelis deliberately killing civilians absent any military interest, I think the vast majority of Israel supports would condemn it"
The article literally made the point that Israel is bombing civilian targets with a very tenuous military connection. And you refuse to see it , proving the main thrust of the article: that reasonable people are blinded to the bad behavior of Israel's army because Hamas is worse.
Agree with most of your empirical analysis but none of your normative claims.
1. It's not clear that the most relevant metric is "rate of casualties". Ultimately, what matters is the total civilian casualties relative to military objectives accomplished. If israel only stays in Gaza for one more month and the rate of casualties go down (which I believe they will), we might end up with something like 30,000 civilians casualties. That's the price we paid for ISIS - and its a fair price to pay for dismantling Hamas.
2. Israel almost certainly isn’t doing “everything it can” to minimize casualties, but there’s no reason to think minimizing casualties is the most moral thing to do here. I see the Palestinians as a group with legitimate historical grievances but a group who have refused to move past the grievance, despite losing war after war after war. And to make things worse, a group that's let radical islam weaponize those grievances into fighting the next negative expected value battle. I’m sure Philippe has a point that the Israeli haven’t offered optimal deals but when you lose, you take sub-optimal deals so you and your kids can have a better life. What I ultimately care about is the welfare of individuals, not the creation of a Palestinian state. And for that reason, I’m happy for Israel to squash any incentive the population may have to keep fighting this war for generations to come.
There is no basis to believe that any amount of civilian casualties short of a total holocaust will defeat Hamas as an organization let alone the Palestinian refusal to kneel down and kiss the ring. Your argument about moving on basically devolves to might makes right (two groups wish to dominate each other, one group should just accept it bc they lost), which is fine since some folks earnestly believe that and I think it convincingly describes how the world actually works, but it’s best to be clear on that point.
On some level having browsed some of your writings I think we have an interesting first principles disagreement since you’re a utilitarian
I'm not sure I agree. Incentives change and people certainly respond to it - maybe not the most harderened ideologues but I do expect self preservation to kick in for most people. If Egypt and jordan were to open their borders, do you not think people would flee the first chance they get? If not, then you might have a more grim way view of how radicalized the population is.
Haha yes, guilty as charged. In fact, on this issue in particular, I think far too many people are fixated on self determination, with very little concern for welfare and material conditions of present people and future generations. I try to work through this here in a thought experiment - https://vaishnav1.substack.com/p/israelpalestine-self-determination
I think a lot of people would leave if you opened the borders, there is after all a huge Palestinian diaspora including a lot of people who could live in the WB or Gaza if they wanted to.
BUT it is a smaller proportion than you think and many—including those who have passports from a variety of Western countries—have chosen to stay even in the face of military occupation and oppression. Existence is resistance. They respond to incentives—support for militant resistance and/or terrorism have some relationship with the facts on the ground—but leaving en masse is a mistake they will never make again. They’d rather stay and die.
You call it radicalization, they consider it a determination not to let their nationality and tie to their native land wither and die. You’re a utilitarian/materialist so that’s irrational to you, but not to them. I don’t mean that as an insult btw it’s just a first principles disagreement.
I didn't take it as an insult and you're right that the palestinians probably don't share my worldview. But zooming out for a second - the question is: can we continue, as the international community, to keep supporting statehood for the palestinians on that basis. I support giving the palestinians a lot more economic opportunity and very little political autonomy at the beginning, and then making incrasing levels of autonomy contingent on peace and de-radicalization over a long-ish timescale.
I agree that Israel is not worrying too much about civilian casualties, and I think they are right to do so. But I’d prefer the smokescreen narrative because it makes it more likely Israel will be able to win.
I was interested to see you dismiss the idea of thinning out the population of Gaza. Clearly this would be the humane thing to do. You also argue it can’t work. I disagree, but it seems to me that you think it would be bad, and I have a hard time understanding why.
Finally you get at something pretty deep with Arabs turning away from humanism, but it’s wrong to blame Israel rather than Arab society. These societies are just poorly equipped for modernity, given Islam, rates of cousin marriage, and other factors. So they look for scapegoats instead of looking inward. Germany and Japan are actually good at being modern states so they had something to look forward to after militarism was crushed. The Palestinians don’t and it’s their own fault, and it doesn’t help them to indulge their hateful worldview that says it’s all the fault of Jews.
The right thing to do would be for Israel to make a real attempt at negotiating a fair two-state solution with the Palestinians, which has never done and clearly has no intention of doing after this war. I don't see why other countries should agree to clean up Israel's mess for it just because it won't do that. The West in general and the US in particular have plenty of leverage to make it stop this nonsense and they should start using it. This may not be enough to end the conflict, but I don't see why we should continue to support Israel when it behaves in such a reprehensible manner and when doing so brings us nothing but trouble. It's completely stupid.
I know people like to make this comparison with the post-war treatment of Japan and Germany, but it's completely inane. The US and Western occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII actually tried after a while to create functional, democratic states in those countries. Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, on the other hand, never aimed to produce such an outcome and would actually have prevented it even if the Palestinians had been as "virtuous" as the Germans or the Japanese. Nor is this the only problem with that comparison, the origins of the occupation are also completely different, so really it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's very possible that, even if Israel had not behaved in such a way, Palestinians would still be unable to create such a state, but Israel has no ground to make such a claim as long as its own actions make such an outcome impossible. I'm under no illusion about Arab pathologies, of which I'm very much aware, but I'm not blaming Israel for them. I'm blaming Israel for waging a criminal campaign. Even if you are right that Palestinians would be unable to create a functional state if Israel weren't actively trying to prevent it, this wouldn't change the fact that Israel's conduct during this war but also before that is reprehensible.
Your order of events on Germany and Japan are wrong. First they broke the old order, killed a lot of civilians to do it, promised they would keep killing until unconditional surrender, and then built functional states. In Japan, something like 4% of the population died, and it was higher in Germany. Israel isn't even close to that.
Once the Allies destroyed the old order they could think about what replaced it. They didn't try to build new states while Nazis and the Japanese army were still fighting.
I don't see why you think anything I said is inconsistent with the order of events you describe, but it doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous to say that the causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are analogous to those of WWII. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories started long before Hamas even existed and, not only has it never tried to help the Palestinians build a state, but it actively tried to prevent it, so this doesn't change anything to what I'm saying. It's just a completely different situation and those comparisons don't make any logical or historical sense.
They left Gaza! They gave them what could’ve been a, and Palestinians responded exactly as you would expect if you assume, like I do, that they belong an irredeemably murderous society. I know you’ll say that there was a blockade, etc, but I feel like Israel would have to basically commit suicide to prove to your satisfaction that the Palestinians cannot make peace.
Out of curiosity, do you think that lack of concern with human rights helped or harmed the Allies in defeating Germany and Japan and ultimately remaking their societies?
I'm sure it helped, but it doesn't mean that it was necessary and, even more importantly, it doesn't mean that it has any bearing on the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which it plainly doesn't because again unlike the Allies after WWII Israel absolutely has no intention of helping the Palestinians creating a state and it doesn't even pretend to! Again, this is hardly the only reason why this comparison makes no sense, the situations are just completely different in about every imaginable way except in the sense that it involved an armed conflict.
The withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral and, as the Palestinians understood very well, just a way for Israel to try and settle the conflict by imposing its terms, so I don't see why they should have been grateful for that or how this shows that Palestinians don't want to make peace. It's a ridiculous argument and, no matter how often people make it, that won't make it any less ridiculous. It also doesn't follow from the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza that it gave Palestinians the means to build a functional state, which it obviously didn't even before the blockade. Even before that, Israel controlled Gaza's borders, and it still occupied and colonized the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which any Palestinian state would need to be economically viable. The idea that Israel had no choice but to do that unless it wanted to "commit suicide" is beyond preposterous.
"It also doesn't follow from the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza that it gave Palestinians the means to build a functional state, which it obviously didn't even before the blockade."
It is genuinely hard to believe you are not being disingenuous with stuff like this. Obviously Gaza couldn't have achieved full sovereignty, just like Monaco or the Vatican City. But the idea that they couldn't have made the best of the situation and were just compelled to turn the entire territory into a base to launch pointless attacks against Israel is what is actually 'beyond preposterous'. Gaza in 2005 benefitted from immense, indeed practically universal, international good will, enormous foreign aid, and direct access to the most advanced economy in the Middle East. I think they could literally have announced they were setting up an international tax haven for drug cartels and the international community would have let them get away with it. No-one forced them to say "great, we managed to force Israel to give land through terrorism, let's do more'. They chose to do that because that is who they are.
The reason is because Israel controls everything in Gaza, including all the borders, the population registry, food and fuel just being the most important.
Israel withdrew from Hamas-dominated Gaza, *and continued the occupation of the Fatah-dominated West Bank.* It wasn't "land for peace," it was a deliberate choice to strengthen Hamas at the expense of Fatah, and ensure that Palestinians would never develop a functional society. Ariel Sharon, the "butcher of Beirut" as Palestinians called him, was not the kind of PM who succumbs to soft-heartedness; he knew exactly what he was doing.
This is the Palestinian copium position "Israelis are just so devious that they make Palestinians act in incredibly stupid, depraved and self destructive ways.
Even if it's true that Sharon planned it this way, it doesn't mean he forced Gazans to s**t all over their bed. If they had made the best of it with he resources they had, the pressure *including within Israel* to do further territorial withdrawal would have been overwhelming. Nothing forced them to do literally the stupidest thing they could possibly do, and then do it over and over again. If this was Sharon's plan, all it means is that he correctly predicted that Palestinians are evil and stupid.
But actually it's very unlikely that Sharon did plan it this way. His name is mud, and the corrupt political dynasty he spent the last two decades of his life building up fell apart completely. The truth is that Sharon underestimated how messed up and sick in the head Palestinians are because at heart he too was a liberal.
P.S. The actual butchers of Beirut are the Palestinians who, having been deservedly slaughtered and thrown out of Jordan for their reprehensible behaviour, were taken in by Lebanon and promptly set about destroying the country with incredibly depraved violence. All Sharon did was stand by and let the Maronites respond in kind.
"The right thing to do would be for Israel to make a real attempt at negotiating a fair two-state solution with the Palestinians, which has never done and clearly has no intention of doing after this war. "
Right. clearly the correct response to a depraved orgy of rape and murder is to reward it. No incentives issue there. I am very smart.
"Even if you are right that Palestinians would be unable to create a functional state if Israel weren't actively trying to prevent it, this wouldn't change the fact that Israel's conduct during this war but also before that is reprehensible."
Well, actually it would and it's self evident that it would, which is why you are in a minority of perhaps 17 people who acknowledge (albeit massive underplay) Arab pathology and still demand Israel give Palestinians a state so they can wage war against Israel.
> Hamas destroyed it and led to Netanyahu being elected.
If you let the 0.1% most extreme of either side veto any peace plan, you will never get a peace plan. The right thing to do would have been to stick with the plan in spite of Hamas's actions. Giving up means giving Hamas what they want.
I wonder what your view is about how a country like Israel should approach the rights of people like the Palestinians. Since the protection of the culture that's well-equipped for modernity has such paramount importance, is it literally just anything goes? Are there any humanitarian limits at all?
This is spot on. It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that the stated goals of this war for PR cover—destroying Hamas and preventing another 10/7–are at best secondary considerations. That’s not to say Israel does not also want to accomplish these things but the first is impossible and the second is easily done without the type of brutality we are seeing, as you’ve written before.
Israeli leaders have been talking about WWII from the beginning and the goal here is quite obviously Dresden. (Never mind the insanity of analogizing to total war between great powers 75 years ago as a means of justifying the same behavior now against a militia.) The idea is clearly to punish Palestinians at large in an attempt to either drive them out of their land permanently or subjugate them by making Gaza unlivable.
1. I don't buy all these 'proxies'. UNRWA workers can very well be Hamas. Journalists have a professional reason for being exposed. Ultimately, if the data was favourable to Hamas, Hamas would just publish the truth. The fact they need to lie says it all.
2. One needs to compare the overall campaign, and not rate of casualties/time. If Israel was slower but _with the same result_, everything would have been better and more moral? Obviously not. Israel is on track for finishing this with less civcas than the one taken in the war against ISIS which had much less justification.
3. It's not in the West's interests to argue that a jihadist organization can embed itself in a large city and then be allowed to do anything. Only a matter of time before this is used against someone else. In general, the idea that the West can buy itself safety by turning against Israel hasn't shown itself to be very successful.
"If Israel was slower but _with the same result_, everything would have been better and more moral? "
But have you considered that Phillipe Lemoine has read lots of books about the Israel Palestinian conflict, and that he's too busy to write about it, but definitely knows more than you? Trust me bro.
"It's not in the West's interests to argue that a jihadist organization can embed itself in a large city and then be allowed to do anything. Only a matter of time before this is used against someone else."
I think Gaullists and the like fundamentally believe in a 'two continent solution' where Europe screws over the pieds noirs, Rhodesians, Zionists etc. in return for which the browns and blacks agree not to come to Europe, hence avoiding the need to deal with difficult questions. Zionists refuse to abide by the deal and are screwing everything up. It doesn't have any relation to reality, but it's an important psychological drive behind traditional anti-Israel sentiment on the European Right.
You should learn by your countryman Renaud Camus, Phillyboy and learn to appreciate how Israel asphalting the palestoid race is a blessing for our race.
"If I had grown up in Gaza, it’s quite possible I would have become a terrorist, but I didn’t and this doesn’t prevent me from criticizing Palestinian terrorism."
The protestations of not, in fact, being a cringe liberal ring hollow if you say liberal nonsense like this. Human beings are not interchangeable widgets. If someone with the your innate genotypic intelligence, propensity to violence, big 5 personality traits etc. had been born in Gaza, they would not have become a terrorist, they would have got sick of being surrounded by depraved morons, got a foreign passport, and not look back. But this wouldn't have happened because your grandparents would have already have gone to South America, and you would be living it up among the elite of Argentina or whatever. If we extend the thought experiment to Palestinians as a whole and imagine they had the same range of innate cognitive and behavioural traits as the French, we would not be having this conversation because Palestinians would not constantly do incredibly depraved and stupid s**t, they would not be Muslims (because only stupid and/or psychologically disturbed people are attracted to Islam), and they would not come out in public to spit on the corpse of a young woman who had been raped and murdered. Gazans live in squalor and misery because they are depraved morons, they are not depraved morons because they live in squalor and misery.
Which brings me to by main objection. On both Substack and Twitter you repeatedly come back to the claim that Israel is to blame because they have never made a reasonable offer to the Palestinians. When pushed to explain, you just say you are too busy, but trust me bro, I've read loads of books. Well I can read a lot of books and become an expert on French society and authoritatively tell you that North African immigration has been an unqualified blessing for France, but the French are too bigoted and hateful and hence force Moroccans to commit crime all the time. That's the consensus view in academia, so it must be correct.
So, in short, put up or shut up. I honestly don't know what your case is. I suspect it's total bullshit that only someone willfully ignorant of basic facts about human biodiversity among other things could believe, but I have no idea, because you won't say. So instead of writing article after article about how the world must intervene to defend the inalienable right of Gazans to deliriously celebrate the rape and murder of Israeli peace activists, actually explain your case why it's Israel's fault they are this way, and how we can fix it. We are fighting the way we are not because of Smotrich and Ben Queer, but because Gallant, Gantz and Herzog think there is no other choice. Quit with the trust-me-bro and explain why they are wrong.
The fact of the matter is that ethnically cleansing Gaza via death or displacement would end the military threat from Hamas. If you have a better solution I’d like to hear it.
Hamas are significantly more popular now than they were on October 6th. Clearly Palestinians think their lives are worthless and it is worth losing tens of thousands of themselves for the sweet, sweet, moment of knowing you raped and murdered some people at a music festival. We're supposed to disagree and insist that actually Palestinian life is valuable because trust-me-bro.
You are NOT cringe for having principles and opposing the slaughter of civilians. Repeat after me “I am not cringe”
I'm curious, do you know of a war in which there was a lower ratio of civilian to combatant casualties? I've yet to see anyone name one.
Do you believe the Allies were wrong to have gone to war against the Nazis? Millions of civilians were killed as a consequence.
How do you propose to deal with an enemy who intentionally sacrifices their entire civilian population to protect themselves? Against an opponent who refuses to accept any risk of collateral civilian casualties, this strategy would be absolutely dominant.
Once again, you're overlooking the fact that Israel is facing Hamas which not only completely disregards civilian casualties but actually craves for them.
I don't think there's a precedent in history. There are countless exemples of conquerors who exterminated their enemies. There are some exemples leaders who got a large part of their population killed by sheer incompetence or because they wanted to quench a rebellion (Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot...) But I can't think of any past tyrant who saw the death of their own people as a major, if not their main path to victory.
Of course they only do this because they are facing Israel. You mention Syria. Nobody would use the Hamas strategy against Assad because he'll happily slaughter any number of civilians and nobody cares about Arabs killing other Arabs.
On a purely logical point of view, you do a good job of proving that Israel doesn't do "everything it can" to prevent civilian casualties (a position I haven't seen anyone hold), then conclude wrongly that they just happily bomb the shit out of Gaza.
My perception is that Israel obviously shifted the cursor of the (military value) / (civilian risk) ratio after 10/7 but I don't think it's clear they're morally or legally wrong (of course, Hamas completely ignores such bourgeois topics, and nobody holds it against them). Interestingly you chose to illustrate your post with Sakakini's story but the parallel you're trying to build doesn't hold. Sakakini praised the deliberate targeting of civilians with no remote military interest (akin to 10/7 without the barbary); I don't see Israeli supports praising the slaughter of Palestinian civilians even though the military interest is plausible. If there were a clear cut instance of Israelis deliberately killing civilians absent any military interest, I think the vast majority of Israel supports would condemn it. I certainly would.
Before I finish, I too oppose the killing of civilians. I believe the moral responsibility for the Palestinian deaths squarely rests on Hamas for starting this whole mess with the barbaric attack of 10/7 and keeping it going by refusing to release the hostages. My great-grandfather was killed by an allied bombing in August '44. My family didn't blame his death on the British, it was obviously the fault of the Germans.
I grieve for the Palestinians as I don't think they could have a worse leadership than Hamas (maybe Kim Jong-Un). I sincerely believe that their best hope for peace and prosperity is to get rid of Hamas, renounce violence and trade with Israel.
You said "If there were a clear cut instance of Israelis deliberately killing civilians absent any military interest, I think the vast majority of Israel supports would condemn it"
The article literally made the point that Israel is bombing civilian targets with a very tenuous military connection. And you refuse to see it , proving the main thrust of the article: that reasonable people are blinded to the bad behavior of Israel's army because Hamas is worse.
Agree with most of your empirical analysis but none of your normative claims.
1. It's not clear that the most relevant metric is "rate of casualties". Ultimately, what matters is the total civilian casualties relative to military objectives accomplished. If israel only stays in Gaza for one more month and the rate of casualties go down (which I believe they will), we might end up with something like 30,000 civilians casualties. That's the price we paid for ISIS - and its a fair price to pay for dismantling Hamas.
2. Israel almost certainly isn’t doing “everything it can” to minimize casualties, but there’s no reason to think minimizing casualties is the most moral thing to do here. I see the Palestinians as a group with legitimate historical grievances but a group who have refused to move past the grievance, despite losing war after war after war. And to make things worse, a group that's let radical islam weaponize those grievances into fighting the next negative expected value battle. I’m sure Philippe has a point that the Israeli haven’t offered optimal deals but when you lose, you take sub-optimal deals so you and your kids can have a better life. What I ultimately care about is the welfare of individuals, not the creation of a Palestinian state. And for that reason, I’m happy for Israel to squash any incentive the population may have to keep fighting this war for generations to come.
There is no basis to believe that any amount of civilian casualties short of a total holocaust will defeat Hamas as an organization let alone the Palestinian refusal to kneel down and kiss the ring. Your argument about moving on basically devolves to might makes right (two groups wish to dominate each other, one group should just accept it bc they lost), which is fine since some folks earnestly believe that and I think it convincingly describes how the world actually works, but it’s best to be clear on that point.
On some level having browsed some of your writings I think we have an interesting first principles disagreement since you’re a utilitarian
I'm not sure I agree. Incentives change and people certainly respond to it - maybe not the most harderened ideologues but I do expect self preservation to kick in for most people. If Egypt and jordan were to open their borders, do you not think people would flee the first chance they get? If not, then you might have a more grim way view of how radicalized the population is.
Haha yes, guilty as charged. In fact, on this issue in particular, I think far too many people are fixated on self determination, with very little concern for welfare and material conditions of present people and future generations. I try to work through this here in a thought experiment - https://vaishnav1.substack.com/p/israelpalestine-self-determination
I think a lot of people would leave if you opened the borders, there is after all a huge Palestinian diaspora including a lot of people who could live in the WB or Gaza if they wanted to.
BUT it is a smaller proportion than you think and many—including those who have passports from a variety of Western countries—have chosen to stay even in the face of military occupation and oppression. Existence is resistance. They respond to incentives—support for militant resistance and/or terrorism have some relationship with the facts on the ground—but leaving en masse is a mistake they will never make again. They’d rather stay and die.
You call it radicalization, they consider it a determination not to let their nationality and tie to their native land wither and die. You’re a utilitarian/materialist so that’s irrational to you, but not to them. I don’t mean that as an insult btw it’s just a first principles disagreement.
I didn't take it as an insult and you're right that the palestinians probably don't share my worldview. But zooming out for a second - the question is: can we continue, as the international community, to keep supporting statehood for the palestinians on that basis. I support giving the palestinians a lot more economic opportunity and very little political autonomy at the beginning, and then making incrasing levels of autonomy contingent on peace and de-radicalization over a long-ish timescale.
I agree that Israel is not worrying too much about civilian casualties, and I think they are right to do so. But I’d prefer the smokescreen narrative because it makes it more likely Israel will be able to win.
I was interested to see you dismiss the idea of thinning out the population of Gaza. Clearly this would be the humane thing to do. You also argue it can’t work. I disagree, but it seems to me that you think it would be bad, and I have a hard time understanding why.
Finally you get at something pretty deep with Arabs turning away from humanism, but it’s wrong to blame Israel rather than Arab society. These societies are just poorly equipped for modernity, given Islam, rates of cousin marriage, and other factors. So they look for scapegoats instead of looking inward. Germany and Japan are actually good at being modern states so they had something to look forward to after militarism was crushed. The Palestinians don’t and it’s their own fault, and it doesn’t help them to indulge their hateful worldview that says it’s all the fault of Jews.
The right thing to do would be for Israel to make a real attempt at negotiating a fair two-state solution with the Palestinians, which has never done and clearly has no intention of doing after this war. I don't see why other countries should agree to clean up Israel's mess for it just because it won't do that. The West in general and the US in particular have plenty of leverage to make it stop this nonsense and they should start using it. This may not be enough to end the conflict, but I don't see why we should continue to support Israel when it behaves in such a reprehensible manner and when doing so brings us nothing but trouble. It's completely stupid.
I know people like to make this comparison with the post-war treatment of Japan and Germany, but it's completely inane. The US and Western occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII actually tried after a while to create functional, democratic states in those countries. Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, on the other hand, never aimed to produce such an outcome and would actually have prevented it even if the Palestinians had been as "virtuous" as the Germans or the Japanese. Nor is this the only problem with that comparison, the origins of the occupation are also completely different, so really it makes no sense whatsoever.
It's very possible that, even if Israel had not behaved in such a way, Palestinians would still be unable to create such a state, but Israel has no ground to make such a claim as long as its own actions make such an outcome impossible. I'm under no illusion about Arab pathologies, of which I'm very much aware, but I'm not blaming Israel for them. I'm blaming Israel for waging a criminal campaign. Even if you are right that Palestinians would be unable to create a functional state if Israel weren't actively trying to prevent it, this wouldn't change the fact that Israel's conduct during this war but also before that is reprehensible.
Your order of events on Germany and Japan are wrong. First they broke the old order, killed a lot of civilians to do it, promised they would keep killing until unconditional surrender, and then built functional states. In Japan, something like 4% of the population died, and it was higher in Germany. Israel isn't even close to that.
Once the Allies destroyed the old order they could think about what replaced it. They didn't try to build new states while Nazis and the Japanese army were still fighting.
I don't see why you think anything I said is inconsistent with the order of events you describe, but it doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous to say that the causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are analogous to those of WWII. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories started long before Hamas even existed and, not only has it never tried to help the Palestinians build a state, but it actively tried to prevent it, so this doesn't change anything to what I'm saying. It's just a completely different situation and those comparisons don't make any logical or historical sense.
They left Gaza! They gave them what could’ve been a, and Palestinians responded exactly as you would expect if you assume, like I do, that they belong an irredeemably murderous society. I know you’ll say that there was a blockade, etc, but I feel like Israel would have to basically commit suicide to prove to your satisfaction that the Palestinians cannot make peace.
Out of curiosity, do you think that lack of concern with human rights helped or harmed the Allies in defeating Germany and Japan and ultimately remaking their societies?
I'm sure it helped, but it doesn't mean that it was necessary and, even more importantly, it doesn't mean that it has any bearing on the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which it plainly doesn't because again unlike the Allies after WWII Israel absolutely has no intention of helping the Palestinians creating a state and it doesn't even pretend to! Again, this is hardly the only reason why this comparison makes no sense, the situations are just completely different in about every imaginable way except in the sense that it involved an armed conflict.
The withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral and, as the Palestinians understood very well, just a way for Israel to try and settle the conflict by imposing its terms, so I don't see why they should have been grateful for that or how this shows that Palestinians don't want to make peace. It's a ridiculous argument and, no matter how often people make it, that won't make it any less ridiculous. It also doesn't follow from the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza that it gave Palestinians the means to build a functional state, which it obviously didn't even before the blockade. Even before that, Israel controlled Gaza's borders, and it still occupied and colonized the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which any Palestinian state would need to be economically viable. The idea that Israel had no choice but to do that unless it wanted to "commit suicide" is beyond preposterous.
"It also doesn't follow from the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza that it gave Palestinians the means to build a functional state, which it obviously didn't even before the blockade."
It is genuinely hard to believe you are not being disingenuous with stuff like this. Obviously Gaza couldn't have achieved full sovereignty, just like Monaco or the Vatican City. But the idea that they couldn't have made the best of the situation and were just compelled to turn the entire territory into a base to launch pointless attacks against Israel is what is actually 'beyond preposterous'. Gaza in 2005 benefitted from immense, indeed practically universal, international good will, enormous foreign aid, and direct access to the most advanced economy in the Middle East. I think they could literally have announced they were setting up an international tax haven for drug cartels and the international community would have let them get away with it. No-one forced them to say "great, we managed to force Israel to give land through terrorism, let's do more'. They chose to do that because that is who they are.
"They left Gaza!". No they didn't.
Under international law, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza, and is recognized as such by every relevant international authority. See the International Committee of the Red Cross, the main authority on the topic: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/frequently-asked-questions-icrcs-work-israel-and-occupied-territories
The reason is because Israel controls everything in Gaza, including all the borders, the population registry, food and fuel just being the most important.
Oh no, not the Red Cross, the corrupt organization that collaborates with Hamas!
Israel withdrew from Hamas-dominated Gaza, *and continued the occupation of the Fatah-dominated West Bank.* It wasn't "land for peace," it was a deliberate choice to strengthen Hamas at the expense of Fatah, and ensure that Palestinians would never develop a functional society. Ariel Sharon, the "butcher of Beirut" as Palestinians called him, was not the kind of PM who succumbs to soft-heartedness; he knew exactly what he was doing.
This is the Palestinian copium position "Israelis are just so devious that they make Palestinians act in incredibly stupid, depraved and self destructive ways.
Even if it's true that Sharon planned it this way, it doesn't mean he forced Gazans to s**t all over their bed. If they had made the best of it with he resources they had, the pressure *including within Israel* to do further territorial withdrawal would have been overwhelming. Nothing forced them to do literally the stupidest thing they could possibly do, and then do it over and over again. If this was Sharon's plan, all it means is that he correctly predicted that Palestinians are evil and stupid.
But actually it's very unlikely that Sharon did plan it this way. His name is mud, and the corrupt political dynasty he spent the last two decades of his life building up fell apart completely. The truth is that Sharon underestimated how messed up and sick in the head Palestinians are because at heart he too was a liberal.
P.S. The actual butchers of Beirut are the Palestinians who, having been deservedly slaughtered and thrown out of Jordan for their reprehensible behaviour, were taken in by Lebanon and promptly set about destroying the country with incredibly depraved violence. All Sharon did was stand by and let the Maronites respond in kind.
Agree with phl I don’t see the comparison working at all
"The right thing to do would be for Israel to make a real attempt at negotiating a fair two-state solution with the Palestinians, which has never done and clearly has no intention of doing after this war. "
Right. clearly the correct response to a depraved orgy of rape and murder is to reward it. No incentives issue there. I am very smart.
"Even if you are right that Palestinians would be unable to create a functional state if Israel weren't actively trying to prevent it, this wouldn't change the fact that Israel's conduct during this war but also before that is reprehensible."
Well, actually it would and it's self evident that it would, which is why you are in a minority of perhaps 17 people who acknowledge (albeit massive underplay) Arab pathology and still demand Israel give Palestinians a state so they can wage war against Israel.
Israel tried negotiating a two state solution in 1993-5 and in 2000.
you can argue it wasn't perfectly done. but in both cases, Israel genuinely tried.
In 1993, Hamas destroyed it and led to Netanyahu being elected.
in 2000, Arafat didn't accept Ehud Barak plan. which might have been a reasonable rejection. but one can't say that Israel didn't try
> Hamas destroyed it and led to Netanyahu being elected.
If you let the 0.1% most extreme of either side veto any peace plan, you will never get a peace plan. The right thing to do would have been to stick with the plan in spite of Hamas's actions. Giving up means giving Hamas what they want.
I wonder what your view is about how a country like Israel should approach the rights of people like the Palestinians. Since the protection of the culture that's well-equipped for modernity has such paramount importance, is it literally just anything goes? Are there any humanitarian limits at all?
This is spot on. It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that the stated goals of this war for PR cover—destroying Hamas and preventing another 10/7–are at best secondary considerations. That’s not to say Israel does not also want to accomplish these things but the first is impossible and the second is easily done without the type of brutality we are seeing, as you’ve written before.
Israeli leaders have been talking about WWII from the beginning and the goal here is quite obviously Dresden. (Never mind the insanity of analogizing to total war between great powers 75 years ago as a means of justifying the same behavior now against a militia.) The idea is clearly to punish Palestinians at large in an attempt to either drive them out of their land permanently or subjugate them by making Gaza unlivable.
1. I don't buy all these 'proxies'. UNRWA workers can very well be Hamas. Journalists have a professional reason for being exposed. Ultimately, if the data was favourable to Hamas, Hamas would just publish the truth. The fact they need to lie says it all.
2. One needs to compare the overall campaign, and not rate of casualties/time. If Israel was slower but _with the same result_, everything would have been better and more moral? Obviously not. Israel is on track for finishing this with less civcas than the one taken in the war against ISIS which had much less justification.
3. It's not in the West's interests to argue that a jihadist organization can embed itself in a large city and then be allowed to do anything. Only a matter of time before this is used against someone else. In general, the idea that the West can buy itself safety by turning against Israel hasn't shown itself to be very successful.
"If Israel was slower but _with the same result_, everything would have been better and more moral? "
But have you considered that Phillipe Lemoine has read lots of books about the Israel Palestinian conflict, and that he's too busy to write about it, but definitely knows more than you? Trust me bro.
"It's not in the West's interests to argue that a jihadist organization can embed itself in a large city and then be allowed to do anything. Only a matter of time before this is used against someone else."
I think Gaullists and the like fundamentally believe in a 'two continent solution' where Europe screws over the pieds noirs, Rhodesians, Zionists etc. in return for which the browns and blacks agree not to come to Europe, hence avoiding the need to deal with difficult questions. Zionists refuse to abide by the deal and are screwing everything up. It doesn't have any relation to reality, but it's an important psychological drive behind traditional anti-Israel sentiment on the European Right.
You should learn by your countryman Renaud Camus, Phillyboy and learn to appreciate how Israel asphalting the palestoid race is a blessing for our race.
"If I had grown up in Gaza, it’s quite possible I would have become a terrorist, but I didn’t and this doesn’t prevent me from criticizing Palestinian terrorism."
The protestations of not, in fact, being a cringe liberal ring hollow if you say liberal nonsense like this. Human beings are not interchangeable widgets. If someone with the your innate genotypic intelligence, propensity to violence, big 5 personality traits etc. had been born in Gaza, they would not have become a terrorist, they would have got sick of being surrounded by depraved morons, got a foreign passport, and not look back. But this wouldn't have happened because your grandparents would have already have gone to South America, and you would be living it up among the elite of Argentina or whatever. If we extend the thought experiment to Palestinians as a whole and imagine they had the same range of innate cognitive and behavioural traits as the French, we would not be having this conversation because Palestinians would not constantly do incredibly depraved and stupid s**t, they would not be Muslims (because only stupid and/or psychologically disturbed people are attracted to Islam), and they would not come out in public to spit on the corpse of a young woman who had been raped and murdered. Gazans live in squalor and misery because they are depraved morons, they are not depraved morons because they live in squalor and misery.
Which brings me to by main objection. On both Substack and Twitter you repeatedly come back to the claim that Israel is to blame because they have never made a reasonable offer to the Palestinians. When pushed to explain, you just say you are too busy, but trust me bro, I've read loads of books. Well I can read a lot of books and become an expert on French society and authoritatively tell you that North African immigration has been an unqualified blessing for France, but the French are too bigoted and hateful and hence force Moroccans to commit crime all the time. That's the consensus view in academia, so it must be correct.
So, in short, put up or shut up. I honestly don't know what your case is. I suspect it's total bullshit that only someone willfully ignorant of basic facts about human biodiversity among other things could believe, but I have no idea, because you won't say. So instead of writing article after article about how the world must intervene to defend the inalienable right of Gazans to deliriously celebrate the rape and murder of Israeli peace activists, actually explain your case why it's Israel's fault they are this way, and how we can fix it. We are fighting the way we are not because of Smotrich and Ben Queer, but because Gallant, Gantz and Herzog think there is no other choice. Quit with the trust-me-bro and explain why they are wrong.
The fact of the matter is that ethnically cleansing Gaza via death or displacement would end the military threat from Hamas. If you have a better solution I’d like to hear it.
Hamas are significantly more popular now than they were on October 6th. Clearly Palestinians think their lives are worthless and it is worth losing tens of thousands of themselves for the sweet, sweet, moment of knowing you raped and murdered some people at a music festival. We're supposed to disagree and insist that actually Palestinian life is valuable because trust-me-bro.
That it absolute nonsense