1) Soldiering is not a part-time job. A soldier who goes home is still a soldier, and therefore still a military target. Since Hamas is not in the habit of informing Israel the home address of it's soldiers, Israel has to take it's best guess.
Even if Israel guesses wrong 90% of the time, whose fault is it? Hamas could share intelligence with Israel; I'm sure Israel would be happy to increase their kill ratio.
Hamas may not deliberately want civilian casualties, but they are certainly indifferent to them and dispersing troops among the civilian population will plausibly lead to many civilian deaths.
2) I don't think "murderous intent" was ever established. The claim was that "Israel wanted to starve the population until <they would release hostages> <isolate the militants>". But murderous intent would be "We want to starve the population *to* *make* *them* *die*." There's no claim that Israel wanted to kill civilians as a goal in and of itself. "Murderous intent" has to be "intent to murder". That hasn't been established.
3) Matthew claims that attempts to get civilians to move was a military goal, not humanitarian. Huh? If Israel were indifferent to civilian deaths, there's not reason to ask civilians to move. You go ahead and bomb military targets; you don't care if there are civilians there; they're only collateral damage. If I'm doing "indiscriminate bombing" with "murderous intent", I don't care if I "isolate" the militants or not.
4) John asks the right question to Matthew: "What would you do?" And Matthew doesn't have any plausible answer beyond hand-wringing and blaming Israel.
All of these passionate opinions are less than UV rays shining down onto a region of the globe where humans have been mercilessly slaughtering one another for millennia. History tells us that the headcount is nothing new. Now we'll get to see if a Trump Hotel in Jerusalem or a $GAZA commemorative cryptocoin will solve the dillemma.
Several times now, I've heard you say that you can't understand the point against calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide", based on the fact that they have killed only a small percentage of the population; and, if they wanted to, they could kill them all.
The UN definition of genocide: "The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as any act that intentionally destroys, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
A key word in the definition is intentionally (there is intent to do the action).
The point hinges on this. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians, they could (do you doubt this?). Easily. And in a short time.
Why have they not done so?
For the same reasons they call people to tell them to evacuate buildings that will be attacked. For the same reason that they drop leaflets for the same purpose. For the same reason that they allow in humanitarian aid. For the same reason they created safe corridors for movement out of areas to be attacked.
Because they don't want to kill Palestinian civilians. There is no intent.
The Hamas leaders, on the other hand, have stated that their population are to be martyrs. And they have stated that one of their strategies is to have as many Palestinian civilians die as possible -- to create political advantage (this is cynical nihilism at its most nakedly expressed). They place their military facilities amongst the civilian population, for this exact reason: They use human shields (which is nearly universally recognized as a human rights violation).
The tunnels that Hamas built in Gaza could shelter all the population. Why don't they shelter them in them? Because Hamas wants to have them die. They see it as a political advantage (and you seem willing to grant this to them).
If that's a record of genocide, then it's surely one of the most incompetent ones in history.
What will we get if Hamas is not punished in the most severe manner for their actions of 7-Oct-2023? More of the same. As Hamas leaders themselves have publicly stated.
another point I would have loved brought up was Israel's prior policy of exchange of 2000 plus Palestinians for one or several captured Israeli soldiers . Some people truly hailed Israel for this.... bringing attention to how Israel care for EVERY Israeli and EVERY soldier . Nonetheless, as heart warming as this can be .. I've always found it to be utter madness, inviting exploitation. And Haniyeh stated in one of the FIRST post Oct 7th interviews on Arab media that it was meant as a hostage taking operation and some of the Hamas "soldiers" got too excited and made "mistakes" (Haniyeh's words) in the "execution" of the operation (the rape and murder parts)
I have watched the Glenn Show and "the Black Guys" from their early days on Bloggingheads TV. Since I've started watching and listening I don't think I've missed a single episode, and J must say this was probably easily the episode which bored me the most and that I learned from the LEAST. It turned into a legal debate about "intent" which formed the basis of most of Mr. Cockerill's argument. Perhaps legal scholars (surely the ones further interested in making this case against "genocide" might find this useful, I did NOT . Israel's change of rules of engagements had been well reported upon in the NYT Whether this was advisable is probably a never ending discussion. I can understand both points that both sides would make. I actually understood Mr. Lake's frustration at the pedantic nature of it all, but he is certainly not immune from criticism and his own twisting of language to buttress his views (such as "existential threat") - which Glenn in one of the FEW questions our Professors asked effectively called him out on this) Mr. Cockerill effectively explained how Hamas has to fight a guerilla war in a very assymetric fashion and admitted that hiding among population is "wrong". Yet, implicit in all this was that Israel's response was equally or probably more "wrong" . Well, maybe, but this is war, a lot of the "rules" or war are kind of made up as we go.. Nation states don;'t abide by "rules of war" as set by academics and or activists., Anyways history will judge Much much better questions were left aside for an hour of this fairly useless wrangling. What should've Israel done (Glenn actually took a stab at this.. I don't quite remember if Mr. Cockerill had his own view of agreed with Glenn. btw. Glenn's proposal of "holding back and taking a deep breath" wasn't very persuasive, though I understand the sentiment. Ok, then what after the breath???? But so much better discussions could have been had. What was accomplished? and at what cost (this was mentioned eloquently by Mr. Lake, re decapitation of leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iranian humiliation, fall of Assad etc. but for e.g. as silly as Mr. Lake's claim of "existential threat" from Hamas, and Glenn's destruction of that claim could have been. a response to Glenn - it wasn't just Hamas.. there is considerable evidence (also reported upon by NYT) that this was meant to by a coordinated effort with Hezbollah and Iran .. but Hezbollah and Iran decided not to go "full in". But a war against those three entities makes a struggle far more 'existential" for Israel does it not? of course it does. How quickly will Hamas refill its ranks ? (immediately as we can easily see now). so what effect did this have? perhaps new leadership will also arise though personally I think SInwar was a particularly effective commander. Mr. Cockerill has never seen a map when he was whining about Israel's invasion of a sovereign border (the Phillippi one with Egypt). Hamas was clearly getting illegal supplies. One look at a map, just ONE immediately informs where this could have have happened because there is only possible spot .. the Phillippi border crossing with Egypt (and Egyptian street is as radically anti Israeli as Jenin's.. or Amman's) Why no talk of the West Bank and what the lunatic right wing Jewish settlers are doing there? (attacking Palestinians) Why no questions about why those lunatics are there in the first place? Why no touching of the ever ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? (now we can really start talking of "settler colonialism" more seriously!) I know that wasn;t the point of the discussion but it's vastly more interesting than Israel's "conduct" of the war. We already knew the rules of engagement were loosened. Why? what were the arguments for and against in Israel cabinet? (those will be great history books waiting to be written). . I'm sorry but I just found the entire topic, apart from a few comments immensely boring and unsatisfying.... This was all well known to people who have kept up on the news. Perhaps it was of more value to the non cognoscenti. I would have appreciated more comments and questions from the Profs, especially John, though I recognize that he preferred to hear more from the "experts" on the topic. if Hamas retains effective political control of the West Bank, I suspect this cease fire will not hold much past its expiration date and certainly will not lead to any effective peace. Egypt will have to be bribed AND strongarmed into a security role in Gaza. It spends way more USD than it has, is in the throes of an economic crisis so there's a potential carrot/stick way there, though politically the leadership cannot be responsible for any displacement, as has been suggested (let Egypt take in Palestinijan refugees). El Sisi would never take that risk, his people would riot. The Gulf states are eager for their Palestinian "headache' to disappear, but they also have to consider their "street".
I just started listening to this conversation and I’m already muttering to myself as I listen to Mathew. Is he an expert on the Middle East? Doubt it. Intent? He’s a JD after all so knows all about intent. First, if you look at any photos from either side you will clearly see there is no famine in Gaza. Clearly no famine. But lots of Gaza’s militants clothed in military garb and armed to the teeth with all manner of weapons meant to kill more Israelis.
Put Mathew in a kibbutz watching his children being, raped, burned alive or tied up and shot and ask him about his response. No one who isn’t Israeli living there and going through this has any standing to say anything about the response. After 9/11, no one stood here in America and said they had no intent to wipe out whoever was behind the guys flying planes into the twin towers. If someone attacks you you better be able and willing to fight back or you’re done.
The comment from another listener here about the nature of war spells it out. Enough. I have to stop listening. Mathew, you are not a credible speaker.
We seem confused about the nature of war...even the concept of War -- perhaps not too unusual in this day & age. We sometimes think it's boxing, complete with Marquess of Queensberry Rules. Sometimes wrestling, in which certain holds or certain positions are forbidden (and points detracted). Sometimes even a game of Risk, with dice rolls & wooden army blocks added or removed from the table (is your Mom gonna give us snacks this afternoon?).
War is none of these things. It never has been any of these things.
Certainly if we sit far enough away in our book-lined nooks and classrooms and computer studios complete with nifty surround-sound battle simulations... it seems as though it should be neat and clean, with crystalline objectives, surgical strikes, shock & awe and empty streets, and bad-guy-body-counts tallied in the upper left hand corner of the screen...but it's not like that, not at all.
And even when the drones, piloted by IDF pilots in air-conditioned bunkers, produce those battle-cam silent, grey-scale explosions that we can watch on YouTube, the on-the-ground reality is apocalyptic: pools of gore and the screams of the wounded, dismembered in the rubble.
War is aimed at the destruction of the enemy....the utter & absolute elimination of his ability to fight, to hide, to live to fight another day, in another way, at another place. It is unimaginably violent and everything undertaken in war is intended to destroy the human body. (Doesn't matter if that body is a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, or someone's Grandma hanging washing in the courtyard). Everyone dies.
Was Israel intentionally killing innocent civilians at the beginning of the conflict? Nah, probably not. It's a misallocation of force, a waste of finite munitions, and an unnecessary risk to the Israelis army. If given a choice between the sworn enemy and the innocent, the IDF would always choose -- as target -- the enemy. But when the weapons chosen are bombs, artillery shells, drones, mortars, grenades, automatic weapons, mines, you name it, in a street-by-street, building-by-building battle what they all deliver, en masse, is indiscriminate bloody and violent death.
And yet, here we sit, in our sanitized four-quartered debate weighing, inveighing, bemoaning, and contesting whether or not the Israelis pursuit of the absolute destruction of Hamas caused (deliberately or otherwise) ‘too many’ civilian casualties in Gaza. It’s hard to imagine anything more farcical or cruel.
How many innocent deaths are indeed acceptable?
The answer, of course, is none. And yet... war doesn’t give a damn. Neither does the enemy who builds his command structures beneath hospitals and schools, and drives his offensives from apartment buildings and housing complexes (still filled with these same civilians).
War kills civilians constantly...especially when the enemy combatants are embedded within the civilian population.
The allied bombing of Tokyo is estimated to have killed 100K. The 3-night bombing of Dresden killed 25K. The Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese produced 200K dead and another 80K raped. War is hell.
We’re told that “by all major metrics used to measure rates of civilian harm, the pace at which civilians were killed in this 25-day period in Gaza outpaces any recent military campaign.” Is anyone surprised? Do we realize that the population density of Gaza is approximately 15K people per square mile??? Do we understand that when you combine that kind of density with the nature of 21st century war that a resulting body count measured at around 40K (civilians and enemy combatants both) in 14 months of war... that THAT is amazingly SMALL number given that the war raged over a scant 141 square miles of territory.
This is the truth of war. It doesn’t happen any other way and we are fools to think otherwise.
Eli is right that many pro-Israel supporters are capitalizing on the current anti-woke sentiment to divert attention from Israel’s actions. Still, I’m glad I haven’t allowed myself to become negatively polarized by the idiotic campus tentists and Palestinian nationalists.
I maintain that our alliance with Israel is, on balance, more harmful than beneficial. Likewise, I don’t understand why we should offer NATO-level security guarantees to the murderous Saudi regime simply to counter the equally murderous Iranian regime. This is clearly a bribe for them to make peace with Israel without Israel allowing there to be a Palestinian state.
Honestly, the most egregious issues lie in the West Bank more than Gaza. Israel is actively working to expel or kill Palestinians there and replace them with Jewish settlers. The Israeli minister overseeing West Bank security—who benefits from government subsidies—is essentially a religious supremacist advocating terrorist tactics. I don’t understand why we should support this shit in the 21st century.
I am not sure about the timing of this discussion but both the Israelis and the new US Administration have made it clear that Hamas will not control Gaza as a result of the recent cease fire and that Israel will reengage militarily (with American support) if necessary to keep this from happening. So the notion that the Israeli objective of destroying Hamas has changed is not the case.
Eli Lake is one of a multitude of Israeli Spin Doctors. The motto of the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence and special operations unit) is “by way of deception”, deceit and lies. I’m not suggesting Eli Lake is a member of Mossad, it’s just the way Zionists operate. Israel represents the worst of humanity, the malignant marriage of perpetual victimhood with systemic hate and uncontrolled violence. October 7 did not happen in a vacuum. The news in our Jewish dominated media, starts with an action by Hamas, not the unrelenting provocations and violence perpetrated by Israel. Eli Lake and his ilk as well as John, say it is “simple” when justifying Israel’s actions (what choice did Israel have other than to respond in the manner that they did) but “complicated” when it comes to holding Israel accountable, “complicated“ a favorite term Zionists, as well as John parroting them, use to obfuscate and distract.
I'm not a Zionist. I am Jewish - since that is what you meant to say anyway. You let it slide when you in your "moral clarity" talked about the Jews owning the media. Though the truth is if you said Zionist we all know you really mean Jews. Your disguise is as convincing as the white nationalist who tried to infiltrate the JCC in Nashville with his Amish hat and fake beard. 🤣🤣🤣
No attempt to disguise. Are you going to suggest for a nanosecond that there is a meaningful difference between Jews and Zionists (Jewish Zionists). Major Jewish organizations claim around 90-95% of Jews are Zionists. Are we really supposed to believe you are part of that 5-10% who are not?
Between 1939 and 1946, Gallup polled white Christian Americans (they weren't polling Blacks) as to who was the greatest threat to America. It wasn't Hitler, Stalin or Imperial Japan. It was the Jews. (David Nirenberg, p. 456, "Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition"). The collective insanity around the Jews is so profoundly bizarre. And it's a shape-shifter.
Israel just removed Assad from power where an actual genocide was taking place (the numbers aren't manufactured the Gaza Health Ministry). Hezbollah and Iran have been knee-capped. How great is that for the world? Say it out loud. No? Hmm.
I told you so… Remember? Not only did they bomb multi-story residential buildings repeatedly and unnecessarily. They have restricted foreign aid consistently since the beginning of the war. The Israeli campaign also specifically targeted the relief agencies, hoping the agencies would withdraw their relief personnel and aid. Additionally, one of the reasons evacuations were inconsistent is because the civilians would evacuate to the place they were told. Then, they would be bombed in what they were told would be a safe place.
Just look at the raw numbers, people! The kill ratios are so out of proportion to what would be a justified response to the initial attack, particularly when you consider the percentages of women and children killed. One should not be offended if the term “Ethnic Cleansing” is bandied about. Consider that the response to the initial attack was primarily directed by far-right Jewish Supremacists, not moderates or liberals.
Do we realize that approximately 21% of Israel's population is itself native-born Palestinian?
It's hard to see the war against Hamas as being Ethnic Cleansing when the very narrowly defined Palestinian 'ethnicity' is also Israeli?
No, my friend, the objective of the conflict for Israel was and is the absolute destruction of Hamas...which builds its command and supply structures beneath civilian hospitals and schools.... which routes their munitions supplies beneath civilian homes....and which cloaks its fighters in civilian garb.
What would anyone expect, given such an enemy who has himself sworn to destroy Israel?
What is truly amazing is that the death count is so comparatively low.
So how exactly should a state respond to a homicidal attack that leaves over a thousand people raped, killed, tortured and taken hostage. Exactly how should any state deal with a peer that is committed to their extinction.
Notice how every condemnation of Israel omits any analysis of the role Hamas played in getting people killed. Or addresses Hamas actually killing people themselves.
Commission of war crimes justifies retaliation via any other war crime without limit or scope? It would be trivial to construct examples that would illustrate how absurd that idea is.
They haven't proven they are war crimes. It's just an allegation and you're skipping over the part where you have to prove it. I don't see how anyone can reach a conclusion without seeing the paperwork the IDG legal department signed off on and why they thought the bombings were proportionate
I'm not sure you understood my comment or you may need to listen to the podcast again. I am criticizing the glaring flaws in Eli's logic, when he presented a defense of Israel's actions, stipulating that they *had* pursued a policy of starvation of the Gazan civilian population.
Of course, he also presented arguments that they did *not* pursue such a policy. My comment was not in response to those arguments, but instead to the one where he stipulates they did commit war crimes but were justified because "they were angry."
I often wonder just how stupid the Israels are. They live adjacent to a murderous regime committed to the extinction of Israel. So what does Israel do? They setup communities along the border with these lunatics without providing them with the means to protect themselves from these thugs. What exactly did they think was gonna happen.
1) Soldiering is not a part-time job. A soldier who goes home is still a soldier, and therefore still a military target. Since Hamas is not in the habit of informing Israel the home address of it's soldiers, Israel has to take it's best guess.
Even if Israel guesses wrong 90% of the time, whose fault is it? Hamas could share intelligence with Israel; I'm sure Israel would be happy to increase their kill ratio.
Hamas may not deliberately want civilian casualties, but they are certainly indifferent to them and dispersing troops among the civilian population will plausibly lead to many civilian deaths.
2) I don't think "murderous intent" was ever established. The claim was that "Israel wanted to starve the population until <they would release hostages> <isolate the militants>". But murderous intent would be "We want to starve the population *to* *make* *them* *die*." There's no claim that Israel wanted to kill civilians as a goal in and of itself. "Murderous intent" has to be "intent to murder". That hasn't been established.
3) Matthew claims that attempts to get civilians to move was a military goal, not humanitarian. Huh? If Israel were indifferent to civilian deaths, there's not reason to ask civilians to move. You go ahead and bomb military targets; you don't care if there are civilians there; they're only collateral damage. If I'm doing "indiscriminate bombing" with "murderous intent", I don't care if I "isolate" the militants or not.
4) John asks the right question to Matthew: "What would you do?" And Matthew doesn't have any plausible answer beyond hand-wringing and blaming Israel.
All of these passionate opinions are less than UV rays shining down onto a region of the globe where humans have been mercilessly slaughtering one another for millennia. History tells us that the headcount is nothing new. Now we'll get to see if a Trump Hotel in Jerusalem or a $GAZA commemorative cryptocoin will solve the dillemma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem:_The_Biography
Hello Glenn,
Several times now, I've heard you say that you can't understand the point against calling Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide", based on the fact that they have killed only a small percentage of the population; and, if they wanted to, they could kill them all.
The UN definition of genocide: "The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as any act that intentionally destroys, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group."
A key word in the definition is intentionally (there is intent to do the action).
The point hinges on this. If Israel wanted to kill all the Palestinians, they could (do you doubt this?). Easily. And in a short time.
Why have they not done so?
For the same reasons they call people to tell them to evacuate buildings that will be attacked. For the same reason that they drop leaflets for the same purpose. For the same reason that they allow in humanitarian aid. For the same reason they created safe corridors for movement out of areas to be attacked.
Because they don't want to kill Palestinian civilians. There is no intent.
The Hamas leaders, on the other hand, have stated that their population are to be martyrs. And they have stated that one of their strategies is to have as many Palestinian civilians die as possible -- to create political advantage (this is cynical nihilism at its most nakedly expressed). They place their military facilities amongst the civilian population, for this exact reason: They use human shields (which is nearly universally recognized as a human rights violation).
The tunnels that Hamas built in Gaza could shelter all the population. Why don't they shelter them in them? Because Hamas wants to have them die. They see it as a political advantage (and you seem willing to grant this to them).
Also note the population history in the Palestinian territories: https://jwbliliephoto.net/M/Palestinian_Terr_Pop.png
If that's a record of genocide, then it's surely one of the most incompetent ones in history.
What will we get if Hamas is not punished in the most severe manner for their actions of 7-Oct-2023? More of the same. As Hamas leaders themselves have publicly stated.
another point I would have loved brought up was Israel's prior policy of exchange of 2000 plus Palestinians for one or several captured Israeli soldiers . Some people truly hailed Israel for this.... bringing attention to how Israel care for EVERY Israeli and EVERY soldier . Nonetheless, as heart warming as this can be .. I've always found it to be utter madness, inviting exploitation. And Haniyeh stated in one of the FIRST post Oct 7th interviews on Arab media that it was meant as a hostage taking operation and some of the Hamas "soldiers" got too excited and made "mistakes" (Haniyeh's words) in the "execution" of the operation (the rape and murder parts)
I have watched the Glenn Show and "the Black Guys" from their early days on Bloggingheads TV. Since I've started watching and listening I don't think I've missed a single episode, and J must say this was probably easily the episode which bored me the most and that I learned from the LEAST. It turned into a legal debate about "intent" which formed the basis of most of Mr. Cockerill's argument. Perhaps legal scholars (surely the ones further interested in making this case against "genocide" might find this useful, I did NOT . Israel's change of rules of engagements had been well reported upon in the NYT Whether this was advisable is probably a never ending discussion. I can understand both points that both sides would make. I actually understood Mr. Lake's frustration at the pedantic nature of it all, but he is certainly not immune from criticism and his own twisting of language to buttress his views (such as "existential threat") - which Glenn in one of the FEW questions our Professors asked effectively called him out on this) Mr. Cockerill effectively explained how Hamas has to fight a guerilla war in a very assymetric fashion and admitted that hiding among population is "wrong". Yet, implicit in all this was that Israel's response was equally or probably more "wrong" . Well, maybe, but this is war, a lot of the "rules" or war are kind of made up as we go.. Nation states don;'t abide by "rules of war" as set by academics and or activists., Anyways history will judge Much much better questions were left aside for an hour of this fairly useless wrangling. What should've Israel done (Glenn actually took a stab at this.. I don't quite remember if Mr. Cockerill had his own view of agreed with Glenn. btw. Glenn's proposal of "holding back and taking a deep breath" wasn't very persuasive, though I understand the sentiment. Ok, then what after the breath???? But so much better discussions could have been had. What was accomplished? and at what cost (this was mentioned eloquently by Mr. Lake, re decapitation of leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iranian humiliation, fall of Assad etc. but for e.g. as silly as Mr. Lake's claim of "existential threat" from Hamas, and Glenn's destruction of that claim could have been. a response to Glenn - it wasn't just Hamas.. there is considerable evidence (also reported upon by NYT) that this was meant to by a coordinated effort with Hezbollah and Iran .. but Hezbollah and Iran decided not to go "full in". But a war against those three entities makes a struggle far more 'existential" for Israel does it not? of course it does. How quickly will Hamas refill its ranks ? (immediately as we can easily see now). so what effect did this have? perhaps new leadership will also arise though personally I think SInwar was a particularly effective commander. Mr. Cockerill has never seen a map when he was whining about Israel's invasion of a sovereign border (the Phillippi one with Egypt). Hamas was clearly getting illegal supplies. One look at a map, just ONE immediately informs where this could have have happened because there is only possible spot .. the Phillippi border crossing with Egypt (and Egyptian street is as radically anti Israeli as Jenin's.. or Amman's) Why no talk of the West Bank and what the lunatic right wing Jewish settlers are doing there? (attacking Palestinians) Why no questions about why those lunatics are there in the first place? Why no touching of the ever ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? (now we can really start talking of "settler colonialism" more seriously!) I know that wasn;t the point of the discussion but it's vastly more interesting than Israel's "conduct" of the war. We already knew the rules of engagement were loosened. Why? what were the arguments for and against in Israel cabinet? (those will be great history books waiting to be written). . I'm sorry but I just found the entire topic, apart from a few comments immensely boring and unsatisfying.... This was all well known to people who have kept up on the news. Perhaps it was of more value to the non cognoscenti. I would have appreciated more comments and questions from the Profs, especially John, though I recognize that he preferred to hear more from the "experts" on the topic. if Hamas retains effective political control of the West Bank, I suspect this cease fire will not hold much past its expiration date and certainly will not lead to any effective peace. Egypt will have to be bribed AND strongarmed into a security role in Gaza. It spends way more USD than it has, is in the throes of an economic crisis so there's a potential carrot/stick way there, though politically the leadership cannot be responsible for any displacement, as has been suggested (let Egypt take in Palestinijan refugees). El Sisi would never take that risk, his people would riot. The Gulf states are eager for their Palestinian "headache' to disappear, but they also have to consider their "street".
I just started listening to this conversation and I’m already muttering to myself as I listen to Mathew. Is he an expert on the Middle East? Doubt it. Intent? He’s a JD after all so knows all about intent. First, if you look at any photos from either side you will clearly see there is no famine in Gaza. Clearly no famine. But lots of Gaza’s militants clothed in military garb and armed to the teeth with all manner of weapons meant to kill more Israelis.
Put Mathew in a kibbutz watching his children being, raped, burned alive or tied up and shot and ask him about his response. No one who isn’t Israeli living there and going through this has any standing to say anything about the response. After 9/11, no one stood here in America and said they had no intent to wipe out whoever was behind the guys flying planes into the twin towers. If someone attacks you you better be able and willing to fight back or you’re done.
The comment from another listener here about the nature of war spells it out. Enough. I have to stop listening. Mathew, you are not a credible speaker.
We seem confused about the nature of war...even the concept of War -- perhaps not too unusual in this day & age. We sometimes think it's boxing, complete with Marquess of Queensberry Rules. Sometimes wrestling, in which certain holds or certain positions are forbidden (and points detracted). Sometimes even a game of Risk, with dice rolls & wooden army blocks added or removed from the table (is your Mom gonna give us snacks this afternoon?).
War is none of these things. It never has been any of these things.
Certainly if we sit far enough away in our book-lined nooks and classrooms and computer studios complete with nifty surround-sound battle simulations... it seems as though it should be neat and clean, with crystalline objectives, surgical strikes, shock & awe and empty streets, and bad-guy-body-counts tallied in the upper left hand corner of the screen...but it's not like that, not at all.
And even when the drones, piloted by IDF pilots in air-conditioned bunkers, produce those battle-cam silent, grey-scale explosions that we can watch on YouTube, the on-the-ground reality is apocalyptic: pools of gore and the screams of the wounded, dismembered in the rubble.
War is aimed at the destruction of the enemy....the utter & absolute elimination of his ability to fight, to hide, to live to fight another day, in another way, at another place. It is unimaginably violent and everything undertaken in war is intended to destroy the human body. (Doesn't matter if that body is a tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, or someone's Grandma hanging washing in the courtyard). Everyone dies.
Was Israel intentionally killing innocent civilians at the beginning of the conflict? Nah, probably not. It's a misallocation of force, a waste of finite munitions, and an unnecessary risk to the Israelis army. If given a choice between the sworn enemy and the innocent, the IDF would always choose -- as target -- the enemy. But when the weapons chosen are bombs, artillery shells, drones, mortars, grenades, automatic weapons, mines, you name it, in a street-by-street, building-by-building battle what they all deliver, en masse, is indiscriminate bloody and violent death.
And yet, here we sit, in our sanitized four-quartered debate weighing, inveighing, bemoaning, and contesting whether or not the Israelis pursuit of the absolute destruction of Hamas caused (deliberately or otherwise) ‘too many’ civilian casualties in Gaza. It’s hard to imagine anything more farcical or cruel.
How many innocent deaths are indeed acceptable?
The answer, of course, is none. And yet... war doesn’t give a damn. Neither does the enemy who builds his command structures beneath hospitals and schools, and drives his offensives from apartment buildings and housing complexes (still filled with these same civilians).
War kills civilians constantly...especially when the enemy combatants are embedded within the civilian population.
The allied bombing of Tokyo is estimated to have killed 100K. The 3-night bombing of Dresden killed 25K. The Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese produced 200K dead and another 80K raped. War is hell.
We’re told that “by all major metrics used to measure rates of civilian harm, the pace at which civilians were killed in this 25-day period in Gaza outpaces any recent military campaign.” Is anyone surprised? Do we realize that the population density of Gaza is approximately 15K people per square mile??? Do we understand that when you combine that kind of density with the nature of 21st century war that a resulting body count measured at around 40K (civilians and enemy combatants both) in 14 months of war... that THAT is amazingly SMALL number given that the war raged over a scant 141 square miles of territory.
This is the truth of war. It doesn’t happen any other way and we are fools to think otherwise.
Eli is right that many pro-Israel supporters are capitalizing on the current anti-woke sentiment to divert attention from Israel’s actions. Still, I’m glad I haven’t allowed myself to become negatively polarized by the idiotic campus tentists and Palestinian nationalists.
I maintain that our alliance with Israel is, on balance, more harmful than beneficial. Likewise, I don’t understand why we should offer NATO-level security guarantees to the murderous Saudi regime simply to counter the equally murderous Iranian regime. This is clearly a bribe for them to make peace with Israel without Israel allowing there to be a Palestinian state.
Honestly, the most egregious issues lie in the West Bank more than Gaza. Israel is actively working to expel or kill Palestinians there and replace them with Jewish settlers. The Israeli minister overseeing West Bank security—who benefits from government subsidies—is essentially a religious supremacist advocating terrorist tactics. I don’t understand why we should support this shit in the 21st century.
As for the conduct of the war and our support of it, this is the most comprehensive investigative piece I’ve seen: https://www.propublica.org/article/biden-blinken-state-department-israel-gaza-human-rights-horrors
While it doesn’t reflect well on the Biden administration, it also underscores how difficult it is to rein in an ally.
I am not sure about the timing of this discussion but both the Israelis and the new US Administration have made it clear that Hamas will not control Gaza as a result of the recent cease fire and that Israel will reengage militarily (with American support) if necessary to keep this from happening. So the notion that the Israeli objective of destroying Hamas has changed is not the case.
I'll believe that when I see it. Otherwise, why would Hamas accept anything?
A great meeting of minds to discuss a difficult issue.
Very good discussion, thank you. I only wish it was around my dining room table so I could get a word in.
Eli Lake is one of a multitude of Israeli Spin Doctors. The motto of the Mossad (Israel’s intelligence and special operations unit) is “by way of deception”, deceit and lies. I’m not suggesting Eli Lake is a member of Mossad, it’s just the way Zionists operate. Israel represents the worst of humanity, the malignant marriage of perpetual victimhood with systemic hate and uncontrolled violence. October 7 did not happen in a vacuum. The news in our Jewish dominated media, starts with an action by Hamas, not the unrelenting provocations and violence perpetrated by Israel. Eli Lake and his ilk as well as John, say it is “simple” when justifying Israel’s actions (what choice did Israel have other than to respond in the manner that they did) but “complicated” when it comes to holding Israel accountable, “complicated“ a favorite term Zionists, as well as John parroting them, use to obfuscate and distract.
You mean historically Jews were not victims? Is that what you were trying to say?
Oh shit, not you again!
Oh shit, not you again!
Looks like someone fell out of the anti-Semite tree and hit every branch on the way down - again.
A Zionist moral midget speaks ... again
I'm not a Zionist. I am Jewish - since that is what you meant to say anyway. You let it slide when you in your "moral clarity" talked about the Jews owning the media. Though the truth is if you said Zionist we all know you really mean Jews. Your disguise is as convincing as the white nationalist who tried to infiltrate the JCC in Nashville with his Amish hat and fake beard. 🤣🤣🤣
No attempt to disguise. Are you going to suggest for a nanosecond that there is a meaningful difference between Jews and Zionists (Jewish Zionists). Major Jewish organizations claim around 90-95% of Jews are Zionists. Are we really supposed to believe you are part of that 5-10% who are not?
Not a meaningful difference for someone who hates Jews in general.
Between 1939 and 1946, Gallup polled white Christian Americans (they weren't polling Blacks) as to who was the greatest threat to America. It wasn't Hitler, Stalin or Imperial Japan. It was the Jews. (David Nirenberg, p. 456, "Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition"). The collective insanity around the Jews is so profoundly bizarre. And it's a shape-shifter.
Israel just removed Assad from power where an actual genocide was taking place (the numbers aren't manufactured the Gaza Health Ministry). Hezbollah and Iran have been knee-capped. How great is that for the world? Say it out loud. No? Hmm.
I told you so… Remember? Not only did they bomb multi-story residential buildings repeatedly and unnecessarily. They have restricted foreign aid consistently since the beginning of the war. The Israeli campaign also specifically targeted the relief agencies, hoping the agencies would withdraw their relief personnel and aid. Additionally, one of the reasons evacuations were inconsistent is because the civilians would evacuate to the place they were told. Then, they would be bombed in what they were told would be a safe place.
Just look at the raw numbers, people! The kill ratios are so out of proportion to what would be a justified response to the initial attack, particularly when you consider the percentages of women and children killed. One should not be offended if the term “Ethnic Cleansing” is bandied about. Consider that the response to the initial attack was primarily directed by far-right Jewish Supremacists, not moderates or liberals.
Karen
Do we realize that approximately 21% of Israel's population is itself native-born Palestinian?
It's hard to see the war against Hamas as being Ethnic Cleansing when the very narrowly defined Palestinian 'ethnicity' is also Israeli?
No, my friend, the objective of the conflict for Israel was and is the absolute destruction of Hamas...which builds its command and supply structures beneath civilian hospitals and schools.... which routes their munitions supplies beneath civilian homes....and which cloaks its fighters in civilian garb.
What would anyone expect, given such an enemy who has himself sworn to destroy Israel?
What is truly amazing is that the death count is so comparatively low.
So how exactly should a state respond to a homicidal attack that leaves over a thousand people raped, killed, tortured and taken hostage. Exactly how should any state deal with a peer that is committed to their extinction.
Notice how every condemnation of Israel omits any analysis of the role Hamas played in getting people killed. Or addresses Hamas actually killing people themselves.
That's the part of the strategy. Keep attention on Israel to remove any true analysis of Hamas's culpability in literally any aspect of the war.
Eli in a nutshell - "Of course Israel is allowed to commit war crimes two weeks after the October 7th attack, they were angry!" Huh?
The notion of "war crime" is itself oxymoronic when facing an enemy which does not itself abide by the laws of war.
Commission of war crimes justifies retaliation via any other war crime without limit or scope? It would be trivial to construct examples that would illustrate how absurd that idea is.
They haven't proven they are war crimes. It's just an allegation and you're skipping over the part where you have to prove it. I don't see how anyone can reach a conclusion without seeing the paperwork the IDG legal department signed off on and why they thought the bombings were proportionate
I'm not sure you understood my comment or you may need to listen to the podcast again. I am criticizing the glaring flaws in Eli's logic, when he presented a defense of Israel's actions, stipulating that they *had* pursued a policy of starvation of the Gazan civilian population.
Of course, he also presented arguments that they did *not* pursue such a policy. My comment was not in response to those arguments, but instead to the one where he stipulates they did commit war crimes but were justified because "they were angry."
War crimes are factual and no one on the podcast know the facts.
He never stipulates they committed war crimes.
Yes, he does. Please listen closely to the discussion RE starvation policy (which would be a war crime, if implemented).
I often wonder just how stupid the Israels are. They live adjacent to a murderous regime committed to the extinction of Israel. So what does Israel do? They setup communities along the border with these lunatics without providing them with the means to protect themselves from these thugs. What exactly did they think was gonna happen.
You can’t fix stupid.