Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

"In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden pre-emptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Pre-emptive strikes are not self-defence. Self-defence is when you counter-attack in response to an attack by your enemy, not when you think your enemy may be about to attack.

"The sequence of events that led to the Israeli pre-emptive strike did indeed create a situation where an armed attack seemed unavoidable. Although the US was pressing for a diplomatic solution, its intention never materialised. The escalation of events in the last days of May and in the early days of June 1967 created a serious threat for Israel. The expulsion of UNEF, the closure of the Straits of Tiran, the extensive mobilizations on the Israeli border and the repeated threats coming from Nasser and other Egyptian representatives convinced the Israeli government that the threat of an armed attack was not only serious, but also imminent. Although, taken separately, the Arab steps could not amount to an armed attack or a threat thereof, their aggregation was interpreted as showing the imminence of an invasion. It is irrelevant whether the situation was indeed as desperate as it seemed. Assuming that the Israeli authorities assessed the available information in good faith, their resort to a pre-emptive strike was justified. Hindsight knowledge should not play a role in assessing the legality of preemption, when the threat of an armed attack is seen as sufficiently credible and imminent to justify defence. As Dinstein maintains, the legality of defensive action must be weighed ‘on the ground of the information available’ and on the basis of a reasonable interpretation at the moment of action. Although it has been maintained since then that Nasser did not actually want to resort to force, at that particular moment, the Israeli government saw itself facing an apparently hopeless situation. The perception of the threat by Israel can be compared with the perception the British War Cabinet had in 1940 when it decided to resort to Operation Catapult. Although, with hindsight knowledge, it could be established that the other side was in fact not preparing to attack, the threat was perceived as present and inevitable on the basis of the available information at the time, interpreted in good faith.

Another thorny issue in relation to the Six-Day War was the annexation of Arab territories by Israel. Israeli forces managed to take East Jerusalem from Jordanian control and annex the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Sinai Peninsula. Numerous authors have expressed their opinion that the continuous Israeli occupation of Arab territories suggested that the June 1967 actions went beyond the limits of self-defence. The wording of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 seems to confirm that opinion. The resolution did not condemn the Israeli action and attempted to secure a trade-off between the parties by restating the pre-war status quo. It affirmed, nevertheless, that ‘the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ had to include the ‘withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.’ Arab states have interpreted this statement as a demand of immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Israel has regarded that requirement conditional upon the satisfaction of another one, also affirmed by the Security Council in the same resolution: ‘termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area.’ The substantive issues arising from the different interpretations are numerous and they go beyond the purpose of the present research. It may suffice to note that the protracted occupation of territories annexed during armed action (be that defensive) cannot be justified within the limits of the right of self-defence.

Some authors have maintained that the Six-Day War should not be considered an instance of anticipatory action in self-defence, because Israel had not characterized it as such before the Security Council. While the specific claims advanced by a country in justification of its use of force are undoubtedly important, the acts of the particular state cannot be subdued by its statements. Allowing such an interpretation would mean to examine state practice only on the basis of what states say and not also on what they do. The Six-Day War is an instance of state practice in which anticipatory action in self-defence was undertaken. The legality of this particular exercise of self-defence was generally accepted by both states and legal publicists. Many commentators treat it as the locus classicus of anticipatory action in self-defence.

The Israeli action meets the requirements of necessity. On the basis of the information available at the time and in the face of the escalating events, the Israeli Cabinet concluded, in good faith, that an armed attack was imminent and that it was absolutely necessary to act. From the point of view of proportionality, the immediate actions of Israel were lawful. The continuous annexation of territories exceeded, however, the limits of self-defence."

(Tibori Szabó, Kinga. Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence: Essence and Limits under International Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2011. pp. 147-9)

[Sculptor1]

There is a deep psychological failing in he human mind.

There is a phenomenon whereby people are so concentrated on one thing they fail to see another.
The finest example of this is where subjects asked to count the number of basket ball bounces fail to see the gorilla that walks across their vision.
Such is the case with the Gaza Genocide.
People are so wrapped up with being or supporting Jews; hating Muslims; supporting the received view from the media; supporting their government, be that Israel, UK, or US; or supporting their initial horror of what they see as the start of this October 6th attacks.
This is basketball counting. what they have missed is the 6 foot gorilla that is in plain view. Sometimes called the elephant in the room. And that is the slaughter of Gazan people. and the illegal practices of Israel.
This particular gorilla has been staking the room for 75 years, but seems to be behind a smoke screen called WW2 holocaust by which Israel hides its multiple crimes.

The simple fact is that the way Israel has chosen to wage this conflict can only have one result; to create a new generation of Hamas fighters from the parentless children and childless parents, that now scratch for food and water from the ruins.

[Sy Borg]

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

I'm not loth to acknowledge anything. But the history of this sorry conflict began in the 8th century BCE, when the Jews were driven out of their homeland, which is nearly 3000 years ago. Since then, a great deal has happened, as we all know and accept. There are many things to take into account, not least of which is to acknowledge that the people that we call Palestinians today also lived in that part of the Middle East, and they continued to live there after the Jews were driven out. Those people also descend from the same ancestry, including the ancient Semite tribe, as the Jews. And so the sad story began, and continues even today.

This is very much a multi-sided, multi-facetted situation. Many modern nations have been involved, at one point or another. Today's Israel could not stand without support and finance from the USA. And so on.

And so, in this discussion, I have seen fit to describe the parlous state of the Palestinian people, not because theirs is the only part of the picture, but in balance to the strongly pro-Israel stance that you and other commentators have adopted. I seek not to champion the Palestinian cause, but only to offer a description that complements yours. As you have said, this is not a one-sided debate.

You focus on 3k years ago and ignore the more recent Jewish exile - which is the main key to the problem.

My stance is less pro-Israel than yours is pro-Hamas. If you and others hadn't made unfair statements, I would not have even contributed to this thread. I have long felt that a pox belongs on both houses. If two parties cannot work out their issues over all these decades, then it's clear two are at fault.

Yet I am shocked at the support Hamas has achieved by killing 1,200 Jews, capturing another few hundred and raping and torturing an undisclosed number. I see nothing laudable in any of that. That gruesome act has somehow garnered the support of billions.

I expect that if Hamas dropped a nuke on Israel and raped every Jewish survivor, they perpetrators would be be drowned in garlands of flowers and elected rulers of the world. No doubt feminist groups will continue to love Hamas, even if they have been raping Jewish women and hammering nails into their vaginas. Gay groups will continue to support the groups that would see them all dead.

The west has become strangely self-destructive.

[Consul]

For example, this is a picture of the leftist Ostermarsch (Easter March) in Essen/Germany in 1969. I read the word "love", and, as you can see, the "peace-loving" radical left marching there loved even Mao, one of the most evil dictators in history, who is responsible for the death of many millions of people.

[Sculptor1]

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

I'm not loth to acknowledge anything. But the history of this sorry conflict began in the 8th century BCE, when the Jews were driven out of their homeland, which is nearly 3000 years ago.

Um. It is interesting to note that many modern Israeli archaeologists are now claiming that Jews were never really in Egypt and they muster many anachonisms and inaccuracies of the biblical account. The claims bolsers an idea that Palestine is their ancestral home. This is not widely held, but it is enough to draw a quesiton mark upon the fluidity of mythical histories such as this.
Further - there are very good reason to suggest that Ashkenazi Jews do not have any kind of ancestry that relates to the Palestinian area, but that the diaspora was caused by the fall of the Kazah empire whose ruler, stuck between the competing forces of Christendom and Islam had before decided to convert his people to Judaism..
Then, of course you have to ask whether or not an ansestral claim is at all valid and Koestler pointed out at the end of his book which exposes the Kazah Theory The Thriteeth Tribe".
My question is by what absurd metric does one INHERIT, suffering? ANd do you get to reap beneifts of exceptionalism becuase thousands of years ago an ancestor lost their home?
Surely the more recent- and within living memory of 100s of thousands of people inprisoned in Gaza by the newly founded Israel should have more immediate import than old dead claims?

[Sculptor1]

For example, this is a picture of the leftist Ostermarsch (Easter March) in Essen/Germany in 1969. I read the word "love", and, as you can see, the "peace-loving" radical left marching there loved even Mao, one of the most evil dictators in history, who is responsible for the death of many millions of people.

This seems like a deperate link. Do you have a reason to post this image?

[Consul]

For example, this is a picture of the leftist Ostermarsch (Easter March) in Essen/Germany in 1969. I read the word "love", and, as you can see, the "peace-loving" radical left marching there loved even Mao, one of the most evil dictators in history, who is responsible for the death of many millions of people.

This seems like a deperate link. Do you have a reason to post this image?

Yes: There is a parallel to the current whitewashing or even vindicating of Hamas' 10/7 massacre by the "Free Palestine!" Left.

[Sculptor1]

For example, this is a picture of the leftist Ostermarsch (Easter March) in Essen/Germany in 1969. I read the word "love", and, as you can see, the "peace-loving" radical left marching there loved even Mao, one of the most evil dictators in history, who is responsible for the death of many millions of people.

This seems like a deperate link. Do you have a reason to post this image?

Yes: There is a parallel to the current whitewashing or even vindicating of Hamas' 10/7 massacre by the "Free Palestine!" Left.

What about the whitewashing of the 273 Palestinian children that were in illegal detention at the time?
And the 4000+ children killied since called "collateral damage"?
The illegal cutting off of food water and fuel? Now denied by Israel?
The bombing of hospitals and ambulances?

There is a deep psychological failing in he human mind.

There is a phenomenon whereby people are so concentrated on one thing they fail to see another.
The finest example of this is where subjects asked to count the number of basket ball bounces fail to see the gorilla that walks across their vision.
Such is the case with the Gaza Genocide.
People are so wrapped up with being or supporting Jews; hating Muslims; supporting the received view from the media; supporting their government, be that Israel, UK, or US; or supporting their initial horror of what they see as the start of this October 7th attacks.
This is basketball counting. what they have missed is the 6 foot gorilla that is in plain view. Sometimes called the elephant in the room. And that is the slaughter of Gazan people. and the illegal practices of Israel.
This particular gorilla has been staking the room for 75 years, but seems to be behind a smoke screen called WW2 holocaust by which Israel hides its multiple crimes.

The simple fact is that the way Israel has chosen to wage this conflict can only have one result; to create a new generation of Hamas fighters from the parentless children and childless parents, that now scratch for food and water from the ruins.

[Sy Borg]

Hamas did not have to do this and they had a very good idea of how Israel would conduct the conflict. It's unlikely that any of this is a surprise to them. How else was Israel going to respond after such a massive act of war?

That's why Hamas did it - to disrupt. Hamas was losing popularity at home because they are so appalling at running things and they'd fail to curtail creeping incursions into Palestinian land. So, by bombing Israel and kidnapping and torturing Jews they can rally all Palestinians around them again, entrenching their power, plus they disrupt the Saudi deal and have the chance to play victim for the international press.

[Pattern-chaser]

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

I'm not loth to acknowledge anything. But the history of this sorry conflict began in the 8th century BCE, when the Jews were driven out of their homeland, which is nearly 3000 years ago. Since then, a great deal has happened, as we all know and accept. There are many things to take into account, not least of which is to acknowledge that the people that we call Palestinians today also lived in that part of the Middle East, and they continued to live there after the Jews were driven out. Those people also descend from the same ancestry, including the ancient Semite tribe, as the Jews. And so the sad story began, and continues even today.

This is very much a multi-sided, multi-facetted situation. Many modern nations have been involved, at one point or another. Today's Israel could not stand without support and finance from the USA. And so on.

And so, in this discussion, I have seen fit to describe the parlous state of the Palestinian people, not because theirs is the only part of the picture, but in balance to the strongly pro-Israel stance that you and other commentators have adopted. I seek not to champion the Palestinian cause, but only to offer a description that complements yours. As you have said, this is not a one-sided debate.

You focus on 3k years ago and ignore the more recent Jewish exile - which is the main key to the problem.

Actually, no. This exchange between us began when I asked you why you think the Palestinian people should accept what has happened and move on, after 75 years, and yet you seem to think that the Jewish/Israeli people are justified in continuing after nearly 3000 years. Your position, on this simple and heavily-qualified question, seems inconsistent.

The intervening history is not directly relevant to my question, only the amounts of time that have elapsed since the Jews, and the Palestinians, were driven from their homeland.

My stance is less pro-Israel than yours is pro-Hamas.

I have not voiced support for Hamas at any time, only support for the Palestinian people. I have commented that a reasonable person might understand why the more extreme Palestinian activists might do as they have done ... but that such understanding might not extend to condoning what they have done, or actively supporting it.

If two parties cannot work out their issues over all these decades, then it's clear two are at fault.

This matter concerns multiple parties. The Israelis and the Palestinians, their backers, USA and perhaps Iran, the UK for its intimate involvement with the USA and UN to partition Palestine in 1948...

Yet I am shocked at the support Hamas has achieved by killing 1,200 Jews, capturing another few hundred and raping and torturing an undisclosed number. I see nothing laudable in any of that. That gruesome act has somehow garnered the support of billions.

I expect that if Hamas dropped a nuke on Israel and raped every Jewish survivor, they perpetrators would be be drowned in garlands of flowers and elected rulers of the world. No doubt feminist groups will continue to love Hamas, even if they have been raping Jewish women and hammering nails into their vaginas. Gay groups will continue to support the groups that would see them all dead.

The west has become strangely self-destructive.

A little time ago, we heard from Israel that Hamas had decapitated 40 babies. That is now known to be a lie. I would condemn any act such as you describe, if it actually happened, but I wonder if it is another Israeli lie, in the name of propaganda?

[Sy Borg]

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

I'm not loth to acknowledge anything. But the history of this sorry conflict began in the 8th century BCE, when the Jews were driven out of their homeland, which is nearly 3000 years ago. Since then, a great deal has happened, as we all know and accept. There are many things to take into account, not least of which is to acknowledge that the people that we call Palestinians today also lived in that part of the Middle East, and they continued to live there after the Jews were driven out. Those people also descend from the same ancestry, including the ancient Semite tribe, as the Jews. And so the sad story began, and continues even today.

This is very much a multi-sided, multi-facetted situation. Many modern nations have been involved, at one point or another. Today's Israel could not stand without support and finance from the USA. And so on.

And so, in this discussion, I have seen fit to describe the parlous state of the Palestinian people, not because theirs is the only part of the picture, but in balance to the strongly pro-Israel stance that you and other commentators have adopted. I seek not to champion the Palestinian cause, but only to offer a description that complements yours. As you have said, this is not a one-sided debate.

You focus on 3k years ago and ignore the more recent Jewish exile - which is the main key to the problem.

Actually, no. This exchange between us began when I asked you why you think the Palestinian people should accept what has happened and move on, after 75 years, and yet you seem to think that the Jewish/Israeli people are justified in continuing after nearly 3000 years. Your position, on this simple and heavily-qualified question, seems inconsistent.

The intervening history is not directly relevant to my question, only the amounts of time that have elapsed since the Jews, and the Palestinians, were driven from their homeland.

It's all about 3k years ago to you because you STILL ignore the scouring of Jews from the Middle east in the 20th century!

My stance is less pro-Israel than yours is pro-Hamas.

I have not voiced support for Hamas at any time, only support for the Palestinian people. I have commented that a reasonable person might understand why the more extreme Palestinian activists might do as they have done ... but that such understanding might not extend to condoning what they have done, or actively supporting it.

As soon as all this happened you leapt unequivocally into their corner and only criticised Israel. It was this uncritical support for a violent group that brought me to this thread. I don't like politics but this one-sided Hamas love-fest had to be challenged.

If two parties cannot work out their issues over all these decades, then it's clear two are at fault.

This matter concerns multiple parties. The Israelis and the Palestinians, their backers, USA and perhaps Iran, the UK for its intimate involvement with the USA and UN to partition Palestine in 1948...

Seven decades to work out a compromise solution that does not involve violence - apparently too hard.

It's easier just to let your people be slaughtered and use the international media for political wins that at least entrench your own power, even if your people are dying like flies.

Yet I am shocked at the support Hamas has achieved by killing 1,200 Jews, capturing another few hundred and raping and torturing an undisclosed number. I see nothing laudable in any of that. That gruesome act has somehow garnered the support of billions.

I expect that if Hamas dropped a nuke on Israel and raped every Jewish survivor, they perpetrators would be be drowned in garlands of flowers and elected rulers of the world. No doubt feminist groups will continue to love Hamas, even if they have been raping Jewish women and hammering nails into their vaginas. Gay groups will continue to support the groups that would see them all dead.

The west has become strangely self-destructive.

A little time ago, we heard from Israel that Hamas had decapitated 40 babies. That is now known to be a lie. I would condemn any act such as you describe, if it actually happened, but I wonder if it is another Israeli lie, in the name of propaganda?

Yet you believe all of Hamas's lies uncritically. One-sided again.

[Pattern-chaser]

"In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden pre-emptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac."
Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Pre-emptive strikes are not self-defence. Self-defence is when you counter-attack in response to an attack by your enemy, not when you think your enemy may be about to attack.

"The sequence of events that led to the Israeli pre-emptive strike did indeed create a situation where an armed attack seemed unavoidable. Although the US was pressing for a diplomatic solution, its intention never materialised. The escalation of events in the last days of
[...]
point of view of proportionality, the immediate actions of Israel were lawful. The continuous annexation of territories exceeded, however, the limits of self-defence."

(Tibori Szabó, Kinga. Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence: Essence and Limits under International Law. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2011. pp. 147-9)

BS, written at the behest of an impatient war leader who wanted to pretend he was 'in the right' ... when he wasn't. If you attack first, you are the aggressor.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's all about 3k years ago to you because you STILL ignore the scouring of Jews from the Middle east in the 20th century!
...
As soon as all this happened you leapt unequivocally into their corner and only criticised Israel. It was this uncritical support for a violent group that brought me to this thread. I don't like politics but this one-sided Hamas love-fest had to be challenged.
...
It's easier just to let your people be slaughtered and use the international media for political wins that at least entrench your own power, even if your people are dying like flies.
...
Yet you believe all of Hamas's lies uncritically. One-sided again.

I see animosity in your words, maybe anger too, and perhaps more. I should have been more attentive, and for this I am sorry. This is only political discussion, and it isn't worth the price of personal upset.

[Stoppelmann]

What is concerning here is that the reason that there is a conflict at all is down to colonialist thinking by British politicians, the guilt of most societies because of ant-Semitism, and America kow-towing to rich Jews, which made Zionism possible. The critics that I have listened to have been Arab-Jews, Israeli dissidents, former IDF-Soldiers, and oppositional Israeli politicians, who have been criticising the policies against Palestinians for decades. Arab-Jews have lived in Moslem societies for so long, that they were appalled at policies that meant Palestinians were driven off the land, incarcerated, beaten and killed. What happened? They were beaten, driven out of the country or put into psychiatric hospitals.

If you treat a population in this way, is it a wonder that at some time it explodes and commits atrocities? Strangely enough, the unproportional reaction of the IDF is explained this way. The Israeli revenge is understandable, they say, but the reaction of young Palestinians, living in the concentration camp of Gaza all their lives, seeing all the desperation that is permanently growing there, was unforeseeable? Yes, Hamas used their anger to bring attention to the situation. Was it right? No, it was an atrocity on people that were not directly responsible for the situation in Gaza. But if your saying that the bombing is self-defence - get outa here!

[Sy Borg]

P-C, I appreciate your sensitivity. I am not Jewish, but I had some family members gassed by the Nazis during WWII, so the re-emergence of anti-Semitism is disturbing to me on a visceral level.

Stoppelman, the bombing was not just about self-defence - it happened through Hamas design.

Hamas 100% knew that Israel would come down hard, just as they were on the verge of a deal with the Saudis. Meanwhile, Hamas were in political trouble at home. Palestinians could see that Hamas's approach had only made their lives worse. So, with one attack Hamas 1) gained a measure of revenge 2) killed off the Saudi deal 3) invoked a wave of anti-Semitism globally 4) consolidated their power, sidelining opposition parties.

Like 9/11, it was a strategic masterstroke. The US's decline can be traced to the attack, and it's clear that Jews in Israel and around the world will be far less safe than before, just as life for Americans has never been the same since. Yet people think of Hamas as innocent victims.