Hatred of Jews as Jews is foundational to Islam and Christianity. The has never really changed. And that is why a tiny little country of our own is vital
Morris actually takes it a step further: He admits to what Israel is accused of, and then says that it was *necessary*.
And I'd take the same tack here. Don't back down. Say, "The charges are false, but even if they weren't...so what? Where is it written that a party to a conflict has to *feed* the other side of the conflict?"
The British intentionally bombed civilians in Germany during World War II. The United States *dropped two atomic bombs* on Japan. Say whatever you want about Israel, it hasn't done that. And sure, there are people who condemn that, or say, "We don't do that anymore." But there are plenty of people in this world who do neither, and I think we can safely ignore the rest.
"Where is it written that a party to a conflict has to *feed* the other side of the conflict?"
From the 4th Geneva Convention (this covers "Occupied Territories"):
ART. 55. — To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
There are similar clauses about not destroying civilian infrastructure like power plants, water-treatment facilities, and so on.
As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants), Israel has made Gaza uninhabitable by destroying most of its buildings. So its civilian population is dependent on delivery of aid from outside Gaza -- and Israel is blocking most of that.
Unfortunately, what Israel is doing fits the official descriptions of a "war crime". You may argue that "other countries have done worse things", but that doesn't absolve Israel of blame for what _it_ has done.
Not clear what Occupied Territories has to do with present day Gaza. Hamas as an occupying power must ensure that aid reaches the people. Israel is yet at war and doesn't occupy Gaza.
"Israel has made Gaza uninhabitable by destroying most of its buildings."
Those building were made uninhabitable by Hamas who used them for military purpose. A military target is not habitable.
"As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants)"
Killing civilians is not, per se, a war crime.
"what Israel is doing fits the official descriptions of a "war crime". "
Unwarranted speculation.
Latter day international law is morally bankrupt. It seeks to ensure that both parties won't profit from war, but instead guarantees that the aggressor will pay no price. As such it encourages war by making it cheaper. Hence, international law is a war crime.
I recently saw an interview with John Spencer, who said that performing a siege is permitted by the laws of warfare, but the besieging army has to make sure that supplies still reach the civilian population.
The problem with Gaza is that Hamas typically steals the humanitarian aid for itself. And even a total siege of not letting any supplies in would affect only the civilians and leave Hamas' fighters unaffected.
A siege, by definition, means nothing gets in. You can't have a siege and allow supplies in.
It was perfectly OK for the Union to blockade the South throughout the Civil War, or the Allies to blockade Germany throughout World War II. But it's different for Jews, of course.
IIRC, the international laws of sieges changed sometime during the Cold War. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right, but context is necessary.
Yes, but see around 34:00 in the interview I linked to. The interviewer himself was a bit confused by John Spencer's answer. B'kitzur, you can besiege an enemy military, but if there are civilians together with the enemy, you have to make sure that they get supplies. The "Generals' Plan" was to tell the Gazan civilians to leave before besieging--but Hamas probably won't let them leave.
Again, sieges have always been against *everyone*. You can see that in Tanach. It's kind of pointless to be trying to defeat an enemy and to allow in supplies (let alone provide them oneself) to *anyone*. This is especially true if the enemy is not exactly democratic and will seize the supplies for its fighters, but even leaving that aside, it still makes no sense.
I get that Spencer's heart is in the right place, but "you have to" is doing a lot of work there. We "have to"...why? Says who? A bunch of Swiss pacifist gentiles? Is this why no Western power has won an actual war since 1945?
I suppose I shouldn't engage someone who casually accuses Israel of war crimes, but what the...here are the old, tired, and yet true arguments, yet again:
1. Gaza isn't a country, so it can't be occupied under the very definition of the sacred Geneva Conventions. (The Palestinians have never even bothered to declare independence apart from some symbolic act in the 80's. As always, they want the rest of the world to do the work for them.)
2. Israel isn't even occupying Gaza by the plain and historical meaning of that word. More's the pity, but they're not.
3. When I say "where is it written" I mean in the book of life, not in some farcical international document. First, I note how con-veeeen-i-ent it is that the United Gentiles, once they got over killing each other, and just *after* Israel came into existence, decided to lay down these rules. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
4. Actually, it wasn't even them. The Geneva Conventions are the work of the ICRC, which contrary to its name is not an international organization but a small group of Swiss civilians. You know, the Swiss, the country that hasn't fought a war in centuries. Yes, we should rely on them. Yes, the ICRC, which can't be bothered to try to visit Israeli hostages.
5. Of course, if the United Gentiles had any justice, every single international law passed since 1945 should have had a codicil reading, "This doesn't apply to the Jews, who, considering how we treated them, get to do whatever they want for the next thousand years at least."
And yet it is *only* Jews who are held to these standards. Pure coincidence, as I said.
6. So even if we take these vaunted Conventions as binding law (which they are not), we can only say, quoting Dickens' Mr. Bumble, "The law is an a**."
War crimes, my God. Stand for your people for once.
The Gazan casualties completely justifiable under the Geneva conventions. It also kind of hard to allow aid in when there is a long history of smuggling in weapons and when Hamas steals most of it.
So when you/ICC focus on Israel, but ignore vastly more egregious violations around the world, you are are either a self-hating Jew or a useful idiot. (Probably just the latter.)
In fairness, you'd expect Jews to be interested in Israel. But you'd also expect them to take the side of their fellow Jews. You can't have it both ways.
Numerous Palestinian women and children are combatants. 45000 is Hamas made up figure. Hamas used human shields. Idf warns civilians to leave before bombing, yet many so called civilians refuse to do.
They also technically use child soldiers. Hamas's military branch starts recruiting at 16, but since an adult is 18, a 16 or 17 year old Hamas fighter can be counted as a child casualty.
Maybe those Jews are fed up with Arab violence against Jews. Jews want to live in peace with those Arabs. But those Arabs want to destroy the Jews. Please take your head out of the sand. I know the truth is scary.
The truth is scary. There is no excuse for the vigilante violence by Jews in the West Bank. It adds to anti-Semitism and endangers Jews everywhere in the world.
Yes, and the US Army was responsible to stop violence against German civilians during WWII, so I guess the Germans weren't the main problem during WWII, right?
"As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants)"
Where in the world did you get that number, 45,000? Let me guess, from Hamas, right? The same people who said that Israel killed 500 people in a hospital when it turned out it was 50 people in the parking lot behind the hospital and by Hamas, not Israel.
I have a bridge I would love to sell you for real cheap.
Israel is dealing with an enemy that is determined to destroy Israel. They don't want peace. Frankly, Israel is way too soft, but at some point the gloves must come off.
Israel has allowed aid in and has provided aid itself to it's implacable sworn enemies. FYI Hamas and Palestinian gangs attack supply trucks and steal the aid. Please stop the b s.
Seriously. I thought the point of war was to win. And yes, feeding the enemy, taking them to hospital for special treatment (Sinwar), providing jobs and letting them use your currency -- NO. I hope that in future, Israel does not go back to doing all this, along with absolutely not allowing the building of tunnels and rockets. It has to stop. Ideologies only stop when they are blown to smithereens. WW2 was proof of that.
Natan, I wouldn't give them the time of day. The terrorist enemies want to destroy us, they should get back only death and destruction. No cease-fire and no apologies. Send them to Hell where they belong.
I always found the anti-Shechita crusade to be hypocritical. We are talking here about ending an animal's life so we can eat it, and the nuance is whether we can slit its throat and let it bleed to death within tens of seconds (shechita), or whether we first have to fire a metal slug at high speed into its frontal lobe, which would lead to its death in a few seconds. We are somehow led to believe that eating the animal after having performed the latter process is much more humane.
There's pretty much no getting around the fact that we're ending a life, and that there's no real pretty way to do that. So unless one really pushing to end all meat-eating (and that's certainly on the agenda for some), they shouldn't be talking.
That is pretty much my point. The anti-shechita crowd is all talk about how we should kill animals before we eat them (or eat parts of them, and give the rest to other animals), and almost no talk about how many animals we're killing and eating in the first place.
Why wouldn't less pain for a living creature be considered the more humane option? Death is death and as long as people continue eating animals they should limit the inhumanity to the furthest extent
The easier way to limit the inhumanity is just to kill fewer animals and eat less meat.
Americans eat a LOT of it (per capita). Australians too. Israelis are not too far behind. Somehow many developed countries, including much of western Europe, manage with 30-40% less (again, per capita). That seems like a lot less inhumanity to me. Shouldn't emulating that food culture that be the focus?
People don’t like to admit when their group is wrong—it’s true for everyone, including Charedim about the army. Instead of saying there’s no problem, it’s better to admit it: they don’t share the army burden. This doesn’t mean they’re evil; it means they’re human. But ignoring fairness isn’t okay, and the conversation needs to start with accepting the truth, even if it’s uncomfortable.
There has never been a war without war crimes. As Natan writes, the demand that this should have been the first, and even in the face of the horrific provocation of Oct. 7th Israel should have waged the entire Gaza war without any violations of humanitarian law whatsoever, is totally unreasonable.
Not an excuse for war crimes. But in any case, the Israeli campaign in Gaza has had remarkably few civilian casualities compared to most if not all urban conflicts of the past century.
Can't argue with this, but something I've seen too many times is Jews bending over backwards to pretend that we are no better than anyone else, and thereby throwing other Jews under the bus, contrary to the facts. We should be applying the same standards to everyone and weighing evidence of wrongdoings with the same methodologies, and let the chips fall where they may.
"If you’re [a charedi who is] passionate about [your] ideology or way of life, it’s very upsetting to hear others harshly criticize anything to do with that ideology or way of life. And so the natural, instinctive reaction is to completely deny all of their claims. However, it can often be more truthful, and/or more strategically wise, to make a smaller argument." Great idea!
As indicated below, there are a few small problems with going small: The people up against are a haters who have no problem with going big. Therefore, any sort of admission will be seized upon by them, trumpeted, and magnified.
If something is true, then we shouldn't lie and deny it. (Or maybe we have to, just to put them on their back foot.) But do we have to admit it? Certainly we shouldn't attack ourselves proactively (the automatic cringing insertion of "Of course, Israel isn't perfect, but..." into every single defense of Israel), and I don't think we should even do so in response.
Added to that is that the terms of their arguments are stacked in their favor. So it's never going to help if they say, "You've killed millions of children!" and we respond, "Well, only a few." Should we be over the top and say something outrageous like "Not enough!" Maybe. But at the very least, no answer, because none will help. The mythical "Oh, we can convince one" is probably just a myth.
Of possible interest to readers of facts being contrary to reality in the Gaza situation are the accusations of Israel being guilty of genocide judging by the number of casualties.
Taking Hamas Health ministry claim of Gaza casualties as 40,000 , deducting the 15,000 or so Hamas soldiers killed (Israeli figures- Hamas has implied that it has zero combatant casualties ) gives a ratio of 25,000 to 15,000 civilians to combatants or 5 to 3 or 62% civilians of the total claimed casualties.
Looking at the UN's own report (reference below) the normal ratio of civilian casualties is 90%. not Israel's 62% assuming the Hamas figures are true (and pigs can fly too).
"Ninety Per Cent of War-Time Casualties Are Civilians,Speakers Stress, Pressing Security Council to Fulfil Responsibility, Protect Innocent People in Conflicts"
Israel has therefore an outstanding record of minimising civilian casualties compared to the average conflict.
Sadly many people who are critical of Israel seem to rely on their emotions and a reasoned argument based on the evidence is of little or no interest to them. Rational discourse is a waste of time - they are in a different world and no amount of discussion will persuade a bigot or hater.
It doesn't help that most people that are supportive of Israel are in the same boat. Emotional arguments with complete blatant misunderstanding of Historical reality
I agree with your approach, but I wonder if it moves the needle at all. Most people who are anti-Israel are so inclined due to deeply-rooted convictions, rational arguments are usually no match for that. Have you ever had success using this approach?
Most people Pro-Israel are also invincible to rational arguments. This is a deeply emotional argument on all sides with only a few people on both sides dealing with reality
It's not that at all. I enjoy his writing. Even if we might be in disagreement on a point or two. I just feel he wastes much of his talent with the constant harping on the chareidim. I've been a "fan" since his first book, and will continue reading his output. I'm just not in to the negativity.
I think you're mixing up courts. That was the ICJ. The ICC issued arrest warrants.
They can all go chase themselves, and they don't deserve to be defended in any way.
When the ICC puts a Pakistani in charge of prosecuting Israel, they're essentially saying, "We know you're on to what we really are, and we don't care."
Hatred of Jews as Jews is foundational to Islam and Christianity. The has never really changed. And that is why a tiny little country of our own is vital
Morris actually takes it a step further: He admits to what Israel is accused of, and then says that it was *necessary*.
And I'd take the same tack here. Don't back down. Say, "The charges are false, but even if they weren't...so what? Where is it written that a party to a conflict has to *feed* the other side of the conflict?"
The British intentionally bombed civilians in Germany during World War II. The United States *dropped two atomic bombs* on Japan. Say whatever you want about Israel, it hasn't done that. And sure, there are people who condemn that, or say, "We don't do that anymore." But there are plenty of people in this world who do neither, and I think we can safely ignore the rest.
"Where is it written that a party to a conflict has to *feed* the other side of the conflict?"
From the 4th Geneva Convention (this covers "Occupied Territories"):
ART. 55. — To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.
There are similar clauses about not destroying civilian infrastructure like power plants, water-treatment facilities, and so on.
As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants), Israel has made Gaza uninhabitable by destroying most of its buildings. So its civilian population is dependent on delivery of aid from outside Gaza -- and Israel is blocking most of that.
Unfortunately, what Israel is doing fits the official descriptions of a "war crime". You may argue that "other countries have done worse things", but that doesn't absolve Israel of blame for what _it_ has done.
"this covers "Occupied Territories"
Not clear what Occupied Territories has to do with present day Gaza. Hamas as an occupying power must ensure that aid reaches the people. Israel is yet at war and doesn't occupy Gaza.
"Israel has made Gaza uninhabitable by destroying most of its buildings."
Those building were made uninhabitable by Hamas who used them for military purpose. A military target is not habitable.
"As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants)"
Killing civilians is not, per se, a war crime.
"what Israel is doing fits the official descriptions of a "war crime". "
Unwarranted speculation.
Latter day international law is morally bankrupt. It seeks to ensure that both parties won't profit from war, but instead guarantees that the aggressor will pay no price. As such it encourages war by making it cheaper. Hence, international law is a war crime.
I recently saw an interview with John Spencer, who said that performing a siege is permitted by the laws of warfare, but the besieging army has to make sure that supplies still reach the civilian population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg59ZVpqa5Q&list=LL&index=16
The problem with Gaza is that Hamas typically steals the humanitarian aid for itself. And even a total siege of not letting any supplies in would affect only the civilians and leave Hamas' fighters unaffected.
A siege, by definition, means nothing gets in. You can't have a siege and allow supplies in.
It was perfectly OK for the Union to blockade the South throughout the Civil War, or the Allies to blockade Germany throughout World War II. But it's different for Jews, of course.
IIRC, the international laws of sieges changed sometime during the Cold War. I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right, but context is necessary.
Yes, but see around 34:00 in the interview I linked to. The interviewer himself was a bit confused by John Spencer's answer. B'kitzur, you can besiege an enemy military, but if there are civilians together with the enemy, you have to make sure that they get supplies. The "Generals' Plan" was to tell the Gazan civilians to leave before besieging--but Hamas probably won't let them leave.
That's one opinion. A siege directed at enemy forces, may be permissible even if civilians get in the way.
See here:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/siege-law/
Again, sieges have always been against *everyone*. You can see that in Tanach. It's kind of pointless to be trying to defeat an enemy and to allow in supplies (let alone provide them oneself) to *anyone*. This is especially true if the enemy is not exactly democratic and will seize the supplies for its fighters, but even leaving that aside, it still makes no sense.
I get that Spencer's heart is in the right place, but "you have to" is doing a lot of work there. We "have to"...why? Says who? A bunch of Swiss pacifist gentiles? Is this why no Western power has won an actual war since 1945?
I suppose I shouldn't engage someone who casually accuses Israel of war crimes, but what the...here are the old, tired, and yet true arguments, yet again:
1. Gaza isn't a country, so it can't be occupied under the very definition of the sacred Geneva Conventions. (The Palestinians have never even bothered to declare independence apart from some symbolic act in the 80's. As always, they want the rest of the world to do the work for them.)
2. Israel isn't even occupying Gaza by the plain and historical meaning of that word. More's the pity, but they're not.
3. When I say "where is it written" I mean in the book of life, not in some farcical international document. First, I note how con-veeeen-i-ent it is that the United Gentiles, once they got over killing each other, and just *after* Israel came into existence, decided to lay down these rules. Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
4. Actually, it wasn't even them. The Geneva Conventions are the work of the ICRC, which contrary to its name is not an international organization but a small group of Swiss civilians. You know, the Swiss, the country that hasn't fought a war in centuries. Yes, we should rely on them. Yes, the ICRC, which can't be bothered to try to visit Israeli hostages.
5. Of course, if the United Gentiles had any justice, every single international law passed since 1945 should have had a codicil reading, "This doesn't apply to the Jews, who, considering how we treated them, get to do whatever they want for the next thousand years at least."
And yet it is *only* Jews who are held to these standards. Pure coincidence, as I said.
6. So even if we take these vaunted Conventions as binding law (which they are not), we can only say, quoting Dickens' Mr. Bumble, "The law is an a**."
War crimes, my God. Stand for your people for once.
The Gazan casualties completely justifiable under the Geneva conventions. It also kind of hard to allow aid in when there is a long history of smuggling in weapons and when Hamas steals most of it.
So when you/ICC focus on Israel, but ignore vastly more egregious violations around the world, you are are either a self-hating Jew or a useful idiot. (Probably just the latter.)
In fairness, you'd expect Jews to be interested in Israel. But you'd also expect them to take the side of their fellow Jews. You can't have it both ways.
Numerous Palestinian women and children are combatants. 45000 is Hamas made up figure. Hamas used human shields. Idf warns civilians to leave before bombing, yet many so called civilians refuse to do.
"Hamas used human shields."
They also technically use child soldiers. Hamas's military branch starts recruiting at 16, but since an adult is 18, a 16 or 17 year old Hamas fighter can be counted as a child casualty.
Gaza hasn't been occupied since 2005.
However, in Judea and Samaria, Israel has a responsibility to stop the violence against Arabs perpetrated by Israeli Jews.
The West Bank isn't occupied either.
If Area C isn't occupied, the term does not have a meaning.
Maybe those Jews are fed up with Arab violence against Jews. Jews want to live in peace with those Arabs. But those Arabs want to destroy the Jews. Please take your head out of the sand. I know the truth is scary.
The truth is scary. There is no excuse for the vigilante violence by Jews in the West Bank. It adds to anti-Semitism and endangers Jews everywhere in the world.
Yes, and the US Army was responsible to stop violence against German civilians during WWII, so I guess the Germans weren't the main problem during WWII, right?
"As well as killing roughly 45,000 Gazans (over half of those were women and children -- presumably non-combatants)"
Where in the world did you get that number, 45,000? Let me guess, from Hamas, right? The same people who said that Israel killed 500 people in a hospital when it turned out it was 50 people in the parking lot behind the hospital and by Hamas, not Israel.
I have a bridge I would love to sell you for real cheap.
There are certain people and institutions who can be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise.
Israel is dealing with an enemy that is determined to destroy Israel. They don't want peace. Frankly, Israel is way too soft, but at some point the gloves must come off.
Being that you are spokesman for Hamas you are a traitor to the Jewish people, assuming you are even Jewish.
Who is a spokesman for Hamas here?
Israel has allowed aid in and has provided aid itself to it's implacable sworn enemies. FYI Hamas and Palestinian gangs attack supply trucks and steal the aid. Please stop the b s.
Israel is to be blamed for nothing. Rather the people who incite against Israel are to be blamed for being either ignorant or antisemitic or both.
Seriously. I thought the point of war was to win. And yes, feeding the enemy, taking them to hospital for special treatment (Sinwar), providing jobs and letting them use your currency -- NO. I hope that in future, Israel does not go back to doing all this, along with absolutely not allowing the building of tunnels and rockets. It has to stop. Ideologies only stop when they are blown to smithereens. WW2 was proof of that.
Natan, I wouldn't give them the time of day. The terrorist enemies want to destroy us, they should get back only death and destruction. No cease-fire and no apologies. Send them to Hell where they belong.
You do know that they're shooting at us non-stop, right?
We can cease all we want; if they keep fighting us, it's pointless, isn't it?
Sure we will. The way the politicians and generals promised that we would level Gaza should even one rocket be fired after the Disengagement.
After Hizbollah rearms and reorganizes, yes. We realize that this routine may be new to you, but some of us have seen it over and over again.
The fact that Israel is not instructing citizens in the northern border to return home proves the proposed ceasefire has no credibility.
Mr Lizard is very cute
Wow, turns out slifkin knows how to be nuanced! Who knew??
Wow, it turns out (actually, we knew already) that "Jerry" can't stop coming here to insult the host! How nice!
Read the first paragraph of the article and you'll see why...
I guess you have to be passionate about your immorality to be offended.
Tafasta merubeh lo tafasta.
I always found the anti-Shechita crusade to be hypocritical. We are talking here about ending an animal's life so we can eat it, and the nuance is whether we can slit its throat and let it bleed to death within tens of seconds (shechita), or whether we first have to fire a metal slug at high speed into its frontal lobe, which would lead to its death in a few seconds. We are somehow led to believe that eating the animal after having performed the latter process is much more humane.
There's pretty much no getting around the fact that we're ending a life, and that there's no real pretty way to do that. So unless one really pushing to end all meat-eating (and that's certainly on the agenda for some), they shouldn't be talking.
That is pretty much my point. The anti-shechita crowd is all talk about how we should kill animals before we eat them (or eat parts of them, and give the rest to other animals), and almost no talk about how many animals we're killing and eating in the first place.
Why wouldn't less pain for a living creature be considered the more humane option? Death is death and as long as people continue eating animals they should limit the inhumanity to the furthest extent
The easier way to limit the inhumanity is just to kill fewer animals and eat less meat.
Americans eat a LOT of it (per capita). Australians too. Israelis are not too far behind. Somehow many developed countries, including much of western Europe, manage with 30-40% less (again, per capita). That seems like a lot less inhumanity to me. Shouldn't emulating that food culture that be the focus?
Are you saying Animal rights activists dont want less animals being eaten? Because they certainly are advocating for that.
However, people, especially heavy meat eaters don't want to be told what to do. But of course that would be a bigger change.
Classic whataboutism
People don’t like to admit when their group is wrong—it’s true for everyone, including Charedim about the army. Instead of saying there’s no problem, it’s better to admit it: they don’t share the army burden. This doesn’t mean they’re evil; it means they’re human. But ignoring fairness isn’t okay, and the conversation needs to start with accepting the truth, even if it’s uncomfortable.
There has never been a war without war crimes. As Natan writes, the demand that this should have been the first, and even in the face of the horrific provocation of Oct. 7th Israel should have waged the entire Gaza war without any violations of humanitarian law whatsoever, is totally unreasonable.
Not an excuse for war crimes. But in any case, the Israeli campaign in Gaza has had remarkably few civilian casualities compared to most if not all urban conflicts of the past century.
Can't argue with this, but something I've seen too many times is Jews bending over backwards to pretend that we are no better than anyone else, and thereby throwing other Jews under the bus, contrary to the facts. We should be applying the same standards to everyone and weighing evidence of wrongdoings with the same methodologies, and let the chips fall where they may.
"If you’re [a charedi who is] passionate about [your] ideology or way of life, it’s very upsetting to hear others harshly criticize anything to do with that ideology or way of life. And so the natural, instinctive reaction is to completely deny all of their claims. However, it can often be more truthful, and/or more strategically wise, to make a smaller argument." Great idea!
As indicated below, there are a few small problems with going small: The people up against are a haters who have no problem with going big. Therefore, any sort of admission will be seized upon by them, trumpeted, and magnified.
If something is true, then we shouldn't lie and deny it. (Or maybe we have to, just to put them on their back foot.) But do we have to admit it? Certainly we shouldn't attack ourselves proactively (the automatic cringing insertion of "Of course, Israel isn't perfect, but..." into every single defense of Israel), and I don't think we should even do so in response.
Added to that is that the terms of their arguments are stacked in their favor. So it's never going to help if they say, "You've killed millions of children!" and we respond, "Well, only a few." Should we be over the top and say something outrageous like "Not enough!" Maybe. But at the very least, no answer, because none will help. The mythical "Oh, we can convince one" is probably just a myth.
Of possible interest to readers of facts being contrary to reality in the Gaza situation are the accusations of Israel being guilty of genocide judging by the number of casualties.
Taking Hamas Health ministry claim of Gaza casualties as 40,000 , deducting the 15,000 or so Hamas soldiers killed (Israeli figures- Hamas has implied that it has zero combatant casualties ) gives a ratio of 25,000 to 15,000 civilians to combatants or 5 to 3 or 62% civilians of the total claimed casualties.
Looking at the UN's own report (reference below) the normal ratio of civilian casualties is 90%. not Israel's 62% assuming the Hamas figures are true (and pigs can fly too).
Search via: https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm
or United Nations SC/14904 25 May 2022
"Ninety Per Cent of War-Time Casualties Are Civilians,Speakers Stress, Pressing Security Council to Fulfil Responsibility, Protect Innocent People in Conflicts"
Israel has therefore an outstanding record of minimising civilian casualties compared to the average conflict.
Sadly many people who are critical of Israel seem to rely on their emotions and a reasoned argument based on the evidence is of little or no interest to them. Rational discourse is a waste of time - they are in a different world and no amount of discussion will persuade a bigot or hater.
All true, but I'm increasingly convinced that trying to argue with these people on their (supposed) terms is a chump's game.
Yes - but we still live in hope (a fool's world ?)
True, but at a certain point you face up to it.
It doesn't help that most people that are supportive of Israel are in the same boat. Emotional arguments with complete blatant misunderstanding of Historical reality
I agree with your approach, but I wonder if it moves the needle at all. Most people who are anti-Israel are so inclined due to deeply-rooted convictions, rational arguments are usually no match for that. Have you ever had success using this approach?
Most people Pro-Israel are also invincible to rational arguments. This is a deeply emotional argument on all sides with only a few people on both sides dealing with reality
I can certainly agree to that
A refreshing post. No bashing of chareidim. 🤣
Can't let it go, eh?
It's not that at all. I enjoy his writing. Even if we might be in disagreement on a point or two. I just feel he wastes much of his talent with the constant harping on the chareidim. I've been a "fan" since his first book, and will continue reading his output. I'm just not in to the negativity.
Another useful talking point: the ICC did not accuse Israel of genocide.
I think you're mixing up courts. That was the ICJ. The ICC issued arrest warrants.
They can all go chase themselves, and they don't deserve to be defended in any way.
When the ICC puts a Pakistani in charge of prosecuting Israel, they're essentially saying, "We know you're on to what we really are, and we don't care."
Yes - it specifically rejected the accusation of genocide by Israel, while accusing Hamas of genocide.