site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   27422 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 28, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump, breaking with Netanyahu, acknowledges ‘real starvation’ in Gaza. Reddit discussion.

This makes him the first right winger I've seen say anything about starvation after something happened recently that made lots of places start talking about it, maybe the move to GHF food distribution? I can't really trust the UN when they talk about it, since they may have been still pissed that Israel cut UNRWA out, plus I heard it was only two dedicated Gaza writers putting out statements of that kind. I can't really trust leftists when they post about it, because they fail to show me their homework and seem to argue a very motivated stance. But Trump talking about it... I don't know about that either. He has spoken off the cuff before. But it brings me to ask: how bad is it? What footage did he see and is it reflected in the data?

Supposing that there is starvation: is that Israel's intention? What is Israel's strategy going forward? I thought that making camps to move civilians into was a good idea, and then once everyone's out, painstakingly clear the whole place, but I think that the international community wouldn't accept that because it's technically ethnic cleansing. There isn't actually anything the international community would be satisfied by except for total ceasefire and return to October 6th. But I don't actually know what the intention is, is the intention to draw Hamas out of hiding to get to the food somehow? I have a hard time discerning what is true about the war and what isn't.

The dam is finally breaking on western support for Israel as the justifications for its post-10/7 actions have become increasingly deranged. "We must starve babies in Gaza, for the security of Israel. For they are part of an evil race tribe and would surely strangle every Jew if only their tiny baby hands had the strength."

As I said in another comment, this is a really hairy situation to have the functional equivalent of the Taliban in your backyard, and every option for dealing with it looks ugly. The United States could not stamp out the Taliban. Of course, starvation is an awful thing, but what do you think should be done about Hamas? Or should anything be done about them? Should Israel stop worrying and learn to live with Hamas?

Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas? It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel. Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza? No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?

Unless it is Israel's intention to starve everyone in Gaza to death how does their current strategy deal with Hamas?

They are attempting to replace an ineffective aid stream that primarily benefits Hamas via confiscation and resale (UN channels) with another ineffective aid stream that attempts to cut out Hamas and provide aid directly to civilians (GHF aid, guarded by IDF and/or contractors). The goal is denying food aid to actual combatants (Hamas) and also denying combatants the ability to monetize aid by confiscating it and reselling it to the population, providing the combatants extra income and resources with which to carry on resistance.

It's not a complicated strategy.

It is not even clear to me that would be sufficient to end the threat of Hamas, as an organization, to Israel.

You are correct; Hamas is just the Gaza branch of the broader Muslim Brotherhood, which has many other branches in many other arab/islamicate countries. However, Hamas is the governing body of Gaza, and the quasi-sovereign entity which attacked Israel on 10/7, therefore Israel's effort is concentrated against them. Other areas with Muslim Brotherhood parties which have not conducted such hostilities (e.g. the West Bank) are not subject to military operations.

Is literally ever member of Hamas in Gaza?

No, a bunch of them are sitting on stolen billions and living in Qatar and other luxe gulf states.

No one to pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone?

No, but if Israel were to target "everyone who might pick up the torch if everyone in Gaza were gone" then you'd fault them for carrying on a regional rather than a local genocide; Catch-22 and bad-faith criticism.

The hostages are a goal that they probably would accept as a "mission accomplished", but you ask some good questions here. Like I said in sarker's reply to this same post, starvation doesn't work unless they are somehow managing to feed everyone except Hamas, no small feat.

How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks. I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.

I suppose I am less confident that even if Hamas turned over all the hostages we would return to anything like a pre-10/7 status quo.

How do you know Hamas is gone? Dunno, but assumedly, someone is carrying out all those attacks on those food trucks.

Is it so difficult to believe that under conditions of starvation people might organize even outside existing power structures to try and secure food?

I brought up the Taliban because I think it's a similar issue here: you can occupy Palestine for decades, but the second you leave, maybe something bad springs up in your wake because the populace is fundamentally opposed to you. A hairy situation.

What does "fundamentally" mean here? Is there a gene Palestinians have that makes them hate Israelis?

Is it so difficult to believe that under conditions of starvation people might organize even outside existing power structures to try and secure food?

Not unbelievable at all, no. This is the nature of guerilla warfare, though. With no uniforms and a scattered organizational structure, maybe no one can tell. I would think we could trust Israeli intelligence to indicate that Hamas is still operational, since they seemed to quell concerns about Iran after the strikes, but maybe the Israelis don't listen to their intelligence when deciding what to do.

There is no gene that makes Palestinians hate Israelis, but I don't see any off-ramp in Palestinian animosity towards Israelis. Most people in Palestine support Hamas and support what they do/did. A relatively hands-off approach to Gaza with serious checkpoints and the occasional bloody and awful incident at the hands of the Israelis didn't make Palestinians hate Israel any less. I think it's unrealistic to expect Israelis to lift all restrictions and also have a perfect track record, not that they're that guiltless.

So I mean, if you don't want rocket attacks every day and terrorists next door plotting attacks on you, what do you do? I dunno. I guess my idea right now would be to do a complete sweep of the entire area, take every cache and every loose weapon, and heavily restrict incoming supplies, since the West Bank appears to be successfully disarmed and helpless. But I don't think Israel is doing that, if the "arming gangs" thing that coffee_enjoyer posted is to be believed. It happened in Syria, so I could believe it.

But how is starving babies supposed to deal with Hamas?

Starving babies is incidental to the overall strategy. There is no way to starve Hamas without starving babies (that we have found) because Hamas rules the territory, thus Hamas always eats first, and second, and third, then maybe a few babies get some morsels.

With something this complicated it is incumbent on critics to offer at least the skeleton of an alternative proposal so that it can be critiqued. Just saying something is bad is woefully inadequate. Do you think Israel hasn't had a meeting where someone brought up the point that starving children is not good optics (at the very least, if not also brought up the morality of it)? Of course not. They've had hundreds of such meetings. Notably the people who were giving aid to Gaza before didn't really even try to ask the question of "how do we get food to civilians without paying and feeding Hamas?" They just were like "here Hamas here is a buffet and some rocket assembly materials."

Ethics aside, it makes sense as part of a carrot-and-stick approach to making Hamas go away, although it would be a lot more workable if there was an escape hatch available for people to leave Gaza and move anywhere else in the region. Theoretically, a bad enough famine would depopulate the entirety of Gaza and eliminate Hamas that way, but this would be very bad for Israel's international standing compared to a scenario where Gaza is depopulated in a less deadly way.

I agree that simply killing every Palestinian would entail eliminating Hamas, but I am not convinced that killing, say, 10% of Palestinians will do that. I am especially doubtful that starving Palestinian babies will bring an army to its knees, on account of babies not being part of the army.

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is purposely targeting babies to starve? I thought it was a figure of speech to dramatize the ones suffering the most from general failure to distribute food in enough quantities.

In the case of it being a figure of speech, starvation has long been a legitimate tool to bring armies to their knees. The problem there is that Hamas is not an army and likely has a large stockpile that will outlast the entire population of Gaza, unless Israel can figure out how to feed the civilian populace and not feed Hamas, somehow. Since facts are lacking and there is an information war happening, I don't know if that's what they're trying to do. I usually doubt it when people are trying to convince me that Israel is actually just full of moral monsters who like being evil. That's not even true when it comes to amoral more-evil-than-good regimes like most colonial powers in the early 20th century or modern day China. I don't know that the populace is united enough to implement genocidal tactics, either.

But that's not really what interests me. If you think starvation is a bad tactic for dealing with Hamas, that's totally fine, and I think I probably agree with you. I just wonder what tactics would be good for dealing with Hamas. What should Israel do?

Are you seriously suggesting that Israel is purposely targeting babies to starve?

I think the best case scenario here is that Israel is criminally negligent when it comes to avoiding starving babies. Certainly there are starving babies.

starvation has long been a legitimate tool to bring armies to their knees.

Agreed, but again, how is starving babies going to bring an army to its knees?

But that's not really what interests me. If you think starvation is a bad tactic for dealing with Hamas, that's totally fine, and I think I probably agree with you. I just wonder what tactics would be good for dealing with Hamas. What should Israel do?

There's only three options I see here. The first is to kill the Palestinians, which would be a horror that Israel would not recover from. The second is to move them, which is impossible because nobody is foolish enough to take millions of Palestinians.

The third:

When Kahane wasn’t condemning normie Zionists for having contempt for the Arabs, he liked to call them dogs. Not the most original metaphor, but vivid enough, so let’s run with it. Imagine a dog, not a Pitbull (that’s racist), but a Belgian Shepherd or similar. We observe one person who tries to reason with the dog, discusses with him the categorical imperative, and performs random unsolicited acts of kindness to appeal to its better nature. Another, swarthier person enters, perplexed at this cringe European, and pushes him to the side. He takes a good long look at the dog, walks over and kicks it square in the nuts, returning to high-five his friends. Rinse and repeat for three decades. Who is surprised that the dog is deranged?

What you do with a dog, obviously, is you train it. You don’t respond to its barks and snarls by getting down on all fours and barking back because ‘this is the yard’ and that’s what is done here. How do you train the dog? Well, go find someone who’s good at it, and ask him.

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

Who would do such a thing? Would it even be effective? India, after all, is still a neigh-ungovernable amalgamation of warring peoples. The US just got done trying something like that in Afghanistan and Iraq, to miserable failure. In my opinion your hypothetical Raj would have to be significantly MORE brutal on the population than the current military operations conducted by Israel are to have any hope at success.

You seriously exaggerate the ungovernability of India, your description fits Afghanistan better. Modi has a 75% approval rating. America is way more fractious.

In my opinion your hypothetical Raj would have to be significantly MORE brutal on the population than the current military operations conducted by Israel are to have any hope at success.

The key distinction is that a civilizing mission has an obvious aim that can guide decisionmaking. There is no obvious aim that drives Israeli decisionmaking right now except kicking the dog in the balls. It is entirely not obvious how this is supposed to lead to a long term solution.

The reason it looks aimless is because we are preventing them from taking effective measures though. You're presenting a catch-22

More comments

Agreed, but again, how is starving babies going to bring an army to its knees?

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here. Has there ever been a method devised that starves everyone except for exclusively babies? How is throwing every piece of a cow into a meat grinder going to make ground beef if there are bones inside the cow that don't make ground beef?

What does this look like? I don't know. But directionally, perhaps it's something like the British Raj. A civilizing mission is basically the only way to turn things around.

From where I'm standing, that looks literally impossible. Some dogs are just impossible and dangerous and they get put down, kind of a downer for this metaphor. You'd have to specify what that looks like instead of gesturing vaguely at it for me to take it seriously. How do you get from "kill all Jews which we hate with religious zealotry and take back the Holy Land which they stole from us 70 years ago" to "yeah 2 states are okay, I'm okay with giving up my important holy sites now"?

I'm not sure if I'm missing something here. Has there ever been a method devised that starves everyone except for exclusively babies?

I admit I'm not an expert in siege tactics. However, one modest proposal might be to not order soldiers to fire on people trying to acquire food. That seems like the kind of thing that might cause starving babies on the margin.

From where I'm standing, that looks literally impossible.

I believe the three options I listed are exhaustive, so I'm curious if you think there is a fourth that I missed or if you think one of the other two that I thought was impossible is actually possible. Or perhaps you think they are all impossible?

Some dogs are just impossible and dangerous and they get put down, kind of a downer for this metaphor.

Indeed, but as the article suggests, there are people who have managed to train this particular dog.

You'd have to specify what that looks like instead of gesturing vaguely at it for me to take it seriously. How do you get from "kill all Jews which we hate with religious zealotry and take back the Holy Land which they stole from us 70 years ago" to "yeah 2 states are okay, I'm okay with giving up my important holy sites now"?

The Germans famously also wanted to kill (all?) Jews and now they perhaps kowtow excessively. Japan was raping Nanking and now they produce anime. It is possible for a foreign power to change culture, drastically.

I believe the three options I listed are exhaustive, so I'm curious if you think there is a fourth that I missed or if you think one of the other two that I thought was impossible is actually possible. Or perhaps you think they are all impossible?

I can't think of a fourth option that wouldn't just kick the can down the road. The first two are technically possible, but not many people would opt for it, as it's basically a worst case scenario.

The Germans famously also wanted to kill (all?) Jews and now they perhaps kowtow excessively. Japan was raping Nanking and now they produce anime. It is possible for a foreign power to change culture, drastically.

Those both involved a huge amount of death and destruction and both of those nations ended up surrendering. If that's the solution we're going with, how much of a limited amount of your first option would you tolerate? Shooting people acquiring food is absolutely on the table for that one. I guess the end state there is an impromptu group of civilians form and say that they're tired of getting bombed and that they will become the government and carry on the policing of their radicals, including any Hamas remnants, so that terrorist attacks stop happening.

More comments

“Israel wants to starve innocent people in order to ethnically cleanse the land for Israelis” is the reasonable takeaway to me, because there is no evidence of Hamas ever taking aid (1, 2), Israel’s actions are entirely inexplicable unless they deeply desire to starve innocent people, nearly every independent international body paying attention to Gaza has called attention to the risk (and now reality) of starvation, important Israeli leaders like Ben-Gvir and Amichai Eliyahu have specifically advocated for destroying food supplies as a tool to get what they want, and an American retired green beret Anthony Aguilar who worked with the designated aid distributor has said that Israelis open fire indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid.

What I witnessed in Gaza at all four distribution sites — I didn’t just go to one for a photo-op. I didn’t go to one to watch a distribution and then say, “Yes, this looks great.” I spent days on end in Gaza at all four distribution sites, at Kerem Shalom, where the aid is loaded for distribution, and at both operation centers that control the daily convoys, logistics operations and distribution for the four sites. What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law. This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth.

The sites have not only become death traps, they were designed as death traps. All four distribution locations were intentionally, deliberately constructed, planned and built in the middle of an active combat zone. Some may argue, “Well, all of Gaza is a war zone.” That may be true, but there are parts of Gaza that are direct — or, determined to be active, operational combat zones where Israeli Defense Forces are operating. Those sites were built in the middle of those areas intentionally. It’s not by accident. That, in and of itself, to designate humanitarian distribution sites to service an unarmed, starving population, to build them deliberately in an active combat zone, is a violation of the Geneva Convention protocols. It’s a violation of humanitarian law. And in my opinion, it’s a violation of humanity in general.

The things that I just described are not just opinions, they’re facts. The sites were designed to lure, bait, aid and kill. The food that we distribute, nowhere near enough. To Mr. Johnnie Moore, shame on you for celebrating 92 million meals delivered into Gaza. Shame on you. It’s a very simple equation: 92 divided by 2.2 million people, divided by 3 million — or, three meals a day. That’s what GHF proclaims. We’ve been distributing aid since the 26th of May, 26th May to now the 29th of June, 64 days of continuous distribution, and we’ve only managed to distribute 92 million meals. When you break that down, again, it’s a simple equation. That’s 14 days of meals. So, out of 64 days, we’ve provided 14 days of meals to the entire population in the enclave of Gaza. That’s inhumane.

Aguilar was previously the Commander of Special Operations of the Central Asian Command. This is not some no name guy. His testimony is confirmed by Dr Nick Maynard of Oxford University, who treated malnourished children. Maynard also suspects that the IDF is deliberately shooting children for sport, which other doctors have said in the past (I wrote a post on this a year ago or so).

But why does Israel want to starve innocent people?

IMO there’s simple answer to this, and it’s the same reason that anyone commits a crime against another for personal benefit which they believe they can get away with. There’s an insufficient “love for one’s neighbor”, an inability to feel empathy or otherwise recognize the shared humanity in another person from a different tribe. This can also be called being evil, as in, Israel has fallen so far from the standards of reasonable goodness that they are closest to its opposite, which is evil. So Israel is doing this because they are evil, very far from good. It is advantageous for them to take the land from Palestinians. It is advantageous even to starve them if you can’t take the land, because this damages longterm health, fertility rates, and intergenerational health. There is no real cultural or religious pressure that promotes love for non-Jews in Israel. So, IMO, the leaders of Israel are evil, and that’s why they are currently starving children for their own benefit.

“Israel wants to starve innocent people in order to ethnically cleanse the land for Israelis” is the reasonable takeaway to me, because there is no evidence of Hamas ever taking aid (1, 2),

The very first bullet point sub-head on your second link disproves your claim: "State Department disputes findings, cites video evidence of Hamas looting"

Also, there's plenty of mainstream coverage indicating that Hamas has been heavily involved in receiving food "aid" - look at this article from November last year, which outright admits:

Hamas' efforts to take a lead in securing aid supplies point to the difficulties Israel will face in a post-war Gaza, with few obvious alternatives to a group it has been trying to destroy for over a year and which it says can have no governing role. . . .
The new anti-looting force, formed of well-equipped fighters from Hamas and allied groups, has been named "The Popular and Revolutionary Committees" and is ready to open fire on hijackers who do not surrender, one of the sources, a Hamas government official, said. The official, who declined to be named because Hamas would not authorise him to speak about it, said the group operated across central and southern Gaza and had carried out at least 15 missions so far, including killing some armed gangsters.

They'll admit that Hamas is taking the aid meant for civilians if they can use Russell conjugation to make it sound pleasant - "securing aid supplies [from hijackers]" but when someone actually carries that thought through to its obvious and logical conclusion - that a combatant organization is taking aid meant for civilians - nope, no evidence!

So what ? Why is it so bad if Hamas gets food ? Blockading food supplies is considered a war crime in the post-war world.

Assuming Gaza has no food reserves, Israel should allow the passage of food-aid for 2 million people. Share the distribution logs and nations should step off their neck. Logistically, they should be able to check the food for smuggling. Hawaii checks all agricultural imports and exports before they trade with the mainland. It's not unheard of. The UNRWA may be biased. But, it's not like they can smuggle in weapons. UNRWA may report false atrocities, but that's already happening. Israel's public perception is in the dumps. Can't get much worse than that.

So what ? Why is it so bad if Hamas gets food ? Blockading food supplies is considered a war crime in the post-war world.

Hamas sells the food back to the civilian population it was intended for and uses the funds to pay its fighters. Israel's new aid systems aims to give food directly to civilians, thereby ensuring that a) civilians actually get the aid (instead of having to buy it from Hamas) and b) that Hamas' funding gets cut off.

The current situation is also compounded by the fact that UN refuses to allow its aid to be used by Israel's system, so it just sits there in trucks. Does this make the UN war criminals too?

The State Department is just Trump appointees, who are ardent defenders of Israel. So, while someone downstream from a Trump appointee disputed the findings based on a “video”, they

provided no such videos. The spokesperson also accused traditional humanitarian groups of covering up "aid corruption." A White House spokesperson, Anna Kelly, questioned the existence of the analysis, saying no State Department official had seen it and that it "was likely produced by a deep state operative" seeking to discredit President Donald Trump's "humanitarian agenda."

as the article continued. So it doesn’t appear that there is really a video of Hamas looting. I think this can be ignored. Do we expect Trump appointees to tell the truth here? Where is the video showing Hamas looting? One is a study, the other is Rubio. But if the State Dep comes out with evidence then it should be considered.

Your link about Hamas taking aid actually proves the opposite, at least in 2024. Because —

the shortages had also prompted questions of Hamas for its seeming inability to stop the gangs

which means that Hamas did not take or monopolize aid at the time of the article’s writing; armed gangs (probably funded by Israel as I cite in another comment ITT) took the aid. If Hamas had control of aid, a rival gang could not be in control of the aid.

The new anti-looting force, formed of well-equipped fighters from Hamas and allied groups, has been named "The Popular and Revolutionary Committees" and is ready to open fire on hijackers who do not surrender, one of the sources, a Hamas government official, said.

This would only be required if Hamas was not in the business of appropriating or overseeing aid retrieval within the period preceding the article being written. If Hamas was getting the aid, how could a rival group ever hijack so much aid that the citizens of Gaza question Hamas’ ability to fight crime?

It's the constant prevarications that make it so hard for me to take these complaints seriously.

Israelis open fire indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid.

Oh, OK, that sounds really, really bad.

That’s 14 days of meals. So, out of 64 days, we’ve provided 14 days of meals to the entire population in the enclave of Gaza.

Wait, what? If they're firing indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid, how is this number not zero? Is the claim that Palestinians are charging these aid stations under fire, climbing through concertina wire, and some few manage to escape with food? ... Or are they not actually firing indiscriminately on civilians seeking aid? I don't doubt civilians have been shot in these places -- It wouldn't even be hard convince me this is a deliberate strategy to deter Palestinians from accepting food aid! -- but that's not what the word 'indiscriminate' means.

The sites have not only become death traps, they were designed as death traps. All four distribution locations were intentionally, deliberately constructed, planned and built in the middle of an active combat zone. Some may argue, “Well, all of Gaza is a war zone.” That may be true, but there are parts of Gaza that are direct — or, determined to be active, operational combat zones where Israeli Defense Forces are operating. Those sites were built in the middle of those areas intentionally.

The things that I just described are not just opinions, they’re facts.

How is it, exactly, that Aguilar can confidently make statements of fact about others' intentions? Did they tell him that? If they did, I'm pretty sure he'd have said. Is he a mind reader? Actually, I rather doubt he's met whoever decided on the placement of the distribution locations; he can read minds at a distance, I suppose. Again, I'm not even saying that's not the intention! I don't know! But he doesn't either, and presenting this as though it's certain is dishonest.

The equipment, the equipment that we were issued, fully automatic weapons, which, in and of itself, is not a violation of protocol. However, we were issued M855 green-tipped ammunition. That’s important, because green-tipped ammunition is a steel-jacketed copper round that’s designed to — specifically designed to penetrate armor. It’s designed to kill. It’s designed to shoot through reinforced objects, to kill someone on the other side of it. That’s what all the UG Solutions contractors are equipped with right now in country. Everyone carries a standard basic load of 210 rounds of M855 armor-piercing military combat ammunition. Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives, against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.

What nonsense is this? Are the distribution locations in active combat zones or not? Anyway, armor-piercing rounds are, obviously, intended for piercing armor. Against unarmored targets, they're less lethal than hollow points. Unarmed civilians, notably, are unlikely to have armor. As for the capacity to penetrate cover: I thought these locations were designed to be death traps? Why would they leave convenient cover in the killing field? Anyway, I don't see the logic in permitting the individuals guarding the site to have weapons, but only so long as they'll be ineffective against a prepared adversary. (Especially after admitting there are prepared adversaries in the area.) I have to say, it seems very weird to me this would be a war crime. Let me do some reading...

Oh, it's not a war crime.

The M855 green tip (the American version of the SS109) is the standard issue round for all of NATO! It's actually not some super special armor-piercing variant, it's what they give every last grunt. Safe to say, issuing this round is not illegal.

It sure is designed to kill, that's true -- is this former green beret confused about the purpose of firearms and their ammunition? Or is he just so contemptuous of his audience that he believes they are? As I noted, they're less deadly against unarmored civilians than hollow points, but here's something I didn't know until I looked into it: using those is (arguably) a war crime! I'm deeply curious what round Aguilar believes would be appropriate; unfortunately, he doesn't say. Rubber bullets? Taking rubber bullets into a situation where you might well get shot at with real bullets is incredibly dumb, but that's not the real problem with the idea: no one even makes rubber bullets in 5.56. They don't exist. Blanks, perhaps?

Aguilar makes some other points that are harder to contest -- for all I know, they are using concertina wire inappropriately -- but I see very little reason to take anything he says seriously given the obvious errors -- I struggle not to say 'lie,' but unlike him, I'm willing to extend the charity to allow he might just be incorrect -- I found briefly skimming the article.

Maynard also suspects that the IDF is deliberately shooting children for sport, which other doctors have said in the past (I wrote a post on this a year ago or so).

Would that be the thread with several x-ray images of full power rifle rounds, with no deformation whatsoever, in the middle of children's heads? I'm genuinely asking; it might be something else. But that's the one I remember, because it was a transparent hoax.

Once again, I'm perfectly willing to believe the IDF is misbehaving in Gaza -- actually, I'd go so far as to say I do believe it, at least to some extent -- but if there's such overwhelming evidence for it, why do their opponents insist on mixing in obvious falsehoods? Just tactically, I'm certain it does far more damage to their position than just sticking to points that aren't trivially refuted.

I too am convinced that that many 3rd parties reporting on Israel are lying (outright or by omission). However, the information blackout from Israel makes it hard to defend them.

Hamas has lost. Israel's existential threat comes from Iran, which has temporarily been rendered sterile. There is no plausible reason for fighting a war with medieval siege tactics. Not anymore. Sure, many who're accusing them of genocide are antisemitic. But, it should not be that hard to refute it. The burden of proof is on Israel. There's little indication that the majority of Israelis want a final solution to the Gaza problem. Israelis haven't so much as articulated an endgame, let along enacted it. In this framing, Israel's current actions don't make sense, unless viewed as Netanyahu's actions.

IMO, Netanyahu's interests and Israel's interests stopped coinciding after the attacks on Iran's nuclear sites. Hamas's leaders were dead. Iran's nukes were gone. Hezbollah was over. Gazan supply lines were wiped. Israel was safe. So what's next for Netanyahu ? He's a dead man walking. He was thought to be on the way out in 2020. He swindled (all is fair in love and war) Benny Gantz into a 1 sided coalition and through morbid luck got a national emergency handed to him. His approval ratings are on a slow decline in 2025 after a post-tragedy resurgence. Democracies have a track record of ousting wartime leaders as soon as the war is over. Netanyahu won't be an exception.*

Netanyahu wants his problems to be Israel's problems. As long as the conflict remains, he can keep finding exceptions to stay in power. Global anti-semitism pushes Israel to the right, strengthening him**. He is the only one who benefits from a protracted conflict. Even today, there is sufficient internal pushback against Netanyahu within Israel.

Yet, the loudest detractors steer the conversation towards the existence of the state of Israel instead of Netanyahu as the leader who oversaw this response. To me, that's the difference between credible detractors (Tech elite, European centrists, American Jews) and antisemites. (Progressive left, Muslim leaders). Antisemites are tempted by maximalist claims and their hate makes up for the lack of due diligence. "All Israelis are evil, always have been. All Gazans are being killed. All kids are being shot in the dick. No one is getting food." No nuance. Only hate.

Either way, their detractors have served. The ball is now in Israel's court. Sympathies are wearing thin. Netanyahu better show proof refuting it, or his time might be up. Hopefully, the Israel's people are able to pin the stink of genocide onto him. Otherwise, this will cement the end of Israel's post-holocaust sympathy.

* famous last words. There always seems to be a Netanyahu exception. Slimy bastard that man

** and Bennett, but that's besides the point

Ah, I don't necessarily disagree on any of this. To tell the truth I haven't followed these events closely at all -- my point was very narrow: 'I'm confident these claims are false, which makes it a lot harder to believe your other claims.' Not even saying the pro-Israel side doesn't do the same thing (though I can't immediately recall anything quite so blatant).

Probably best I not make a fool of myself commenting on Israel's internal politics, but sure, I'm not clear on what Israel expects their current actions to accomplish. I certainly don't like some possible answers. Your theory doesn't sound implausible to me.

If that is what's happening, it's a curious mirror of what's going on on the other side: Hamas depends on Israel's misbehavior to gain recruits and garner international sympathy while Netanyahu depends on Hamas's ability to recruit and garner international sympathy to push his voting public right. Not sure if that's actually an insight or just pedestrian inter/intra-group dynamics. (Pretty sure that was one of the reasons for eternal warfare in 1984, so it probably counts as a hackneyed truism by now.)

Yet, the loudest detractors steer the conversation towards the existence of the state of Israel instead of Netanyahu as the leader who oversaw this response. To me, that's the difference between credible detractors (Tech elite, European centrists, American Jews) and antisemites. (Progressive left, Muslim leaders). Antisemites are tempted by maximalist claims and their hate makes up for the lack of due diligence. "All Israelis are evil, always have been. All Gazans are being killed. All kids are being shot in the dick. No one is getting food." No nuance. Only hate.

Yeah, this makes sense. I object to a certain strain of common, virulent opposition with a loose relationship with truth -- certainly doesn't mean Israel's actions are unobjectionable.

I understand that no military ever actually wants transparency into any of their operations, but it doesn't seem like it can do all that much harm to the IDF at this stage; the more national and international pressure mounts to provide that transparency, the more suspicious the failure to do so will be.

indiscriminate

Indiscriminate means “not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment”. What definition were you looking at? It does not mean that they fire on everyone they see.

ammo

M855 ammo passes through soft tissue more readily, meaning in a large crowd there will be more casualties per shot; his point is that this is a terrible choice for crowd control. Police doing crowd control use rubber bullets etc. In fact the IDF specifically uses .22 LR in Ruger 10/22 rifles for riots in the West Bank. You weren’t aware of this? NATO is not supplying these munitions so I don’t know why you’ve mentioned NATO.

Taking rubber bullets into a situation where you might well get shot at with real bullets is incredibly dumb

It’s an unarmed civilian population receiving food. Rubber bullets are a smart way to do crowd control.

Would that be the thread with several x-ray images of full power rifle rounds, with no deformation whatsoever, in the middle of children's heads?

It was the one confirmed by numerous third party experts who dealt with gunshot wounds. I’m not sure how Israeli pundits responded to it but they may have called them forgeries.

obvious errors

Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony. Which error did you have in mind?

Indiscriminate means “not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment”. What definition were you looking at? It does not mean that they fire on everyone they see.

Hmm, OK. I read 'indiscriminately opening fire' as 'making no distinction between combatants and civilians,' and since they surely do fire on enemy combatants, they must also fire on civilians at similar rates. Which is obviously untrue, or no aid would be distributed. Is it your position that they don't discriminate on that basis at all (that is, they're just as likely to return fire at enemy combatants as to fire at random civilians), or that they do, but without sufficient care? (Which would be an opinion, not a fact, but whatever.)

Maybe that's my misread.

M855 ammo passes through soft tissue more readily, meaning in a large crowd there will be more casualties per shot; his point is that this is a terrible choice for crowd control. Police doing crowd control use rubber bullets etc. In fact the IDF specifically uses .22 LR in Ruger 10/22 rifles for riots in the West Bank. You weren’t aware of this? NATO is not supplying these munitions so I don’t know why you’ve mentioned NATO.

He explicitly says the rifles are OK. .22 LR is a different caliber which those rifles can't shoot. So far as I know, there is no widely used 5.56 munition that's less deadly than M855. (Well, there's less reliable/accurate ammo; this makes civilian casualties more likely, not less.) There are rounds which have less penetration, sure: hollow points, the use of which would actually be a war crime. If he wanted to argue 5.56 rifles were inappropriate, he could have done so. Instead he fixated on the bog-standard ammo, emphasizing its spectacular lethality, and, bizarrely, claiming its issue (not even its use!) is a war crime.

I mention NATO because as a rule it can be assumed that using the standard-issue munition of the world's premier military alliance -- the whole thing, not just America, who hasn't signed on to every treaty -- is not a war crime. It's additionally abundant and, due to economies of scale, pretty cheap for its quality. I'm only harping on this because he chose to harp on it.

Who said the rifles are intended exclusively for crowd control? He says repeatedly there's active fighting in these areas -- there's active fighting in all of Gaza, as he acknowledges elsewhere, but he claims these areas are especially bad. If there's serious risk of these sites coming under fire from enemy combatants, these rifles are suitable for engaging them. If there's not, then it sounds like it's actually not an active combat zone.

It was the one confirmed by numerous third party experts who dealt with gunshot wounds. I’m not sure how Israeli pundits responded to it but they may have called them forgeries.

Well, the one I'm talking about was physically impossible. I recall there were a number of 'experts' who swore by it, thereby proving that either they're not experts or they're willing to flagrantly lie to propagandize against Israel. It's perfectly possible some members of the IDF have shot children for sport -- I certainly can't prove otherwise, and there might well be other, real proof -- but they weren't the ones in those pictures.

Hm, I don’t see a single error in his testimony. Which error did you have in mind?

I note you didn't address the claim that issuing M855 is a war crime. Here's what he said:

Everyone carries a standard basic load of 210 rounds of M855 armor-piercing military combat ammunition... That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.

Can you please point me towards the treaty, the case law, anything at all, that makes carrying M855 a war crime in and of itself?

You’re interpreting his statements somewhat uncharitably. Remember that he’s explaining these things in a long video, verbally and narratively, so the words have to be understood in the context.

Elsewhere he specifies in what sense he means indiscriminate killing:

“On May 28, at secure distribution site #2, this young boy, Amir, walks over to me, reaches out & kisses my hand…”

“This boy is not wearing shoes. His clothes are falling off of him because he is so skinny… He doesn’t have a box — he has half a bag of rice, lentils, and he was thanking us.”

“He walked 12 kilometers to get there … and when he got there, he thanked us for the crumbs he got … and he set them on the ground with his frail, skeletal, emaciated hands, and he kissed me and said ‘thank you.’”

“And then he collected his items, walked back to the group, and then he was shot at — with pepper spray, and tear gas, and stun grenades, and bullets…”

“They are shooting into this crowd. Palestinians, civilians, human beings — are dropping to the ground. And Amir was one of them.”

“Amir walked 12 kilometers to get food, got nothing but scraps, thanked us for it… and died.”

We can surmise that this is what he means by war crimes, that using a rifle with live bullets to deal with civilian crowd control is a war crime. This is a war crime under The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 8 (Article 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i)). In the DemocracyNow video he previously said that razor wire is a war crime —

Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit the use of razor wire to restrict areas that civilians are servicing — hospitals, water points, food distribution points. And we’re using it. Not only did the IDF provide it for us to use it on the sites, we, UG Solutions, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, asked for it specifically. Razor wire is designed to maim and kill, and we’re using that to channelize and herd, if you will, thousands of unarmed, starving civilians. That’s a war crime.

———

He explicitly says the rifles are OK

He says that the “fully automatic weapons” were not in itself a war crime. Probably because it can be used with some less-than-lethal munition. Then, when he mentions the ammunition which “in and of itself” is a war crime, he clarifies —

Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.

It’s reasonable to assume that the “action” he’s talking about is starving children getting a little too close or not disseminating as quickly as the group wants, and then being shot with live ammo.

Hmm, alright, I can extend some tolerance towards sloppiness in extemporaneous verbal remarks. I still think most of the ammo paragraph is highly misleading nonsense, but I'm willing to file it under verbal diarrhea and take your interpretation at face value. And, sure, the razor wire might be a war crime; like I said, I didn't look into it.

As to the meat of the matter: The Rome Statute you're citing is this one?

Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(If I've somehow gotten the wrong one: Sorry, and don't bother reading the rest of the comment.)

(Both 8(2)(b)(i) and 8(2)(e)(i) have the same text; one is a list of 'other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law' and the other 'Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law.' Not wholly clear which applies myself, but the rule is the same.)

(Israel hasn't signed this statute, but I'll concede the point if the behavior is a war crime by any international standard with substantial support.)

This is... not a very strict clause. I, perhaps naively, thought the standard was much higher. Especially since this is the infamous ICC which the US and Israel refuse to subject themselves to.

As best as I can tell, this statute doesn't distinguish between lethal and nonlethal weapons at all. (Not just this clause; I searched the whole thing for 'lethal' and various non-lethal technologies, and read all of 8(2)(b).) It's just as much a war crime to 'direct attacks' with a baton (or .22 LR rubber bullets) against civilians in general or 'against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities' as with a machine gun. Conversely, if the individual civilian is taking direct part in hostilities, it doesn't seem that they're entitled to any protection under this clause (other clauses and statutes certainly limit what might be done with them even then, but normal infantry rifles with normal ammunition certainly isn't forbidden by 8(2)(b)(xx)). It also does not distinguish between armed and unarmed civilians who are taking a direct part in hostilities.*

So when he says

Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their — defend their lives against an unarmed population? It’s inappropriate. That, in and of itself, that action there, is a war crime.

That's not supported by the statute. They might not need those rifles to defend their lives against an unarmed population, but they're not forbidden from doing so. If they're 'defending their lives,' the individuals threatening them are certainly taking a direct part in hostilities -- have blown way past that standard -- and so may be shot. Even if they accidentally hit other civilians in the process of shooting them; that's not 'intentionally directing attacks' at them. That could run afoul of 8(2)(b)(iv):

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

But I think it would not in general. The attack must be launched knowing it will cause incidental loss of life or injury, which applies to a missile strike but generally wouldn't to aiming at a particular person and missing. Maybe it'd apply to over penetration? Even then I'm not sure you know it'll happen and that the collateral damage will be clearly excessive.

Concerningly, I'm not even seeing any protections against negligence (except in the narrow sense of 8(2)(b)(iv)) or even deliberately structuring the sites so as to maximize the probability that incidental loss of life that is not clearly excessive will occur. (I suppose this arguably could include issuing standard rifles to soldiers with crowd control responsibilities, provided you could somehow prove that was the intention. Not easy at all, especially if there's any meaningful chance they'll encounter armed, organized opposition.) Perhaps the court would be willing to fill in the gaps there, but it's not in the statute.

If they deliberately shoot civilians who aren't fighting, yeah, that's a war crime. And he's alleging that has happened, fair. But the nature of the rifles is orthogonal to its status as a war crime.

('Not a war crime' is not the same thing as 'morally correct,' or 'tactically wise.' I address only the first, as that's the question at hand.)

* I'm pretty sure? There is 8(2)(b)(vi) that forbids:

Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

My read is that someone who is attacking without weapons has not surrendered in any sense, even if laying down one's arms is a sign of surrender in general.

intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities

This, as with any law, will be pursued with litigation and deliberation to work out details. The entire application of law is not based on a single sentence with no rational determination applying to it. The above, along with Additional Protocol I, Article 54, “ Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”, which states “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”, leads one to think that Israel is committing war crimes. In addition,

intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions

is a crime, and regarding said relief, if

part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal. […] Such schemes […] may be undertaken […] by impartial humanitarian organizations

This, as with any law, will be pursued with litigation and deliberation to work out details. The entire application of law is not based on a single sentence with no rational determination applying to it.

I mean, it won't be. Israel hasn't signed on to this statute. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something, but right now it seems to me that:

  • Aguilar claimed that M855 is some super special uniquely evil armor-piercing military combat KILLING bullet designed to KILL PEOPLE. He has a whole lengthy paragraph about specifically how bad this particular round is, questions why anyone would need it to defend themselves from an 'unarmed' populace (which is flagrantly untrue, but whatever), and then insists even issuing it is a war crime.
  • I point out this is nonsense, that there's nothing remarkable about the round, and that issuing it certainly isn't a war crime.
  • You said: 'No, no, obviously what he meant is the scenario in the question, that's what he's calling the war crime. It's not about M855 specifically, any lethal munition would be inappropriate.' Which, OK, is not what I think it says -- If it's not about M855 specifically, why'd he spend so long telling us how terrible it is? If he actually means they should use non-lethal weapons, why didn't he say that? -- but sure, I'll let someone on his side steelman his words. And yeah, it can be hard to speak precisely off-the-cuff, I get that. And you provided a specific cite of a specific document; what more could I ask for?
  • ... But in fact the scenario you're calling a war crime -- using lethal weapons in self defense against unarmed civilians -- is not forbidden by that cite; it actually looks a lot like it's explicitly permitted. So I read the rest of the section; maybe you meant some other provision, or it's ruled out by some combination of provisions? Nope, it's not. So out of charity I did my best to come up with interpretations where it would be forbidden -- which was not at all easy, because you just invented the non-lethal-weapon requirement out of whole cloth. I didn't think any of them were particularly plausible, but I did the best I could.
  • But instead of committing to one or offering your own interpretation, you just pushed it aside and baldly asserted that this behavior will be found to violate the statute once it gets to trial (which you know will never happen). I don't believe that's true, and, further, if the ICC did actually convict some Israeli for this behavior under this statute, it would do a lot to convince me that the ICC is unserious and deeply compromised and nothing at all to convince me the Israeli is a war criminal. There's room for interpretation and precedent in legal proceedings, sure, but the statute plainly doesn't say that. Even Soviet show trials had sufficient integrity to allege the accused had committed genuine crimes.

The above, along with Additional Protocol I, Article 54, “ Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population”, which states “Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited”, leads one to think that Israel is committing war crimes.

OK? But that's not what we're talking about. I could have provided a lengthy list of Hamas' war crimes per the statute, but I didn't because that wasn't relevant. The starvation charge has nothing to do with the carrying-lethal-weapons charge. It is actually important to get the details right in these matters, isn't it? War crimes aren't fungible, you can't just substitute another one when it turns out your initial accusation (which was at best sanewashing Aguilar's incoherent nonsense) was untrue. It's serious business and allegations, if they are to be taken seriously, ought to made with care and precision.

I feel comfortable saying neither you nor Aguilar meet this minimum standard.

I get you think Israel is really, really bad. And sure, maybe it is. But this defense is not only not convincing, it's providing ammunition to Zionists who say their opponents have no regard for the truth and will say anything at all to make them look bad because they just despise Jews that much. It's exactly the behavior I complained about in my first post: if you have rock-solid complaints, focus on those and don't make up other grievances to drive the point home. (Or defend Aguilar when he does that.) Cause right now I'm thinking you actually don't.

More comments

Additional Protocol I, Article 54

Israel has not signed Additional Protocol I. (and the US has not ratified it). Hamas, of course, ignores such things entirely as applied to itself.

there is no evidence of Hamas ever taking aid.

Okay, where is Hamas getting its food then? Do they have a giant stockpile that they have been surviving off of since October 2023? Have they invented the world’s most efficient solar-powered hydroponics system? Does every Hamas militant spend 23 hours a day in a cryostasis chamber? How are any of them still alive if they aren’t surviving off of food aid?

Could be a stockpile. Could be tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, with one found last year so large that a car could fit through. A small tunnel for beans / flour need only be a quarter in size. It could be that civilians are giving food to their relatives, one of whom is a member. It could be a tunnel from Israel to Gaza. Could be an underwater drone of sorts. Could be drones from Egypt to Gaza, apparently being used recently.

edit another important point. There’s an assumption that the number of Hamas units is fixed since the war began, and that Hamas is a monolith. These are silly assumptions. Israel is creating thousands of boys every week who want nothing more than to fight back against Israel — because they just saw soldiers shoot their grandmother, or shoot their little sister, or kidnap their brother, or maybe Israel bombed their entire family, or maybe they were mistreated, or maybe their cousin is starving. No sane young man anywhere in the world would not seek to do something in response to this. So there are new Hamas soldiers being officiated every day. But the officiatiation is not formal and organized. They join small cell structures (in all likelihood apolitical and religiously moderate, if not irreligious) who are then provided with weaponry (and ideas) by a small number of Hamas intermediaries (and these are the extremist ones). Meaning they were civilians being fed as civilians until the inhumane oppression became too much for their heart to bear, and they fight back. The same happened with the Irish against the British —

The British policy of interning persons suspected of involvement in the IRA and the killing of 13 Catholic protesters on Bloody Sunday (January 30, 1972) strengthened Catholic sympathy for the organization and swelled its ranks”.

IRA numbers always increased when the British took an oppressive approach. Perhaps we should assume that somewhere between 5% to 90% of boys in Gaza would very much like to fight the IDF in any way they can, and they are more than happy to receive a weapon from Hamas.

So there are new Hamas soldiers being officiated every day. But the officiatiation is not formal and organized. They join small cell structures (in all likelihood apolitical and religiously moderate, if not irreligious) who are then provided with weaponry (and ideas) by a small number of Hamas intermediaries (and these are the extremist ones).

If this is true it is a grave violation of the laws of war. The Geneva convention unequivocally requires that armed forces must be “under a command responsible for the conduct of its subordinates”.

That it should be totally impermissible to create a set of small cells without any independent command authority is completely obvious, especially in the current context.

In any event, they certainly aren't soldiers as the word is used in the field of international law.

Israel has been committing grave violations of international law since the King David Hotel bombing, the Nabka, etc.

they certainly aren't soldiers as the word is used in the field of international law.

Very few are complaining about the treatment of the actual men fighting Israel.

Israel is creating thousands of boys every week who want nothing more than to fight back against Israel — because they just saw soldiers shoot their grandmother, or shoot their little sister, or kidnap their brother, or maybe Israel bombed their entire family, or maybe they were mistreated, or maybe their cousin is starving.

You'll notice that this argument applies to shooting enemy soldiers just as much as it applies to civilians. By your reasoning, Israel shouldn't shoot any enemy soldiers because it creates thousands of boys who saw their brother or father or uncle or whoever get killed by the Israelis, and who want revenge.

Also, notice that bombing Nazis didn't create more Nazis. Why? Because Germany was saturated with Nazis already. Boys who saw their relatives killed were already steeped in Nazi propaganda and probably would become Nazis no matter what you did. If for some reason they didn't, they'd just get drafted anyway.

Everyone understands that combatants are killed in war. This is unremarkable and no reasonable person seeks revenge for war. What’s less remarkable is when an Israeli soldier purposefully shoots your daughter or sister in the head for no reason. Any young male who experiences this and wouldn’t seek revenge for it is the lowest of the low coward. Certainly my American ancestors who fought in the Revolution wouldn’t have submitted to that sort of rule. Neither would my Irish fifth cousins in the IRA. I would feel content knowing that my great grandparents who were ethnically cleansed from their ancestral home by someone born in Poland speaking a German dialect would look at me as a hero. (We can see how empathy goes a long way in explaining the Gazan PoV; this is an exercise.)

notice that bombing Nazis didn't create more Nazis. Why?

Both sides were bombing each others cities, for essential military reasons that likely reduced sum total casualties over the war.

This is unremarkable and no reasonable person seeks revenge for war.

This is not true. And Gazans (and people in honor based and tribal societies in general) tend not to be reasonable people anyway.

in all likelihood apolitical and religiously moderate, if not irreligious

X to doubt. Not just because it's Gaza but because intemperate religion and radical politics are very appealing to the greatly distressed.

The assertion you start this post off with has got some heavy caveats to it.

Of the 156 incidents of loss or theft reported, 63 were attributed to unknown perpetrators, 35 to armed actors, 25 to unarmed people, 11 directly to Israeli military action, 11 to corrupt subcontractors, five to aid group personnel “engaging in corrupt activities,” and six to “others," a category that accounted for “commodities stolen in unknown circumstances,” according to the slide presentation.

There's no evidence that Hamas took aid! Well, the people who took the aid were aligned with unknown forces and not wearing any uniforms, similar to how Hamas operates, but they didn't say they were Hamas into convenient nearby microphones, so I am going to heavily imply that there is no Hamas theft with sleazy lawyer-like framing. Feel free to uncritically quote me, Israel haters!

That's just appalling reporting. And USAID said this? Isn't that the one getting dismantled? I was neutral about their being dismantled, but after seeing this kind of shit, I am glad. Holy hell. They're not even an intelligence agency... The information war is real. You can't trust anyone.

Along the lines of my thesis “it’s literally that Israeli leaders are evil”, they are funding gangs to pillage and monopolize aid. These are the ones most likely involved in the theft of aid:

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-recruits-local-gangs-and-foreign-mercenaries-turning-aid-distribution-centres-mass-slaughterhouse-enar

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/video/newsfeed/2025/7/18/how-israeli-backed-gangs-in-gaza-are-extorting-starving-civilians

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/06/09/israel-is-backing-a-militia-known-for-looting-aid-in-gaza_6742148_4.html

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/inside-the-israeli-governments-starvation-of-gaza-from-an-aid-group-trying-to-deliver-food/

We in the humanitarian community have repeatedly stated that Hamas is not stealing our aid. That is not to say that looting has not always been a massive challenge; it has. But it was largely being carried out by armed gangs that emerged in the lawlessness and that operate in the Israeli-controlled “red zone” wastelands. I wrote about this in a CNN op-ed as far back as a year ago. Much of that looting was taking place at the Kerem Shalom or Karam Abu Salem crossing in southern Gaza. We had long speculated that the only way for armed gangs to exist in this area would be with Israel’s knowledge. In June, Netanyahu admitted himself that Israel has been arming gangs, most notably a notorious clan operating in the Rafah area, where much of the looting takes place. He defended the decision, stating these clans were helping in the fight against Hamas

The first article quotes IDF officials praising the UN system as effective in distributing aid and having found no proof that Hamas was systematically stealing aid from the UN, although they did steal from smaller organizations that didn't always have boots on the ground. It's been widely reported that various armed gangs have formed in the power vacuum to steal and resell aid at extortionate prices.

To me there seems to be, or perhaps should be, a kind of reciprocity of honor in wartime. The Germans and British and French in the First World War wanted to take or defend disputed territory, become the first power in Europe, seize some of each others foreign colonies and perhaps effect a change of civilian government. They did not particularly wish to ethnically cleanse their opponents from the vast majority of their metropoles (a few pieces of disputed territory aside). In the Kaiser’s wildest fantasies (and they were his) he did not imagine replacing Welshmen with Bavarians and driving the former out to the sea. The war was brutal, with civilian casualties and endless military ones and war crimes, the Rape of Belgium (truth or fiction) and so on. But it was not a war to the death or to exile for every last German, every last Englishman, woman, child.

The conflict between Arabs and Jews in Israel/Palestine is not such a conflict. It is a tribal war. The Arabs have sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews (or at least all but a token handful, but probably all) from their full territory since 1948 or indeed well before given the history of violence that began during the earlier colonial waves of migration. The Jews were of mixed opinions but have now increasingly, after 70 years of violence, come around to the same opinion about the Palestinians (views on Arab Israelis are more complicated although there are plenty, it must be said, of religious zionists who would kick them out too).

Only America is powerful enough, now, to impose a two-state solution on both sides. To do so would cost trillions, require a permanent US presence of perhaps a hundred thousand or more troops on the border, and would subject the Americans to endless criticism abroad, intermittent violence by militant Muslim and likely also eventually militant Jewish terrorists, and would commit the country forever, for if columbia were to leave, the conflict would simply resume where both sides left off.

Since that will not happen, it is now increasingly clear that one side will ethnically cleanse the other. A Jewish victory would probably, although not necessarily, be permanent; the Muslim world might still accomplish a Reconquista. A Muslim victory would be permanent, at least until the arrival of the messiah, ye of little faith, or failing that another two millennia. The people of Gaza suffer and have suffered. A more intelligent Zionist movement would have settled somewhere else but, then again, without the deep, atavistic lure of Zion, it would probably never have accomplished anything.

If the Gazans surrendered, their suffering would stop. But they cannot surrender, unlike the marranos not even temporarily. They belong to a faith and tribe that conquered a quarter of the world by the sword, without mercy, without self-doubt. They submit only to God. Should I pity them?

There have only ever been three options: ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing, or forever war. Pick one. All are terrible and wrong.

Are the descendents of the Sudeten Germans and other Ostdeutsch who were ethnically cleansed out of eastern europe into Germany after WWII still living in refugee camps? Of course not. Population exchange is traumatic, but people can get on with their lives afterwards. The current never-ending simmer of terrorism and oppression is just categorically worse.

The largest opposition of population exchange here has been the Arab world.

It seems impossible to break in any sense, largely because they don't suffer any of the consequences.

You know, the more I learn about Palestinians the more I'm convinced it was a bad idea to move ethnic cleansing into the category of "never under any circumstances even thinkable actions". Palestinians are brazenly explicit about their refusal to ever accept Jews living in the region and their commitment to "resistance" under all circumstances - a state of affairs practically unique in history because just about every other society to ever exist has known full well that the rewards for being even a fraction as belligerent would be getting wiped out. If they've shown after nearly 80 years they're still not going to behave, maybe threatening to move them somewhere else is the only thing that will get them reconsider their attitude.

There are not too many years separating the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Both are deemed illegal under international law. Both restrict the rights of the former occupant population. But one has been an on-and-off war zone ever since, and one has not. Why? No single reason. But a big one is that Turkey accompanied their annexation with near-complete ethnic cleansing.

The world made a rule that ethnic cleansing was never justified under any circumstances. Unfortunately, the Palestinians evolved a culture to exploit that rule. If they could only be so belligerent that the only way to defeat them would be by ethnic cleansing, then they win by default no matter how militarily superior their opponent. This is effectively the propaganda game they play with the West. It's almost like they're daring Israel to ethnically cleanse them, and then double-dog daring them, and then triple-dog daring them. They know that if Israel breaks the one rule against trying an ethnic cleansing, then they'll lose Western support. They intentionally do not want Israel to have another option. There is no peace, no two state solution, no compromise. If Hamas can just persevere and stay the course then they'll eventually win. Israel can either carry on essentially at war with Hamas for the foreseeable future, or it can just take the risk and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. The latter might be a Pyrrhic victory if the rest of the world turns against Israel.

The world made a rule that ethnic cleansing was never justified under any circumstances.

A much more basic way to frame this moral precept would be:

All people who live within your borders are, and of right ought to be, citizens of your state, and the government of your state has equal responsibilities to them as to any other citizen. You can exclude people from entering your country, you can expel parts of your country (Malaysia/Singapore, India/Pakistan), but you can't treat certain people living in your country as non-citizens.

Israel has tried to find its way around this by creating two Palestinian bantustans and keeping them split, the non-viable non-contiguous territories providing a shred of cover that those living there will never have to be integrated into Israel's population, despite Israel's permanent control of the external policy of each enclave.

My point being that Israel has another path: re-educating and reconciling with the Palestinian civilian population such that they no longer support Hamas (or whoever).

Hamas doesn't get to do its permanent-war bit on its own. It requires mass support among Arabs, undermine that and there's no more Hamas.

All people who live within your borders are, and of right ought to be, citizens of your state, and the government of your state has equal responsibilities to them as to any other citizen.

Why? I don’t think European or Gulf Arab countries have a duty to naturalize their migrant workforces.

You can exclude people from entering your country, you can expel parts of your country (Malaysia/Singapore, India/Pakistan), but you can't treat certain people living in your country as non-citizens.

But they aren't any part of the country. Indeed the whole thing has been about denigrating Israeli territorial claims to the West Bank & Gaza and elevating the case of Palestinian sovereignty over it!

despite Israel's permanent control of the external policy of each enclave.

This is hardly Israels desire. They would like nothing more than to leave Gaza to Egypt and much of the West Bank to Jordan, provided that they actually were guaranteed that their neighbors would not permit the use of that territory as a launching pad for violent attacks. That's the absolute least any country can do for it neighbors in peacetime.

This whole thing is just another hack: "we'll launch rockets from the territory to force you to react, then when you control the ground we'll insist that now it's your sovereign territory and you are obligated to govern it".

This whole thing is just another hack: "we'll launch rockets from the territory to force you to react, then when you control the ground we'll insist that now it's your sovereign territory and you are obligated to govern it".

And not only govern it, but govern it democratically, so the Palestinians can take over the government and kill all the Jews. And if the Jews can't prevent that it's because they failed in "reconciling with the Palestinian civilian population" so they deserve to die. Israeli Jews, however, are not stupid enough to buy this line of reasoning.

Why are Gaza and West Bank non-viable? I am quite confident that if Gaza was repopulated with a bunch North Dakotans and West Bank with a bunch of South Dakotans both would quickly become prosperous countries.

Also, I am consistently confused by the "2 state solution" rhetoric (depicted in you post with the phrase "keeping them split"). The "Palestinian" territories are non-contiguous and have been for almost a century now. There is no good reason for them to be a united state! That stupid idea proved a failure with Pakistan and Burma and would be stupid in the current situation as well. When you talk about a 2 state, instead of 3 state, solution you make yourself seem unserious IMO.

That stupid idea proved a failure with Pakistan and Burma

I think you mean Pakistan and Bangladesh here.

My point being that Israel has another path: re-educating and reconciling with the Palestinian civilian population such that they no longer support Hamas (or whoever).

But why would they do that? If I were a Palestinian, I'd want revenge--terrible, horrible, unconscionable revenge forever, and I'd still go to heaven.

The latter might be a Pyrrhic victory if the rest of the world turns against Israel.

That might be happening anyway, so at some point that stops being a disincentive.

Losing western support would be bad for Israel, but I think it's unlikely it ever becomes truly friendless. Being the most intellectually advanced and militarily capable country in the middle east means there'll probably always be someone willing to do business with them.

Uh, who told you ethnic cleansing is in the 'never again' category? As long as you don't seek to actually wipe out the losing side, it's ignored unless you're a US adversary. The soviet union carried out ethnic cleansing regularly within its own borders, and that trend continued with its breakup. Azerbaijan is being allowed to ethnically cleanse territory captured from Armenia. US backed forces ethnically cleansed parts of Iraq and Syria.

it's ignored unless you're a US adversary.

Surely it's the other way around? If you're not meaningfully dependent on the US then the opinions of the educated elite there don't matter. Azerbaijan and Armenia would seem to be an example of this, as well as your example of the USSR.

US backed forces ethnically cleansed parts of Iraq and Syria.

I don't know enough about this to comment.

This makes him the first right winger I've seen say anything about starvation

Maybe you mean the first Republican. Right-wing anti-Zionists, like Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson, believe that Israel is intent on killing as many Palestinians as possible without completely alienating the international community, and then expelling the rest.

Tucker Carlson

He interviewed the ex Nikola motors CEO, Trevor Milton.Trevor tried to play all the cards, claiming democrats went after him, big oil was out for him etc. But he pumped a company to $60B by claiming it had a factory with thousands of employees, making working trucks etc. In reality, 20 employees and they made cardboard models of trucks, which they pushed down hills for demonstrations and commercials. And the investigation started in the Trump admin. The fraud was about the same size as Madoff's, but it only cost him $1.7mm to buy a pardon from Trump.

Eh, they're not "release the hostages" starving yet.

You know, it took a lot to get me to this position, but here I am: yes, Israel wants the Gaza problem solved by having them disappear. Deported out of the country if possible, but dead works too.

Settlers running amok and nobody stopping them, with the Israeli authorities (police on up) just winking at burning land belonging to Palestinians, shooting at them, and moving in and taking over land. Too many "oopsies, we didn't mean to hit that target" events. "Oh yeah sure we'll let in the aid convoy - oh no, we can't, security issues y'see".

Israel wants the entire territory to belong to them, and they don't see the Palestinians as any kind of citizens to remain there. "It's all Hamas propaganda, nobody is starving, if only they turned on Hamas then there would be peace". If they turned on Hamas, then they would just be bulldozed into the ground even quicker.

I'm not supporting Hamas. I think they're terrible. But I also understand why a lot of Palestinians will support them, in the face of "we're shooting people queuing for water, we're blocking aid so babies are starving to death, and if anyone says anything then we cry anti-Semitism and invoke the Holocaust".

I don't believe in Israeli good intentions anymore, if ever I did.

How do you square your version of the 'Israeli' position with the fact that 80% of Israelis surveyed want a ceasefire?

What the general population of Israel may or may not want is one thing. What the Israeli government is doing is quite another, and since they're the ones sending in the IDF to shoot people looking for food and water on the grounds of "desperate people didn't patiently form orderly queues and that threatened us with our arms and armour", they're the ones who hold the responsibility as Israelis.

If you don't distribute the aid in an orderly manner, and make sure that it does not get horded by a small number of people, you will also get starvation quite reliably though. I'm pretty confident that if the IDF didn't enforce order, they'd be harangued by international media that obviously they wanted to cause starvation - they just let bandits get away with all the food, how is that supposed to help anyone? Of course they will just eat some part themselves, hord another, and then sell only a sliver at excessive rates! Probably there would be some conspiracy theory how the IDF is secretly sponsoring and working together with these bandits, too, and/or even profiting off of them.

Israel always gets this super-agency where even if they help distribute aid among an hostile populace they need to make sure that everything goes perfect and if not it's obviously their fault, while palestinians get zero agency assigned, where even if roving bands actively try to steal aid it's just desperate people who can't be expected to behave any other way. The only thing which seems to be allowed is to stand by while hamas-sympathizing groups get to distribute god-knows-what (including aid) to hamas centers, which then distribute it further to their own supporters.

And it's not even that I particular like or trust the IDF or the Israelis. Settlers getting away with blatantly illegal conduct is really shitty. But no, obviously, if you try to steal while enemy military distribute aid to your own civilians you're gonna get shot. That's just common sense. Hell, you're probably also getting shot if your own military is distributing aid to its own population and you try to steal.

When you're down to mind reading a whole country, you might as well hang up the argument.

You know, it took a lot to get me to this position, but here I am: yes, Israel wants the Gaza problem solved by having them disappear. Deported out of the country if possible, but dead works too.

Settlers running amok and nobody stopping them

You know there's no settlers in Gaza, right?

He’s talking about the recent incidents that have been occurring in the West Bank.

So basically conflating events happening in 2 completely separate countries at this point.

The more I think about it, the more it is clear to me that there is no great way to handle this crisis. Israel can't just march in and put a flag in the center and say "war's over, pick a leader". The USA tried that in Afghanistan, and it worked for a while, but the old regime was just waiting for their chance. If a regime doesn't care about its populace at all, what can you even do to it to draw it out and kill it? It's like natural selection created the most toxic paradigm possible. I think it will be very hard to starve Hamas to death without starving everyone else to death, too, unless you "ethnically cleanse" the populace by moving them into camps where you can ensure they are all fed safely.

Weirdly modern war might make peace less likely. I’ve been thinking about this theory recently. Many past major compromises, treaties, peace deals etc all benefit from having a well known, somewhat trusted individual who can both negotiate and then sell it to their own people after. Who negotiated peace after the Revolutionary War? Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay. Many such cases, a definite Great Man Theory thing. But Israel and other modern states are in the habit of killing any famous leaders who begin to pop up before they get famous. Thus, no one left to bargain with. Afghanistan, Iraq too.

I think it will be very hard to starve Hamas to death without starving everyone else to death, too, unless you "ethnically cleanse" the populace by moving them into camps where you can ensure they are all fed safely.

You can't do that either; Hamas will be in the camps.

If they're in camps, then the guards control what comes in and what goes out. Basically harmless except for his ideology, and I now see the problem you've pointed out. It's even worse than I imagined writing that comment. It seems there really are no ways for Israel to solve the problem that would be acceptable to anyone involved or anyone watching from afar.

Try not rounding up the civilian population into camps, or shooting people rushing forward for food aid because they're starving. It's amazing how not being stormtroopers helps shift the views of the people on the other side.

Yes, I said stormtroopers. I don't think the IDF is behaving in an honest fashion. I'm hearing news reports on our national broadcaster every morning about what's going on in Gaza. Unless you want to convince me every single one of the people, the doctors, the volunteers, the journalists, the UN observers, interviewed on those reports is secretly a Hamas mole, horrible things are going on and Israel is doing them.

I don't have a problem with people being against camps or shooting people. But I do have a problem with that when no alternative is brought up. The "ceasefire now" folks totally miss that all of this cycle will just repeat when the next terrorist attack happens, and the previous equilibrium with the checkpoints, the rocket attacks, and the kids throwing rocks at the checkpoints was not a stable one. What is your take on what should happen with Israel and Gaza?

The "ceasefire now" folks totally miss that all of this cycle will just repeat when the next terrorist attack happens

The mistake is thinking this is a bug, rather than a feature of this way of thinking for these people. I don't think I'm being overly cynical when I say that most self-described Palestinian supporters don't want peace, they want a war where Hamas is winning. "Ceasefire now" is only a slogan that gets brought up when Israel has the military advantage.

Try not rounding up the civilian population into camps, or shooting people rushing forward for food aid because they're starving. It's amazing how not being stormtroopers helps shift the views of the people on the other side.

They tried that. It resulted in a constant series of rocket attacks topped by the 10/7 invasion.

Hamas probably does not have track of all the hostages.

Are the Israeli lives more important than the lives of the Gazan children or not?

Because at this point the Israelis are holding the children hostage too.

If you are the Israeli government, then yes, the lives of your citizens are more important than the lives of an adversary. That's what it means to be a nation-state.

Same for the US. I would expect the American government to prioritize the lives of Americans held abroad above the lives of citizens of enemy - or even of third party neutral - countries.

That's what it means to be a nation-state.

A Palestinian doctor has warned: "We are out of options, and we are running out of time."

Dr Salha, working at the al Awda Hospital in northern Gaza, warned of the dire circumstances they said the hospital was operating under.

Salha said: "We used to care for 200 women and children a day, now it's over 2,000.

"We simply can't cope. Malnutrition is devastating mothers and newborns.

"We're seeing a sharp rise in caesarean sections, miscarriages, and babies born underweight."

Salha warned they were running out of vital supplies for newborns, and that their own staff were surviving on just one meal a day.

"Three colleagues collapsed in our emergency department last week due to hunger, while working around the clock to care for patients. This is a humanitarian catastrophe," Salha said.

Sorry, newborn baby, you are an immediate threat to this poor defenceless country and have to be crushed before you can attack it. But it's okay, that doctor is really a secret Hamas plant and he's lying about it all.

So is this British doctor. Everybody is lying, it's all Hamas propaganda, and Israel is totally blameless and only wants the chance to create a nation where Arabs, Christians, Jews, secular or whomever you are, wherever you are from, are all equal citizens and cherished by the nation as its people.

Wow, it really sounds like that doctor should call for Hamas to surrender. Unconditionally, even. Has he?

Or is he a regular member of his death cult, like the old women in Palestine who weep with joy that their children were killed trying to murder Jews?

I feel like, especially in this community of mostly atheistic high decouplers, that everyone posting on this topic should have to specify if they grasp the concept of what true belief in a warrior's afterlife would entail.

You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.

I have two options:

(1) Everyone in the world is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. There is no starvation, no Israeli blockades, and the hard-core Zionists who want an ethnically Jewish state for an ethnically Jewish people are just lined up waiting with bouquets and gift baskets to hand over to the Palestinians once they take control of Gaza.

(2) Maybe, just possibly maybe, the IDF are fudging the truth about what they are doing and the Israeli government is being hands-off in hopes that the problem will solve itself - no need for a Palestinian state when there are no more Palestinians (be that 'encouraged forcefully to emigrate to other countries or dead of famine and disease').

I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible. But when people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about their politics. Even the most obnoxious hair-dyed queer tranny activist, if they were literally starving to death, I'd say "help them" and not "hur-dur, they should have picked the right side in the political fight". Stop people dying of starvation first, worry about rooting out the terrorists second.

What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".

Even the most obnoxious hair-dyed queer tranny activist, if they were literally starving to death, I'd say "help them" and not "hur-dur, they should have picked the right side in the political fight".

You are kinder than many people here.

Both things can be true. Hamas apologists can be lying about the extent of hunger currently and the actual risk of famine, and the IDF can be fudging the truth and the Israeli government might be foot-dragging food aid in hopes that hunger will put more pressure on Hamas and weaken resistance.

I'm skeptical that Israel's plan is literally to have hundreds of thousands of dead bodies littering Gaza as they die of starvation.

You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.

Is it really such a stretch for people in this community to believe that a collection of NGOs staffed by the usual suspects who are the source of 100% of the information coming out of gaza might bend facts a bit?

Yes, when the people telling me "you know, these are the Usual Suspects" are falling over themselves to lick Israel's boots.

Ignore those photos of starving people, it's all photoshopped by Hamas and their Western stooges!

You know, right now I'm listening to the news on the radio and it's another interview with someone about what is happening in Gaza.

I have two options:

(1) Everyone in the world is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel.

No, everyone who is in your curated source of news is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. Or is dumb as dirt and don't realize they're patsies for same.

But when people are dying, I don't give a flying fuck about their politics.

That's not how war works, or ever has.

No, everyone who is in your curated source of news is a lying liar who loves Hamas and wants to obliterate Israel. Or is dumb as dirt and don't realize they're patsies for same.

Reporters. Doctors. Independent charities. People on the ground. All lying shills for Hamas, while the saintly IDF forces are just misunderstood bunnies.

My news isn't curated, unless by that you mean "someone turns on the radio set to the national broadcaster station at work".

I'll say this for present day Israel, they've really successfully ridden the "any breath of criticism is anti-Semitism, are you a Nazi who wants to Holocaust us all over again?" wagon to get people blindly on their side.

More comments

That's a lot of words to not specify if you've ever spent even 30 seconds considering the rammifications of a sincere belief in a warrior afterlife paradise.

On a very related note, the NYT just walked back their expose on the dramatic starving kid. Apparently they never bothered to check any of the details, just believed what his mother said at face value. In the new reporting he "suffers from a “muscle disorder” for which he receives specialized nutrition and physical therapy." and has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder”.

I think Hamas are terrible and should disappear if at all possible.

And yet you believe everything they say, even though they blatantly lie all the time and have for decades. Good grief man, look at the extreme disparity between those two strawmen you constructed up there.

What I'm reading on here is awfully like all the commentary about problems in red states, with gleeful gloating about "natural disaster/economic crash serves them right for voting for Trump".

No, it's not. Military action you deliberately provoked by acting like Dark Eldar is not "bad luck" now matter how much mindkilled Manichaens want to think it is.

In the new reporting he "suffers from a “muscle disorder” for which he receives specialized nutrition and physical therapy." and has “cerebral palsy, hypoxemia, and was born with a serious genetic disorder”.

I wonder if this is related to the Muslim penchant for cousin marriage.

No, I don't believe what Hamas says, because it's not Hamas saying it. We very much have Israeli government sources saying stuff. We also, since I don't live in America, have voices from other parts of the world saying things.

Sorry, newborn baby, you are an immediate threat to this poor defenceless country and have to be crushed before you can attack it

Correct, this is what a democratic theory of sovereignty means and has always meant since the French revolution at least. If the people are responsible for empowering their government, then if a country aggresses, the people are responsible for that too.

If you don't want your people to suffer the consequences of war, don't start one. It's really not complicated.

May you all live under the same conditions as the benign and beneficent rule of the IDF. After all, you're not trouble-makers so you'll be fine, won't you?

I suddenly feel a need for the cursing psalms.

Psalm 10

10 Why, O Lord, do you stand far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?

2 In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor;
let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised.
3 For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul,
and the one greedy for gain curses[a] and renounces the Lord.
4 In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him;
all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
5 His ways prosper at all times;
your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
as for all his foes, he puffs at them.
6 He says in his heart, “I shall not be moved;
throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.”
7 His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression;
under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
8 He sits in ambush in the villages;
in hiding places he murders the innocent.
His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;
9 he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket;
he lurks that he may seize the poor;
he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10 The helpless are crushed, sink down,
and fall by his might.
11 He says in his heart, “God has forgotten,
he has hidden his face, he will never see it.”

12 Arise, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand;
forget not the afflicted.
13 Why does the wicked renounce God
and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
14 But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
that you may take it into your hands;
to you the helpless commits himself;
you have been the helper of the fatherless.
15 Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
call his wickedness to account till you find none.

16 The Lord is king forever and ever;
the nations perish from his land.
17 O Lord, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear
18 to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

I'm not ruled or mistreated by the IDF if I'm not an eternally intransigent and violent Palestinian - or any one else for that matter.

I'd expect somebody to apply a boot to my throat if I acted up a fraction of what Palestine does, regardless of my moral certitude and the justness of my cause.

There are no American hostages being held by Hamas:

https://www.ajc.org/news/meet-the-two-american-hostages-still-held-by-hamas

There appears to be two American citizens who were fighting in the Israeli military who were killed on October 7th.

The last living American hostage was released in may of 2025, over a year and a half after being taken. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/05/12/middleeast/israel-hamas-edan-alexander-release-intl

That isn’t the claim they’re making.

The United States supports Israel militarily. There are no US hostages being held. It is not in the interest of the United States to support the starvation of gazan children regardless of how many Israeli hostages Hamas allegedly has.

The comment was making an analogy that if what happened to Israel on October 7 had happened to America (eg across the Mexican border), the US would react a certain way. I’m not sure how this relates to American hostages in Gaza.

The war situation has developed not necessarily to Gaza's favor.

About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.

There are several parallel subthreads already discussing to what extent the starvation actually affects Hamas, and you choose to ignore them and instead post this Twitter-level dunk.

About as insightful a comment as "Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet" would have been about Oct 7th.

Except that's a meaningful statement - "the acts of war undertaken so far have been insufficient to compel a favorable political resolution" - just glibly phrased.

Neither will Israel starve Gaza into releasing the hostages nor will Hamas rape Israel into recognizing a free Palestine. Nor were either Nazi Germany or the UK ever going to bomb each other into submission.

Both phrasings imply that there is some level of suffering at which point the other side will give in, that the cruelty is instrumental to achieve another terminal goal. While this might even be technically true (i.e. once the last Gazan starves, nobody will stop the IDF from retrieving the bones of the hostages) I think that the implication "and we already have made progress into making the other side give in" is simply false.

In reality there is no clever terminal goal for which starving Gazans or murdering Jewish civilians is an instrumental stepping stone, so we can conclude that the cruelty is itself a terminal goal.

Neither will Israel starve Gaza into releasing the hostages nor will Hamas rape Israel into recognizing a free Palestine. Nor were either Nazi Germany or the UK ever going to bomb each other into submission.

And yet Germany was starved into submission in WWI, Japan bombed into submission in WWII, Tigray starved/bombed into submission in Ethiopia, etc.

Both phrasings imply that there is some level of suffering at which point the other side will give in, that the cruelty is instrumental to achieve another terminal goal.

Yes, it is a truism that war is politics by other means.

While this might even be technically true (i.e. once the last Gazan starves, nobody will stop the IDF from retrieving the bones of the hostages) I think that the implication "and we already have made progress into making the other side give in" is simply false.

Your strawmanning aside, that's a nice hunch you have there - a shame if someone were to...test it.

In reality there is no clever terminal goal for which starving Gazans or murdering Jewish civilians is an instrumental stepping stone, so we can conclude that the cruelty is itself a terminal goal.

Blind assertion without evidence. It's quite clear that murdering Jewish civilians is envisaged as an instrumental stepping stone to "liberating" Israeli territory for Palestinians - Hamas and other Palestinian organizations openly say so. And it's not as if there is any shortage of Israeli press squabbling about the blockade, food aid issues, and what the ultimate political program that Israel should be pursuing w/r/t Gaza is (downstream of "10/7 can never happen again" of course), none of which you discuss or cite.

I think Hamas is suitably different enough that you can't really compare starving their people to the blockades of Germany or Japan. Hamas and other terrorist groups consider human suffering and death to be a good thing because of their religion. There may be no upper limit to how much death they will tolerate.

In light of this, I don't really know how you solve the Hamas problem. Maybe stop letting aid in and then also give everyone guns to turn the whole thing into a Syria-esque clusterfuck and hope the people solve the Hamas problem themselves? Is that why clusterfucks like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen happen?

"Eh, they are not 'free Palestine' raped yet"

If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil. The fact that Hamas' power is limited to terrorizing a few unarmed civilians and then scampering away in impotent terror when the real soldiers show up is, itself, the problem. The fact that they're too weak to have any chance of victory is the reason why their futile war crimes are so heinous. It's one thing to commit a necessary evil in order to liberate your people from oppression. It's another, much worse thing to commit a pointless evil just for the sake of doing it.

As Talleyrand once said of another act of self-destructive violence against civilians: "It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

The fact that they're too weak to have any chance of victory

I'm sure the USA thought the Vietcong were too weak to have a chance of victory. Or the British/Russians/USA vs their flavor of Afghani opposition.

I do actually agree with you in this case, but it's kind of a funny claim to make when we have no idea how this ends.

Anyone making confident calls about any of the insurgencies I listed above partway through ended up very wrong.

I'm sure the USA thought the Vietcong were too weak to have a chance of victory.

And the viet cong didn't win. The north Vietnamese Army did, yes, eventually, against South Vietnam(not the US; the USA had actually withdrawn after assurances that North Vietnam would respect the sovereignty of the south and then chosen not to intervene when they predictably broke that promise), but not the viet cong.

Or the British/Russians/USA vs their flavor of Afghani opposition.

Of course what actually happened was getting tired of propping up the local puppet government and withdrawing to leave it to its fate, which was to get overthrown by militant groups which had consistently lost to the imperial army.

Your enemy giving up and leaving is winning. It's a shitty way to win because you have 0 initative, but you still get what you want in the end.

I do actually agree with you in this case, but it's kind of a funny claim to make when we have no idea how this ends.

Of course we have an idea of where this ends. The Palestinian aim to drive the jews, every one, out of the region and the Jews will not leave willingly. It can end with the Palestinians somehow accepting the Jews existing in the region or one side killing the other. Those are the options.

Agreed.

I predict both sides will refuse to understand this and the cycle of violence will perpetuate for our lifetimes

Both sides of the conflict clearly understand this. It's only third parties who do not.

The Viet Cong didn't win, the Americans got tired of fighting and gave up. The Viet Cong never landed a single boot on American soil. There was never any question of the Viet Cong conquering America. In the sense that the Palestinians are too weak to conquer Israel, the Viet Cong were too weak to conquer America.

The difference between Hamas and the Viet Cong is that Hamas has invaded Israeli soil and killed Israeli civilians. The Israelis can't get tired of fighting and give up like the Americans did in Vietnam. If they could, they would have done it already. Hamas and its various sister organizations like Hezbollah will continue to attack Israel until one or the other is annihilated. Ergo, the Israelis have no choice but to continue fighting.

The Viet Cong didn't win, the Americans got tired of fighting and gave up

That is winning. It's a shitty unglamorous way to win, but they accomplished their objectives, and America did not. The Americans could have stuck around and stamped them into oblivion with unlimited political will, but they didn't have it, so they left.

Ergo, the Israelis have no choice but to continue fighting.

I agree but also don't. Money and political will aren't infinite, they'll have to pull back and scale down eventually. The only way this really ends-ends is genocide, and they can't do that, so they'll have to give up eventually.

They can pull back, but they'll be fighting again when Hamas starts another war in a few months or years. There is no losing interest and giving up against an enemy that threatens your homeland.

If the Viet Cong had done 9/11 we would have turned their jungle into a parking lot.

Yes exactly

Hence my opinion that the Israeli strategy is bad because it's inherently unsustainable and also profoundly not going to resolve anything.

he Americans could have stuck around and stamped them into oblivion

My understanding is that the Viet Cong was stamped into oblivion in the aftermath of Tet, and American was defeated by the North Vietnamese, who didn't actually need the Viet Cong given the complete failure to build a South Vietnam that the South Vietnamese were willing to fight for.

Sure

My knowledge of the Vietnam war is shaky at best. My point is that insurgencies can win just by surviving and running out the clock

If Hamas had the military power to actually accomplish this, that would make their actions less pointlessly evil.

As I understand it, the original conception for Oct. 7 was a surprise Hamas break-out, coupled with a simultaneous large-scale Hezbollah offensive, would pincer Israel and overwhelm its local defenses, potentially sufficiently to spark sympathetic uprisings in the West Bank or among Israeli arabs as well.

Notably, the Hezbollah component of the attack didn't happen, and good for the Israelis that it didn't because in terms of raw numbers of fighters and weapons, Hezbollah had a lot more than Hamas (prior to Operation Grim Beeper and collateral airstrikes, at least).

Even without Hezbollah, it was very close to major disaster. The Hamas units were not supposed to be stopping to pillage the kibbutz on the Gaza border, they were supposed to be going from army post to army post and wiping them out all the way to the Palestinian Territories. Which if they had maintained their offensive time tables they very well could have, since the IDF units in the area were terribly unprepared and badly disciplined. Fortunately local police units were much more vigilant and trained for this scenario, and they did a good job slowing down the Hamas special forces units that actually were pushing forward. There was one road intersection that the IDF and police narrowly managed to hold on to, if they hadn’t the only line for reinforcements to get into most Southwestern Israel would have been cut.

Even without Hezbollah, it was very close to major disaster

This is such funny hand wringing. What major disaster? 1000 more Israeli's die (that would suck sure)?

How are a bunch of dudes in pickup trucks and paragliders ever, EVER going to credibly threaten one of the most sophisticated armies on planet earth? Yeah they'd do more damage, it would take longer to root them out sure. But airplanes and tanks > ak's and pickups, it was always going to end like this.

"Omg Hamas almost overran Isreal" is straight melodramatic bullshit. Even if the whole gang pitched in Isreal would have won, it just would have been more like Yum Kippur and less like every other middle eastern insurgency wack-a-mole

How are a bunch of dudes in pickup trucks and paragliders ever, EVER going to credibly threaten one of the most sophisticated armies on planet earth?

You say this like we didn't just have the Afghan war, with the US military fighting dudes in pickup trucks and with AKs and jerry-rigged IEDs.

Also, Israel is tiny It's literally about 9 miles wide from the border to the sea at one point, and it's only 20 miles from Tel Aviv to the border. How many people with AKs running around Boston would it take for the whole city to freak out and panic?

You say this like we didn't just have the Afghan war, with the US military fighting dudes in pickup trucks and with AKs and jerry-rigged IEDs.

And the USA shit stomped them with an insane k/d ratio until they got bored and left. Dude's in cars with AKs are a nightmare but can't do much against a modern army.

How many people with AKs running around Boston would it take for the whole city to freak out and panic?

Not many, but I'm talking existential risk here, not "makes everything fucking awful for a week before dying"

Afghanistan is instructive only in the fact that it shows that weak occupations will not be successful. If you are arguing using Afghanistan as an example, the only logical argument is that Israel should be more brutal, allow in less aid, bomb every building they have credible intelligence houses a Hamas agent, etc, etc. In short, if you are referencing the failure of Afghanistan, the most logical argument vis-a-vis Israel becomes that the US should authorize total war, a blockade of all supplies, and a creeping artillery barrage until nothing is left.

If that is not what you think is a good idea, perhaps use some other example.

If a thousand more Israelis died on 10/7, Gaza would be a smoking, burning crater.

It's not hyperbole to say that Israel has no strategic depth. The distance an American drives to say, Walmart (10 miles) is further than Israel is at its narrowest width. Even a scrappy band of jihadis with no air cover can hold such a small band for a few days. With hostages? Indefinitely.

Israel doesn't get a chance to make a mistake, while its enemies only have to get lucky once to do significant damage.

No disagreement here. They could cause a lot of damage sure. Israel is crazy fragile.

But Israel has a lot of heavy gear. They'd win after a few days if they weren't worried about hostages (which in this scenario, they'd allow them to be collateral damage, I would)

I’m sure this is an opinion that will manage to piss off everyone for different reasons, but I think the IDF is highly overrated, both historically and in its current form. It’s basically what the Russian Army would be like if they had never fought in Ukraine or Afghanistan or Chechnya, and were 1/20th in size.

Their technological achievements are mostly in the field of air defense and certain high-impact intelligence operations, both of which are genuinely impressive but aren’t necessarily going to help in an October 7th kind of situation, especially when the command and communications systems have completely broken down.

I actually don't know a ton any them so I'd love to hear why?

Their air dominance over Iran was pretty gangster though. SEAD is not easy.

More comments

if that had happened, they probably would've triggered 'Grim Beeper' (nice name) early, and it would've turned Hezbollah's army into a mob with guns

still would've been bad for Israel, but I suspect not bad enough that they'd lose.

I doubt it; IIRC the beepers were used to "call up" Hezbollah members for service. If Hezbollah was already engaged in an all-out invasion of northern Israel as envisaged/desired by Hamas, there likely would have been no need to use/carry the beepers after the fighters had assembled and gone into combat.

Notice the discontinuity with your comparison.

Hamas invaded Israel, committed a bunch of war crimes, and now has no method nor seemingly intention of feeding their own people. Which apparently is Israel's fault?

You're comparing Hamas' crimes to their incompetence, and in so doing illustrating my point.

Which apparently is Israel's fault?

When they're the ones blocking all routes and all aid in, yes.

Does Gaza produce anything besides death cultist mouths to feed?

Not so much anymore since the mass destruction of buildings and orchards, and the intentional destruction of water sources.

Your comment is as ridiculous as wondering why a prisoner who is locked in a cell requires food being brought in, and can't just grow his own food, when any attempt to create a mini-farm, would be destroyed by the guards.

Even prisoners still produce toilet wine. Gaza seems to have been a total economic basketcase going back decades.

Toilet wine is not agriculture. It's a mere conversion of one food stuff to another, and doesn't produce nutrients. Toilet wine is made from food given to the prisoners by the guards, so it's a very poor argument in the context of food self-sufficiency of Gaza.

Keep in mind that Gaza is a desert region, so farming there is not easy. Especially since Gaza lies at the sea, so you have salt-water intrusion into the ground water. And the various disruptive behaviors of the Israeli settlers and government goes back for decades, which makes it a lot harder to farm. The area is also heavily overpopulated, in part due to the Israeli policy of taking ever more land from the Palestinians. The population density of Gaza is slightly smaller than of Hong Kong, so it is effectively a city state. It is not reasonable to expect much agriculture with that level of population density.

Gaza seems to have been a total economic basketcase going back decades.

Do you really think that it is reasonable to expect anything else given the conditions during those decades? For example, Israel never allowed Gaza to build a harbor so they could trade with other nations. If you were in charge in Gaza, how would you create a healthy economy?

More comments

Hamas invaded Israel, committed a bunch of war crimes, and now has no method nor seemingly intention of feeding their own people. Which apparently is Israel's fault?

Israel was blocking the delivery of aid, and after begrudgingly letting some through they were shooting at people going from and to the distribution points. Yes, both of those are their fault.

If you think the two cases are asymmetric, the better difference to observe is perhaps that the Israeli government routinely engages in war crimes against Palestinians, whose relation with Hamas is between hostile and resigned for lack of better options, while Hamas routinely engages in war crimes against Israelis, who have a broadly voluntary and enthusiastic relation with their government. The average Israeli seems to deserve suffering for the Israeli government's crimes a lot more than the average Palestinian deserves suffering for Hamas's.

(And lest we go there, history did not start on Oct 7 2023.)

I don't think you know what a war crime is.

Potshots at civilians picking up groceries is a war crime.

That seems to depend on who is making the judgment, and whether the 'potshot' is an unguided missile launched at civilian population centers (which happen to include grocery stores, and maybe a few valid military targets) or IDF forces firing at what I assume they deem (validly or not) 'suspicious' actors seeking to steal or disrupt humanitarian aid distribution.

Neither really brings joy, though.

Palestinians, whose relation with Hamas is between hostile and resigned for lack of better options... Israelis, who have a broadly voluntary and enthusiastic relation with their government

According to polls of Palestinians conducted between October 31st and November 7th, 2023, support for Hamas stood at 76%; for the Al-Aqsa Briagades at 80%; for Palestinian Islamic Jihad at 84%; and for the Al-Qassam Brigades at 89%. In 2023, Netanyahu's approval rating among Israelis stood at 47%.

Also, a lot of the ones who don't like Hamas dislike Hamas for not killing enough Jews. This is a twenty Stalins sort of dislike. "Doesn't like Hamas" doesn't mean "is more peaceful than Hamas".

Israel had 86.5% favourability for the IDF last year, seemingly up to 93% now but I'm only finding paywalled articles. Unfortunately there are rarely polls that measure trust in the system of government modulo the parts that it allows the public to influence (since favourability for the Netanyahu administration would more accurately correspond to something like favourability of the current Hamas leadership).

Given that IDF service is mandatory for everyone except the haredim, asking an Israeli about their opinion on the IDF is literally "do you like yourself and your neighbors?" - not terribly meaningful, or a useful reflection of Israeli opinion on state policy.

Don't people generally have a "Support the Troops" mentality even if you disagree with what the leadership is doing with the troops?

I imagine that it gets even more so when everyone and their brother spent time in the IDF when they were young.

That's a fair point.

  1. No nation at war has ever been required to feed the opposing army's solders (obviously if taken POW, not the central case) or allow the opposing army's soldiers to be supplied with food by a third party
  2. The enemy army controls the area in which the populace lives
  3. The enemy army will seize the lion's share of food aid for their own soldiers, even if requires shooting their own people to get it

That's pretty much it. You can spend hours looking up historical practice around sieges, I don't know what else you expect to find.

Sounds simple but comes across as a bit ignorant of the facts.

2 is kind of wrong. The IDF controls a ton of the territory, and I think if it wanted could make that 100%. This from April says they control over 50% and its way more now.

3 also ignores the biggest and most universal problem of all armies: logistics. Hamas barely even counts as an army anymore, they are full on hiding. When was the last time they launched an offensive action? It happens but is rare. 456 in two years is not a lot. Most of them are IED deaths like the linked example. Sometimes you get ambushed. Here is a recent one. 5 soldiers killed. They were attacked by under a dozen Hamas members.

There are two million people in Gaza. Civilians! Hamas is in some sense more like a rounding error. Let that sink in. Some math here about Israel can’t make up its mind about how much Hamas is left, but not much… unless they recruit starving people which they will obviously. Thus no clear end state.

However the point I want to make more was about your claim 3. Hamas will indirectly obtain aid. But directly? By force? Seems doubtful for a group in hiding. Logistics! If the IDF were to try seriously, they could distribute food to civilians themselves. And if so Hamas could hardly take large amounts without being noticed. In fact most of the hard reporting we have indicates that gangs, here formed somewhat as a mutual survival pact, are the ones stealing some food, when it happens!

And let’s call it like it is. I’d say 20k Hamas are left on the high end like IDF sometimes thinks, and 2 million civilians, that’s literally 1 in 100. If 100 hostages are barricaded somewhere with a gunman (who isn’t even trying to kill them, just human shields), do you starve the 100 because maybe 1 will get some food? Obviously not. The wartime thing is an excuse and doesn’t fit the facts on the ground overall. It’s literally not a siege, what’s the last siege you heard of where the besieges control three quarters of the city already?

If it's really 100 hostages to each Hamas, I'd have long expected actually-starving Gazans to bum rush every gunman then immediately declare a total and unconditional surrender.

Then again, that's kind of the core problem. They're hungry, but they're not actually "surrender hostilities and return the hostages"-hungry.

So aggregate action is always harder than individual action. If the IDF offered food and a trip out of Gaza for the family of anyone who accurately reported Hamas hiding spots I bet they would win fast. Also the people are some degree of starving, so it makes fighting harder, and they may not have the weapons or chance to fight effectively at all. (Could some hungry Gazans really do better than the IDF at killing Hamas?) If Hamas is bunkered down in literal bunkers and tunnels, you can’t do shit even if you have a mob. Still the point remains that they are ultimately civilians and should this be treated like bystanders and in an ideal world as equal value as humans, like any other human.

Despite in some sense being victim blaming (it’s a toxic relationship, everyone is at least a little toxic, Hamas can be monsters and Gazans can be victims both) if we look at surveys support is dropping albeit slowly. But over focusing on the Israeli hostages is probably a poor framing since most seem to believe giving up the hostages would do nothing to stop the war. In fact a large number oppose disarmament because they think it wouldn’t stop the war either (distrust, basically). Thus fatalism is on the rise in Gaza (martyrdom is shrinking interestingly and isn’t the majority view). To be fair when asked if they would evict Hamas to stop the war, this was interesting to me, it’s still like 2/3 no and 1/3 yes. So I think it’s fair to blame Gazans to some extent absolutely yes.

If the IDF offered food and a trip out of Gaza for the family of anyone who accurately reported Hamas hiding spots I bet they would win fast.

I expect just as many Hamasniks would take the offer and report on some random guy too.

Still the point remains that they are ultimately civilians and should this be treated like bystanders and in an ideal world as equal value as humans, like any other human.

Of course. Just like the civilians at Nagasaki.

The core part of my entire set of posts is that we have to stop letting Hamas victimize those civilians. And the main way they are doing do is by continuing to fight a war that's so insanely lopsided and been like that for decades without even a shred of a path towards victory. Continuing to fight a hopeless war is fundamentally immoral. It's one thing to imagine civilians making sacrifices (even of their lives) to fight a war with some tangible victory condition. It's quite another let them make completely pointless sacrifices.

But over focusing on the Israeli hostages is probably a poor framing since most seem to believe giving up the hostages would do nothing to stop the war.

I mean, I agree. What would stop the war is an immediately and total surrender of Hamas and all their forces, just as in Japan.

If the IDF offered food and a trip out of Gaza for the family of anyone who accurately reported Hamas hiding spots I bet they would win fast.

Knowing where Hamas are hiding has never been the IDF's problem. It's been trying to target Hamas members while causing as little collateral damage as possible, given that Hamas invariably hides among large clusters of civilians. But for something closer to your example, the Israelis have for almost a year been offering $5 million to any Gazan willing to return a hostage (I assume helping to return a hostage carries a similar reward). As far as I'm aware, they've had no takers.

No nation at war has ever been required to feed the opposing army's solders (obviously if taken POW, not the central case) or allow the opposing army's soldiers to be supplied with food by a third party

Doesn't Israel claim sovereignity over the area? This isn't "they won't feed foreigners", this is "people are starving within their claimed jurisdiction" which I think plenty of countries have been blamed for in the past. A pretty significant chunk of Mao and Stalin deaths were starvation in their own territory after all.

They do not. They even removed Israelis from it in decades past.

But even if they did, the fact that Hamas controls it at this moment would mean that they are not responsible. A nation is responsible in humanitarian law for areas that one actually controls, not for areas that it makes normative claims.

For example, the ROC isn't responsible for Mao's starvation even though they still (remarkably) claim they are the sovereign government of all of China.

Doesn't Israel claim sovereignity over the area?

No, they do not.

I don't think they recognize any state's claim to the territory, do they? I guess that's not completely unprecedented, but I think in practice it is for populated territory.

I believe Israel recognizes the Palestinian Authority's claim, but they don't recognize the PA as a state.

Even with that, the PA doesn't really control Gaza anyway.

Yes, but recognizing one entity's claim to a territory that another entity controls isn't unprecedented at all.

Amazingly enough, what is permissible conduct in wartime has varied greatly based on tech levels. "So after we won, we killed all the males and forced the women into marriages with us" was SOP a few thousand years ago, yet today it would be considered a war crime. For millennia, the sacking of cities involved the looting, murder and rape of civilians for the crime of living in a city which had not surrendered.

Before railroads were a thing, food logistics were often a big operational factor. The only way to move a large army to the land without them starving was to "forage", which meant sending out looting parties to nearby civilian settlements to steal their grain supplies and likely condemn them to starvation. Sieges fall into the same time.

But civilization marches on. Wartime rape is considered a war crime. Food logistics are not a big issue in most contexts. International humanitarian law recognizes that starvation is no longer a valid weapon of war.

Most damningly, just about nobody believes that starvation is effective against Hamas. If for every kid which starved to death, a Hamas militant also starved to death, I would grudgingly grant you that this might be a better way to defeat them than bombs. Instead, Hamas is not affected by starvation at all, because where they are in control they will obviously take what food they want. "Join Hamas, feed your family" is probably a great recruiting tool. Assuming they have food stashes, you would have to starve most of Gaza to death before the shortages will really affect them.

Starvation is a bit like firing a machine gun towards a Hamas militant hiding behind dozens of rows of Gazan kids. While you might claim that the actual goal is to hit the Hamas guy, it is very predictable that all your bullets will hit the kids and be stopped long before they reach the baddie.

"Join Hamas, feed your family" is probably a great recruiting tool.

So is "hey your baby/sister/mom/friend/polycule member starved to death in your arms, want to blow up the people we feel are responsible?"

International humanitarian law recognizes that starvation is no longer a valid weapon of war.

Indeed, which is why Hamas should stop starving the populace of Gaza.

Hamas, as the governing body (such as it is), is the one obligated to provide for their own people's food. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that feeding Gaza is the job of literally anyone else on the planet except the actual people who are responsible for doing so.

No one actually considers Hamas to be the actual governing body of Gaza at the moment. Why on earth would they be responsible (under your contradictory logic)? To say nothing of the fact Gaza wasn’t self sustaining food wise even before the war, or the fact that Israel controls the borders. Common sense clearly says Israel is the de facto group responsible. Who does Israel themselves recognize as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip? At the moment only themselves. They certainly have no problem ordering around the populace (and they have, many times, see the various evacuation orders at a minimum)

Because they are the folks with guns that have a near-monopoly on violence. Or at least were on 10/6.

Who does Israel themselves recognize as the rightful government of the Gaza Strip? At the moment only themselves.

No, they have been casting about for a responsible government for years.

Look at Northern Ireland. The greatest recruiting campaigns for the IRA were when the British Army did something stupid and cruel.

If you're a Palestinian, your choice is between "Trust the Israelis and the IDF, the same IDF targeting hospitals, the same IDF shooting kids collecting water. Or Hamas, who may be sons of bitches, but they're our sons of bitches".

I don't think the limiting factor for Hamas is recruits or manpower. It's not a binding constraint.

Meanwhile, the Japanese didn't have any trouble trusting the US even after we obliterated an entire city, hospitals and all. Or maybe they didn't trust us but realized that when one starts a war, one takes the chance that they will lose and be conquered, at which point they wouldn't have a choice one way or the other.

All the Japanese had to trust is that if they kept on we'd keep killing them until they surrendered, were all dead, or at least mere remnants scattered through the countryside with all the cities and industry destroyed. And that the alternative of surrender was better than that. And they were right -- the US didn't have any more nukes at the time so it would have taken more time and US lives than they may have thought, but they had no winning scenario at that point.

Gazans either think they can win because of some outside force making Israel back down to the point of ceasing to exist, or they don't care -- they prefer fighting uselessly against Israel to the alternatives. And given that the demonstrated alternative was living in Gaza, being fed by the UN and still being able to shoot rockets over the wall from time to time, that's pretty damned dumb. If they'd been willing to actually stop shooting rockets and stirring up trouble in Egypt, they'd have done better than that. But they aren't.

the US didn't have any more nukes at the time so it would have taken more time and US lives than they may have thought

Groves thought a third bomb would be ready to drop on Japan a week after Nagasaki and could be dropped as soon as weather permitted after that. Even after the surrender, the next bomb was still ready by the end of August. After that things slow up a lot for the next year, from an expected rate of 3 accelerating to 7 bombs per month down to only enough plutonium cores for a bomb every month or two, but I'm not sure if that's because of unexpected difficulties or just because they declined to ramp up production after their expected target finally surrendered.

Hamas, as the governing body (such as it is), is the one obligated to provide for their own people's food. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that feeding Gaza is the job of literally anyone else on the planet except the actual people who are responsible for doing so.

I would say that it is not Israel's responsibility to feed the civilian population in Hamas-controlled territories. However, they are obliged to let in humanitarian aid. From my understanding, Israel's refusal to let the trucks in is why Gaza is starving, not because the international community is unwilling to buy food for Gaza.

If Hamas were to burn food as it enters Gaza, then you would be correct to say that Hamas is starving Gaza (but my model of them says they would not actually do that).

Likewise, while you can blame the Soviets for much starvation, you can not blame them for the starvation during the siege of Leningrad. That blood is on the hands of the Nazis who decided not to let any food in.

Israel has been asking the UN to send the trucks in, it is the UN who has been refusing to do so as long as the Israelis are the ones distributing it.

Please forward me a link to that. I'm hearing that the Israelis do things like deliberately route aid convoys the long way round and into territory where they will be ambushed and robbed, and similar fun things like that. Oh those wacky Zionist boys, such a sense of humour!

What I'm hearing is the Israeli ambassador claiming this, and at this point I don't believe one word out of any Israeli officials, not even "water is wet". They pulled their ambassador out because apparently us here in Ireland are so anti-Israel or pro-Palestine, maybe that's why their army is shooting at our diplomats. And our peacekeeping troops.

Okay, maybe I believe the words of the likes of this Israeli minister, because he's not pretending about what's going on:

Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu said Thursday that Israel is advancing the destruction of Gaza, and that the Strip will be made totally Jewish, drawing outcry among opposition politicians and eventually from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself.

“The government is racing ahead for Gaza to be wiped out,” Eliyahu told Haredi radio station Kol Barama. “Thank God, we are wiping out this evil. We are pushing this population that has been educated on ‘Mein Kampf.'”

Eliyahu said that Gaza will be cleared for Jewish settlement and that Jewish towns won’t be “fenced in inside cantons.”

“All Gaza will be Jewish,” he said, though he clarified that Arabs who are loyal to Israel will be tolerated.

“We aren’t racists,” the far-right Otzma Yehudit politician added. “We are fighting those who fight us.”

Eliyahu also denied that Gazans are not getting enough food, calling it a campaign against Israel, but noted that the country was at war and trying to kill “these monsters.”

“There’s no hunger in Gaza,” he said. “But we don’t need to be concerned with hunger in the Strip. Let the world worry about it.”

I mean I can give you links, but they're all going to add up to "Israeli official says they're not stopping the UN" so I don't think that will do much for you, since you are unwilling to believe anything an Israeli official says.

The AP:

Israel says it doesn’t limit the truckloads of aid coming into Gaza and that assessments of roads in Gaza are conducted weekly where it looks for the best ways to provide access for the international community.

Col. Abdullah Halaby, a top official in COGAT, the Israeli military agency in charge of transferring aid to the territory, said there are several crossings open.

“We encourage our friends and our colleagues from the international community to do the collection, and to distribute the humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza,” he said.

An Israeli security official who was not allowed to be named in line with military procedures told reporters this week that the U.N. wanted to use roads that were not approved.

He said the army offered to escort the aid groups but they refused.

The U.N. says being escorted by Israel’s army could bring harm to civilians, citing shootings and killings by Israeli troops surrounding aid operations.

MSN:

Former Israeli spokesman Eylon Levy ultimately accused the UN of “unforgivable negligence” in its actions preventing food from reaching Gaza.

“The failure of the UN aid mechanism in Gaza is truly catastrophic. 600 trucks’ worth of food the IDF is urging the UN to pick up. I saw mountains of pasta, lentils, hummus, cooking oil, sugar, and flour,” he wrote on X, accompanying a video of him walking among aid supplies.

For its part, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said trucks traversing Gaza have to contend with traveling through an active war zone, along with hoards of desperate people rushing to get the supplies, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

Criminal gangs have also previously attempted to ransack the vehicles as they enter the Strip.

“Taken together, these factors have put people and humanitarian staff at grave risk and forced aid agencies on many occasions to pause the collection of cargo from crossings controlled by the Israeli authorities,” OCHA said in a statement last week.

Interesting that the AP claims the UN doesn't want military escorts because it could bring harm to civilians, while MSN gives us the UN claiming they can't send their aid in because their trucks might be ransacked by gangs. So which is it: do they not want an escort because of potential civilian harms, or are they saying they can't do it without an escort because they'll get robbed? It seems to me that they just want the new Israeli aid organization to fail so that they will let UNRWA back in, and any excuse to keep aid out of Gaza is good enough to blame on the Israelis.

I don't believe the Israelis. After all this time, I don't trust them, I don't think they're honest, and how they are cracking down (not) on the [settlers](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c776x78517po0 who are literally and not metaphorically shooting people reveals their actual preferences, not what they're saying.

I'm going to light my hair on fire here, but Israel is imitating how Germany decided to deal with its 'Jewish problem': can we get any foreign country to take them off our hands? No, nobody wants a bunch of these guys because they are trash? Okay, let's solve this by taking their property, confining them in sequestered areas, and then shipping them off to camps - for their own protection, of course.

More comments

Does Hamas control anything at this point, in the sense that I could go to an office and talk to my local boss to get something?

If it is damning of anyone it is damning of the Hamas militant. I do not recall any Western warrior mythos that would permit a warrior to hide behind children. At most it would happen once before the warrior realizes that the enemy is actually not bluffing, and then comes out to fight.

Guerrilla warfare certainly isn't uniquely Western but is positively viewed and admired. Most Americans seem to have broadly positive views of the Viet Cong, whose calling card was using innocent villagers as cover.

Most Americans seem to have broadly positive views of the Viet Cong, whose calling card was using innocent villagers as cover.

"The Vietname war was a mistake" is a common sentiment among Americans, but "the VC were good guys" is not.

Okay, maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but Westerners don't have a problem with guerrilla tactics if it's their side doing it.

There is a moral universe of difference between ambushing patrols in the jungle versus using your children as human shields, or holding a gun to the stomachs of your own pregnant women to threaten your enemy into compliance. The latter in particular literally assumes that your enemy is morally superior to you.

or holding a gun to the stomachs of your own pregnant women to threaten your enemy into compliance

Ironically, the set of people that's less likely to work on are also the set more likely to believe pulling the trigger in that case would be ending two lives.

I do not believe that "Americans who think positively of Viet Cong" and "Americans who know Viet Cong's calling card was using innocent villagers as cover" are sets that overlap too much.

It isn't necessary to starve Hamas, merely to deprive them of money. Hamas's allies in the various NGOs and aid organizations help them steal most of the food that comes into Gaza, far more than they can eat themselves. They then sell that food to the starving civilians at high prices, which nets them millions of dollars to fund their war effort.

Israel is under no obligation to help the UN finance a terrorist organization.

There is no exception to the requirement to let humanitarian aid through if your enemy uses it to gain a financial advantage.

Also, I doubt that the average Gazan has a lot of savings which they could pay Hamas by now, and Hamas certainly has other ways to extract any resources from the Gazan population. For example, they might require a donation to be exempt from human shield duty. Also, flooding Gaza with food (to the degree that NGOs are able to provide it) would likely collapse the food prices in Gaza and cut out that stream of resources for Hamas.

Realistically, most of the funding of Hamas probably comes from Iran anyhow.

Flooding Gaza with food would lead to Hamas taking it all, selling it to Gazans, and destroying that part that they can't sell.

It's not as if having excess food means that the food goes to people who need it. Hamas is just as capable of taking excess food as they are of taking necessary food.

I am not aware of any requirement that would need an exception to be made. Allowing neutral actors to provide humanitarian aid to civilians is one thing. Allowing hostile actors to aid and abet active combatants is something else entirely. As a credible case has been made that this falls under the latter rather than the former, I don't think there is any international law that actually requires the Israelis to do anything.

As a rule of thumb, international agreements never require states to do anything that would be to their strategic disadvantage. If they did then no state would ever agree to them in the first place. That's why they only ban weapons that are too impractical to actually use, like mustard gas and bioweapons. Nobody would ever seriously suggest banning stealth bombers or cruise missiles, because none of the states that have those things would ever agree to stop using them.

As a rule of thumb, international agreements never require states to do anything that would be to their strategic disadvantage. If they did then no state would ever agree to them in the first place.

Indeed, even the Geneva Conventions generally say things like "if your opponent makes use of this for their advantage, it loses protection under these conventions in that instance". They really wanted to discourage people trying to gain a strategic advantage by breaking the rules and hoping their opponent was too moral to then ignore said rules.

Instead, Hamas is not affected by starvation at all, because where they are in control they will obviously take what food they want.

That's exactly why Israel needs to do it: it is impossible to prevent civilians from starving because Hamas takes all the food. Israel taking the food affects only Hamas (although there are plenty of civilians to point to, who will be starved regardless of what Israel does but who can be blamed on Israel.)

Starvation is a bit like firing a machine gun towards a Hamas militant hiding behind dozens of rows of Gazan kids

Which you may have to do (at least to the extent of getting blamed for killing them). Hamas hiding behind civilians and forcing Israel to kill them, or to look like they're trying to kill them, has been a ubiquitous tactic already.

it is impossible to prevent civilians from starving because Hamas takes all the food.

Pretty much no one was starving to death before Israel implemented more stringent aid restrictions this March.

Almost everyone claiming that Gazans are starving now has been claiming the very same thing since the war started.

There's been widespread malnutrition and hunger of course, but few actual deaths directly from starvation until recently.

Again, everyone (apart from you) claiming that people are dying of starvation now has been claiming this since the end of 2023.

I thought Gaza has been continuously starving for 40+ years. I was told this, anyways. Despite the massive population growth.

Gaza pre war had an obesity problem. I don't think anyone was accusing them of being underfed.

The aid organizations were helping Hamas and had to be stopped regardless of whether they were also providing food.

I'd also ask just how much "pretty much no one" is and how many are starving now. Hamas is known to have used food to control the people even before October 7, so I do not believe "nobody used to be starving".

In a coincidence of timing, I've spent much of the day going through the telegram channel "Palestine English News Updates" (gazaenglishupdates) in another round of my continuing effort to locate video of the alleged mass murder of civilians. Content in the channel is only very rarely blurred, so if any of you plan on opening it, be warned: it contains extremely graphic images and video. I found a single video of the moment an individual was shot, and none depicting the moment where a group was shot at or attacked with explosives, but I relied entirely on search terms, and in a channel going back to Oct 23 that has 10K images and 20K videos, that's plenty of chances for me to miss one or several hundred.

What I didn't miss is the plentiful video and images of starving children. While the cause might be up for debate, that children are starving isn't. It's intuitive anyway: not easy to feed people in a warzone, the only food is coming in from the outside, people and especially children are going to die from malnutrition and starvation.

Israel might not "intend" (apply as heavy caveat to that as you wish) for civilians to starve, but starvation walks hand in hand with war and death. They knew it would result from the start, and it is strictly true that if the IDF stood down and withdrew, fewer people would starve. Should they? Good luck finding an impartial answer to that.

You do realize you're watching curated propaganda designed to outrage and pull heartstrings, right?

How are images of the facts on the ground curated propaganda? Is reality propaganda at this point?

They're definitely propaganda. "Propaganda" means "everything that does and doesn't exist." If you disagree, you are wrong, or worse, a linguistic prescriptivist.

Jokes aside, "images of facts on the ground" can be misleading. A camera was placed in a location at a time, and the camera produced photographs. Why was it here and not there? Why snap a photo now and not then? To expose what's in the frame? To distract from what's outside the frame?

Not saying anything about the object level.

Whenever I try to figure out how mad I should be about this I do my best to translate it to a local Western frame.

If Canadian native peoples crossed the border, raped and murdered a bunch of US civilians at Burning Man, dragged hostages back to Vancouver and the Canadian government was like "lol get fukt America u r settler colonialists" I would absolutely support blowing the shit out of them until every native was dead or captured and every hostage was returned. If every Canadian starves to death as a result, well that sucks but they should consider revolting against their own government if they have a problem with that.

We're responsible for our people and I will be furious if we fuck around at all with bringing them home.

Looking at it this way makes me sympathize with Israel so much more.

The funny thing is we don’t have to play hypotheticals. 9/11 and Afghanistan is right there! Did it just not occur to you or what? Seriously.

Thousands killed in a terror attack check; popular rage against the terrorists check; death to America attitude check; hiding among the local population check; local population supports them check; even that their society kinda sucks, check. What did we do? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but what else? Did we engage in a war of annihilation to destroy all Afghans? No. No! We gave them a shitton of money to rebuild stuff, tried mostly to avoid civilian deaths, helped them set up a new government for themselves, tried all sorts of education and policy interventions, lots of stuff! Okay later we tortured some people but look at how we treated the general population.

What has Israel done? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but then destroyed not just some poppy fields but functionally everything. Have they tried to set up a new government? Worked with the people? What’s the plan? Oh yes, the most recent plan: “let’s pitch a bunch of tents somewhere and move them all into the tents”. That’s it. That’s the whole plan. To say nothing of the starvation, it just doesn’t compare.

Certainly in practice the US in a similar situation didn’t say “screw it, too hard, just kill all the Afghans”.

No! We gave them a shitton of money to rebuild stuff, tried mostly to avoid civilian deaths, helped them set up a new government for themselves, tried all sorts of education and policy interventions, lots of stuff

I mean Israel has done this too over the years, It tried to create a government for the Palestinians in the PA through the Oslo accords. You need to extend the Afghan analogy. All of America's, much larger, neighbors would need to explicitly support the Taliban. You have to remove the Ocean separating the countries so that the Taliban can plausibly be in any city in American in under an hour if not held at bay. You need the aim of the Taliban not to be to kick Ameicans out of Afghanistan but actually out of all of America or preferably kill every last American. The existential threat is pretty important, America could always have just left Afghanistan, that's just not an option for Israel.

That’s fair to an extent. I think it hews much more closely to the history of the West Bank though. Also, how much has Israel tried to do anything real with the PA in recent decades, let’s be honest, not much at all. My understanding of the timeline is the nation-building was decent for the first five years or so but the Second Intifada, Camp David failure, and re-occupation in 2002ish wiped it almost all out, both trust and infrastructure, to fitfully restart a bit again for a few years, until Bibi 2.0 around 2009. Basically as soon as he showed up it went into a permanent stall/holding pattern at best, and Bibi’s preference was deliberately for a weak PA, so if anything state unofficial policy has been to undermine the PA where possible. That’s been the status ever since, for 15 years or so now. I should also note that the few years immediately before 10/7, this was especially noticeable (eg the PA was ignored in the Abraham accords). For fairness we should note 2009 is also when Abbas began clinging to power undemocratically.

The Gaza situation is a bit harder to parse. We follow a similar trajectory but with more radicalism and less autonomy and more violence on both sides (not equipped to discern scale but I think in this time some assassinations took place). Until the increasing violence, withdrawal, and 2006 elections with Hamas getting a plurality followed by a swift 2007 civil war overthrow. I think with respect to the analogy, for Gaza the clock on the analogy basically restarts there: a failed and violent state with religious extremist terrorists in charge, a total war of annihilation, occupation, all the things I compared.

So for West Bank you’d be fairly accurate in saying nation-building was tried (and the relative stability of West Bank is probably owed to this!) but for Gaza I think the Israelis need to seriously consider a similar game plan as the US.

Well in Gaza Israel pulled out their own settlers and things only got worse. I'm not sure I understand what the American Afghan informed model really looks like. They did try to have the PA control Gaza, the Gazans voted for Hamas and then Hamas ended elections. The US was able to drive the Taliban into the mountains separate from the main population where they could try their nation building. You could describe what Israel is doing now as the part where America drove the Taliban out but rather than separate mountains the Hamas compounds are endless miles of tunnels under Gaza itself so you can't actually achieve this separation. I'm basically at a point of pessimism on the topic, even in the more favorable Afghan situation the Americans with even more security failed to do what you're suggesting Israel should do, this just isn't going to work any way you slice it.

Afghanistan is not Gaza though. The entire population was relatively indifferent to us. They're also on the other side of the planet, not next door neighbors constantly threatening our security. The Taliban also offered to surrender OBL almost immediately after we invaded and they didn't take a bunch of US civilians as hostages.

What did we do? Bombed the shit out of them yes, invaded yes… but what else? Did we engage in a war of annihilation to destroy all Afghans? No. No! We gave them a shitton of money to rebuild stuff, tried mostly to avoid civilian deaths, helped them set up a new government for themselves, tried all sorts of education and policy interventions, lots of stuff! Okay later we tortured some people but look at how we treated the general population.

Would you say that this strategy was successful?

Depends how you define success. Kabul was doing kinda okay for a while. And important for our context here, we didn’t genocide or ethnic cleanse Afghans, nor do anything proximate. I feel okayish overall about it. They ended up deciding they preferred Taliban rule by revealed preference basically, and we did, eventually, greatly reduce (some would even say completely eliminate) international terrorism from that region, which was the original goal. There isn’t a high enough degree of depraved bad actions that we would want to intervene.

Israel still looks terrible in comparison. Not that it’s a perfect comparison, but it’s pretty great compared to the tortured examples otherwise found in this subthread. Again, Afghanistan is right there as an example, why reach?

I feel like you're also approaching this from the assumption that the Canadian attack is an unprovoked sucker punch against an innocent America. In which, yeah, fuck them.

How would your feelings about this change if America was on its 20th(ish?) year of controlling Canada's borders, the country was absolutely destitute, and America kept pushing the border further into Ontario? Also I guess in this metaphor America is also pumping the water out of the great lakes as fast as they could, regardless of how many Canadians used it to drink.

Further continuing this absolutely tortured metaphor, how much responsibility do you assign to the roughly 50% of the population who if I remember correctly, is under the age of 20? These children were born into a world of shitty poverty, have absolutely no freedom to leave their shitty poverty city, and are profoundly aware that the reason they can't have nice things is the hostile mega-power that gets to decide things like "how much food and medicine they get on a monthly basis". They're propagandized too by Hamas sure, but the Isreali's don't exactly make Hamas propaganda job hard.

In some ways, Isreal has developed Gaza into one of the world's foremost Jihadist factories. I have a hard time imagining a setup that would radicalized young people born into it better than the current status quo.

We don’t have to imagine fake Canadian history, we can imagine real American history. Let’s say tomorrow the Navajo decide they’re done being the white man’s bitch and attack the Grand Canyon with smuggled Iranian weaponry. They kill about a thousand people and take a few hundred tourists hostage. The entire white population of the Navajo reservation is evacuated. Twitter is overflowing with clips of Navajo warriors doing the ghost dance over the dead bodies of raped American girls. Big Chief Leaping Antelope declares no surrender until the entire Colorado basin is free of American influence. Bands of raiders take potshots at towns across the Southwest. Dozens of American troops are killed or wounded every week during the attempted occupation by ununiformed partisans blending in with the population.

You know exactly what would happen next, the same thing that happened to all the other tribes who refused to accept American sovereignty.

Totally

I don't blame the Israeli people for being mad. I just don't think disproportionate violence is okay, even if provoked

I understand why everyone feels how they do, but as the peanut gallery I'm pointing and judging

I just don't think disproportionate violence is okay, even if provoked

Is there a (consistent) way to win a war without disproportionate violence? If you're better at fighting than your opponent, you will inflict more violence upon them than they do upon you (and if you're fighting in enemy territory/homeland, their civilians will suffer more than yours).

You're right

I struggle to call this a war though. It's insurgency whack a mole with a sprinkling of ethnic cleansing

There's no ethnic cleansing.

"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area"

I'd say we're basically there

More comments

The American government sponsored multiple real life cross-border terrorist attacks into Canada. The Fenian Brotherhood was pretty well behaved towards civilians but they did kill dozens of Canadian soldiers.

Now put the situation in the greater context of what the UK/US did in the founding of Israel, the wiping out villages, the absolute inhumanity of the IDF in the Intifada towards the Palestinians and the fact half the western world decided to back Israel to fuck everyone in the region. And you just might start to consider when they say From the River to the sea, they might have a point.

I'll go a bit further: if Hamas were white evangelicals wearing MAGA hats, rather than brownish Muslims, a large amount of the people claiming Israel is doing warcrimes would be calling for the IDF to take its gloves off and turn the land into a parking lot.

This is true, but by the same token, a lot of people wringing their hands over the poor Palestinians being ethnically cleansed, if it was another Arab nation doing it would not give one single fuck.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

And if the debate centered around how people's views of your aunt depended on her belonging to a specific outgroup, such as women, whether or not she had balls would be pretty relevant.

Israel may do what it pleases (as is the right of a sovereign state) but it doesn't necessarily follow that Israel should be given tens of billions in supplementary US military aid, on top of already existing military aid. I don't accuse you of calling for this but Israeli strategy can only sensibly be considered in context, just like how one can't look at Hamas or the Houthis as sole actors. $18 billion in just one year, more since then. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-military-aid-for-israel-tops-17-9-billion-since-last-oct-7

America and to a lesser extent Britain are enabling Israeli strategic incoherence, providing air cover and munitions. If it weren't for US munitions the Israelis would need to wrap things up quickly because they would not be able to prosecute this extended, bizarre campaign.

What is this military aid buying? It's buying enemies in the Islamic world, it's depleting Western arsenals of air defence missiles. Years of THAAD and SM-3 production down the drain defending Israel. In the short term these air defence missiles are priceless, there's no capacity to quickly ramp up production.

It makes no sense to send aid to Gaza so they can survive and send munitions to Israel so they can kill them. Better to do nothing at all.

It's buying enemies in the Islamic world

Ah yes, enemies.

It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq. The horrifying pictures of the massacre of Qana, in Lebanon are still fresh in our memory. Massacres in Tajikistan, Burma, Kashmir, Assam, Philippines, Pattani, Ogaden, Somalia, Eritrea, Chechnya, and in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place, massacres that send shivers in the body and shake the conscience. All of this and the world watch and hear, and not only didn't respond to these atrocities, but also with a clear conspiracy between the USA and its' allies and under the cover of the iniquitous United Nations, the dispossessed people were even prevented from obtaining arms to defend themselves. The people of Islam awakened and realized that they are the main target for the aggression of the Zionist-Crusaders alliance. All false claims and propaganda about "Human Rights" were hammered down and exposed by the massacres that took place against the Muslims in every part of the world.

We can see that Osama Bin Laden was pretty upset with Israel. It, amongst other things, motivated him and he caused no small amount of trouble for the US and the West in general. How many new Bin Laden's are going to emerge from this current episode?

America and to a lesser extent Britain are enabling Israeli strategic incoherence, providing air cover.

If such aid was not given and this was signaled well in advance, do you still think they would need to wrap up quickly, or could they just have spent more on military and gotten the same result?

Israel is a small country, and they can only afford spending this much of their economic power on military before they would start looking like North Korea. This whole narrative that the aid isn't actually necessary because our allies are strong and can win on their own just fine (but we must urgently Do The Right Thing and send more of it!), seen also in the context of Ukraine, is among the more intellectually galling aspects of Western propaganda.

I dont think Ive particularly seen that messaging, and Im genuinely asking. Obviously Ukraine isnt like that, but Israel generally seems more diplomatically than materially limited. Looking things up now, Israels military spending was about 5% of GDP in previous years, up to 9% last year. US aid was approximately(second chart) at 1%, increased to 3% last year (and presumably continuing for the current conflict). Probably those numbers dont include everything, but thats far from "obviously impossible" territory. North Korea is quite a bit higher than that, and you can see in the first link that Israel was there previously. For another comparsion, support for the former east german states seems to have been around 5% of west german GDP in the initial years.

North Korea has a fairly substantial steel and chemicals industry and a large munitions industry, they have the whole of the warmaking pyramid (save the very top in advanced avionics, aircraft engines and the like). That's what juche is about, self-reliance. Israel just has the top section of the pyramid in advanced manufacturing and R&D. They're reliant on imports of precursor materials and are quite rate-limited in basic things like shells and bombs. Ukraine for instance is a proper industrial power, they have/had a large metallurgical sector.

GDP and dollar figures aren't the right way to look at military production. North Korea is a dollar pygmy but a munitions giant.

There's no liquid market for bombs or shells in the short term, spending more can just raise the price you buy at rather than increasing production. That's why North Korea has been able to provide more munitions to Russia than the EU to Ukraine.

Im not talking about a US thats opposed to Israel. They still give them weapons (and steel/chemicals/whatever), just expecting payment. Im also not necessarily talking about short-term buying, thats why it matters things are signaled in advance, so they can make their own stockpile if thats important.

GDP and dollar figures aren't the right way to look at military production.

The GDP stuff is about the political aspect of the spending. Is there something left from the objection after that? Are NK rockets cheaper to make than youd expect based on quality and local labour costs?

If Israel had to buy its munitions (either in the short term or long term) it would impose more pressure to finish the war quickly, or in general do more diplomacy and less bombing. Easy to spend other people's money or take risks if your friends will bail you out, people are usually more frugal with their own money.

The US also helps Israel with key enablers that aren't really for sale - satellite surveillance, in-air refuelling, electronic signals gathering and B-2 bomber strikes. It would be impractical for Israel to try and replace what the US does for them, they can't afford a blue-water navy to put ships in the Persian gulf and shoot at Iranian missiles from there, nor can Israel really put much pressure on Yemen. Once you have a navy, using it is easy enough but if you don't then getting one is hard.

Israel could establish a stockpile of munitions purchased from overseas but it wouldn't be very economical or reliable compared to domestic production or getting resupplied straight from the US.

More comments

before they would start looking like North Korea

Which is to say, stable and at peace (if an uneasy one) with their neighbors?

I was saying this in December of 2023. If the Mexican cartels breached the San Diego/Tijuana border, killed 40,000 people and kidnapped 8,000, the United States Military would be boots-on-the-ground occupying Baja California, Sonora, and probably Chihuahua within a month, if not 2 weeks.

and if the Mexican government objected, it'd probably only take us another 2 weeks to be in Mexico City.

Yes this is indeed actually more plausible.

I still prefer my version because it's clear to me I would even be willing to annihilate very white Canadians if they supported something like a 10/07 on America.

The fact that Palestinians are full of jihadis makes them repulsive to me but the basis of my indifference is game theory.

American soldiers wouldn't be shooting innocent civilians, especially unarmed children in the process of trying to obtain food; were they to do so, the backlash would make "Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" look positively quaint.

If Andrew Anglin and his ilk want to convince the normies that Jews are all ethno-chauvinists who will excuse any atrocity committed by their co-ethnics, they'd just point to this thread, where Mottizens hilariously (and mendaciously) insist that shooting kids at aid stations trying to obtain food is completely justified because Israel isn't required to feed Gazans (wtf?!?!?! how does this even make sense to you?)

American soldiers wouldn't be shooting innocent civilians, especially unarmed children in the process of trying to obtain food

Are you really sure about that?

Canadians are (mostly) white though.

So are afghans and Iraqis.

Not white enough for Americans to care all that much about them, no.

I would absolutely support blowing the shit out of them until every native was dead or captured and every hostage was returned. If every Canadian starves to death as a result, well that sucks but they should consider revolting against their own government if they have a problem with that.

We're not going to get to verify this, but I'd be willing to bet this is absolutely not how it would play out. The response would be police, not military, and you'd be called racist for saying that the larger group is responsible for the actions of their people.

The response would be police because the Canadian government wouldn't actually say "get fucked"; they'd track down said native group using both their own resources and those the US provided. A world where the Canadian government would say "get fucked" is one different enough that Canada could indeed be invaded over it.

This hugely depends on the degree of association between the group messing with Americans and the government of the territory they operate off. The Taliban were clearly happy to host Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Quaeda training camps and they got regime changed, but the US was never willing to engage in total war against Afghanistan. Mohammed Atta actually planned 9-11 out of Germany, but nobody supported punitive operations against Germany because he was very obviously operating without the support of the German government and people.

The 7th October attackers were not uniformed Hamas soldiers, but only because they were perfidiously fighting out of uniform. Hamas publicly praised the attacks and boasted about its responsibility for them. That level of involvement is closer to "Japan did Pearl Harbor" than "Afghanistan did 9-11." And the US was absolutely up for total war against Japan after Pearl Harbor.

The default assumption at this point is that Israel is waging a cargo-cult war. They're shooting people, and blockading checkpoints, and bombing suspected targets, but they don't seem to have any coherent goal beyond, "do war stuff to bad guys". They know cutting off supplies to the enemy is good, but they're also scared of the mass starvation that would ensue if they won too much.

If we take as an assumption that Israel knows what they're doing, then it sort of looks like their strategy is to technically let in enough food to feed the population of Gaza, but simultaneously to destroy the institutional infrastructure that would enable actual distribution. That way they can go, "see, we gave them enough food, Hamas was just too evil to give it to their people. They ethnically cleansed themselves," as if effectively rationing supplies to an entire population is no big deal.

That doesn't look like it to me, so why would it be the default assumption?

What it looks like to me is Israel is fighting with two hands tied behind its back. What they, IMO correctly, perceive is that most of "the international community" doesn't want them to win, nor would it tolerate them using META strategies in furtherance of an Israeli victory. So what they end up doing, and we end up observing, is a bunch of tiny motions in the direction of victory that advance the goals of Israel a little bit at a time, while mostly carefully avoiding any dramatic moves in that direction, which would have a high likelihood of generating massive blow-back, even if there was no alternative plausible avenue to generating whatever that strategic gain is/was.

META strategies

I don't know what this is intended to mean. Is META an acronym for something? Or what are "metastrategies" in this context?

Most Effective Tactics Available

I've heard some people in gaming think meta refers to "most effective tactics available." Maybe that?

Why is Palestine entitled to Israeli food? They can't pay for it, and actively stymie distribution of any food that arrives onshore. Thefts are unattributable because Hamas keeps its uniforms only for parades not for enforcement or fighting Israel - which it has largely stopped doing only because its proximate threat is the Gaza clans that now have a chance of fighting for their own slice of the narrow pies.

However you slice it, the governing body of the Gaza refuses surrender yet demands food for its own people from the Israelis it swears to destroy. When Armenia held Nagarno it supplied the enclave, not the Azerbaijanis. Israel ceded occupying power decades ago, yet the Gazans have expected Israeli water food and electricity without any expectation of paying for it even when waging war. If Gazans want to not starve perhaps kicking Hamas out might help.

Why is Palestine entitled to Israeli food?

A combination of "with great power comes great responsibility" and "you break it you bought it".

They're not entitled by default, but given the amount of control Isreal likes to exert over the strip (and who can blame them), they are now de-facto responsible for the outcomes.

If Isreal decided "fuck it, Gaza's borders are open. We're just gonna sit behind the border wall and do our thing, the people of Gaza are free to do whatever" then yeah, I would assign them zero responsibility.

They don't like having rockets shot at them (fair), so they don't do this. But because they chose to do something, they get to inherit the consequences.

If Isreal decided "fuck it, Gaza's borders are open. We're just gonna sit behind the border wall and do our thing, the people of Gaza are free to do whatever" then yeah, I would assign them zero responsibility.

They did do this in 2005 when they removed (sometimes at gunpoint) all the Jewish settlers in Gaza. The naval blockade and walls went up years later in response to the rockets and other attacks. I think this is part of why the Israelis question whether peace is possible at this point: Gaza's government, and arguably it's populace that hasn't overthrown it, supports attacks on Israel, even questionably effective ones, at almost any cost to themselves.

Yeah it's an absolute mess. At this point I honestly think both sides deserve each other. They've built an incredible human suffering machine and now they get to ask wallow in it.

I feel awful for the children though, they didn't choose this.

So when pointed out that Israel actually followed your suggestion, you don't assign them "zero responsibility" as promised, instead you revert to "both sides" and assign equal responsibility.

No?

In 2005 I wouldn't hold them responsible for Gazans starving, because they backed off

In 2025 I do, because they are very much controlling the inflow of goods and also levelling the area/generally wrecking lots of destruction

Why is Palestine entitled to Israeli food?

Well, human rights come to mind. Rather, they're the reason individual Palestinians are entitled to food generally, whatever it takes to get it to them - not Palestine as a political entity, and not Israeli food in particular.

Do those human rights exist if neither side chooses to enforce them?

Hamas has relied on the concept of human rights to win the ideological part of this war. They don't believe in it, but they know we do, so they weaponize it. Western liberals demand Israel enforce this idea of human rights because they are the more capable and, supposedly, moral side. Liberals invoke human rights when it comes to Israel, all while Hamas intentionally holds their own people hostage in order to create a moral dilemma and pit Western countries against Israel. The Stockholm syndrome cannot be denied.

Imagine for a moment if Hamas and Palestinians knew these human rights would no longer be upheld by other countries. Would the majority of Palestinians continue to support Hamas? Maybe they would, and maybe they would rather starve to death or get blown up than cede ground to Israelis. My instincts tell me that a majority wouldn't continue to support them, but then again I'm a Westerner and can't really put myself in that situation. What seems obvious to me though is that the cost-benefit analysis for Hamas continuing their strategy appears much more feasible when you have 3rd parties supplying aid and moral support.

I acknowledge that what is happening to Palestinians is horrible. I don't wish it on any human. However, third party empathy is Hamas' greatest weapon. Israel knows this but Westerners don't, and I do not expect Israel to cave to outside pressure. What this means (and what it has resulted in thus far) is an even more prolonged ordeal, where more Palestinians die and Hamas gains more support from other countries. Maybe this will result in Israel's demise at some point. It's a brilliant strategy by Hamas, but it will come at a great cost because Israel will not succumb to the empathy games directed at the world's liberals. They believe that might equals right and nobody has been able to prove otherwise.

Do those human rights exist if neither side chooses to enforce them?

Well, if you aren't a nihilist, yes. The morally correct course of action remains the morally correct course of action even if nobody implements it. Under most western ethical philosophy, the right thing is under no cosmic obligation to be easily achievable for people who are also trying to secure geopolitical goals. Sometimes doing the right thing for the needy means you risk your own comfort and safety, and that's just the way it is.

We instinctively understand this where individual life-or-death situations are involved, eg running into a burning building. But somehow when we're talking about whole populations, both sides of the conversation pretend that a case that XYZ is the right thing to do also needs to prove it's the advantageous thing to do. No. It's perfectly coherent to say "The right thing to do is to prevent children from starving. It might in fact result in losing the war, but it's the right thing to do anyway. A victory that can only be won by starving children to death through inaction would be morally bankrupt and is not worth pursuing."

It's coherent but you are invoking a moral truth, whereas I am discussing realpolitik. Can you enforce what you believe in? I think not. Will Israel's "morally bankrupt" actions have consequences down the road? Potentially, yes.

Will you convince an entity who believes that their existence is under threat that they are morally wrong if they feel they are protecting themselves? Maybe later, but not in the moment. What can that moral correctness without leverage really accomplish in the moment?

It's coherent but you are invoking a moral truth, whereas I am discussing realpolitik

Perhaps you are, but I think talking about "human rights" in terms of realpolitik is a category error. I was originally springing off of 2D3D asking what entitled Palestinians to Israeli food. "Moral rights," I replied. Your jumping to say 'what are these human rights worth, if no state actually enforces them?' is the equivalent of bringing up gun ownership and effective self-defense in the context of a conversation about whether innocent people getting murdered is wrong.

What can that moral correctness without leverage really accomplish in the moment?

Even if it can't sway Israel (let alone Hamas), it can influences the choices of people on the sidelines ie the rest of the world. Whether we're talking about the big picture of "should America support Israel's war effort even though it results in starving children", or the small picture of "should I, personally, donate to that online fundraiser to send help to starving little Abdul".

More comments

The strategy seems to be based on eroding the power base of Hamas, possibly with a side of forcing Gazans to confront the reality of their situation and their complete military defeat.

Apparently Hamas had previously been seizing food and using it to maintain power and influence by controlling who got what, which the new system pushed by Israel and the US is designed to thwart. This makes sense and seems like it would be effective, so I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas and those aligned with them would do a great deal to try and undermine that effort.

If your military victory left you a completely unruly population that you can't control outside of genociding them and you can't completely genocide them without compromising your military victory then I'm not sure you have a military victory.

Israel feeding Gazan children will create Gazan men and women. Those men and women are raised with a strong sense of having more Gazan children. To that extent I'm not sure if claims by either side of who is trying to starve who are in any way sensical.

The "completely unruly" part is doing the heavy lifting here. The only reason Hamas and the broader Palestinian movement keeps waging its pointless self-destructive war against Israel is because of its quixotic belief that Israel could ever be defeated militarily. As Richard Hanania argues, Israel must crush Palestinian hopes. If the current generation of Palestinian children are raised under the understanding that Israel will never be defeated (and hence they might as well learn to play nice with them and stop being completely unruly), that serves everyone's interests. If Israel can achieve a durable peace in the region without having to resort to genocide or ethnic cleansing, I'm sure they'd vastly prefer that over the alternative.

If the current generation of Palestinian children are raised under the understanding that Israel will never be defeated (and hence they might as well learn to play nice with them and stop being completely unruly), that serves everyone's interests.

There won't be a current generation, they'll be dead before they can leave infanthood. And any who do survive will have learned: you don't have a place here. Israel wants you gone. Not even toleration, they intend to take this land and give it to their people.

You and Hanania are telling the Warsaw Ghetto to just play nice with the German government, then it'll all be okay once they have total rule.

they'll be dead before they can leave infanthood

Are you predicting that literally no Palestinian children in Gaza will survive to adulthood?

If the current generation of Palestinian children are raised under the understanding that Israel will never be defeated (and hence they might as well learn to play nice with them and stop being completely unruly), that serves everyone's interests.

I think that 1) that is totally true and 2) this is profoundly unlikely given the long history of these two peoples and human nature to say "fuck you don't tell me what to do" with a side helping of Isreal being unable to keep its hands to itself re: settlements, etc

We shall see!

I have no idea whether it's a plausible outcome. But it does have precedent in living memory, namely the post-war American occupations of Germany and (especially) Japan. It's not completely outside the realm of possibility.

That's true

Less of a long painful history though.

Also both Germany and Japan had much better cultural scaffolding for bootstrapping back into friendly productive 20th century neighbors.

I would be inclined to agree with you and others as far as peace goes but this is ignoring expansionist ambitions of Israel. Israel wants land occupied by Palestinians. All Palestinians have to do on that front is not leave. To that extent they can win battles and drag the conflict towards a stalemate of sorts.

Then your definition of victory is narrow and unsuited to this conflict, or any other of the many interminable conflicts that clutter up the history books, there are kinds of victory other than those which are absolute or permanent.

Degrading or destroying Hamas reduces the danger posed by Gaza substantially, the remaining population can be as unruly as they like, if they lack the equipment, networks or know-how of how to turn ther discontent into military force then they simply are not a threat, not in the short to medium term at least. Sure they might eventually overcome these shortcomings and become an actual threat again in the long term, but in the meantime Israel can enjoy peace and security, which is absolutely a win.

This all assumes that the Gazans decide that yes, they really are going to learn nothing from this whole experience and just repeat the exact same mistakes that lead to them being bombed flat for 0 gain, which I really don't think is guaranteed. Yes the Gazans aren't going to come out of this experience overflowing with love for Israel, but I can't imagine they'll be very happy with Hamas either, or anyone who has the really bright idea of triggering an unwinnable war over what amounted to a very violent PR stunt. By all accounts Palestinians before the war had a delusional perspective on the conflict and their chances of victory against Israel, vastly overestimating their own population and vastly underestimating that of the Israelis, there is a chance that this conflict might knock some sense into them.

If you need to broaden the definition of victory to include whatever short term gain you allege Israel has now and preclude any longer term concerns then I'm not sure my definitions are the problem.

I mean, the peace and security Israel bought for itself seems extremely hard fought and eerily similar to what they had before. Outside of the Oct.7 attack, which was a defensive blunder, is all the manpower and material spent on this battle justifiable in any sense if we are comparing before and after?

In 2021, there was a singular combat casualty for the IDF. And of the 54 attempted significant terror attacks, there were 3 deaths and 34 wounded. And 2021 seems to be on the lower end of average.

I stand thoroughly unconvinced.

Outside of the Oct.7 attack, which was a defensive blunder, is all the manpower and material spent on this battle justifiable in any sense if we are comparing before and after?

If they didn't fight, it would be October 7 constantly. You are saying that there's no danger, so the military operation isn't needed. But there's no danger only because of the military operation.

If they didn't fight, it would be October 7 constantly.

Well, that's the question. Hamas would certainly attempt October 7 constantly. But "Oct 7 was a fluke caused by an unforced error in the Israeli defense strategy, Hamas did not have the capacity to achieve regular Oct 7-level attacks and Oct 7 itself could easily have failed if Israel had put in a bit more effort" is a reasonable claim.

But it didn't. And once it happens everyone knows it's possible. And now that's the reality both governments have to live in. Just as Israel has to respond if only for domestic reasons, Hamas may also be emboldened.

We're also operating with hindsight about how (in)effective Hezbollah would be here. A situation where Hezbollah is also emboldened while Hamas is still effective and untouched looks significantly more dangerous after Oct. 7.

It sets up strong push pressure for their upcoming "voluntary migration" plans.

Migrating where? Which country would take 2.1 million refugees?

I don't think that is Israel's intention to starve civilians to death, but marely a consequences of how Hamas blatantly ignore international convention of war leading to a lose lose situation for IDF/Gazan civilians, where IDF need to be accused of commiting war crime en masse, and Gazan civilians being stave to death.

While Israel had been criticized for their dubious non-humane military tactics, they seems to still put certain restraint on themselves when it comes to civilians. IDF don't kill civilians for fun, at least not openly.

I think the starvation here, if real, is an unintended consequences of international humanitarian organizations did not put effort to protect their humanitarian resources, leading to Hamas siphoning military resources for free practically.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats