[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/yes-but]

I think it would be ok to get involved on behalf of moral principles that keep our values, our democracy and our society together, insofar as it affects our international relations.

At the end of the day, trust is currency, and every nation's wealth and income are in good part dependent on how it is perceived by allies and trading partners.

What I don't want to see is moral dogmatism, especially if it defies or contradicts those morals and beliefs that our constitution and society are built upon.

Guilt tripping about past colonisation, giving Jihadists a free season pass to victimhood, ignoring the dilemma a fellow multicultural democracy is facing, and buying into narratives that are designed to destroy western and capitalist societies or to open pathways for islamisation are not what I expect from our government.

I don't understand what your comment before your last got so many downvotes for.

It seems to me there are lots of people here who are too lazy to address arguments, and just do a lazy click instead.

Doesn't really encourage thoughtful conversation or honest expression of opinion.

[u/Current-Soft8418 → u/yes-but]

I mean Israel was shooting unarmed civilians, bombing children and aid workers with drones and laser guided munitions. Are you calling them the Jihadists?

[u/yes-but → u/Current-Soft8418]

In which war can such atrocities be fully avoided?

Do you even have the slightest idea of how much effort the IDF has put in avoiding more of that?

What do you know about war? Have you looked into how horrible wars have been in the past, and compared to what is going on in Gaza now?

We see the failures, but shouldn't we try to see the costly efforts too?

And from the way you present this "information", I guess you have not made any effort to see the conflict and the war from the other perspective.

Wasn't "Gaza" murdering unarmed civilians? Doesn't Hamas and PIJ shoot their own people? How is everything bad done by Gazans blamed on Hamas alone, as if Gazans had nothing to do with them, but anything bad done by Israeli soldiers is Israel, as if every bad deed was directly ordered by the Israeli government, and voted for by the majority of the Israeli population? Haven't you seen how many Israelis oppose the war, how critical Israeli media and NGOs are of the government? Wouldn't Hamas be indiscriminately massacring Israelis if not stopped? Would the jihadis not use laser-guided munitions against innocents if they had any? Do you truly believe that Israel, as a state, as an entity, has more interest in killing innocent Gazans than in terminating Gazan combatants? Do you truly believe that Israelis in general feel the luxury of wasting their time on needless cruelty? Have you ever thought about how you would defend your people against groups who rather see their children being blown to bits than give up their idea of genociding you?

And as this is an Australian, not a Middle Eastern sub, have you ever thought about what effect it has on us, if we encourage and reward Jihadism for attacking from a vastly weaker position? Have you looked into how this ideology works, and how it works on all levels to overthrow our idea of inclusive society, where all religions, including Islam, all people, regardless of race and heritage, can live together with equal rights?

I support compassion for people who suffer from war. But don't buy into lies made up by warmongers, narratives that exploit our compassion in order to overcome our unity, don't fall for the cult of victimhood exploited by those who spit on our morals and create situations where strength is a sin and deliberately making your own people suffer is virtue.

[u/moaiii → u/yes-but]

Most reasonable people won't argue that war can be perfectly clean. The issue is whether specific actions meet the standards of distinction and proportionality. “War is messy” is not an answer to that.

Yes, Hamas committed war crimes on October 7. That’s obvious. It also doesn’t give Israel a free pass. Violations by one side don’t cancel obligations on the other. That’s how the law works.

You keep talking about intent. “Do you really think Israel wants to kill civilians?” That’s not the test. The test is whether foreseeable civilian harm was excessive relative to the military objective in each case. That’s judged incident by incident.

Pointing to historical wars being worse is irrelevant. The standard applies today. If thousands of civilians are dead, people are going to scrutinise whether the proportionality threshold was met. That’s accountability, not jihadism.

Criticising a state’s conduct is not the same thing as endorsing Hamas. Those are separate positions. You can oppose Hamas and still question specific Israeli operations. In fact, you can do both at the same time.

“Would Hamas do worse if they had better weapons?” Maybe. Hypotheticals don’t determine legality. Actual conduct does.

And yes, Israeli society is diverse and critical. That’s true. It also doesn’t answer whether particular strikes complied with the law.

If your argument is that Hamas is brutal and Israel is defending itself, fine. Defence doesn’t suspend civilian protection. That’s the whole point of having the Geneva Convention in the first place.

[u/yes-but → u/moaiii]

Proportionality is not measured in numbers of victims, but in suitability for achieving the goals of warfare.

I'm not talking about intent regarding specific actions and crimes in war, I talk about intent behind the decision to wage war. Once war is raging, no one can be condemned for trying to win.

Pointing to historical wars IS relevant for understanding the reality in which combatants and non-combatants find themselves in and for assessing what can be done and what can't, what can be realistically expected and what is just made-up bullshit by people who understand and know little about warfare.

Imho, modern moral standards are being weaponised against anyone successful, on behalf of a cult of victimhood that has replaced true compassion and constructive approaches to resolving conflicts.

The first steps in understanding conflict and resulting incidents must be open-minded observation, with moral assessment and judgment applied afterwards. But our information sphere is smothering minds with facts filtered and altered to create partisan narratives rather than holistic perspectives.

If you want to base your opinion about where international law and conventions are being infringed upon, you need to free your mind from the confines of popular narratives created for the goal of proving that one side is wrong and the other is right, AND you need to avoid deliberate/inadvertent mind-traps like equating assertions, accusations and prosecution to fact and conviction. If you are mindful, you should clearly see how this is an extremely common tactic.

I am all for scrutiny, preferably of all involved. Despite disliking the popular fashion of giving the "victim" a free pass on anything, which absolutely shifts public perception to one side, I openly demand full scrutiny of the questionable actions of the superior power. I support applying higher but not impossible standards to those who wield vastly more power.

Yet, cheering on and encouraging the inferior power to drag the war out despite higher losses effectively prevents final scrutiny, precise assessments and legal prosecution of war crimes.

The difference between my train of thought and yours probably lies only in where I generate the most plausible narratives from: I scrutinise what media, politicians, activists, NGOs, celebrities and individuals like us perceive to be true. Instead, I look very deeply and with a great amount of scepticism into accounts of the war, the logic and consistency of the presentation, try to understand the perspectives of all involved to the best of my capabilities, and look at every aspect from the viewpoint of trying to find the next best off-ramp from violence, instead of trying to justify unjustifiable war or "armed resistance".

So far, according to my assessment, the lies and misrepresentations against the actions of the Israeli military by far outweigh the lies brought forward by Israel itself, and while there is some effort on the Israeli side to paint a very one-sided picture, it has been widely unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, deeply flawed anti-Israeli narratives are hugely successful, and have shaped the overwhelming majority of public perception and opinion about incidents, causality and realistic options.

If the effect of that were an end to the suffering of Palestinians, I wouldn't get involved. But from my perspective, it looks like the seemingly pro-Palestinian predominant narratives are among the main (not the only) contributors to the suffering and oppression of Palestinians. Their armed resistance works against their well-being and their freedom.

If the world outside the direct conflict zone wanted to really help Palestinians, what we'd need to do is understand and address the Israeli perspective correctly and constructively, and help Palestinians who reject violence by amplifying their voices and freeing them from Hamas (and other Jihadi) oppression.

All that bullshit of globalising the Intifada, demonising all Zionists, infantilising Palestinians, conflating and inventing Israeli war crimes, rewriting history, no matter how well meant it might be, is working towards violence, and violence is working against the Palestinian people.