Entry 2332, on 2024-03-21 at 12:12:42 (Rating 4, News)
Arguably the most controversial current world event is the war in Gaza. Many people have a short attention span and quickly switch from one issue to another, so Ukraine, and other major conflicts, now have less visibility than before.
Looking at the news, you might think that the vast majority of people support the Palestinian cause in this war, but I haven't seen any credible stats which prove that. As you will know if you read my earlier blog post, "Not Morally Equal" from 2023-10-12, I am fairly firmly on the side of Israel, although I concede they are not perfect.
But many people I meet (I work at a university so I meet a lot of extreme leftists) are on the other side, and use various arguments to support that. Unfortunately, from my perspective, these arguments are both predictable and weak. So I thought I might cover a few of these arguments, and give my response to them here...
Argument: The Palestinians are innocent. Even if Hamas has caused some problems that is not a reflection on the people of Gaza.
Response: Actually, it is. The vast majority of people living in Gaza support Hamas. They help their cause (sometimes they have no choice) and many actively celebrated the Oct 7 terror attack. I don't see them as active combatants, but they are not completely innocent either.
Argument: Israel is an Apartheid state.
Response: Apartheid was a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race. In South Africa, black people were not allowed to vote, to participate in government, and were forced into separate areas. In Israel, Arabs are full citizens, are allowed to vote, and participate in government. In what way is this Apartheid?
Argument: Israel is engaged in genocide.
Response: The Israelis send warnings to civilians before they attack Hamas military sites. They drop leaflets and send text messages advising Palestinians to move to safer areas. This seems like an odd way to carry out a genocide. They also engaged in a risky, focussed land war which has resulted in casualties to their own people. They could have made things much easier for themselves if they were genuinely genocidal.
Argument: Gaza is an open air prison.
Response: The Israelis left Gaza in 2005. The border is controlled because of the constant Hamas attacks. Note that the border to Egypt is also tightly controlled. If Gaza is an unpleasant place to live, blame Hamas and Egypt more than Israel.
Argument: Supplies for Gaza have been intercepted by Israel.
Response: Hamas has used supplies intended for civilian infrastructure to create weapons. Also, attempts to smuggle more advanced weapons in have been controlled. If the supplies need more free access, they should use them for their intended purpose.
Argument: Israel engage in indiscriminate killing.
Response: Israel could be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, but this is war and collateral damage is inevitable. Also, it is acknowledged by all fair commentators that Hamas use human shields and often locate their military posts in civilian buildings like hospitals and schools. This makes avoiding civilian casualties very difficult.
Argument: Israel's response to October 7 is disproportionate.
Response: Israel have declared war, unsurprisingly given the terrorist attack they are responding to. In war your only aim should be to end it as quickly as possible while minimising casualties, especially on your own side. Sometimes an overwhelming force (what is sometimes called "shock and awe") is the best way to complete the military action as quickly as possible. In the end, it is the best approach for all sides.
Argument: Israel has committed war crimes.
Response: I suspect any participant in any war could be accused of the occasional war crime, but if you read through my answers above you can see that if these did happen (this has not been demonstrated to be true) they are isolated and not part of an overall strategy. The war crimes on the Palestinian side, however, are deliberate policy.
Argument: There are massive protests supporting Palestine around the world. Does this not show that most people are against Israel?
Response: I haven't seen any credible statistics on this, so it is hard to say what the reality is. I know the mainstream media, as is always the case, present a warped view of this. I also know that supporting Palestine is the latest trendy issue, and many weak minded people jump on the bandwagon for it. Here's a telling point: when protestors are asked what "from the river to the sea" even means, many of them can't even name the river or the sea, and don't realise it means the eradication of Israel. Most of these protestors are clowns.
So you can see that the arguments being made to support Palestine do not have much merit. A final question: after years of rocket attacks, and after the atrocities of October 7, what choice did Israel really have?
Comment 1 (7615) by Dad on 2024-03-21 at 20:32:42:
An excellent appraisal of the Gaza situation. As far as I am aware the Palestine people in Gaza have placed the Hamas people in power. What really do they expect to happen if they commence to fire rockets at Israel. I think it is very unlikely any suitable settlement can ever be negotiated.There appears to be a deep seated hatred that exists on both sides. It has always been there and it will probably will be there forever.
Comment 2 (7616) by OJB on 2024-03-21 at 21:18:24:
Yes, Hamas placed them in power many years ago, and have never had the chance to remove them since then. What do they expect? Exactly my point. What should Israel have done? Just ignore the terrorist attack and continue to get hit by Hamas rockets? You're right about the deep-seated hatred, but I think it applies more on one side than the other. Well known intellectual, Sam Harris, calls Islam the "mother lode of bad ideas". He's not wrong!
Comment 3 (7617) by Pat Wheatley on 2024-03-22 at 05:55:26:
Brilliant summation of the Gaza situation Owen! Words like 'genocide' and 'apartheid' are bandied about by the cretinous lefty media, and fools believe it... Good to see a rational breakdown for once!! And what do you expect if you take a swing at Mike Tyson....???
Comment 4 (7618) by OJB on 2024-03-22 at 09:05:08:
I think Hamas wanted this response to act as a propaganda tool. They knew the media and the UN would react the way they did and hoped to use Israel's "overreaction" for their own benefit. Basically, they sacrificed the civilians of Gaza for their own religious/political purposes. Israel are far from perfect, but given the situation they found themselves in, I think they acted in the only way they could.
Comment 5 (7619) by EK on 2024-03-22 at 09:59:24:
Since you advertised your opinion/blog post on my blog site, excuse me for putting a section of my post on your blo. Here it is:
There are two fundamentally differently grounded views on the Gaza conflict – which I suppose segue into respective moral viewpoints. Both can somehow be justified with some degree of plausibility. But one is afflicted with intellectual laziness and historical myopia. Its moral perspective does not reach beyond 7 Oct 2023 and a FAFO reaction. The other recognises that the causal roots of the conflict go much deeper, that the issue is much more complex and multi-layered than a simple vicious terrorist attack and a justifiably harsh response. This view demands that solutions have to be found that take into account the complex and tragic history behind the trigger moment. It follows that moral considerations do not stop at whether Israel’s response is proportionate or disproportionate, or morally appropriate given a heinous crime has been committed. It is an urgent call to remove the deeper reasons that chronically and intermittently erupt in violence, once and for all to secure peace (and I don’t mean genocide). As the world opinion – and even strong strains of opinion in the US – begins to comprehend the degree of the catastrophe unfolding one can only hope that in demanding resolutions to the raging war the long and tragic history of Palestine and the complexity of right and wrong are taken into account. The naïve Hollywood-style division into goody and baddy – and the view that Israel is within its rights to respond to terrorism any way it chooses – certainly will not do justice to the issue. In that sense, the mechanistic “verdict” of FAFO is a sad expression of this a-historical shallowness of comprehension.
Comment 6 (7620) by OJB on 2024-03-22 at 11:07:10:
Fair enough, since my post was partly in answer to yours. You seem to be saying that what Hamas has done, and is doing, is justified given their grievances, which you see as legitimate. The history aspect of this can be argued both ways, depending on how far back you go, so I'm concentrating on the current situation to try to avoid getting hopelessly lost in debatable historical events. I did notice you don't answer any of my points. I believe you have used words like "genocide" and "Apartheid" in your material. How do you answer my criticisms of the use of these?
Comment 7 (7621) by Jim Cable on 2024-03-22 at 14:59:06:
Another magnificent effort, Owen !!
I thought I was "well informed" on the issue but you've added substantially to my awareness and perspective. I've supported Israel throughout in that they were attacked without warning, suffered enormous abuse and atrocities and had large numbers of hostages taken, many of whom have since died following abusive treatment and lack of care from their captors.
Those who purport to stand as "pro-Palestine" show themselves to be completely ignorant of history and totally unconcerned with what Israel has suffered and endured for nearly 80 years. The unprovoked October 7 raid was the last straw for Israel, the only possible remedy being for it to completely eliminate the organisation that's caused so much death and misery on Israel's home turf. Hamas' tunnels and centres of operation hidden under hospitals and the like clearly show where so much of the internationally-provided welfare funds have been squandered.
I'd like to circulate this item, Owen - may I do so?
Comment 8 (7622) by EK on 2024-03-22 at 15:42:21:
OJB, I have said enough on this topic in 6 (!) lengthy and well-argued blog posts – ¬ and gladly received your contrarian, unshakeable views (I like a good debate as much as you). You find my answers, implicit or explicit, in there. I really don't want to say more, and leave you happily preaching to the converted. Obviously nothing I could say on this topic would make the slightest impression on you.
But please, I wish you’d stop calling people who disagree with you “leftists”. This is a silly, untruthful and unfounded categorisation.
Dare I say, that if New Zealand (heavens forbid) should ever be occupied, invaded, or colonised by a foreign force, I'd be proud if Kiwis react like Hamas.
Comment 9 (7623) by OJB on 2024-03-22 at 17:46:18:
Jim. Yes, distribute it to anyone silly enough to want to read it! :) I would appreciate that if you copy the text, could you put a link back to my blog (http://blog.ojb.nz) so they can read other stuff, and maybe leave a comment. Thanks.
Comment 10 (7624) by OJB on 2024-03-22 at 17:51:14:
EK. If you could answer the points in this blog post, one at a time, and show where I'm wrong that might make a big impression. I have changed my mind on many subjects, but I just don't find your material convincing. No disrespect intended, I just disagree with you on this one.
The "leftist" thing is a problem, I agree, and I usually don't like simplistic labels like that. I just couldn't think of a better quick way (given that it wasn't really the point of the blog post) to describe the most common political leaning at universities.
Wow, you'd be proud if kiwis slaughtered innocent children, raped women, burned people alive, and took innocent people hostage? You really have gone off the deep end a bit on this!
Comment 11 (7625) by EK on 2024-03-23 at 08:32:11:
I am referring to the indomitable spirit of resistance. In what I say I am thinking of the bigger picture and of Hamas resisting in in any way it can, not giving in. (If I recall, I called it the power of the powerless) But typically, you immediately think terrorism and atrocity when the word “Hamas” comes up because for you this is year zero in considering this conflict, ignoring the long history of grievance, injustice, dispossession, etc.
But now much as I enjoy crossing swords I really must leave you to bask in the admiration of your followers.
Comment 12 (7626) by OJB on 2024-03-23 at 09:00:14:
Yes, it is the old argument that "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". These things are always partly a subjective thing. That's why is it good to debate it and find where the truth lines. And it is almost always somewhere between those extremes, although I believe in Hamas's case it is very much towards the "terrorist" side. As far as "followers" are concerned, read back through many posts her and you will often see disagreement with my views. It is kind of cool being a messianic figure though! :)
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
