Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Josquius]

We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.

He refuses to condemn Hamas and refuses to condemn the terrorist attack.

At this point the expectation is huge scandal and him being kicked out of the party. Oh no, instead our former prime minister, in a weird Freudian slip, calls him Jamal Hamas in Parliament and tells a lie that his entire family of 35 people have been killed by Israelis. She refuses to condemn his behaviour and claims he is the biggest Hamas opponent in the party, but she cannot name a single thing he has done to combat Hamas.

Why? I haven't seen it proved but the theory is that up to a million Social Democrat voters are muslims and the party fears losing that vote of they go down hard on Hamas supporters.

Sweden isn't the UK and all that. But should be noted "Lefties afraid of upsetting muslim voters that they rely on" is a common dog whistle from the far right in the UK.
Quickly checking up I get total numbers of Muslims in Sweden as between 200,000 and 800,000 so not too different in terms of total percentage to here.

Josq, even if Hamas troops had not personally decapitated or burned little kids it wouldn't make a difference.

Your position is like saying that the IDF holds no responsibility for settlers killing Arabs in the West Bank while they are providing security.
It was a Hamas raid, and they are to be held accountable for whatever took place during the operation.


In any case, we have footage of Hamas commandos storming the rave. You know, the one where they killed a lot of kids and (for example) decapitated and paraded Shania Louk. So no. They are definitely not off the hook.

Why do you think Hamas should be off the hook?

I think you missed him saying "not"

He raised the topic of Hamas being let off the hook which implies he sees there is an argument in favour of this too. It was a strangely worded post.

[Iormlund]

It was the impression I got from reading your posts: "behaved best" "worse than Hamas" "Hamas leadership shock" ...

I guess from your reaction that was not the intended meaning.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.

Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.

[Jacob]

It is clear that Hamas committed horrible atrocities, and there is no letting them off the hook for what they did. Personally, though, I think it's important to understand why and how and to what extent Hamas committed the worst excesses that they did.

Were they planned as high level operational objectives? Were they planned by sub-groups of Hamas? Or were they the acts of individual depravity? That matters because if they were planned by sub-groups, for example, I think it'd be appropriate to identify those groups and target them with extreme prejudice.

By the same token if the atrocities were planned or endorsed by people at a leadership level, or conversely if they were in fact shocked by them, that could be an indication of how the future of the conflict shapes up (because I don't believe it's going to be over in the next few months). Can we expect to see such atrocities as a new normal, or is it possible that Hamas (if they survive, or their successors if they do not) will attempt to prevent such atrocities in the future?

Iran's reaction - for example - seems to indicate that they are not interested in supporting such excess. This does not excuse any of the terrorism the Mullah regime has supported, but I think it is nonetheless worth noting.

[Gups]

We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.

Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.

You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans".  poster.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.

Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.

You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans".  poster.

Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.

[DGuller]

I do always support having a "gradient" in your reactions, usually in the US politics context.  If you don't treat different levels of wrong differently, you relinquish your power to influence behavior of others for the better.  That's why treating a Republican who votes 95% with Trump more favorably than the one voting 99% with Trump should still be done. 

The key is that you shouldn't lose your "zero" in all this, you should still remember that Mitt Romney is still much worse for US than any Democrat, because he still supported almost every measure that is putting US democracy in peril.  By all means regard him better than some MAGA nut, but better doesn't mean well.

[Razgovory]

It is clear that Hamas committed horrible atrocities, and there is no letting them off the hook for what they did. Personally, though, I think it's important to understand why and how and to what extent Hamas committed the worst excesses that they did.

Were they planned as high level operational objectives? Were they planned by sub-groups of Hamas? Or were they the acts of individual depravity? That matters because if they were planned by sub-groups, for example, I think it'd be appropriate to identify those groups and target them with extreme prejudice.

By the same token if the atrocities were planned or endorsed by people at a leadership level, or conversely if they were in fact shocked by them, that could be an indication of how the future of the conflict shapes up (because I don't believe it's going to be over in the next few months). Can we expect to see such atrocities as a new normal, or is it possible that Hamas (if they survive, or their successors if they do not) will attempt to prevent such atrocities in the future?

Iran's reaction - for example - seems to indicate that they are not interested in supporting such excess. This does not excuse any of the terrorism the Mullah regime has supported, but I think it is nonetheless worth noting.

Ian Kershaw is a British expert on the Holocaust.  One idea that he emphasis is the role propaganda played in causing the Holocaust.  I subscribe to this belief and believe something similar can explain the brutality of the Hamas attack.  The people who produce this are partly responsible for October 7th.

[Gups]

We have a minor ongoing scandal here in Sweden where a Social Democrat parliamentarian of Palestine descent is an active Hamas supporter. He's been a speaker at Hamas conferences and has said a lot of dubious stuff, but not anything really direct.

Good thing you're the one who posted this and not me, as apparently I am a "bigoted troll" when I say things like this.

You're a bigoted troll when you say things like "Muslims are pure evil" and Palestenians are "lower tier humans".  poster.

Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.

I thought it was a general comment by Jacob - certainly that's what I intended when I posted since I agree there's been a huge and sickening increase in anti-semitic incidents.

[Jacob]

It's funny (not in a ha-ha way) how Overton window works in contexts other than politics.  Hamas normalized their behavior to the point where a terrorist can say "we're not savages, we'll smother the baby gently, but no way are we going to behead it", and you have to stop and catch yourself from feeling warm and fuzzy at the display of such humanity.

Is that what happened?

My impression from what Yi said is that in that particular case the baby was not killed, because the Hamas fighters in question found baby killing abhorrent. If that is not true, then I misunderstood.

In my view there are moral differences between

• taking every precaution to avoid killing children, but accidentally doing so in the pursuit of legitimate military objectives;
• pursuing legitimate military objectives and being indifferent to the killing of children;
• having the killing of children be a military objective; and
• having the killing of children be a military objective while looking to maximize the suffering and brutality inflicted.

Relatedly, I think there are moral differences between military organizations that

• have rigorous and consistently applied processes to prevent and punish war crimes being carried out;
• have processes that are haphazardly applied to prevent and punish war crimes;
• try to prevent, but do not punish war crimes;
• tacitly approve warcrimes;
• embrace warcrimes as a legitimate tool of warfare;
• actively celebrate warcrimes as a positive, independently of perceived military efficacy.

Hamas killed children during the Oct 7th attack. The IDF has killed a significant number of children recently, and will probably kill more once the ceasefire is lifted. The US military has killed children during its operations before, and probably will again. Russia continues killing children in Ukraine. A distressing number of children are killed in armed conflicts around the world, and will continue to be killed.

If we wish to distinguish between those killings on moral grounds - that some killings of children are less terrible than others - then I'd think we need to apply some sort of framework. Ideally it's one that goes beyond which side committed the killing or how sympathetic we are towards the group the child was part of.

And I think that as new information comes to light it should - if credible - be integrated into whatever moral assessment we make.

[Jacob]

I thought it was a general comment by Jacob - certainly that's what I intended when I posted since I agree there's been a huge and sickening increase in anti-semitic incidents.

Yes to the first part, and agreed on the second part.

[Jacob]

Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.

Exactly.

And when you make sweeping derogatory generalizations about entire countries or "leftists" you are trolling as well. It's not bigoted though.

To be fair, it was a troll comment that spurred my post. The bigoted part referred to earlier actually bigoted posts. Even though they weren't part of the immediate conversation, they still make an impression.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, when I say those things I am being a bigoted troll. But that isn't what spurred that comment--what spurred it was me pointing out rampant and unrestrained antisemitism in the West.

Exactly.

And when you make sweeping derogatory generalizations about entire countries or "leftists" you are trolling as well. It's not bigoted though.

To be fair, it was a troll comment that spurred my post. The bigoted part referred to earlier actually bigoted posts. Even though they weren't part of the immediate conversation, they still make an impression.

The concern I have is that it is not just a "troll".  I understand that has been internet lingo.  But it has become outdated now that the law has caught up to social media.  Denigrating an entire religion is contrary to Canadian law.  I find myself in the awkward position that my silence to those outrageous posts might be considered as condonation.  To be clear, it is not.  I am simply exhausted by the ignorance.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Denigrating a religion is freedom of expression. It should never be prohibited by law, and if Canada prohibits it, Canada is a fascist shit hole and should fuck off.

I'm a firm believer in a free society allowing freedom of religious practice, as long as those practices don't involve any degenerate physical activities that are against the societal good (FGM, animal sacrifice et al.) But I don't buy into the idea that religions deserve "inherent respect."

That is a matter of personal judgment to decide if you respect someone's opinions or not. Religious beliefs are just opinions, they aren't immutable characteristics. I say this as someone who is still religious--my religion is a matter of faith, and calling it stupid or dumb or even evil is and should be 100% protected expression.

The idea we should respect Islam is pernicious, evil, and stupid.

[Valmy]

Especially since we have so many goofy religious cults in the US. Having to treat all of them with inherent respect would be a lot to ask.