On April 18 2026 02:35 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 01:16 PremoBeats wrote:On April 18 2026 00:57 Jankisa wrote:
Israel is not only criticized about it's conduct during war. They are and have been criticized for decades for aggressive settlement expansion, the two tier justice system in West Bank and Israel in general, terrible conditions they are keeping Palestinian prisoners in, sniping of kids and journalists outside of war etc.
They have also been cracking down on protests (semi justified as they are in a state of war and missiles were flying at them at the time), they have been criticized for shutting down investigation in their soldiers raping (with a knife) a Palestinian prisoner, for enacting a death penalty only for Palestinians and so, so much more. The point wasn’t to deny that Israel has been criticized for a wide range of issues. And while some of the claims you mentioned are well-supported, others are disputed or overstated, that’s not what I was addressing. My focus is on the comparison itself. Saying “they’re no better than Iran” implies a level of equivalence that I don’t think is accurate or justified. You can strongly criticize Israel’s policies without concluding that it is essentially the same kind of state as Iran. To be precise, I reject the following premises: 1. That no one in this thread has argued that Israel deliberately tries to kill as many Palestinians as possible. 2. That the available data and described events justify the conclusion that Israel does not care at all about civilians. 3. That Israel and Iran can be meaningfully described as “no different” in the way suggested. This doesn’t mean rejecting all criticism or dismissing the possibility of serious wrongdoing. It just means that criticism should remain proportionate and not collapse into oversimplified equivalence. Be the one that goes with the evidence, like the Israeli government does not do enough to restrain the extremist settlers in both policing and prosecuting, or the IDF fires too freely on perceived threats and doesn't investigate and prosecute strongly the worst cases of it, or the judiciary system is too lenient.
Agreed.
On April 18 2026 05:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 01:16 PremoBeats wrote:On April 18 2026 00:57 Jankisa wrote:
Israel is not only criticized about it's conduct during war. They are and have been criticized for decades for aggressive settlement expansion, the two tier justice system in West Bank and Israel in general, terrible conditions they are keeping Palestinian prisoners in, sniping of kids and journalists outside of war etc.
They have also been cracking down on protests (semi justified as they are in a state of war and missiles were flying at them at the time), they have been criticized for shutting down investigation in their soldiers raping (with a knife) a Palestinian prisoner, for enacting a death penalty only for Palestinians and so, so much more. The point wasn’t to deny that Israel has been criticized for a wide range of issues. And while some of the claims you mentioned are well-supported, others are disputed or overstated, that’s not what I was addressing. My focus is on the comparison itself. Saying “they’re no better than Iran” implies a level of equivalence that I don’t think is accurate or justified. You can strongly criticize Israel’s policies without concluding that it is essentially the same kind of state as Iran. To be precise, I reject the following premises: 1. That no one in this thread has argued that Israel deliberately tries to kill as many Palestinians as possible. 2. That the available data and described events justify the conclusion that Israel does not care at all about civilians. 3. That Israel and Iran can be meaningfully described as “no different” in the way suggested. This doesn’t mean rejecting all criticism or dismissing the possibility of serious wrongdoing. It just means that criticism should remain proportionate and not collapse into oversimplified equivalence. 1. Correct, people in this thread have suggested that. 2. Israel used to care about civilians but in recent years I at least get the feeling that they now care about civilians only in how it affects their image. If no one knows it doesn't matter, if it gets out it still hardly matters. Potential suffering amongst "enemy" civilians seem to be a non factor in the new military planning. Individual cases of abuse or obvious mistakes are either swept under the rug or given a slap on the wrist. And senior Israeli politicians actively encourage that type of behaviour. Also se point 3. 3. Iran and Israel are different as apples and oranges are but they are both still fruit. I'd argue that in when it comes to stoking conflict in the middle east they are on the same level. When it comes to ignoring the plight of other countries and civilians they are also on the same level. Iran funds Hezbollah and the Houthis and helped Assad in the civil war. But Israel has Gaza and has no problem "mowing the lawn" in Lebanon. They actively tried to rekindle the civil war in Syria. They obviously prefer weak and broken states next door and show absolutely no regard to the tremendous cost this incours on those countries. And again, senior Israeli politicians said as much. If Turkey hadn't put the foot down (and Erdogan being buddies with Trump) Syria would be fucked right now. So when it comes to being good neighbours and preventing conflict I feel both countries are about equally horrible. In many other aspects Israel is better than Iran. But those areas are usually not related to the government and Iranian citizens are not their goverment any more than Israeli citizens are.
I am not sure, how you arrive at the feeling that they only care about their image.
The military has comparable numbers to similar conflicts. Israel has implemented extensive warning systems compared to many conflicts, after being hit by the biggest trauma the country ever suffered.
Casualty numbers are in line with usual observations, as casualties in Gaza were extremely high at the beginning (late 2023), then generally declined over time into 2024 - 2025, but never dropped to zero and have shown intermittent spikes rather than a smooth trend. That is completely normal for conflict zones.
I also don't see how you can make the claim that Israel is "actively trying to rekindle the civil war in Syria". Israel openly admits to targeting or carrying out airstrikes against Iranian military infrastructure or weapons shipments to Hezbollah.
This is part of Israel’s strategy to prevent Iran from establishing a military foothold near its borders. I see no broad intervention in Syria’s internal political or factional conflict though. You even had operation "Good neighbour", as many Syrians were treated in Israeli hospitals during the Syrian war from 2010 (which of course, also added to their interest of creating a buffer zone).
And what exactly do you see Erdogan's influence in? My understanding is, that he was mostly involved in Northern Syria, pushing back the Kurds and creating a buffer zone. How do you think that Turkey was countering Israeli influence in any clear strategic sense?
Israel’s observable policy priorities - such as maintaining peace treaties, expanding normalization agreements, and deterring hostile actors - suggest a preference for stable neighboring states that accept its existence. While some analysts have argued that weakened adversaries can reduce conventional threats, there’s no clear evidence that Israel pursues instability in neighboring countries as a general policy.
In Gaza and the West Bank, where this accussation pops up the most, Israel’s security and administrative policies have operated in a context where Gaza and the West Bank are treated as separate governance and security environments. Combined with Palestinian political fragmentation, this has reinforced the division between the two territories, but - as far as I know - there is no clear evidence of a single overarching strategy to permanently divide them.
On April 18 2026 07:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2026 15:00 PremoBeats wrote:On April 15 2026 10:18 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 06:48 Billyboy wrote:On April 15 2026 06:39 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 05:53 Billyboy wrote:On April 15 2026 05:43 WombaT wrote:On April 15 2026 04:12 dyhb wrote:On April 15 2026 02:51 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2026 02:16 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Even an evil tyrant might accidentally improve the conditions and lives around him by prosecuting wars against their authoritarian oppressors for purely selfish reasons. Netanyahu is less than that for wanting a non-terrorist regime to the north of his country with ample weapons and will to kill Israeli civilians in its north. He isn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart for the Lebanese people, nor is it anything but stupid to discount the results based on the intentions.
I think the anti-Israel blame, in some areas well-founded, has erased in the minds of the arguers just how terrible groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and the IRGC and the ayatollahs are for the innocents surrounding them. Israel gets more press simply because the western world has more influence on their actions. Any deal between Israel and Lebanon that creates peace and rids the Lebanese of Hezbollah control of their politics and southern territory is an unqualified victory for the Lebanese people. Anybody with a brain should be desiring that without whitewashing Israel's interests.
What's your strategy to make sure that all of the Lebanese people who lose relatives and friends in this campaign to get rid of Hezbollah don't start feeling hatred toward Israel, hatred that will then be fueled by continued mistreatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and will motivate them to form another terrible group that is bad for the innocents surrounding them and that you will have to kill a bunch of Lebanese people to get rid of in 30 years? I think they'll do a much better job than you at judging Hezbollah's oppression and intentions regarding the Lebanese people. As much as you would dismiss and ignore Hezbollah's actions after the US-Israel war on Iran, they saw the rocket and missile fire from Hezbollah into Israel first-hand. I just have to reject your premise here that it requires a strategy and their local observations are outweighed by propaganda coming from 100 miles away. On April 15 2026 03:02 Billyboy wrote:On April 15 2026 02:16 dyhb wrote:
[quote]Even an evil tyrant might accidentally improve the conditions and lives around him by prosecuting wars against their authoritarian oppressors for purely selfish reasons. Netanyahu is less than that for wanting a non-terrorist regime to the north of his country with ample weapons and will to kill Israeli civilians in its north. He isn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart for the Lebanese people, nor is it anything but stupid to discount the results based on the intentions.
I think the anti-Israel blame, in some areas well-founded, has erased in the minds of the arguers just how terrible groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and the IRGC and the ayatollahs are for the innocents surrounding them. Israel gets more press simply because the western world has more influence on their actions. Any deal between Israel and Lebanon that creates peace and rids the Lebanese of Hezbollah control of their politics and southern territory is an unqualified victory for the Lebanese people. Anybody with a brain should be desiring that without whitewashing Israel's interests.
I agree with most of what you said and I don’t think you would be able to find a post from me that suggests Netanyahu’s interests are anything other than self. What frustrates me is there are people in this thread that post as if groups like Hezbollah or Hamas are freedom fighters, which simply is not accurate. There are plenty of things to criticize Israel about that are real and proven. Iran being only in Iran should be a goal that everyone shares. If you don’t share it, you are either uninformed, filled with hatred or both. I think they really truly believe that Iranian proxies are legitimately concerned with the well-being of non-combatants. It's some kind of remix of the old pan-Arab nationalism movement or something. I don’t think thread denizens view Hezbollah, Hamas as honourable freedom fighters at all. The quibble is mostly if Israel should kill mostly civilians to eradicate those organisations in lieu of other potential avenues. Israel at this stage is just as hardline as an Iran, increasingly virulently nationalistic emboldened by the US and just bombs folks as they want. Polling, increasingly reflects this as well. The idea that a Netanyahu was doing certain things to deflect from unpopularity, and it didn’t reflect general Israeli sentiment and there was sizeable opposition used to have some legs, increasingly it appears it doesn’t. They are not nearly as hard line. For example, in Israel no protesters have been killed. In Iran 10s of thousands have. How many civilians have been killed in Palestine? Hard to say since Israel claims most were Hamas and Hamas claims all were civilians. Around 70k total. But there is a real chance less civilians died in Gaza during their war then Iran killed in a couple weeks of protesters. And well the number is way to high, it is an absolute bollocks assertion that Israel was trying to kill as many as they could. If that was the case the number would be 7 figures. Right so we’ve got a ballpark 70k number to begin with and an Israel that has been progressively more hostile to international observers operating to even verify such things. This incidentally doesn’t include civilian casualties in say the Lebanon, or Iran We’ve got illegal settlements ever expanding too. The assertion has never been that Israel is trying to kill as many as it could possibly can, just that it doesn’t really give a shit about killing civiiians. By the same logic I mean Russia isn’t behaving abominably, because if they really wanted to kill as many as they could they could just nuke Ukraine. At what point do people abandon this fanciful idea that Israel is some outlier of democratic values in the region, when they’re bombing the fucking beejaysus out of everyone? They’re no better than Iran really, same shit different flavour. An appalling state that could do considerably better but chooses not to. The assertion - at least by some in this thread - definitely has been that Israel is trying to kill as many as it can get away with. And these, among others, are the kind of claims I argued against. I still don't see myself as a staunch defender of Israel - rather a more nuanced view on this conflict-, but arguing against such idiotic statements was the thing that branded me one. MagicPowers clearly made that claim many times and others assisted his line of argumentation, tried to attack the evidence I posted or didn't bother speaking out against these claims. But even the assertion that Israel doesn't give a shit about killing civilians can be tested... We have the numbers from the IDF, but also the ones from independent sources. These put the civilian casualty rate in Gaza at around 50 to 75 %. Compare that to Mosul (60 - 80%) or the Syrian Civil War, which is believed to be majority civilian casualties. This clearly puts Gaza in the range of other urban / asymmetric wars or slightly below it. But even if it was worse slightly... Gaza is more populated in general, more populated with women and children and Hamas is among the most, if not the faction which is most embedded in civilian infrastructure, even firing rockets from refugee camps. In Lebanon the estimate is 40 - 70% civilian casualties and the numbers depend on whether urban strikes are included or the intensity of the phase are already lower. And as you mentioned Iran, we have a perfectly fine comparison, how Israel's civilian tolls are, when there is no urban warfare, as the reported deaths - depending on the source - sit at 10 - 30 %. So there is a clear degression and one that can be explained by the nature of the battle. So I would really like to know, how you arrive at the idea, that Israel doesn't give a shit about civilians, as I think these numbers and the context clearly hint at a different conclusion. And not only looking at casualty figures, but overall conduct: Israel has provided fuel, water and electricity to a hostile region and also has similar rates of civilian casualties to comparable conflicts. Gazan civilians were warned via speakers, SMS, TV, radio ahead of time and patients from Gaza have been treated in Israeli hospitals. At different times in history, tens of thousands of Palestinians have worked in Israel, taking home much higher income. Israel has different kind of ethnicities in every branch of society, allowing for freedom of religion and has given up their most holy site to the Muslims, which don't want to share the Temple Mount / Al Aqsa. And despite all its flaws, it still is a democratic state with rules and regulations, whereas Iran killed of tens of thousands protestors. These observations obviously don't negate valid criticism of military actions but it shows that there are long-standing systems of cooperation, dependence and even support to Palestinian civilians. So to say that Israel is no better than Iran - in my opinion - is preposterous. Although I respect your opinion most of the time, even if it differs from mine, this statement is absolute madness. Israel operates in ongoing asymmetric conflicts, dense urban warfare environments, while Iran has mostly been attacking Israel through proxies or launching rockets at everything -often not even military sites -, which is supported by missiles hitting residential building, a synagogue or apartment blocks. In some phases almost all fatalities on the Israeli side were civilians and the recent war sits at 65 - 75% civilian casualties in non urban warfare but missile strikes. Compare that to the 10 - 30% on the other side. Further, Iran is primarily criticized for systematic internal repression, while Israel is criticized for conduct in war. Collapsing those into a single moral judgement ignores that they operate in fundamentally different domains. Your statement completely erases what these states are actually being criticized for and it treats outcome as intentional. Perhaps there is something I overlooked, so please share your thoughts on this one... Ok to clarify, no Israel isn’t as bad as Iran IMO. Venting frustration doesn’t aid specificity. For me their conduct has increasingly taken them past a threshold and into a similar domain, namely of consistently egregious conduct that can simply be outright condemned wholesale rather than dissected with the scalpel of nuance. There are mitigating factors, although less so than prior, and accompanied with significant increases in the bad so to speak. Alas bit too busy to do a more lengthy reply, will pop back in at some point. Essentially the crux of my point is simply that ‘it’s complicated’ or other barriers tend to pop up on this particular topic, where they don’t necessarily elsewhere, or employ rationales they wouldn’t elsewhere. I don’t think this precludes discussing complexities either, or mitigating factors or what have you.
Thanks, for coming back!
If you find the time, I'd be interested to hear what threshold you are talking about. Legal? Moral? Proportion? Intent?
Also, which conduct you speak of... Over what time period? Compared to what baseline?
I'd also be interested which barriers you see that are not necessarily present elsewhere.
Imo, a “wholesale condemnation vs dissection” framing would be overly binary (not sure, if that is what you suggested).
It would set up a contrast between two modes of judgement: either one evaluates actions in a detailed, case-by-case way (“dissection with a scalpel of nuance”), or one moves to a broad, systemic condemnation that treats conduct as a whole category.
The issue with this framing is that it treats these two approaches as mutually exclusive, when in practice serious analysis usually combines both. You can recognise recurring patterns or systemic concerns while still examining individual events in detail to understand intent, context, and variation over time.
Because of that, the argument risks oversimplifying the range of analytical tools available by implying that once a “threshold” is crossed, detailed scrutiny becomes unnecessary or secondary, rather than still essential for understanding what is actually happening.
|
EPT
