|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person.
One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement.
|
On September 03 2026 23:40 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 23:31 Ryzel wrote:
To have a serious conversation with someone with an opposing viewpoint on this issue, you need to find common ground by answering one question:
Does it bother you that Palestinians are dying and/or being forcefully relocated?
No gotchas, “yes, but…” answers are fine, not a trick question. There’s plenty of room for discussion branching from there, but if two people don’t share the same (honest) answer to that question then their arguments (and time) are wasted on each other. Yes, it bothers me that Palestinians are dying. Yes, it bothers me, that Israel is expanding against International Law. Yes, it bothers me that the Israeli officials have such little regard for Palestinian life that they enforced collective punishment to weed out Hamas. Yes, it bothers me that Palestinian children are shot. Yes, it bothers me that IDF soldiers send Palestinian civilians into potentially booby trapped tunnels.
Beautiful. Thanks for that. Those things bother me too. My follow-up question to that would be “given that you’re bothered by these things happening, do you feel that the consequences of these things NOT happening would bother you more?”
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement.
I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time.
Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons
|
On September 03 2026 23:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Would Israel stop if Hamas surrendered?
I think the answer to that is no, because Israel, at least Israel under Nethyanahu likes Hamas being around:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Hamas being Hamas allows Israel to be as brutal as they are, if not more so, with the added benefit of undermining PLO and ensuring that Palestine never becomes an actual state.
That is the long term goal, I mean, it's not like Nethyanahu and even more right wing Israeli's are hiding that, part of the Zionist talking points for decades has been that "there is no such thing as a Palestinian" and "Palestine is not a state".
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
If Israel weren’t continually expanding settlements there’s a case to be made that they are merely pursuing a security operation that’s complicated, and more people died than should have due to said complexity.
But it’s incredibly self-evident they are doing those things, and some of the rhetoric from people even up at the very top of government is appalling
There’s really no amount of paragraphs one can write to dance around that
|
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/02/israel-seeking-trumps-support-for-plan-to-expel-palestinians-from-gaza
Relevant to the current discussion.
The stated goal is the disarment of Hamaz but the only option is to expell everyone from Gaza.
To not be genocide Israel needs to prove that there is indeed no other options.
That seems unlikely since the traditional way of handling this would be to occupy the territory and then deal with the would be insurgents.
It's highly unlikely that is an impossible task for the IDF even if they would take more casulties then they would like.
And accepting some casulties in order to avoid warcrimes is a real thing when it comes to the rules of war.
If it's not impossible to do this (or any other option) then it's very difficult to say that there is not intent for genocide.
|
Surreal conversations in which people who align with the far right are doing and saying things that are consistent with far right ideologies and goals, and then we have to sit there and pretend that it's possible for an impartial observer to be unclear on what is happening.
Trump administration is only accepting white migrants and refusing every one else but hold on let me get some pearls that I can clutch, how could we possibly say that this is motivated by their race we have no proof of intent blblblblblbl
|
On September 03 2026 23:40 PremoBeats wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 23:31 Ryzel wrote:
To have a serious conversation with someone with an opposing viewpoint on this issue, you need to find common ground by answering one question:
Does it bother you that Palestinians are dying and/or being forcefully relocated?
No gotchas, “yes, but…” answers are fine, not a trick question. There’s plenty of room for discussion branching from there, but if two people don’t share the same (honest) answer to that question then their arguments (and time) are wasted on each other. Yes, it bothers me that Palestinians are dying. Yes, it bothers me, that Israel is expanding against International Law. Yes, it bothers me that the Israeli officials have such little regard for Palestinian life that they enforced collective punishment to weed out Hamas. Yes, it bothers me that Palestinian children are shot. Yes, it bothers me that IDF soldiers send Palestinian civilians into potentially booby trapped tunnels.
Do you think if everyone that was sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians agreed that Israel was committing genocide, would Palestinians' plight increase, decrease, or be unaffected?
If you think it would increase, I would love to hear the reasoning. If you think it would decrease, then you're actively harming them by quibbling about the definition of "genocide". And if you think it would be unaffected then I don't see what's the point in putting so much effort into arguing over the word "genocide" unless your secret passion is semantics.
|
On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee.
|
On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee.
There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life.
But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting.
|
On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why.
|
On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why.
Some do yeah; others commit suicide or have ongoing mental health issues.
|
United Kingdom10016 Posts
On September 04 2026 03:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. Some do yeah; others commit suicide or have ongoing mental health issues.
Antisemites all of them, that's why Netenyahu withdrew all the mental health resources from the IDF.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why.
There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives.
You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar
|
On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness.
|
On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness.
In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026?
|
On September 04 2026 20:05 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness. In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026? The hypothetical would have to include whether internal IDF conversations, decisions, information, and policy exposed a deliberate plan of genocide. I don’t think that the people higher up and internal to the organization are in the same doubt as I am as an outside observer of scattered quotes by politicians and military personnel. I would hope for the courage to resign and whistleblow in the case of genocide, which would doubtless be the correct action.
|
On September 04 2026 23:40 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 20:05 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:On September 03 2026 22:13 WombaT wrote:
There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person. One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness. In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026? The hypothetical would have to include whether internal IDF conversations, decisions, information, and policy exposed a deliberate plan of genocide. I don’t think that the people higher up and internal to the organization are in the same doubt as I am as an outside observer of scattered quotes by politicians and military personnel. I would hope for the courage to resign and whistleblow in the case of genocide, which would doubtless be the correct action.
So your moral stance would be based only on intent, the exact same wording that this thread has been about for the last few pages, this is your exact line?
I mean, seems like a very convenient cop out, but that's really nothing new from your side.
For me, who was ostensibly more pro-Israel then pro-Palestine up to about a few weeks after October 7th I would have no hesitation resigning even if I had to face the military courts for it.
If the organization I work for opens the war with statements of total siege, stopping any supplies for a population of 2+ million most of them children and then proceeds to indiscriminately bomb this area for 2 weeks killing tens of thousands of civilians saying they won't stop, I'm pretty confident that would make me quit.
|
On September 05 2026 01:33 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2026 23:40 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 20:05 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:On September 03 2026 23:43 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I don't know how there can be good people at the IDF at various levels of seniority if they're the executors of a genocide. Surely, you're only talking about the lower limits of seniority. Anybody at higher levels of seniority with IDF internal knowledge would know that their commands must have been given with intent to genocide a group, and thus automatically not be a good person.
One of the consequences of the intent part of genocide is complicity at the (very least) mid-level and the top. Not just unknowing participant in a war crime (ie given bad intel that was misrepresented to them), but remaining part of an organization that is intentionally committing a genocide. I don't think you can really talk about the good people in the IDF unless you're specifically excluding many many levels of seniority from your statement. I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time. Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness. In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026? The hypothetical would have to include whether internal IDF conversations, decisions, information, and policy exposed a deliberate plan of genocide. I don’t think that the people higher up and internal to the organization are in the same doubt as I am as an outside observer of scattered quotes by politicians and military personnel. I would hope for the courage to resign and whistleblow in the case of genocide, which would doubtless be the correct action. So your moral stance would be based only on intent, the exact same wording that this thread has been about for the last few pages, this is your exact line? I mean, seems like a very convenient cop out, but that's really nothing new from your side. For me, who was ostensibly more pro-Israel then pro-Palestine up to about a few weeks after October 7th I would have no hesitation resigning even if I had to face the military courts for it. If the organization I work for opens the war with statements of total siege, stopping any supplies for a population of 2+ million most of them children and then proceeds to indiscriminately bomb this area for 2 weeks killing tens of thousands of civilians saying they won't stop, I'm pretty confident that would make me quit. You wouldn't seek to lower civilian casualties in a war, or you don't understand that intending to cause more civilian casualties by design precludes that?
|
On September 05 2026 02:10 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2026 01:33 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 23:40 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 20:05 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 00:52 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I’d disagree, institutions will always have decent people in them unless completely subsumed by some ideology over an extended period of time.
Even the Wehrmacht despite Nazism taking hold had some honourable and relatively humanitarian men right up to the upper echelons I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness. In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026? The hypothetical would have to include whether internal IDF conversations, decisions, information, and policy exposed a deliberate plan of genocide. I don’t think that the people higher up and internal to the organization are in the same doubt as I am as an outside observer of scattered quotes by politicians and military personnel. I would hope for the courage to resign and whistleblow in the case of genocide, which would doubtless be the correct action. So your moral stance would be based only on intent, the exact same wording that this thread has been about for the last few pages, this is your exact line? I mean, seems like a very convenient cop out, but that's really nothing new from your side. For me, who was ostensibly more pro-Israel then pro-Palestine up to about a few weeks after October 7th I would have no hesitation resigning even if I had to face the military courts for it. If the organization I work for opens the war with statements of total siege, stopping any supplies for a population of 2+ million most of them children and then proceeds to indiscriminately bomb this area for 2 weeks killing tens of thousands of civilians saying they won't stop, I'm pretty confident that would make me quit. You wouldn't seek to lower civilian casualties in a war, or you don't understand that intending to cause more civilian casualties by design precludes that?
You seem to be back in a loop, question was very simple but as usual you are being evasive.
This is not a debate, I asked you a question, I even offered an example of an answer.
You can choose to answer the question or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
