The thread talks about how the US bombed Japan in WWII and questions the morality of such actions, comparing it to Israel's tough choices with Hamas. It argues both sides face impossible situations, with no easy answers, and criticizes blame on Israel for its current conflict. The point is, difficult decisions in war have no clear moral winners.
When the US faced an intractable enemy that refused to unconditionally surrender after it had been militarily defeated, we bombed Tokyo, leaving over 100K dead and over 1 million homeless. When that didn't work, we nuked two cities.
I am at best ambivalent about these actions, 1/
I don't feel a permanent moral stain as an American because of them. It's extremely difficult to figure out how to defeat fanatics that don't care about the well-being of their civilians.
Israel faces the same problem, though it hasn't been as inflexible in the US. Israel has not 2/
demanded unconditional surrender, but has been willing to release some convicted terrorists and give Hamas combatants safe passage to a third country. Hamas refuses to surrender, though it's utterly defeated militarily. 3/
If Israel had taken the US route, it would have just firebombed Gaza from the air without any warnings, and Hamas combatants would have perished along with hundreds of thousands of civilians (and most of the hostages). So, no, 4/
don't tell me about moral stains on my Jewish identity because Israel has been trying to deal with an impossible situation with much of the world affirmatively trying to ensure the bad guys survive. 5/
If I were all-knowing and all-seeing, I could tell you precisely how Israel should have fought this war with less civilian suffering (NOT fighting, not an option, it would have meant the end of Israel). But I could also point to the US example and show you that in similar /6
circumstances, the US chose to just decimate entire cities by air, without warnings to the people, without any humanitarian aid, and so forth (and the Allies weren't much more careful about civilians in Europe). So enough with the emotional blackmail. @PeterBeinart wants to
know how one can be Jewish after Gaza? Why doesn't he ask how he can be American after Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima? /end
PS: The moralizing about Israel is not primarily about Israel's behavior in Gaza, it's about people thinking Israel is to blame for its own predicament, either for simply existing, or for not finding a way to solve the Palestinian issue in a pleasingly just manner before
last October. An additional spin on this from less anti-Israel people is that it's somehow Bibi's fault because he tried to reach a modus vivendi with Hamas by allowing Qatar's "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, which did something to alleviate civilian suffering, but also was an
attempt to buy off Hamas, given that everyone knew that Hamas would skim off much of the money. But no one explains how Hamas could have been dislodged in the last decade without an invasion like the current one. Bibi was definitely wrong on this one, but even a harder line on
Hamas wouldn't have stopped 10/7 and the resultant war, it might have just left Hamas slightly less well-equipped. The pathological Bibi-blaming is just a way for people to pretend that there was something that could have been done to resolve the situation before the tragic
outcome unfolded. Maybe assassinating Sinwar would have helped. Stronger border defenses certainly would have. But Hamas had a plan, backed by Iran, to invade Israel for several years. It was going to try it no matter what, and there's no evading the moral conundrum that it puts
Israel in to have a genocidal enemy on its borders, sworn to its destruction, and undeterred by massive losses to its military nor by mass civilian suffering of the people it governs. /end
When the US faced an intractable enemy that refused to unconditionally surrender after it had been militarily defeated, we bombed Tokyo, leaving over 100K dead and over 1 million homeless. When that didn't work, we nuked two cities.
I am at best ambivalent about these actions, 1/I don't feel a permanent moral stain as an American because of them. It's extremely difficult to figure out how to defeat fanatics that don't care about the well-being of their civilians.
Israel faces the same problem, though it hasn't been as inflexible in the US. Israel has not 2/demanded unconditional surrender, but has been willing to release some convicted terrorists and give Hamas combatants safe passage to a third country. Hamas refuses to surrender, though it's utterly defeated militarily. 3/If Israel had taken the US route, it would have just firebombed Gaza from the air without any warnings, and Hamas combatants would have perished along with hundreds of thousands of civilians (and most of the hostages). So, no, 4/don't tell me about moral stains on my Jewish identity because Israel has been trying to deal with an impossible situation with much of the world affirmatively trying to ensure the bad guys survive. 5/If I were all-knowing and all-seeing, I could tell you precisely how Israel should have fought this war with less civilian suffering (NOT fighting, not an option, it would have meant the end of Israel). But I could also point to the US example and show you that in similar /6circumstances, the US chose to just decimate entire cities by air, without warnings to the people, without any humanitarian aid, and so forth (and the Allies weren't much more careful about civilians in Europe). So enough with the emotional blackmail. @PeterBeinart wants toknow how one can be Jewish after Gaza? Why doesn't he ask how he can be American after Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima? /endPS: The moralizing about Israel is not primarily about Israel's behavior in Gaza, it's about people thinking Israel is to blame for its own predicament, either for simply existing, or for not finding a way to solve the Palestinian issue in a pleasingly just manner beforelast October. An additional spin on this from less anti-Israel people is that it's somehow Bibi's fault because he tried to reach a modus vivendi with Hamas by allowing Qatar's "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, which did something to alleviate civilian suffering, but also was anattempt to buy off Hamas, given that everyone knew that Hamas would skim off much of the money. But no one explains how Hamas could have been dislodged in the last decade without an invasion like the current one. Bibi was definitely wrong on this one, but even a harder line onHamas wouldn't have stopped 10/7 and the resultant war, it might have just left Hamas slightly less well-equipped. The pathological Bibi-blaming is just a way for people to pretend that there was something that could have been done to resolve the situation before the tragicoutcome unfolded. Maybe assassinating Sinwar would have helped. Stronger border defenses certainly would have. But Hamas had a plan, backed by Iran, to invade Israel for several years. It was going to try it no matter what, and there's no evading the moral conundrum that it putsIsrael in to have a genocidal enemy on its borders, sworn to its destruction, and undeterred by massive losses to its military nor by mass civilian suffering of the people it governs. /end
When the US faced an intractable enemy that refused to unconditionally surrender after it had been militarily defeated, we bombed Tokyo, leaving over 100K dead and over 1 million homeless. When that didn't work, we nuked two cities.
I am at best ambivalent about these actions, 1/ ... I don't feel a permanent moral stain as an American because of them. It's extremely difficult to figure out how to defeat fanatics that don't care about the well-being of their civilians.
Israel faces the same problem, though it hasn't been as inflexible in the US. Israel has not 2/ ... demanded unconditional surrender, but has been willing to release some convicted terrorists and give Hamas combatants safe passage to a third country. Hamas refuses to surrender, though it's utterly defeated militarily. 3/ ... If Israel had taken the US route, it would have just firebombed Gaza from the air without any warnings, and Hamas combatants would have perished along with hundreds of thousands of civilians (and most of the hostages). So, no, 4/ ... don't tell me about moral stains on my Jewish identity because Israel has been trying to deal with an impossible situation with much of the world affirmatively trying to ensure the bad guys survive. 5/ ... If I were all-knowing and all-seeing, I could tell you precisely how Israel should have fought this war with less civilian suffering (NOT fighting, not an option, it would have meant the end of Israel). But I could also point to the US example and show you that in similar /6 ... circumstances, the US chose to just decimate entire cities by air, without warnings to the people, without any humanitarian aid, and so forth (and the Allies weren't much more careful about civilians in Europe). So enough with the emotional blackmail. @PeterBeinart wants to ... know how one can be Jewish after Gaza? Why doesn't he ask how he can be American after Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima? /end ... PS: The moralizing about Israel is not primarily about Israel's behavior in Gaza, it's about people thinking Israel is to blame for its own predicament, either for simply existing, or for not finding a way to solve the Palestinian issue in a pleasingly just manner before ... last October. An additional spin on this from less anti-Israel people is that it's somehow Bibi's fault because he tried to reach a modus vivendi with Hamas by allowing Qatar's "humanitarian aid" into Gaza, which did something to alleviate civilian suffering, but also was an ... attempt to buy off Hamas, given that everyone knew that Hamas would skim off much of the money. But no one explains how Hamas could have been dislodged in the last decade without an invasion like the current one. Bibi was definitely wrong on this one, but even a harder line on ... Hamas wouldn't have stopped 10/7 and the resultant war, it might have just left Hamas slightly less well-equipped. The pathological Bibi-blaming is just a way for people to pretend that there was something that could have been done to resolve the situation before the tragic ... outcome unfolded. Maybe assassinating Sinwar would have helped. Stronger border defenses certainly would have. But Hamas had a plan, backed by Iran, to invade Israel for several years. It was going to try it no matter what, and there's no evading the moral conundrum that it puts ... Israel in to have a genocidal enemy on its borders, sworn to its destruction, and undeterred by massive losses to its military nor by mass civilian suffering of the people it governs. /end
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
More Threads by @ProfDBernstein
Young, educated liberals from top colleges can't find good jobs in their fields anymore. Many end up in retail or waitin...
