War in Gaza

[Bootstrap]

You say we're talking about mass atrocities against civilians at a level that most governments do not do. Which may perhaps be the case strictly as worded, but change that phrase "do not do" to "would not do" and it's a whole different story. Time and time again violence against enemy civilians has been condoned and encouraged at the highest levels of the USA government. Even after WW2 the US was in favor of a program designed to starve the German population until it became obvious that the program was driving Germany into the arms of the Soviet Union. Then and only then did US policy change - it had nothing to do with the fact that the policy was horrific and inhumane. To me, statements about how the atrocities against Gazan civilians are so much worse than other governments would condone seem to whitewash the actions of these other countries.

Assuming the history is accurate, I'm happy to mourn all of these things and to hunger and thirst for righteousness in all these places. And in Hitler's atrocities. And in the Killing Fields. And lynchings in the South and the Ku Klux Klan.

My goal is not to whitewash. But to mourn, hunger and thirst for righteousness, call for justice, and seek ways to help victims. I think all of that is biblical. I think all of that is part of being a Kingdom of God Christian.

[Ken]

I don't think that RZehr or GaryK are in any way letting Israel off the hook. I think what they are highlighting is that when we start to talk about "rules of engagement" or criticizing one country or another for their failure to adhere to "rules of war" it implies that it's not their participation in war that is bad, just the fact that they are "violating the rules". It implies that there is such a thing as clean, fair war when there is in fact no such thing.

Here's what I struggle with. Isn't Hamas doing the same thing? They have a lot less power than Israel, so they do what terrorist groups do. And sure, there is no such thing as clean, fair terrorism either. But I don't hear people talking about Hamas and Israel the same way here. Is it somehow better when an elected government commits mass acts of terrorism?

I would never fight on any side of any war, period. I would never kill a human being. There are some kinds of killing that I do not condemn, such as a policeman killing a school shooter to stop what he is doing.

But what Israel and Hamas are doing here deserves condemnation. Against both sides.

Hamas' stated ideology is armed conflict with Israel. That is literally why they exist.

Newsflash. This is what armed conflict with Israel looks like. It is the ideology of toddlers to think you are entitled to engage in violence and the other side is not. Or that they are required to respond on your terms. Israel is similarly naïve in a different way.

The sooner both sides realize that there is no possible armed solution to this conflict, the sooner we will have peace.

[ken_sylvania]

We're not talking about holding governments to Kingdom of God standards. We're talking about mass atrocities against civilians at a level that most governments do not do. And I think some of these posts let Israel off the hook, imply that these civilians don't count, that Israel can do whatever they want because this is what governments do. And implying that every Gazan civilian may be treated like a terrorist or a combatant. I assume nobody here would say that every Israeli civilian civilian may be treated that way.

I am aware of nothing at all in Jesus' teachings that suggests that we ought to treat civilians and enemy soldiers differently.

I don't know who "we" is in that sentence. We in the Kingdom of God will not kill anyone, civilian or soldier.

There's a sequence of posts that each misread my posts in exactly the same way. I say that even earthly governments condemn this kind of thing. Then someone says I shouldn't hold governments to the standards of Jesus. I'm not. I'm saying even Caesar plays a role in God's economy, that is spelled out in Romans 13.

"We" is "us" - you and me.

Can you quote the post where someone says you shouldn't hold governments to the standards of Jesus? I can't find it.

[Bootstrap]

Here's what I struggle with. Isn't Hamas doing the same thing? They have a lot less power than Israel, so they do what terrorist groups do. And sure, there is no such thing as clean, fair terrorism either. But I don't hear people talking about Hamas and Israel the same way here. Is it somehow better when an elected government commits mass acts of terrorism?

I would never fight on any side of any war, period. I would never kill a human being. There are some kinds of killing that I do not condemn, such as a policeman killing a school shooter to stop what he is doing.

But what Israel and Hamas are doing here deserves condemnation. Against both sides.

Hamas' stated ideology is armed conflict with Israel. That is literally why they exist.

Newsflash. This is what armed conflict with Israel looks like. It is the ideology of toddlers to think you are entitled to engage in violence and the other side is not. Or that they are required to respond on your terms. Israel is similarly naïve in a different way.

Yes, exactly. For Israel, I think it sounds like this - Newsflash: if you commit mass atrocities against civilians, that strengthens terrorists and makes other governments likely to support you.

Both Newsflashes are relevant.

The sooner both sides realize that there is no possible armed solution to this conflict, the sooner we will have peace.

Exactly.

[ken_sylvania]

You say we're talking about mass atrocities against civilians at a level that most governments do not do. Which may perhaps be the case strictly as worded, but change that phrase "do not do" to "would not do" and it's a whole different story. Time and time again violence against enemy civilians has been condoned and encouraged at the highest levels of the USA government. Even after WW2 the US was in favor of a program designed to starve the German population until it became obvious that the program was driving Germany into the arms of the Soviet Union. Then and only then did US policy change - it had nothing to do with the fact that the policy was horrific and inhumane. To me, statements about how the atrocities against Gazan civilians are so much worse than other governments would condone seem to whitewash the actions of these other countries.

Assuming the history is accurate, I'm happy to mourn all of these things and to hunger and thirst for righteousness in all these places. And in Hitler's atrocities. And in the Killing Fields. And lynchings in the South and the Ku Klux Klan.

My goal is not to whitewash. But to mourn, hunger and thirst for righteousness, call for justice, and seek ways to help victims. I think all of that is biblical. I think all of that is part of being a Kingdom of God Christian.

Really? How would you feel if I were to say that "Assuming the reports are accurate, I'm happy to mourn the deaths of innocent Gazan civilians."? Do you have any idea how callous that sounds? First of all the implication that maybe all this violence didn't actually happen, and then secondly, being "happy" to mourn the violence???? Really??

[Bootstrap]

You say we're talking about mass atrocities against civilians at a level that most governments do not do. Which may perhaps be the case strictly as worded, but change that phrase "do not do" to "would not do" and it's a whole different story. Time and time again violence against enemy civilians has been condoned and encouraged at the highest levels of the USA government. Even after WW2 the US was in favor of a program designed to starve the German population until it became obvious that the program was driving Germany into the arms of the Soviet Union. Then and only then did US policy change - it had nothing to do with the fact that the policy was horrific and inhumane. To me, statements about how the atrocities against Gazan civilians are so much worse than other governments would condone seem to whitewash the actions of these other countries.

Assuming the history is accurate, I'm happy to mourn all of these things and to hunger and thirst for righteousness in all these places. And in Hitler's atrocities. And in the Killing Fields. And lynchings in the South and the Ku Klux Klan.

My goal is not to whitewash. But to mourn, hunger and thirst for righteousness, call for justice, and seek ways to help victims. I think all of that is biblical. I think all of that is part of being a Kingdom of God Christian.

Really? How would you feel if I were to say that "Assuming the reports are accurate, I'm happy to mourn the deaths of innocent Gazan civilians."? Do you have any idea how callous that sounds? First of all the implication that maybe all this violence didn't actually happen, and then secondly, being "happy" to mourn the violence???? Really??

I do not know whether or not the US intentionally tried to starve the German population after WW2. I think that's at odds with what I heard from Germans when I was living in Berlin. So I would need to do some research to agree with your example. It's quite likely that I simply don't know or don't remember about this, I wasn't even alive then.

I can definitely agree with the principle, though: we should mourn and grieve the same when it's us. And there are plenty of examples we both know well where America was to blame in just this way.

[Szdfan]

I do not know whether or not the US intentionally tried to starve the German population after WW2. I think that's at odds with what I heard from Germans when I was living in Berlin. So I would need to do some research to agree with your example. It's quite likely that I simply don't know or don't remember about this, I wasn't even alive then.

I agree that this doesn't jive with what I heard when I lived in Berlin. I did hear stories of Germans that starved to death in 1946-47, but I didn't hear that it was deliberate.

It appears that the claim Ken made originates with a 1989 book, Other Losses, by James Bacque. The claim was disputed by other historians at the time.

Stephen Ambrose:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes ... ities.html

Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience, says in his introduction: "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies." Last December, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts on the period to examine the charges. The conference participants, including me, plan to publish the papers in book form.

Our first conclusion was that Mr. Bacque had made a major historical discovery. There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously -- nay, spectacularly -- flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in its relationship to the broader situation; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

[Bootstrap]

Perhaps we could use examples like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden to make Ken's point. These are all widely condemned actions by the United States. We killed LOTS of civilians. 70,000 in Hiroshima, 40,000 in Nagasaki, 25,000 in Dresden.

Israel killing 30,000+ people in Gaza is on this same scale. A really big deal. Ukranian casualties in the war with Russia are also about 30,000+, FWIW.

Creation is groaning and longing to be released.

[ken_sylvania]

I don't think that RZehr or GaryK are in any way letting Israel off the hook. I think what they are highlighting is that when we start to talk about "rules of engagement" or criticizing one country or another for their failure to adhere to "rules of war" it implies that it's not their participation in war that is bad, just the fact that they are "violating the rules". It implies that there is such a thing as clean, fair war when there is in fact no such thing.

Here's what I struggle with. Isn't Hamas doing the same thing? They have a lot less power than Israel, so they do what terrorist groups do. And sure, there is no such thing as clean, fair terrorism either. But I don't hear people talking about Hamas and Israel the same way here. Is it somehow better when an elected government commits mass acts of terrorism?

I would never fight on any side of any war, period. I would never kill a human being. There are some kinds of killing that I do not condemn, such as a policeman killing a school shooter to stop what he is doing.

But what Israel and Hamas are doing here deserves condemnation. Against both sides.

You're right. I don't hear you talking about Hamas and Israel the same way. If RZehr's and GaryK's criticism about "rules of war" is read as giving one side or the other a pass, it's because whoever is making that judgement is basing it on an underlying assumption that Israel has more of a duty to adhere to "rules of war" than Hamas does.

[ken_sylvania]

I do not know whether or not the US intentionally tried to starve the German population after WW2. I think that's at odds with what I heard from Germans when I was living in Berlin. So I would need to do some research to agree with your example. It's quite likely that I simply don't know or don't remember about this, I wasn't even alive then.

I agree that this doesn't jive with what I heard when I lived in Berlin. I did hear stories of Germans that starved to death in 1946-47, but I didn't hear that it was deliberate.

It appears that the claim Ken made originates with a 1989 book, Other Losses, by James Bacque. The claim was disputed by other historians at the time.

Stephen Ambrose:
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes ... ities.html

Mr. Bacque, a Canadian novelist with no previous historical research or writing experience, says in his introduction: "Doubtless many scholars will find faults in this book, which are only mine. I welcome their criticism and their further research, which may help to restore to us the truth after a long night of lies." Last December, the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans invited some leading experts on the period to examine the charges. The conference participants, including me, plan to publish the papers in book form.

Our first conclusion was that Mr. Bacque had made a major historical discovery. There was widespread mistreatment of German prisoners in the spring and summer of 1945. Men were beaten, denied water, forced to live in open camps without shelter, given inadequate food rations and inadequate medical care. Their mail was withheld. In some cases prisoners made a "soup" of water and grass in order to deal with their hunger. Men did die needlessly and inexcusably. This must be confronted, and it is to Mr. Bacque's credit that he forces us to do so.

Our second conclusion was that when scholars do the necessary research, they will find Mr. Bacque's work to be worse than worthless. It is seriously -- nay, spectacularly -- flawed in its most fundamental aspects. Mr. Bacque misuses documents; he misreads documents; he ignores contrary evidence; his statistical methodology is hopelessly compromised; he makes no attempt to see the evidence he has gathered in its relationship to the broader situation; he makes no attempt to look at comparative contexts; he puts words into the mouth of his principal source; he ignores a readily available and absolutely critical source that decisively deals with his central accusation; and, as a consequence of these and other shortcomings, he reaches conclusions and makes charges that are demonstrably absurd.

I'm not in any way referring to the treatment of German POWs. I'm referring to Allied policy regarding Germany as a whole.

I don't have time to write an extensive report, but when General Clay writes about the importance of making sure that the Germans suffer hunger and cold so that they understand the seriousness of starting wars, and when official policy sets nutritional goals of 1550 calories per day with full knowledge that an adult needs more than 2,000 calories per day, and when Allied policy was to export coal and food from Germany despite some areas having sufficient food for only an average of less than 1,200 calories per person per day - I guarantee you if Israel did that to the inhabitants of the Gaza strip after hostilities were ended there would be an international outcry (as there should be).