Triggernometry - interview with Netanyahu

[Digitalhen]

Thoughts on this interview?

Massive scoop for the Trigger podcast.

The idea of a ‘chosen people’ is an interesting one to bring up.

Don’t Islamists also believe they are the chosen people? The followers of Mohammed and from this arose Arabic Imperialism for the next 13 centuries, whereby those from the Arab peninsula moved upward and outwards and converted people by the sword and through slavery.

Don’t they openly say their aim is to convert the globe to Islam? It’s their religious endeavour many say. To die doing so brings martyrdom (says the Quran). Take from that what you will. The historian and linguist Raymond Ibrahim talks about ‘The West’ as we view it as being the only bit yet unconquered (though attempts have been made throughout history to do so with varying results) - we used to call The West ‘Christendom’. Ibrahim translates from Arabic, Greek and other ancient languages - eg he uses primary source material - rare today so worth the interest. From my own study I can see that through Christianity arose charity and charitable orgs, schooling, hospitals, women’s rights that eventually led to our formation of Human Rights. They’re not global. They’re not intrinsically human. They’re hard won, taught and developed from centuries of struggle.

From this place, from these values of ‘human rights’ as normal and natural we now sit and view the world. So charitably. We are apt to try to diminish the crimes and atrocities of those who don’t come from the West as lesser in deed. Which is bizarre and as Elica La Bon says, a form of racism in and of itself where others are not as culpable as we would be if committing the same crimes.

Raymond Ibrahim books are incredibly informative just a general FYI for anyone interested in the history of the Middle East (because it’s an area of study wildly missing from our school text books and curriculum). He gives a fascinating run through here of the history on Winston Marshall’s channel:

I think this is the clearest way to put it: fear and security concerns don’t absolve a state from the laws of war or from moral responsibility. Deliberately targeting civilians, bombing hospitals, and starving children cannot be justified as “self-defence” no matter what the emotional context is.

History shows that fear-driven aggression often spirals into systematic harm, which is exactly what we are seeing in Gaza. Leaders can and must be held accountable for policies that inflict mass civilian suffering, even if they claim it’s in the name of security. Condemnation isn’t about being anti-Israel- it’s about upholding human rights and international law.

People here have said a few times here now that we should ‘learn from history’ and not continue awful behaviour suggesting we also don’t use history to justify evils.

I have some question from this interview and from this perspective:

What does this actually mean?

Who do we want to ‘learn’ and from what? We can learn from the Second World War many things about strategy and strength and suffering and success and defeat.

Suggesting we don’t ‘use history’ to commit or justify awful behaviour; what criteria do we use instead to go forward? What are Hamas using? Are they ready for a blank slate and two state proposal? Are they ready to hand over the hostages so that can begin to happen or be discussed? This reminds me of the simplicity of pacifists and pacifist aims, except - pacifism only works when both sides are pacifist.

Should terror groups who steal aid destined for their own citizens be allowed to do so? Should terror groups be allowed to proliferate unchecked? Should proxy arms (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) of a terror regime (IRI - the Islamic Regime of Iran which consists of an unelected theocratic Islamist institution) - remain unchallenged and ignored in the face of their spoken and proposed aims and endeavours?

What have we learned so far from the IRI reign since 1979? Should terror groups be ignored? Or challenged? What happens when we ignore them? Is it events such as 9/11 or Oct 7th? What did Hamas expect to happen following that day? They planned it, it was not spur of the moment. They have 400 miles of tunnels (allegedly) enough to house every citizen should they wish to (they obvs don’t). That’s bigger than the London Underground! They knew they would have to hide, they knew Israel’s history and refusal to let any of their people be left behind. They knew there would be a resulting invasion and they also knew they would suffer mass casualties. In globalised broadcast tv interviews Hamas leaders have wished for more casualties as ‘martyrdom’. This isn’t really discussed anywhere. We seem to ignore such proclamations. Why?

I’ve honestly yet to hear anyone challenge Hamas. Even our own PM doesn’t. Is this because there is no leader for him to talk to? Is he afraid to meet with them? Is it because they’re prescribed terrorists? It would be fairly hard to have a discussion with them when they have no two state solution proposal - just a continued aim to annihilate Isreal. When that is their stance, I’m wondering how any Western nation (or indeed any other reasonable Middle Eastern one) tries to negotiate with them. Remember Bush’s stance after 9/11; ‘‘We don’t negotiate with terrorists”? Should this be our continued view? How has negotiating gone so far? What should we do instead?

I personally know Israelis who have left Israel because they don’t like Netanyahu- yet even they admit that Hamas must be challenged and removed if there is to be be any peace; that Isreal is in (and has been for years) a constant ‘fire-fighting’ stance of being due to constant year in, year out attacks from the groups mentioned.

I have lived in the Middle East. It was the most racist, misogynist and terrifying place to live as a female that I’ve ever been and I wasn’t even in a conflict zone. Theocracies don’t work, especially if you are female and not racist. Israel might be the only place in the ME that gives females full human rights. Human rights are not universally considered, they are not just ‘moral’ and intrinsic to the human condition. They are hard won and need to be taught and developed.

If anything is to be ‘learned’ from this war it might be the history of the Middle East (which most clearly haven’t studied) and the conditions of those currently living there.

‘Moral responsibility’

This needs absolute clarification.

Why?

Because the inference you are making (and many other do to) is that morality is intrinsic and part of the normal and natural human condition. It is not! We can look both at the world today and at history to see that what we consider Human Rights are both new and specifically Western derived.

The Romans killed for fun, they practiced infanticide, the infirm and sick or weak or elderly were not cared for unless it could be rationalised that they would contribute to the ‘empire’ in some way.

In Germania killing humans showed prowess. The Christians who came with their Ten Commandments including ‘do not murder’ were laughed at.

All over the world today women have no rights. Many are enslaved. The Middle East is a prime example of theocracies run at the detriment of women and girls.

So when you talk about ‘moral responsibility’ you are speaking only to Westerners who have the same vision for human rights as you and I do. I repeat - they are not universal and neither is morality. It is not intrinsic. We have masses of evidence of this all around us.

We're they deleted? Not sure talking about snide - bit rich.

Again, not offering any kind of justification but had an overseas terrorist group descended upon a UK summer festival, raped women in their tents, murdered the artists and over 1000 more festival goers, I suspect (rightly or wrongly) the collective mood in the UK would be ‘hunt them down and destroy them - whatever the cost’.

It absolutely wouldn’t be morally right and you’d hope the government would respond proportionately but given the public would likely want harsh and swift retribution, is that likely? I’m pretty sure there would be widespread backing for the government to do whatever it thought was necessary.

Again, not a justification.

I guess moral responsibility is a cultural and taught phenomena?

Agree or disagree?

I’ve seen children be the cruelest of all humans. With each other, with animals. I’ve have of course seen incredibly kind children. But children need some cultivating and shaping by loving and invested adults (unless you want to leave it all to the media and peers) and society at large bears some responsibility to help shape their understandings of why they should be good and kind and just and honest and truthful. It def does not always come naturally.

What happens then to the cultivation of ‘morality’ when you live in a society that disregards one entire gender or race and actively seeks to harm them?

Interesting to ponder.

Morality might be shaped by culture, but war crimes law isn’t. Bombing hospitals and starving children is illegal full stop.

👏👏

For it to be equivalent to what happened on 7/10, it would be over 10,000 civilians murdered, and 2,500 taken hostage in the UK.

Surely no one actually believes that if over 10,000 UK civilians, including children, were murdered by hand, raped, set alight etc in one single day, and over 2,500 UK civilians, including children, were dragged away as hostages, there would be no response by the UK.

Or that any response would fall completely within the legal framework, all be above board and absolutely free of any war crimes.

The response would be terrible, and unlike anything the UK has done in a very long time.

Because what is the alternative?

I guess moral responsibility is a cultural and taught phenomena? Agree or disagree?

Interesting. Christianity would teach that all humans are born with a flawed (sinful) nature, that we’re inclined toward choosing the thing that will benefit ourselves the most (Adam/Eve, choosing the fruit in Eden). The ‘antidote’ was offering sacrifices to God as an atonement and then once Jesus came, he acted as the ‘perfect atonement’. We learn how to live by following his example.

So from a Christian perspective, morality is a mix of the two - a natural lean toward selfishness but with redemption offered through God. Sorry for the tangent there!

I do think there are some universally understood laws of morality though. Most humans would agree that murder or stealing are wrong. Does anyone teach them that or do they just ‘know’? The difficulty comes when cultural systems start to ‘other’ people ‘not like me’. So I imagine most war time Germans would have agreed that murder was wrong but perhaps the rules didn’t apply to Jewish people who were ‘rodents’ or somehow sub human.

Bombing hospitals and starving children is illegal full stop.

It is illegal to use hospitals for command-and-control, storing weapons and housing fighters, but no one cares about those war crimes.

Do you consider the starvation of children in North Korea to also be illegal? Or is starvation via international sanctions legal starvation?

What’s your take on the huge huge number of hospitals in the Gaza Strip? Is it that they are a particularly ill sort of people?

For comparisons sake there are 11 public hospitals in Manhattan for 1.6 million people. In Gaza there were 36 hospitals for 2 million individuals.

Could it be at all possible that ‘hospitals’ were constructed for terrorists endeavours, (weapon storage, tunnel entrances etc) because they are immune from being targeted as hospitals by international law? That would be clever, right?

If this might be a possibility what would your conclusions be about the fact that until Oct 7th individuals who needed specialist care were taken by volunteers from Gaza to Israeli hospitals daily? Did their own hospitals not function? Even with more aid given than any other country ever in the history of aid giving?

What would your conclusions be about the sort of leadership that allows citizens to use facilities that functioned as something else?

What sort of morality might we ascribe to those who pervert and manipulate international law for their own purposes?

The UK's security prevents an attack of those proportions. Israel have been doing its best to stave off an enemy, who won't stop until it has dominance in the region. I did have to smile when a poster referred to a greater Israel, in Israel wanting a full singing and dancing state. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It's pointless trying to reason when one can't even see or doesn't want to see how Israel is being made to be presented, instead of how its fighting a barbaric regime. One which the UK is fortunate not to have - yet.

Even if a single facility were misused, that does not justify systematically bombing hospitals, clinics, and ambulances where civilians are present. International law is clear- medical facilities are protected unless used exclusively for military purposes and even then, warnings have be given.

The repeated destruction of Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure isn’t about one “clever” misuse; it’s collective punishment. Independent investigations from the UN, HRW, and Amnesty show that civilians, patients and medical staff are being killed or displaced.

Comparing Gaza’s hospitals to Manhattan is misleading- population density, geography, and healthcare access are completely different. Misuse of one building does not erase the repeated targeting of innocent people.

Exactly. Using hospitals for military purposes is illegal and so is deliberately starving civilians- there’s no exception for “weapons were stored there” if the response punishes the entire population. Starving 1.1 million children in Gaza cannot be justified as a collateral effect.

International law, including the Geneva Conventions, clearly prohibits collective punishment. Sanctions or blockades that target the whole population fall into the same category when they deprive civilians of food, water, and medical care.

I don’t claim to know much about North Korea but reports of mass starvation due to government mismanagement and restrictions fall under “crimes against humanity” in principle- though enforcement and accountability are very different because the regime is sovereign and insulated.

The vast majority of Jewish people are Zionists, which Im sure you are aware of. Comparing the belief that Israel has the right to exist to Nazism is fucked up.

War crimes are an inevitable part of war now so get over it. Just wow. I guess that also excuses Hamas for the atrocities they committed, as part of the shrugging and 'shit happens' in war, view. Absolutely disgusting. War crimes are never ever justified. 🤮

I think the darkness was reached when Hamas broke the relative peace that existed between Gaza and Israel and tortured, murdered and burnt babies, toddlers, children, women and men, and stole citizens as hostages, babies, toddlers, children, women and men. When they promised to do this over and over and over again. When they stated the need for their own citizens to die to fortify their fighters. When they use the deaths of their citizens as propaganda - deaths they could have prevented by sheltering them in their tunnels. It is easy to list the actions Israel has taken to prevent the deaths of Gazans in this war. It is hard to list actions Hamas has taken to prevent the deaths of their own civilians in this war. When they steal freely given aid and sell it to their own citizens to enrich themselves.

If you want to make an argument of darkness, at least apply it evenly.

If you read the thread, you’ll see time and time again everyone has said that war crimes are never justified. Ever.

This is the issue in a nutshell. So many have taken a position on a subject and won’t even entertain any thought from an opposing viewpoint. They then accuse ‘the other side’ of something that was never said. Can’t have a constructive discussion with people like that.

International law, including the Geneva Conventions, clearly prohibits collective punishment. Sanctions or blockades that target the whole population fall into the same category when they deprive civilians of food, water, and medical care.

The International sanctions imposed on North Korea would certainly meet the definition of collective punishment, and the subsequent starvation illegal.

Yet, it is all very much legal and sanctioned by the UN.

The thread moved onto conversations around morality, and I think the situation in North Korea is interesting in that respect.

‘What’s wrong with Zionism?’ Why is it a bad word?

22+ Arab states surrounding Israel are Islamic countries. You can’t practice other religions there. People of other religions are persecuted.

We don’t have a name like ‘Zionism’ for those practicing just this in their own countries where theocracy rather than democracy is common. What name can we use for this exact phenomena in many many other nations that are not Jewish but practicing Muslim states and countries? Can we please think of one to adequately describe what millions of people want and live under and yet Israel and Jews are discriminated against for also wanting - yet practice greater tolerance for all by being a democracy.

Islamist? Can we use that? Except we do and it seems to be fine. But Zionism - where Jews want a tiny state where they can just be Jewish and not kicked out (again) is not only forbidden its too evil to be entertained even as an ideology? How is this sensical?

Israel - where there is predominantly a Jewish population - also have Mosques and churches and practicing Muslims and Christians. They have Muslims in their government, who have equality under the law regardless of religion - is truly unique for a country in the Middle East.

I do cringe when Zionism is picked up and run with, by those ignorant of its ideology.

I apply this completely evenly. The massacre by Hamas on civilians was not justified and the massacre and starvation by Israel on a civilian population isn’t justified either. It is all incredibly dark.