> > Hmm, I don't want to put words into your mouth here
> Kinda seems like you do since I didn't say anything like that.
> I said that Egypt bears some responsibility for the deaths because of they made that choice. I provided historical context because I think Isreal also bears some responsibility for that Egypt's choice because of Isreal's historically poor behavior towards returning refugees with the wrong ethnicity.
They're indeed not your words, but I can't understand how what you said can be in contradiction with them. I can't help but conclude that you're describing a world where countries believe a population is suffering genocide, could take them in to save them, yet don't do so because they might not be let back. Please do tell me where I've gone wrong here.
> > Just out of interest, would you say that the proportion of moral responsibility that Egypt has is equal to the proportion of news coverage and Hacker News discussion Egypt gets on this issue? And if not, do you have an idea why not?
> That's a weird question. Moral responsibility isn't something you assign as a fraction and certainly isn't based on how much coverage something gets. That's a bizare way to think about morality, so I'm not even sure why you'd want to ask that in a good faith discussion.
I don't think it's bizarre (and I certainly didn't say moral responsibility is based on news coverage!). News coverage is certainly something you can assign as a fraction. If, when presenting news on a particular topic, only one country gets wall to wall news coverage and forum discussion of its behaviour and there is barely mention of others despite them sharing some degree of responsibility, that seems pretty odd to me, and I'd want to try to understand why!
> > Furthermore I doubt Netanyahu has any incentive to keep the hostages in Hamas hands
> Netanyahu has both a clear lust for power and a slate of corruption charges hanging over his head. This conflict has been quite effective at helping with both, why would he want it to end?
I didn't say he wanted it to end. Elections will come around regardless of whether it has ended. If there are still hostages in Gaza when the election comes he will be judged very harshly by the electorate. Losing the next election puts him at increased risk from corruption charges so if he wants to avoid those charges he'll be trying his best to get the hostages out.
> > My view is that if Israel is conducting itself according to international norms on war
> They aren't, that's why the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Given your stated stance, you should support Netanyahu turning himself in.
Perhaps you are confusing warrants with judgement?
> > Ah, but that's something different. I agree that power comes with responsibility. There is a common belief that in any conflict the party in the wrong is the more powerful one.
> If a significantly more powerful party is in a conflict with a less power part and is killing way more of them, then yes, the does put the more powerful party in the wrong, reglardless of whatever talking point they have. The more powerful party has the greater responsibility for achieving peace and protecting lives and the failure rests primarily on them.
OK! Well, I completely disagree, and as such I don't expect we can make any more progress in this discussion, but I'm glad we managed to at least tease out this critical difference, so I thank you for persevering in the conversation. (We also disagree on how to determine the facts of the matter, but I think that's a less fundamental disagreement.)
> > As I said, I do not believe absolute numbers of casualties determine justifiability in war. I believe war goals and means determine justifiability.
> I didn't ask about absolute number, but a percentage of the population.
A percentage of the (let's say pre-war) population corresponds directly to an absolute number because the pre-war population is a known constant.
> You seem to be saying that there is no percentage at which you will adjust your point of view. If Isreal kills 90% of the population, that really wouldn't count as ethnic cleansing to you? What about 100%? There's really no point at which you would stop just taking Israel at its word?
Correct, I do not judge morality of war by the percentage, or equivalently, absolute number of fatalities. I judge it based on the war goals and war conduct. Theoretically, and it won't happen, but theoretically, if the Gazans fight to the last man, woman and child before giving up the hostages and before disbanding the military capability of Hamas then in my view it is just to pursue the war to that length.
The same would have been true of my view of the conduct of the allies against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. They were entitled to seek unconditional surrender. If Nazi Germany had not capitulated after Hitler's suicide, the allies would have been within their rights to continue to prosecute the war until capitulation, and no doubt more civilians would have been killed and more civilian infrastructure destroyed until they did so. Now, that's not to say that Israel, the US, the UK couldn't choose or have chosen to stop earlier for other reasons, I'm just saying I don't see it as a moral limit. I see Israel's war as just, and I see the allies' war on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as just, so in my mind that allows them to seek total victory.
> > Israel has many more detractors than supporters globally (I would guess the ratio is something like 100:1) so I simply don't expect most of the reporting to be fair to Israel.
> If the entire world is telling you to stop murdering children, maybe you should consider listening?
Yes, I definitely think it's worth listening! In fact I have been listening very hard. But I also don't judge truth based on absolute number of voices either.
> > I simply don't expect most of the reporting to be fair to Israel. Furthermore, I find that many anti-Israel claims simply don't hold water.
> Like the Pro-Isreal claim that you made and I debunked? How about casting doubt on the widely accepted death toll numbers?
> I've seen the kind of information sources you cite. It's pretty clear you only look for sources that confirm your world view.
You're welcome to think whatever you like about what I look for. I'm quite content that my practice of searching for discomfirmatory evidence is a healthy one, and I will continue to engage in it.