Israel at War with Hamas October 7, 2023

[Diogenes]

There is no question this was a horrific attack by Hamas on Israel that also endangers Palestinians.
To what extent are attacks like this inevitable, considering the history of Israel?

Isn't this just another example of how religious conflict breeds violence?
or
Is it inevitable that strongly held beliefs will always ignite the passions of some?

Perhaps the difference with religions that claim authority from God is that they inspire absolute beliefs, an absolute conviction they are 'right' and therefore anything is justifiable... including following God's orders to kill your own son.

Palestinian land stolen in 1948, more in 1967, then more every day in the West Bank makes acts of terrorism inevitable. Then Netanyahu put a right wing criminal in charge of the 'Ministry of Justice,' and... BIG SURPRISE! ... another war.
"If I go the to write indictment number one, it would go to Israel's Justice Minister YARIV LEVIN. He is the man who drove this insane, corrupt, dishonest effort to basically take over the power of the Supreme Court. With Netanyahu's help, he fractured Israel. He fractured Israeli society. He fractured the Israeli ministry, the military. He fractured the Israeli air force...."
__ Tom Friedman

https://www.rawstory.com/tom-friedman-i ... A-TIAtHv6Y

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #98]
I agree that the bias for Israel is long-standing, but I'd encourage the pro-Palestine crowd not to react to the bias with their own biases. Not all on the pro-Palestine side are doing that, but it's some times hard to tell them apart.

[Purple Knight]

The sick aspect of current culture appears to demand a lack of balance. One must be pro-Jewish or pro Israeli or else one is accused of 'antisemitism.' There are many Jews in Israel who condemn Netanyahu and reject aid from the U.S. to allow the Netanyahu regime to continue its repressive goal of supporting theft of land in the West Bank.

What Hamas did on Oct. 7 was horrific, barbaric, unforgettable. But that does not justify Netanyahu's indifference to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians while seeking to destroy Hamas. American Christians, in general, side with Israel automatically. My bias is this comes from reading the many Bible Stories where the Philistines and others are always the evil ones, the hero Israelites are the good ones killing the evil doers.

This biased historical meme controls over facts and objective analysis.

At some point, the burden of proof shifted to the person claiming he is not a racist. And Israel gleefully exploited this. Some Jews gleefully exploit this. They didn't do it - there's not some grand conspiracy - but it was very low-hanging fruit to be plucked.

The problem is, genuine racism can always be excused if the burden of proof is on the person claiming racism, because you can't prove what's in someone's head. There's a necessity to reasonably conclude bias if someone is always opposing anything Jewish. Each individual case may have a good reason, because, of course, the issues debated aren't solved, which is why they're debated.

But if racism is assumed to be proven whenever anyone opposes anything Jewish, we get this world, where Israel commits literal genocide and nobody can say anything against it, or else they're antisemitic. (Palestinians are a Semitic people, too, lol.)

If Nazis had been smart enough to discover that this card was in play, any time you opposed them, you'd have been accused of hating white people (or maybe just loving and favouring France) and the world would be a very different one today.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #98]
I agree that the bias for Israel is long-standing, but I'd encourage the pro-Palestine crowd not to react to the bias with their own biases. Not all on the pro-Palestine side are doing that, but it's some times hard to tell them apart.

Israel should get the same exact treatment they would get if they were white South Africans, and instead of solving conflict peacefully, and giving reparations for past injustices and land grabs, they ignored the Black population's cries until the conflict turned violent, and then they started bombing hospitals because omg these people who just want their own land are so violent and nasty.

Or imagine if white Americans were not nice to Native Americans, made them sub-citizens on their own land, did not provide the reservation system and did not allow them to live.

The idea that people should get their own land so they have a right to exist, is not bias. It should be applied to every People. If everyone but Israel is doing that, being anti-Israel is not bias, but the logical result of lack of bias.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #97]

Why do you support terrorists?

I support people who just want their own land. I support their right to defend themselves. I refuse to say that if the only self-defence left to you is violence, you have a moral obligation to just let yourself be wiped out.

Remember when our culture and stories bore this out? But see, actually the Bajorans are villains because they blew stuff up and killed people just to stop the Cardassians occupying their planet, what a selfish and violent thing to want, to have your own planet for your own People and not have it occupied by a foreign People.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Oc ... n_of_Bajor

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #104]

What a selfish and violent thing to want, to have your own planet for your own People and not have it occupied by a foreign People.

This moral reasoning also must apply to those who want their own countries rather than sharing all the planet re equity.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #104]

What a selfish and violent thing to want, to have your own planet for your own People and not have it occupied by a foreign People.

This moral reasoning also must apply to those who want their own countries rather than sharing all the planet re equity.

Letting each People have their own land is ***HOW*** you share the planet equally.

And yes, it does apply to everyone. This puts me in hot water when I take the side of the British people who don't want Muslim enclaves in the middle of their cities where women can't walk down the street without their hair covered. But it's the only consistent way to actually share.

If Bajor is not for the Cardassians then the Gaza Strip is not for Israel. I don't accept that these lessons expire. I don't accept that what is good and fair yesterday is not good and fair today. Because if that's the case, morality is meaningless, because we don't know what it will be tomorrow and whatever we think it is now, is 99.999% likely to be completely invalidated by whatever comes next.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #106]

I take the side of the British people who don't want Muslim enclaves in the middle of their cities where women can't walk down the street without their hair covered. But it's the only consistent way to actually share.

I do not thinking this is a good case for a definition of "actually sharing".

Because if that's the case, morality is meaningless, because we don't know what it will be tomorrow and whatever we think it is now, is 99.999% likely to be completely invalidated by whatever comes next.

Morality is "either/or" as it is the whole spectrum (good and bad) under that general heading.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #106]

I take the side of the British people who don't want Muslim enclaves in the middle of their cities where women can't walk down the street without their hair covered. But it's the only consistent way to actually share.

I do not thinking this is a good case for a definition of "actually sharing".

That's what actually sharing is, even if it doesn't sound nice. You get some of the cake all to yourself, and I get some of the cake all to myself. You don't get to eat half of it, then infinitely prompt me to "share" my half until I have half of nothing.

The type of sharing where no lines have to be drawn and people just naturally work within each other's rights and needs, can work only when we're dealing with cultures that don't clash about what those basic needs and rights are. We're conditioned to see drawing those lines as childish, but insisting we can never need rules and dividing lines to work out what is fair, because we're enlightened and perfect and we know everything, is actually more childish. Letting people have boundaries when necessary is the more mature option, and shows that we don't think we are perfect, nor that we can have everything all the time.

That's not to say we can't have multiculture. It's just, every People should also have some places that are for them. People believe this is fine until it's enlightened, defined-to-be-innocent victims doing the land grabbing. Then, people look the other way and demand that the side being deprived of their homeland just grow up and accept a culture that badly clashes with their own.

I'll give you an example. Animal rights activists. If they think animals have the same rights as humans, good for them. But they can't stay here and steal my dog out of my yard and free it. We need rules to live together, and all of us who live together, should follow the same rules. Modern people think this is childish. It'll all work out if everybody just does whatever they want. But it leads to irreducible conflict when I think I own my dog, and they think I do not, and try to take it from me. If someone is that ideologically different, then they need to go live somewhere that I am not. They deserve the same opportunity to live together under laws and rules that suit them, that I do.

Because if that's the case, morality is meaningless, because we don't know what it will be tomorrow and whatever we think it is now, is 99.999% likely to be completely invalidated by whatever comes next.

Morality is "either/or" as it is the whole spectrum (good and bad) under that general heading.

Then we need to search for objectivity. I think fairness is that objectivity. Treating people equally, treating Israel when it does something the same as we would treat South Africa if it did the same thing, treating Sam when he does something, the same as we would Bob if he did the same thing... is that objectivity.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #98]
I agree that the bias for Israel is long-standing, but I'd encourage the pro-Palestine crowd not to react to the bias with their own biases. Not all on the pro-Palestine side are doing that, but it's some times hard to tell them apart.

Israel should get the same exact treatment they would get if they were white South Africans, and instead of solving conflict peacefully, and giving reparations for past injustices and land grabs, they ignored the Black population's cries until the conflict turned violent, and then they started bombing hospitals because omg these people who just want their own land are so violent and nasty.

Or imagine if white Americans were not nice to Native Americans, made them sub-citizens on their own land, did not provide the reservation system and did not allow them to live.

The idea that people should get their own land so they have a right to exist, is not bias. It should be applied to every People. If everyone but Israel is doing that, being anti-Israel is not bias, but the logical result of lack of bias.

The bias from the pro-Palestinian side I'm referring to is when people only call for a cease-fire on Israel's side. Or when people call for Israel not to exist at all. Or when Israel gets called out for totalitarian style government while Palestine is no different. Besides that, the land of Palestine is disputable. It's disputable that it belonged only to the Palestinians or Arabs. Arabs took it over in the 8th century. The Jews owned it before then. Not sure where we draw the line, but an Israel or Palestine with only Jews or only Arabs is not a good option.

[Purple Knight]

The bias from the pro-Palestinian side I'm referring to is when people only call for a cease-fire on Israel's side. Or when people call for Israel not to exist at all. Or when Israel gets called out for totalitarian style government while Palestine is no different. Besides that, the land of Palestine is disputable. It's disputable that it belonged only to the Palestinians or Arabs. Arabs took it over in the 8th century. The Jews owned it before then. Not sure where we draw the line, but an Israel or Palestine without Jews is not a good option.

The reason there aren't random blue people where there weren't any yesterday, is that a People doesn't just pop up without having existed for a long time. And they existed somewhere. Everyone belongs somewhere, therefore everyone should have some land. Only Israel doesn't understand this.

They ought to call a neutral party to arbitrate, draw some reasonable and fair lines that won't just float across the map until Israel has everything, and when the Palestinians break them, I'll defend Israel.