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

[Diogenes]

Part of the problem is entertainers like Hannity stirring up even more hatred and division.
Israel was born in conflict and ancient religious hatreds. Palestinians will suffer more deaths because Israel has the better army. Their are no moral winners here. The words of Confucius come to mind:


“Before you embark on a Journey of Revenge, dig two graves”

For this latest tragedy I don't blame Jews or Palestinians, but like many Israelis, Hamas , AND Netanyahu and his Minister of "Justice," Levin as mentioned in the OP.
As The Times of Israel noted in this article:

For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces

For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group.
The idea was to prevent Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years ... our-faces/

[AgnosticBoy]

'Both sides-ism' in the media might be driving some of the moral equivalency arguments...and some are taking their cues from the media, accordingly.

Bothsidesing refers to the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited. The term is also used to describe public figures equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides are equally responsible for that action.

Bothsidesing and its related noun bothsidesism turn up in critiques of the news media when a journalist or pundit seems to give extra credence to a cause, action, or idea that on the surface seems objectionable, thereby establishing a sort of moral equivalence that allows said cause, action, or idea to be weighed seriously.

By giving credence to the other side, the media gives an impression of being fair to its subject, but in doing so often provides credibility to an idea that most might view as unmerited.

It’s not just the media that gets accused of bothsidesing. The term also arises whenever a public official—or anyone with a large listening audience—equivocates about a seemingly condemnable action by saying that the people on either side of that action are equally responsible for it having taken place. Bothsidesing happens prominently during times of mass protest—as protests are met with counterprotests and violent clashes erupt, turning to bothsidesism prevents one from explicitly identifying which is in the wrong, thereby avoiding any incisive comment on the discord that led to the protests in the first place.

Source: Merriam-Webster

Of course, there are benefits to factoring in both sides. If there's evidence that both sides are wrong (or right), then I think it's valid. BUt as the article suggests, there are also some negatives, like when someone thinks that's the only fair approach/conclusion, or wants to avoid calling out one side over the other, etc.

[Diogenes]

The real problem is extremism. The problem with religion is one cannot reason with "God given" beliefs any more than one can reason with political ideologues.

I've been reflecting lately on extremist movements. Hamas and militant Zionism; MAGA and the extreme 'right' of the GOP that has paralyzed the House and our Federal government; left wing extremist-anarchists (tho' we don't hear much from them, perhaps because the goal of anarchy has been reached).

Reflecting reminded me of Eric Hoffer and his best known book, THE TRUE BELIEVER, where Hoffer perfectly described extremism.

As summarized in Wikipedia,
“Hoffer argues that fanatical and extremist cultural movements, whether religious, social, or national, arise when large numbers of frustrated people, believing their own individual lives to be worthless or spoiled, join a movement demanding radical change. But the real attraction for this population is an escape from the self, not a realization of individual hopes.”
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/ ... believers/

Despite sometimes good intentions, tribal religion is the arch enemy of peace and reason.

[William]

[boatsnguitars]

'Both sides-ism' in the media might be driving some of the moral equivalency arguments...and some are taking their cues from the media, accordingly.

Bothsidesing refers to the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited. The term is also used to describe public figures equivocating about a seemingly condemnable action saying that people on both sides are equally responsible for that action.

Bothsidesing and its related noun bothsidesism turn up in critiques of the news media when a journalist or pundit seems to give extra credence to a cause, action, or idea that on the surface seems objectionable, thereby establishing a sort of moral equivalence that allows said cause, action, or idea to be weighed seriously.

By giving credence to the other side, the media gives an impression of being fair to its subject, but in doing so often provides credibility to an idea that most might view as unmerited.

It’s not just the media that gets accused of bothsidesing. The term also arises whenever a public official—or anyone with a large listening audience—equivocates about a seemingly condemnable action by saying that the people on either side of that action are equally responsible for it having taken place. Bothsidesing happens prominently during times of mass protest—as protests are met with counterprotests and violent clashes erupt, turning to bothsidesism prevents one from explicitly identifying which is in the wrong, thereby avoiding any incisive comment on the discord that led to the protests in the first place.

Source: Merriam-Webster

Of course, there are benefits to factoring in both sides. If there's evidence that both sides are wrong (or right), then I think it's valid. BUt as the article suggests, there are also some negatives, like when someone thinks that's the only fair approach/conclusion, or wants to avoid calling out one side over the other, etc.

This is why I can't stand the Right Wing. They simply can't think properly. It's all knee-jerk and stupidity. Honestly.

No one is blaming the actual victims. They were innocent Israelis going about their business. Netenyahu and the leaders of the Right Wing government that has tortured Palestinians were not killed that day. The Right Wing thinks that if you blame the government, it means blaming the average citizen. They simply can't think. They can't understand that hard liners in the Israeli government have created the conditions. They've willingly created and then placed citizens next to the ticking timebomb.
The perpetrators are truly to blame. Everyone is saying that, but they didn't wake up one day and decide to do it in a vacuum. The Israeli government is partially responsible, too. But people like Hannity aren't concerned about nuance - they want blood. They want anger. They want gore because it helps the ratings.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #25]
Yes, in America, particularly with the evangelical 'right wing,' there is great bias toward Israel.

I wonder if someone, somewhere will actually, ever read the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Mark and try love and concessions instead of retaliation. This tribal and religious hate and 'eye for an eye' strategy has been going on for thousands of years and only escalates, deepening the hatred.

Even half of Israel wants a Two State solution. But not Netanyahu or the American right.
Tribal religion poisons everything.
Jesus of Nazareth represented non tribal religion and they killed him for it.
And the majority of his followers still don't get it.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #26]

The majority of his followers still don't get it

Then how are they (the majority) "his followers"?

[Tcg]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #25]
Yes, in America, particularly with the evangelical 'right wing,' there is great bias toward Israel.

I wonder if someone, somewhere will actually, ever read the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew and Mark and try love and concessions instead of retaliation. This tribal and religious hate and 'eye for an eye' strategy has been going on for thousands of years and only escalates, deepening the hatred.

It seems that the evangelical 'right wing' has no problem dipping back into the Old Testament when violence and destruction in desired.

Even half of Israel wants a Two State solution. But not Netanyahu or the American right.
Tribal religion poisons everything.
Jesus of Nazareth represented non tribal religion and they killed him for it.
And the majority of his followers still don't get it.

Those that take a literal view of the Bible have no problem returning to the Old Testament here as well. References to the "Promised Land" are scattered throughout the Pentateuch with perhaps the most detailed being from Numbers 34 which starts with:

"1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Command the people of Israel, and say to them, when you enter the land of Canaan (this is the land that shall fall to you for an inheritance, the land of Canaan as defined by its borders),"

What follows are the details of the borders of the "Promised Land."

Some Christians believe this promise is still valid today and will support Israel's right to the land no matter what other issues are relevant. There are passages like Exodus 32:13 which claims Israel inherit this land forever:

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’

These are used to suggest support for Israel is the "Godly" thing to do.


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

No one is blaming the actual victims.

No one here is doing that, but there have been some from the pro-Palestinian supporters that have. From what I've gathered, they've framed the issue as Israel being an occupier and the Hamas is the resistance to that. There are some that don't even want to acknowledge that Hamas was in the wrong.

My view is that even if Israel was an occupier and holding the Palestinians in containment, that still does not justify killing civilians, including babies. At most, go after the Israeli military targets - follow international rules of warfare. If we say Hamas is justified in killing every single Jew because their land was taken, then the same logic would justify Native Americans killing every non-native American.

[boatsnguitars]

No one is blaming the actual victims.

No one here is doing that, but there have been some from the pro-Palestinian supporters that have. From what I've gathered, they've framed the issue as Israel being an occupier and the Hamas is the resistance to that. There are some that don't even want to acknowledge that Hamas was in the wrong.

My view is that even if Israel was an occupier and holding the Palestinians in containment, that still does not justify killing civilians, including babies. At most, go after the Israeli military targets - follow international rules of warfare. If we say Hamas is justified in killing every single Jew because their land was taken, then the same logic would justify Native Americans killing every non-native American.

I should say, "No one of sound mind or importance is blaming the victims." Yes, there are always the extremists. In fact, I am reminded in times like these that 20% of the American public believes Lizard People rule our world. So, that a few people blame the victims is not surprising. In fact, we get a lot of victim blaming: "she had it coming, dressing like that", "He had it coming by not having a gun to defend himself", "kids had it coming for not having guns to defend themselves", "Black people had it coming for not wanting to go back to Africa", etc.