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

[alexxcJRO]

Hamas is not better. They have committed intentionally great acts of malevolence and evil against the innocent.

I am not here to defend Hamas but if you look at the history of Israel’s decades long relentless attacks on the Palestinian people, I am beginning to understand why they do what they do.
Yahooo is trying to exterminate the Palestinian people.
Yahooo has been destroying entire buildings knowing that human lives are inside.
Yahooo is responsible for the murder of dozens upon dozens of Palestinian children by IDF sniper teams.
Yahooo is responsible for destroying the Palestinian fishing boats in an effort to starve the Palestinian people.
Yahooo is responsible for the creation of illegal settlements built on top of Palestinian villages after murdering all within.
In my view, comparing one atrocity to another atrocity does not relinquish the guilt of either.

You say you are not here to defend Hamas or "comparing one atrocity to another atrocity does not relinquish the guilt of either" but then we have other words from you " I am beginning to understand why they do what they do" and only talk of one side wrong doings which betray the opposite thing.
Q: What can we do with this apparent contradiction?
Q: Should we laugh?

[Purple Knight]

I am asking you that, because we are extremely privileged to live in a safe world where our rights are protected and if we're wronged, the powers above us will legitimately seek justice for us, and there are people who basically live in a state of nature where other people hurt them and take things from them and that's more or less the way it is. I am asking you to consider what is morally acceptable in those circumstances.

I've clearly shown that not everyone would resort to your thinking while living under unjust conditions. Consider how African-Americans who were once enslaved have been able to fight for their rights without advocating for attacks on innocent people. There are alternatives other than just seeking some bloodthirsty fueled action. What I find troubling is when people are quick to jump to the latter option.

Slaves were denied their rights, and I am not endorsing slavery, but in the vast majority of cases they were still safe. If their masters were shelling them and killing their babies, it would have been different. Besides, sometimes slaves did rebel, violently, that's how Haiti came to be, and it is generally accepted that they were right to kill their French masters and take their freedom. That, when they were more or less safe. The Palestinians are denied their rights and they are additionally not safe by any measure.

Maybe not everyone would do it, but once someone does do it - commit violence in defence of group rights when that group is a race - I don't know of a single case that is considered wrong. When it is not a race there seem to be cases, such as Ruby Ridge.

There were protests and then there were riots. We should not conflate the two. Some may view the riots as being "righteous", but does that prove that it is right?

As much as morality can be proven, yes. If you don't want some ancient holy book or dogma, popular opinion is all there is. It's not a good place to be in. But as I see it, there's nothing else to go on.

Perhaps those that are privileged to not be affected by the riots would say they are right up until the point of when their family and neighborhoods are affected by the riots. Would those who approve of violence on the innocent be okay if that same standard was applied to them. That's when we can really find out if someone is being principled or if they are just engaging in selfish/selective morality which is what we typically find in politics.

I think I said this in the specific topic, but everyone's right to justice is equal, and a huge reason we want to avoid situations like these, is that now you have victims of the riots who now have just as much justification to seek justice for themselves, against the rioters. Realistically the situation is over and I applaud anyone who abdicates their right to justice in service of those originally wronged (moreover the police are protecting them and punishing their aggressors anyway) but in the end, if someone smashes into your store, breaks everything, steals everything, ruins your life, and you have reason to think this might be allowed over and over... and you shoot him, at the end of the day I'm not going to say you were wrong. If he's done it six times before breakfast and nobody will help you and you get hold of his kid, you're still justified. I would not personally do it at this point, because I recognise that my justice stands in opposition to a greater justice, but I do think I have the right, even if people say I don't. The bit about the powers above you not wanting to help is very, very important.

See here I've found it.

Now, that said, I'm not excluding the victims of the looting and rioting from the statement, "People do have the right to use force when there is not justice for them." If nothing is done and they continue to be victimised they not only will fight back, not as some sort of immoral inevitability I concede and shake my head at, but they ought to fight back.

Do you see how I'm perfectly consistent here? It's easy when you've had to think hard about every last thing you believe and had to justify it and been on the spot and had hordes of people coming after you trying to find a contradiction because they hate your face. People in real life hate me. So I've had to take the popular positions even if I don't agree in my heart. What I've also had to do is apply those positions consistently, even though nobody else must do that, because people will pick the flesh from my bones trying to reach a contradiction.

This is what someone looks like who actually takes a side based on what they think is true, not what most people do, which is siding with their tribe and justifying it however. Most people don't think further than, "Jews not dangerous, Jews help America, Palestinians probably blow us up." And you know what? It's more or less true. But that doesn't mean Israel cannot wrong Palestine.

The issue with me is not the examples as I'm sure we can find examples of just about any type of behavior. What I want to know is what is right, how can we prove it, and if such standards are driven by hate and revenge, which usually comes out based on how these standards are applied. For instance, when someone applies the worst of standards only towards a particular group of people (as opposed to everyone, including themselves), then don't expect me to believe that it's coming from a good place.

I do not apply the worst standards to Israel. I've said I don't blame them for killing babies either if they're not trying to take the moral high ground. I just... still blame them for grabbing land. I don't want to be on the wrong side here. I just have no choice because Israel is doing something that would be considered wrong if anyone else did it. Imagine if a bunch of Mexicans started fighting dirty trying to annex US soil, and brought their women and children with them. The US would be expected to only punish direct aggressors even if it meant more of our citizens died. The Right would cry and moan about it, but they'd be brought low by moralists and morality. The same morality, I apply to this situation. I have to.

Sure, but then you can't claim that there are no peaceful options or argue as if the only option left is resorting to violence.

I'm not. If some peaceful option would work, can reasonably be expected to work, and is available at a cost the Palestinians can afford, then I'm wrong. I don't think there are peaceful options and I don't think Israel respects Palestine's right to exist, but if I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong that it's justified.

I'm okay with either side fighting fairly (not deliberately targeting those that don't or can't fight) or both sides seeking peace. Israel tends to go after militants while there are some collateral damage. In contrast, Hamas deliberately targets innocent civilians. That's a big difference, and it's the reason why I react differently to both sides in terms of their fighting.

Well what about moving? I understand it would be a big deal but the US financially supports anything Israel wants to do, so there is always that option. I support moving Israel to America and making it the capital. That's really how it is anyway, and that way 1) No more kids would die in the Middle East and 2) If Americans complained about large numbers of Muslims moving in out of concern for the ideology rift, somehow I think they'd no longer be brushed off as evil racists. Win-win-win.

Now if Israel is staying put because they believe that's their holy land, that is their right. They think it is theirs. They have a right to use force. But the question of who has options available to immediately end the conflict and ensure the safety of all their People, that's definitely Israel. And possibly not Palestine.

I'm going off of the common usage of the term. If you look up 'anti-Semitism', you'll see it defined as hostility or prejudice against Jews.

Probably because they're the only Middle-Easterners that have a big presence in other countries. If Palestinians had that instead, the word would most commonly apply to bias against them, I would be using that argument against you, and there would be as little defence. I don't care if you think I'm biased against Jews because whether or not I hate their guts is actually completely irrelevant to whether or not Israel is wronging Palestine by grabbing all their land.

Here's a thought. If Hamas fought clean, they'd garner more support from Western nations. If we see a sudden uptick of support from Westerners for their cause even when they use unjust methods, imagine how many more Westerners would be open to supporting them had they resorted to using just methods.

They are getting that uptick now, due to being compressed into smaller and smaller areas and the strikes on Gaza, and a lot of people don't think the Palestinians can afford to fight fair. Nobody who cares can do anything. We're stuck in a "democratic" country that ignores us and continues to support a bully because democracy.

[AgnosticBoy]

Slaves were denied their rights, and I am not endorsing slavery, but in the vast majority of cases they were still safe. If their masters were shelling them and killing their babies, it would have been different.

Slaves were safe? Is "shelling them and killing their babies" the only way to harm slaves? What about rape, forced labor (slavery itself!), discrimination, etc? Just because slaves weren't killed just as long as they performed their forced labor (or lived a very suppressed life having to endure discrimination) doesn't mean they were "safe".

Besides, sometimes slaves did rebel, violently, that's how Haiti came to be, and it is generally accepted that they were right to kill their French masters and take their freedom. That, when they were more or less safe.

My point is that there are alternatives that can work other than violence. But hek, even if you choose the violent route, there are alternatives to killing innocent people, like just killing those that are actually a threat or who are fighting against you. The fact that you would jump to the extreme route (which is the Hamas style justice of killing innocent people), based off of shaky grounds and personal opinion, shows that your views are anti-Semitic.

The Palestinians are denied their rights and they are additionally not safe by any measure.

Factoring why the Palestinians aren't safe is the key context you're leaving out. You even said in an earlier post that Israel can defend itself. If Palestinian militants go kill and rape Jews, then of course that would cause a war and they should not feel safe. That's usually when the "shelling and killing of babies" starts. Otherwise, if Israel is not provoked by attacks on their own people, then the unsafe conditions that Israel is creating for Palestinians is containing them to a small space of land. Definitely not the ideal, but I find African-American slavery to be far worse because they couldn't have any land, were taken from their own land, and then forced into slavery.

Maybe not everyone would do it, but once someone does do it - commit violence in defence of group rights when that group is a race - I don't know of a single case that is considered wrong.

Of course, you don't consider it wrong. To say that no one else considers it wrong is biased and wrong. I can't speak for the standards back then, but today it would be considered terrorism which is seen as wrong by many Western nations.

[Purple Knight]

Slaves were denied their rights, and I am not endorsing slavery, but in the vast majority of cases they were still safe. If their masters were shelling them and killing their babies, it would have been different.

Slaves were safe? Is "shelling them and killing their babies" the only way to harm slaves? What about rape, forced labor (slavery itself!), discrimination, etc? Just because slaves weren't killed just as long as they performed their forced labor (or lived a very suppressed life having to endure discrimination) doesn't mean they were "safe".

They weren't in constant threat of death unless they were disobedient. I'm not defending slavery but they lived in fear of being beaten, not killed. When your life is in constant danger, that's an even more horrible state of being.

I know someone who lives this way. Her husband is sick of her and she's in constant threat of being kicked out of the house. She probably won't be able to get a job or keep her cat. She's had jobs and every time she has lost them due to complaints. I suspect I know who they're coming from. She will probably die if he kicks her out. She tried to check into a women's shelter already, and her husband convinced them to blacklist her on account of she was just trying to get attention. She jumps at his every word and that has become not enough. She does everything he asks and it's never enough. He loves degradation. He puts her in "sexy" outfits (she's overweight) just to show her how disgusting she is, and then, the next time, it will be, "I can't believe you think I would do that. Unbelievable. I think you're sexy which is why I want you to wear that," and if she points out he did do that, she will be "starting an argument." He loves to give her contradictory commands and bring down the threats when she picks the "wrong" option, which of course she always does. Nobody can do anything because he's so charismatic. If you go against him, you will go to jail. A neighbour tried to help her. He was arrested the next week. If he told her to kill somebody, she'd do it and I don't blame her.

I may catch flak for this but yes, that's worse than slavery. When your life is in constant danger, that's a different state entirely.

My point is that there are alternatives that can work other than violence. But hek, even if you choose the violent route, there are alternatives to killing innocent people, like just killing those that are actually a threat or who are fighting against you. The fact that you would jump to the extreme route (which is the Hamas style justice of killing innocent people), based off of shaky grounds and personal opinion, shows that your views are anti-Semitic.

It shows that I think violence is justified to protect rights, nothing more.

The tactic of applying the antisemite label started working because people didn't want another Holocaust and it became okay to shift the burden and make people prove their innocence, which can only be done by never criticising anything that happens to be Jewish. It was always unfair but hey, if it stops another Holocaust, it's probably the right idea, because if you let people ride the assumption of innocence, they will make stuff up and use it to hate.

However, now that the genocide is protected by this tactic of crying antisemite and assuming people are guilty unless they can prove their innocence, ultimately, at this point, it will stop working.

Factoring why the Palestinians aren't safe is the key context you're leaving out. You even said in an earlier post that Israel can defend itself. If Palestinian militants go kill and rape Jews, then of course that would cause a war and they should not feel safe. That's usually when the "shelling and killing of babies" starts. Otherwise, if Israel is not provoked by attacks on their own people, then the unsafe conditions that Israel is creating for Palestinians is containing them to a small space of land. Definitely not the ideal, but I find African-American slavery to be far worse because they couldn't have any land, were taken from their own land, and then forced into slavery.

The same thing happened in Myanmar. Sometimes the Rohingya Muslims come out of their areas and rape the locals. And that makes the locals go into the Muslim areas and mess 'em up. And you know what happened? 60 Minutes did a hit piece on how terrible Myanmar was for that!

Here's the truth that other countries are expected to accept: Muslims are there. Sometimes they will rape. Very occasionally they will be radical and commit terrorism. If you can't find the culprit and punish him individually (which does not involve violating his human rights!) then too scarfing bad. And again I'm not mad at Israel for killing babies. I am mad at Israel for grabbing land. I do not accept that the Palestinians started it. They're defending their land.

Maybe not everyone would do it, but once someone does do it - commit violence in defence of group rights when that group is a race - I don't know of a single case that is considered wrong.

Of course, you don't consider it wrong. To say that no one else considers it wrong is biased and wrong. I can't speak for the standards back then, but today it would be considered terrorism which is seen as wrong by many Western nations.

Do you see a case where someone has defended their group's rights with violence, that group has been a race, and the consensus is that they were wrong? The best example I can think of that is considered right, is Haiti. If the consensus was that it was wrong, Haiti would not be recognised as a sovereign country. Some people call it a failed state but everyone recognises their right to exist. Ultimately, if you recognise Haiti's right to exist, you recognise the right to defend your group's rights (if that group is a race) with violence.

[AgnosticBoy]

Slaves were safe? Is "shelling them and killing their babies" the only way to harm slaves? What about rape, forced labor (slavery itself!), discrimination, etc? Just because slaves weren't killed just as long as they performed their forced labor (or lived a very suppressed life having to endure discrimination) doesn't mean they were "safe".

They weren't in constant threat of death unless they were disobedient. I'm not defending slavery but they lived in fear of being beaten, not killed. When your life is in constant danger, that's an even more horrible state of being.

And being constantly denied freedom as a slave doesn't count as denying someone justice? Your original condition for justifying killing innocent people was just denying justice, remember? You stated this:

I'm not saying anyone should commit violence or asking them to do it. But I am saying violence, when you are denied justice, is morally permissible. If that counts as incitement then I guess it fits the bill.

NO mention that it had to be the specific type of denying of justice that you are just now bringing up. This is the problem when you have nothing more than your personal standards to make your case. You can just make up all the arbitrary conditions you want, shift your goal post and conclusions at your convenience, and then apply your standard selectively (different standard for Palestinians than you have for African-Americans).

If anyone else can actually give me a logical and evidence-based reason why deliberately killing innocent people (Hamas-style justice) is right, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't try to apply that standard at home, or anywhere else for that matter.

[Purple Knight]

And being constantly denied freedom as a slave doesn't count as denying someone justice? Your original condition for justifying killing innocent people was just denying justice, remember? You stated this:

I'm not saying anyone should commit violence or asking them to do it. But I am saying violence, when you are denied justice, is morally permissible. If that counts as incitement then I guess it fits the bill.

Right. And I think slaves have the right to rebel to gain their freedom, even if it means killing their masters. What I said is that the reason many slaves don't rebel is that they are safe, and what I meant by that is that they reasonably expect to still be alive tomorrow.

NO mention that it had to be the specific type of denying of justice that you are just now bringing up. This is the problem when you have nothing more than your personal standards to make your case. You can just make up all the arbitrary conditions you want, shift your goal post and conclusions at your convenience, and then apply your standard selectively (different standard for Palestinians than you have for African-Americans).

The same standard. And anyone who recognises Haiti's right to exist, recognises the right to fight for rights, with lethal violence.

If anyone else can actually give me a logical and evidence-based reason why deliberately killing innocent people (Hamas-style justice) is right, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't try to apply that standard at home, or anywhere else for that matter.

What kind of evidence would you accept?

[AgnosticBoy]

Right. And I think slaves have the right to rebel to gain their freedom, even if it means killing their masters. What I said is that the reason many slaves don't rebel is that they are safe, and what I meant by that is that they reasonably expect to still be alive tomorrow.

You're claiming without evidence that they expected to be alive.

Here's some perspective that people should factor in before claiming that African-Americans felt safe, even from being killed:

A lynching is the public killing of an individual who has not received any due process. These executions were often carried out by lawless mobs, though police officers did participate, under the pretext of justice.

Lynchings were violent public acts that white people used to terrorize and control Black people in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the South. Lynchings typically evoke images of Black men and women hanging from trees, but they involved other extreme brutality, such as torture, mutilation, decapitation, and desecration. Some victims were burned alive.

A typical lynching involved a criminal accusation, an arrest, and the assembly of a mob, followed by seizure, physical torment, and murder of the victim. Lynchings were often public spectacles attended by the white community in celebration of white supremacy. Photos of lynchings were often sold as souvenir postcards.

Source: https://naacp.org/find-resources/histor ... ng-america

IF you put aside your privilege of not being a Black slave for a second, I'd think plenty of slaves would've been afraid for their life seeing that could've happened to any one of them and it was such a public spectacle.

Either way, the issue is if non-violent actions can work to fix an unjust system? To show that, I don't need to get into what would cause African-Americans to resort to violence, but rather it would take showing that non-violent means can work. That was my point about bringing up how African-Americans have dealt with injustices. I don't even limit myself to non-violence since I'm okay going after those that are a threat.

The same standard. And anyone who recognises Haiti's right to exist, recognises the right to fight for rights, with lethal violence.

I accept the right of Haitians to be there because they are now the established owners of that land. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything in their history. Even if there was a dispute about the land, I wouldn't be defending the French either as I don't believe that any totalitarian government (including slave owners) should be able to own land.

If anyone else can actually give me a logical and evidence-based reason why deliberately killing innocent people (Hamas-style justice) is right, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't try to apply that standard at home, or anywhere else for that matter.

What kind of evidence would you accept?

Since we have competing claims, obviously both Hamas and the West can't be right at the same time. I'd want verifiable evidence showing that the Western standard of not deliberately killing innocent people is wrong and that your position is right.

[Purple Knight]

Right. And I think slaves have the right to rebel to gain their freedom, even if it means killing their masters. What I said is that the reason many slaves don't rebel is that they are safe, and what I meant by that is that they reasonably expect to still be alive tomorrow.

You're claiming without evidence that they expected to be alive.

I can add some evidence if you wish. The death rate of slaves versus whites wasn't even a percent apart.

https://geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnome ... evity.html
The death rate was 1.8 percent for the slaves and 1.2 percent for Whites (Stamp, 1965, p. 77).

This small difference is entirely explainable by the lifestyle difference and mistreatment. In other words, they were worked hard, and they died a little more. Lynchings were a big thing after slavery.

Again, I am not condoning slavery, but a 1.8% death rate equals very reasonably safe. This is probably why so many slaves didn't rebel: They had an incentive not to. Do you expect me to condemn the slaves in the alternate universe where they are brutally violent and regularly kill white children, because there, masters come into their slave cottages and shoot one of them every time they misbehave?

I'm not the inconsistent one here. I'm saying, slaves ought to rebel. They have the right. And to use violence. They have that right because their rights are being denied. And everyone agrees with me up to this point. However, the Palestinians are being severely oppressed, they are NOT as safe as American slaves were, and now suddenly the doctrine that one may defend one's basic rights with violence, disappears. Haiti remains an example because they absolutely did kill the masters' women and children, even though they didn't need to!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
The long years of oppression by the planters had left many blacks with a hatred of all whites, and the revolt was marked by extreme violence from the very start. The masters and mistresses were dragged from their beds to be killed, and the heads of French children were placed on pikes that were carried at the front of the rebel columns.

Now once again, I support Haiti in this revolution. I don't think the fact that someone is more violent than necessary makes a just cause, suddenly unjust. However, this is even more egregious than what the Palestinians are doing because the killing of these children was not in the service of rebellion, while what the Palestinians are doing when they kill children is in the service of winning a freedom that has not yet been won. And everyone agrees that Haiti was ultimately justified and that more killing than necessary does not invalidate a cause that is fundamentally valid, or Haiti would not be considered a sovereign country.

Do I wish that Haitians had not killed women and children? Sure. I would like to think I would not do that, but frankly I don't know. But that's different than nitpicking on tactics so I can say the victim side is actually the aggressor, or morally equivalent to the aggressor. Even if I were to say that the killing of those women and children was wrong, that does not invalidate the cause. The cause is still right. How they went about it being wrong, does not change that. I could do that right now if I wanted. I could say, I condemn any acts of terror but the cause of Palestine is still in the right and thus that's the side I'm on. I wish both sides would just follow the Geneva conventions. This would strengthen my case, but it's weaselly and I don't want to argue this way. The truth is I don't condemn (or nitpick) violence when used in the defence of rights. It actually gets me in trouble because I'm appalled by the degree to which our society protects aggressors, they will get 5-10 for murder, and if they come back and threaten you or your family after already having killed one, you will go to prison for life if you kill them because you are now a retaliator.

Either way, the issue is if non-violent actions can work to fix an unjust system? To show that, I don't need to get into what would cause African-Americans to resort to violence, but rather it would take showing that non-violent means can work. That was my point about bringing up how African-Americans have dealt with injustices. I don't even limit myself to non-violence since I'm okay going after those that are a threat.

Well non-violence did work in America. Would it have worked for Haiti? We can't say. And they absolutely did kill women and children when it was not necessary at all.

So are you going to say, the fact that they used those tactics invalidates Haiti being a sovereign state and they are now morally equal to their French enslavers? The fair thing seems to be that Haiti does have a right to exist, the rebellion was fundamentally righteous, and any individuals who killed women and put the heads of children on pikes, should ideally be punished, but that does not take away from the fight Haiti fought, being a justified one, and any consequences of that.

I accept the right of Haitians to be there because they are now the established owners of that land. Doesn't mean I have to agree with everything in their history. Even if there was a dispute about the land, I wouldn't be defending the French either as I don't believe that any totalitarian government (including slave owners) should be able to own land.

So if the French went back in and started grabbing land, you'd say their respective causes (Haiti defending the land their People cultivated, and the French land-grabbing) were morally equivalent because some Haitians killed women and children?

It's very clear that religion is muddying the waters in this case and making it easier to say that Haiti legitimately owns what they have held for a long time, while France does not have a special right to reclaim it, but that since Jews think they have a holy land, we all believe we're supposed to give them more property rights than we would cede if there wasn't religious malarkey involved. We're all taught in America that we have to walk on eggshells for religion. Adjust our positions because religious people should have special rights to use drugs, abuse animals, and risk lives. I'm sick of it. Nobody should have special rights. That's what any sane person believes.

Since we have competing claims, obviously both Hamas and the West can't be right at the same time. I'd want verifiable evidence showing that the Western standard of not deliberately killing innocent people is wrong and that your position is right.

Oh I'm not arguing that the Western standard of not killing innocents is wrong. I am arguing that it is not the Western standard.

The best evidence I can give is that even the Wikipedia article I linked uses subtle language of righteousness, like how they have to preface the fact that the Haitians killed women and children with the fact that it was because of the mistreatment they suffered. To me this is a slam dunk. But the fact that nobody questions Haiti's right to exist as a sovereign country is also very strong evidence. If the tactics the Haitians used invalidated their cause, and made them morally equivalent to their enslavers, the French would be justified in invading, or at least neutral in doing so, they certainly have the power as Haiti is crumbling on its own, and the West ought to support or at least ignore it.

I can also give you modern mythos and stories that clearly paint the terrorist side as righteous, but I admit that the best I can find of someone still obviously being the good guys, is someone knowingly killing innocents as collateral damage, as is your position.

[AgnosticBoy]

You're claiming without evidence that they expected to be alive.

I can add some evidence if you wish. The death rate of slaves versus whites wasn't even a percent apart.

This doesn't show that African-Americans weren't fearful of getting killed.

Lynchings were a big thing after slavery.

Just one lynching could have the effect of making African-Americans fear for their lives, especially when it is publicized. Your point about lynchings being a "big" thing is just an attempt to apply some arbitrary standard, as if there is a set number that has to be reached to determine when someone would be in fear of losing their life.

Lynchings were covered in local newspapers with headlines spelling out the horrific details. Photos of victims, with exultant white observers posed next to them, were taken for distribution in newspapers or on postcards. Body parts, including genitalia, were sometimes distributed to spectators or put on public display. Most infractions were for petty crimes, like theft, but the biggest one of all was looking at or associating with white women. Many victims were black businessmen or black men who refused to back down from a fight.

source: PBS

Besides that, eventhough lynchings weren't well known about before the civil war, but the killings of slaves did occur under a different title, i.e. "execution" or capital punishment:

White colonists quickly began using this “sanguinary code,” as the British called it, to enforce the institution of slavery. Colonial lawmakers created laws that applied only to the enslaved, and special courts, run by enslavers, ordered executions. For a time, the law even provided monetary compensation to enslavers whose chattel had been executed.

According to death penalty historian Seth Kotch, in less than 50 years during the 1700s, North Carolina executed more than a hundred enslaved people. Meanwhile, the law empowered whites to punish their human “property” however they saw fit, while bands of white men patrolled for runaways.

Source: https://racistroots.org/section-1/

The large increase in execu­tions, especially of blacks, in the South during the eighteenth cen­tury was the direct result of the large influx of African slaves to that region. As the South’s slave labor economy grew, so did the demand by slave owners for state assis­tance in disciplining the growing enslaved population, to promote economic productivity and to pro­tect the increasingly outnumbered white population from much-feared slave violence or revolt. The extent to which capital punishment for slaves was perceived as a public good is demonstrated by the pro­vision of state compensation to the owners of executed slaves, in the same way that property own­ers today are compensated when their land is taken by the state for a public use such as a highway. For slaves, the threat of incarcera­tion was not likely to serve as much of a deterrent. Hence, Southern states perceived a greater need than other states for maintaining corpo­ral and capital punishment, often in extreme forms. The use of torturous execution methods such as burning at the stake, and the public dis­play of the corpses or body parts of those executed for slave revolt, were clearly meant as dire warnings to slaves about the harsh consequences of insurrection or violence against slave owners.

Source: American Bar Association

Again, I am not condoning slavery, but a 1.8% death rate equals very reasonably safe.

I highly doubt African-Americans knew about those stats so I fail to see how they would've had reasonable expectations for their safety, not to mention that being killed is not the only thing to worry about in terms of safety (so is being beaten, tortured, raped, etc). With lynchings and executions being so highly publicized, to the slaves seeing that it might as well meant that they would share the same fate or be at a high risk for it (that was the intended effect that slaveowners wanted).

This is probably why so many slaves didn't rebel: They had an incentive not to. Do you expect me to condemn the slaves in the alternate universe where they are brutally violent and regularly kill white children, because there, masters come into their slave cottages and shoot one of them every time they misbehave?

If that were correct then the Haitian slaves wouldn't have rebelled since they were under the same conditions. Yet, they did rebel. African-Americans largely chose a different route. They were probably among the first of enslaved people to choose the education route and use their minds to fight.

I'm not the inconsistent one here. I'm saying, slaves ought to rebel. They have the right. And to use violence. They have that right because their rights are being denied. And everyone agrees with me up to this point. However, the Palestinians are being severely oppressed, they are NOT as safe as American slaves were, and now suddenly the doctrine that one may defend one's basic rights with violence, disappears. Haiti remains an example because they absolutely did kill the masters' women and children, even though they didn't need to!!!

Again, the point is to show that non-violent means can work. It doesn't matter why they were used as opposed to the violent option, the point is that the non-violent option was used successfully in an unjust system.

Since we have competing claims, obviously both Hamas and the West can't be right at the same time. I'd want verifiable evidence showing that the Western standard of not deliberately killing innocent people is wrong and that your position is right.

Oh I'm not arguing that the Western standard of not killing innocents is wrong. I am arguing that it is not the Western standard.

Have you read up on international law that is largely crafted by Western nations? Does it say to kill innocent civilians?

Here's the answer that disproves your claims:

One of the primary tenets of IHL is the rule of distinction. ‘Distinction’ demands that belligerents and fighters at all times distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other hand, so as to protect persons not taking part in the conflict. Civilians can never be deliberately and indiscriminately targeted, and to do so is a war crime.

Source: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/05/27/the-la ... arian-law/ (also cited directly on the UN's website, here - look at the list of offenses under the "War Crimes" section.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #209]

and use their minds to fight.

This is the crux of all human social problems. People don't learn how to use their minds to fight, perhaps because in most cases there is scant evidence that doing so ultimately achieves "not having to fight" status.

Using ones minds hasn't yet got all of humanity fighting to work for the best world possible...but looking at other non-fighty ways of achieving things - if nothing else - serves as an interesting thought-experiment type thing to occupy ones minds with.

It is a bit like playing chess.

WE think to ourselves "what kind of world would be the ultimate best for the lead-specie to develop on behalf off the collective species?", then go about trying to make that move toward that goal and dealing with any obstacles as they come into play."

In essence that is what philosophical debate/discussion is about - looking for "check" and ultimately "checkmate" only without a drop of ill-will toward the opponent, because after all - both "sides" have the same goal, and are just disagreeing as to the best way to go about building it into the framework of reality.

(and) If we are not talking about building a better world, then what are we talking about and why are we talking about it?

(and) How does that relate to the conflict between Jews and all those other Semite/Arabian/Middle-Eastern families ongoing many millennial long feuding?