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

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #108]

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.

Which is what I was pointing out.



If this is how humans currently choose to "share" then harsh consequences occur as a result.

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.

Generally the boundaries include not doing things which are a declaration of an act of war, especially when in regard to committing atrocities against a people/country who have more sophisticated weapons and military advantage and who's motto is "Never Again".

If those boundaries are overstepped, and the rules are broken, then retaliation is the most likely outcome.

(The fight in question has been going on since before any of us were even born.)

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #110]

Everyone belongs somewhere, therefore everyone should have some land. Only Israel doesn't understand this.

This is a gross mischaracterization of a people who were ousted by the Romans and forced to be refugees for centuries.

[AgnosticBoy]

There's no moral high ground in terms of Human rights, when we're talking about two totalitarian style governments. The freedom of opinion that people are expressing here would not be allowed in Palestine. You could not say something against the Quran and get away with it. So if human rights is really the standard here, we shouldn't be supporting either side, unless there's a bias for one side, which seems to be the case.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Generally the boundaries include not doing things which are a declaration of an act of war, especially when in regard to committing atrocities against a people/country who have more sophisticated weapons and military advantage and who's motto is "Never Again".

If those boundaries are overstepped, and the rules are broken, then retaliation is the most likely outcome.

(The fight in question has been going on since before any of us were even born.)

Can the US just make its motto "never again" so we can bomb hospitals if people who happen to be of a particular race do something awful?

No the US cannot do that. And the US and Britain deal with Muslim terrorists too, albeit not on that scale or proximity. Nevertheless, as the side with the sophisticated means at our disposal, it is generally accepted that this creates an obligation that we will treat people fairly, as individuals, even at times when that means that our people might get hurt. The costs of individualism are high, but a country can't claim the high ground without paying up.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #110]

Everyone belongs somewhere, therefore everyone should have some land. Only Israel doesn't understand this.

This is a gross mischaracterization of a people who were ousted by the Romans and forced to be refugees for centuries.

I'm not characterising a people. I am characterising a country. Just as it would be vile to say all Germans are Nazis (in any era) it is wrong to assume all Jews support what Israel is doing. Does it get complicated? Are there numbers involved? Sure. But I'm not ready to throw individualism in a ditch because a country that happens to be made up of a specific People gets nasty.

Despite all of human history, empathy remains elusive. Most people of all races and creeds are vile cowards who will scream and cry for justice, justice, justice, when they are hurt, and ignore those same cries when they come from people they don't care about.

[Purple Knight]

There's no moral high ground in terms of Human rights, when we're talking about two totalitarian style governments. The freedom of opinion that people are expressing here would not be allowed in Palestine. You could not say something against the Quran and get away with it. So if human rights is really the standard here, we shouldn't be supporting either side, unless there's a bias for one side, which seems to be the case.

Supporting the side that is being denied land to live on, is more basic to human rights than any other concerns.

No, you wouldn't get freedom of opinion in Palestine and that's fine. They want to live their way, and I support that. I also want to live my way, with freedom of opinion. If people stop taking each other's land, everyone can be reasonably happy.

[AgnosticBoy]

There's no moral high ground in terms of Human rights, when we're talking about two totalitarian style governments. The freedom of opinion that people are expressing here would not be allowed in Palestine. You could not say something against the Quran and get away with it. So if human rights is really the standard here, we shouldn't be supporting either side, unless there's a bias for one side, which seems to be the case.

Supporting the side that is being denied land to live on, is more basic to human rights than any other concerns.

That is selective and subjective. It comes across like comparing Hitler and Stalin. You could say Stalin is less worse, but would anyone call him good? An LGBT person who gets killed would say that their life matters more than land. Human rights is human rights.

[Purple Knight]

An LGBT person who gets killed would say that their life matters more than land. Human rights is human rights.

But we can have both by just giving everyone a place to live, their way. It's not one or the other.

If someone is born gay in one of the nastier Muslim theocracies, that sucks, and rather than boatloads of people who have no ideological reason they cannot live in their own country and could benefit more from humanitarian aid, this LGBT person is in much greater need of amnesty.

Instead of imagining a foreign country having a rule that is disgusting and against human rights, imagine your own country being bullied by a country that is more enlightened. Imagine if Sweden or Norway declared the US prison systems inhumane and came over here and started changing things to suit themselves. Now imagine it's complicated because there's not an ocean in-between and Swedish people often come over here to commit heinous crimes, then say we can't punish them because it's inhumane.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #114]

Can the US just make its motto "never again" so we can bomb hospitals if people who happen to be of a particular race do something awful?

Any country can make whatever motto they think is appropriate.

The US has the motto "In God We Trust" and that includes retaliation for atrocities committed against it.

The costs of individualism are high, but a country can't claim the high ground without paying up.

Currently the claim is to decimate the problem once and for all, (Hamas) which is has been shielding behind its citizens as part of its strategies in line with their determination to eradicate Israel while at the same time educating said citizens to believe that Israel is the problem and since those citizens accept the education they receive, they become willing shields and as such martyrs for the Hamas.

Palestinians do not have a great track record and this is why - today - other middle east countries are not opening their boarders to take in Palestinian refugees because historically this has created problems for those countries who have done.

The Hamas are bullies and Israel just happens to be the bigger bully of the two. Hamas are not interested in negotiating. They are interested in the complete inhalation of a people.

[AgnosticBoy]

An LGBT person who gets killed would say that their life matters more than land. Human rights is human rights.

But we can have both by just giving everyone a place to live, their way. It's not one or the other.

If someone is born gay in one of the nastier Muslim theocracies, that sucks, and rather than boatloads of people who have no ideological reason they cannot live in their own country and could benefit more from humanitarian aid, this LGBT person is in much greater need of amnesty.

Instead of imagining a foreign country having a rule that is disgusting and against human rights, imagine your own country being bullied by a country that is more enlightened. Imagine if Sweden or Norway declared the US prison systems inhumane and came over here and started changing things to suit themselves.

To fit in my point, also imagine that the state that's being bullied also bullies others. Why defend either side or go after only one side on that matter? A justifiable defense wouldn't be that one side is right and the other side wrong. But yet, this is how it comes across when people call out Israel for it's totalitarian acts while not calling out Palestine for its own anti-Democracy acts. I don't see any unbiased argument with human rights being the standard. It makes no sense for someone to be against Occupation while also allowing for the occupiers to commit their own crimes.

Ironically, there are reports that gay Palestinians try to flee to Israel or seek Asylum there.

[foolmefoolsyou]

The idea that people should get their own land so they have a right to exist, is not bias.

Getting their own land and having a right to exist are two (2) different things.
Getting their own land is subjective,
(1) If you have the money to buy it, go for it but have no evidence to prove it, tuff luck, your con has failed.
(2) All humans have a right to exist, as do the birds in the air and the fish in the ocean but if you are human and you murder, lie or steal or break some other law, the courts will get you, maybe not today but sooner or later a jail is waiting for you.

It should be applied to every People. If everyone but Israel is doing that, being anti-Israel is not bias,

The IDF uses sniper teams to murder Palestinian children, this is against international law; period, no exceptions, none, nada, zip

the leaders of Israel ARE doing just that and more. but the logical result of lack of bias.

Bias has nothing to do with this, an illegal and/or moral injustice is not God’s way, no exceptions, none, nada, zip