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]

If all people would understand we are all equal members of the same specie: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Nobody is favored by any God, no population is more special or more superior.

The way to get people to understand this is to listen to them when they are wronged, and try to repair it. And when they are the aggressor, not let sympathy arise from the fact that if those they oppressed were in the position of power, they would oppress equally.

Imagine if people behaved objectively. Criticize anyone who does wrong and let go of tribal broken morality: my tribe member are always right and/or I will diminish, ignore their malevolence, evil, wrongdoings.
Criticize all no matter if the person/persons in the wrong are a family member, love one, friend, boss, my favorite singer, sports team, politician from my preferred party or political side, international ally and so on.
People are a joke.




“Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you. When the chips are down these, uh, civilized people? They'll eat each other. ”
― The Joker

[alexxcJRO]

No, but I must add, Israel is committing genocide as we speak.
NuntanYahoo is trying to exterminate the Palestinians NOW!!!!

There is no conclusive evidence yet of a genocide.
We only have evidence of mass killings and some remarks.

"genocide
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "

Although this remarks: “We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly”, “We will eliminate everything - they will regret it”, “They are committed to completely eliminating this evil from the world”, “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”, might point to the intent that coupled with present actions may well be the makes of a genocide.

Thank you for admitting that the territory belongs to the Palestinian people.

Committing unspeakable acts of evil(maybe even genocide) in the process to take land, preserve land is worthless for in the end borders will change, cultures will change, dissolve and ultimately evolve, metamorphose into a total different thing.
Zod mentality based on moronic, broken ideology is futile.
Jihadism is stupid. Islam is a failed hypothesis.

All people should understand we are all equal members of the same specie: Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Nobody is favored by any God, no population is more special or more superior.
No omni-perfect God (Yahweh or Allah) would favor any population of humans at the expense of others.
An omni-perfect<-omni-benevolent, omniscient being cannot but love all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too.
Coexistence is the key.

The Israeli IDF sniper teams have been murdering Palestinian children for decades and decades.
I Googled “Israelis killing children”
About 537,000 results (0.39 seconds)
Search Results
These are the Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2016 | The ...
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/.. ... srael-2016
Thirty-five Palestinian children were killed by Israeli soldiers, police and armed civilians during the year, all but four of the deadly incidents ...
Invisible killings: Israel's daily toll of Palestinian children | The ...
Israel 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months
Twenty-five Palestinian children were killed in the last three months of 2015 during a wave of anti-Israeli attacks and the number detained was ...
One Palestinian child killed every 3 days by Israel for 13 years: statistics...
“The International Day for the Protection of Children is on June 1,” said a spokesman, “but Palestinian children are still subject to attacks by the Israelis and

Israel has killed more than 3,000 children since 28 September 2000 (this is an outdated report)
Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia
12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD in front of your eyes
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html
Gaza girl said killed
IDF troops shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian girl who was on her way to school in a Gaza Strip refugee camp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/494672.html
Photos of a 12 year old palestinian boy being shot by Israeli soldiers and the ambulance driver who tried to save him also being shot and killed.
http://www.palestine-net.com/misc/durra/
Three-year-old Rawan Abu Zeid, who took bullets in the neck and dead while buying candy with her friends.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2785.shtml
12-year old Hoda Darwish was hit in the head by a bullet fired Two 10 year-old school children were shot in the al-Omaria school run by UNRWA in Rafah, when an Israeli tank fired into their classroom.
Bullets fired from the tank flew through the classroom window, hitting Mahmoud Hamad in the neck and Hisham al Habil in the head. The boys had not even been sitting by the windows but in the middle of the room.
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/index.html
An eight-year-old Palestinian girl shot dead by Israeli troops in the central Gaza Strip was killed while showing off her new school uniform to friends
http://tinyurl.com/99kh8zk

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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Donray in post #150

Tell me all the Jews that have said that want to eliminate all Palestine people?

In another photo, a soldier poses next to words spray-painted in red on a pink building that read, “instead of erasing graffiti, let’s erase Gaza.”

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas ... 63888e53a4


And lest Israel assume that it will feel no repercussions from the IDF's unfettered war on Hamas....

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/middleea ... index.html

Edit:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/israe ... statements

[Purple Knight]

But no one will help so it becomes about terror. Terrorism is nasty business, but you don't need help. You just need to make it too costly to the people oppressing you. Sally is going to make it too costly to Johnny and his family to keep her bike, so that he'll return it out of fear for his family's safety.

If that is your opinion then I can't argue with that other than to show that it's an opinion. You have your rules and standards, and the UN, the US, and myself have ours. Now if you claim that's an objective standard or some absolute truth that everyone should follow, then I'd want that backed up with logic and verifiable evidence. Otherwise, I'd advise against anyone resorting to injustices to deal with injustice just so you can avoid getting into trouble yourself.

Oh, if there's a double standard, that definitely needs to be pointed out. And my position on that would be, anyone who deliberately targets innocent people are wrong, regardless of if the West does it or if they have responded differently depending on who does it.

I never said to do nothing about the injustices, but rather I said that any action taken should not involve harming innocent civilians.

It's odd that you mention the US. Whose tea do you think it was that was dumped? The British government's, or some innocent private party's? Were any of the British redcoats drafted against their will? I actually don't know the answer to this, but if they were, then they did not choose to be military targets and were still civilians, no different than if I put a red coat on some rando and tied him in front of a train. People were also tarred and feathered just for supporting the crown.

Now I'll give you the opportunity to amend your position to the idea that people denied justice may hurt innocents but not kill them. But I hope you see that this is still problematic. Maybe some merchant on a ship needed the profits from that tea to feed his family, and maybe his family starved to death. So dumping the tea then equals killing, and not just hurting. If you hurt people, they might die. That is a universal constant.

Now it says nobody is known to have died from tarring and feathering, but how this fellow did not die is a complete mystery. They fractured his skull, at least partially scalped him, and set him on fire. Were witch burnings not always fatal, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering
A particularly violent act of tarring and feathering took place in August 1775 northeast of Augusta, Georgia. Landowner and loyalist Thomas Brown was confronted on his property by members of the Sons of Liberty. After putting up some resistance, Brown was beaten with a rifle, fracturing his skull. He was then stripped and tied to a tree. Hot pitch was poured over him before being set alight, charring two of his toes to stubs. Brown was then feathered by the Sons of Liberty, who then took a knife to his head and began scalping him.

I can't argue you out of an opinion if we're both consistent but in this case I think I have the upper hand, both from a logically consistent angle and a historical one. And I am on America's side against the British despite the fact that I live in America and would rather be British. I'm also on the South's side against the North (but on any slaves' sides in the South who rebelled). And the Native Americans against the encroaching whites - if they put arrows through skulls, good, because it was their land, and they don't have to let people take it. These are the consistent results of believing that it's okay to return injustice with violence. If you think it's not okay to do so, you're going to get a lot more worrisome results and have a harder time achieving consistency. The only worrisome result I got is that the South should have the right to secede. If your position is opposite, you will get the popular consensus of righteousness here, but everything else will be wrong.

I can agree with all that you've said except for the last 2 sentences in your point. It is not the land of the Palestinians entirely since others have ruled that land before them, the Jews have lived there besides them, although their numbers varied throughout history. We can at least say that the Arabs were the most recent controllers of the land, but now the Jews are the most recent owners. So the charge of "occupation" or "stealing land" is bogus unless it refers to the Jews having a disproportionate control of the land.

Anyone can look at the map and see Israel expanding and Palestine being pushed into smaller and smaller portions of the map. This is a land grab. If the Jews think they should have some land that is occupied by others, simply grabbing it is not fair to the other side in the least. They say, possession is 9/10ths of the law. I'm not saying that is good or right. What I am saying is, when someone kicks people currently on the land, off the land, they are stealing someone else's land. They need to figure out where the Palestinians belong, and not bother them there. I don't accept that that is only Gaza. Clearly Israel is holding at least some Palestinian land.

Remember, I've said plenty of people would be on Hamas side had they only gone after military targets. In fact, I think there's even non-violent options, but to carry those out would take good and strong leadership, which I question if the Palestinian side has ever had that since Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas seem to only to be after their own self-interests. I look at how Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi both led a non-violent fight against injustices, which led to a lot of progress. To think that violence is the only option to get your way is radical and usually involves a lack of education and morality. We need more non-partisan leaders, that aren't radicalized nor biased towards any side, and sadly, the two leaders on each side don't meet those standards.

Being Ghandi is fine if you're in a position where people will listen to you. Palestine knows very well that Israel won't do so, and Israel's disproportionate support and power on the world stage mean it doesn't have to. Palestine would have more support from individuals if they played it safe and only attacked military targets, but that would do them no good, since you and I can't do a thing to help them. I'm not even saying that I know for a fact there is not a peaceful option. I just think there probably isn't. If there is a peaceful option to get justice, obviously there is an obligation to take it. The question is what you do if there's not a peaceful option for justice: Fight dirty and hurt people, or roll over and die.

Assuming it is the same and we are "it" - it would then come down to which system frees us all up the most.

That's probably one where we accept minor inconveniences like taxes or ridiculous little laws and just follow them, but if our right to exist is on the line, we fight, and fight dirty if necessary.

[William]

Also think about the kind of world you want to live in, and how you like having rights. Think about only yourself. Forget everyone else. Now, would you stock your neighbourhood and country with cowards who will roll over if their rights are violated and there is no peaceful recourse? Or would you stock the human fishery that contains you with fighters who will not suffer rights violations, and will defend themselves at any cost?
I'd pick the latter. Now, in that case, okay, I might become a casualty. I might get blown up. Might. But if I pick the former I will certainly be stripped of my rights until I am a slave. Easy choice, see?

This position appears to assume it is not already stripped of any significant thing which could identify it as "free".

Our very existence (the one you are wanting to fight for) depends on us being a captured participant.
(Ask member "Compassionist" if you don't believe this is the case.)

How is being a captured participant the same as not being a slave?

Assuming it is the same and we are "it" - it would then come down to which system frees us all up the most.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #164]

That's probably one where we accept minor inconveniences like taxes or ridiculous little laws and just follow them, but if our right to exist is on the line, we fight, and fight dirty if necessary.

Therefore, the right to exist as a slave to the circumstance is being fought for. Not the right to exist a something free (due to the circumstance mentioned).

The "rights" one can be "stripped of" are the evidence of enslavement (through the social systems developed and instituted into a countries mode of operation).

[AgnosticBoy]

It's odd that you mention the US. Whose tea do you think it was that was dumped? The British government's, or some innocent private party's? Were any of the British redcoats drafted against their will? I actually don't know the answer to this, but if they were, then they did not choose to be military targets and were still civilians, no different than if I put a red coat on some rando and tied him in front of a train. People were also tarred and feathered just for supporting the crown.

My position is that innocent people, like babies, should not be deliberately targeted. If I'm not sure who is guilty or even what counts as such, then I don't act. Contrast that with your position where you know someone is innocent, but you would still allow them to be executed.

Now I'll give you the opportunity to amend your position to the idea that people denied justice may hurt innocents but not kill them. But I hope you see that this is still problematic. Maybe some merchant on a ship needed the profits from that tea to feed his family, and maybe his family starved to death. So dumping the tea then equals killing, and not just hurting. If you hurt people, they might die. That is a universal constant.

And this is why I would favor fighting with words and legal action, as opposed to resorting to vandalism (destroying property) or any form of violence. We can even say that my standard may cause some harm, perhaps to the guilty person's family, but that is far different than deliberate harm, physical or otherwise. One involves unintended consequences, sort of like, collateral damage, whereas the other involves deliberately causing suffering and death. The guilty person's family was not my intended target, whereas in your position, they are the intended target.

I can't argue you out of an opinion if we're both consistent but in this case I think I have the upper hand, both from a logically consistent angle and a historical one. And I am on America's side against the British despite the fact that I live in America and would rather be British. I'm also on the South's side against the North (but on any slaves' sides in the South who rebelled). And the Native Americans against the encroaching whites - if they put arrows through skulls, good, because it was their land, and they don't have to let people take it. These are the consistent results of believing that it's okay to return injustice with violence. If you think it's not okay to do so, you're going to get a lot more worrisome results and have a harder time achieving consistency. The only worrisome result I got is that the South should have the right to secede. If your position is opposite, you will get the popular consensus of righteousness here, but everything else will be wrong.

My opinion is that justice should not involve harming the innocent, although that may occur as an unintended consequence or as part of collateral damage (although steps should be taken to avoid that). Your opinion involves targeting the innocent using any means, no steps or concern taken for avoiding deaths, since it is justice by any means.

I can agree with all that you've said except for the last 2 sentences in your point. It is not the land of the Palestinians entirely since others have ruled that land before them, the Jews have lived there besides them, although their numbers varied throughout history. We can at least say that the Arabs were the most recent controllers of the land, but now the Jews are the most recent owners. So the charge of "occupation" or "stealing land" is bogus unless it refers to the Jews having a disproportionate control of the land.

Anyone can look at the map and see Israel expanding and Palestine being pushed into smaller and smaller portions of the map. This is a land grab. If the Jews think they should have some land that is occupied by others, simply grabbing it is not fair to the other side in the least. They say, possession is 9/10ths of the law. I'm not saying that is good or right. What I am saying is, when someone kicks people currently on the land, off the land, they are stealing someone else's land. They need to figure out where the Palestinians belong, and not bother them there. I don't accept that that is only Gaza. Clearly Israel is holding at least some Palestinian land.

The Jews are wrongly taking land by doing so in a disproportionate way. If the Palestinians try to claim that the entire land is theirs then they should be removed from a portion of the land because others have a stake in that land.

Remember, I've said plenty of people would be on Hamas side had they only gone after military targets. In fact, I think there's even non-violent options, but to carry those out would take good and strong leadership, which I question if the Palestinian side has ever had that since Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas seem to only to be after their own self-interests. I look at how Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi both led a non-violent fight against injustices, which led to a lot of progress. To think that violence is the only option to get your way is radical and usually involves a lack of education and morality. We need more non-partisan leaders, that aren't radicalized nor biased towards any side, and sadly, the two leaders on each side don't meet those standards.

Being Ghandi is fine if you're in a position where people will listen to you. Palestine knows very well that Israel won't do so, and Israel's disproportionate support and power on the world stage mean it doesn't have to. Palestine would have more support from individuals if they played it safe and only attacked military targets, but that would do them no good, since you and I can't do a thing to help them. I'm not even saying that I know for a fact there is not a peaceful option. I just think there probably isn't. If there is a peaceful option to get justice, obviously there is an obligation to take it. The question is what you do if there's not a peaceful option for justice: Fight dirty and hurt people, or roll over and die.

You're making a false dichotomy. You're making it into listen to my grievances or the next step is to kill the guilty along with the innocent people. How about listen to my grievances or I'll attack you militarily by targeting those that are a threat or those who actually try to fight against my trying to take my land back?! And worse case scenario, if you try to hide amongst your civilians, THEN that would justify me having to target civilians in order to kill you. Compare that to your standard that involves just targetting civilians, even if there was no guilty party in sight.

I suspect even in Gandhi's position, people did not listen at first. You have to know how to fight with words and your mind and along with other non-violent action. The problem with the Israel and Palestine conflict is that there are some in both parties want the entire land to themselves. Then you have religion and politics involved which makes that issue worse. And I also blame the Palestinian side for that since they are engaging in those problematic factors. That's one reason why I can't justify nor sympathize with them fully regarding "no one is listening therefore attack civilians" because they are partly responsible for the gridlock.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #166]

I suspect even in Gandhi's position, people did not listen at first. You have to know how to fight with words and your mind and along with other non-violent action. The problem with the Israel and Palestine conflict is that there are some in both parties want the entire land to themselves. Then you have religion and politics involved which makes that issue worse. And I also blame the Palestinian side for that since they are engaging in those problematic factors. That's one reason why I can't justify nor sympathize with them fully that "no one is listening therefore attack civilians" because they are partly responsible for the gridlock.

This is why I wrote in an earlier post that I have no horse in that particular race, but this in itself does not prevent me from narrating the observations.

This is the rock and the hard place to which human societies all have the policy "either toe the line or suffer the consequences" that the world -clearly - hasn't sorted itself out as yet re such policy.

There may be a hundred miles of policies built on the bedrock of that thinking and acting re nuances - but at the bedrock what is occurring?

Nature is what is occurring, and if human beings cannot collectively see that, then the result is and will only be what we have been historically observing for the last few-thousands years where these institutions have developed and honed themselves into the lethal instruments they have become. All due to turning a blind eye to the nature of the bedrock whereby we humbly accept our shared reality of being enslaved to nature, and build upon that humility a place where all can equally be happy (live in peace) even while remaining slaves to Nature.

The difference being, we could - by social decree - not accept the rules which entitle humans (justifying our right to do so) to practice the enslaving one another just "because" Nature has enslaved us all, or even just "because" there is nothing to stop us from doing so.

Because, either way - what exactly is it that is stopping us from doing so?
Nature, or made-up human rules?

[foolmefoolsyou]

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.

[foolmefoolsyou]

The prison guard told me that I have to log off and return to my cell.
Bye until another day

[Donray]

Hamas that attacked Israel is Palestine. I don't understand the people that want to say that the people that attacked Iseral are not Palestine people. Please tell me what you think there are? Egyptians? Germans? What?