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

[Purple Knight]

Ghandi was a pacifist. I only brought him up to show that it's possible to fight for peace and be successful, even under an unjust system/circumstances. I'm not a pacifist because I'm willing to use force, up to and including war, when it is justified.

Ultimately you're a reasonable and logical person, so you can see that there's at least some degree of tactics fitting the situation, we might just disagree on the magnitude of the situation that would justify terrorism.

I've answered this question already. There is no guarantee that any option would work. Ideally, non-violent approaches should be tried before violent ones. If I have to resort to violence, then I can just do so by going after the people that are actually a threat or who are actually fighting against me. That shouldn't have to involve looking a baby or any innocent person in the eyes and slitting their throats as Hamas is accused of doing.

What if they already have your baby? Now, their baby is innocent, but if you grab it, you can trade. You would have to follow through if they killed yours, however. If they smelled that you were unwilling, they would just kill yours, knowing you wouldn't return the deed and theirs would be safe.

[Donray]

[Replying to Donray in post #186

DON"T blame Israel for protecting their people.

Israel isn't being blamed for protecting their people. It's being blamed for violating international humanitarian law, which being attacked does not give a country the right to do.

It is Palestine people that first broke international law. Look up the number of suicide bombers that intentionally targeted civilians.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Donray in post #192

It is Palestine people that first broke international law. Look up the number of suicide bombers that intentionally targeted civilians.

"They did it first" isn't justification. Did the Allies put citizens of former Axis countries into death camps after WWII?

[Donray]

Hamas rejects Egyptian proposal to end war with Israel, refuses free elections in Gaza

https://nypost.com/2023/12/25/news/gaza ... n-sources/

[Donray]

[Replying to Donray in post #192

It is Palestine people that first broke international law. Look up the number of suicide bombers that intentionally targeted civilians.

"They did it first" isn't justification. Did the Allies put citizens of former Axis countries into death camps after WWII?

Then why did you bring up the subject of international law???????

You just want to justify Palestine people attacking Iseral and wanting a WAR. They should know there are civilian casualties in WAR. And Palestine wanted WAR with Iseral.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Donray in post #192

It is Palestine people that first broke international law. Look up the number of suicide bombers that intentionally targeted civilians.

"They did it first" isn't justification. Did the Allies put citizens of former Axis countries into death camps after WWII?

Then why did you bring up the subject of international law???????

You just want to justify Palestine people attacking Iseral and wanting a WAR. They should know there are civilian casualties in WAR. And Palestine wanted WAR with Iseral.

Hamas may have wanted war with Israel, and its attack was a violation of international law itself, but responding without restraint is still wrong.

And you're still playing pretty fast and loose with accusations of what I supposedly want.

[AgnosticBoy]

Ultimately you're a reasonable and logical person, so you can see that there's at least some degree of tactics fitting the situation, we might just disagree on the magnitude of the situation that would justify terrorism.

What if they already have your baby? Now, their baby is innocent, but if you grab it, you can trade. You would have to follow through if they killed yours, however. If they smelled that you were unwilling, they would just kill yours, knowing you wouldn't return the deed and theirs would be safe.

I appreciate that you've noticed that, but in all honesty, your points are coming off as a desperate search for a justification for killing innocent people. You're basically asking me under what set of circumstances would I be willing to slit an innocent person's throat to put it bluntly.

You have not shown that your personal standard is logical nor backed by verifiable evidence, nor have you shown that there is no peaceful option. Instead, you've taken the side of the side that is contributing to the problem (esp. when you claimed that Israel wanted all of the land while failing to notice that many Palestinians wanted the same even when that is their stated goal), and you're willing to accept extreme and barbaric actions (Hamas style "justice" on the Jews) based off of opinion and shaky grounds, but then you want to convince me that you have a strong moral case. If anything, you've convinced that your views are anti-Semitic which also explains your biased perspective regarding the issues at large.

[AgnosticBoy]

Both the people in power on the Palestinians sides(Hamas) and Israelites(the government and people in power)are evil, malevolent, stupid.
Both side are fueled by stupid, dangerous ideology. Both side would easily commit genocide if not for the International pressure.

We have things like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim” to the Hamas side.
We have things like “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.”, Israelites are special God chosen people.

And the innocent suffer, are manipulated and brainwashed.

Yes, many on both sides want all of the land to themselves, it isn't just Hamas (although the majority of Palestinians also support Hamas according to polls):

Further, most Palestinians believe that a two-state solution is unlikely to emerge from the conflict. Instead, a majority of them say they prefer to reclaim all of historic Palestine, including the pre-1967 Israel. A one-state solution with Arabs and Jews holding equal rights comes in second. Similarly, recent polling from PCPSR finds support among Palestinians and Israeli Jews for a two-state solution has dropped to 43 percent and 42 percent, respectively.

A majority of East Jerusalem respondents once supported a two-state solution. In contrast, throughout the six-year polling period a plurality of respondents in the West Bank and Gaza have generally chosen “regaining all of historical Palestine from the river to the sea” as their preference. There was an exception in 2017, when 44 percent of West Bank respondents, a seven-point plurality, said that ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution was their main goal. By 2020, however, West Bank support for a maximalist Palestine rose sharply to two-thirds—even higher than in Gaza, where the option garnered 56 percent support.

These numbers are not the same as popular support for a single state “from the river to the sea” with equal rights accorded to Arab and Jewish citizens, as in recent international proposals. In 2020 polls, only about 10 percent of West Bank and Gazan respondents favored this option over either a Palestinian state or two states. Notably, a theological premise underpins the one-state preference: A majority of the Palestinian respondents believe that “eventually, the Palestinians will control almost all of Palestine, because God is on their side”—that is, not because Palestinian control will flow from demographic changes or from a joint arrangement with Israel.

Source: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pol ... nians-want

[Purple Knight]

Ultimately you're a reasonable and logical person, so you can see that there's at least some degree of tactics fitting the situation, we might just disagree on the magnitude of the situation that would justify terrorism.

What if they already have your baby? Now, their baby is innocent, but if you grab it, you can trade. You would have to follow through if they killed yours, however. If they smelled that you were unwilling, they would just kill yours, knowing you wouldn't return the deed and theirs would be safe.

I appreciate that you've noticed that, but in all honesty, your points are coming off as a desperate search for a justification for killing innocent people. You're basically asking me under what set of circumstances would I be willing to slit an innocent person's throat to put it bluntly.

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.

You have not shown that your personal standard is logical nor backed by verifiable evidence,

Actually I have given you examples. The riots after George Floyd's death are largely considered righteous. Innocents were killed but it doesn't seem to matter, because the pyramid seems to be oriented like this:

Rights and Justice
↓
Lives
↓
Other Stuff

I can give you other examples too. America frequently sends innocent young men off to die in foreign wars, because whatever they are fighting for is worth more than their lives. If that's not rights, what is it? Pragmatists believe that if a doctor can chop up one innocent person and save five sick ones, he should do that. But deontologists don't. Why? If lives are at the top, it makes no sense not to sacrifice one life to save more than one. It only starts to make sense if rights outweigh lives. The healthy man on the chopping block has the right not to be killed. That outweighs the other people's lives. Gun rights advocates do have some statistics on their side, but some admit that even if they didn't, it's about having the right to defend yourself. That's sacrosanct. That outweighs lives, though people won't just say that, they obviously believe rights outweigh lives.

nor have you shown that there is no peaceful option.

I haven't shown that deductively because no one can show such a thing. No one can prove what will, or will not work, especially since the library of possible actions is infinite and only as very finite number can be tried. But the same is true of your side: You can't prove there is a peaceful option. I also said I am wrong if there is a peaceful option. I simply make an educated guess based on the fact that Israel continues to grab land and nobody on the international stage bothers them about it.

By the way, why doesn't your obligation to take the peaceful option apply to Israel? It'd be hard but they could buy land elsewhere and move. They could take enormous and unreasonable pains to accommodate unreasonable people who want them all dead. But by your logic, they ought to do that, right? Because that's better than killing innocents, which they also, are doing.

Instead, you've taken the side of the side that is contributing to the problem (esp. when you claimed that Israel wanted all of the land while failing to notice that many Palestinians wanted the same even when that is their stated goal), and you're willing to accept extreme and barbaric actions (Hamas style "justice" on the Jews) based off of opinion and shaky grounds, but then you want to convince me that you have a strong moral case. If anything, you've convinced that your views are anti-Semitic which also explains your biased perspective regarding the issues at large.

The Palestinians are a Semitic people too, so sorry, that normally undefeatable trump card fails here.

And yes I think barbaric actions are justified to protect your right to exist. The alternative is that at some point, when peaceful alternatives have been expended, you roll over and die rather than fight dirty. That alternative is just as bad, if not worse. You know, if every time some nasty piece of work took a hostage, the police just shot through the hostage and killed the crook, nobody would ever take hostages, and ultimately fewer lives would end this way.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Actually I have given you examples. The riots after George Floyd's death are largely considered righteous. Innocents were killed but it doesn't seem to matter, because the pyramid seems to be oriented like this:

Rights and Justice
↓
Lives
↓
Other Stuff

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? Did their actions overturn any laws regarding property damage and violence?

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 can give you other examples too. America frequently sends innocent young men off to die in foreign wars, because whatever they are fighting for is worth more than their lives. If that's not rights, what is it? Pragmatists believe that if a doctor can chop up one innocent person and save five sick ones, he should do that. But deontologists don't. Why? If lives are at the top, it makes no sense not to sacrifice one life to save more than one. It only starts to make sense if rights outweigh lives. The healthy man on the chopping block has the right not to be killed. That outweighs the other people's lives. Gun rights advocates do have some statistics on their side, but some admit that even if they didn't, it's about having the right to defend yourself. That's sacrosanct. That outweighs lives, though people won't just say that, they obviously believe rights outweigh lives.

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.

nor have you shown that there is no peaceful option.

I haven't shown that deductively because no one can show such a thing. No one can prove what will, or will not work, especially since the library of possible actions is infinite and only as very finite number can be tried. But the same is true of your side: You can't prove there is a peaceful option. I also said I am wrong if there is a peaceful option. I simply make an educated guess based on the fact that Israel continues to grab land and nobody on the international stage bothers them about it.

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. While I can't prove that a peace plan would be successful, but I've at least shown that there's room for it even under unjust conditions/system.

By the way, why doesn't your obligation to take the peaceful option apply to Israel? It'd be hard but they could buy land elsewhere and move. They could take enormous and unreasonable pains to accommodate unreasonable people who want them all dead. But by your logic, they ought to do that, right? Because that's better than killing innocents, which they also, are doing.

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.

Instead, you've taken the side of the side that is contributing to the problem (esp. when you claimed that Israel wanted all of the land while failing to notice that many Palestinians wanted the same even when that is their stated goal), and you're willing to accept extreme and barbaric actions (Hamas style "justice" on the Jews) based off of opinion and shaky grounds, but then you want to convince me that you have a strong moral case. If anything, you've convinced that your views are anti-Semitic which also explains your biased perspective regarding the issues at large.

The Palestinians are a Semitic people too, so sorry, that normally undefeatable trump card fails here.

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.

And yes I think barbaric actions are justified to protect your right to exist. The alternative is that at some point, when peaceful alternatives have been expended, you roll over and die rather than fight dirty. That alternative is just as bad, if not worse. You know, if every time some nasty piece of work took a hostage, the police just shot through the hostage and killed the crook, nobody would ever take hostages, and ultimately fewer lives would end this way.

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.