Israel at War with Hamas October 7, 2023

[Diogenes]

There is no question this was a horrific attack by Hamas on Israel that also endangers Palestinians.
To what extent are attacks like this inevitable, considering the history of Israel?

Isn't this just another example of how religious conflict breeds violence?
or
Is it inevitable that strongly held beliefs will always ignite the passions of some?

Perhaps the difference with religions that claim authority from God is that they inspire absolute beliefs, an absolute conviction they are 'right' and therefore anything is justifiable... including following God's orders to kill your own son.

Palestinian land stolen in 1948, more in 1967, then more every day in the West Bank makes acts of terrorism inevitable. Then Netanyahu put a right wing criminal in charge of the 'Ministry of Justice,' and... BIG SURPRISE! ... another war.
"If I go the to write indictment number one, it would go to Israel's Justice Minister YARIV LEVIN. He is the man who drove this insane, corrupt, dishonest effort to basically take over the power of the Supreme Court. With Netanyahu's help, he fractured Israel. He fractured Israeli society. He fractured the Israeli ministry, the military. He fractured the Israeli air force...."
__ Tom Friedman

https://www.rawstory.com/tom-friedman-i ... A-TIAtHv6Y

[Diogenes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You make several good points. One is about the literalists using the Old Testament when they want, but then claiming It doesn't matter (when they make a different argument) because of Jesus' sacrifice. It's the same point William
missed about "followers" - hypocrisy. Calling oneself a "follower" of Jesus does not make it so, a point Jesus emphasized repeatedly. His "followers" too frequently follow what they want (especially when judging others), but miss the central points Jesus made with The Beatitudes and The Sermon on the Mount.

There is a reason Gandhi supposedly said "I like your Christ, but your Christians not so much.

The other point I wish to emphasize is the historic hatred of the Jews. It may have less to do with the "Christ Killer" claim, then the claim that their God is the God of everyone and they are special, His "Chosen Ones." All tribal religions do the same thing, but the Jewish claim is the most widely known because of the dominant position of the Bible in Western culture.

They are also unfairly resented because of a supposed reputation for wealth, something rooted in part because discrimination against the Jews often deprived them of many occupations, resulting in the business world being one of the few choices open to them.

To me the saddest thing about the current war is that it will only result in one thing for certain (besides death and suffering), more hate and more terrorists in a never ending cycle. The irony for the Palestinians is that the genocidal attack by Hamas ultimately will hurt Palestinians more than Israel. Among other things it makes a Two State Solution even more remote because of the very natural anger and distrust the murderous attack unleashed, yet another wave of hatred and revenge.

[Donray]

Lets not forget the Palestine started the current war with Israel.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Donray in post #32

Lets not forget the Palestine started the current war with Israel.

The current war is merely the latest chapter in a conflict now stretching over half a century, and neither side is blameless.

"Since the occupation first began in June 1967, Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights.

Israel’s military rule disrupts every aspect of daily life in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It continues to affect whether, when and how Palestinians can travel to work or school, go abroad, visit their relatives, earn a living, attend a protest, access their farmland, or even access electricity or a clean water supply. It means daily humiliation, fear and oppression. People’s entire lives are effectively held hostage by Israel."

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campa ... ossession/

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Donray in post #32

Lets not forget the Palestine started the current war with Israel.

The current war is merely the latest chapter in a conflict now stretching over half a century, and neither side is blameless.

I wanted to address your point because some have used it to justify Hamas or to paint a moral equivalency. If you're simply pointing out a separate issue (the overall issue as opposed to just an isolated event), then I would not say that you or anyone else is doing that. But if your response is used to overlook and/or rebut Donray's point (which referred to a specific event and not the overall issue, in which case only Hamas was wrong) then that falls into my point about justifying Hamas or a moral equivalency.

Ideally, both your point and Donray's should be kept separate in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise, when one point is used right after the other, then it makes it seem like a response, a response that's consistent with those that deny the times when both sides are wrong or when only one side is wrong.

Edit: Another way to avoid confusion is to preface your comments with saying that Hamas was wrong or acknowledge a point like Donray's before bringing up points about the overall issue.

UN Chief had to explain himself when he brought up Israel's wrongs...

[Donray]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ing_Israel

It seems that in almost every case Israel was the defender and ARABS the reason for the war.

Remember when Iseral was created so was Palestine. But Palestine never accepted this agreement. WHY? Remember there was never a Palestine country.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #34

Ideally, both your point and Donray's should be kept separate in order to avoid confusion. Otherwise, when one point is used right after the other, then it makes it seem like a response, a response that's consistent with those that deny the times when both sides are wrong or when only one side is wrong.

It often seems that no one can sympathize with the Palestinians without automatically being suspected of trying to justify the actions of Hamas, as apparently happened to the UN chief. It's an all-too-convenient political position which has been taken all too often. The difficulty with keeping the points separate is that they're still rooted in the same conflict, which then feeds on itself.

As long as Israel continues its occupation in violation of international law and Hamas continues its acts of terrorism, there is no time in this conflict when only one side is wrong.

[AgnosticBoy]

It often seems that no one can sympathize with the Palestinians without automatically being suspected of trying to justify the actions of Hamas, as apparently happened to the UN chief. It's an all-too-convenient political position which has been taken all too often. The difficulty with keeping the points separate is that they're still rooted in the same conflict, which then feeds on itself.

Agreed. Part of the problem comes from some on the pro-Palestinian side when it comes to the perception and timing of their reactions. If a Jewish baby just had their head cut off by Hamas, and your immediate reaction is that, well Israel has also done wrong (which would also implicate the mother or even the baby since they are both Jews), then some people are going to be taken aback by that. Not only does the response fail to acknowledge the Jewish baby's murder, but it also fails to condemn it uneqivocally. The reaction doesn't seem to say that the baby's murder was wrong no matter what, but instead it seems to give a reason for it or even justify it or blame the victim, even. This is how some pro-Palestinian reactions have come across.

As long as Israel continues its occupation in violation of international law and Hamas continues its acts of terrorism, there is no time in this conflict when only one side is wrong.

I disagree because there are different aspects of the conflict. Israel being wrong on occupation doesn't mean that they are wrong on everything else. The innocent civilians, including the babies, that Hamas killed were not in the wrong. Only Hamas was wrong in that case.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #37

Part of the problem comes from some on the pro-Palestinian side when it comes to the perception and timing of their reactions. If a Jewish baby just had their head cut off by Hamas, and your immediate reaction is that, well Israel has also done wrong (which would also implicate the mother or even the baby since they are both Jews), then some people are going to be taken aback by that. Not only does the response fail to acknowledge the Jewish baby's murder, but it also fails to condemn it uneqivocally. The reaction doesn't seem to say that the baby's murder was wrong no matter what, but instead it seems to give a reason for it or even justify it or blame the victim, even. This is how some pro-Palestinian reactions have come across.

Another part of the problem is that some focus on only part of the problem.

"Israel blames Hamas for Gaza's death toll — now more than 8,800, according to Gaza's Health Ministry — because the militant group operates from jam-packed residential neighborhoods. Palestinians point to the soaring casualty count as proof that Israeli strikes are indiscriminate and disproportionate."

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... -104555782

Israel being wrong on occupation doesn't mean that they are wrong on everything else. The innocent civilians, including the babies, that Hamas killed were not in the wrong. Only Hamas was wrong in that case.

Everything Israel is doing in the Palestinian territories, it's doing through the occupation. Hamas terrorism being wrong doesn't mean that Israel is blameless. If Israel would end the occupation, a lot of other problems would probably go away with it. It's certainly worth a try.

[AgnosticBoy]

Israel being wrong on occupation doesn't mean that they are wrong on everything else. The innocent civilians, including the babies, that Hamas killed were not in the wrong. Only Hamas was wrong in that case.

Everything Israel is doing in the Palestinian territories, it's doing through the occupation. Hamas terrorism being wrong doesn't mean that Israel is blameless.

I'll reiterate your point just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Your view is that Israel attacking Hamas is wrong because they are using occupied land to do so. One problem I see with your view is that saying it's wrong for Israel to attack Hamas while on occupied land is also saying that Israel should then let bad things happen to their civilians and babies. In other words, if they can never be in the right to defend themselves while on occupied land, then it's not okay (they are not right) when they stop rapes and murders from Hamas. That view isn't reasonable because it would lead to disastrous results.

If Israel would end the occupation, a lot of other problems would probably go away with it. It's certainly worth a try.

But if they don't, what would be right to do in the meanwhile? You're arguing as though the only good option would be to give up land, so then until they give up land, let rapes and murders happen to their people? Or would they be in the right, regardless of if they are on occupied land, to prevent babies from being killed?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #39

I'll reiterate your point just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Your view is that Israel attacking Hamas is wrong because they are using occupied land to do so.

I'll reiterate your point to make sure I'm understanding your severely warped misinterpretation of my point. You're saying that because I point out the unlawful nature of Israel's occupation, I must be saying that it's wrong for Israel to fight terrorism. I did not----at any time----say that it was wrong for Israel to fight Hamas, and I DEFY you to show me where I did.