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

[AgnosticBoy]

And Israelites are morons like most humans. Not letting go of tribal mentality and superstitious religious belief.
Your basically making the Palestinians look like freedom fighters. They are not.

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.

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.

No omni-perfect God 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.

I think one reason people fall for the propaganda, especially younger populations, is because of hyper-activism. Nowadays, it seems people are primed to be an activist towards just about anything, especially if it starts to trend on social media. The problem with a lot of activism nowadays is that it is usually lacking in critical nuanced thinking, and instead you get popular soundbites and slogans. I call that social media style thinking or Twitter style thinking. When you throw in key social justice cause terms like "oppression" or "occupiers", then that would easily trigger the hyper activist and they focus on that issue instead of looking at all of the facts.

That's a big reason I can think of why people would ignore all of the points you mentioned and see Hamas as a "freedom fighter". Nevermind that they oppress the freedom of their own people. Perhaps if you could get your point to trend on Twitter, perhaps throw in some key words that would trigger a hyper-activists, then you can get some of them to change their mind.

[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

[foolmefoolsyou]

This turned into saying that Jews are terrorists, and that the Palestine Muslims are not terrorists.

The ones trying to exterminate the Palestinian people are NOT Jews, They are Israelis.

Tell me how many Muslims are saying to eliminate Iseal and all Jews? We have university presidents that think it OK to have demonstration chanting the elimination of Jews.

Why.,.,.,Why.,.,.,WHY.,.,.,WHY.,.,????
Israel has killed more than 3,000 children since 28 September 2000 when the Second Intifada began until the end of April 2017, a new report ...
Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia
Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict refers to the impact of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict .... Though Israeli children were killed in the conflict during the decades prior, the first acts of
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

There is a rumor out that some of the fathers who’s child was murdered put on vests with explosives and ran through a group of IDF solders and set off the bomb.

[AgnosticBoy]

Conversations in this thread and elsewhere show me that non-believers can be just as radical and extreme as religionists. Apparently, you don't need religion to justify genocide.

[foolmefoolsyou]

on thenews today, 12/16/2023, it was reported that the IDF shot and killed three (3) men in Gaza. They were waving a white flag and speaking in Hebrew.

As I said before, BooBoo wants everyone killed in Gaza & this was his order, kill anyone still walking.

So this is what the IDF is doing. Kill all, no exceptions, if they wave a white flag, kill them, if they are speaking in Hebrew, kill them.
Note: one of the three may have been a Jewish woman.

The IDF replies, yes master, no one will live for another day.

[Purple Knight]

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.

[Purple Knight]

Here's a thought, just go after Johnny since he is the one that did wrong as opposed to also going after the innocent.

Absolutely if that's possible. 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.

I disagree that it's "Western privilege" but rather it's simply a respect for innocent life, the same way we expect Israel to make every effort to not harm civilians, which is something that I thought even the pro-Palestinian side was for - avoiding innocent life while killing the real threat.

I don't actually expect Israel to do bend over backwards not to harm civilians unless they claim the moral high ground. But when they talk about why they ought to have exclusive control of the land, they do claim that high ground. When Westerners talk about how "Israel ought to be supported because it's a democracy" this is the only nugget of validity that could be inside that typical case. They must be saying that Israel ought to get the land because they'll rule it better, and that involves not killing children. The Palestinians aren't making claims of lofty morality. It's just, it's their land.

The part in bold. Just think about that for a second. You're essentially supporting Hamas and then people wonder why pro-Palestinians are some times associated with supporting Hamas. Hamas thinks that justice has been denied to them, so they go out and carry out "justice" by any means.

Fortunately, your claim that you can carry out justice by any means is just your opinion and it is also a dangerous/extreme one. If I can't convince someone of that, then surely the law can because there is a place for people like Hamas that thinks executing and raping innocent people is "justice".

Your counter-claim that it is possible that when justice is denied you, you have a moral obligation to just roll over and take it, is more counter-intuitive, more dangerous in the long run, and I argue, leads to a much worse world where all an oppressor has to do to make you obediently relinquish your rights is threaten an innocent.

If somebody has some ruling body above them that will be even reasonably fair to them, I will be on your side and condemn them for unnecessary violence. It is important for countries to behave, and it is important that we have the UN, and it is important that the big powers will generally be fair, though that last is arguable. In this case, the UN, and the big powers, will always just pick Israel so this status quo has produced a Palestine that has no incentive to fight fair, because nobody will be on their side anyway.

I'm going to drop the idea that everyone has a right to fight for their existence however they must, and that if backed into a corner they may strike innocents. Though I believe it is right (it is considered to be right in every other case, and I've cited cases) I can't prove it logically. And I don't need it.

Instead think about incentives. Think about a system that gives people an incentive to behave. Think about what happens when that system fails someone. No shoulds. No shouldn'ts. No is-ought dilemma hiding behind every corner. Just evolution. If you lose your incentive to behave and people beat on you, let's say you have some moral compunctions. Okay, then you go extinct. Now let's look at the half that will bite and claw and pull out all the stops for their right to exist. They will more often continue to exist. This is why it's illogical to expect people to behave when their incentives to do that fall through. Forget moral. Just don't expect it because if anyone did sacrifice their People on the altar of this morality, they no longer have a People.

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?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #157]

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.

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's a thought, just go after Johnny since he is the one that did wrong as opposed to also going after the innocent.

Absolutely if that's possible. 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.

I don't actually expect Israel to do bend over backwards not to harm civilians unless they claim the moral high ground. But when they talk about why they ought to have exclusive control of the land, they do claim that high ground. When Westerners talk about how "Israel ought to be supported because it's a democracy" this is the only nugget of validity that could be inside that typical case. They must be saying that Israel ought to get the land because they'll rule it better, and that involves not killing children. The Palestinians aren't making claims of lofty morality. It's just, it's their land.

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.

The part in bold. Just think about that for a second. You're essentially supporting Hamas and then people wonder why pro-Palestinians are some times associated with supporting Hamas. Hamas thinks that justice has been denied to them, so they go out and carry out "justice" by any means.

Fortunately, your claim that you can carry out justice by any means is just your opinion and it is also a dangerous/extreme one. If I can't convince someone of that, then surely the law can because there is a place for people like Hamas that thinks executing and raping innocent people is "justice".

Your counter-claim that it is possible that when justice is denied you, you have a moral obligation to just roll over and take it, is more counter-intuitive, more dangerous in the long run, and I argue, leads to a much worse world where all an oppressor has to do to make you obediently relinquish your rights is threaten an innocent.

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

If somebody has some ruling body above them that will be even reasonably fair to them, I will be on your side and condemn them for unnecessary violence. It is important for countries to behave, and it is important that we have the UN, and it is important that the big powers will generally be fair, though that last is arguable. In this case, the UN, and the big powers, will always just pick Israel so this status quo has produced a Palestine that has no incentive to fight fair, because nobody will be on their side anyway.

I'm going to drop the idea that everyone has a right to fight for their existence however they must, and that if backed into a corner they may strike innocents. Though I believe it is right (it is considered to be right in every other case, and I've cited cases) I can't prove it logically. And I don't need it.

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.

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?

We need more people that are able to fight with their mind and voice, and some times that takes education or know-how, along with a strong will. I question if we've really had such a person or group like that to deal with this situation. Either way, I'm not against the fighting option but I'd never use violence against innocent people that pose no threat.

[AgnosticBoy]

I really have to circle back to one point because it really gets under my skin.

When someone thinks that defending land or rights should involve any means (including terrorism), such as raping women and killing babies, and to have all of that based on faulty and/or disputable/unproven premises, then I really have to go at that view hard. And I'm saying this as an agnostic that is very open-minded to different perspectives, although I draw the line with false information and ones that involve justifying or calling for violence against innocent people - those that are not a threat (I also draw the line there for legal reasons). The alternative is having a site overran with hate speech, the type of speech that probably most on both sides of this issue, would condemn.

Since such views are directed at the Jews in this case, then I have to call it for what it is. It's hate speech - it's anti-Semitism. That would fit right in with Hamas. Instead of calling for 'cancel culture' or boycott, I'm calling on you Purple Knight to discontinue with the hate speech.