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

[foolmefoolsyou]

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.

Terrorism was the persuasive force that got Israel's statehood.
Below is a long list of terrorist acts. If I only posted a few examples your response could be, so what, so I included more than a few.

ERRORISM, THE BEGINNING
Who were the first “terrorist’s” coining the term-?
Terrorist
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
ter·ror·ism
noun
1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
FIRST ACTS OF TERRORISM, COINING THE PHRASE
November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem,.,.,killing or injuring more than
September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)
December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.
December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.
December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.
June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.
December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa ; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.
January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.
January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons.
January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.
February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children.
March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured.
March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.
March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.
April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.
May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.
The Stern gang and the Haganah gang where the front line fighters who persuaded the UN to grant them statehood.
NOTE: After Israel got its statehood, the Haganah gang was transformed into the Israel Defense Force (IDF)

[foolmefoolsyou]

NOTE: After Israel got its statehood, the Haganah gang was transformed into the Israel Defense Force (IDF)

Someone here, please tell me
is this true?
please include proof of your proof
thanks in advance

[Purple Knight]

Besides that, eventhough lynchings weren't well known about before the civil war, but the killings of slaves did occur under a different title, i.e. "execution" or capital punishment:

100 or so people across an entire state, across fifty years, is not a lot. The risk of dying from that would have been minimal. Think about getting bitten by a shark. It's terrifying but not terribly likely to happen. And once again I'm not defending it, but people are not going to kill their slaves for the fun of it. A slave costs about $40k in today's money. One slave. That's more than many cars. The point isn't that it was right (it wasn't) but that slaves did not suffer extreme immediate risk of random death.

I don't know why we're arguing this anyway. I didn't mean to go on a massive tangent, but we were talking about why American slaves didn't do what the Palestinians are doing to fight for their rights, and I said it was probably because they were safe. Death was rare, and punishment was extreme, but if you can avoid punishment with obedience, it gives you an incentive to obey. If people have no added benefit from obedience to any kind of standard, heeding one is a pure disadvantage.

Why people do or do not fight more or less violently or hurt innocents has very little to do with the case that the Palestinian side is ultimately right to want their own land. I think people are sometimes less violent because they have the option available. The other side is that it's a moral obligation and perhaps some people are ignoring it. But even if it's a moral obligation, then what? Johnny takes Sally's bike. Sally clocks Johnny over the head with a crowbar, giving him a concussion and a permanent mental disability in the process of trying to retrieve her property. Let's say for the sake of argument that Sally has violated a legitimate moral obligation. Does that make it Johnny's bike?

There is a huge flaw with not believing in an eye for an eye, and that the penalty for gouging an eye should be less than an eye (let's say, a penny). The flaw is that if you gouge my eye, laugh at me and throw me a penny, I am free to throw the penny back at you and take your eye. [Anything less than an eye] for an eye, defaults back to an eye for an eye. All philosophies that are soft on initial aggressors (in other words, who would treat aggressors less harshly than they treated their victims) have a form of this flaw, inviting the Palestinian side to use immoral force anyway, overstep and become the aggressor, and ask the soft-believers what they are going to do about it.

Again, the point is to show that non-violent means can work. It doesn't matter why they were used as opposed to the violent option, the point is that the non-violent option was used successfully in an unjust system.

I actually agree.

Here's the answer that disproves your claims:

One of the primary tenets of IHL is the rule of distinction. ‘Distinction’ demands that belligerents and fighters at all times distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other hand, so as to protect persons not taking part in the conflict. Civilians can never be deliberately and indiscriminately targeted, and to do so is a war crime.

Source: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/05/27/the-la ... arian-law/ (also cited directly on the UN's website, here - look at the list of offenses under the "War Crimes" section.

So why is the UN remaining silent when Israel does the same thing? And why do they recognise Haiti as a sovereign nation when Haiti targeted women and children, and executed them, during the rebellion?

The fact that they state that that is their standard, does not mean that is their standard. Looking at actions, it doesn't seem to be.

Besides, The UN ≠ The West.

[foolmefoolsyou]

This is like the war between David & Goliath
And Israel is da Goliath in this unprecedented war between good & evil
Readers here, tell me and the other readers who won that battle--?

Goliath.jpg

[foolmefoolsyou]

So why is the UN remaining silent when Israel does the same thing?

That is one hell of a good question !!!
If Biden is playing politics here to get the Jewish vote, he lost mine and I pray, many, many more lost votes too.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #213]
It's more like the UN and US has their standards, but they don't follow them perfectly. You make it seem as though they're not following the civilian deaths standard at all. If they weren't really accepting of that then they'd be supporting terror in all cases, but we know that's not the case since neither the US nor UN (not the Western nations, at least) supports Hamas and their tactics.

The U.S. and its European allies swiftly condemned the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas and expressed solidarity with Israel. In the days since, leaders in both Brussels and Washington have emphasized Israel's right to defend itself while urging Israel to limit civilian casualties and facilitate humanitarian aid.

Others in the region have not endorsed Hamas, but have emphasized that the current violence stems from the history of Israeli occupation. Those countries include Saudi Arabia, which before the war was on the precipice of a mega-deal that would include the normalization of ties with Israel.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/19/china- ... -hamas-war

I've already addressed your point about Haiti and I'm not going to repeat it because you ignored it and then offered a clearly biased explanation in response. Your biased point of the West supporting terrorism amounts to you just picking and choosing only the examples that supports your point, while ignoring the examples that go against it.

I'm bowing out of our discussion because it is hopelessly partisan (in the negative sense). If we can get back to where more people can contribute then I'll consider coming back.

[alexxcJRO]

Right. And I think slaves have the right to rebel to gain their freedom, even if it means killing their masters. What I said is that the reason many slaves don't rebel is that they are safe, and what I meant by that is that they reasonably expect to still be alive tomorrow.

A Spartacus kind of rebellion might sound ok.
But if the slaves go and kill the innocent that just happen to be roman and in the proximity of the malevolent, evil masters that is surely not ok.
If I Spartacus together with few slaves and go kill small children, the severely mentally impaired from birth and non-human animals(which happen to be roman, in the proximity of the masters) just because I am not free that is wrong.
This is the same way the Christians justify the commands of genocide in the Bible which includes non-moral agents. Which off course its not justified.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #213]
It's more like the UN and US has their standards, but they don't follow them perfectly. You make it seem as though they're not following the civilian deaths standard at all. If they weren't really accepting of that then they'd be supporting terror in all cases, but we know that's not the case since neither the US nor UN (not the Western nations, at least) supports Hamas and their tactics.

The U.S. and its European allies swiftly condemned the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas and expressed solidarity with Israel. In the days since, leaders in both Brussels and Washington have emphasized Israel's right to defend itself while urging Israel to limit civilian casualties and facilitate humanitarian aid.

Others in the region have not endorsed Hamas, but have emphasized that the current violence stems from the history of Israeli occupation. Those countries include Saudi Arabia, which before the war was on the precipice of a mega-deal that would include the normalization of ties with Israel.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/19/china- ... -hamas-war

I've already addressed your point about Haiti and I'm not going to repeat it because you ignored it and then offered a clearly biased explanation in response. Your biased point of the West supporting terrorism amounts to you just picking and choosing only the examples that supports your point, while ignoring the examples that go against it.

I'm bowing out of our discussion because it is hopelessly partisan (in the negative sense). If we can get back to where more people can contribute then I'll consider coming back.

After sleeping on it for a few days, I actually do feel like I did wrong by you in this debate, and it's because I should probably admit that I think antisemitism plays at least a part in the wider issue. I firmly believe I'm innocent of it personally but it doesn't really matter.

It's not simple, though. I don't think any significant numbers are like, "aaaAHaHH I HaTE BrOwn PPl!" or anything remotely similar.

What I see happening, is that people believe antiracism comes from Jews. And a lot of people have been royally cakebaked by antiracism regardless of whether or not antiracism is based on truth, or not. Even a true philosophy can hurt people unjustly. People in universities in particular have found themselves having to change what they believe, to the accepted morality, or be fired. This is the exact equivalent of being converted to a religion at gunpoint, because we don't know whether any of these religions are true or not, and likewise, since we can't see our own bias, we can only have evidence for antiracism being true, but never proof. There has not been room for debate, because, as people see it, you can't see your own privilege, so if the world has declared you privileged, your voice in the issue is exactly one unit of shut the heck up and accept what you're told.

For every one person who has been forced out of academia or business because they spoke up, there are at least a dozen who grudgingly accepted the new morality, even if they didn't agree with it. So now that the privilege and oppression shoe is on the other foot, people are jumping to denounce the oppressor, perhaps much faster than they otherwise would. Maybe they see it as justice. If they've been told, you move aside because of your privilege, shut up, there is no debate, then I have to ask, if they see that Jews are more privileged and oppress more people (...at least, in this particular instant...) than they do, what would be the right course of action for them, well knowing that they can't buck antiracism any other way, because they'll be shouted down? The most privileged gets no voice. Therefore, the only way to fight it, is to find a group more privileged. I certainly don't know what this means for how people should fight this, if they feel the need. And if this dynamic adds up to antisemitism, does that even mean, necessarily, that those on the antisemitic side absolutely must be wrong?

[justlearning]

Are Palestinians descendants of ancient Hebrews?
Genealogy already sheds light on this question. Studies that will be shown and referenced down below conclude that
1. The frequency of paternal lineages (Y-DNA) in Jewish populations such as the Jews of North-Africa are identical to Palestinians and Lebanese and that these frequencies in paternal lineages are not seen in other populations (such as true Arabs), meaning that Palestinians, Lebanese, many Jews (and other Levant populations) contain unique paternal ancestors that other populations don’t show.
2. The Y-chromosomes between a great percentage of modern day Palestinians and a great percentage of Jewish people are inherited from the same paternal ancestors from that Canaan region within the last few thousand years, meaning that Palestinians (and other Levant populations such as Lebanese), and many Jewish populations show identical subclades of the same parent haplogroup from their paternal lineage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
Answer~~~~ YES
BTW: Jews and Arabs are Semites

[William]

Are Palestinians descendants of ancient Hebrews?
Genealogy already sheds light on this question. Studies that will be shown and referenced down below conclude that
1. The frequency of paternal lineages (Y-DNA) in Jewish populations such as the Jews of North-Africa are identical to Palestinians and Lebanese and that these frequencies in paternal lineages are not seen in other populations (such as true Arabs), meaning that Palestinians, Lebanese, many Jews (and other Levant populations) contain unique paternal ancestors that other populations don’t show.
2. The Y-chromosomes between a great percentage of modern day Palestinians and a great percentage of Jewish people are inherited from the same paternal ancestors from that Canaan region within the last few thousand years, meaning that Palestinians (and other Levant populations such as Lebanese), and many Jewish populations show identical subclades of the same parent haplogroup from their paternal lineage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
Answer~~~~ YES
BTW: Jews and Arabs are Semites

In light of that data, it would appear to be a family fight that has been going on for some time.