Then they'd have to adjust their tactics. But still the core idea here seems to be you just have to "get Hamas", because they're evil and did something terrible. But that's the emotional reaction. Why is that the baseline we have to accept? — Echarmion

Actually, @Hanover is paralleling my argument so I’ll defer to his post:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/854677

From what you quoted I asked a series of questions. Israel took it as all out war on Hamas. If they give up, that would end. They could give up no? Just curious, what if Israel just went into a hornets nest to get Hamas and were massacred?

But 'going on with their lives' isn't an innocent desire to live peacefully. It is colonising another country. — bert1

So this is why RogueAI might have a point...

Oh I guess I should add @Baden to the above post.

I used to think liberals sided with Hamas because of a reflexive sympathy for the underdog, but the pro-Palestinian arguments advanced here by normally sober-minded progressives are so divorced from reality, the logic is so tortured, I'm thinking some latent antisemitism is at play. — RogueAI

I would be tempted to agree. However, I don't want to get to that level of guessing the intentions of interlocutors, though it seems to come out that way. I was called a "white supremacist" (or something about my thread on Western civilization was) because I suggested that Middle Eastern nation states, being that they are already made up from European colonizing idea of "nation-state" should perhaps take on some of the good things from the West such as liberal democracy. My point was there is indeed a reflexive sympathy for any group that represents to them the "underdog". Normally what this group stands for is not at all what "progressive-minded" people would stand for.

So it all comes down I guess to land. Land is the fetish that people will stake their moralities on. You can do ANYTHING as long as you feel your land was stolen. But you can't do anything in response to that.

I think we all agree though, Hamas is evil. But the difference is Israel's response. How does one respond to Hamas? The reality is they are entrenched in that region and their goals are to do it again. If Israel did very little and Hamas did another October 7th attack, what then? How about after that? How about after that? In fact, what if the Jews in Israel just let them keep attacking and go on with their lives?

I think the other argument is Hamas will reform its views. You see, their stated goals and actions are just temporary. They are really waiting to transform. Apparently they will calm down, like a child that has to learn a bit and they'll grow up. Don't you see? They're just having a tantrum and Israel should just look at them like a lost child that will find their way one day. They got to give them space to grow.

I don't want to argue for it because I don't accept it. It's an example of mirroring propaganda. It frames the conversation in a way that presumes the conclusion in favour of the framer as you have done. Understand? — Baden

I understand what you are saying, but unlike the Warsaw Ghetto, the WW2 analogy is apt. Should Chamberlain have hurt Germany early on when they were still an "underdog" (at least not militarily capable yet of doing what they were signaling very much what they wanted to do)? On the other side of the war, should the US have pulled out of Germany in 1945, because by that time Germany was an underdog and their military pushed back and degraded enough to just leave?

So you don't have to argue along those lines fine, but we are in a debate forum and I am making a case. It's not rhetorical either, but using some historical precedent for what a full-scale war looks like when fighting a certain kind of evil enemy. And yeah, I'll say Hamas and Nazis are indeed evil in their means and ends.

I'll explain one last time. Suppose I say to you: The Israelis are like the Nazis and the Gazans are like the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto therefore surely the attack by Hamas on its oppressors is as justified as Jews fighting to get out of the Warsaw ghetto? Would you accept that framing.? Because I could offer far more justification for it (even though I don't accept it myself) than you can for yours. — Baden

Go ahead, how is it a good framing?
Hamas had billions of dollars that they WASTED on weapons and enriching their leaders. Little to no actual development for the people.... The Jews in Warsaw were imprisoned there before being shipped off to death camps.

The people of Gaza did not try to get rid of Hamas if they disagreed with them. Unless you want to make an analogy that Hamas are making their own population the Warsaw Ghetto, it's not the same as a population being ruled by Nazis (sympathizers) that are eventually keeping them there before they send them to work/death camps.

Stop wasting your time. — Benkei

Again, poisoning the well. Great tactic :ok:

The analogy is utterly stupid. Give it up. No one in their right mind would accept such a ridiculous framing as the basis for rational argument. — Baden

You didn't answer my question. This is handwaving and stalling. Because you know the answers to those are not something you want to hear. That is okay though. If you want to handwave one more time and dismiss the analogy go ahead, but I think the case is indeed apt.

Everything in reality is the opposite of the way you framed it but the framing is apt to you? We're at a dead end here. Thanks for the conversation. — Baden

As I said way earlier in the thread, Germany was also a weakened entity by 1945. It was in no position to win. Should the US have stopped and went home? It was the underdog by that point, no? Should Chamberlain have sued for peace or should he have struck Germany hard at the beginning and ended it there? Germany wasn't yet in a position to be so decisive in their military pursuits that they were definitely signaling they were going to do.

I asked for clarification in what of the Holocaust and of historical antisemitism justified the Nakba (as per Wikipedia, aka, “the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations” … which is a lot easier to express by use of one term). It wasn't a "bad faith argument". I also don't personally know you, and so I made it clear that I assume in good faith that what I expressed is not your view. — javra

It's bad faith because it's bad history. The "Nakba" went along with the infighting and 1948 war, so you cannot pry those apart, so it is an impossible way of asking the question without saying there should be no Israel either because it happened at the founding events. In other words, would I rather the Palestinians also accepted the 1947 resolution and that the infighting that happened prior to that and that the continuation into a full scale war between Israel and the Arab nations of the region had not occurred? Yes, absolutely. But that's not how that happened so again, it is an weasely way of framing that question because the history went hand in hand with an Israel as reality and the Nakba.

I'll answer the rest later.. I haven't looked at it sufficiently yet....

So, it's just propaganda and your opponents in the propaganda war can simply point out that Israel is the overwhelmingly powerful force in the region as the Nazis around the early stages of WW2 were, that Israel have the power to wipe out Gaza and have expressed their wish to do so as the Nazis expressed their wish to wipe out the Jews — Baden

Did the US try to "wipe out" Nazi Germany? They wanted to wipe out the Nazi regime, indeed. And they did at great cost. And by the end of the war, the US didn't say "Ok, well the Nazis are sufficiently pushed back to their own accepted borders... let's go home now". At that point, past 1941, it was all but over for the Nazis, and certainly by 1945.

Your opponents in propaganda will say that the comparison of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto or even the German concentration camps is more accurate, seeing as it's effectively an open prison. They will probably end by pointing out the fact that you have flipped reality on its head in almost every important and relevant aspect of the analogy at hand shows either your desperation or complete ignorance both of history and the present. — Baden

Indeed, and that would be propaganda for sure being that it is a "prison camp" because Hamas funnels the money to enrich their leaders and to build tunnels, obtain missiles, munitions, and the like. Instead of vying for a peace to stop it, they kept attacking and not stopping from their goal...

Why would you want to give them the ammunition to expose you like that? So, it's just a framing, and an extremely perverse one that in a blatantly false appeal to the most stupid and ignorant seeks to paint the Gazans as evil and a disproportionate threat so that Israel can be excused in slaughtering them in large numbers while we dehumanize them as Nazis (everyone hates the Nazis, right). Not good. Try something else. — Baden

Because the framing is apt, and still is even after these counter-arguments.

History is messy indeed. Should Chamberlain have let Hitler keep enlarging his territory at the price of peace? In hindsight that was not the answer. Hitler was not someone whose aims were purely for making the "trains run on time" and to improve the economy. He had other aims. They were right there in his manifesto, in fact.

First I wish there was no war ever, and we resolved conflict peacefully. That isn't the case here, unfortunately.

Second, I wish if there ever had to be a war, they would fight it in a battlefield whereby no civilians were ever harmed. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.

The US, Britain, France, and the Allies, had to fight a regime doing evil and in doing so unfortunately killed civilians in the process. It's horrible. One major difference is that Nazis by and large didn't want their own citizens to die (though they didn't mind them being used as military fodder). However, arguably, towards the end of the war, Hitler wanted every German to fight to the death, so perhaps he did... Either way, what do you do in the face of such atrocious enemies? Some people wished Israel would lay down and die already so that Palestine can be "free" (of them). But Israelis may feel differently about that notion. The threat of another 10-7 is not quite the same as a 9/11. Mexico and Canada are not sending suicide attackers, missiles and rapist, baby-beheading murderers over to regain their "rightful" territory and kill as many Americans as possible. So where the aftermath of 9/11 was indeed a poorly thought out game of wackamole and carrying plans for the benefit of X cause that may have not had much to do with the "War on Terror", this indeed is a live threat, right there, in your face, (yes "existential") threat, in that it can and will happen again and again. You can say that getting rid of Hamas by overwhelming force will cause more Hamas, but as some have already commented on this thread, it took many years for Western Europe to get to a peaceful ennui and just be sick and tired of it all.

Again, because of 10-7 it really does change the equation from debating rockets and West Bank policies from Likud, to how does one deal with groups who want to keep maiming, torturing, killing and not governing or enriching the lives of their actual citizens that they supposedly represent and govern.

But then I'd have the freakin US Navy backing me up! — frank

You'd be dead first, apparently. Don't ask how.

My base of operations for this discussion is in a neonatal intensive care unit, so I should be good. — frank

Just make sure it isn't a kibbutz either.

I think it's been explained to you that you can't eliminate an idea and that by killing Palestininan civilians you create more Hamas especially in the long term. Anyhow your whole shtick here seems a blithe, glib and thoughtless exculpation of Israel while blaming everything on Hamas. It's painfully ignorant. — Baden

I think it is partly that the kind of intensity of Hamas' continued attacks has changed character to this ISIS style. This has made the arguments prior to October 7th change as well. Before October 7th I didn't really step into this kind of thread, because it seemed like status quo and everyone can debate and make points on how policies were being carried out in the West bank, or how the rocket attacks in response were over proportional and unnecessary, or whatnot. But then October 7th was so brutal that it indeed does become about what you do in that situation. On October 8th there were some people (not saying you Baden) who tacitly were silent or some even cheered (those images of college posters with parachutes and "Free Palestine"). Then of course Israel is going to retaliate. Hamas has their stuff inevitably imbedded in civilian targets, and Israel has now changed the strategy from containment and retaliation to literally destroying all their infrastructure and fighters. Destroying does not mean "eliminate" because as you stated, an idea can never be destroyed. But they are going to destroy the personnel and infrastructure, and they see it more like a war whereby in order to achieve this mission with an evil enemy, you have to be willing to do very unfortunate things. In that sense it is apt to make analogies to various other wars where the aim is to get rid of a governmental/military entity completely.

In the meantime, Hamas knows Israel will go all out, but they don't care. I think they have given up using the prisoners as some bargaining chip. Indeed they will use the media cycle and try to cause chaos in the region.

What question? Why the Palestinians don't want the hostages released? Israel hasn't promised a ceasefire if they are, has it? What do you think the benefit is to the Palestinians to call for this? — Baden

I think it would indeed lead to some sort of cease-fire. But why wouldn't you if that is one of the continuing incentives. I mean, some of the perpetrator's parents were elated when they talked to them live on the phone, but surely you would think that letting go of the hostages would be at least one avenue for stopping it. From what I have heard from what is stated, it is the letting go of hostages that have to happen first from the Israeli perspective, being that Hamas started and continue to hold hostages from their attack.

Yes, I just don't know why military personnel was added. We were talking about hostages. But I get that you obviously think that the civilian hostages should be released. I wasn't doubting that you would think that.

But then, the question at hand which I don't think was really answered except by way of a tangent on something else?

Don't distort my point like that. — Baden

Got it. For some reason putting those together seemed odd and looked like it was conflated.

Military personnel taken hostage on both sides are prisoners of war and should be protected, treated humanely and released at the end of the war. — Baden

Indeed, but these aren't military personnel, unless you think a 9 month olds and 85 year old grandmas are military personnel.

However, the question of why Palestinians aren't calling for the release of the hostages while Israel is murdering their children in hospitals and the hostages are their only bergaining chip to make the slaughter stop is naive at best. — Baden

I didn't quote the rest because none of that answered my question.

I guess it just seems pointless. — Echarmion

Can you elaborate why one wouldn’t want to advocate for the nearest proximal thing for a cease fire? And I’m talking mainly Palestinians and adjacent allies.

The fact you feel my post addressed you, says it all. I already pointed out your idiocy in an earlier post; which was hubris. You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something. — Benkei

All ad hom. Nothing of substance. Bad faith arguing and poisoning the well. Clearly you have no substance to add. I can call you all sorts of names based on your arguments that would simply label for rhetorical effect, but I have refrained, in order to argue substance. You should try that some day.

Just a hypothetical question for everyone, why isn’t anyone (especially Palestinians) calling on Hamas to release the 240 hostages?

Israel should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank. That's an action that it can and should undertake unilaterally. — Tzeentch

I'm sure you are aware, but Gaza has not been "occupied" since 2005 by Israel. They had their own government even. They voted in Hamas who has then governed in terroristic fashion over Gaza and against Israel. They were given billions in aid from various places including the UN, and they funneled that money to their war machine, which now apparently includes ISIS style terrorist atrocities against a way more militarily powerful foe which they knew would attack. When asked about their intentions, they said they would do it again and again.

It's very simple. They should stop illegally occupying Gaza and the West Bank, and stop committing human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As long as Israel is the occupier and refuses to carry out the relevant UN resolutions, Israel is the problem. — Tzeentch

We've been over this many times (mainly between SSU and I but you were there I think...), the moderate Pals had opportunities and they failed to take them. The issue right now is no longer about these bigger issues of a two-state (and hopefully will be at some point in the future), it is what to do about Hamas. Unfortunately the situation had to turn from containment (file missiles back and let Hamas keep building tunnels and funneling millions of dollars to the leaders and the war machine rather than the people), to destroying the group.

I think that is quite true. Hamas isn't ISIS or just a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in general: their objectives are to fight the Israeli occupation. A bit of gaslighting from yourself there. — ssu

This is all wordplay to justify this kind of action. It is ISIS-style barbarity aimed at the Jewish state of Israel, instead of the West in general. Okie dokie.

Have you not noticed that I've said that again and again the extremists have taken over?

Or do you assume that Palestinians are somehow uncapable or perhaps so inferior they cannot form a functioning state? Is that your idea? — ssu

It sure as hell looks like they can't form a moderate state, yes. But notice that you have to throw "inferior" in there. Bad faith arguing. I am making a point about what has happened, I haven't condemned a people as eternally inferior. To say they "failed to form a moderate coalition" is so mildly putting it, it is laughable and you KNOW it. So don't put weasel words in there like "inferior". C'mon man. Stick to history not that kind of tactic.

I don't see 'moderates' in charge anywhere. What is there for 'moderate Pals' to do in Gaza or the West Bank, actually? You obviously didn't find 'moderate Germans' during WW2, but afterwards in peacetime you did find them. — ssu

Ok, now you are making Israel's (Netanyahu's government's) case right now about why they have to take over Gaza and hold it for a while and make sure it is molded to their liking ala the US to Germany and Japan after utterly defeating them after WW2.

First and foremost: Beyond their fierce rhetoric, actors in the Middle East are capable of being reasonable. But if you want to go with a line deranged babykillers cannot be tolerated and that Palestinians are them, I have to remind you that the PA did hideous terrorist attacks too and vowed to destroy Israel... until they did sit down and tried to make peace. — ssu

I think Hamas has lost the time limit on that one. At some point a line is drawn. Some authoritarian leaders can be reasonable. Some are continually belligerent. Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler could be trusted, but clearly he wasn't.

I don't yet understand how the Holocaust and the history of antisemitism justify the Nakba. To make myself better understood, it so far seems to be affirming that because the Nazis (and many others) considered Jews as "sub-human", Jews in Israel have had the right to consider Palestinians as "sub-human" in relation to their own worth. But I so far doubt this is what you're intending to say. — javra

Jesus Christ man, I did not say or imply that, just the formation of Israel. I knew you were going to bad faith argue by technically saying the "Nakba" which went hand-in-hand with the 1947 UN Resolution and the formation of Israel. So you are forcing the two together by phrasing it like that. It's a loaded question and I don't appreciate it. It's bad faith arguing such that I have to justify the "Nakba" when I am really just justifying "Israel" as a nation-state. No, one doesn't mean the other, but one went down in history with the other.

Gypsies — javra

Do Gypsies have a tradition that always points to a homeland that they mention daily in prayers, in traditions, etc? If so, perhaps they should get a nation-state. If not, perhaps not. Each group can have different circumstances. From what I know, it's exactly the traditions of not having a homeland that has been the root of much of Roma practice. But I may be corrected. Certainly recent historical and genetic evidence indicates that they came from Northern India/Pakistan area and spread out from there after a battle.

Another very touch topic, but is a Jew defined as Jewish - this throughout history - by an ethnicity (something that, for example, can thereby be traced with mitochondrial DNA nowadays), by the specific religion of Judaism, by a nationality, or necessarily by all three simultaneously? I've heard of or encountered plenty of Jews that are either not religious or else hold onto different religious convictions (this, particularly, in the modern neopagan community; e.g. Starhawk), but Jews they nevertheless are. As to a Jew being necessarily defined by a nationality, namely that of ancient Israel (as in “Israelite”), this is to me strongly connected to religious convictions themselves. Which in part gets to the quote you've provided (given its proper historical context) and, in part, gets to many a non-Zionist Jew who do not identify with any nationality other than that nation in which they have grown up in (this not being that of modern Israel). — javra

I would argue, by-and-large "Jews" define themselves more as an ethno-religion, and it is exactly Enlightenment movements (especially Reform Judaism) that made it less about the ethno and more about the religion to match their Christian peers.

Yet, that the establishment of a Jewish state after WWII happened to be within not-so-long-ago Palestine, this rather than somewhere else in the world that was not already populated in an established way, to me, at least, directly coheres into the very messianic prophesy I initially brought up. — javra

Not-so-long-ago Palestine wasn't a thing. It was a province of "Palestine" (not a nation-state) under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. There were no nation-states in the Middle East really prior to Picos-Sykes. So I think this is a cudgel we are both going to put our flag down at. You are going to argue this is semantics, but I am going to argue this is actually not. If Israel shouldn't exist, either should Palestine, Iraq, Syria, or anything else drawn up in Europe for that matter, and perhaps they should have just given it back to the Ottomans if we really want to start parsing historical "should of would of could ofs". But apparently in these debates, the die has to be loaded for whatever favor you want to have rather than what occurred which was the colonization of the Middle East into European style nation-states.

Speaking for myself, I don't favor underdogs on account of their simply so being. — javra

Nice. That seems to be the sentiment around these parts.

And true, there is no going back. Something that Native American Indians (First Nations) know all too well, for example. The issue isn't about how do we go back to the way things once were but how do we move forward from here on out. — javra

Yep.

But to be blunt: My little mind foresees a lot more hatred of Jews, hatred of the USA, and hatred of the West at large if this conflict can only be resolved via the extermination of the Palestinians from their current land ... or else gets turned into the largest concentration camp the world has yet to witness. This increased inter-cultural hatred is not something that I want. But the world at large is watching. And every Palestinian child that escapes death and will grow into an adult will likely not hold kind thoughts regarding the three populaces just mentioned - to which I pertain. This as just one little - but maybe all the same significant - example of what will await in our future. This apropos a ceasefire that stands relatively little chance of occurring anytime soon – as in, right now. — javra

You may be right. I have no idea what the Israeli government plans to do with Gaza, the West Bank. But I also have no idea what the Palestinians are gonna do. Here is the thing though, clearly based on October 7th, Gaza run by Hamas also wasn't working out, so we have shit past, shit present, and maybe shit future. Maybe not though.

So, at to "what to do", from where I stand, those who are more quote-unquote "civilized" should be the first to stop the killing of innocent people - on the streets, in shelters, in hospitals, etc. - and this for their/our own future interest in both the short-term and the long-term. — javra

And indeed, that is really the real questions. What does a nation in wartime do? How does one "get rid of" an enemy? You can't get rid of an idea, but you can get rid of the known perpetrators. But then, what do you do when you conquer the region utterly? Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out. Hopefully some sort of coalition can be formed and put Abbas or some "moderate" in power. I think it was someone else on this forum that said that if this is like Europe's past wars (everything from the Thirty Years War all the way up to WW2) then there is a lot of death to make a sort of "peaceful ennui" that currently Western Europe enjoyed. Unfortunately, if we just take something like WW2, it took a tremendous amount of civilian deaths for the current world order we have today. I rather it be Gandhis talking it out peacefully with Gandhis. Not the civilian deaths. Apparently no one chooses this option and it is indeed disheartening.

Why so? For instance, what other interests do you find occurring in Western Civilization post Enlightenment which justify what Palestinians term the Nakba? — javra

The Holocaust, historical reasons, and antisemitism in general in the West. But the religious reasons no doubt play a role, but it doesn't have to be in the messianic sense you describe. One of the things that make it somewhat unique is that it is reestablishing a Jewish polity in a region. But it's not that unique really in terms of a religion also being a sort of "nation" as well. The Assyrians for example, are an example of this. They are sort of an ethno-religion. Samaritans might be even more apt as an "ethno-religion", one tied to the land (e.g. Mt. Gerizim). There are other ethno-religions too. That being said, IRONICALLY, it is also the Enlightenment which models this idea, mainly starting with the French Revolution. "To the Jews as individuals, all rights. To the Jews as a nation, no rights." was what came out of the National Assembly convention in 1789. And that made a kind of sense in Europe to an extent that assimilation and universality was the guiding principle of the day. However, this did not internally diminish the Jewish belief of being an ethno-religion, and sort of misconstrued the Jewish approach to itself. The cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed were very important centers throughout the history. At various times (post-Roman occupation, Biblical times, and Jesus circa 100s-600s CE) there were Jewish centers in mainly the Galilee (Sepphoris, Tiberias, Yavne, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmudic_academies_in_Syria_Palaestina) Certainly, some Jews almost fully integrated into French and European societies as was the case into the 20th century. But the Dreyfus Affair started questioning whether assimilation in European nation-states was ever fully possible. The ongoing pogroms in Eastern Europe, and the Holocaust provided more evidence of this.

So the Nakba came about from internal conflicts that were ongoing right before the UN 1947 declaration, and after that turned into a regional war. And indeed it is about land rights, and whether to acknowledge a Jewish state. Israel can always say it's about security and the right to even exist (if right of return was admitted, would that mean Israel would just be dissolved? Would there be more internal pogroms and conflicts but in a smaller land-space now?). But let's discuss this in your next paragraph because I'm leading to something...

Ok. I then take your reply to indicate that criticism of Western civilization at large by westerners is not something that is to be proscribed? The proscription simply applying to the potential denunciation of the ideal of "universal rights for all people" and the like? — javra

More-or-less, yes. That is to say, the way history unfolded, the reality is these "nation-states" are fully European in origin, not a sort of political entity indigenous to X (regions in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc.). So excuse my language, but WTF would one be talking about when discussing "self-determination" when it is already confined to YOUR (yes YOU Western person who claims to be pro-underdog) who has thus defined it to be self-determined in YOUR Westphalian/Atlantic Charter/Post-Colonialist way?

But you see, there is NO GETTING OUT of the system either. You cannot turn back post-colonialism to so pre-colonization time. So what is one to do? And that is where I say that if the country already exists, it has some of the technology at least, and infrastructures, etc. you mine as well try to incorporate the liberal democratic principles that also went along with those Western things. Japan may be an example of a country that successfully did this. We can parse out why them and not others, and why that can't work in other areas, but I am giving more of an offhand possibility rather than a model, if that makes sense. I am not saying X country is like the circumstances of 19th century Japan, for example. Interesting enough, just like newly formed "Germany" and "Italy", it too went from possible parliamentary democracy to straight up fascist-style regime, decimating its neighbors. But the realities on the ground much of the time is a strongman takes power, keeps power, and gives it to his family, and that is the politics. The end. Oddly enough, this may be preferable to the illiberal democracy of voting in religious extremists which curtail many rights so it's then run by a holy man or council of holy men. Yet here they are in a "nation-state", dealing with the world as a "nation" (given to them by the West), using "Western" technology, but not taking on some of the values that may make the nation good for its citizens. It might just be "good" in some universal sense to have freedom of speech, religious expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to peaceably disagree with the government, freedom to form political parties and have free and fair elections.

Right. And so understood from a non-Abrahamic perspective (here written as an umbrella generalization and not looking at what more often than not are deemed heretical variants--with aspects such as the Kabbalah as exceptions), an apocalypse is always a strictly personal experience regarding the nature of reality - i.e., mysticism 101 (of which Gnosticism is one variant) - rather than about the living dead rising up from their graves or some such. — javra

Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess I was using "apocalyptic" as both its idea as esoteric vision, and some of the content of what that vision is (often how the end of the world is to look like). So I think we can both be right on that, but if we look at how it is used in different ways. I think providing context helps to pinpoint how it is then being used.

You do understand that there's a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?

There's just the Palestinian Authority. But basically it's quite sidelined. As new settlements are still rising and Palestinians are forced out of their homes, what is the reason why the PA would start fighting other Palestinians? Hence the PA is not even in the position of Vichy France when it fought the resistance movement and 'Free French'.. — ssu

Ah you are STILL gaslighting and not answering the question. I will repeat:

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

Hamas is simply a resistance movement that is reacting to being occupied by Israel. — Tzeentch

Nah, I don't think that characterization is even true. It's stated ends and its means say otherwise. Jihadist and extremist characterize it more. Or, at least you are severely playing down that aspect as some kind of legitimate form of resistance. Just lambs resisting evil Israel rather than antagonizing them. Antagonizing here meaning being a deadly attacker that rapes, kills, mutilates burns and kidnaps people, and then uses their own people as human shields not giving one shit about their lives and put all their money into building tunnels and firing rockets and weapons and making themselves rich.

At the end of the day, does the "governing" Hamas (or past tense now perhaps), did they give a shit about the lives of their people? If Israel didn't, did they?

Hm. From what I know, “Christ” or, more accurately, “Khristos” is the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah, ”מָשִׁיחַ”, both having the same exact meaning of “the anointed one”. For both religions basically meaning the chosen one who will lead his people into salvation of one type or another. Let’s not forget that all “Christians” were in fact Jewish and pagan (if Gnosticism-like beliefs held by former polytheists get so labeled) before the first Council of Nicaea with its newly found doctrine of the Trinity. But yes, today “Christ” distinctly connotes Christian religion whereas Messiah tends to connote Judeic religion. Thanks for the correction in that regard. — javra

Technically correct. I was referring to the post-Pauline use of Christ Jesus, in which “the Christ” certainly changed the metaphysical idea of the simple translation of its original “anointed one”. It gets the connotation and baggage of “sacrificial Son of God” rather than simply a “restoration of the King, a once again anointed one”.

Also I distinguish between the original Jewish movement headed by his brother James where the original messiah concept was most likely viewed and what it became after Paul with his concept of the Christ. As for gnostics, some were certainly Jews. That is a mysterious origin story that would take longer to explore.

Right. This state of affairs has always made me doubtful of the sincerity of a two state solution as sponsored by the USA and Israel. I used to hope for the best in this respect—thinking that this would best facilitate relative peace given regional politics—but constantly saw all signs indicating that this “two state solution” proposal was nothing but a facade for stopping any opposition to the forceful disappearance of all Palestinians from the former state of Palestine … this to facilitate the coming of the Messiah/Christ at nearly any cost. And today’s activities in these two countries in no way contradicts this in fact being so. I know it’s a very touchy topic, but there you have it. To non-extremists—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims, pagans, Buddhists, atheists, or what have you—were this to in fact be so, it can well be looked upon as an unwholly alliance between two otherwise antagonistic extremist factions … which as alliance is set on destroying what we have of global harmony so that they might have their personal salvation in the here and now. — javra

I don’t know if it’s that simple. Now you are reducing this conflict more than probably the case. There’s all sorts of reasons Israel is an ally strategically with the US. However, you are discounting the fact that there were various times offered and rejected of a peace plan towards the Palestinians- this was before and even after Netanyahu and likud's dominance. The peace in the region is more for the two sides than anyone else but yes, Israel has to have some moderates again who will look for moderates and there has to be Palestinians who are moderates who can moderate their extremists. It’s not a matter of shaking a hand and calling it good. It takes taking action against extremists who want to ruin that.

My questioning, though, was more in regard to what constitutes this “Western Civilization” of ours that should not be derided by us westerners. Many fundamentalists will maintain that it is the very fundamentalist interpretation of scripture—including that of the Messiah’s/Christ’s coming—around which Western Civilization pivots. And I can see this argument: from “in God we trust” written on money to bibles in trials and more (although, to me, were Cleopatra to have succeeded in her endeavors, and were ancient Egypt to have united with ancient Rome, it would still be Western Civilization—albeit one likely not pivoted around anything Judeo-Cristian).

But then, are you saying that us non-extremists are wrong for wanting this aspect of current Western Culture, which longs for some violent apocalypse to occur, to no longer be of any influence in politics (or in society at large for that matter)? — javra

No, I specifically defined what I meant by 17-18th Enlightenment movement. So you can split it into two phenomena:

Nation-State came from Colonization from the West
1) Western Civilization colonized the rest of the world from the 16th-20th centuries. They drew up often arbitrary territories, and introduced all kind of political notions like, "This territory is now a "nation-state" amongst many others in our conception of the world"
1a) After WW2, with even more rapid "decolonization" occurred" and under the Atlantic Charter, it was conceived that these former colonies that they controlled for many years, are now "free" to be "self-determined".
1b) But wait a minute!! Why are they now "free to be self-determined"? What is this "entity" being "freed" to be "self-determined". Well lo and behold, it is the "nation-state", allowed to be its "own version" of the nation-state that the WEST CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's a big ruse. It's all fake. Decolonization is not going to a state of affairs PRIOR TO COLONIZATION. It is just the allowed outcome of POST-COLONIZATION.
1c) That being the case ALL OF IT is Western in THAT sense (not every sense of course).

Ideas of Enlightenment
The basic idea is if the nation-state is going to be considered a "thing" (like what really is Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, etc?), then mine as well take on the Enlightenment ideas of "universal rights" and liberal democracies (meaning not just voting, but protection for the groups not in power, separation of powers, freedoms guaranteed of speech and press, freedom to worship). And I also explained that just as with Britain retaining its heritage (it still has an Anglican head of Church for example and a monarchy), traditions can still be kept in these nation-states that keep the character, pride, and history as part of their nation-state. The problem of course is that Britain has actually "been" a nation-state since Medieval times. Same as France, etc. But one can maybe model it after newer nation-states, but WITHOUT the romantic nationalism that befell them (Germany and Italy are two egregious examples of nation-states from smaller kingdoms/city-states that quickly radicalized to fascism).

ps. Personally dislike this use of “apocalypse” to address supernatural doings, like the reawakening of the dead of which you make mention. It initially strictly meant a revealing—literally, an un-covering of what is (which makes far more sense in a gnostic-like interpretation of the world). Bummer, that’s all. — javra

Well, "apocalypse" means a sort of "revealing or revelation" and can mean some sort of esoteric secrets like the beginning of the world, the end of the world, heavenly realms, heavenly hosts, etc. In other words, its very esoteric. One can say the apocalyptic literature is a genre that starts with the Book of Daniel (written in the 200s BCE but takes place in 539 BCE) and continues. Themes of the End of Times are very much a part of this type of literature, though not strictly. The idea of a general resurrection of the dead can be seen in Ezekiel and Daniel. There were a bunch of "apocalypses" that did not make it into the TaNaK though including the Books of Enoch, and Apocalypse of X (Moses, Adam, Moses, etc.). There's also pseudopigripha like the Book of Maccabees,etc. that were also influential but didn't make it in the Tanak coming too late were more referenced for historical purposes.

Now I'm the one confused. Please try refrain the question because I don't understand what your point is. — ssu

The shibboleth is Netanyahu.

What don’t you get about these questions?

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control?

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? Is there enough will on the Pals side to do this?

The pinnacle issue all this is intended to ask about: Ought this policy-influencing yearning in our Western culture for the Messiah's coming to not be mentioned, questioned, and disapproved of by us westerners … this on the grounds that it has been a staple aspect of Western Civilization for the past two millennia? — javra

I mean yes, the reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes so much interest is because like it or not, that is the place where a large chunk of Western Civilization's history is focused via the events portrayed in the Bible/Hebrew Scriptures and the person of Jesus. Christianity took over the Roman Empire's leadership and slowly spread across the populous in various conversions such that the original paganism is little seen except through overlaid practices (like putting Christmas trees in a house.. Germanic practice of honoring Wodin with the Yule log, or even the revelry that is associated with Christ-mas going back to the original Roman rowdy holiday of Saturnalia). If Christianity became the Marcionite version, WITHOUT the "Old Testament" (Hebrew Bible), then perhaps the Christian sect would have simply been another mystery-cult amongst the many that thrived in the Mediterranean at that time. But keeping the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the tradition a place/time/people. This became infused as part-and-parcel of Western Civilization since. So yes, why would an atrocity in Afghanistan or even a nearby neighbor like Syria not be as intensely looked at in American-European media perhaps? It doesn't have that historical tie. But more recently, you cannot deny that Israel being borne out of the Holocaust basically, put a spotlight on it as that was a huge part of Germany's operation. This itself makes the project that much more inextricably tied to the history of the West.

The religious fundamental-extremist drive, yearning, and often undulated lust for the coming of the Messiah asap (the first time the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews; the second coming for fundamentalist Christians)—which is supposed by fundamentalist-extremists to only occur once the nation of Israel is fully inhabited by only Judaic people is, to the best of my knowledge, a staple part of the Western Judaeo-Cristian civilization. Some such extremist Christians at least seem to exhibit some degree of blood-lust in this craving; cf. the whole “Armageddon days” that is desired to arrive by some, and as was supposedly prophesied in Revelations (for only then will Christ’s second coming occur, according to this common interpretation of scripture). Some current fundamentalist-extremist Jews seem to not be lagging too far behind in this same lust for blood (from human lesser-animals, apparently).

Christ’s coming for the first time for Jews can be, for fundamentalist-extremist Jews (btw, a group to which, tmk, many Orthodox Jews are sharply antithetical, the latter being very peace-loving and such), interpreted to signify the exaltation of the chosen people and, by certain inferences, thereby the subjugation of all non-chosen-people, i.e. Gentiles—or something to this effect (heck, one can even see the case for the existential disappearance of Gentiles world over for not being “sufficiently close to G-d” as understood by self-labeled “true Jews”). Whereas Christ’s second coming for fundamentalist extremist Christians will basically signify that all non-believers get sent to eternal Hell right away, Jews most typically included. — javra

So I would say it is a bit of a misnomer to say "the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews". The idea of the messiah being "The Christ" is a very "Christian" concept (mainly from Paul and his writings). Messiah comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" and was meant to refer to a leader who would bring an end to any occupying civilization and restore the old kingship back to the an heir from the lineage of the House of David. Later versions (starting around the Book of Daniel we'll say), had a more apocalyptic aspect where the dead will rise, and there will be universal peace (lion lies next to the lamb, etc.). Some versions around the time of Jesus had an apocalyptic aspect of the warring of the "elect of Israel" and the rest, etc. (the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good source for this more apocalyptic version of events). Some of that may still be in there, but the beliefs of the mystical aspects are more fluid and open to interpretation. The basic gist is that it is a Jew (literally a Judhite as David was from the tribe of Judah) restoring the kingship of Israel.

The Christ is Paul's notion that the messiah has a metaphysical component. He may be pre-existing (though in Paul's letter that might not be the case), and eventually tied into the notion of a literal Son of God, and that his death acts as a sacrifice abrogates the original covenant such that the Laws of Moses become nullified. This is actually the real split from Judaism, not believing that "Jesus was the Messiah" (though that didn't help too between the very early group after his death, because a dead messiah doesn't seem plausible as restoring the kingship.. If he is dead, he cannot fulfil that).

Anyway, yes there is a strong tie of Evangelical theology with Israel as the belief is that if all Jews go back to Israel Jesus would come back and then send the non-believers to hell and start the whole rapture and the like.

Here is an article: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481

The presumed supremacy of Western civilisation and the logical next step it should be defended by any means necessary. But you're right. Forget it. Don't waste your time on it. — Benkei

Your reductions of whole threads or argument to a straw man is laughable. In fact, you are falling for exactly the kind of fallacy the OP set out to explain.

If you have an argument, make an argument, just don't say X, Y, Z label trying to start a fight but with no argument.

Bibi and others then reason that it's been the withdrawal that caused then the bombing of Israeli settlements and everywhere where Israel has tried to "negotiate", only failure has followed. Not that going off an occupying other countries will create insurgencies and escalate the conflict. — ssu

This seems to be pretty tenuous argument as it is basically generalizing the end of a conflict that had determining factors for why Israel was battling the PLO in Lebanon. It's not as easy as Israel just wanted to go in there for funsies. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean by "occupying other countries". As you are simply stating the consequence not the reason. But then tying it to Gaza also seems tenuous as Gaza is not quite a state the same way Lebanon is. It is a territory that would perhaps become a future state if the moderates agreed that Israel should exist peaceably and that Israelis should not be arbitrarily killed, etc.

Also here:

Hezbollah then followed them to the border basically as the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel. — ssu

I'm confused why you would say Hezbollah was the "proxy arm of the IDF". You are making them sound like Israel's ally. That doesn't sound right. The consequence for the withdrawal is the South Lebanese Army was taken over by Hezbollah guerillas. I think you meant the South Lebanese Army was Israel's proxy (though even that is a bit tenuous)?

If I knew Palestinian politics better, I would assume that the fate of those who tried aggressively to get a two state solution by negotiating with the Israelis are as unpopular as the Labor party is now in Israel. Religious fanatics rule. — ssu

You make it sound like the Palestinian disagreement means that they are having high noon tea hashing out a well-planned peace deal over crumpets and honey or some shit. Not negotiating looks like the barbaric kind of shit that they did.

Basically, you didn't answer my questioned and hedged. I'll ask it again:

So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality.

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

Oh and you brought up Rabbi Gamliel. In Acts, if there is anything of truth in that Pauline reinterpretation of events, Rabbi Gamliel is sympathetic to the group in a "wait and see" kind of way. There could be some sympathy there, or an echo that the group had some Pharisee origin (albeit went off on a tangent with the influence of John the Baptist apocalyptic Essenic ideas).

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

I was thinking more along the lines of e.g. "Rabbi Gamliel preached..." which is similar to Jesus's view. If you're not going to use the gospels then what is our source for Jesus's teachings? We must use the gospels. I mention nothing of the miracles here; only the teachings. — BitconnectCarlos

I quoted the most anti-Pharisee passage and showed that there were similar (self-critical) texts in the Talmud. Then I pointed to the fact that there were no fixed ideas at the time, because they were pioneering them. There may have been some chain of oral tradition that went back to that time, but certainly not all views and all understandings were going to be kept. Jesus gave a halachic interpretation of eating on the Sabbath. That doesn't mean he condoned work on the Sabbath arbitrarily but that he defended his men (he himself didn't do it) for eating the wheat kernels because they were basically in starvation mode and backed it up from evidence using David and the Showbread. This looks like Pharisee style interpretations of law. In regards to washing hands before eating, it could be an extant understanding of washing of the hands. Perhaps he represented a very liberal interpretation, or it could be along the same lines as the eating on the run interpretation. Either way, the New Testament has an idealized version of him, but certain ideas can be perhaps interpreted in the Pharisee style way he went about justifying his interpretations. Hillel had a more lenient view of Mosaic practice. Everything recorded in the Talmud by Hillel himself (which isn't much actually) doesn't mean that was the whole of the corpus. The Talmud is playing long distance telephone. You can have some religious a priori notions that the rabbis of the 200s-600s perfectly kept the records of the rabbis Pharisees from the 00s, but I would balk at such overconfidence because of prior religious commitments or because of some bias.

I've broadly bought into this idea. I could be convinced otherwise if there were other Jewish preachers/thinkers who preached ideas analogous to Jesus but I haven't quite come across them. Show me the sources and my views can be changed. "Blessed be the poor in spirit", "love your enemies" - show me Jewish thinkers who preached in a similar vein. — BitconnectCarlos

So, I've already sufficiently answered your question regarding this. I would say reference the the whole post again, do some more research on historical Jesus studies that isn't just quoting the New Testament verbatim. That's like watching Fox News and calling it good for an accurate portrayal of current events.

And if you want to hear it, yes, also there were those terrorist attacks on Israelis. As I've said, the extremists dominate the scene. — ssu

So my point was that almost all of us on this forum have disagreed with Bibi's handling of the two-state solution, and his basically stopping it. But my point with that last post referencing @Nicholas video was to show how it is that Netanyahu started to become favored over the ones willing to go for peaceful two-state solution (even AMIDST Hamas' suicide bombing campaigns). It doesn't turn that way overnight. It gets that way over a series of failed efforts of the moderate Pals to form something strong enough to keep the process going. Netanyahu is influential, but he's not god. He can't mess up everything on his own. It takes two to tango, and prior to Bibi's omnipresence, the Pals could not figure it out. Would not meet at any compromise that wasn't absolutely perfectly what they wanted.

But ok, so Bibi comes to power now. He and Likud clearly don't like the idea of giving up the West Bank. We start talking past each other with Hamas. He thought Hamas could be controlled, but what would you have done about Hamas? How Bibi shot himself in the foot is even if he ranted and raved against Hamas, or went to the UN railing against Iran backing Hamas, the West Bank policies just made him look like a warmonger.

However, something Bibi can't really control as much is the hatred of a kind whereby the Hamas terrorists rape dead bodies, cut people's heads off and burn babies, and then even call their parents to celebrate how many Jews they killed with their barehands, and the parents are overcome with joy for their child. So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality.

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control?