He blamed Hamas for using children as "human shields." He called Hamas a "death cult."

Now given this information.... what should we conclude about his position? :chin: :chin: :chin:

Eli Wiesel hated Hamas with a passion and always believed in Israel's right to defend itself. Whose side do you think Wiesel would be on today if he were alive?

Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil.
— Elie Wiesel
(Emphasis is mine.) — 180 Proof

Wiesel was an ardent Zionist throughout his entire life. Nice try, though. :wink:

Again, where do they go? They barely have room to defend themselves, unless they make themselves visible on the beach or in the border. That's suicide. — Manuel

You're asking me where Hamas should launch rockets against civilian populations. The answer is nowhere, but if they are going to pick a place then don't do in schools (yes they have done this) or hospitals. Hamas does this purposefully for the press and it is evil. Conduct your military activities elsewhere, away from children. By storing weapons in schools you are endangering your own children and using them as pawns in a political struggle. It's beyond evil. Remember, self-defense is a fundamental right for any nation.

But if we agreed that prior to settlement expansion Israel was safer, why do you think ending the blockade means they'll destroy Israel? — Manuel

I believe the blockade makes Israel safer, but that expanding settlements is a provocative move that that may very well endanger the safety of other Israelis.

In any case, there is nowhere near any proportionality in the violence committed. It's a total massacre. — Manuel

The proportionality is because Israel actually has missile defense. 90% of rockets are stopped. If Israel didn't have that the kill count would be much closer. Attempted murder is just as bad as murder. You have no idea how many rockets are actually being launched at Israel because the vast majority are stopped, but the military does know where all those rockets are coming from.

They don't have anywhere near the sophisticated weaponry that could shoot at tanks, much less aircraft. — Manuel

This is thankfully because of the blockade.

If Hamas is planning to fight, what, they should all line up in the beach, so they could be killed and Gaza loses all defense they have? — Manuel

If they don't take precautions to conduct their military activities away from their civilians then they are partly liable in the event of response attacks. Imagine you're a military commander, how would you respond if someone was launching rockets out of an enemy hospital? Are they just safe?

Israel raided Al-Aqsa because of a weapons cache there that would later be used against Israel. In hindsight, was this the best way to go about resolving the situation? Very possibly not, I don't know. Lets say it was wrong and that Netanyahu deserves blame - ok, fair enough.

Regardless, the correct response to this is not to start launching rockets against Israeli civilians in residential areas. Now Israel is going to defend itself against those firing the rockets, who are themselves firing from inside residential areas.

Israel does allow food and medical supplies in, they just screen out the weapons. Lets stick to the first point for now though.

Now suppose that X steals your wallet, your watch and other such possessions in a violent manner. This is still an assault. Ok. You fight back maybe you throw a punch or push him back. But then the person comes with a gun shoots your leg and when you hit back, he gets furious and says he is defending himself from you. — Manuel

This analogy isn't apt because Hamas started launching rockets first. Israel did not just begin the aggression.

"99% of the killing is done by Israel" is a fatuous statement. It has zero bearing to who is right or wrong in a conflict.

Israel is definitely defending itself, it's just defending itself so well that people like Baden have no idea that it's defending itself. It if was defending itself worse the killing would be more 50/50 and Baden wouldn't have this stupid line to use. Is there no such thing as attempted murder?

99% of the killing is done by Israel. 99% of the children murdered are murdered by Israel. The idea that's just defending themselves from the vastly inferior power they are violently occupying is where the parody comes in. — Baden

The reason Israel suffers so many less casualties is because they have a missile defense system that intercepts the vast majority of rockets which saves countless lives. Would you support Israel more if more Israelis died and the casualty count was 50/50?

Have you also considered that around 25% of the rockets fired (200/850) by Hamas misfire and explode around Gaza killing their own civilians. A couple days ago 8 Palestinian children were killed this way.

Nonetheless, we've got posters in this thread who have little interest in doing anything except feigning moral indignation, virtue signalling and just trying to drag others through the mud. There are some interesting conversations to be had about this situation and you'd think a philosophy forum might discuss them but this thread is about as bad as it gets. — Judaka

I guess now is as good as a time as any for a post-mortem here.

For me it honestly wasn't that bad. I've had many other discussions with SL and I thought compared to those that this was one of the better ones. The key when you're talking to people like that is you've gotta translate - when he calls you a racist or genocidal you just ask him to explain what those mean to him and you'll see where he's coming from: He defines these terms is a very different sense than you or I would. It's actually a good thing if SL calls you a racist and I stopped viewing the term as a bad thing given his definition of it. I also noticed his levels of toxicity never really reached past a certain level so I just kinda gradually became accustomed to it and gave a bit of it back sometimes. There was only one other poster here who struck me as being unnecessarily hostile as well as extremely critical so I just stopped interacting with him. Most of the others were o.k. to interact with -- not comfortable -- but I think I've been called genocidal or a racist or a Nazi so many times in this thread that it just doesn't faze me anymore. You also just don't have to respond to everything.

It was a fun way to pass time on the weekend but I gotta get back to work now.

Interesting how the opposition to Israeli genocide is translated by you as a denial of its right to exist. Is the implication that Israel's existence is premised on genocide? — StreetlightX

We're at $100 now.

That's simply nonsense. — Xtrix

That's the crux of it. Everything else is peripheral. This has been going on since ancient times. Plenty of posters here - Streetlight, 180, among others refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. Hamas, the governing power of Gaza, refuses to accept Israel's right to exist and refuses to negotiate or compromise with Israel. How do you make peace under those terms?

Come to the bargaining table with us and we'll talk. We've withdrawn settlements and forces in the past and we'll do it again, just be civil.

Yes Hamas is a terrorist group. They are also the sole governing power in Gaza which is a self-governing territory. They were voted into power after the Israeli's withdrew in 2005 and have been in power ever since.

Yeah I was thinking something similar. I couldn't imagine the US tolerating rocket attacks on US citizens with their homes being bombed and neighborhoods destroyed. There'd be some major hell to pay for the aggressor.

The Israeli army withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and there aren't any settlements there either.

See my previous post. In any case, Hamas is violating the laws of war by firing rockets from within residential areas leaving Israel in a terrible position. These are not different countries - Gaza is not a country. It is a self-governing territory.



I agree I'd be totally down with a cease fire.

It's honestly a complete mess. Rockets are being fired into Israel from residential areas which basically forces Israel to respond by striking residential areas. It's a question of how much collateral damage is accepted, not whether collateral is accepted. Then many of the rockets Hamas launches ends up killing their own people because their weapons are cheap and they're idiots who don't care about their own people. I'd be curious to know how the US would respond vs. how Israel is responding now. A military expert would be welcome in this discussion.

Israel is already guilty by virtue of simply existing for most of these posters.

Haha, that's unfortunately not how it works or I'd be broke very quickly. It's one per a poster.

Because they were invaded and displaced. Still are getting displaced. And terrorized in “self defense” — khaled

You just admitted here that Palestinians are genocidal, so given that you've already accepted that, why should the Jews be willing to negotiate with a group who wants them dead? The Jews have also been displaced and invaded and terrorized. They need security, and that security needs to be their own state. The Jews have offered to end the "occupation" on several occasions in exchange for peace.

Some advice - we're going to have to be willing to put these blood feuds behind us if our groups want to make peace. Actually, Israel has already made peace with much of the Arab world which has accepted their right to exist so it is possible. That's all it's about: Accepting our right to exist. We're here and we're not going anywhere.

And why can't Palestine's Arab neighbors absorb them as immigrants? The Arab countries could fix this problem if they wanted to but they don't because it's a thorn in Israel's side. The Arab countries just don't care about the Palestinians and that not Israel's problem. If you're a Palestinian then I'm sorry your fellow Arabs have failed you.

Cool, we got $50 so far. I'll check back on this at the end of the month. Maybe I'll donate it on behalf of the forum.

Obviously, all facts should impact the evaluation. But then one can do good things in one area and bad things in another, and those don't cancel out. It can still be shitty for the western powers to invade Afghanistan, even if the Taliban do terrible stuff. — Echarmion

Sure, we can tally up rights and wrongs and then say "well if it were me...." but I can only take this type of talk so seriously before I start rolling my eyes and tuning out. It's about what we do in response. Of course Israel deserves condemnation when condemnation is due, and we can entertain a variety of approaches towards how to improve the state of Israel and make it more moral. You remember your idea of non-response to rocket attacks? I told you that I was willing to entertain it, and I am still am, but what about the actual flesh and blood politicians? Would they be willing to sit on the sidelines while their voters and constituents are being bombed? Is this really a reasonable request to ask of a politician in any country or are we asking the politician to commit political suicide even if the idea is sound?

In international relations our approach needs to be practical, first and foremost, and with an understanding that no country is perfect. International relations is no place for moral crusaders and zealots. Incremental improvement and compromise should be the MO. Often look to allow your opponent a way to save face as opposed to backing them into a corner. Of course there are some instances where we can burn everything down but this should be a last option.

The point is that asking e.g. the Israeli people responsible for commanding and executing airstrikes to stop is in no way equivalent to asking for the destruction of Israel. Israel is not remotely in danger of being destroyed. — Echarmion

Absolutely, I agree and we can discuss ending airstrikes or the "occupation." What we cannot discuss -- and what the ruling party in Gaza has refused to acknowledge -- is Israel's right to exist. You've heard that phrase "don't engage with others who refuse to acknowledge your right to exist" - that's why you don't negotiate with Nazis.

Public condemnation of the Israeli government is probably more likely to be effective than public condemnation of Hamas, because Hamas doesn't need to win elections. — Echarmion

Hamas did get voted in, no? In any case I'm all for public condemnation of Israel when warranted and given this condemnation is in view of the deeper reality of the situation. See, I could actually rightfully condemn an act - say, how US soldiers massacred Dachau guards after liberating the camps (they should have rightfully gone to trial) but if that's all I'm saying then something is seriously wrong with me. Condemnation needs to be proportionate and in view of the bigger picture. Retaliatory strikes do not constitute genocide, and to claim so is possible indicative of bigotry.

People can b*tch & moan all they want, I don't care, it's action that counts. Money matters, weapons matter. I'm going to start donating $50 to Israel every time someone in this thread accuses Israel of genocide from now on.

They could but that would require an IQ over 70.

Why haven't you acknowledged the attempted genocide of Jews by Hamas? How about by the rest of the Arab countries? How about the slow, gradual genocide of virtually every minority by its host country? Everything is genocide today.

Streetlight quoted a thinker earlier who basically defined genocide not as the actual extermination of a people, but as the erosion of their social institutions. Under that definition virtually everything is genocide.

Says the person whose sole objective in this thread is to excuse genocide. — StreetlightX

There is no genocide. Never has been. What ever happened to our discussion about America's ongoing genocide against its own minorities? Now that should be news, why not start a thread on it?

No you don't, because you're a racist shit. Y — StreetlightX

Says the person who doesn't even believe in letting other societies rule in their own way and set their own national policies based on their own unique histories and cultures.

I'm not even going to accuse you of being a racist here; I honestly think you just don't like humanity. Like...at all. You have absolutely zero respect for other cultures or traditions, and your fundamentalism isn't far from the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhist statues. Same level of respect for others.

I feel bad for the Palestinian people but when the ruling body in Gaza refuses to accept the existence of its much more powerful neighbor & launches lethal attacks that's gonna end up hurting the people when the retaliation comes, just as Hitler's regime left the German people endangered.

I still haven't heard you talk about the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs between '48-'72, by the way.

All I find hateful is Hamas and their insistence on the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. The "occupation" can be negotiated and Israel has made concessions in the past such as removing settlements and withdrawing the army from Gaza. Right or wrong, that territory was won by Israel in a defensive war.

Accept Israel's right to exist and we precede from there and negotiate like civilized people. Reject it and it's permanent war. Hamas chooses the latter. Smart, forward-looking Palestinians choose the former.

But to say that morality doesn't properly apply in the context of international relations because states are not individuals is an evasion. — Echarmion

This is not the claim that I am making.

I was saying if if you're a neutral third party evaluating a regional conflict between two parties, how these two parties treat their minorities (e.g. Egyptian Jews, Israeli Arabs) is relevant in an evaluation of the conflict. If one party treated their minorities extremely poorly and the other party treats them less poorly but not in an ideal manner, then that should impact our evaluation. It would be ridiculous to spend all our time and energy as a neutral third party denigrating the more humanitarian side and completely ignoring the other especially when the other treatment is ethnic cleansing.

Additionally, plenty of other countries have had racial problems but these problems have been improved on. There has been progress. We didn't advocate for the immediate destruction of these states that have/had racial problems either, we just work towards improvement ideally within established, democratic channels.

there a moral obligation to contribute to organizations working to alleviate poverty until doing so involves sacrificing something of comparable moral significance. — owain

While I agree that the stated goal is noble, his prescription is ineffective towards reaching it. Those resources, instead of being contributed, can also be invested which will likely provide a greater return at a later date which can then be used to help charitable organizations. If we just agreed to live subsistence-level existences and donate everything past that sure we'd contribute some to charity, but we'd be able to contribute a lot more if that wealth was allowed to vest over time.

EDIT: I'd also suspect that those who are able to make and maintain finances and cash flows would be much better equipped to help charities and non-profits actually raise funds in the real world.

However I do think it is counter-intuitive that it is morally required to treat strangers on the other side of the planet the same way as you would treat your family. — owain

It is also patently wrong. It just makes a mockery of family: your mom and dad and siblings should be no more special to you than some stranger half-way around the world. Who are they to tell you that (unless you've had abusive parents)? I love my parents and I owe them.

Don't make ridiculous demands of people.

Singer would say that buying a birthday present for your child is immoral, because a birthday is not of comparable moral significance. — owain

I feel terrible for his kid now.

However I do not think it is immoral to buy your child a birthday present. — owain

Good, it's not. Provide for your family, make your children happy sometimes. These are good things. Don't let other people tell you otherwise.

Good to know, then you wish the rocket attacks into Israel would immediately stop? Once that happens Israel will stop responding with its own attacks.

Simple yes or no question: Do you support the rocket attacks into residential areas of Israel?

You know why Hamas started bombing, right? — frank

The riots and clashes between protesters? Storming of the al-Aqsa mosque because the Palestinians were stockpiling weapons there?

Ask yourself this: Does anything justify the deliberate launching of rockets into residential areas for the purpose of murdering random civilians not responsible for the conflict?

Israel just re-entered Gaza because rockets were being fired into Israeli and killing Israelis. Prior to that Israel hasn't had any ground forces or settlements in Gaza since 2005.

Hamas is in charge in Gaza right now.

Countries are run and populated by people. Morality applies to their actions just fine. — Echarmion

Countries consist of millions of people interacting and consist of multiple different layers of government and in addition to those governments you have countless institutions which have their own rules and norms. To treat a country as if it were an individual person is just not a realistic description. Sure, there may be problems in certain institutions and not in others. Does that mean the entire country is just basically one person that we label as "evil?" Even powerful political leaders can't just press a button to make a certain problem go away unless it's totalitarianism.

Hamas has never, ever been shy about its intentions: Destroy Israel, establish an Islamic state in its place. It does not care if Israel removes settlements because its final goal is the absolute destruction of Israel. Hamas has sent suicide bombers into crowded nightclubs and bars on weekends, and they terrorize their own people through strict social controls that includes the execution of homosexuals and the routine subjugation of women. Hamas embezzles funds meant for humanitarian aid to the Palestinians to spend on weapons. Hamas doesn't even care about their own people.

But then again they are the weaker group compared to Israel and they don't like the US so how bad can they really be? Gotta support David over Goliath.

Morality is a different field than international relations. Countries aren't people.

tu quoque fallacy mate. And you do this every time. As if it's a good look for Israel to be compared to autocratic Middle Eastern regimes just to look good. I don't think you want to go there to begin with.

The upshot is of course that if people recognise Israel for the racist Apartheid State it is, they might finally come to their senses about continuing to support it. — Benkei

Whenever you're dealing in international relations like this you're essentially choosing friends and enemies. You're picking sides. If I was a neutral bystander to a regional conflict and one of the countries treated its minorities better than how the other countries treated their minorities - even if the treatment was far from ideal - I would still likely give credit to that imperfect country for that treatment of minorities.

It reminds me a bit of in the 50s and 60s when the US would criticize the Soviet Union for human rights' abuses and the Soviet Union would respond "well you guys lynch black people."

When you demand the absolute highest standard for one country and routinely penalize just that country for failing to meet that standard while essentially ignoring the other side that's a horribly unfair way to treat the conflict. It's not objective at all.

Hamas has been open that they won't lay down arms until the state of Israel is destroyed. As strong as Israel is it can't control the actions of the Palestinians who mainly govern themselves. Simply by continuing to exist as a Jewish state it draws hatred and violence. The Palestinians have agency in this.