I disagree. The PLO doesn't have it's roots in Islamism, as Hamas has. — ssu

Take a look at the PLO's draft constitution.

Article 6

Islam shall be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions shall be respected.

Article 7

The principles of the Islamic Shari`a are a primary source for legislation. The legislative branch shall determine personal status law under the authority of the monotheistic religions according to their denominations, in keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the preservation of unity, stability, and advancement of the Palestinian people.

https://pcpsr.org/en/node/487

It's not that the Palestinians don't have an identity. It's just that their identity is Islamic and tribal. And Islam is a religion that, since its inception, has been intent on spreading. There is no truly secular force in Palestinian society today. The Palestinians are simply on the front lines of the Islamic war on the West. Religions + ethnic customs are much deeper rooted than ideas about statehood in the near east. There was no need for "Palestinianism" under the Ottomans. It was only ever because Jews were in charge as a form of revanchism. We should all know the fruits of revanchism by now.

And of course in the 1948 the neighboring Arab states weren't defending the Palestinians, but trying to carve up the former British Mandate.

There was no Palestinian national identity at this point. We could also call Jews "Palestinians" in 1948.

And here lies the absurdity of the situation: you are referring to PA and Palestinians under Hamas, but then again would they have then their independent statehood? No. — ssu

I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel.

Suppose we were to put it to a vote. The majority of voters are white- the group least likely to be victims of prejudice. Would it really make sense to eliminate it based on a majority vote? I don't think so. — Relativist

We should eliminate it because studies show DEI training makes people more racist. DEI doesn't work to promote colorblindness, it works to promote victim hierarchies and race consciousness. It fragments, not unifies. And the grifters at the top make bank.

Yes, Palestinianism exists as a negation of Israel. It is also around 60 years old. The Jewish connection to the land goes back over 2000 years. It is even mentioned in the Quran -- Judea as home of the Jews. "Palestinianism" is nothing but a front for the expansion of Islam. An identity built purely on revanchism.

The Jews have lost Judea multiple times. Diaspora communities are formed. Jews accept the situation and focus on other things. They don't endlessly lament the loss and raise Jewish children to murder the occupier. Exile historically moderates Jewish theology and causes reflection. The more I read about the history in this region the more it is made clear to me that victory emboldens, defeat moderates. Palestinian society needs moderation and frankly deserves destruction.

The Arabs tried to destroy the Jews in 1948. The Jews managed to turn the tide and the Arabs fled. Then some of those Arabs claim perpetual victimhood. Yes, when mortars are being fired from Arab villages Jewish forces will attack those villages.

Regarding different laws, all Israeli citizens have the same laws. But yes, Palestinians under the PA or Hamas will have their own laws.

EDIT: One last, but important point, cultural assimilation is conceivably a form of genocide. The Philistines are no more not because they were slaughtered en masse, but because they were absorbed by the cultures around them and they lost their distinctive group identity.

So like the Pogroms in Eastern Europe that drove many Jews to migrate to America was ...actually a splendid thing to happen? — ssu

The pogroms aren't a great example. If this exile were to happen, it's because the Palestinians were defeated by another civilization. But yes, exiles can have value. It's about how the culture understands the exile and what they do from there. I understand that exile is no walk in the park, but it's a completely different matter from genocide.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Babylonian exile for the Jews which, after being thoroughly defeated by the Babylonians, spent the next ~70 years writing much of the Torah (and many of the other 66 books of the bible) and experiencing cultural flourish.

Yet as I've stated already, Azerbaijan did use ethnic cleansing / forced transfers, yet simply declaring publicly that nobody will be forced out, it worked perfectly. No condemnations whatsoever! Thing seems to be forgotten. Because they (the Azeris) didn't tell publicly that they want every single Armenian out.

Then that seems like that could be a good model for Israel to follow, but I agree that this is unlikely to actualize given Egypt and Jordan don't seem interested at all. I certainly agree that offering voluntary resettlement is much, much preferable.

It's not a great solution and likely won't happen. It is as delusional to especially think that it's a great solution as is the anti-semitist thinking that Israel is a Western colonial project and the European Jews that have migrated there ought to migrate back to where they came from. — ssu

Jordan has a few million Palestinians already and country seems able to handle to them. In any case, I agree that the plan is a longshot, but if Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia were to accept the refugees (and the refugees were to go willingly, ideally) it would be a dream solution for Israel.

And in America they lynch negroes!

You've got the playbook down.

IMHO racism is best fought by emphasizing commonality and common goals rather than repeatedly emphasizing difference and/or prior victimhood within groups. The approach should be more future-oriented.

Do you consider Hamas a terrorist organization?

In the military one needs to form a new identity, one based on group unity and emphasizing the achievements of one racial group works against that goal. As a veteran, the military should be color-blind and work towards unity, not fragmentation, in group identity.

It's a ridiculous abuse of language to call the scattering of a people genocide. Otherwise Jews would be speaking about the Babylonian genocide or the Roman genocide -- even then the English are guilty of genocide against the Jews.

Exile is a world apart from genocide. Sometimes in exile things improve for the people. It allows them to rebuild in a better way. I think Jordan and Egypt (and possibly Indonesia) taking Palestinian refugees would be a great solution and I hope it works out.

Re: public weal -- disease prevention, crime prevention, cleanliness are a few that come to mind.

This passage is from before they were enslaved. I would agree with Cline. One of my favorites on this topic is Nahum Sarna who places these events around the 13th century BC so, yes, end of Bronze Age.

Even if the Exodus is completely made-up biblical writers still had this idea of disloyal demographic threat in mind.

EDIT: Earlier the Egyptians sell themselves to Joseph/the Egyptian state due to a famine. That is in Genesis.

Exodus 1:9-10 (NIV)

Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. "Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them; or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, they will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

It's a demographic fear. We see the same today - fears of certain populations growing.

That Nazi slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual” is the crux of fascism, found not only in Fascist iconography, but in Mussolini’s writings. I’ve heard variations of it uttered on this forum. — NOS4A2

I'd consider myself as someone who broadly supports individual rights, but in the presence of an existential threat the group must act decisively to ensure its own survival and the preservation of the individual rights of the group. The problem is this principle is so easy to abuse.

It's ancient. Supposedly the reason Pharaoh enslaved the ancient Israelites is because they were multiplying too much and threatening the Egyptian state demographically.

Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism

a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions; — BC

I'd be feeling this if I were a native brit right now. The notion of a leadership that barely punishes and largely ignores foreign pedophilic grooming gangs who target its own native population is outrageous without comparison and it tears at the very fabric of civilization.

Perhaps the "advances" of celebrating diversity and abolishing capital punishment and criminal leniency were a step backwards and it's all just gonna fall down like a stack of dominoes. I think we're seeing a major challenge to so-called progressive, civilized world order built over the past several decades. We live in a fascinating time. It is very possible that the UK is just beyond saving.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish? — Hanover

It's normal to question and wrestle with God. Misfortune does befall the righteous. Who are we to say that God is wrong though? Or that we know "the good" better than Him. That's the point Job is making. Our epistemic perspective is too limited to judge with such finality.

Job cries out to God in anguish. He curses the day he was born. Job never says that God is unjust or bad for the misfortune that befell him. He suffers acceptably.

You'll have to define "directly." The text references God speaking to Moses, but not all traditions accept that God actually speaks in a physical sense, particularly Orthodox Judaism that rejects any suggestion that God is corporeal and actually speaks. — Hanover

Judaism rejects the corporeality of God. Regarding whether God makes verbal utterances we'd need to go the text on that one. I'm fairly certain he's described in the Bible as having a voice and I've never heard of any branch officially denying that he makes verbal utterances but I could be wrong.

You'll have to define "humility" here. The Christian concept of humility that centers around meekness and the fallen state of the soul is very different from Judaic concepts of humility which do not hold meekness a virtue nor that the soul of man is inherently flawed and in need of salvation. — Hanover

I meant epistemic humility, as demonstrated through the book of Job.

My point isn't really though just to get into a back and forth about what the Bible says, but it's just to point out that it means very different things to different people and its meaning and use has changed over time. Our use of the Bible today as a definitive documentation of social norms is not the way it has always been used, but is a product of societal decisions and changes.

It's for that reason I have a problem when someone wants to declare its universal, non-contextualized meaning. It means different things to different traditions, and I understand each tradition wants to declare theirs correct, but I don't think there's a solid basis for that. — Hanover

The Bible is multi-vocal (I'm partial to the documentary hypothesis). I'm more comfortable analyzing e.g. common themes across a single book. Yet I do believe there are patterns that emerge more generally, e.g. the cycle of Israel straying, getting punished, and then repenting.

I'm fine if people want to view the bible in different ways. I love analyzing the historicity of it. I'm happy to enter into discussions on that topic. I also love the bible as a work of literature and as a self-help book. It also has love poetry. And theodicy. There are still better and worse interpretations despite the fact that it can be viewed through various lenses. Judge the commentary through the lens it seeks to approach the bible through.

I think it's a strength that people view it in different ways. Bible studies has become much more multidisciplinary over the past few decades and professionals from many different fields contribute to our knowledge of the bible.

I don't know that it follows that an understanding of something dictates that we be judges of that thing. — Hanover

My point is that one might say that they know goodness or that they know justice, which, since they know, means that they can tell when things meet or don't mean those qualities. We can judge others e.g. when they're bad. But to judge God is a different matter. So the biblical worldview requires humility. An understanding that we don't have the 30,000 foot view.

If you're going to allow that religion be beyond empirical and rational discovery, you've sort of opened the door to the concept of us each having our personal religion else how else do you intend to persuade me to your position? — Hanover

God provides divine revelation in the bible that we can all work with. E.g. he interacts directly with Moses and reveals things to him. If he were to speak to one of us directly that's another matter. Perhaps he does reveal things through dreams. There is the bible and the covenant and then there is our personal experiences with the "divine." I don't see a conflict unless one's personal visions or experiences are telling one that the covenant is null and void.

Rogue, it's just a very special sort of genocide. It's a genocide where the population is bigger afterwards than before. :lol:

I think the same problem arises in most if not all religions. — Hanover

God, like the universe and all that occurs within it, is beyond our understanding. God is understood as being both transcendent and immanent. A "God" that falls within our rational understanding would be an act of hubris effectively placing ourselves as judges and evaluators of God.

Living life based upon the dictates of scientific reason, empirically verified information, and logical truth is a personal choice, and it's not necessarily the only good choice. — Hanover

We are commanded to choose life, and if empiricism and rationalism aren't directing towards those ends we must look elsewhere.

They attempt to terrify her to the last second. I'll refrain from comment on the braided hair.

If you think that you understand Christianity better than I do, then explain why the following anecdote is not a good explanation of the story of Adam and Eve: — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not a Christian nor do I claim to understand Christianity.

A better explanation of the Adam and Eve story might be that biblical writers borrowed from Mesopotamian literature (e.g. epic of gilgamesh) and adapted it (imho improved it.) If you're asking for the impetus behind the original I don't know ask the Mesopotamians or Francesca Stavrakopoulou has some work on a supposedly historical garden of eden but I haven't looked into it.

I suppose? I don't know enough about the ideas and writings of those groups. I don't know whether they're theistic or non-theistic or what types of concepts they're working with. My post was mostly taking aim at 18th or 19th century moral systems which attempted to derive morality from a secular worldview.

Non-theistic systems that will invoke "religious" concepts e.g. karma, rebirth, etc.

Theistic moral systems are simply more sophisticated than atheistic ones. Jews and Christians both have 2000+ years of exploring and writing on moral issues, while a few professional philosophers every so often write about utilitarianism or Kant stretching back a couple centuries. There's simply no comparison in effort exerted. And then there's the pesky question of moral motivation where even if one found Mill or Kant compelling why one would be motivated to abide so strictly to such a system. :chin:

I'll make an exception of Buddhism and other religions of the sort. But between modern moral philosophy and religion there is no comparison.

46,000 dead souls — javi2541997

That number includes the rapists and child murderers who crossed the border into Israel on 10/7. You should be thanking Israel for eliminating them.

1700 Palestinian terrorists, among them mass murderers, in exchange for 33 innocent angels. I'm not seeing how this will create a lasting peace, especially now that 1700 militant palestinians are back in gaza. Additionally, kidnapping has been proven to be an extremely effective tool for the palestinians as once again, Israel's concern for the life of its own is exploited in favor of murderous savages.

It's likely we'll be seeing a baby exchanged for a dozen or so grown murderers. Such is the nature of the conflict.

Congratulations, Captain Obvious. So your point is, what, exactly? — Arcane Sandwich

That biblical literalists can understand a given part of the bible as metaphor and still be biblical literalists.

From the wikipedia article:

"Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended by the writer as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author."

And I'm not your buddy, guy.

Prove that I'm strawmanning biblical/christian literalism, othewise what you're saying here is just an opinion, not a fact. — Arcane Sandwich

Biblical literalism is the approach to interpreting the Bible that takes the text at its most apparent, straightforward meaning. As stated, sometimes the most apparent, straightforward meaning of the text is that e.g. a dream sequence is metaphoric.

Jesus walked. Not just on water, mind you, he walked just like you and me walk. To walk is to change one's location. — Arcane Sandwich

As it is written: "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19). Movement implies imperfection.

You're strawmanning biblical/christian literalism. The plain meaning of the text sometimes indicates allegory or metaphor.

So do the sun and the moon really bow down to Joseph? Or does the dream, perhaps, represent something?

Read Genesis.

Daniel's dream was a metaphorical representation of what was going to happen.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-after-the-temple/

God communicates through dream i.e. metaphor in the Bible multiple times. These metaphors require interpretation. Go re-read Daniel's dream and come back and tell us that it was entirely literal.

It nearly did. I'm talking more about the Romans though. The destruction of the temple and the defeat in two major rebellions caused Jews to radically rethink and moderate their theology.

There ought to be no way to deal with Jihadis save for leaving them alone. In fact, one ought to go out of his way to defend the jihadi’s right to speak, believe, and live he wishes, so long as he doesn’t transgress another’s right to do the same. Nothing does more for Jihadism, and brings more to its cause, than its oppression. — NOS4A2

I was a classical liberal once. Maybe I still am. Not sure. It's not always easy to define what a right is. Protest is a right, of course, but what about protesting outside of religious buildings specifically while services are ongoing? Or how about blasting noise outside of religious buildings during services as a form of protest? Harassment or free speech? It's not always so clear cut. As long as the intolerant minority remains insignificant it's easy to be tolerant.

We need to beat the Islamists into submission. Then they will realize that Allah has granted this, and that they need to self-reflect on their approach and tactics. Defeat sows doubt, moderation, humility, and self-reflection. Victory emboldens and strengthens the notions that Allah is on their side, that the prophets are correct, and that end times are near. It serves as confirmation of their holy books and strengthens their case within the Islamic community. It is easy and exciting to follow a victor. Defeat discredits and moderates.

I'm thinking that we can say that "Jihadism" represents part of the religion of those Muslims who accept and practice Jihad in the "outer" and violent sense. — Leontiskos

Then this should be all muslims, at least in theory. Outer jihad is a veritable part of jihad and jihad is a veritable part of Islam.

I take it that this is not pejorative. I take it that Jihadis would not disagree with this description of themselves.

When I look up the term the articles specify that it only applies to "extremist" groups and not the average, peace-loving muslim.

I don't disagree with any of it. Jihad is a real thing; jihadism, as far as I can tell, is basically a pejorative.