Whereas here we have the IDF carrying out the deliberate and systematic destruction of Hamas while killing anyone that gets in their way. — Moliere

If a German civilian were to "get in the way" of the Allies killing the Nazis, that civilian becomes a legitimate target. He has chosen a side.

Anyway, yes, Hamas and the Nazis are/were both political groups. Political groups deserving destruction.

A war is between two countries that recognize one another. — Moliere

So the Civil War wasn't a war? Or the Revolutionary War, for that matter.

It's not like Hamas just decided to be evil. There are reasons for why they were voted for that lead up to Oct 7th. — Moliere

Hamas is a hardline Islamist group that follows hardline Islamist ideology. At its most basic level it is simply seeking to expand the territory of Islam under hardline rule — nothing new in the history of Islam. Hamas isn't shy about this.

Nor is Hamas all that different (although a little more extreme) than "secular" organizations like the PLO, which also sponsors terror attacks.

Is the objective just to take out Hamas, or is it some kind of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from Gaza by making the strip totally unlivable. — ssu

It's more than the Netanyahu administration running this war. Israel has a unity government in place to run the war.

If the strip is made unlivable due to the war, then it becomes a humanitarian imperative to evacuate civilians. That would turn "genocide" into a humanitarian imperative. :chin:

It does confront the issue.

Hamas's modus operandi is to target Israeli civilians deliberately. Israel targets Hamas, but in doing so, inevitably kills civilians as a byproduct. One of these is murder, the other is not. One of these groups would readily admit (and brag) that they murder; the other does not. I can't think of a sharper moral difference.

It's not just about body count.

I am also sad for the innocent Palestinians. I am sad for the innocent in all wars. Such is war.

If you check with the pro-Palestinian movement leaders like @NerdeenKiswani on X, the new death count is 700k with 400k babies dead. According to AI, there are not even 400k Palestinian babies in Gaza, but don't let that get in your way as a Palestinian activist. Push the numbers, yell the slogans, move on.

Last time I checked, it was 60k; now, apparently, it's 100k. Whatever the count is, it includes Hamas terrorists in a large count, given that it is what Israel is targeting. Gaza's figures do not differentiate between combatant and civilian because such a distinction is meaningless to them. Such distortions are run of the mill for the movement.

Can you imagine if we had this reporting in previous wars? I suppose it would be akin to "50k Germans indiscriminately killed" during Battle of the Bulge. Civilian, combatant, whatever, throw it all in one figure.

When a Hamas terrorist dies, the world is improved.

Wikipedia is biased and should not be used as a neutral source. I have a bone to pick.

The term "West Bank" encompasses the historic territories of Judea and Samaria — territories with thousands of years of Jewish/Hebrew history.

To just blatantly claim that the "West Bank" (a term only in use for a few decades) is "occupied Palestine" is nonsense, historically. There has never been a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. The term "Palestine" historically refers to the geographical or topographical characteristics of the region.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, despite having studied the history of the region, I've always wondered when the "Palestinians" arrived in Palestine. When does their history start? Or where can their coins be found? Or their artifacts? Hebrew/Jewish ones are abundant. Or are the modern "Palestinians" just the people (i.e., non-Jews) who have lived there since time immemorial, since it's in the name — and whoever claims the name "Palestinian" earns this eternal presence.

Anyway.

It's nice that you were able to describe Palestine, but Hamas has made it pretty clear that it considers all of Israel to be occupied, so the first step in the peace process — if there is to be one — would be removing Hamas.

What is a genocide, in your view? — Moliere

We can go by Merriam-Webster.

I wouldn't say that Israel is "holding back", but that's a vague criteria. — Moliere

Israel has complete air superiority over Gaza and is capable of inflicting much more damage. Israel possesses WMDs. Gaza has virtually no air defenses. Israel could do much more.

Now if you're killing combatants that's one thing -- but Palestine isn't even a state. It's an occupied territory where we have stories of people shooting Palestinians where they excuse their shot by "I just didn't understand why he cared about that body" -- drawing a literal line in the sand for when to kill. — Moliere

Gaza is a region. "Palestine" you will find nowhere on a map. When you say "Palestine is an occupied territory," I'm not sure which geographic boundaries you have in mind. What is "Palestine" to you?

All war crimes should be prosecuted. They occur in virtually every war on all sides. Propaganda, distortions, and lies are also a part of war.

The part that I know is that I'm in the United States and we give weapons to Israel -- where the line gets drawn eventually or if it's a one-state solution all that, right now, is so far out of scope due to how long the genocide has been going on. — Moliere

I simply don't see it as a genocide. Historically, genocidal groups don't hold back. The population of Gaza has stayed the same or grown since the start of the war. Israel has shown restraint. Genocidal states don't send in massive amounts of aid to the victim population or provide them with considerable amounts of medical care.

Obviously, if we move the goalposts and redefine the term, then anything can be genocide. Or we could hold that Israel really "intends" it as if states have minds where they secretly hold intentions. Really, the reason we know about the Nazi genocide was because we have the documents that clearly lay out the plan. Even in the beginning of the war, when thousands of Jews had been summarily executed, the fact hadn't been established.

And so is the past prior to that one event -- sometimes an occupied territory decides to revolt.

Perhaps it could not have been occupied. — Moliere

I like to read about the history of this region. 2000 years ago it was Jews living there occupied by Rome. Jewish kings would directly report to Roman authorities. The Romans had ultimate control. That is occupation. A clear chain of command; subordination. Yet neither the PLO or Hamas report to Israel. It's absurd to think entertain that they would. Perhaps we could say Israel occupies Gazan airspace, but in really it's just war given Hamas is a sworn enemy.

Anyway, I'm not still not sure what exactly is occupied in your view. Is it Gaza? Is west Jerusalem or Tel Aviv "occupied" by Israel? It's this lack of clarity that bothers me and it'll differ depending on who you ask. Complaining about "occupation" is can be cover for simply complaining about Israel's existence.

I'm not convinced.

Hamas goes on a murderous heinous rampage :down: :death:
Netanyahu bombs away and causes a large humanitarian crisis :down: :death:

When you keep condemning one, and keep making excuses for or dodging the other, then your posts might as well be propaganda. — jorndoe

You hit on an important point. I see these acts as quite different, even if the number killed is the same.

Consider these two scenarios:

A) A military murder squad deliberately murders 100 ethnic undesirables.

B) A bomber targeting an enemy weapons factory kills 100 civilians. Of course proportionality is an issue here, but the target is legitimate.

A) is deeply wrong, B) is acceptable—same number of dead.

"Would" -- it's already there. And what you describe is ironic given that this is what happened to the Palestinians -- imagine a group of people show up and then.... — Moliere

What do you think would happen? Would Jews and Palestinian Muslims hold hands and sing Kumbaya under RoR? Hamas is a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist sect — the Palestinian vision. I can't avoid the fact that the Palestinians voted them into power.

What happened to the Palestinians is that the Arab world declared war on Israel in '47. Instead of wiping out the new Jewish state, the Palestinians lost and were put to flight as Israeli forces overran their annihilation attempt.

Yes, that's what happens when people suddenly lose control of their political sovereignty/self-determination. Flood a nation of 5 million Muslims living under Sharia with 5 million Hindus and see what happens.

It would be like asking the US to absorb 200 million Muslims.

Regarding RoR:

That's asking for the destruction of Israel. It would be adding roughly 6 million Arab Muslims to the population of Israel, and it would throw the demographic balance off. Ethnic warfare would result. There would be fighting in the streets as the fundamental character of the state is brought into question. No one can demand that a state destroy itself and call it immoral for not doing so.

Also, why such selective enforcement? Where is the Jewish right of return to Iraq? Or Yemen? The Middle East has been cleansed of Jews besides Israel, but there is no demand for "right of return" there.

Suppose they had the means, though. — Moliere

There were armed Jewish resistance groups. They could have murdered, raped, and tortured many civilians because of their nationality, but they didn't. Such behavior is abhorrent.

And suppose it'd been an 80 year occupation. — Moliere

Occupying what? Gaza? Jerusalem?

Because that government has been attacking you in the exact same way, and old cynical men know the piss and vinegar of young men and convince them to in order to get a bargaining chip. — Moliere

Understandable, but a sign of a degenerate society. Even during WWII Jews didn't go around murdering or mass murdering German civilians.

The part that makes me hesitate here is that there were also immediate reports about finding hundreds of beheaded babies.

And then learning that Israeli attack helicopters shot on Israelis.

Sometimes states just say shit to demonize someone they want to kill.

I fear that's part of what's going on. — Moliere

Are you doubting that ~1200 Israelis were killed on 10/7, the majority of whom were innocent civilians? They went from house to house indiscriminately murdering. It's proudly recorded on video.

I remember the second intifada in the early 2000s, where Palestinian terrorists would go into bars, restaurants, and buses full of civilians and blow themselves up. I recall they'd attach unclean material to their explosive devices, so for anyone who got hit with shrapnel, the wound would get infected. It never made sense to me. If you hate a government, why attack random civilians living there? Unless that hatred is much deeper.

This strikes me as backwards.

One can only give aid to the suffering, but if you dare try to resist the movement of weapons to actually prevent the genocide we will take away your privilege of being here.

What about the students who are citizens that put up a similar resistance? Ought we to deport them too? — Moliere

We're not going to agree on this.

When I think "genocide," I think October 7th, when thousands of Palestinians went house to house murdering, raping, and torturing Israeli civilians living in border regions with the Palestinians as their neighbors. Had the Israeli military not stopped them with force, there is no doubt this group would have continued with their murder, rape, and torture spree until they had swept through the land and conquered everything, and millions had died. The land would be Jew-free with Muslim supremacy established once again. If you listen to the Palestinian terrorist phone calls, they call their parents bragging about how many Jews they killed that day with deep pride. But no matter what they do, they're oppressed, so we must back them.

I get it. 100k Palestinians dead. But that's yesterday's figure. Today the figure is 700k dead and 400k Palestinian babies killed. Check Nerdeen Kiswani's twitter. As long as a study shows it, the figure must be believed. You have no grounds to doubt; you've never been there.

Get over yourselves already, and stop this childish posturing as 'crusaders against fascism' - it's embarassing, and, as we see with the Kirk assassination, potentially dangerous. — Tzeentch

Extremely dangerous. Kirk was influential; he could have run for office one day — if he's a "nazi/fascist," it becomes a moral responsibility to remove him like removing a young Hitler. Murder becomes laudable; a sign of moral virtue. To let him be is to be a passive bystander to a potentially new Hitler rising to power.

Depends on the nature of the support. If one supports, for example, the Gaza Health Foundation's efforts to give meals directly to Palestinians, that's laudable. Fundraising for Hamas and occupying college campuses is not. A student visa is a privilege.

I am opposed to any blanket fear-stoking of immigrants. If that appears in Trump's rhetoric, I oppose it. I do support the deportation of illegal aliens, and I understand that dangerous gangs have entered the country facilitated by lax border policies.

I see Trump going after illegal aliens, but I don't see him going after lawful immigrants.

Just imagine the situation if the youth were being radicalized to the right and assassinating left-wing influencers. Would you still be chiding the fear stokers?

There are plenty of times in history where 'fear of the other' is the proper, rational response.

Fear can be reasonable or unreasonable.

So all this talk about what the Kirk assassination really means - what I think it really is, is a pretext for Trump and the MAGA cabal to drive their 'second American revolution' ever harder. — Wayfarer

Their fear is legitimate. Charlie Kirk shared similar ideological views with Trump/the Trump administration. If one wants Charlie dead, then one likely wants Trump dead. Many of these people have access to sensitive information, so their clearances should be revoked at the very least.

Any military where a sizable portion of its soldiers want their President dead is in serious jeopardy.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox weekend anchor serving as Donald Trump’s defense secretary, has ordered Pentagon officials to scour social media for comments by service members that make light of Charlie Kirk’s death and punish anyone expressing dissident views, NBC News reports. — The Guardian

Good. As a former service member, any member of the armed forces expressing glee or sympathy over Charlie's death is simply lacking in values. I wouldn't trust someone possessing those values to protect the United States. Nor is the military academia where, theoretically, a wide range of views should be encouraged.

Get in line or get out - and expressing glee over the political assassination of a conservative influencer is so far out of line.

Qatar is a major funder of terrorism and promoter of worldwide Islamism. They have funneled billions of dollars into these goals. They are not America's "friend" or neutral Middle Eastern "negotiators." The US apparently has an interesting relationship with them, where we provide their air defenses, though, and carry on some military-strategic pact. Very interesting.

The racial element is unavoidable. If the killer and victim were the same race, the story wouldn't be getting the same response. The murder crossed both race and gender lines. The footage was released for all to see, unlike in the Karmelo Anthony case. It seems like efforts have been made to suppress previous reports of the same type of crime. It's disconcerting. It tears at the very fabric of multicultural society, and the taboo is being challenged. I'm of a weird double mind about it.

So in this case it is to be debated who exactly is obsessed with beauty, a whole culture, how other culture's compare etc. — boethius

I'm not even sure it's fair to say the West is uniquely obsessed with beauty compared with the non-West. Perhaps if we took, e.g., an African tribe from centuries ago, we might find that their women spend many hours styling their hair, creating bead necklaces, and weaving beautiful clothing for themselves. Perhaps many of their women would fit in well in a city like LA or Miami, with its emphasis on fashion, self care, and transformation. Of course, not all of the US is like those cities. America is not one, but many -- as it surely was with non-Western groups. I draw from the past because I want my sample to be uninfluenced by the West.

Until I am given statistics about self-care/makeup/beauty trends across cultures, I'll be skeptical of a unique Western obsession with beauty. I'd be interested to know time spent, not so much money invested (which can be misleading.)

the more the interactions you do have are surface level and where your appearance has a disproportionate effect. — boethius

I would link this with globalization and technology giving us greater access to the world. IMO, both a good thing and a bad thing, but likely inevitable.

Anyone who speaks can be accused of speaking too loudly. Anyone who eats can be accused of gluttony. Anyone alive, or dead for that matter, can be accused of murder; doesn't imply everyone is a murderer or then no one's a murder, but the merits of each case require consideration.

Murder is binary: It either happened or didn't. With speech, I'd judge according to the norms of the group/culture. When it comes to beauty "obsession," even basic daily skincare could be considered "obsessive" for one who sees no need for it, or believes it is vanity. Skincare has become significantly more advanced over the past century, which is a positive development, as the health of one's skin is essential.

It's seemingly impossible to find objective info on this matter.

IMHO, Gaza was a humanitarian disaster even before the war. Any land that kidnaps and murders political dissidents and homosexuals is a humanitarian disaster. War, of course, brings humanitarian catastrophe, and it is not helping that Hamas hoards food and murders its own citizens. There's apparently quite a bit of infighting occurring between the factions. I want to move the civilians to a safer location, but this is apparently now "supporting genocide."

I'm fine with someone choosing to wear religious garb, but no one should ever be forced into it. In some countries, women face punishment for wearing secular clothes.

Which post of mine you were referring to?

I'm not on board with any humanitarian crisis in Gaza either; the only people who should be getting punished are genocidal Palestinian militant groups and the civilians who take part in their activities. It still baffles my mind that on 10/7, over 2000 Palestinian civilians took part in the atrocities. Obviously, I don't want any innocent Gazan to suffer, but innocents are always killed in war, especially in urban warfare. I condemn all Israeli injustices, of course.

I rewrote the post to say "valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing." Valuing beauty is a human universal. "Obsession" is really just a pejorative for "valuing," implying that the obsessor values the object too much. Anyone who values something can be accused of obsession.

Anyway, I'd loosely agree with Tzeentch: It's a symptom of modernity stemming from social media and the vast array of new treatments and products available.

Valuing beauty isn't just a Western thing. In Islamic societies, women in burqas and niqabs enhance their eyes and eyebrows. In such societies, men (patriarchy) heavily restrict female self-expression, enforced through draconian penalties. Still, women find ways to convey individuality, creativity, and even rebellion. African societies have long histories of beautification well before European influence.

Beauty can be a way to express individuality, creativity, technical expertise, and inner dignity. It is a practice, not just something you're born with. Even natural beauty, if not taken care of, will fade. Beauty consists of many hours of self-care and aesthetic refinement behind the scenes. It is an open secret that beautiful people are treated better.

But how is it inerrant if the author's are untrustworthy and give false information?

Maybe it is Divinely Inspired that way, but, at a minimum, that doesn't seem to cohere with God's nature. Don't you think? — Bob Ross

Which version of the Bible are you claiming inerrancy? In modern biblical studies, many different versions are often compared with each other.

In any case, it may come down to whether one understands the Bible as being written in the language of man to understand the divine or as a divinely perfect language where every detail is meaningful.

Nonetheless, this reading seems to be a stretch. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would agree, although I would need to read Buber's case. If I'm not mistaken, the mainstream rabbinic Jewish view is that Samuel does receive legitimate revelation, interprets it correctly, and does correctly convey God's will in his command to Saul to destroy Amalek.

The question is what we as believers make of this. What do we have here — a divinely ordained state of exception where moral rules have been temporarily (or permanently) altered regarding a specific group (Amalek, Midian, Canaan)? And sure, we can say that historically, putting groups under the ban in the ancient Near East has precedent, but theologically, what do we make of our relationship with God in light of these commands? And how do we view such an extreme manifestation of His authority? Not only does He give the law, He can also suspend it at will. That is no minor feature.

I don't have any easy answers. Much easier to try to make the question disappear by absolving God of responsibility.

Right. I think there are cases where religious discussion can be quite fruitful:

Interreligious dialogue between contrasting religious approaches — Leontiskos

It has been fruitful. I've picked up quite a bit about the ancient Greeks from Christians on TPF.

It seems like, then, that aspect of the scripture was not Divinely Inspired. — Bob Ross

I don't see what the big deal is here. There are plenty of wicked kings in Israel and Judea's history, and these accounts still make it into the Bible. All I'm saying regarding Samuel's command is that there is ambiguity.

The Bible contains some ugly history.