Buber highly valued consensus with the Arabs, but there would be no state of Israel if we took that seriously as the Arabs categorically refused any Jewish state in 1947-48. — BitconnectCarlos

I see you're more of a mystic than Buber with that crystal ball.

Nahum Goldmann: “[t]o use the Holocaust as an excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of ‘Hillul Hashem’ [sacrilege], a banalization of the sacred tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust], which must not be misused to justify politically doubtful and morally indefensible policies.”

This is history - no crystal ball needed. Show me where I'm wrong then. Show me that the Arabs were open to a Jewish state in '48 and I will reevaluate my position.

Yes. And it is normal to expect a response if provoked.

However as other Israeli sources are saying, because of the potential Iran-US peace deal, they'd want to avoid escalating beyond what happened:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-hezbollah-has-no-interest-in-gaza-fighting-spreading-to-lebanon/

*mwah*

Additionally discloses how untenable the Zionist line that only one side of this conflict is a "terrorist organization",despite whatever Olympic-level mental gymnastics will be conducted to justify this and similar attacks that are aired live. — Maw

Some gold medal Olympic Gymnastics right here

Both sides can be accused of ethnic cleansing. They both appear to want total domination of the land. On the (re) creation of Israel it was invaded by the surrounding Arab countries trying to wipe it out.

I have raised this issue before but this conflict illustrates the problem with notions like "countries" and "ownership" Countries tend to be formed by force not reason. Europe has centuries of wars and shifting boundaries and massive colonisation.

With the relative peace and security in Europe after 2 world wars you can be complacent of your own moral superiority whilst facing none of the same challenges.

Well, well. I may have cited too soon:

The Israeli army said that a siren had sounded in northern Israel, near the border with Lebanon, and that they were investigating.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-bombs-home-of-hamas-chief-after-heavy-rocket-barrages-target-tel-aviv-1.9812903

Man, this better not get in the way of the Iran negotiations. That would be to add disaster on top of massacre. A miniscule glimpse of good news would be most welcome...



There's a lot to say about Democrats.

There's nothing to say about Republicans....

Strawman, [MOD EDIT*], again. "David" is the dispossssed and oppressed Palestinian people and not Hamas (which is merely the goddamn "sling"). Quit appropriating my species' humanoid form, you fuckin' reptile. :shade:

There's many things in the world I don't want to happen and they still happen. It quite obviously doesn't follow from the fact that Arabs didn't want a Jewish state that it would therefore not have come to pass. And since the politicians and warmongers didn't try Buber's way, we can't know what would've happened if Jewish Zionism had followed his Hasidic approach from the 20s onwards.

Why,’ you say, ‘shouldn’t they have chosen violence as a means of attracting attention to their existence and their dreams of obtaining a national identity?’” [Wiesel in The New York Times, June 23, 1988].

Wiesel, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”

While Wiesel never condemned Israel, that was as consequence of his love for the country that was unconditional and that he thought he could not judge as a Diaspora Jew. On the other hand, in his later personal memoirs he has indicated he never did enough for the Palestinian plight.

Both sides can be accused of ethnic cleansing. They both appear to want total domination of the land. On the (re) creation of Israel it was invaded by the surrounding Arab countries trying to wipe it out.

I have raised this issue before but this conflict illustrates the problem with notions like "countries" and "ownership" Countries tend to be formed by force not reason. Europe has centuries of wars and shifting boundaries and massive colonisation. — Andrew4Handel

It's ironic to the point of hilarity (you know, if the topic wasn't dead children) that you criticize the notion of "countries" and "ownership" and use that same criticism to excuse the violent attempt of a country to establish complete ownership over a territory.

Each rocket Hamas fires is a war crime. If they commit these war crimes using civilian shields, it's a double war crime. Though it appears Israel does more to protect civilians (evacuation notices before hitting targets, for example) the disproportionate use of force is itself a war crime. Israel also needs to weigh the civilian costs, which, given the civilian deaths, I doubt it is doing. So it's war crimes all around. It makes no sense to pick a side in this affair.

It's ironic to the point of hilarity (you know, if the topic wasn't dead children) that you criticize the notion of "countries" and "ownership" and use that same criticism to excuse the violent attempt of a country to establish complete ownership over a territory. — Echarmion

I said both sides are using the same tactic. The Palestinians were defeated in the early bouts of conflict when they supported the attempt to eradicate Israel/Jews in the 1940's invasion by the surrounding countries. Extremists on both sides are calling for the subjugation or eradication of the other side.

If you are not interested in the validity of the notion of countries and ownership then you may as well commit mental suicide. You are starting an argument on easily defeasible premises. That's why you ignored the bulk of my post.

Brining up dead children in a rational debate is just a facile appeal to emotions.

You are starting an argument on easily defeasible premises — Andrew4Handel

I'm not starting an argument. I'm ending yours.

But your earlier said this:

Defend your axioms and let's debate — Andrew4Handel

Why don't you tell is what your axioms are regarding countries, the morality of warfare etc.

It quite obviously doesn't follow from the fact that Arabs didn't want a Jewish state that it would therefore not have come to pass. And since the politicians and warmongers didn't try Buber's way, we can't know what would've happened if Jewish Zionism had followed his Hasidic approach from the 20s onwards. — Benkei

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting Buber here, but AFAIK he really valued consensus but there was no way Israel as a Jewish state would ever come to exist if we relied on consensus from the Arabs. As far as I can tell, there would be no Jewish state if we demanded on meeting Buber's standards. It seems to me like had we followed Buber's consensus, Jews would remain in the minority in this theoretical binational state (because that's what the Arab consensus would be) and therefore the Jews would relinquish all bargaining power. When one cedes control they are no longer in a position to implement their vision, do you agree?

Especially in '47 the Arabs were not looking to make peace or compromise; they wanted the Jews gone. Tensions had already been rising for decades. Buber's ideas seem nice to me, I just don't know how we would have ever implemented them given the political realities of the day. The environment back then was very politically charged with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem a former ally of Hitler's and a vicious anti-Semite.

While Wiesel never condemned Israel, that was as consequence of his love for the country that was unconditional and that he thought he could not judge as a Diaspora Jew. On the other hand, in his later personal memoirs he has indicated he never did enough for the Palestinian plight. — Benkei

Yeah, even ardent Zionists aren't actually anti-Palestinian... maybe there are a few but I would just call those people evil. The struggle has always been between those who wish Israel harm and those who wish to protect it. Wiesel was unequivocal in his condemnation of Hamas and had he been alive today there's no doubt where he would stand on today's conflict.

Strawman, Bitcunt, again. "David" is the dispossssed and oppressed Palestinian people and not Hamas (which is merely the goddamn "sling"). Quit appropriating my species' humanoid form, you fuckin' reptile. :shade: — 180 Proof

You lean so heavily on this oppressor v. victim framing that it's led you to be oblivious to day-to-day realities. This is characteristic of philosophy and philosophers by the way - all theory, no fact.

Here are some facts: Israel has had no troops or settlements in Gaza since 2005. It's entirely self-governed except for the borders, with virtually all internal affairs dictated by Hamas. When humanitarian funds intended for the Palestinian people are embezzled by Hamas to build tunnels and buy weapons & Palestinians starve, that's not Israel's fault. When Hamas throws gay men off of rooftops because homosexuality violates the will of Allah, that's not the Zionists. If you are a sexual minority in Palestine, Hamas is 1000% the real enemy. If you are a reporter looking to free press, Hamas will arrest you. When Hamas makes a deliberate cultural effort to indoctrinate their children from an early age to hate the Zionist enemy and glorifies martyrdom & death, that is again not the Zionists. Peace is impossible with Hamas in power. Why won't you see Hamas as the true enemy of the Palestinian people? Hamas maintains a stranglehold on its population and kills more of them with its own rockets than it does the enemy.

Get a grip of the political and historical realities of the region before throwing this empty theory at me. Hamas could murder 50% of the Palestinian population and Israel would still be the enemy to you.

Why don't you tell is what your axioms are regarding countries, — Echarmion

I don't think countries exist outside human fiction. There are continuous land masses inhabited by humans with arbitrary borders. No other species has a notion like countries and they just jostle for territory (survival of the fittest). War is an extended form of the competition found among animals. (Were you unware of the thousands of wars in human history including the over a hundred years war between Britain and France. What about the occupation of the UK by various groups including the Romans, Vikings and Normans.)

I live where I live through luck of birth not because I deserve to live here or have a birth right . I don't own my property. I have to pay rent to someone else. Many unfortunate people are homeless and orphans around the world.

Human rights are also a human fiction based on peoples desires not anything innate or biologically defended.

I don't live in a fictional world were I reify human fictions as concrete entities. I am neither nationalist or patriot.

I believe in stewardship and cooperation more than ownership. But nevertheless if we were to Claim "A" owned "B" what rights is that supposed to give them? If you own Buckingham palace should you be allowed to destroy it. If you own a forest should you be able to burn it down? If you claim to own part of the middle east should you be overpopulate it and stretch the limited resources and make you children live in need....NO

Why complain if Israel, or any other nation of children-producers, disappears from the face of the world? — Ciceronianus the White

I think the the Jews are the only race left on earth that deserves to survive after the attempt to eradicate them and the thousands of years of persecution, displacement and the 6 million holocaust deaths.

I still don't think they should have children.

But Also I only blame parents for the suffering of children because procreation is the only way suffering can happen. I am not happy. I suffer everyday and have like everyone else an inevitable death sentence. No one who has children truly cares about children accept in maybe a delusional hypocritical way with cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization..

The concern about Palestinian children is highly selective and not matched by concern for the vast bulk of suffering and exploited, orphaned, molested and starving children.

I can blame someone else for my suffering but if I have a child now, for no good reason that I can't guarantee a good life that is my fault. Having a child in a war zone is like leaving a baby on a cliff edge. It's child abuse. But instead we are going to argue about the problems having children caused.

Prevention is better than cure.

think the the Jews are the only race left on earth that deserves to survive after the attempt to eradicate them and the thousands of years of persecution, displacement and the 6 million holocaust deaths.

I still don't think they should have children. — Andrew4Handel

If you don't think Jews should have children, then it would seem that you think only those Jews living deserve to survive, though, while others should not. Unless, that is, you maintain that because of the special suffering they've endured, they deserve to cause more suffering by having children though you think they shouldn't do so. Or, if they don't deserve to cause more suffering, that they nevertheless may be given a sort of "pass" in this regard; their wrongful creation of children being less wrongful, let's say, than the creation of children by Gentiles.

Antinatalism is a view I don't accept, obviously. Regardless, however, you seem to value the lives of Jews over those of others when you claim only they deserve to survive.

Nazi Germany is to the ghetto of Poland like Israel to the autonomy of Gaza. Comparing the military actions of a regular army with those of a militia is stupid. The Nazis also complained that some Polish Jews had pistols. Pistols against tanks. A whole balance of forces.

https://es.reddit.com/r/MurderedByAOC/comments/nengxp/joe_biden_doubles_down_on_israel_support_today/

@BitconnectCarlos

Nazi Germany is to the ghetto of Poland like Israel to the autonomy of Gaza. Comparing the military actions of a regular army with those of a militia is stupid. — gikehef947

:100: :fire: Stupid or deceitful or both.

Is that it? Is that your response to what I wrote? God, why did I waste my time with you? Well, I've learned now. Later.

Regardless, however, you seem to value the lives of Jews over those of others when you claim only they deserve to survive. — Ciceronianus the White

I gave my reasons for this.

Do you think you can overlook the killing of 6 million people. Obviously it is relevant to the situation in the Middle as part of history. The expulsion of Jews from Israel by the Romans, the ensuing diaspora the crusades, pogroms and so on. Where did the Jews originate from and the Hebrew Language. The Jews are mentioned in the Quran.
If people killed 6 million of my relatives I wouldn't give a fig what people thought of my actions. Consider the genocide, colonialization and warring history of the rest of the world they haven't a moral authority to give or a moral leg to stand on

In this specific context I was talking about people having 8 children (or even 14) (like the case I cited earlier) and blaming the Jews or Israel for their problems. I can cite evidence that people In Gaza have deliberately had large families to outnumber the Jews. They are not having children to reduce their suffering or for the survival of an ethnicity they have simply overpopulated a finite space (like the rest of humanity is doing). You can criticise one sides actions and criticise the other sides.

But Like I say even if you think someone own a piece of land (something I think is metaphysically impossible) that doesn't mean you can do what you like on it such as overpopulate it increasing children's hardship.

Do you think you can overlook the killing of 6 million people. Obviously it is relevant to the situation in the Middle as part of history. The expulsion of Jews from Israel by the Romans, the ensuing diaspora the crusades, pogroms and so on. Where did the Jews originate from and the Hebrew Language. The Jews are mentioned in the Quran.
If people killed 6 million of my relatives I wouldn't give a fig what people thought of my actions. Consider the genocide, colonialization and warring history of the rest of the world they haven't a moral authority to give or a moral leg to stand on

In this specific context I was talking about people having 8 children (or even 14) (like the case I cited earlier) and blaming the Jews or Israel for their problems. I can cite evidence that people In Gaza have deliberately had large families to outnumber the Jews. They are not having children to reduce their suffering or for the survival of an ethnicity they have simply overpopulated a finite space (like the rest of humanity is doing). You can criticise one sides actions and criticise the other sides.

But Like I say even if you think someone own a piece of land (something I think is metaphysically impossible) that doesn't mean you can do what you like on it such as overpopulate it increasing children's hardship — Andrew4Handel

Honestly baffling how people like this can possibly function day-to-day in real life.

Well 6 millions Jews were killed so that makes it OK if Israel commits a little genocide in turn as a treat.

I'm going to go commit a murder and use this as an excuse I'll let everyone know how it works out.

Well 6 millions Jews were killed so that makes it OK if Israel commits a little genocide in turn as a treat. — StreetlightX

That genocide is in your imagination. This is a conflict over territory and it is one of the least lethal conflicts in history.

It is a genocide to you because you don't want Jews living in Israel but that is your genocidal opinion.#

And no doubt you forgot the exodus of 850,000 Ethnic Jews from Arab countries at the same time as the Exodus of Palestinian Arabs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries

Was that a genocide in your book?

I'm going to go commit a murder and use this as an excuse I'll let everyone know how it works out. — Maw

What is the excuse for indiscriminately firing thousand of rockets into Israel. They would have caused mass casualties if Israel didn't have bunkers and the Iron Dome shield. That isn't an attempted genocide in your books?

You should also cite an argument straight out of Mein Kampf about overpopulation too, because that is totally not the calling card of fascists.

Was that a genocide in your book? — Andrew4Handel

For the third time in this thread:

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong.

— Raphael Lemkin

A description which is indistinguishable from Israeli crimes against humanity currently perpetrated on the Palestinian population.

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight.

In what sense have Palestinian Arabs died out? Their population has went from in the hundred thousands in the mid 19th century to 7 million plus.

It is land dispute. There was no independent self governing country called Palestine in history. It was part of the Ottoman empire and other Empires, with a diverse population. The Palestinian Arabs rejected the initial two state solution and some of them actively supported the invading countries which tried to wipe out the Jewish presence, which is a true genocide. People have lost land in wars all the time throughout History.

When The Arabs either fled or where expelled into neighbouring countries during a mutual war the countries they went to would not assimilate them into these countries and have persecuted them, denied them equal rights and kept them with a refugee status with the 8500, 000 Jews that were expelled or fled from Arab countries and Iran were assimilated into Israel with equal rights.

If you lie about History then you can make anything anyway you like.

Anyhow I have been asking people here to legitimize the existence of their own country and no one has done so. You probably aren't in a fight for survival because like me in the UK you have a national army, police force, nuclear weapons and etc to enforce any citizenship an property claims you make. But this is not the justified and rational creation of country but the reliance of force to keep up a fictional national narrative which really beneath the veneer is an exploitative survival of the fittest.

You are starting your claims on weak "evidence", disputable claims, faulty axioms, historical ignorance, bias among other things. Enjoy keeping the hate going and ensuring Israel continues it's existential battle for survival.

You should also cite an argument straight out of Mein Kampf about overpopulation too, because that is totally not the calling card of fascists. — StreetlightX

Hitler was a vegetarian, animal lover and had one testicle and Male so apparently now all these things are illegitimate.

Stating the Middle East is overpopulated is fact based on limited resources. Stating People in Gaza have had large families to outnumber the Israeli's is a fact. Blaming Israel for a Palestinian having 14 children whilst living in a cave has got nothing to do with eugenics. It is about apportioning of responsibility which I have stated clearly and extensively here. So now you are throwing out red herrings and ad hominin?

You apparently think all the problems in the region are only caused by the Jews. I'll have some Antisemitism with my cornflakes please.