And then also lie about it with "extremely fake" audios according to the most authoritative infowar experts on earth. Anyway, in today's day and age it's best to reserve judgement. — neomac

Again, you're pointing to authoritive empirical evidence that doesn't exist.

Just seems to me the most likely case here. — ssu

Except you provided an empirical argument for why it was the Israelis (i.e. Palestine lacked the rocket power) and now you're backtracking to theorizing (i.e. Israel needs to maintain its moral position for US support, so this is spin control).

These are entirely different arguments.

The counter theory is that Hamas cannot win this war militarily, they have no moral high ground since their invasion of the kibbutz, so they hope to politically turn the tides in their favor by showing Israeli brutality and their own suffering by causing their own death and blaming it on Israel.

This is to say that Hamas scores far more points if it was Israel that bombed the hospital, so much so that it could sway political support in their favor.

Israel gains nothing in such an attack.

Somehow the single most powerful rocket fired from Gaza ever, that could destroy whole buildings, misfired and hit one of the few hospitals in Gaza. — ssu

What cite do you have to support this claim?

You're arguing impossibility, meaning Palestine couldn't have done this because their arsenal isn't capable of doing it.

I've not seen any articles where the Palestinians have even asserted that.

All's fair in love and war.

is obvious that Japan would have won against the US if Truman hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. — javi2541997

This article says:

Japan was considering surrendering prior to Nagasaki, the conventional bombs killed more than the nuclear ones, and Japan never could have fended off the US and the Soviet Union successfully.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/#:~:text=But%2C%20in%201965%2C%20historian%20Gar,use%20was%2C%20therefore%2C%20unnecessary.

There needs to be a protected humanitarian corridor. I'm sure Israel will put effort into creating that. Unless they just want to do a massive fuckup. — frank

I'm in favor of that in theory, but Gaza is tiny and massively overpopulated and pretty much in rubble. If the citizens could be moved around so that the Hamas infrastructure could be dismantled, then that would be ideal, but the truth is there is no place for anyone to go, and it's not in Hamas' interest to allow the citizens to go safely. Hamas scores points with every Palestinian death because their war can't be won militarily, so their battle is political in trying to win world support by showing Palestinian victimization.

Hamas pokes the bear by firing indiscriminate missles and raping, murdering, and kidnapping. Predictably, Israel's detractors line up and argue justification and moral equivalence and hand Palestine a political victory as the victim. The sentiment pervasive in this forum is what Hamas wished to expand throughout the West with their repugnant suicide mission.

Israel's proper response is full rejection of its detractors, with a focus only upon its own safety. That the anti-Israel world might more firmly become anti-Israel is irrelevant in how Israel should and will respond.

Only in over-intellectualized 21st century liberalism, where the weaker party is the per se victim can it be an effective political strategy to provoke a war and then to lose so badly that that you use your losing to your political advantage.

So jeer from the sidelines. Israel has a population it must protect.

So you have the keys to the castle and your job is to protect Israel and assure continued random bombings and terroristic bands of rapists and butchers don't run their periodic raids.

What do you do?

Do you talk about moral ambiguity, feel the guilt of your predecessors in putting you in this place, and then set up a meeting with Hamas to discuss your displeasure at their murderous yet understandable behavior and figure out how we can go halfsies on the land so everyone will be happy?

For real, what do you propose in real terms other than the vague platitude that Israel should be careful not to hurt the innocent. Their position is that they will do their best.

So General Baden, protect your nation. What do you propose?

And so Hamas uses its citizens as human shields so the law of not harming citizens protects Hamas from attack? Is it that easy?

it really a threat? Who cares? — frank

That is the critical question. If the threat isn't real, responding to it with force isn't justified.

The distinction between the German justification for slaughtering Jews and the Israeli's justification for invading Gaza, is that Israel's justification is correct and Germany's wrong.

It requires moral judgment. The solution isn't to declare an amorality and paralyze yourself with inaction because you think yourself too humble to decide right from wrong

If you believe Israel isn't occupying foreign territories in Gaza and the West Bank, then what exactly do you believe Israel is doing there? — Tzeentch

They're invading it after being attacked. That's what happens in a war. Do you think Gaza is a safety zone that can't be entered into by Israel after being attacked?

Do you think Gaza occupied foreign territory when it arrived at the kibbutz?

Clearly "legitimate possession" is not the end of the question. — Echarmion

No, but it's the first question. If the Mexican government continuously lobbed bombs into El Paso and raped and butchered its citizens, it wouldn't be shocking if the US took over a chunk of Mexico. That justification comes from no one remotely questioning the US's right to its land.

The security problem in the region goes both ways. And let's not pretend terrorism wasn't a reaction to the illegal occupation and not the other way around. — Benkei

Terrorism is not a legitimate response. Period.

And vice versa? — unenlightened

The existential threat to Gaza is Hamas provoking war with Israel.

Ok, so you're making a claim about Israel's annexations of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 - places that belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively at the time, and where there lived (and still live) primarily Palestinians.

What makes this annexation by Israel during the Six-Day War legitimate in your eyes? — Tzeentch

I'm not laying an Israeli claim to Gaza or the West Bank. That is a Palestinian territory, controlled by Hamas and Hezzbolah respectfully.

But can land be acquired by war? Of course. If not, the world map would look very different.

Acquisition of land by ancient inheritance is no more defensible than by war.

According to your own premise, Russia is legitimate to occupy Crimea, Donbas and Donetsk, right? — javi2541997

That doesn't follow.

Now, does this include Gaza and the West Bank? — FreeEmotion

Israel isn't at war over a claim by Israel that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel. Israelis presence in Gaza is part of a military operation. I don't think Israel has any interest in occupying and policing Gaza every day.

Define "its" land. — Benkei

The Be'eri kibbutz, for example.

understand your need to vent but wiping out cities of millions of people, the vast majority of whom are civilians, could never be justified unless they posed a similar level of immediate existential threat, as might be the case in a nuclear war etc. — Baden

As with all moral questions, the issue of intent is critical. If the intent is to eliminate an inferior or immoral race, then that is genocide.

If it's to protect your own people and nation from destruction, it's a different matter. Israel does face an existential threat that is only reduced by doing the things it is currently doing. I get those from the sidelines think they have a gentler way to secure Israel's security, but others disagree.

But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"? — Manuel

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land.

The question for Israel is how to eliminate the threat of thousands of missles being indiscriminately launched onto its citizens followed by the raping of its women, butchering of its children, kidnapping of random citizens, and the murder of others.

Israel is the rightful possessor of its land, and its right and duty to protect its sovereign borders and its citizens is absolute. It has an ethical duty not to sympathize with its enemies, especially if that sympathy might reduce the effectiveness of its response to protecting itself. Any ethical theory that requires one endure violence and destruction from another is flawed, and doubtfully created by someone who cares at all for the persons receiving that violence.

This is to say, if the destruction of Gaza is necessary for the protection of Israel, then it would be unethical for Israel not to destroy Gaza.

:up:

Exactly. Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu

I don't think Hamas' rejection of an appeasement strategy is based upon its perceived futility. I think it's based upon their belief they shouldn't have to appease an occupier. I don't think there's ever been a Palestinian leader who was truly ready to recognize Israel's right to exist or who thought they could survive politically if they agreed to a two state solution.

There was a time when the two state solution was very close to being a reality, with Israel agreeing to over 90% of the Palestinian demands, only to have it rejected. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

This idea that Israel wants to push Palestine into the sea is a projection of what Palestine wants to do to Israel. If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't.

To the question of whether Hamas could make headway with a conciliatory approach that fully denounced terrorism and advocated a real push to peace, I think they could. It would certainly be a game changer if they approached with an olive branch. That will not happen, not because Hamas doesn't think it won't work, but because they think Israel is satan and not worthy of such kind consideration. In fact, if Hamas went down such a path, I'd expect their political power to drop to zero and they'd get a new terroristic organization in charge.

If not, then moral equivalence would lead to the absurd conclusion that we should be suing former slaves and their descendants for reparations for killing their slave owners in revolt. — Benkei

Pretty strained analogy, bringing up such things as inherited sin and the duy of reperations and such.

A more apt analogy, although not perfect, would be to hold a slave accountable for going into town and indiscriminately murdering a white person because of the slave's anger toward the priviliged class, even though that particular person was not a slave holder.

I say this is not a perfect analogy because the analogy references a single frustrated individual, whereas in the Hamas situation, the action was the intentional, directed murder by a governmental entity as part of a strategic plan to exact revenge on a civilian population.

And the net result of this plan is to lead a people to greater suffering and misery. What this military operation will accomplish, other than a few moments of elation in seeing their enemy suffer, is greater control over Gaza, less sympathy for the Palestinians, and less restraint by the Israelis.

Like it or not, if you're going to negotiate with a more powerful Western opponent who claims their primary driver is morality and justice, you have to present yourself that way to gain any momentum. I get that's a hard pill to swallow if you think Israel satan incarnate, but Israel will not respond to the murder of its citizens by reflecting upon the moral nuance of its behavior versus Palestinian and then out of a sense a fear of hypocricy change its stance. Hamas is marching Palestine towards its death.

Hence Hamas is the more preferable representative for Palestinians than the West Bank Palestinian authorities. — ssu

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8r9Pg17/

Successfully striking against an oppressor seems a good reason to celebrate. — Benkei

The link wasn't to their celebration, but was to their murder of concert goers by shooting them at point blank range.

They were intentionally killing civilians.

very good reply if you want to kill people. Leave morality at the door when figuring out Israeli calculus. — Benkei

Unlike the morally upstanding Palestinians. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-music-festival-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html

But in the end where will it leave Israel? Rapprochement with the Muslim world will be impossible if the civilian death toll is high, and it probably will be. The situation on the West Bank will become further inflamed. — Tzeentch

As in, now Israel will never get the Muslims to care about them now that they've gone and done this? Seems the strategic angle would be that the Palestinians would try to gain the affection of the Israelies, considering they have the power to destroy them.

you reject the views that (1) Israel has a religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue; and/or that (2) the Jewish people have a non-religious right to possess and govern the areas at issue because it is their "homeland," then the creation of Israel was an injustice. — Ciceronianus

The other position is that they needn't justify their right to exist any more than any other nation.

Considering the power or weakness of religious liberalism and religious fundamentalism, it appears to be the case that the former is on the decline and the latter is on the rise, and the basic reason for that is because religious liberalism is weak tea compared to stricter forms of worship. Stricter worship offers a more potent and fulfilling experience, in other words.

That's why I think religious liberalism is weak compared to religious fundamentalism. — praxis

We're attempting to use "religious fundamentalism" generically here, but there would be variations among the different groups. If we look at fundamentalist Protestant Christians, the basis for their emergence was in reaction to modernization and challenges brought forth by science to the religious belief. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3389#:~:text=The%20most%20prominent%20of%20the,that%20contradicted%20their%20religious%20beliefs.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism

From this emerged fundamentalist literalism, which holds that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God and that it is understandable by the common man, as each word clearly means what it says.

I do not believe this literalism and backlash to science resulted in stricter worship forms. The typical religious Protestant attends service one day a week at a church that offers serveral services each Sunday (sometimes divided by traditional and modern, where they plug in the electric guitars). The services varies in terms of what prayers are said, hymns sung, and sermons given.

That contrasts with the Catholic tradition, which is not particuraly growing in the US, but which does rely upon stricter worship services. Fundamentalist Protestantism is a modern creation, dating back largely to the early 1900s, so the argument seems to support a move toward modernity in some regards (worship service and church hierarchical structures), but toward a rigidity in Scripture interpretation, removing the role of the clergy as having a special ability to interpret and understand the text.

My reference to the "weakness" of the fundamentalist position relates to its logical, historical, and empirical defensibility. That someone might find more life fulfillment in believing the Ark truly housed every known animal than one who doesn't only means that person has figured out a way at blissful self-deception, but it doesn't offer me any likelihood to adopt that position because the insconsistency of such a belief with what else I hold as true makes that position impossible to adopt.

It’s the characterization of ‘weakness’ that I don’t follow. How does fundamentalism in religious belief lack power or strength compared to religious liberalism, or however you contrast fundamentalism? — praxis

Perhaps its followers find that it provides a meaningful way of life. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their views in that regard

But, to the extent a literal fundamentalist wishes to maintain a scientific worldview, that person's epistemology is not internally consistent. Either we look to the universe for empirical evidence and go with our conclusions or we read the Bible and just accept it. Attempting to make the evidence fit the Bible is not a scientific approach.

A fundamentalist who argues with Dawkins that they have a stronger scientific basis in support of Creationism than he does for evolution is silly. That makes that effort, as I say "weak" and therefore subjects theism generally to ridicule, despite that that brand of theism just being a weak form susceptible to attack due to its particular unsupportable claims.

Not sure what you mean by fundamentalism being weakest for of theism. Not important though, just curious. — praxis

That in its Christian form, it presents as a naive literalism, where it is argued that the text is the inerrant word of God and it can be understood by a direct interpretation of the words on the page. It's a 19th century creation that is believed by church members, largely in the South, despite it not being taught in most seminaries.

For example, arguments against Creationism are taken as arguments against theism, where only the weakest form of theism demands Creationism be accepted

don't appreciate the claim that some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists and then put words in their mouths to indicate that that is in fact the case. — praxis

The same problem arises from the atheist camp in trying to define theists as fundamentalists and then attacking that weakest form of theism.

They aren't synonymous, but I also don't think it's accurate to suggest Dawkins and certainly not Harris are anything but true blue atheists. The epistemology of science demands some degree of agnosticism about everything, even about such things as whether the earth is round or flat. It goes with the best explanations for the data we have, and so it would be a scientific overstep to claim anything with "certainty."

Here's a brief breakdown on the strength of Dawkins' atheism:
https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/atheists/richard_dawkins_existence_of_god_scale.html

If we suggest that Dawkins is an agnostic because he's left open the possibility that the earth might be flat, pigs might fly, and God msy possibly exist, the only true atheist would be the dogmatic atheist, who rejects the existence of God regardless of the evidence, but that would reject the scientific epistemology most atheists rely upon

Science undermines religion and the belief in God.

Science disproves God.

Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same? — praxis

You're making a strained epistemological argument. When Dawkins says God can't be disproved with certainty, that hardly is a nod in favor of possible theism. He's making claims about certainty consistent with his scientific epistemology. That is, nothing can be known with certainty to the scientist. But this isn't a solipsistic claim because he does believe we can "know, " just not with certainty.

Like this: We know things about the universe exclusively through science. Through science we have no knowledge of God. We therefore know God doesn't exist.

We say what we know: "God doesn't exist."
We say "OJ killed Nicole."

Admitting each could be wrong doesn't mean we know nothing or suggest we truly harbor meaningful doubt regarding their veracity. Dawkins knows there is no God to the same degree he knows his hand is before him, but both could be wrong.

Not many of them are truly new, they are mostly either combinations of existing ideas or remakes of other ideas. — Sir2u

I posted that 3 years ago. You have no idea what it's like waiting that long for a reply. Absolute torture.

For if it falls, it's possible that it will have enough force to form a crack into the already weak wall in front of the pole. It is true, however, that this is but the first step. — Existential Hope

You're pointing to a weak foundation that prudence would dictate protecting so that the entire structure won't fall. The problem is that the foundation is weak because there are those who see no advantage in supporting it because it doesn't promote their interests.

It's like telling the disenfranchised to work harder for their paltry pay and to support a system that helps their oppressors because if they push back too hard they'll have even less. It's a hard argument to make to those motivated by fairness over comfort.

My comments are generic and not focused on India's particular history or present day situation because I don't know enough about day to day life in India or where its fault lines are. I just see it as a universal dilemma, where you have to decide between pragmatics and justice. One hopes justice is chosen over control, but typically it's a mixture of both, at least in liberalized countries, which means some semblace of a healthy society would include challenges to the status quo.

On the other hand, critics say that this is a divisive and diversionary action that will needlessly detach the country from a considerable part of its own history. — Existential Hope

Names matter. My mother attended Robert E. Lee High School and was a proud Rebel, but that's no more. The winners get to choose the names: Ho Chi Minh City versus Saigon, Istanbul versus Constantinople, New York versus New Amsterdam, Her/She versus they/them, The Washington Commanders versus the Washington Redskins, and even Israel versus Jacob.

A name serves to protect the current status quo and it is for that reason the name change follows the revolution. If India is in a state of revolution over its past, the push for the name change is but a symptom of that revolution. The battle lines will likely arise in all sorts of places, with the name being one area for the focus, but I'd think too much time shouldn't be spent defending the flag, the official colors, or the other labels, but instead of fighting for or againt whatever it is that is the true source of the battle.

That is, if India's politics are sufficiently oppressive that they've lost popular support, the flag is going to fall as a consequence, and it seems misguided to just stand around the flag trying to hold it high, as if the battle is actually over the literal flag.

I believe the field of psychology, or at least in the study of personalities, acknowledges that the pensive, quiet people (who often find life to be "not happy") are the ones who have a more accurate assessment of life. — L'éléphant

I agree that depressed people are not happy, but I don't believe they have an accurate assessment of life. When they suggest there is no meaning to life and no reason for our existence, they are wrong and that's what makes them so unhappy.

I'd say, do not dwell in the past no matter how beautiful or successful the past was. Keep it off your mind. Take care of what you have now. You can't be with your past anymore -- it's gone. Love the one you're with. This, coming from my own experience of dealing with all sorts of people. — L'éléphant

I think of sentimentality as the romanticized cousin of regret. The sentimental harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive some perfect moment that never existed, like the time when their family was gathered around the Christmas tree welcoming a new puppy into their lives, as if that moment wasn't as complex, troubled, wonderful and significant as the present moment.

The regretful harken back to the past in a futile attempt to relive that critical moment where things went wrong, so as to change them so that today wouldn't be as complex and troubled as it is right now. It's like the time you wish you could take back those words, continue that pursuit, or see that relationship through. What is missed is that today is as it is supposed to be, not just from casual necessity, but from teleological necessity

Regret and sentimentality come from not believing one has a purpose that is constantly being fulfilled. If we accept that the driver for our acts aren't the causes that precede them but are for the purposes we are to fulfill, then it's hard to find a reason to focus on yesterday and try to run backwards in time and away from our intended destination.

This is my philosophy of radical purposefulness, which is no more or less reasonable than the more typically accepted radical causation theory, where all events are explainable from their cause.

The best leaders know that duty begets duty. — ToothyMaw

A couple of cliches come to mind:

Preaching to the choir - meaning it's not difficult to convince those who are already committed.
You can't coach heart - meaning you can't convince someone to have passion.

This is to say that the easiest leadership role one can be put in is one where one's followers all operate out of a sense of duty. One whose motivation is that of righteousness isn't someone in need of leadership. He's going to do as he's going to do and he's going to tell you to fuck off if you violate his sense of righteousness..

It's also to say that you can't instill a sense of duty in someone who doesn't have it. You'd be wasting your time. His driver is something else and you'll need to identify it in order to gain motivation. If you keep telling someone they ought to work harder because it's for the good of the community at large but he's just looking for a bigger paycheck, he's not going to change his mind just because you said it.

That's not right — Banno

Good point. I was thinking too along the lines of mathematical points, meaning no two points can occupy the same two points without being the same point.

It would seem identity would be more equivalent to a definition, making it more linguistic than ontological.

Where one object ends and another begins is a matter of convention. A collision of two objects though does seem to have an ontological component beyond simple definition.

That is, when a rock hits the window, we observe a collision of two distinct objects, even if we wish to define both as a single room object.

If two objects occupy the same location, they are not two objects, but are one. Location is an element of identity.