Yeah, it's fine for other thinkers to have ideas on the government of Israel and to criticize political parties -- I don't care about that. We can all criticize, but the moment it becomes so venomous that it excuses violence against Israel's own citizens is when that thinker has gone too far. That's always been the major dividing line for me.

EDIT: It was 180 who cited Arendt.

Since this topic has been revived I'd be interested in hearing out the case -- as has been claimed earlier (or strongly implied) -- that Arendt would be okay with Hamas deliberately murdering Israeli civilians. Do we have any views from Arendt from after the '67 war on the "occupation?" She was fervently in support of Israel during the '67 war and also obviously supporting Israel in '73 so I'd like to see the case that she condones civilian murder made.

It's so hard for me to imagine a Jewish woman of that age, from that background, supporting the murder of Jewish civilians. I tried to find evidence of it but I couldn't. It would make her such an anomaly among that generation.

Bonus question: For those supporting the "by any means necessary" approach would rape be acceptable if it was found to be effective for attaining political means?

A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

Under this strategy, they would just kill you and replace you with someone else. That's a big part of the logic of totalitarianism - your "noble death" is made out to be meaningless.

Imagine this situation: There's a form on your desk requiring your signature that is needed to ship off 10,000 of your own people to certain death. They want your signature on it because everything needs to be done by the books.

If you refuse the 10,000 still get shipped off regardless, but in this case you get hanged and now someone else is in your position.

This was a real situation, by the way although I'm not sure about the exact number. The man responsible for signing the document, an atheist, committed suicide which I would consider honorable.

As long as you survive you are complicit, but there needs to be some point at which you make your stand otherwise you are totally lost.

One is not allowed to rip a child from its mother's arms and send that child to certain death because one is afraid of what the enemy would have done otherwise or to make the process more humane (as it is you doing it and not the brutal enemy.)

This is all I'm trying to say.

Still not clear how their moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed — praxis

Because their commitment to saving lives at all costs ("cutting off the leg to save the body") led them to collaborate and actively assist in the deportation (death) of one part of the community to save the other parts.

Does this make sense to you?

Assuming that was the case — praxis

I'm not granting your assumption here because it would sidetrack the entire discussion. We are going by Arendt's version where the Judenrat did carry moral agency and did make meaningful policy decisions, as it was in actual history.

I don’t want to make this thread all about debating your choice — Pfhorrest

Not a problem, let's keep it friendly.

but I feel the need to note that you can change ethical principles out of strategic considerations without having to change your metaphysical beliefs. A secular moral code could just as easily say “don’t give them one single inch” (or however you would phrase the maxim against the behavior you see as detrimental) without having to believe in God. — Pfhorrest

I don't even care whether these men were theists or atheists. All I'm talking about here is the type of reasoning used. This is not an "atheists are bad" post and there were plenty of atheists who acted honorably.

I'm sure strategic considerations and fear played a huge role, but ultimately, as I see things, there are lines that one cannot cross such as ordering one's community to round up members of that community and send them to certain death. I also understand that there are other types of secular ethical systems but "don't give them an inch" is just not feasible in this type of situation -- I'm talking here about reasonable secular systems that can be applied. "Cutting off the arm to save the body" makes intuitive sense and draws back on the common intuition that what ultimately matters is lives saved and preserving life, it's quite humanist.

It's just different from Christianity or Islam. It's not that hard to grasp. You're Jewish if your mother is Jewish and it doesn't really matter what you believe. Sure there's Jewish religious thought but we're not going to excommunicate you if you don't engage in it or believe it.

The Jewish leaders in Nazi ghettos were theists, were they not? — praxis

Some were, some weren't. I don't know the exact breakdown. Everyone can get scared and collaborate to save their own necks. I'm not really talking about individuals here; I'm more talking about the type of moral reasoning used.

Plenty of Jews are atheists and they're still considered Jews because Judaism isn't primarily a religious faith. It's really not a faith at all.

During the Holocaust, various Jewish community leaders were essentially placed in charge of large, mostly Jewish communities known as ghettos under Nazi control. However, due to lack of manpower most of the municipal services including policing was placed under the control of these Jewish councils. Different Jewish leaders employed different survival strategies, but ultimately the most tragic fates befell those who practiced what I would call reasonable, secular moral reasoning when it came to dealing with a much more powerful enemy.

Judaism, like Christianity, says that there are absolute lines that we must not cross, like delivering one's own community to certain death even if it is to avoid a greater evil (e.g. if the Nazis promise that they'll come in and do worse), but during these times the logic was more along the lines of "cut off the leg to save the body." Leaders put the noose around their own populations in the name of avoiding greater evil and in doing so sacrificed something unbelievably deep as I understand it.

:100:

How is it possible.

It isn't from a scientific perspective. How has it become so accepted as a concept? — Andrew4Handel

Cis people generally don't care too much and don't want to rock the boat. Ultimately, we're social beings who are just looking to get along and be accepted and when a cis person out of the blue starts going after trans folks it never looks good.

I understand things might be getting pushed a bit far sometimes, and I understand that people have legitimate doubts about one's ability to "really" change one's gender, but voicing those concerns in public is just kind of a peculiar conversation to have and I don't know why it would be brought up. I don't see what I gain as a cis person by spreading the message that trans folk are "really" their original gender beside ostracizing them.

I recently became a theist after reading Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. The book fully lays bare just how normal, healthy secular moral reasoning was absolutely destroyed when faced with genuine, uncompromising evil. I just reject that kind of world.

The way that I approach it the purpose of morality is first and foremost to inform concrete, practical action; not to set a perfect, flawless starting point that can never be questioned or reasonably applied to concrete action.

I'm having trouble processing human flourishing. Would it mean that if I saw you with a cheeseburger I should slap it out of your hand to stop you from eating something unhealthy? Or should I just lecture you about it? Why not start there: You see a fat person eating something unhealthy.

I can't speak for 180 Proof but many models of morality start with a supposition - e.g., that human flourishing should be the goal. This is not objective but objective standards can be built relative to this goal. — Tom Storm

Taking "human flourishing" as one's main goal is so ripe for exploitation. Dictators massacre thousands and do it in the name of human flourishing on a longer time control scale and who knows: they could be right about it! We'll never know because their visions were never "properly implemented."

Is there a moral system that doesn't start with a supposition - whether it be religious or secular? — Tom Storm

Nope, and if someone does then beware.

Oh this one is one of my favorites too -- I forgot about it! Incredible book.

The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, Neil Strauss — Michael

Yeah I was going to put this one on my list too but I thought it would be too obvious. It's just become such a universal staple in the field so why even mention it anymore?

I recently finished Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem which was amazing. I remember for some reason in college I brushed off Arendt for one reason or another, but I clearly made a mistake there. The conclusions she draws are certainly provocative, but people misinterpret them all the time and it's made Arendt a bit of a black sheep in the Jewish community.

Other books/essays that had an effect were Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy (in regard to international relations) and Anscombe's War and Murder along with many other of her essays. Also all 3 volumes of Andreas Antonopolous' The Internet of Money which is a collection of his talks on digital money and modern economies.

Yeah, had Germany been dismantled after WWI there would have likely been no WWII. Russia, if my memory serves me right, advocated for dismantling Germany but the other countries didn't want that and Versailles ended up in an unhappy compromise where Germany was left severely weakened, but not destroyed.

While we're at it, let's empathise with the Nazis. How terribly humiliated they were after WWI, their economy in shambles
— Benkei

Care to edit this for accuracy? — tim wood

Hitler's earlier speeches were all about making Germany out to be the victim and it's that narrative plus his oratory skills that catapulted his rise in popularity. Even if this is true - and there's strong reason to believe that the Versailles treaty was overly harsh and unfair - obviously what came after is unjustified.

This isn't about power either - even if the Nazis were effectively powerless they'd still be evil just like any organization that wants to destroy Israel is evil regardless of size or power. They might think they have good intentions or alternative ideas but in practice it is evil and puts a minority at enormous risk. “A people can be a minority somewhere only if they are a majority elsewhere" - Arendt.

The left repeatedly says that victims essentially get blank checks to deal with their oppressors but somehow you don't see the left defending Nazis burning French villages (why not? The French had a role in Versailles. Or maybe American towns would have been a better target with the prominent role Wilson played at Versailles.) None of it makes any sense to me - they say the Germans had "agency" but the Palestinians don't. I give up trying to understand. When does one truly make the transition from victim to oppressor? I've never heard that question sufficiently addressed and it probably can't be.

Doesn't necessarily make you oppressed, now does it? — Benkei

I would think that being on the receiving end of an unjust sentence qualifies as a form of oppression.

You called Versailles a crime, so that would make Germany a victim of that crime.

I'm just granting him this point that after WWI the treaty of versailles was unjust and unfairly penalized Germany. There are obviously different sides to this debate and I'm not going to dig too much into the weeds but historical consensus is that the treaty of versailles was very harsh and those conditions were considered a catalyst for hitler.

The difference of course is that Germany had a lot of agency despite the crime that was Versailles. — Benkei

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. When did the Germans suddenly stop being victims and gain agency? Which year? How? What would it mean for the Palestinians to gain "agency?"

Probably. We don't know what sort of society would've developed if the people weren't being oppressed. A lot of problems like this are a consequence of poverty. — Benkei

So are WWII & the Holocaust essentially the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty? The Versailles treaty treated the Germans terribly and threw the German economy into chaos making leaders like Hitler more viable. Is every bit of Nazi racism the fault of the Allies who punished Germany too harshly while simultaneously leaving Germany intact as a state? Why give Germany free will? They were punished, they were abused after WWI. Poor little victims abused by the Western powers.

Additionally, is everything that happened in the ghettos in WWII the responsibility of the Nazis? When Jewish leaders collaborating with the Nazis arrested members of resistance movements are those Jewish leaders blameless because they were helpless victims controlled by the Nazis despite taking pro-active steps of their own volition to destroy those resistance groups? How about Jewish who stole food & embezzled funds intended for the general Jewish population? Innocent Nazi victims?

You have a unique view on responsibility here but I don't quite know if I buy it. It seems to be something along the lines of "If a stronger power does something which greatly impacts/hurts a society then every problem that comes from that society is the fault of that stronger power."

Homeland doesn't mean state in some, nor from the west bank to the sea in others. — Benkei

It is 2021, Zionism has already been realized. It does not matter if other thinkers had other ideas because a state has been established. Borders change and neither side needs to stop building.

I've condemned it but maintain that every atrocity happening to Israelis is of their own making and every atrocity befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by Israel. — Benkei

How about the atrocity of how gays are treated in Gaza? Or the atrocity of how they treat their women? I guess the Jews really do control everything. I'm sure when Palestinian men beat their wives it is also Israel's fault.

— Benkei

Israel is asking for it by treating Palestinians as animals and as such has no moral standing to be outraged by a bunch of ineffectual rocket attacks — Benkei

You know Israel is full of Israelis, right? Do individual Israelis have a right to be upset when their neighbors are killed? Is that okay with you? Let's talk about the people now.

Either that or you're pivoting between this restricted understanding and the more general one which equates Zionism with Israel's military expansion rather than with its existence. — fdrake

It depends on whose narrative we go by. You're talking with me, so you're going to get the Jewish narrative. If we talked to a pro-Palestinian Arab he'd likely say (as Hamas does) that the original birth of the Israeli state was an unjust expansion in the sense that it stole Muslim land. Every inch taken of Muslim land is an unjust expansion according to that narrative. This is a very common view among the Palestinians as well as across the Arab world.

Is the contemporary support of Zionism really about the boring uncontroversial point that Israel should continue to exist - a fact even Hamas supports, or is it more saucy and about the expansion? — fdrake

This is not a boring and uncontroversial point at all. If that's how you consider it then you're around decent, civilized company but do not take your experience as the majority one. I'm happy to bring in polls and there's also a popular youtuber as who just walks around asking Arabs and Israelis questions and you can get a decent sample of their opinions from that. Look up Corey Gil-Shuster. Check out the one where he asks Palestinians "If Israel withdrew to '67 borders would that bring peace?" Spoiler: Some said yes, but at least half said no.

If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, and happily sings in praise of sectarian warcrimes... — fdrake

I don't think it's fair to equate any country with their far right. I don't do it with the UK and I hope you wouldn't do that with America. Needless to say conflict brings out the worst in people.

Considering "anti-zionism is anti-semitism" — fdrake

Anti-Zionism in 2021 is straight-up bizarre. Zionism is nothing more than the idea that Jews need a homeland in the region, and since this has already happened that means Zionism has already been realized. To be anti-Zionism in, say, 1935 makes sense -- it would mean that someone just doesn't support the creation of a Jewish state in Judea/Samaria. Being an anti-Zionism in 2021 means that you seemingly want the state of Israel (i.e. Jewish security) to stop "being." That is how I understand anti-Zionism. It is very, very suspect.

that the propaganda surrounding the state of Israel equates Jewish national identity with Zionism with Israel's military expansion — fdrake

If we are to call this propaganda, then this "propaganda" that equates Zionism with national jewish identity has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the West's Jewish communities if we are to consider it "propaganda."

But let me pose you a question: What role does an outsider have in forging another group's identity? Should we both engage in a discussion about what black people are and what their future ought to be? In practice, one cannot attack Zionism without attacking the vast majority of Jewish communities. I've never been to a temple or a synagogue that was anti-Zionist.

There's genocide everywhere. There's racism everywhere. The entire world is mud, so why should I go out of my way and take up my own time to try to convince you that Israel is not mud when the rest of the world is? If the Israelis are genocidal then so are the Palestinians. The intention is there. Israelis are murdered in the name of genocide. Both sides, as well as the entire world, are genocidal maniacs (except you.)

Your own country of Australia is obviously institutionally racist and genocidal. I'm surprised you don't mention that.

No, the only reason I post is everytime you post falsehoods and mistakes I'll be more than happy to correct it so that less biased people can know what's really going on. — Benkei

Your focus on factual correctness here is masturbatory. As long as you continue to support (which is effectively the same as refusing to condemn) the deliberate murder of innocent civilians I cannot engage with you, it is that simple. Please come back to the side of humanity here.

It's like if the Netherlands were in a dispute (fine lets call it an occupation) and I told you "oh by the way, I don't have any problems with the opposition running into your house and murdering the lot of you." Now let's proceed! Let's make progress on this issue!

Yeah we can talk later I'll be over on the other thread you made.

Is it ever hard to function when the entire world around you is so unrepentantly racist and genocidal? Is it difficult being the only good one? Does it ever get lonely or have you just kinda learned to live with it? It must get very lonely up there on the pedestal.

Do your parents think just like you? It must be tough when everyone around you are racist, blood-thirsty genocide supporters.

Yes, and FDR is Hitler and so is Obama and you're the only one in this world who has any semblance of moral decency.

Not the same thing. These arrests were in response to violent protests and weapons stockpiling.

No it doesn't and it's obvious you just perceive Israel as Nazi Germany or something along those lines and I don't have the time or effort to dispel that notion.

Israel will not arrest people for communicating with Palestinians in Gaza. It's not my fault you don't understand anything.

I shouldn't have to say this because it should be widely known but Israel does not arrest non-violent peace activists for trying to make connections with the other side and any regime that does is a terrorist regime and a rotten government inside and out. Doing something like that violates the basics.

This is not about Israel.

The folks you're referring to are in lock down mode. There is no evidence or reasoning which will have the slightest impact on their point of view. In that sense, we've done a good job of creating a Middle East thread. :-) — Foghorn

Damn straight, it's all about who you engage. I have had good conversations here with other posters and even some of the posters who I'd consider less than objective will sometimes still bring up decent points or points that I hadn't considered. My discussions with numerous posters have ran their course but I'm still going strong with one.

Given that there is exactly no chance of that happening....

Now what? — Foghorn

It was actually really funny, I gave him an article about how Hamas arrested & imprisoned 3 Palestinian grassroots peace activists for talking with Israeli peace activists over skype or zoom and his response was basically "well it was all done by the books and done very professionally, unlike the Israelis!" :brow:

I guess the "now what" is that we've reached the end of our conversation and we move onto a different topic.