I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. — Tobias

Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family.

In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel.

Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East.

Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, it is quite something. However, there are plenty of backgrounds to which a Jewish homeland in modern day Israel likely sounds quite innocuous - after all, I wouldn't be offended at the idea of, e.g. a Kurdish homeland. Zionism is actually very flexible and you'll get different ideas about the extent of the state or the nature of the government so it certainly can be offensive if framed in highly discriminately, right-wing terms but it need not be.

You didn't say it but it's implied because you think it's fine to collectively punish them because "Hamas" and "terrorism" and "my brain just shortcircuited so I stop thinking when I hear these buzz words". — Benkei

Any nation has the right to sanction other governments that threaten it or wish it harm or fund terrorism. We do the same with Iran, and I don't hate the Iranian people. We sanction Russia, but I don't hate the Russian people. We've sanctioned a number of nations in the past and it has to do with the ruling body, not the people. In the case of Hamas the blockade is for security reasons.

You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok. — Benkei

Israel hasn't annexed Gaza. I'll admit to you that I need to do a deeper dive between the history in that region between '67 and '89 or so but it doesn't change the fact that if we want peace we need to be forward-looking as opposed to playing this game of X caused Y which caused Z, but X was a totally independent, free action undertaken by the enemy and that is the cause of all of our problems and that happened 50 years ago.

If you have any good, neutral resources on the history in Gaza between '67 and maybe '89 or so I'd be happy to watch or read. If you're seriously interested in peace we need to be looking forward.

you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do — Benkei

Where does this come from? Which moral theory? Which great thinker? Maybe the New Testament, book of 180proof? Do not intentionally murder innocents, full stop. So I'm not suppose to complain as my people are getting murdered... I'm not even entitled to that privilege according to you.

If the Dutch military was overseas as they were in '09-'10 and one day a 5 year old Dutch boy was murdered by a terrorist should I tell you that you have no right to complain or be sad? Is it just reasonable blowback to be expected?

Israel is a war criminal — Benkei

What does this even mean? Isn't "war criminal" a label for an individual? It doesn't make sense to say that an entire nation is a war criminal. You're fighting a windmill here.

Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...? — Benkei

I've never said Palestinians are "guilty by association." This just isn't my position so I'm not going to respond in more detail. I don't have anything against the Palestinian people as a whole, but terrorist groups embed themselves within the population which puts Israel in a very difficult spot militarily.

Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance. — Benkei

Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class.

"Fantasy imaginarium" is a productive and useful exercise because it allows us to flush out ideas and rules and apply them to a variety of circumstances, something that you struggle with. Say what you want about 180, but the man has consistent principles that he's willing to apply seriously which is more than I can say about you.

:rofl:

I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.

This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source?

hell yeah I'd support the White folks — 180 Proof

You'd condone white folks murdering black folks in a black-dominated society? Holy shit you actually bit the bullet on this one.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone.

If they were underdogs would you support them? Maybe they pick a few random blacks to murder for no reason, but don't sweat it it's just David's slingshot against bloody Goliath.

Aren't the KKK underdogs? Shouldn't you be rooting for them? They're not the powerful force they use to be. Something something David's slingshot.

I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians. — Baden

Sure they'd have been behind the Palestinans but Israel would have made peace with them in a second and simply withdrew. It's not that easy with Hamas. You don't get it, it's not just about withdrawal from Gaza and the WB. We have no bases or troops or settlements in Gaza to begin with.

Earlier you asked for a source here it is:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993

Over 1362 killed since 2000 and this list is not updated for 2021 with only 1 dead.

Around 3000 killed by Palestinian terror attacks since Israel became a state. I'd be so happy if the Palestinian terrorists started picking out mostly legitimate targets like the IRA. If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel.

Ok that makes sense. I can see why people draw parallels between the IRA and the Palestinians and I know the Irish have been doing this for years, but it's just not the same thing. Have you ever been to Israel? The Middle East?

I hate to say it, but I would welcome IRA style terrorism as opposed to Palestinian terrorism in Israel.

:lol: — Baden

Yeah that was from the misreading. I thought you were saying the Zionist perspective is invalid and once you go there you're in heavily anti-israel territory and I was wondering where you got this idea from. I'm sure it would be told in Arab households, but if you someone got it elsewhere I'd be interested to hear.

Sorry I misread.

I've talked about ethics multiple times. You just don't like my position. Did you ever respond to this point I made?

I have talked about ethics in this thread on multiple occasions. Have you recanted your point about

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.
— Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported. — BitconnectCarlos

I am a Zionist and I was raised in a Zionist family and you don't get to tell me that my voice isn't valid. I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. It does not involve persecuting anyone.

Are you an Arab? What are you?

That's not what I'm saying and I've had great, productive convos with several other posters here. And no, I'm not just here to "rah rah" for Israel. I'm providing a moderate Zionist voice in a discussion where that voice is often not represented.

My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.

If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people?

I'm glad to hear that; try to be a little more sensitive with your language next time and don't accuse people of talking about "cartoon terrorists" when these terrorists are very real.

It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread. — Baden

Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported.

When you use that term it shows me that you have a complete inability to emphasize with Jewish victims of terrorism and don't ever, ever pretend otherwise.

Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists — Baden

You're a ridiculous person.

You'd have to be out of your mind to compare the IRA to Palestinian terror:

From a magazine piece:

Unlike Islamic radicalism, Irish nationalism has always been somewhat ideologically underdeveloped. Nonetheless, a few things can be said with certainty about the worldview of the Provisional IRA. Most importantly, perhaps, the Provos did not see the conflict as a zero-sum game. They did not advocate the genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Protestant majority, did not claim that London was the true capital of Ireland, and were not motivated by an ideology of racial or religious supremacism. Their slogan “Brits Out!” referred to the British state alone, not the Protestant community loyal to it.

On a larger scale, the Provisional IRA did not see itself as just one part of a grand holy war against the presence of a Protestant community in Northern Ireland. Unlike Hamas, the Provos never had the benefit of an Iran or a Qatar to provide it with consistent material and moral support. They did not enjoy the solidarity of a global movement of fundamentalist Catholics willing to use terrorism and mass murder to achieve their religious aims. Nor did they have a growing chorus of sympathizers in the Western liberal democracies. At best, they had to rely on the occasional gift of arms from the crazed Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi and what money deluded immigrants in the bars of Boston and New York could be persuaded to part with.

http://www.thetower.org/1429-the-tower-magazine-why-the-ira-is-nothing-like-hamas/

The cruelty of Palestinian terror far outweighs that used by the IRA. The more research I do into the types of attacks conducted by the IRA vs. Palestinian terror the more these organizations become drastically different. I'm not really into an argument here: The two aren't remotely close. Just look into the 2nd Intifata.

Over 1300 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terror attacks in the past 20 years. Thousands more injured.

The IRA does not indiscriminately target civilians as their MO. There may have been times where this happened, I don't know, but it's not how the group normally operates. The group also doesn't seek to destroy England in their charter.

I've said on multiple occasions that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is just not comparable to the one between the UK and the IRA. To the best of my understanding, the IRA didn't intentionally target uninvolved civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. I don't recall them ever recruiting child suicide bombers either. I go into more detail here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540254

Ok ya got me we exchanged a couple sentences almost 2 weeks ago where all I really did was clarify my position. I know next to nothing about what you believe or who you are.

I wasn't responding to you because I had like 5 other people talking to me. Count it as a conversation if I respond to you.

Absolutely. Like the state of Israel. — StreetlightX

And everyone who supports capitalism, or who thinks their own culture is special, or who supports the police etc.... I've never really been personally offended by you because your general hatred for humanity is just so widespread that I've never really felt personally attacked.

I'd ask you what your stance on is on violence but I've had enough conversations with you to know that you basically just support violence against everyone who doesn't think like you. Bash the fash.

when were we arguing? This is the first time we've talked in this thread.

Maybe try to be less personally offended given I have no idea who you are, and consider my question a reflection of the current atmosphere.

Do you support attacks on jewish/zionist communities in the US? If attacks on Israelis are ok, why not these attacks?

For the most part, the IRA did not intentionally target civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas does, and in doing so effectively legitimizes attacks on Jewish communities elsewhere. If Israeli civilians are valid targets, why not American Jews? Especially ones in "Zionist" communities. We've already seen this start to happen here in the US.

They're Jewish and they're also brown people.

I've stated earlier than Hamas is not the IRA and that these two organizations are not morally comparable.

In any case, white people constantly suppress and murder other white people and I thought ssu flushed this point out pretty well.

EDIT: We've also seen quite a bit of backlash in the US with 26 antisemetic attacks since May 10th in response to Gaza. If israelis are valid targets why not American Jews?

Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against brown people].
Generally not Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against white people]. — Baden

Have you ever been to Israel? If you have then you'd know that most Israelis aren't white. Palestinians and Israelis are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Israelis are POC. And they're indigenous.

You think the Palestinian conflict is only about Israel and Hamas? — ssu

We can bring in Fatah, we can bring in Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, we can bring in Black September, we can bring in whoever you like. I only mention Hamas as they are the main players in Gaza right now. Of course Israel would rather have Fatah in charge but Fatah are no angels, either to the Israelis or the Palestinians who they've been known to embezzle billions from.

But anyway, it's a perpetual war and those in power in Israel totally fine with it. Why seek peace when this off and on -conflict isn't threatening the state? — ssu

I agree, and I'm pessimistic about the current Israeli leadership's interest in genuine peace. I'm also doubtful of Hamas' interest in peace. A low intensity war serves political purposes for both sides, still I don't draw moral equivalency between a democratic state and a terrorist group. I've stated many times that I'm not binding myself to a position where I need to justify everything Israel does - I'll attempt to make sense of some of it, but I'm not up to the task of defending everything.

Fundamentally though we need to be forward-looking if we ever hope to make peace as opposed to looking back. When one group of people pits blame on entirely one side it's extremely counterproductive and it just makes that side defensive. I believe many young people have an interest in peace and I hope to see this pay dividends in later years assuming the violence doesn't escalate and hatred doesn't enter peoples' hearts through repeated calls to past injustices and demonization of the enemy. We can help accomplish this through dialogues and communication but this is difficult because Hamas will arrest Palestinians for engaging with Israelis, still there is hope.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion?

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

You can certainly conceive of different moral systems, and you can follow systems like utilitarianism which will likely be in tune with common moral intuitions some 90% of the time. The interest comes when these two schools differ, and the older I get the more I've come to believe that there are such things as absolute moral prohibitions that one must follow even if it leads to greater destruction than otherwise or one's own certain death. For instance, a community cannot surrender their old or their children to appease an evil enemy even if the enemy threatens more retribution otherwise. If evil is going to occur, "let them kill you, but do not cross the line" (this is an old rabbinic saying.)

Part of what grounds our dignity as human beings is moral duty/moral responsibility. When your encourage others to be docile to protect the greater whole we strip people of that moral responsibility, which in turn dehumanizes us. People are not numbers to be calculated.

Why would they? — ssu

Ok, so you're telling me that the IRA did not go out of its way to maximize civilian casualties. Something tells me that if they did, the British public would see them quite a bit differently and peace would have been a bit more of an obstacle. The ways in which terror attacks are carried out are deeply relevant both morally and for public perception: A strike on an empty bar on a Sunday morning where the enemy gathers is quite different from one against a crowded night club on a Saturday night where young people gather. The IRA does not strike me as morally comparable to Hamas with both the methods and general hatred coming from Hamas running much deeper. To the best of my understanding, the IRA did not try to maximize civilian casualties or recruit child suicide bombers (in all fairness this one even caused backlash among normal Palestinian civilians.) The IRA also did not seek to destroy the UK or define their vision in uncompromising dogmatic religious language. Take a look at the Hamas charter:

https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

Yet the conflict in Ireland, not just in Northern Ireland but the whole history from the Irish revolt and the IRA, to Irish Independence and then "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland is quite comparable to the Palestinian conflict, if we separate from this the wars that Israel has fought with it's neighbors. — ssu

Unfortunately we can't make this separation otherwise the history and moral judgments that we draw just don't make sense. If we don't consider the wars then it just looks like Israel just grabbed the land out of nowhere.

We need to consider the circumstances under which the land was taken. The conflict cannot be viewed in isolation, it must be viewed as part of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, and even in this conflict things aren't black-and-white. Egypt also helps with the blockade against Gaza because they don't support Hamas either. Others just conveniently ignore the fact the if the Arab countries wanted they could relieve the pressure, but they don't. If your own people aren't stepping into help when they could that is definitely its own issue. Jews have always accepted other Jews into Israel even when doing so was a serious difficulty.

That's the difference between SOPs. — ssu

Sure we can talk about SOPs and this would be useful discussion to have. I'd suspect the USSR would have been much, much more than brutal than Israel here. I'm certain the Nazis would have been much more brutal as well. I'd suspect the Israeli response would be roughly in line with the US on an issue like this and we can try to draw some numbers. If the US is averaging 2k/year civilians dead in the war on terror then Israel is doing even better, on average and that number includes militants. In these discussions it can be difficult to determine what exactly qualifies as a "humane" number. You drew an example from the Lebanon conflict earlier, but Lebanon was an actual war as opposed to dealing with the Palestinians.

It would still be an extremely useful bit of information to know how IDF SOPs compare with those of the US and UK in low intensity conflicts.

And usually they are quite cynical about both sides. — ssu

I'm gonna have to keep it brief today because I have been inundated with responses and I just can't get to everything. In any case, I'm fine with this general position. I certainly agree that Israel should take steps to make its operational procedures more humanitarian, but I refuse a moral equivalence between the standard operating procedures of the IDF and those of Hamas and other terrorist groups.

The Lebanon example could maybe make sense if IDF soldiers had been attacked from there before and had the place was walled off or restricted as a no-go area. Otherwise the practice seems wrong to me.

You can compare to other armed forces that operate in an low-intensity environment. I think the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland are the best example of taking another strategy. Even today Police Stations in Northern Ireland are like miniature military fortresses. — ssu

I don't know if these conflicts are comparable. I haven't studied the IRA conflict in detail, but have IRA members ever ran through London stabbing other people indiscriminately until they were eventually shot? Have they ever disguised bombs as balloons and flown them towards Elementary schools? Do hundreds of them throw loads of rocks at random British civilians for no reason other than that they are British? How about random drive-by shootings on civilians? How about recruiting and brainwashing Irish children to blow themselves up at a restaurant? Now imagine growing up your entire life hearing about these things committed against your ethnic group. Every year it was something different. Who would have thought a few dozen stabbing sprees would follow suicide bombings in bars?!

What is so confusing? All I was saying was that we should not frame the conflict like X. Some posters do frame things as X. I do not. I don't know what about this is so confusing for you, but by all means jump into bed with those who condone the genocide of LGBTQ in Palestine.

You can play your little "gotcha" games with me that no one else understands, I don't care, but maybe keep in mind that there's another poster here who categorically refuses to condemn Hamas for the repression and murder of LGBTQ Palestinians, or for anything for that matter.

So when I accuse someone of viewing the world in black-and-white terms it's because I know this person's posting history and it's not without just cause.