When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not. — Benkei

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.

The Palestinians reject a two state solution because they are opposed to Israel regardless of government style. Jewish self-rule is a slap in the face.

Even though the Palestinians don't have their own state their rule is basically autonomous. Hamas controls Gaza proper, Israel does not control Gaza proper. They manage their own internal affairs and they are not Israeli puppets.

According to the Arab/Palestinian narrative, the tragedy begins with the Nakba. The occupation, according to Hamas at least, begins then. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv are considered occupied Palestine.

From ChatGPT:

Approximately 58% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 62% in Gaza support the continuation of conflict with Israel until all of historic Palestine is regained, even if a two-state solution is achieved. This reflects a significant portion of the population desiring the reclamation of all territories historically identified as Palestine, indicating a preference for a one-state solution over a two-state solution among many Palestinians​ (The Washington Institute)​​ (The Times of Israel)

When? — ssu

Before this current war on 10/7. Palestinian children shows and schools have been inculcating hate for decades. I don't ever recall Israeli television shows teaching Israelis to hate their neighbor or glorifying martyrdom. Israel does however have a beautiful three-tiered cemetery that commemorates its war dead.

I think you should notice how Israel is changing too. — ssu

Always open to hearing new info.

Help me understand why it is SPECIFICALLY Wittgenstein where I see this?? — schopenhauer1

Well, I took a class on Wittgenstein years ago in undergrad from very much a Wittgensteinian asshole. Early Wittgenstein (Tractatus-era) is very different from the later Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein. Basically a 180. We studied later Wittgenstein.

I think it partly stems from the fact that Wittgenstein's followers consider his work as brilliant yet underappreciated by mainstream philosophers & academics. Anyway, Wittgenstein challenges an Augustinian approach to language which undergirds or is presupposed by not only by much modern philosophers but in other fields as well.

But it was an interesting class. I remember one day one of the topics we discussed wasn't "did Moses exist" but "what would it mean for Moses to exist?" and this still resonates with me. The biblical Moses does A, B, C, D etc. -- according to the Bible -- that is the "biblical moses." But if he only did e.g. A & C would he still be "Moses?" Or what if his name wasn't even Moses but something else but maybe he did "A"? I think this to myself everytime someone says Moses wasn't a "real."

I'm critical about Israel and the Zionists setting the agenda there because of the power difference and continuous 75 years of human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel, whereas Palestinian war crimes are sporadic and reactionary (suicide bombings followed oppression not the other way around). — Benkei

You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. It was Muslim land previously, after all. Islam already includes Judaism so Judaism is a step backwards from their perspective. I actually do understand them. God has spoken through their prophet Muhammad but the Jews will not accept the revelation. It must be frustrating.

And there is a very long, complicated history of violence that goes back well before the establishment of Israel. From the Jewish perspective things do not begin with Israel. Also palestinian attacks, for whatever reason, are very often against random civilians intentionally. It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy.

You do understand that there's a war going on? And yes, there's plentiful of vitriol and hatred with the Palestinian camp. And similar opinions are plenty in the Jewish side too. — ssu

I was talking before the war. You will see Palestinian kindergarten students decked out in terrorist gear murdering Israeli hostages openly for kindergarten graduation ceremonies. You will see Palestinian mothers openly wishing their children become martyrs for palestine. It is inculcated in them from an early age and you see it in their children's shows. We've seen a generation raised on this under Hamas rule in Gaza and earlier. It is just not the same on the Israeli side. There's anger, of course, but it's not the same.

On 10/7 that the murderers rode in joyous. Jubilant. I guess it makes sense: Go have fun robbing, raping and torturing the enemy and worst comes to worst and you die you just go to Heaven as a martyr. Life is short, enjoy it! There is no parallel concept in Judaism. I once saw a Palestinian girl complain how the IDF were cowards who hid behind their tanks because God forbid they actually value their lives. Are the zionists to blame for this mindset? Did the evil Jews inculcate the Palestinians not to care about the value of material life?

Yes such violence degrades. It sows fear and hatred. So the Israeli right rises to power to protect its own. But no Jew is under the belief that all palestinians must either be killed or converted to judaism. judaism is not a religion which seeks to spread/universalize; islam is.

I know you hate Palestinians because you're conditioned by the idiots you surround yourself with but that was a really dumb reply. — Benkei

You don't get what it's like because nobody hates you. No one hates the Dutch. No one raises their children to hate the Dutch. Be thankful you don't have to deal with that, and this begins well before the state of Israel. I don't hate Palestinians but am wary of them. You point the finger at me but I can tell you like muslims more than jews.

Actually, it might be a contributing factor.

Maybe all Palestinian maladies can be blamed on the Jews.

What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband? — Vera Mont

Surely the Jews had a role in this one too.

but both are far more complex than the you have represented. — Vera Mont

I was satirizing a position. Some users will essentially blame all Palestinian maladies on the Jews.

And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation.

Had this plan been agreed to, what exactly does Israel get? A promise of peace and a renunciation of violence from the current Palestinian administration? Would things have changed had this new Palestinian state began importing or creating WMDs? Or what happens if terrorism had continued from a non-government source?

Would I say that the Palestinians have a wicked culture? Well, I don't know what else to call a culture which openly and proudly teaches its children to kill Israelis. Israel should do its best to remove the source of this (the governments which teach it), but even after the war the palestinian people ought to undergo a massive re-education otherwise the same problems will just emerge. You cannot base a culture on the notion that one is entitled to use whatever means necessary to rectify a historical injustice. Arabs and Jews have both been ethnically cleansed and subject to historic injustices, yet life must continue forward.

Nobody has said that this was a warcrime. — ssu

The Geneva convention do prohibit causing environmental damage. Given the political nature of international organizations, it would clearly be no matter to them to e.g. have charged ancient Israel with environmental war crimes while ignoring things like muslims in concentration camps in china. Many "war crimes" like this are surely on the books but prosecution and enforcement are the important matters. If one country is placed under a microscope while others ignored it detracts from the legitimacy.

Nobody is telling that this is "ethnic cleansing". It's when you deliberately move people away against their will in order for make way for your own population. I think this is quite clear.

If the Gazans are removed and Israeli settlers move in then, yes, that is ethnic cleansing. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza or more in settlers but we'll have to see.

It's tricky though. If a formerly ethnically cleansed population were to retake their land we could call it both "ethnic cleansing" if the occupier was forced out or fled but also "decolonization."

Biblically speaking, being ethnically cleansed was often interpreted as a sign that something had gone wrong with your own people to have been conquered like that. Sometimes populations get dispossessed due to their own wickedness. Or it could just be God's plan.

I don't damn him, but his interpretation, like the serpent's, is power-centric. He sees that God is the one in charge and he doesn't like that. He doesn't like that God sets rules. He defines freedom in opposition to these rules. He wants to put his own mind and his own conception of reality above everything else due to his own boundless faith in his own reasoning and intellectual capacities. Recognizing God's authority would mean recognizing someone smarter than him -- something beyond him, greater than him. It's an ego thing, which is the exact thing the serpent appeals to with Eve eat the apple, defy God, and you will become great like God.

In the Mesopotamian cosmology the god Marduk emerges dominant after prevailing over his fellow Gods through brute force. Hebrew writers deliberately sought to counter such ideas.

How about for your own actions in war. As I've stated, abiding the laws of war don't hinder you ability to fight an enemy. — ssu

In the 8th century BC Assyria attacked Israel and the biblical account has Israel destroying vegetation and wells to deprive the Assyrian army of resources to sustain their siege. Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? Maybe the ICJ would have convicted them. Or the UN issued a resolution against it.

"Adam and Eve" were slaves punished with mortality by The Master for learning that they do not have to be slaves by learning to disobey (i.e. how to free themselves). :fire:

You define freedom as defiance to God. You are the serpent. :grimace:

Sure, different types of enemies are dealt with in different ways. I had difficulty extracting any universal principles re: war from the text in the way that a just war theorist would do.

Thou shalt not murder.

After all, the Abrahamic tradition begins with a woman disobeying "the Lord" who forbade her from eating fruit from a "Tree of Knowledge" (truth): Hebrew (JCI) scriptures depict "the original sin" as a woman thinking for herself by "seeking truth".

"as soon as you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God..." (3:5)

The serpent entices eve by associating godliness with defiance of god and power rather than strength of character.

"Original idea" is not an idea until Augustine.

I don't think you'd find the religious practice of the Orthodox Jew essentially the same as the fundamentalist Christian. — Hanover

:100:

A case could be made that Christianity, specifically branches like evangelical Christianity, are a bit like "inverse Judaism." I'm inclined to agree that there's no "single essence" save for what another user mentioned earlier -- the search for Truth.

A legitimate war is if you are attacked, you can justifiably defend yourself. Even the Old Testament in the Bible says so — ssu

Where?

But then again, who invented the philosophy game - and why? — Vera Mont

Philosophers invented the philosophy game so they could play philosophy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

More likely, the man makes no decision at all; is incapable of a coherent thought, let alone and ethical consideration: he just jumps in and saves his genetic legacy. — Vera Mont

Yes. But now we're playing the "human behavior game" and not the "philosophy game." In the "philosophy game" one strives for rationality at all times.

How would that be better than letting emotion decide? — Vera Mont

So we can act in any number of ways. Maybe we're mad at our child that day and choose to save the other.

Reasonable action is action in accordance with what we are believing to be true/reflects the nature of reality. So we both share the assumption that the children have equal moral value. However, I believe that a father has greater moral duties to his child than a stranger. That's our difference, I think.

If we believe we all have the same exact duties towards all children then why not flip a coin? That would actually showing impartiality in a situation where both decisions are exactly equal and to show partiality would not be acting in accordance with that fundamental truth. The truth being that both are equal and neither choice is better than the other.

I'm concerned here with reasonable action.

We can say "all fathers have the same duties to all children everywhere" and this takes us into Peter Singer territory which is more utilitarian, which @Benkei interestingly does not like.

Who declared it immoral to choose one's own child over another child? — Vera Mont

I was commenting on an idea brought up by Benkei that filial relationship is not morally relevant (ought not to be viewed as morally relevant) - thus, one morally ought to show zero bias when it comes to saving e.g. two drowning children with one being a stranger and one being one's own child.

They are just two children with equal moral worth and there would be something not quite right about a man diving in to save his own child when the two children are really equal. Perhaps a coin flip ought to decide it.

Probably the more intuitive idea is that one should first secure their own realms of responsibility, and then branch outwards as opposed to first and foremost being responsible for the entire world.

That's not always or necessarily a bad thing. — Vera Mont

Some families can be toxic but I do not believe the dissolution of all families would be something we should strive towards.

No need to go into that topic.

Apparently you'd consider a father morally blameworthy for saving his child (showing preference) over a random child because it would be immoral to favor one's own kin in moral decision making. It's just seemingly another instance of a someone proclaiming something to be moral that no one would actually follow (is grossly contrary to human nature) and would lead to the complete dissolution of the family unit if followed. This is why I dismissed thinkers like e.g. Peter Singer years ago. Unless I'm understanding you wrong?

In abstract, impersonal judgments I have no problem treating everyone as moral equals, but it works both ways too: If the father isn't going to favor his son, why should the son favor his father when it comes to e.g. caring for him in old age when there's thousands of other fathers that he could also care for? Complete dissolution of the family unit.

Some of his quotes, like, the avoidance of pain will lead to being content in life, is still something I live by. — Shawn

As a rule, I only take life advice from people who I would actually want to be. Arthur Schopenhauer does not fall within that category. I don't think he ever loved. IIRC he was deeply resentful of women and wished it was better for him to have never been born. Why would I take life advice from someone like that?

I'll listen to his insights on philosophy and he was surely brilliant with his syncretism, but not someone who I would want to model my life after. Very much open to hearing his insights on religions and the nature of reality though.

I'm not undermining anything. You insist on filial relationships being morally relevant. I show that they aren't because they say nothing about moral worth. — Benkei

Benkei, are you able to actually abide by this morality or are we ruminating in theoryland?

If your son and another random child were drowning at sea and you could only save one, would it be wrong to favor your own? Should you maybe flip a coin to not show preference? Go ahead, treat your own family like anyone else in the world. You're all equal, after all - individual moral units.

EDIT: And when you do swim out to save him then you're morally wrong (for showing filial bias) and worthy of condemnation. This puts a new perspective on your condemnation of Israel.

I think of it like inverse Judaism in a way. There are general trends.

In the Talmud grey hairs are seen as a sign of reverence and dignity. This isn't wrong, but J stresses the importance of getting in touch with one's inner child. I'd be interested as to whether other Talmudic thinkers reach this conclusion.

The focus, traditionally in Judaism, is that righteousness is a ladder that one should climb and the higher you reach on that ladder the better it is -- those people should occupy the best positions the 'seats of honor at the banquet'. J's focus is those on the margins of society 'blessed be the poor in spirit.'

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

He does say things like this and in gThomas he tells his followers that after he departs to have James the Just lead them -- James was known as a Judaizer within the early movement.

All I'm saying is that perhaps legitimately internal debates became "seized upon" by the Gospel writers to make Jesus "other", which is necessary to help move him along as NOT an itinerant blend of Pharisaic and Essenic Judaism, but a sort of non-contexted, universal Cynic.

It's really just a love affair with a character. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like J.

I spoke with a rabbi once who told me that the Jewish messiah would never scrub his disciples' feet. But in J's world "the greatest among you will be your servant" so scrubbing their feet is basically his way of flexing. There is no other biblical character that I am aware of who embraces servitude so devoutly. But it's not a weak servitude - it's a servitude which is supposedly prepared to sacrifice oneself in an instant and the Pharisees call him on it.

I read J and think of him like an artist in a way -- he paints a vision of an ideal reality with his words. No one always enacts J's teachings. No one is going to go to prison and think "the greatest among you will be your servant."

Yet there is a time and a place. The standard is still there.

Hillel says "what is hateful do not do to others" which permits neutral actions. J says "in all things do unto others as you'd have done to you."

In most societies one strives upwards -- grow old, wise, build respect in your career, study hard, etc. etc. -- it's all true.

But you know what they say about respect:

“Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be.”
― Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

J pitches a fundamentally different vision -- a different side to things -- which doesn't necessarily invalidate the old, but can supplement it. I love reading both Jewish wisdom but I think virtually everyone could benefit from reading and pondering J.

Were these Arabs muslim? Don't worry, 180, you'll always be my favorite racist.

Clearly, you have no clue how segregation is established in Israël. — Benkei

Have you ever been there? I mean actually stepped foot in the country. Or are you going to come at me with Al-Jazeera? There were no "no muslims" or "no arabs allowed" signs. Muslims are not barred from holding high positions or political office. Now tell me again how Israel is literally Hitler and how there's rampant discrimination and racism everywhere. And Islam is not a race. The name literally mean "submission" but it's not my job to educate you.

We clearly differ in how we view international politics/legal organizations. If the UN & ICC existed in the early 40s (or the 50s and 60s) and focused excessively on the US I'd take the same attitude while you'd be like "well they're not wrong!!" It's all just political. Thankfully the ICC has no jurisdiction in Israel.

Additionally, the charge of "apartheid" means zero if the entire West is "apartheid" for not kneeling to Islam. :roll:

And if your far right isn't stopped things will surely get worse for the muslims too. Is the Netherlands an apartheid state because of the burqa ban? Are all muslim migrants treated exactly as they should? Are they freely allowed to wear their religious symbols everywhere? Yes Israel struggles with an often intolerant minority as the West is as well. Multiculturalism has failed: Intolerant minorities do not assimilate or "melt" into the host countries.

The same aim as it has always been: remove all Palestinians from Palestine and create a greater Israel from the river to the sea with Apartheid in its borders; where non-Jews will have less rights than Jews and Mizrahi, Sephardic and Ethiopian Jews will be discriminated against by their right wing supremacist AshkeNazi "brothers". — Benkei

If the goal is to remove all Palestinians from Palestine then that would mean purging Israel's own Palestinian civilians. Why hasn't Israel done this if that's its goal? Where is Israel going to send them? Are there plans? Will they be building death camps where Ashkenazi Jews will run the selection process regarding who gets to live and who goes to slave labor?

If Israel did expel all of its Arab muslims that would basically put it on par with many of the arab nations.

@180 Proof Looks like someone's found a friend today. Can't resist a shot at the white Jews.

which do you agree that the NT was written and written and presented in a way to create a certain narrative Jesus? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

And if you do accept this, do you agree that if you simply take what is presented at face value, and justify that it must be the actual history, this is a form of apologetics? — schopenhauer1

Maybe it happened differently or is theoretical, the basic issue is purity and not washing hands. I don't believe Job actually happened exactly as described but the book still presents important/true/profound ideas (one might even say divine revelation) and is true in its own sense regardless of whether it happened exactly the way described.

Can we agree that the virgin birth didn't happen, and the Logos is tacked on? — schopenhauer1

Yes. A lot of mythology works its way in. I can't even get straight who J is exactly suppose to be -- the "son of man" of Daniel? The "suffering servant?" We all have our personal Jesus's. He is amazing character unlike anyone I have ever read. I think I mostly closely or generally think of him as perhaps the kin of David. I much prefer him over David though as a model for how to be in this world. J is absolutely amazing with women.

If you have a criticism about the basic premise I'm open to hearing it. I will take the scenario as gospel until shown otherwise. E.g. if handwashing wasn't a thing at that time that would be relevant. This position on purity is also stated in multiple gospels with more or less similar responses from J.

I'm not sure how we would go about "deconstructing" this. I believe handwashing was a ritual at this point so it doesn't seem out of the question that one could be chided for not doing it. The ritual surely has a certain logic behind it. I would need to look into it further but presumably it serves to prevent impurities.

The issue seems to be J's followers eating with unwashed hands. We don't need to take the footnote as gospel.

But as to your specific quote, again, it's an emphasis of intent versus ritual. Does the text say exactly the context? Probably not. — schopenhauer1

It does give the context. The Pharisees chide Jesus's followers for eating with unwashed hands and this is J's response. At first glance, for me at least, it just seems like Jesus does away with much of Leviticus. On Christian bibles it even has a footnote that says something like "all foods were declared clean."

Did you know that in Genesis when this notion of "clean" and "unclean" animals is introduced it originally refers to an animal's sacrificial fitness? It is originally referred to in the Noah story.

But the idea is generally taken like this: Evil speech defiles the soul, but anything consumed passes through the body and at some point exits it and it does not affect the spiritual plane.

Interestingly, his ideas of divorce are more Shammaite (divorce should be rare), so he had his own takes on things, but I am saying he had more of a lenient approach to the Law. — schopenhauer1

Yes. He once again here ties back to Genesis:

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? (Matthew 19)

J says divorce should only be permitted in cases of adultery and that not all of us are called to marry - an interesting early consideration of LGBTQ.

I see the sentiment that God gave Sabbath for man

I interpret this as J saying that man should be able to do what he wants on the Sabbath. I think we're both Jewish so we're both away of the restrictive rules on the Sabbath that are intended to keep one from not working.

This is a theme amongst prophets.. that ethical behavior is what is of utmost importance.

Not a Jesus theme, actually. His emphasis is more on molding internal attitudes and I guess what I'd call "inward purification" and fostering faith. His idea is that if you get the right mindset (the heart) and transform yourself internally the good deeds will follow, but emphasis on good deeds shouldn't be placed front and center.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well." (Matthew 23).

If you think the End Times are near, and you take the Prophets like Isaiah seriously, impracticality is perspective, isn't it?

I read J as incessantly concerned about man's salvation/the state of his soul as opposed to his body; he says don't try to predict when the end time occurs. His audience seems to be those who are really deep in the hole righteousness wise. And death is omnipresent in Jesus's view. It could occur at any moment, and death does lie closer to the unrighteous. I consider his impracticality in this light; the man is also positive about the existence of an afterlife, after all. J never instructs his followers on how to live longer lives or maintain good health. I suppose whether one lives to 30, 60, or 90 is no major factor for J.

Jesus said, "There was a rich man who had much money. He said, 'I shall put my
money to use so that I may sow, reap, plant, and fill my storehouse with produce, with
the result that I shall lack nothing.' Such were his intentions, but that same night he died.
Let him who has ears hear." (gospel of thomas, non-canonical).

In any case, I'm onboard with your judgment that Jesus had a Pharisaic-Essenaic background. He is Jew. There's actually a lot about J's past that I question. For instance, in gJohn there's a well scene with him and a samaritan woman. I'm sure you know the deal with well scenes in the Tanakh. He is not an ascetic either.

Jews may claim Greeks were a factor in their culture, that privilege doesn't apply to folks from other nations. Yet, a factor in a culture isn't the same as part of one's culture. Greece was an inextricable part of Latin/Roman culture, from its inception to the fall of the West, yet Latins saying "Aristotle and Zeus and Perikles are my culture" would be awfully weird, Augustine, Jupiter, and Scipio are their culture instead. — Lionino

Sure. Yet according to the Bible Japeth (progenitor of the Greeks) and Shem (progenitor of the Hebrews) are both sons of Noah. "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Greek methods of storytelling/literature work their way into the Bible. The Jews love Alexander the Great yet go to war with the Seleucids.