I have to say, I find absolutely nothing praise worthy in this story. It seems like weirdo childish moralising about things that don't make a huge amount of sense - and works, only in the infantalising context of a pre-school. — AmadeusD

Ok -- I'll add some more context. Moses likely stutters. He is "slow of speech" so it's a reasonable inference to make (and one made by religious tradition, although he could have some form of aphasia possibly). Can a stutterer lead a nation? Take on speaking roles at work? It's a grey zone imo. One could easily conclude that the stutterer ought to navigate himself to silent professions or professions that involve minimal speaking. That would be a fairly typical view.. pragmatic. "Know your place." But such pragmatism is ultimately stifling. And it applies to other conditions as well. I love how empowering the dialogue is. Think about you would deal with a son who stutters chronically. Should he shy away from speaking roles? Leadership positions?

It is realistic. Some people are disabled. Not differently-abled. The blind cannot be surveyors (the the typical sense - don't get hair-splitty). — AmadeusD

It's not always clear where the line is though. Is the stutterer disabled or differently abled? Yes, natural limits exist but we should test them. Strive for better. That is how we uplift. "On Earth as it is in heaven."

As noted before, I see several extremely obvious and pervasive literary problems with the Bible. It isn't a good work of literature unless it's got some Religious reality to it. IN that sense, its chaotic and self-contradictory tense is actually helping me take it more seriously. If there were not these aspects, it would be clearly the writings of a iron age buffoon. — AmadeusD

I would recommend reading it with commentary and consider that most public copies are Christian-biased and problematic translations. I don't know which version you've read. You've read the entire thing? You really didn't like any of it?

So, apparently, the scriptures aren't trash. — AmadeusD

I certainly don't think scripture is trash. Some are better written than others though. You do know that the English translations are just translations.

THe bible is written by hand of Human, sourced by the Mind of human.

Is it still the perfect piece of Lit? — AmadeusD

Still an amazing work of lit. And I do believe it was written by humans.

"better" begs the question, by ignoring it. why? Because you are religious and therefore disposed to this opinion. I personally think Enki and Ninmah is a better story. — AmadeusD

I quite enjoyed this story! The lesson is that most disabilities can be accommodated by society and that the disabled can serve a role in realistic proportion with their condition. For instance a man without legs can still be a skilled metalworker. A good lesson although the ending where not even Ninmah can help the very disabled is a little sad. I'd give it B tier. Good - especially for deep antiquity!

In Exodus 4 God deliberately assigns a man with a speech disability the task of talking with the Egyptian head of state and leading a nation. You see, in the Enki and Ninmah account the man with the speech problem would have been assigned a silent profession. But no, not here. God gets infuriated with Moses's insinuation that he should not lead on account of his disability but instead of punishing Moses while burning with anger he helps him by assigning him his brother as an aid. The story not only affirms the dignity of the disabled by affirming that they were created with divine intentionality, but also conveys that those who struggle are not intrinsically barred from certain elite professions like leadership. S tier. Divine revelation.

By the way I am not particularly religious (it's been years since I've attended services), just a reader of books. I just call it as I see it.

Sure. But the reason to think it has some providence other than a human mind? Your discomfort with the potential that a human mind invented it. Standard. But not reasonable. — AmadeusD

Even if so, God is the cause of the everything, which includes our thoughts and imagination. I'd settle for "divinely inspired."

Thank you for sharing this story with me.



Enki & Ninmah for those interested (4 minute video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxR8YYId4lE

I don't think you're adequately engaged with this exchange.
This does not say anything, whatever, about the claim quoted. That said, I appreciate what you are saying there and would further that point, to say when it runs into empirical problems, there's no good reason to remain with the Scripture. — AmadeusD

I don't understand how God communicating through dreams "flies in the face" of his nature or "runs into empirical problems." The Bible is our primary reference point for God... unless you've had some personal experience you'd like to share. Genesis informs us that it is in his nature to communicate through dreams.

This all boils down to your personal discomfort with something. — AmadeusD

I'm massively impressed by the sophistication of an account of a phenomena/how to frame it.

Given we have more complex, more morally interesting stories from older periods than the Biblical, I cannot see how its reasonable - which was all I was speaking about/around. Regarding current moral writing, I cannot understand how it's possible this story strikes you with more import than does say Reasons and Persons, or Animal Suffering. Warm fuzzie feelies? — AmadeusD

Show me a better literary account of disability than the one presented in Exodus. Also, I would like to know which stories you're referring to. I would figure the Bible is the greatest work of literature... at least western literature, that exists. I know of no better ancient account of disability. Or modern, for that matter.

I think we can appeal to the traditions/texts themselves to write off certain suggestions. — AmadeusD

On the contrary, Scripture (Genesis for sure, possibly Exodus?) does very clearly describe God as communicating through dreams. It is characteristic of the Elohist source (E).

The only reason to move on from these suggestions — AmadeusD

I don't need to. If God communicates through dreams he can also communicate through what we'd call hallucinations. I'd wager hallucination is more likely than aliens. Ezekiel surely hallucinated and saw visions.

But it is a story, like any other. — AmadeusD

Story doesn't mean false. Neither does myth. It may be embellished. I admit this is where my intuition kicks in. The story, imho, is just too sophisticated to have been written by ancient man inventing something.

There are other ancient accounts of disability -- maybe it is a curse by the gods, or maybe it's just a medical issue to be pitied as the Greeks posited -- but the story of the Hebrew Bible on this one is on a different level. I am referring to Exodus 4, by the way. 4:11 IIRC. God's dealing with Moses's concerns over his speech condition. There's many layers to the dialogue but the God character shows unbelievable compassion and (imho) wisdom towards the issue.

It just gets me wondering. It's like the dialogue is too good to be true. It is superior to any modern treatment of the issue in literature or film that I know of.

I just don't understand foregoing reason to achieve comfort. — AmadeusD

And what would "reason" tell us? To look within ourselves? :roll:

There is better evidence for these two, than the Bible story. Delusion and spontaneous mystical experience also. Kind of the point. Your motivation for rejecting these (not this specifically, but as a mode of illustrating the short-fall of reason), more reasonable, conclusions, is that they are uncomfortable to you, or you would rather another answer.
That seems to me, to be unreasonable. — AmadeusD

How do we differentiate between hallucination or spontaneous mystical experience and God? Could God not speak through those means? He's described as communicating through dreams. It's silly to ask for "evidence" here because no one knows what that means. What would qualify as evidence? Could you give me some examples? Some criterion? Rational inquiry is limited here as it is limited in life.

Yeah maybe his name was actually Noses. Or something else entirely.

This being clearly false, is motivation for my enquiry, largely. One need not chose and answer to any of these existential questions to properly participate in the world. — AmadeusD

I'm not talking about abstract impersonal questions. I'm talking about questions like, say, how do we understand/frame disability? Such content is revealed to Moses and has deep repercussions.

— AmadeusD

That's fair. I just don't understand why that would be motivation to reject, or accept, any claims. Or, reject good ones that you don't like. Just trying to see if you can pick up that thread in your mode of thinking.. — AmadeusD

Because such truths lead to life and self-actualization while others lead to death. The question is beyond rationality, but an approach must be chosen. I think that's the best I can do.

Yes, we are. — AmadeusD

How do we consider evidence for and against e.g. God communicating with Moses? I don't even know what it would mean for God to speak to Moses. If we were transported back to Moses's day and heard a booming voice thundering down would that be God? Could be aliens. Or we could be hallucinating.

This speaks the same language as what I was enquiring about. Doesn't it make you uncomfortable that a random desire to not be given multiple responses has you committed to certain cosmological 'truths' despite, perhaps, the evidence? — AmadeusD

Despite the evidence? I don't see where evidence factors into it. Did God speak to Moses? Are we to consider the evidence for and against such a claim?

What fascinates me about the book is that it reveals certain things that we wouldn't otherwise know or take for granted. It's just my intuition picking things up. I find some of the dialogues to be fascinating. I find some of the parables to be transformative.

It's a fascinating thought exercise if nothing else trying to work through these dialogues.

It is a personal issue. If I'm looking for an answer to a major life question about my being I don't want to be told e.g. "well it could be A, or maybe think about B, or possibly C, anyway we'll never really know and no one can know because a billion different gods (or philosophers) think a billion different things" -- I need conclusions. We all need to plant our flag somewhere and our own rationality will only get us so far. The world is too much for our own limited rationality to wrap its head around -- I couldn't even wrap my mind around myself nevermind the world.

There's surely a historical aspect, but it's also just my honest conclusion. I'll break from my religious roots in some ways, but not in this one. It's more personal than historical.

But I will concede that pagan gods are less jealous, and therefore there is a sense in which paganism is more tolerant.

The gods could be quite vicious to each other, but there was always a number of them and no one had a monopoly on truth. Polytheism allows the freedom for one to switch between value systems. Even the gods were subordinate to greater, more ancient primordial forces. I think polytheism is inherently more tolerant than monotheism; but personally I don't want plurality when it comes to the big questions of life.

Yes certain things are absolute in the Bible, such as man being made in the divine image and that God's creation is good. There is no 'do not kill', but there is 'do not murder.' Moses's speech condition is in no unclear terms framed as being the creation of God. I want certain things to be set -- i.e., beyond argumentation.

Before the Isaac episode, God tells Abram that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars above and that "he trusted in the Lord, and [God] reckoned it to [Abram's] merit" (Gen 15:6). Abram's trust in God - his faith - is viewed as a positive aspect of Abram. But as you have mentioned Abraham does bargain with God elsewhere so questioning is acceptable too sometimes.

I remember reading Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception & Perennial Philosophy years ago and he comes to a similar conclusions regarding our inherent connectedness. I've heard such ideas before and they're intriguing but I'm not quite sure what the upshot is. Where does one go from there?

The statement is interesting. I guess you consider it as something to obey. Did you impose this belief yourself? I agree with you. Philosophy is a very reliable tool which helps us to understand ourselves and what is around... But it is not the epitome. I often felt lost when I searched for answers regarding ethics and values. — javi2541997

I found that the rational inquiry for ethics and values didn't help me understand my own place in the world at all. Even if I did get attached to a new ethical theory, so what? Why do I have to always obey it? What did e.g. utilitarianism tell me about me as a person? Not very much except that I'm basically one ethical unit among many. That's why you get these philosophers who may be very book smart but fail as people and live unhappy lives because they can't function in society or form meaningful relationships.

I believe in God because I find revealed wisdom that is so rare and brilliant within the Bible that I have no term for other than divine revelation. I don't know how ancient people would have reached these conclusions just by themselves especially given we as moderns didn't. It's like recovering lost knowledge. Divine dialogues reveal truths that reason just cannot penetrate yet are necessary for life/a healthy society.

Well it was authored by men. Did you at least find wisdom in any of the dialogues?

Sure. So the obvious conclusion is that there is no consistent account of the nature of god as posited.

Now from this we might conclude either that he doesn't exist or that he does and we just have to accept that he is inscrutable.

You get to choose. — Banno

The Bible is not an ideological monolith. Different works present different takes on the subject. Why would we expect ideological uniformity from over 1000 years of texts? Read it and make your own judgments.

God is inscrutable in his entirety. Yet he does reveal certain things within the pages of the Bible. And certain things are consistent throughout.

Good post. I have a few, minor comments.

Scholars generally attribute the oldest texts some time around the 7th century BCE — schopenhauer1

There are poems and fragments of older texts dating back centuries earlier perhaps as early as the 11th century BC for some of the poems which conceptualize God in highly anthropomorphic, warrior-like ways like song of the sea. Perhaps the texts were completed around the 7th century BC?

I also agreed that Abraham is rewarded for his faith and I think this is made pretty clear in the story. From memory, Abraham's faith "was credited to his merit" and this idea was picked up by St. Paul. I don't really see the issue. God can also be bargained with in other stories.

According to Shaye Cohen scribes appear in the second temple period. By scribes he means laymen knowledgeable of the Tanakh.

Yes the general theme of the Tanakh is obey God, follow his directive, and good will come. And of course the inverse is true too. But this isn't universal as seen in Job and Ecclesiastes.

I love the Bible but I don't often engage organized religion in person.

When I was younger I was deeply concerned with morality and ethics and trying to find an objective grounding. As I aged, I found that these religious texts (the Bible, namely) are actually excellent self-help books. "Israel" can be seen as a metaphor for the self, a metaphor for a society, and also of course a history of sorts for the actual Israel. But it's application and relevance is universal.

As I aged my focus shifted away from impersonal ethics to self-improvement/self-actualization. I didn't read the New Testament until I was around 30 (I was raised Jewish) and I realized that the character of Jesus actually makes us more attractive and helps socialize us regardless of religious connotations. I mostly pay attention to what Jesus says (this is how people like Thomas Jefferson read the Bible AFAIK.) I don't mean to preach heresy but until someone can explain the miracles this will be my approach. In any case, if one is truly able to internalize the beliefs and teachings of Jesus I believe one will be fundamentally transformed and I reached that conclusion with zero Christian education.

I love the Old Testament as well. The God character gives divine revelation -- knowledge that humans wouldn't be able to glean either through their own reason or experience. Yet one must believe it if one seeks life. Our own thoughts and beliefs can slowly kill us if left to our own devices. The Old Testament is very much a book concerned with life. It is not about the afterlife. I've found some of the dialogues with God to be extremely helpful.

I believe in God because I have to. It's not a matter of a philosophical proof. I don't hate philosophy (I did major in it after all) but our reason is very limited and impersonal reason often will not help us live well.

If we wish to understand the thought processes of the Islamic State or the Taliban, we need only read the Old Testament. — alan1000

In which man stealing is unequivocally prohibited which should have been enough to shut down the institution of American slavery, yet somehow I notice the pro-slavery crowd seems to have an affinity for the writings of Paul, in the New Testament. :chin:

What I consider correct is somewhat less imposing and absolute. And even subject to change. — Ciceronianus

Personally, I want some things to be absolute, for example the dignity/essential goodness of human life and the way that disability is understood.

Yep. It sits in the foundational story of Abraham, who would sacrifice his son because god wills it, glorifying doing what one is told to do over taking personal responsibility. — Banno

I think you're retrojecting back a 21st century understanding to an individual who supposedly lived in the early 2nd millennium BC when human sacrifice was a normal cultural practice meant to please the gods and bring about good harvests (I don't believe monotheism was a thing at this time). What's there to say that it's wrong? Animals are sacrificed, why not humans?

even then it would still seem that most of the earliest sources have clear references to the divinity of Christ. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, the earliest sources generally dating to the 50s. If we're being generous the late 40s in the case of James. So roughly 15 years between the death of Jesus and the first epistles claiming divinity. 9-10 years in the absolute best case taking 36 AD as his death year.

All of these earliest Christian sources occur after the resurrection which is taken as absolute, undeniable truth. Death itself has been defeated. There were other miracle workers at this time but who else has conquered death?

What the Apostles thought before they wrote anything is of course pure supposition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet we know they were Jews. The messiah coming is one thing; for a Jew to believe God is walking here on Earth is another. From memory, the gospels do mention that Jesus's vision was not unlimited; there were things he did not see like who tugged on his robe. Maybe that was just him knowingly adopting a limited human form. If he truly did conquer death and rose after the third day then all bets are off.

Yet God does seemingly walk among Adam and Eve in Eden. He also visits Abraham in human form in Gen. 18. One thing I notice about Jesus is his affinity for Genesis or at least the ideas and themes present in Genesis (e.g. naturalism, hierarchy reversal, conceptions of cleanliness/uncleanliness). He beckons to a time before Moses.

As for the point on Logos you've lost me. Once God gets divided into 3 you've lost me.

EDIT: Regarding Logos, when I was a philosophy undergrad I was taught Logos meant "reason" or "the word." I understand that by gLuke, Jesus is identified with Logos -- I always just interpreted this as saying that Jesus's words were pure, absolute truth. Perfect sense. This is my understanding but it is likely superficial ("prima facie" :lol: ) because I wasn't born, raised, or educated as a Christian or a Greek apart from a few college philosophy courses.

I was reading Nahum Sarna today on Genesis 1 and he rejects the notion of treating God's fiat -- his creation speech -- as a "magic word" but rather as an expression of his divine will. If Logos is to be found in the bible perhaps book of Job would be a better example? That is, a dialogue between a limited human observer and all knowing God who powerfully responds to the human's questions. But it is through poetry.

From the late 1800s to the latter half of the 20th century biblical scholars "knew" there had been a Council of Jamnia in the late first century where the Hebrew canon was fixed in response to Christianity. Now this is a theory embraced by virtually no one. But the rise and fall of such theories has little to do with new evidence, and more with arguments over the same old evidence, which gain currency. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such a meeting did happen and canon was debated, but we now understand that Jewish canon formation was a process rather than a single fixed event. Certain later texts such as Daniel or Esther were likely discussed at these meetings, but the Torah had been fixed/canonized since the Persian period. By 100 AD canon is largely fixed with only a few later texts being debated. Jamnia/Yavneh is documented in Jewish sources.

Paul's letters are widely taken to be the earliest Christian sources though, which makes the temporal argument seem a bit off. Luke is coming significantly later, perhaps after John, and in any event Luke taken with Acts shows Jesus as quite divine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get that, and I'm no NT scholar... Paul's letters are from the 50s? I understand Paul has his revelation in 33-36 yet never meets Jesus in the flesh. I don't know when along this time period Jesus becomes God in Paul's mind.

In any case, it seems prima facie unlikely to me that in this late second temple period that an educated Jewish preacher would preach and convince his largely Jewish audience that he was indeed God/Adonai -- the one who had talked to Moses and Abraham and Adam. I could be wrong about this. Other messiahs do exist -- Cyrus the great was a messiah. I believe King David was as well who the gospel writers link to Jesus in a likely reference to the prophecy at the end of 2 Samuel. God tells David that he will raise up one of his kin and that "I will be a father to him, and he will be to me a son." I could be wrong about this, but if I had to guess I would throw in with Ehrman that Jesus's divinity came after the death of Jesus.

My point was that if we always just keep looking back there'll always be a reason for violence. Some grievance at play whether current or historical.

No, I was a philosophy major. We thought about big ideas. Like how dumb it is to try to draw a definitive line in this conflict where "everything begins."

But we also understand that certain mindsets are conducive to peace while others are not.

Weren’t you the one saying you consider October 7th to be the beginning of this and that nothing prior matters? — Mikie

Tell me, O wise one, when does it all begin? Who threw the first stone to injure the other? Who destroyed the kingdoms of the other without just cause? What year is the line in the sand where it all begins?

Really? I am familiar with him largely through his name being synonymous with a sort of liberal "debunking" of the Scriptures. — Count Timothy von Icarus

He does have more popular works, but he is a serious scholar. I browse /academicbiblical from time to time and here's what one PhD in the New Testament had to say about Ehrman:

"Ehrman tends to stick to very mainstream positions, but that doesn't mean there aren't substantial groups of scholars who disagree with him. The first example that comes to mind is that he believes in Q, whereas a growing minority of scholars (often influenced by Ehrman's colleague on the other side of the Tobacco Road rivalry, Mark Goodacre) are dispensing with that hypothesis."

I Peter is dated to the early 60s AD if Petrine authorship is accepted, and this puts Jesus being called Lord and prayers to Jesus in with the very earliest Christian texts in existence. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't doubt this, I think Ehrman's concern is whether during Jesus's ministry he and his disciples considered him as God in the flesh.

as Jesus does things in Mark like affirm he is the Christ and talk about coming down on a cloud with the Might One, etc.

Yes, Christ from the Greek christos or "messiah." Ehrman agrees that Jesus considered himself the Jewish messiah. The messiah is a person chosen for a specific purpose or special role by God.

Ehrman is one of the top biblical scholars (biblical historians?) and he tows pretty mainline, well-researched positions so I don't think his views are particularly controversial or should be treated as prima facie wrong. I think it's possible that his views are being misrepresented here.

In any case, by gJohn Jesus is clearly divine while in the earlier gospels it's a little more ambiguous with some of Jesus's statements conveying a clear separation between him and God. So, as the gospels progress Jesus gets increasingly divine and the gospels also become increasingly pro-Roman and paint the Jews in an increasingly bad light. Sort of similar to what happened as the gentiles took over the movement from the early Jewish followers. Paul however clearly views Jesus as divine, and Ehrman would surely agree that Paul viewed him as such.

Regardless, as a thinker I'm quite sympathetic to Jesus and find his views to be profound and radical but also quite controversial. He's a quite dangerous thinker and dare I say his death was even somewhat fitting for a thinker who preached such a hardline dualism/anti-materialism.

EDIT: Jesus does have quite a few parallels with the prophet elijah who existed ~900 years prior. A few examples off the top of my head:

- both conduct food multiplication miracles
- both raise the dead
- both are highly mobile, wandering from place to place, rarely settling down
- both come from humble roots and preach against materialism
- both ascend to heaven

Robert Alter is of the position that the Elijah was used as a template for the Jesus of the gospels. Personally however I find Jesus to be the richer character.

Foul language from a supporter of a foul group. The movement is foulness. Can't say I'm surprised.

deleted.

Like you mentioned earlier, there's a difference between how you treat the individual in the moment versus our philosophical ruminations about a certain topic. I will respect someone's gender pronouns ~99% of the time if dealing with an actual individual. Philosophically, whether a trans man could fit the bill of being a gever is an interesting question.

And if you're a man that wants to be intimate with another man? You're still just as much of a man as someone who wants to be intimate with a woman. — Philosophim

In the Hebrew Bible, they use a few different terms for "man" or "male." The word zachar means male. The word gever means man - it's root g-v-r, ties back to "strength" or "to prevail."

So a adult man is a zachar but not necessarily a gever. And I think this distinction reverberates in society today. Masculinity is achieved, not automatically granted to all males regardless of condition or behavior. So for this reason I think it's wrong to call transwomen "men." They are not. They occupy a unique third space.

Yeah, I would also rather call it a condition rather than a "mental disorder." Do not stigmatize it as a "mental illness." And this applies across a number of conditions.

Transsexualism is in the DSM-5. It is an actual medical condition that one can get diagnosed with. Upon receiving the diagnosis the patient receives a prescription for HRT.

Yet one can be diagnosed as a transsexual and still perform/behave as their assigned gender.

A surprisingly forward look. I was wrong about you. Unless of course you're being disingenuous, you are quite objective with biblical values. In your mind does God allow for such? Or are they like sinners going to hell and this is just a mask? — Vaskane

I don't see where Jesus ever tell his followers to "masc it up" -- what's ultimately important is whether one is "in christ" or not. Maybe someone is more "in christ" in the opposition gender. Gender roles don't play a major focus in the OT either. Jesus says we are not saved by our deeds so who are we to condemn all trans people to hell?

Deut. 22:5 does have a prohibit against crossdressing, but if you look into the hebrew it's actually very interesting and not at all as clearly cut and dry as english bibles make it out to be.

As such, I believe that labeling a transexual person as 'transgendered' creates confusion and harm. — Philosophim

Transsexualism is a condition. A transsexual may present as their assigned gender (especially before they begin HRT), so they may not be transgender at that point. The medical condition transsexualism is for some people the basis of trangenderism - we call that position trans-medicalism.

Could you clarify your claim here? Are you saying that he rejects the idea of sin? Or that there is no sin in Heaven? Or that all Jewish claims of sin he rejects?

Yeah, too bad Hamas hasn’t learned to kill tens of thousands of people the right way. — Mikie

I'm convinced if it were ~80 years ago you'd have been a Hitler fanboy given your incredibly non-judgmental attitude towards the manner in which people die. It's apparently all just sorta the same to you.

You side with the team that intentionally murders the innocent. That's all I'm going to say to you.

And furthermore, I think the Israeli administration sees this as a "window of opportunity" to deal a blow to all enemies and thus they have to milk the traumatic experience of the attack and promote hard views and idea of punishment. Like after Rafah, then starts the war against Hezbollah. There at least the IDF can say that Hezbollah hasn't retreated to the Litani river. If Israel want's to refer to international agreements in the first place. — ssu

I don't know so much about "milking" the trauma when the trauma is still fresh and festering. The brutality of 10/7 was unlike anything many countries have ever experienced. Women raped in front of their families and then the families executed. Whole families and communities tortured before being murdered. The degree of personal brutality exceeds anything the IDF has ever considered. Hamas is much, much more brutal then the IDF and they have no qualms with deliberately targeting civilians whether through deliberate rape, torture, kidnapping, or murder. It's not even close. But they are given a blank cheque by the left to do whatever they want because they are the "oppressed" and even their "noble" savagery cannot compare to the evils of amorphous, 80-year old "Israel."

If the IDF were wicked then the IDF should be targeted; not random, peaceful civilians. Hamas hurts the Palestinian cause of self-determination. Ridding "Palestine" of Hamas may help the Palestinians attain statehood in the long run.

And Israel has let in plenty of aid. Netanyahu claims a 1:1 civilian to terrorist death ratio. Israel provides medical care for Palestinian civilians.

10/7 may very well destabilize the region and lead to something larger, but it's not an inevitability. But undoubtedly 10/7 has led to a huge upsurge in anti-semitism across the globe while other conflicts such as the one in Nigeria where Muslims have been murdering thousands of Christians and engage in ethnic cleansing gets completely ignored. No Jews, no news.