Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Palenstinians are once again assuming their standard role as human shields, to be bombed and killed and paraded in the media while their Hamas "friends" hunker down in underground tunnels.

[Sculptor1]

Was there never any colonization or oppression among American tribes? Did they all coexist peacefully and respectfully (before the arrival of Europeans)?

No, but that did not justify their extermination.
Or maybe you think it does??

I don't.
I'm not aware of any Israeli plans to exterminate the Arab Palestinians. The genocide narrative is false! (Expulsion ≠ extermination!)

(There are a few Jewish crazies, but they are not tolerated: Israel minister suspended after calling nuking Gaza an option)

Are you a zionist?

[Sculptor1]

Palenstinians are once again assuming their standard role as human shields, to be bombed and killed and paraded in the media while their Hamas "friends" hunker down in underground tunnels.

Human Shield??

Please explain how that works!

How do humans transform themselves from people to "collateral damage". Please explain the process.

[Sy Borg]

Palenstinians are once again assuming their standard role as human shields, to be bombed and killed and paraded in the media while their Hamas "friends" hunker down in underground tunnels.

Human Shield??

Please explain how that works!

How do humans transform themselves from people to "collateral damage". Please explain the process.

Like this: https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles ... hields.pdf

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties.

If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

[Sculptor1]

Palenstinians are once again assuming their standard role as human shields, to be bombed and killed and paraded in the media while their Hamas "friends" hunker down in underground tunnels.

Human Shield??

Please explain how that works!

How do humans transform themselves from people to "collateral damage". Please explain the process.

Like this: "Human shields myth

Propaganda

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties.

If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

History did not start Oct6th.
Isreal is the primary agressor. Isreal is a terrorist state.
Palestinians have suffered 75 years of abuse; land theft; denial of human rights; and murder.
Isreal has created the conditions fro which Hamas was created.
When power is asymmetrical then different means to achive goals are employed. THey do not have wealthy backers; they have no tanks; planes. Their resources have been seized and are now controled by the terrorist illegal state of Isreal.
What Hamas did on October 6th was horrific, yet this seems to be their only means of getting their human rights noticed. Such act of violence and yes bravery against the occupiers are now back on the agenda, and as Isreal continues the starve to death and bomb to death the children of Palestine their support is growing and Isreal's apartheit is shown for the evil that it is.
One day US support will dry up, and the white settlers will be left to their own devices. Isreal has done nothing to accomodate the people of the region over the years but has chose to start wars and continue to occupy illegally the territories the UN has declared illegal. When the aim ends Isreal will end.

[Sculptor1]

If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

[/quote]

I find it astonishing that you have sucked this up so readily.

[Lagayascienza]

We cannot undo all the wrongs of history. For example, whatever wrongs modern humans may have inflicted upon the Neanderthals they displaced are irreparable. The Neanderthals are no more. And there is no way the Romans can make it up to the Celtic tribes who they conquered and dispossessed with their invasion of Britain. Those Romans and Celts are no more. In such cases there is nothing we can do but move on. However, what is happening and has happened in Palestine/Israel is a live affair. It is not surprising that the Palestinians whose land has been illegally occupied and who have been herded in to the ghetto that is Gaza are not happy. I wouldn't be happy in their situation. But they are not yet all exterminated. Until they are, or until Israel agrees to a just solution, the troubles will continue.

[Consul]

Are you a zionist?

I am a pro-Israelist in the sense that I accept the existence of Israel and reject the view that it shouldn't exist, that it should be wiped off the map of Palestine.

[Consul]

What I don't accept is the unjustified violence of Israeli settlers or soldiers against Palestinians in the West Bank (who pose no serious threat to them): Palestinians under attack as Israeli settler violence surges in the West Bank

[Sculptor1]

What I don't accept is the unjustified violence of Israeli settlers or soldiers against Palestinians in the West Bank (who pose no serious threat to them):

You two views are incompatible. Fact is you do not really care about the Nakba.

The existence of Israel seems to entail the continued oppression and denial of rights to the people of Palestine.
Years go by and the west ingores their plight, until they feel they have little option but to commit some brutal act. Israel responses completely disproportionately until even stop - get bored, get sick of murdering more children? who knows?

The numbers are staggering. 2008 killed 3999, 2009 killed 7500, 2010-2013 killed 12000, 2014 killed20000, 2015 killed 15000, 2016/17 killed 12000, 2018 killed 31000, 2019 killed 15000..

It is childish to call these numbers "human shields" or the euphamism "collateral damage".

I think the state of Isreal is probably going to survive. But the way it is surviving is incompatible with reason and not sustainable. It is a shame on the world, and the source of profound hypocracy

[Pattern-chaser]

[To Sculptor1]
As for the phrase "indigenous population", there were Jews in the geographic region called Palestine before there were any Muslims, and Jews have been there continuously "since time immemorial" too; so they are an indigenous population too.

Islam only emerged around 500 CE, so of course Jews were there first. And before they were Jews (religious), there were people in the land (geographical/national) we now call Palestine, from whom the current indigenous populations descended. And didn't the Jews leave that area? The story tells us they were driven out, and I have no reason to argue, but a "continuous" presence? Perhaps not?

[Consul]

Islam only emerged around 500 CE, so of course Jews were there first. And before they were Jews (religious), there were people in the land (geographical/national) we now call Palestine, from whom the current indigenous populations descended.

"The Palestinians claim to be descendants of the Canaanites. We shall have to examine this hereditary claim[.]"

(Wolffsohn, Michael. Whose Holy Land? The Roots of the Conflict Between Jews and Arabs. Cham: Springer, 2021. p. 81)

"The Canaanites lived on a cemetery of nations on the baleful, blood-drenched soil of the Holy Land. It was above all the Canaanites from whom the Jews wrested this land more than three thousand years ago. This was done in an earthly manner, albeit with a religious justification. Sometime later, the Jews took land away from the Philistines as well. They took land from other peoples too, but mainly from these two.

Today, the Palestinians claim to be descendants of these peoples. What they are attempting to say is, “We are the legal successors of the Canaanites and the Philistines. We demand our property back from the Jewish occupiers.”

As we are looking for the owners of the Holy Land, let us examine this assertion. It leads us to the field of genealogical research and, yes, even racial science. These are delicate disciplines not only in Germany but—understandably—especially in Germany. But it is no use. We must not shy away from controversial issues. To deny that they exist will solve nothing.

We will see that the Palestinians are not the legal successors of the Canaanites and the Philistines—at least not if they also claim to be Arabs. Some might ask why this is. Who would seriously want to deny that the Palestinians are Arabs? No one.

To begin with, the Canaanites were not a people or a tribe, Arab or Jewish, Mesopotamian or Egyptian.

The natives of (what is today) the Holy Land are referred to in the oldest archaeological sources as “Retenu” and later as “Hurru”. An Egyptian monument from the fifteenth century BCE provides more details. It tells about a campaign carried out by the pharaoh Amenhotep II in the year 1429 BCE. The natives are called “Hurrians” (or “Hurru”). The “maryannu” were their ruling nobility. In addition to the maryannu, there were traders from the coastal cities. And these traders are referred to as “Canaanites” on this monument. The name “Canaanite” was thus originally a term that referred to a social class or occupation.

The monument also mentions the “Apiru-Habiru”. These were foreign semi-nomadic people who had no land and mainly lived in the hills west of the Jordan. Some lived in cities as dependents of the natives. Habiru—Hebrew? They certainly sound similar, don’t they? We are on the right track, because a century later in Egyptian documents all groups descending on or immigrating into (what is today) the Holy Land from the desert and other regions are referred to as “Hebrews”. The Israelites were “Hebrews”—but not the only ones. The Israelites, tribes from the Arabian Peninsula, the Ammonites, the Edomites, as well as the Moabites were also “Hebrews”. They were all related, in other words, enemies included.

The close relationship and tense relations between the Ammonites and the Moabites is illustrated by the story of their ancestors. Lot’s daughters “made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.” (Genesis 19:33) The following night, the younger daughter slept with her drunk father. “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the first-born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.” (Genesis 19:36–38)

And so there we have them—the black sheep of the family. The Edomites, who were named after the Hebrew word for red, were also considered black sheep by the Bible and the Jews. The progenitor of the Edomites was Esau, the rough twin brother of the progenitor Jacob.

Egyptian sources also mention raiding nomads, the Bedouins, as a further group of people. In the fourteenth century BCE, the sources of the then ruling Egyptians named the entire region (now a province) “Canaan”.
Thus far we can say

* The term “Canaan” was originally used to denote an occupational group (traders) but later came to be the name of a province.
* Accordingly, the inhabitants of this province were called “Canaanites”, and these Canaanites were a mixture of peoples. They were in no way homogenous. They were multicultural, multiconfessional, “multinational” (although one cannot really speak of nations here), and “multi-racial”.
* Both the traders (Canaanites) and the Hebrews (including the Israelites later on) were part of the native population—despite the fact that the Hebrews were immigrants.
* Later on, a part of the various Hebrew groups and tribes conquered the entire province of Canaan. These were the Israelites.
* The non-Israelite inhabitants of Canaan died out. Direct successors cannot be identified, not even with the microscope of history—unless you create them in a test tube. There are no legal successors to their property. They no longer exist. That is the distressing truth. Unfortunately, history is often cruel.

Who were the Philistines? Are they the real ancestors of the Palestinians? The assumption is likely, if only for linguistic reasons: Palestine—Philistine. The Romans not only annihilated the Jewish community; they also wiped out the name Judah. By doing so, the Roman occupants hoped to obliterate all memory of the earlier Jewish owners. Names and power are closely related. This has nothing to do with justice. It is the law of the strongest, a highly questionable type of law. The Romans changed Judah to the “Land of the Philistines”, i.e. “Palestine”.

But were the Philistines Arabs? Were, as modern-day Palestinians claim, the Philistines really the ancestors of today’s Palestinians?

If the Philistines were Arabs, then they chose a strange route from their homeland to (what is today) the Holy Land. They originally came from the Greek mainland, the Peloponnese, from the Aegean Islands, Crete and Asia Minor. As we know, Arabia is located elsewhere.

The Philistines came to (what is today) the Holy Land as the Sea Peoples in the mid-twelfth century BCE. In Canaan, the rule of the Egyptians, which was already weak, began to falter, not least because of the invasion of the children of Israel about one hundred years earlier.

In 1168 BCE, the Sea Peoples attempted to invade the Egyptian heartland but were defeated by Pharaoh Ramesses III. His victory, however, was only partial. The Sea Peoples seized the southern coastal strip of the Egyptian province of Canaan and also captured its capital city, Gaza. These peoples had been fleeing from the Doric Greeks since the thirteenth century BCE, and they were Indo-Europeans, in other words they were not Semites. The Palestinians are both Semites and Arabs, and they rightly attach great importance to this. However, if they are Semites and Arabs, the Indo-European Philistines cannot be their ancestors.

The triumph of having their country named after them by the Romans was at the same time their historical downfall. They easily and fully adapted to the Roman world, and nothing more was heard of them—until the Palestinians discovered them as their ancestors. The Tel Aviv biologist Bat-Scheva Bonna Tamir discovered by means of DNA analyses that there is one people who are—genetically—closest to the Jews: the Palestinians (Tamara Traubmann and Ruthi Sinai, Haaretz, 9 May 2000).

Of course the Arabs also tried to penetrate (what is today) the Holy Land, which bordered on the Arabian Peninsula. As expected, the (pre-Islamic) Arab Bedouins also expanded into this neighbouring region. Such an attempt was made during the lifetime of the judge Gideon, in the twelfth century BCE. They likely came more often, both previously and afterwards. In general, however, they conducted raids, did not settle, and therefore left no archaeological records.

The Canaanites and the Philistines were thus not the earliest inhabitants of the Holy Land."

(Wolffsohn, Michael. Whose Holy Land? The Roots of the Conflict Between Jews and Arabs. Cham: Springer, 2021. pp. 110-13)

[Consul]

…And didn't the Jews leave that area? The story tells us they were driven out, and I have no reason to argue, but a "continuous" presence? Perhaps not?

Continuous since the 1st century at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... e_(region)

[Consul]

What I don't accept is the unjustified violence of Israeli settlers or soldiers against Palestinians in the West Bank (who pose no serious threat to them):

You two views are incompatible. Fact is you do not really care about the Nakba.

I do care about the lives of people, especially civilians, no matter whether they are Jews or Muslims, Israelis or Palestinians.
However, given the situation in the Gaza Strip and Hamas' tactical behavior, how can their murdering and massacring of Israelis be stopped without endangering the lives of Palestinian civilians? – Alas, it can't!

The existence of Israel seems to entail the continued oppression and denial of rights to the people of Palestine.
Years go by and the west ingores their plight, until they feel they have little option but to commit some brutal act. Israel responses completely disproportionately until even stop - get bored, get sick of murdering more children? who knows?
…
I think the state of Isreal is probably going to survive. But the way it is surviving is incompatible with reason and not sustainable. It is a shame on the world, and the source of profound hypocracy.

No, Israel's existence is not "a shame on the world"! You seem to have forgotten that Israel's historical raison d'être is the centuries-long anti-Semitic oppression and discrimination of the Jews in the diaspora. The original zionism is a nationalist liberation movement. Israel is meant to be a safe haven for Jews. Palestine should be a safe place for the Arabs living there too, but the establishment of Israel changed their situation drastically. What happened during the Nakba was an exertion of power politics by the Jews—after the Arabs had rejected the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (1947) and went to war. Yes, the Israelis have committed crimes; but they aren't the only ones to blame for the absence of a peaceful coexistence, because the violence is mutual. As for the current war, let's not forget that Hamas started it!
The rights of the Arab Palestinians do not include the right to destroy Israel!

[Sy Borg]

Palenstinians are once again assuming their standard role as human shields, to be bombed and killed and paraded in the media while their Hamas "friends" hunker down in underground tunnels.

Human Shield??

Please explain how that works!

How do humans transform themselves from people to "collateral damage". Please explain the process.

Like this: "Human shields myth

Propaganda

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties.

If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

History did not start Oct6th.
Isreal is the primary agressor. Isreal is a terrorist state.
Palestinians have suffered 75 years of abuse; land theft; denial of human rights; and murder.
Isreal has created the conditions fro which Hamas was created.
When power is asymmetrical then different means to achive goals are employed. THey do not have wealthy backers; they have no tanks; planes. Their resources have been seized and are now controled by the terrorist illegal state of Isreal.
What Hamas did on October 6th was horrific, yet this seems to be their only means of getting their human rights noticed. Such act of violence and yes bravery against the occupiers are now back on the agenda, and as Isreal continues the starve to death and bomb to death the children of Palestine their support is growing and Isreal's apartheit is shown for the evil that it is.
One day US support will dry up, and the white settlers will be left to their own devices. Isreal has done nothing to accomodate the people of the region over the years but has chose to start wars and continue to occupy illegally the territories the UN has declared illegal. When the aim ends Isreal will end.

Putting aside your one-sided claims about Israel, I was simply pointing out the fact that Hamas is using civilians as human shields to use as leverage in the western media.

I agree with Consul's position on this. He seems to be one of the few here who has a problem with Hamas's a mission of wiping Israel and Jews out of existence, and with westerners who share those views.

I find both sides reprehensible. Israel's leadership has been arrogant, authoritarian and, like China, it is encroaching on its neighbour's land. The west bank "settlements" have been brutal and unfair. They have severely restricted Palestinians' movements, though there'd be much more freedom for peaceful Palestinians if not for their less trustworthy peers.

Whenever Israel relaxed their guard they would be punished by attacks. So they clamped down. In a sense, the constant attacks created Netanyahu and, in turn, Netanyahu inspires more attacks.

The Palestinian leadership has lead its people into disaster by refusing to be pragmatic over a period of seventy years. Why ruin your people butting your head pointlessly against a brick wall for so long? For pride? Whose pride? Does there not come a time when one decides to make the best of a bad situation? That's what sane people do.

It's not as though this attack has lead to a desired outcome for the Palestinian people, even if it was a publicity coup for Hamas. As always, the Palestinian people are collateral for Hamas's political games.