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

[popeye1945]

Perhaps I've misinterpreted, did you mean by like rooting for a ball game, that politics like a ball game are of little consequence, simply a means of distraction or entertainment? My apologies if that was not your inference.

[Pattern-chaser]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that occupation "justifies terrorism", but I would say that it nudges us toward judging the action of resistance-fighters — freedom-fighters? — in a more tolerant and understanding light. Let's ask ourselves the questions a jury should ask of themselves. Are these the actions of decent and reasonable people? Might I (we?) do the same in their situation/circumstances?

Expecting reasonable behavior from those in long-term unreasonable situations is disingenuous.

That's an excellent extension to what I just said, that I hadn't thought of. Thanks.

Calling Islamists like the Hamas guys "freedom-fighters" is a bad joke, because the only freedom they're fighting for is the freedom to eradicate liberal democracies and to establish Islamic theocracies worldwide.

Again, you don't seem to take into account the wider context. Even if 'Islamists' are trying to oppose the World's Most Terrible War Machine, it is likely in response to America's 'War on Islam', wouldn't you say? Most of America's recent wars — and there are many — have been on countries where the dominant faith is Islam.

The actions of your own country are pretty much as despicable as those of their predecessors — the British Empire, as it was. But if that's the only view we can take on the current situation, there will be no solution.

There are historical parallels. Consider occupied France in WW2. When resistance fighters attacked the occupiers of their land, innocent French civilians were punished by the Nazis in response. I dare say the Nazis claimed they were acting in 'self-defence' too.

The Israel situation closely mirrors what was done to Ireland many years before by Britain. A king, placed onto the throne with the help of his Barons and their armies, was worried those same armies could be used to remove him again. So he 'rewarded' their loyalty by 'giving' them land in NE Ireland. The occupation was never resolved, between the invaders and the locals, because such resolution prevented by an overwhelmingly-superior military occupying force. The situation was maintained for many years, and only recently have we approached any kind of solution.

Your country and mine, together, were the prime movers in appeasing Jewish terrorists, who bombed their terrorist way into persuading our countries to 'give' them land in the Middle East in 1948, land they had been ejected from 2000+ years before. Their case was like Celtic Britons trying to eject the Germanic invaders (Anglo-Saxons), today, to regain their Celtic homeland, after a mere 1500 years of occupation. Perhaps there must come a point where we accept what happened in the past, and move forward instead?

These are not trivial problems, and their solutions, if they exist, are not trivial either. To point the finger at others, and say they are responsible, no matter what, doesn't help. What might help is if all those who have any involvement at all, as our countries both do, sat down together and sought a diplomatic solution, if there is one to be found.

[Pattern-chaser]

I spent my life as a "good lefty" supporting the underdog. It's only more recently that I've realised just how many underdogs are in that situation through their own actions. If Palestine had compromised, they could have theoretically spent decades working towards the prosperity of their people.

And yet, a 'goody Lefty' like me might ask why the Palestinians should "compromise", and not resist the theft of their land by the UK and USA? Should they simply have accepted the loss of their land, is that what you're saying?

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them?

[Consul]

Calling Islamists like the Hamas guys "freedom-fighters" is a bad joke, because the only freedom they're fighting for is the freedom to eradicate liberal democracies and to establish Islamic theocracies worldwide.

Again, you don't seem to take into account the wider context. Even if 'Islamists' are trying to oppose the World's Most Terrible War Machine, it is likely in response to America's 'War on Islam', wouldn't you say? Most of America's recent wars — and there are many — have been on countries where the dominant faith is Islam.

Yes, but the USA have never declared war on Islam. That's an Islamist propaganda tale. When the USA declared war on Germany, they declared war on a country where the dominant faith is Christianity; but they didn't thereby declare war on Christianity.

The actions of your own country are pretty much as despicable as those of their predecessors — the British Empire, as it was. But if that's the only view we can take on the current situation, there will be no solution.

There are historical parallels. Consider occupied France in WW2. When resistance fighters attacked the occupiers of their land, innocent French civilians were punished by the Nazis in response. I dare say the Nazis claimed they were acting in 'self-defence' too.

The Israel situation closely mirrors what was done to Ireland many years before by Britain. A king, placed onto the throne with the help of his Barons and their armies, was worried those same armies could be used to remove him again. So he 'rewarded' their loyalty by 'giving' them land in NE Ireland. The occupation was never resolved, between the invaders and the locals, because such resolution prevented by an overwhelmingly-superior military occupying force. The situation was maintained for many years, and only recently have we approached any kind of solution.

Your country and mine, together, were the prime movers in appeasing Jewish terrorists, who bombed their terrorist way into persuading our countries to 'give' them land in the Middle East in 1948, land they had been ejected from 2000+ years before. Their case was like Celtic Britons trying to eject the Germanic invaders (Anglo-Saxons), today, to regain their Celtic homeland, after a mere 1500 years of occupation. Perhaps there must come a point where we accept what happened in the past, and move forward instead?

These are not trivial problems, and their solutions, if they exist, are not trivial either. To point the finger at others, and say they are responsible, no matter what, doesn't help. What might help is if all those who have any involvement at all, as our countries both do, sat down together and sought a diplomatic solution, if there is one to be found.

I've never said that the Arabs are always the bad guys and the Jews always the good guys. For example, I condemn what radical Jewish settlers in the West Bank have been doing to non-combattant Palestinians.
However, one precondition for any diplomatic solution is that the Palestinians explicitly acknowledge Israel's right to exist.

Sculptor1 calls Israel "a terrorist state." A terrorist state is a state regularly committing acts of terrorism as a part of its governance. What exactly is terrorism? Here's a definition:

Terrorism is "the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take.

Let me summarize the most important points about this definition:

1. Terrorism has a certain structure. It has two targets: the primary and secondary. The latter target is directly hit, but the objective is to get at the former, to intimidate the person or persons who are the primary target into doing things they otherwise would not do.

2. The secondary target, which is hit directly, are innocent people. Thus terrorism is distinguished both from war in general, and guerrilla war in particular, in which the innocent (non-combatants, civilians) are not deliberately attacked, and from political assassination, whose victims – political officials and police officers – are responsible for certain policies and their enforcement. This, of course, does not mean that an army cannot engage in terrorism; many armies have done so. Nor does it mean that political assassination does not often intimidate the government or the public, or is not often meant to do so.

3. The connection of ‘terrorism’ with ‘terror’ and ‘terrorizing’ is preserved.

4. The definition covers both political and non-political (e.g. religious or criminal) terrorism.

5. With regard to political terrorism, it makes it possible to speak both of state and non-state terrorism, of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary terrorism, of terrorism of the left and of the right. The definition is politically neutral.

6. It is also morally neutral. I believe it captures what many of us find so repugnant in terrorism: the use or threat of use of violence against the innocent for the sake of intimidation and coercion. But is does not prejudge the moral question of its justification in particular cases. For in entails only that terrorism is prima facie wrong, and thus does not rule out its justification under certain circumstances.

7. Some are likely to find the definition too restrictive, and to want to apply the word to other sorts of violence. It may well be that, as a matter of fact, the word is used in a wider sense most of the time. But I trust it will be generally (although not universally) agreed that the actions covered by the definition are indeed terroristic. I suspect that most of those likely to deny this will want to define terrorism in terms of who employs it and to what ultimate purpose. If so, I am not worried. Those who claim that who is a terrorist, and who a freedom fighter, depends on who is wearing the uniform, or what its color is, are not promising partners for a serious discussion anyway.

8. By highlighting the innocence of the victims of terrorism, the definition helps place the debate about the morality of terrorism in the context of the traditional discussion of the morality of war, and in particular connects it with just war theory. The main provision of that theory under the heading of jus in bello, the morality of ways and means of fighting in war, is the principle of discrimination, enjoining belligerents to discriminate between military and civilian targets and to refrain from harming innocent civilians."

(Primoratz, Igor. "What Is Terrorism?" In Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, edited by Igor Primoratz, 15-27. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004 pp. 24-5)

If any, what cases of Israeli state terrorism are there?

[Consul]

If any, what cases of Israeli state terrorism are there?

What Baruch Goldstein did in 1994 is a case of Jewish terrorism, but not of Israeli state terrorism.

[Consul]

As for Israel's allegedly being an apartheid state:

"One of the most highly charged accusations aimed at the State of Israel today is that Israel is an “apartheid” State that engages in widespread, state-sanctioned, racially-motivated discrimination against the “Palestinians,” which term is understood to mean by Israel’s accusers the Arabs living anywhere within the confines of the former Mandate for Palestine plus those identifying as Palestinian who live in third countries. Yet, an honest look at the facts utterly destroys such charges. Apartheid was the South African system that denied certain racial groups access to the political and judicial systems in their country, consigned them to inferior living spaces and educational opportunities, and controlled every aspect of their lives. In this paper, we trace the history of apartheid and note that racial animus and motivation for differential treatment of groups are essential for determining whether apartheid exists.

We note first that the Arabs living in the territory of the former Mandate for Palestine (which includes Israel, the “West Bank,” and the Gaza Strip) are racially identical. Yet, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis, including the right to form political parties and stand for election, opportunities to serve as members of the Knesset, the judiciary, the diplomatic corps, the police, and so on—rights and privileges totally foreign and anathema to an apartheid State—thereby eviscerating claims of racial discrimination, which underlie apartheid. As such, differences in Israel’s treatment of Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip and Arabs citizens of Israel are not—and, indeed, cannot be—“racially” motivated for the simple reason that both groups of Arabs are racially identical. For the claim of apartheid to be true, one would expect Israel to devise racially discriminatory policies against all Arabs under its control, which Israel clearly does not do. Hence, there must be another reason for the disparate treatment.

So, how does one explain the differences in treatment between Arab Israelis and Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip? The answer is not complicated. Arabs residing in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are not now—and never have been—Israeli citizens and, therefore, cannot claim rights due to Israeli citizens. All countries favor their own citizens vis-à-vis non-citizens, and doing so is not an indication of apartheid simply because the two groups are treated differently. Moreover, many Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Israel. Israel is faced with a hostile Arab population which has yet to come to terms with Israel’s existence and which actively seeks to destroy the Jewish State. That requires Israel to take certain measures for its national security. Because of the ongoing conflict, the relationship of Arabs in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip with Israel is governed primarily by the terms of the Law of Armed Conflict. As such, any acts or policies of alleged discrimination by Israel against the Arabs living in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip must be viewed through the lens of the Law of Armed Conflict. As long as Israel’s actions and policies comply with applicable international law, they are lawful. Israel’s actions are based on well-recognized national security needs, not racial animus.

The bottom line is this: Israel treats all of its citizens—be they Jew, Arab, or Druze—equally before the law, irrespective of any racial or ethnic differences. And, Israeli policies regarding application of military law, administrative detentions, defensive use of force, security check points, etc., in the “West Bank” and the Gaza Strip are all lawful security measures permitted under the Law of Armed Conflict. Accordingly, Israel’s actions are the very antithesis of apartheid, which should put to rest the apartheid lie once and for all."

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4343950

If Israel really were an apartheid state, would there be any Arab Israelis in its parliament and its supreme court?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... he_Knesset

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_Kabub

[Pattern-chaser]

Calling Islamists like the Hamas guys "freedom-fighters" is a bad joke, because the only freedom they're fighting for is the freedom to eradicate liberal democracies and to establish Islamic theocracies worldwide.

Again, you don't seem to take into account the wider context. Even if 'Islamists' are trying to oppose the World's Most Terrible War Machine, it is likely in response to America's 'War on Islam', wouldn't you say? Most of America's recent wars — and there are many — have been on countries where the dominant faith is Islam.

Yes, but the USA have never declared war on Islam.

They never declared war on drugs either, but the war continued nonetheless, to criminalise, and thereby disenfranchise, young political activists who didn't or wouldn't vote Republican. War is part of the USA's playbook, it seems. Even the American people are targetted, if we remember that about 1 in 100 Americans are currently in (American) prisons.

For example, a list compiled by Dr. Gideon Polya of La Trobe University in 2013 included the following:

Countries the U.S. has invaded since 1776:

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Argentina
Austria Bolivia Bosnia Burma Cambodia
Chile China Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic
Egypt El Salvador France Germany Greece
Grenada Guam Guatemala Haiti Hawaii
Honduras Hungary India Indonesia Iran
Iraq Italy Japan Korea Kuwait
Laos Lebanon Liberia Libya Macedonia
Mali Mexico Micronesia Morocco Nicaragua
Niger Oman Pakistan Panama Papua New Guinea
Philippines Puerto Rico Russia Samoa Saudi Arabia
Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia Turkey
Uganda Uruguay Vanuatu Vietnam Virgin Islands
Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire (now Congo)

Not a great record! [Again, in the name of balance, I refer to the equally unacceptable conduct of my own UK, during the time of our Empire.] Not all of those victims are Islamic countries, of course.

And yes, this detour to consider the conduct of Israel's sponsor (without whom there would probably be no state of Israel) is reasonable in this topic, especially since the US have been so vocal in warning Iran (sponsor of Hamas) not to get involved.

[Sy Borg]

I spent my life as a "good lefty" supporting the underdog. It's only more recently that I've realised just how many underdogs are in that situation through their own actions. If Palestine had compromised, they could have theoretically spent decades working towards the prosperity of their people.

And yet, a 'goody Lefty' like me might ask why the Palestinians should "compromise", and not resist the theft of their land by the UK and USA? Should they simply have accepted the loss of their land, is that what you're saying?

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them? 🤔🤔🤔

Do you think continuing fighting has provided the Palestinian people with a good life? No, the Palestinian leaders have led their people into the worst possible situation. After seventy years of bloodshed and resistance, Hamas's answer is more bloodshed, more destruction. Their actions are akin to a gambler who, having lost most of their money, doubles down instead of undergoing the hard work of trying to build a working society.

It is strange to speak about a situation as though the option of cutting one's losses did not exist. It seems that old lessons are being lost in our modern societies, which I suppose is playing a role in democracy's decline. Once we have ditched "flawed democracies" we'll find out how much fun it is to be an intellectual in a dictatorship.

Today, the idea that it is possible to use human judgement to alleviate difficult situations is gone. It seems people have already become machines. Once programmed, that's it. Forget human judgement and re-evaluating the situation - once the program is running, only the program matters. The Palestine program demands that Palestine must destroy Israel. No alternatives are considered - so the program and its dumb terminals have kept on running for seventy years unabated. We can see how that has panned out for the Palestinian people/refugees/corpses.

Hamas see no point in being pragmatic just for the sake of people's wellbeing. Who gives a **** about them, right?

With increased radicalisation, the left is now supporting a chronically violent, misogynist, racist, religious fundamentalist group of Arabs that even other Arab nations don't want to accept as refugees because they are too violent. The official line to Palestinians is "stay and protect your homeland" but the true meaning is "stay the hell away from us!". No nation wants Palestinian refugees because Hamas hides amongst them, and that means more terrorist attacks in the country.

[Consul]

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them?

If there is a territorial rivalry between A and B, A goes to war against B and loses the war, then A will lose all or some of its land. That's how things work!

[Consul]

Do you think continuing fighting has provided the Palestinian people with a good life? No, the Palestinian leaders have led their people into the worst possible situation.

Right, the Palestinians have been betrayed by their own leaders for a long time, who still don't believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Sy Borg]

Do you think continuing fighting has provided the Palestinian people with a good life? No, the Palestinian leaders have led their people into the worst possible situation.

Right, the Palestinians have been betrayed by their own leaders for a long time, who still don't believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Some cultures are better able to compromise for the sake of the people than others. Extremist religious ideologies will die out, not through oppression, but their inability to compromise, to adapt, to grow, to give a damn about the people whose interests they are supposed to represent.

Hamas were elected, promising prosperity. Instead they delivered ruin.

[Sy Borg]

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them?

If there is a territorial rivalry between A and B, A goes to war against B and loses the war, then A will lose all or some of its land. That's how things work!

At that point, one can opt for perpetual war and disaster for the people, or to get back to business and try to improve living standards.

I can understand resisting for five, ten or twenty years. If you fail after that time, no one could accuse you of not giving it a red hot go. But to continue for seventy years is simply mechanistic - slavishly following an algorithm, with no capacity for review or steering. Just follow the track to the end and, if it leads off a cliff, too bad. No doubt the Palestinian people are thrilled with the life that Hamas is delivering for them. Certainly many are being to Heaven and its alleged seventy-two virgins.

[Pattern-chaser]

I spent my life as a "good lefty" supporting the underdog. It's only more recently that I've realised just how many underdogs are in that situation through their own actions. If Palestine had compromised, they could have theoretically spent decades working towards the prosperity of their people.

And yet, a 'goody Lefty' like me might ask why the Palestinians should "compromise", and not resist the theft of their land by the UK and USA? Should they simply have accepted the loss of their land, is that what you're saying?

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them?

Do you think continuing fighting has provided the Palestinian people with a good life? No, the Palestinian leaders have led their people into the worst possible situation.

On the contrary, the Palestinians are the only ones who weren't guided by their leaders. Their land was taken from them, and given to Jews, by the leaders of the world (UN), USA and UK. Since then, the Palestinian people, and their leaders, have tried everything they can, from the diplomatic to the extremes of violence, to throw off the occupation they have suffered under for 75 years. They have explored all avenues open to them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them?

If there is a territorial rivalry between A and B, A goes to war against B and loses the war, then A will lose all or some of its land. That's how things work!

2000+ years ago, there was a territorial rivalry between A and B. A went to war against B, and lost. Then A lost all of their land, called "Israel", "Palestine", "Judea", or something similar. [The label doesn't matter, of course.] And so the Jews were "driven out" of their ancient homeland.

I can understand resisting for five, ten or twenty years. If you fail after that time, no one could accuse you of not giving it a red hot go. But to continue for seventy years is simply mechanistic - slavishly following an algorithm, with no capacity for review or steering.

Did the Jews accept their loss, and move on, as you and Consul suggest? No, they didn't. We might say that to continue for 2000 years is simply mechanistic - slavishly following an algorithm, with no capacity for review or steering, yes?

So, 2000 years later, "A" went to the playground bullies and said we will sneak and hide, we will bomb you, destroy your properties, and maim your civilians — we will terrorise you! — until you 'return' to us the land we lost in war 2000 years ago. And the bullies agreed.

That's how things did work!

[Lagayascienza]

Those seem to me to be the facts of the matter. And that's why I've said that it's pointless rehashing arguments about who was there first. What matters now is what is happening now - the killing has to stop. Either that, or Israel has to exterminate the Palestinians because they will never give up. And I wouldn't blame them. But if Israel does continue on its exterminatory project, they will show themselves to be no better than the Nazis who tried to exterminate the Jews. An agreement must be negotiated. I have no truck with either of their damned religions, but the Palestinians must be given some hope of life, of a better future. Otherwise, why would they not continue the struggle? Did the Jews stop struggling to survive the Romans and during their dispersion? Did they not fight the Nazis who wanted their extermination? If Israel could stop the killing, and give just some hope to the Palestinians, based of course on the release of hostages, then there might be a way forward.

[Sy Borg]

I spent my life as a "good lefty" supporting the underdog. It's only more recently that I've realised just how many underdogs are in that situation through their own actions. If Palestine had compromised, they could have theoretically spent decades working towards the prosperity of their people.

And yet, a 'goody Lefty' like me might ask why the Palestinians should "compromise", and not resist the theft of their land by the UK and USA? Should they simply have accepted the loss of their land, is that what you're saying?

And when the now-established state of Israel stole even more Palestinian land, in 1967 and after, enabled and supported by the world's most terrible war machine, should the Palestinians have "compromised" again, accepting the loss of even more of their land? At what point would it become reasonable for the Palestinians to work toward regaining the land stolen from them? 🤔🤔🤔

Do you think continuing fighting has provided the Palestinian people with a good life? No, the Palestinian leaders have led their people into the worst possible situation.

On the contrary, the Palestinians are the only ones who weren't guided by their leaders. Their land was taken from them, and given to Jews, by the leaders of the world (UN), USA and UK. Since then, the Palestinian people, and their leaders, have tried everything they can, from the diplomatic to the extremes of violence, to throw off the occupation they have suffered under for 75 years. They have explored all avenues open to them.

They have tried everything but accepting their losses and living in peace. Claiming that it's Palestinian land is as dodgy as claiming it's Jewish land. It's disputed land, like many others. Borders were drawn, as they have been done throughout history. Most parties find a pragmatic way to keep life going through disputes. Some refuse to compromise, ever, preferring to self-destruct rather than give even an iota of ground.

What's fascinating is that you and others care so very passionately about Palestinians but you obviously couldn't care what happens to the Uyghurs in China. I've not heard a peep about them. No one cares about the poor old Uyghurs, though, do they?

For some reason, people think Palestinians are ultra-important but they see Uyghurs as worthless, yet the latter has been treated more harshly. Why is that? Maybe it's hard to jump on a bandwagon against the Chinese because they defend themselves, whereas the west is an easy target because it self-flagellates, naive to the blatant and cynical hypocrisy of the nations who judge it.