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

[Sculptor1]

The disputed land in not simply the land stolen from Palestinians in 1948, with a coup.
It is all the other land they have stolen since then, expecially the land taken in 2 wars started by Isreal since 1948, and declared illegal by the United Nations.

"2 wars started by Israel since 1948"? – Which ones?

* The 1948 war was started by a coalition of five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

* The 1967 war (Six-Day War) was started by Israel as a preemptive strike against Egypt's aggressive military moves.

* The 1973 war (Yom Kippur War) was started by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

No the last two were started by Isreal.
You might want to revie the meaning od the word "premeptive strike". Its a moronic term.

[Sculptor1]

The disputed land in not simply the land stolen from Palestinians in 1948, with a coup.
It is all the other land they have stolen since then, expecially the land taken in 2 wars started by Isreal since 1948, and declared illegal by the United Nations.

"2 wars started by Israel since 1948"? – Which ones?

* The 1948 war was started by a coalition of five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

* The 1967 war (Six-Day War) was started by Israel as a preemptive strike against Egypt's aggressive military moves.

* The 1973 war (Yom Kippur War) was started by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

No the last two were started by Isreal.
You might want to revie the meaning od the word "premeptive strike". Its a moronic term.

[Sculptor1]

The disputed land in not simply the land stolen from Palestinians in 1948, with a coup.
It is all the other land they have stolen since then, expecially the land taken in 2 wars started by Isreal since 1948, and declared illegal by the United Nations.

"2 wars started by Israel since 1948"? – Which ones?

* The 1948 war was started by a coalition of five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

* The 1967 war (Six-Day War) was started by Israel as a preemptive strike against Egypt's aggressive military moves.

* The 1973 war (Yom Kippur War) was started by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

No the last two were started by Isreal.
You might want to revie the meaning od the word "premeptive strike". Its a moronic term.

[Good_Egg]

If my understanding is correct, the Jews were driven from the Middle East around two millennia ago. That's a very long time. In comparison, Palestine was taken from the Palestinians only 75 years ago.

It seems that we have to draw a line sonewhere between more-recent past injustices that we should try to remedy, and less-recent past injustices that we should just accept and move on.

Where is the right place to draw that line?

(E.g. how long does Russia have to hold on to Crimea before we should just accept the occupation as an act of history ?)

I put it to you that reversing some past act of change of ownership of territory is
- justice to all those living people who lost out by the change
- injustice to all those who have grown up with the new order, who are no less attached to their homeland than anyone else is.

A utilitarian would draw the line when the two populations are equal. The point where a reversal of past change would evict from their birthplace more people than it would restore to their birthplace.

So roughly half a lifetime.

Do you have any rational argument for any other period ?

[Sculptor1]

‘Arabs.”

So are you trying to say that the mass murder and destruction of Gaza is an apt response to Iran expelling Jews?

By speaking of "mass murder", you're asserting falsely that the IDF has been ordered to directly kill innocent civilians.

Did you not get the memo about 4000 children?
SO you cut off water, electricity and food.
Then you tell a million people to leave.
Then you bomb hosptials and ambulances in the area supposedly evacuated.
Then you bomb south of that line.
Pause to realse 275 Palestinian children in illegal detention.
Then redraw the boundary further south because there is nothing left to bomb in the north ,being laid waste.

And you are pretending to yourself that this does not amount to mass killing.
You might want to have a word with yourself to cast your enquiry a little bit further than Isreali propaganda.

The non-Hamas Palestinians who were or will be killed were not murdered, because they weren't or won't have been intentionally targeted by the IDF—as opposed to the Hamas Palestinians.
Do you think Israel is morally unjustified in snuffing the Hamas guys? –

LOL

I hope you don't!
Unfortunately for the IDF, given the urban-warfare situation in Gaza and Hamas' human-shield tactics,

Yes we know you have been absorbed in Isreali propaganda, but you might want to hold back and think about what thay means. So you are trying to say that Hamas has held onto 4000 children and placed them under the bombs?
How exactly do you think that works?

...civilian casualities are unavoidable in the war against Hamas.

There is a slow and deliberate genocide in progress. Their so called"unavoidable war" is designed to achive what Netanyahu wants to achieve.
1) Fund Hamas
2) bomb to create a new generation of Hamas from the ashes, recruited from the thousands of orphans the "war" has created.

However, believe it or not, Israel does try to avoid civilian causalities—but not at all costs regarding itself and its security.

If it were not so tragic this would be hilarious.

If any amount of human "collateral damage"{OMG} on the Palestinian side is deemed morally unjustifiable, then it is impermissible in principle for Israel to take any military action against Hamas within the Gaza Strip. And this would mean that the only thing Israel is permitted to do in terms of a violent reaction to Hamas' 10/7 massacre is to do nothing. But the Israelis cannot be morally expected to leave Hamas in peace given what they have done to them!

Boo Hoo
You are flogging a dead horse.

[value]

I hope that this topic is helpful for preventing atrocities for people!

I have been promoting a link to this discussion on a website that is visited from 200 countries per week, which is becoming more trafficked daily from all countries in the region. The two latest traffic alerts from Google were for Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In this topic I have been proposing that philosophy should be held responsible, with diverse independent reasoning for entry to that argument. The primary argument has been that intellect and reason is a higher good than war and revenge, which I have been asserting for years.

My assertion: "Within the context of reason, there is no place for evil."

Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason,": "pure reason is the faculty of concepts, and concepts are not concerned with the inclinations, but only with the understanding and its object"

Therefore, according to Kant (who authored one of the most profound works on reason), pure reason cannot be the source of evil, which arises from the inclinations and desires of the human will. Kant believed that every human being has the capacity to resist evil and choose the moral path, which is the path of reason.

Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge.

What would MacGyver do?

Yesterday I watched an episode of MacGyver who, in an attempt to stop someone from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this".

The one seeking revenge chose intellect and won. This confirmed and provided an example for the idea.

Intellect and reason is a higher good and enables people to win. Therefore my argument: philosophy can and should be held responsible.


A philosophical project on the wisdom of MacGyver.

what_would_macgyver_do_600.png (269.08 KiB) Viewed 2032 times

What would MacGyver do? An excerpt from the revised edition of Life Changing: A Philosophical Guide
Angus MacGyver thought when he retired from the secret service, he’d put his days of danger behind him. But MacGyver was forever getting caught in life and death situations. Fortunately, MacGyver had a preternatural knack for improvising his way out of them. ... Thirty years on, MacGyver is more a cultural icon than ever before.
https://philosophyforchange.wordpress.c ... uide-2016/

Philosophy can be the solution, and because of it, philosophy should be held responsible.

My conclusion: "Modern man is to be expected to evolve beyond barbaric practices such as war and revenge if it intends to secure longer term prosperity. Intelligence before practice means overcoming darkness before it was ever present, and thus, to prevent war and revenge in favour of reason."

American philosopher Henry David Thoreau:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual moral improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

The following organization, similar to eco-feminism, seeks to establish a basis for peace in efforts to protect nature.

ecopeace-isreal-palestine.jpg (125.74 KiB) Viewed 2032 times

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

Arab–Israeli peace projects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%8 ... e_projects

There are rumors that Adam Sandler was in love with a Palestinian girl in real life.

The love affair of Adam Sandler and the correlated film that shows that Israelis and Palestinians can flourish together side by side, is described in the OP: viewtopic.php?p=444410#p444410


For a professional scholarly philosophical perspective on how philosophy can be the solution, the following post in this topic describes the work of Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today.

Lévinas: Of peace there can only be an eschatology.

Lévinasian philosophical eschatology means "a vision of beyond", which is what is called upon when MacGyver says to the person seeking revenge: "You are smarter than this", so you can find an advanced theory for the idea in his philosophy.

AI: "MacGyver's statement "You are smarter than this" could be seen as an example of an eschatological vision, as it encourages the person to rise above the cycle of violence and revenge, and to choose a more intelligent and peaceful path. This aligns with Lévinas' view that eschatological vision allows for a transcendence of the totality and a relation to infinity."

Introduction to Lévinas his work on peace, and his perspective on the conflict:
viewtopic.php?p=445181#p445181

Philosophy evidently has the capacity to provide a solution. Therefore philosophy should be held responsible.

[value]

Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge.

Yesterday I watched an episode of MacGyver who, in an attempt to stop someone from seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, said "You are smarter than this".

The one seeking revenge chose intellect and won. This confirmed and provided an example for the idea.

Intellect and reason is a higher good and enables people to win. Therefore my argument: philosophy can and should be held responsible.

A practical example: there is an 'interpretation of the Bible' that prophetised a catastrophic war, which results in a wicked philosophy.

(2023) War in Israel: A Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy?
https://harvest.org/resources/gregs-blo ... -prophecy/

With such ideas, which is 'philosophy', people can be driven to acts of destruction and war while reason per se might not have motivated them to perform such acts. People are capable of a lot for a belief or idea, as is evident from cults in which people collectively commit suicide.

Therefore it is my opinion that philosophy can be a solution. The work of for example Emmanuel Lévinas shows what the human is capable of intellectually and morally. Lévinas' work and his eschatological vision for peace can counter the ideas proposed by Luke 21:24 by emphasizing the importance of ethics, responsibility, and peace in the present moment, rather than waiting for a future event to bring about peace.

Philosophy can be the solution, and because of it, philosophy should be held responsible.

[Pattern-chaser]

[To: Sy Borg]
I have a question. Several times in this topic, IIRC, you have commented that, after 75 years, the Palestinians should just accept 1948 and move on. It's a fair question. But it occurs to me that the Jews pursued exactly those same hopes and dreams of reclaiming their homeland, but they have pursued them since the eighth century BCE, nearly 3000 years!. After such an enormous amount of time has passed, shouldn't your question apply also to the Jews?

There is no symettry in the twp claims.

Correct — that is my point. One is 75 years and the other nearly 40 times as long. A sentiment that applies to the former surely applies more strongly to the latter.

The disputed land in not simply the land stolen from Palestinians in 1948, with a coup.
It is all the other land they have stolen since then, expecially the land taken in 2 wars started by Isreal since 1948, and declared illegal by the United Nations.
There is also the massive issue of piecemeal evictions of Palestinians families in homes and from land they have lived in and on for generations, to be replaced with imported Jews from America often with absolutely no previous connection with the land. There is also the issue of illegal detentions, especailly of chidlren without trial or representation.

I agree that all of this is correct. But it does not apply to the question I asked Sy Borg.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, the Palestinians want to reclaim what they believe is their homeland...

I have a question. Several times in this topic, IIRC, you have commented that, after 75 years, the Palestinians should just accept 1948 and move on. It's a fair question. But it occurs to me that the Jews pursued exactly those same hopes and dreams of reclaiming their homeland, but they have pursued them since the eighth century BCE, nearly 3000 years!. After such an enormous amount of time has passed, shouldn't your question apply also to the Jews?

Why are you denying that this is a two-sided situation?

Considering the number of times I have commented, in this topic, that this is not a one-sided situation, this seems a little unfair. And factually incorrect. An explicit example:

[N.B. Although my posts in this topic have mostly been pro-Palestine, I would prefer to offer a more even-handed approach to the discussion. However, in the light of the strongly pro-Israel stance of several commentators, I offer the other side as a complement, a balance.]

More to the point, you didn't answer my question. It was a simple one. If the Palestinians should've given up and moved on after a mere 75 years, why shouldn't the Jewish community have also moved on, after nearly 3000 years?

[Pattern-chaser]

If my understanding is correct, the Jews were driven from the Middle East around two millennia ago. That's a very long time. In comparison, Palestine was taken from the Palestinians only 75 years ago.

It seems that we have to draw a line sonewhere between more-recent past injustices that we should try to remedy, and less-recent past injustices that we should just accept and move on.

Where is the right place to draw that line?

(E.g. how long does Russia have to hold on to Crimea before we should just accept the occupation as an act of history ?)

I put it to you that reversing some past act of change of ownership of territory is
- justice to all those living people who lost out by the change
- injustice to all those who have grown up with the new order, who are no less attached to their homeland than anyone else is.

A utilitarian would draw the line when the two populations are equal. The point where a reversal of past change would evict from their birthplace more people than it would restore to their birthplace.

So roughly half a lifetime.

Do you have any rational argument for any other period ?

No, I don't. It is not clear to me that there is a good argument to apply to any period. These matters are notoriously difficult to solve. But it is fair to observe, and correct too, that it was a Very Long Time between the Jews being driven from their lands, and the foundation of the modern state of Israel. In comparison, the theft of Palestinian land was yesterday.

[Consul]

"2 wars started by Israel since 1948"? – Which ones?

* The 1948 war was started by a coalition of five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

* The 1967 war (Six-Day War) was started by Israel as a preemptive strike against Egypt's aggressive military moves.

* The 1973 war (Yom Kippur War) was started by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

No the last two were started by Isreal.
You might want to revie the meaning od the word "premeptive strike". Its a moronic term.

No, it's not. In 1967 the Arabs were about to attack Israel, so the Israelis decided to act preemptively.

"In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden preemptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

As for 1973, you're wrong:

"Yom Kippur War, fourth of the Arab-Israeli wars, which was initiated by Egypt and Syria on October 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Yom-Kippur-War

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the Palestinians want to reclaim what they believe is their homeland...

I have a question. Several times in this topic, IIRC, you have commented that, after 75 years, the Palestinians should just accept 1948 and move on. It's a fair question. But it occurs to me that the Jews pursued exactly those same hopes and dreams of reclaiming their homeland, but they have pursued them since the eighth century BCE, nearly 3000 years!. After such an enormous amount of time has passed, shouldn't your question apply also to the Jews?

Why are you denying that this is a two-sided situation?

Considering the number of times I have commented, in this topic, that this is not a one-sided situation, this seems a little unfair. And factually incorrect. An explicit example:

[N.B. Although my posts in this topic have mostly been pro-Palestine, I would prefer to offer a more even-handed approach to the discussion. However, in the light of the strongly pro-Israel stance of several commentators, I offer the other side as a complement, a balance.]

More to the point, you didn't answer my question. It was a simple one. If the Palestinians should've given up and moved on after a mere 75 years, why shouldn't the Jewish community have also moved on, after nearly 3000 years?

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

Palestinians at least have the state of Palestine, tenuous as it is (thanks to hamas's brinkmanship). The Jews had nothing - they were scattered around the globe. There was effectively a pincer movement on Jews - with Nazis attacking from the west and Arabs from the east.

[Sculptor1]

"2 wars started by Israel since 1948"? – Which ones?

* The 1948 war was started by a coalition of five Arab states (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria).

* The 1967 war (Six-Day War) was started by Israel as a preemptive strike against Egypt's aggressive military moves.

* The 1973 war (Yom Kippur War) was started by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria.

No the last two were started by Isreal.
You might want to revie the meaning od the word "premeptive strike". Its a moronic term.

No, it's not. In 1967 the Arabs were about to attack Israel, so the Israelis decided to act preemptively.

[Pattern-chaser]

I note that you have ignored the Jewish Exodus again, persisting with that incorrect 3000 years figure. Why are you so loathe to acknowledge what the Jews went through to lead to this situation?

I'm not loth to acknowledge anything. But the history of this sorry conflict began in the 8th century BCE, when the Jews were driven out of their homeland, which is nearly 3000 years ago. Since then, a great deal has happened, as we all know and accept. There are many things to take into account, not least of which is to acknowledge that the people that we call Palestinians today also lived in that part of the Middle East, and they continued to live there after the Jews were driven out. Those people also descend from the same ancestry, including the ancient Semite tribe, as the Jews. And so the sad story began, and continues even today.

This is very much a multi-sided, multi-facetted situation. Many modern nations have been involved, at one point or another. Today's Israel could not stand without support and finance from the USA. And so on.

And so, in this discussion, I have seen fit to describe the parlous state of the Palestinian people, not because theirs is the only part of the picture, but in balance to the strongly pro-Israel stance that you and other commentators have adopted. I seek not to champion the Palestinian cause, but only to offer a description that complements yours. As you have said, this is not a one-sided debate.

[Pattern-chaser]

"In response to the apparent mobilization of its Arab neighbours, early on the morning of June 5, Israel staged a sudden pre-emptive air assault that destroyed more than 90 percent Egypt’s air force on the tarmac."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Six-Day-War

Pre-emptive strikes are not self-defence. Self-defence is when you counter-attack in response to an attack by your enemy, not when you think your enemy may be about to attack.