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

[Sy Borg]

This has nothing to do with Nazi Germany - except for the anti-Semitism. Did Jews send missiles onto the German people and kidnap and rape their civilians? When one's family was almost a victim of an attempted actual genocide, one has a different perspective.

The Israelis are trying to prevent genocide - their own. Jews were already cleansed from surrounding nations, their communities were destroyed and Jews were forced to scatter around the world. Look at the numbers of Jews in ME nations - then and now. No one has talked about that or Arabs' attempts to finish what the Nazis started. Meanwhile no Arab nation is prepared to take Palestinian refugees, nor are they interested in funding the UNRWA. As for Palestinians, their leadership publicly endorsed the Chinese genocide of Uyghurs.

Never mind who the Houthi slaughtered in gaining power to do Iran's bidding in Yemen. That's doesn't matter because Jews aren't doing it, it seems. Never mind what's happening in South Sudan or Syria. Only Jewish crimes must be prevented and punished.

Hardly anyone talks about Yemen, yet the scale of its humanitarian disaster dwarfs Palestine. Why aren't the west angry at Iran about what they have done to Yemen? (and they are backing Hezbollah and Hamas - both of them have also caused much hardship for their own people).

I hear China is stockpiling weapons. If they invade Taiwan, I guarantee there will be a less passionate response on the forum than to Israel's heavy-handed response to their own version of 9/11.

Again, even if no one is listening, it's not about Israel's crimes but the excessive focus, bordering on hateful obsession, on those while a blind eye is turned to equivalent and worse crimes.

I understand your point about excessive focus, it's a fair one. And I'm sure there is a mix of reasons behind it, some rooted in anti-semitism. But the Israeli government's actions right now is the issue at hand. Because no matter the historical context, they are deliberately committing genocide. Right now. Not legitimate self-defence, but cruel, deliberate and indiscriminate ethnic cleansing. And MY country, on MY behalf, theoretically accountable to ME, is aiding and abetting genocide. And I can say I don't want any part of it, even attempt to sway them by doing so. It's a no-brainer to me.

If I had family in Israel or Palestine I'm sure that would sway my feelings and allegiances, I get that too. Israel is a scary place to live at the best of times, living under constant threat is no way to live, for either side, potentially exacerbated by the current apartheid. Still many Jews across the world still argue that this isn't right, or good for Israel as well as Palestine.

The best that we on the outside can do is use our influence to call for a ceasefire and try to get negotiations for a solution going, and hopefully Palestinian supporting nations put similar pressure on Hamas. Every sensible, self-interested surrounding nation wants to avoid escalation and the fall-out of the de-population of Gaza, and that's the way to do it. It's a hard, grinding, dis-heartening and frustrating approach, but compared to genocide it's incomparably better.

As for Yemen, the Saudis have been bombing them for years with weapons MY country sells them (because they have bags of money we want), contributing to devastating destruction and famine there. Something constituents in my area have previously had our MP raise in UK Parliament to no avail. We plebs can only try to influence what we can, maybe give a bit of aid and a voice to the victims. And when a terrible and horrific injustice like genocide hits the spotlight, the focus can mobilise us out our apathy, in the face of helplessness at the state of the world. Especially if we're complicit.

Thansk for being the first person to acknowledge the disproportionate focus on Israel while ignoring the genocides in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic. The fact is that we don't care about genocides about people far from us - otherwise the forum would have been ablaze with commentary on the genocides happening in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic - not to mention the destruction of Uyghur culture and genocide of Tibetans.

I don't blame any of you for not caring about these. There is far too much going on in the world - endless suffering of a scale far beyond our ken.

I see no reason to prioritise the longstanding issues with Israel and Palestine, just because the media pushes it. We have already seen the high levels of anti-Semitism that has been fostered in academic circles due to a ridiculous Marxist parsing of all parties as evil oppressors and the noble oppressed, and this bias has pushed public discourse.

Meanwhile, the UN has been captured by China and petrodollars - appointing an Iran representative t be in charge of human rights - with the US's much-maligned right of veto the only thing presenting an almost complete capitulation to hostile foreign interests. We already know of many UN employees who celebrated the Hamas attacks and at least a dozen of them played an active role. I see the inordinate focus on Israel, while nothing is said about other issues, as anti-Semitic, although often the prejudice is indirect - that people are being influenced by the excellent propagaanda campaign of anti-Semites without realising it.

I don't care who's paying the bills for these wars. Whether the US and UK pay or not, anti-western apologists will still find a way to blame the west and Jews, so it makes no difference. I see no reason why western and Jewish misdeeds are something that must be urgently changed, while misdeeds by others - much worse, too - are ignored.

The US hegemony is dying and there will soon be various power centres around the world. It's akin to a society who deposes a dictator and falls into chaos and violent feudalism. I no longer automatically side with victims in the political sphere. Every time victims are freed from modern despots, things seem to decline. The Arab Spring was a disaster. South Africa's freedom from apartheid (I had been red hot for years against apartheid) has resulted in a worse standard of living for most South Africans. The deposition of Gaddaffi and Saddam were disastrous Libyans and Iraqis. The nations soon fell into sectarian violence - with hatred so intense that it turns out that only a brutal dictator could curb it.

Trouble is, dictators (like the US bossed the world over the past six decades) can't retain stability. They fall into hubris, as the US has done. History tells us that such falls tend to be followed by chaos, as competing interests jostle for control in the power vacuum. So, the US's time as (somewhat) undisputed world leader is just about done.

If the US falls far enough, Jews will lose their protection and they will once again be scattered. It's not as though, like the Palestinians, they could simply move into neighbouring countries with a similar culture. Ah, but none of Palestine's neighbours want their refugees, although they pretend to decline for noble reasons.

Jews vary in their ways of being Jews. Some sorts of Jews more than others are influenced by Enlightenment values and less affected by family traditions of practice and Biblical historicity or lack of it. Muslims too vary as to whether they identity as Sunni, Shia, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, Sufi and Deobandi. It seems the general difference between Islam and Judaism is the former includes profession of faith in the Muhammad myth, whereas the latter is praxis with no foundation myth,

I wonder if Sy Borg and others hold that if a people, at popular level , generally identify with a reasonable post-Enlightenment religion that people would be a lot less likely than other religionists of whatever sect to be aggressive.
(As usual religious mystics seem to be extraordinarily peaceful regardless of sect.)

One difference is that Jews ostracise and diminish those who practice Jewry differently, while Muslims fight and kill those who practice different types of Islam. It is strange. The so-called "religion of peace" is, by far, the most warlike and violent religion. I'm no expert but Sufism appears to be the most peaceful branch of Islam, and also one of the most marginalised.

It seems to me that people who don't identify with religions (or ideologies) are the safest, and those who most intensely identify with religion and ideologies are the most dangerous.

[Pattern-chaser]

We already know of many UN employees who celebrated the Hamas attacks and at least a dozen of them played an active role.

We know of such accusations, but so far there has been only that: accusations. No evidence, no witnesses, no pictures or videos, have been offered for consideration. So far, it looks like the accusations might be without foundation, made for propaganda purposes; an attack by Israel on what it perceives as an opposing force: the UN (who have passed several resolutions over the years that are seen by Israel as unfriendly).

We shall see if any corroboration emerges. It is too early yet to reach any conclusion. And too early to write "know" when we don't yet, er, know.

[Belindi]

I understand your point about excessive focus, it's a fair one. And I'm sure there is a mix of reasons behind it, some rooted in anti-semitism. But the Israeli government's actions right now is the issue at hand. Because no matter the historical context, they are deliberately committing genocide. Right now. Not legitimate self-defence, but cruel, deliberate and indiscriminate ethnic cleansing. And MY country, on MY behalf, theoretically accountable to ME, is aiding and abetting genocide. And I can say I don't want any part of it, even attempt to sway them by doing so. It's a no-brainer to me.

If I had family in Israel or Palestine I'm sure that would sway my feelings and allegiances, I get that too. Israel is a scary place to live at the best of times, living under constant threat is no way to live, for either side, potentially exacerbated by the current apartheid. Still many Jews across the world still argue that this isn't right, or good for Israel as well as Palestine.

The best that we on the outside can do is use our influence to call for a ceasefire and try to get negotiations for a solution going, and hopefully Palestinian supporting nations put similar pressure on Hamas. Every sensible, self-interested surrounding nation wants to avoid escalation and the fall-out of the de-population of Gaza, and that's the way to do it. It's a hard, grinding, dis-heartening and frustrating approach, but compared to genocide it's incomparably better.

As for Yemen, the Saudis have been bombing them for years with weapons MY country sells them (because they have bags of money we want), contributing to devastating destruction and famine there. Something constituents in my area have previously had our MP raise in UK Parliament to no avail. We plebs can only try to influence what we can, maybe give a bit of aid and a voice to the victims. And when a terrible and horrific injustice like genocide hits the spotlight, the focus can mobilise us out our apathy, in the face of helplessness at the state of the world. Especially if we're complicit.

Thansk for being the first person to acknowledge the disproportionate focus on Israel while ignoring the genocides in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic. The fact is that we don't care about genocides about people far from us - otherwise the forum would have been ablaze with commentary on the genocides happening in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic - not to mention the destruction of Uyghur culture and genocide of Tibetans.

I don't blame any of you for not caring about these. There is far too much going on in the world - endless suffering of a scale far beyond our ken.

I see no reason to prioritise the longstanding issues with Israel and Palestine, just because the media pushes it. We have already seen the high levels of anti-Semitism that has been fostered in academic circles due to a ridiculous Marxist parsing of all parties as evil oppressors and the noble oppressed, and this bias has pushed public discourse.

Meanwhile, the UN has been captured by China and petrodollars - appointing an Iran representative t be in charge of human rights - with the US's much-maligned right of veto the only thing presenting an almost complete capitulation to hostile foreign interests. We already know of many UN employees who celebrated the Hamas attacks and at least a dozen of them played an active role. I see the inordinate focus on Israel, while nothing is said about other issues, as anti-Semitic, although often the prejudice is indirect - that people are being influenced by the excellent propagaanda campaign of anti-Semites without realising it.

I don't care who's paying the bills for these wars. Whether the US and UK pay or not, anti-western apologists will still find a way to blame the west and Jews, so it makes no difference. I see no reason why western and Jewish misdeeds are something that must be urgently changed, while misdeeds by others - much worse, too - are ignored.

The US hegemony is dying and there will soon be various power centres around the world. It's akin to a society who deposes a dictator and falls into chaos and violent feudalism. I no longer automatically side with victims in the political sphere. Every time victims are freed from modern despots, things seem to decline. The Arab Spring was a disaster. South Africa's freedom from apartheid (I had been red hot for years against apartheid) has resulted in a worse standard of living for most South Africans. The deposition of Gaddaffi and Saddam were disastrous Libyans and Iraqis. The nations soon fell into sectarian violence - with hatred so intense that it turns out that only a brutal dictator could curb it.

Trouble is, dictators (like the US bossed the world over the past six decades) can't retain stability. They fall into hubris, as the US has done. History tells us that such falls tend to be followed by chaos, as competing interests jostle for control in the power vacuum. So, the US's time as (somewhat) undisputed world leader is just about done.

If the US falls far enough, Jews will lose their protection and they will once again be scattered. It's not as though, like the Palestinians, they could simply move into neighbouring countries with a similar culture. Ah, but none of Palestine's neighbours want their refugees, although they pretend to decline for noble reasons.

Jews vary in their ways of being Jews. Some sorts of Jews more than others are influenced by Enlightenment values and less affected by family traditions of practice and Biblical historicity or lack of it. Muslims too vary as to whether they identity as Sunni, Shia, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, Sufi and Deobandi. It seems the general difference between Islam and Judaism is the former includes profession of faith in the Muhammad myth, whereas the latter is praxis with no foundation myth,

I wonder if Sy Borg and others hold that if a people, at popular level , generally identify with a reasonable post-Enlightenment religion that people would be a lot less likely than other religionists of whatever sect to be aggressive.
(As usual religious mystics seem to be extraordinarily peaceful regardless of sect.)

One difference is that Jews ostracise and diminish those who practice Jewry differently, while Muslims fight and kill those who practice different types of Islam. It is strange. The so-called "religion of peace" is, by far, the most warlike and violent religion. I'm no expert but Sufism appears to be the most peaceful branch of Islam, and also one of the most marginalised.

It seems to me that people who don't identify with religions (or ideologies) are the safest, and those who most intensely identify with religion and ideologies are the most dangerous.

On the other hand Jews have been marginalised in European societies by having their work limited to certain trades, and this limitation of their status in society has been a direct cause of their feeling that they are 'other' and must cling to their ethnicity. Judaism remains an ethnic religion which is defined by praxis not by faith in any miracle.

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate ,so there is no continuous interpretation of the Koran, and there are a great many different interpretations of the Koran.

While secularists follow reason we/they are more likely to be seduced by fundamentalism, Nazism, or Communism because we lack a tradition of mercy and obedience to a merciful Authority. UK and US are still doing some terrible atrocities such as arming Israel, and quite recently Guantanamo Bay and renditions.
I still view best education for all at the expense of the state as fundamental to education in empathy. Jews are comparatively easy to educate beyond their ethnicity, for which there is much evidence; whereas the world of Islam needs to modernise from within. To this end we can watch what happens with Turkey.

[Sy Borg]

Thansk for being the first person to acknowledge the disproportionate focus on Israel while ignoring the genocides in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic. The fact is that we don't care about genocides about people far from us - otherwise the forum would have been ablaze with commentary on the genocides happening in Iraq, Syria, Sudan and the Central African Republic - not to mention the destruction of Uyghur culture and genocide of Tibetans.

I don't blame any of you for not caring about these. There is far too much going on in the world - endless suffering of a scale far beyond our ken.

I see no reason to prioritise the longstanding issues with Israel and Palestine, just because the media pushes it. We have already seen the high levels of anti-Semitism that has been fostered in academic circles due to a ridiculous Marxist parsing of all parties as evil oppressors and the noble oppressed, and this bias has pushed public discourse.

Meanwhile, the UN has been captured by China and petrodollars - appointing an Iran representative t be in charge of human rights - with the US's much-maligned right of veto the only thing presenting an almost complete capitulation to hostile foreign interests. We already know of many UN employees who celebrated the Hamas attacks and at least a dozen of them played an active role. I see the inordinate focus on Israel, while nothing is said about other issues, as anti-Semitic, although often the prejudice is indirect - that people are being influenced by the excellent propagaanda campaign of anti-Semites without realising it.

I don't care who's paying the bills for these wars. Whether the US and UK pay or not, anti-western apologists will still find a way to blame the west and Jews, so it makes no difference. I see no reason why western and Jewish misdeeds are something that must be urgently changed, while misdeeds by others - much worse, too - are ignored.

The US hegemony is dying and there will soon be various power centres around the world. It's akin to a society who deposes a dictator and falls into chaos and violent feudalism. I no longer automatically side with victims in the political sphere. Every time victims are freed from modern despots, things seem to decline. The Arab Spring was a disaster. South Africa's freedom from apartheid (I had been red hot for years against apartheid) has resulted in a worse standard of living for most South Africans. The deposition of Gaddaffi and Saddam were disastrous Libyans and Iraqis. The nations soon fell into sectarian violence - with hatred so intense that it turns out that only a brutal dictator could curb it.

Trouble is, dictators (like the US bossed the world over the past six decades) can't retain stability. They fall into hubris, as the US has done. History tells us that such falls tend to be followed by chaos, as competing interests jostle for control in the power vacuum. So, the US's time as (somewhat) undisputed world leader is just about done.

If the US falls far enough, Jews will lose their protection and they will once again be scattered. It's not as though, like the Palestinians, they could simply move into neighbouring countries with a similar culture. Ah, but none of Palestine's neighbours want their refugees, although they pretend to decline for noble reasons.

Jews vary in their ways of being Jews. Some sorts of Jews more than others are influenced by Enlightenment values and less affected by family traditions of practice and Biblical historicity or lack of it. Muslims too vary as to whether they identity as Sunni, Shia, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, Sufi and Deobandi. It seems the general difference between Islam and Judaism is the former includes profession of faith in the Muhammad myth, whereas the latter is praxis with no foundation myth,

I wonder if Sy Borg and others hold that if a people, at popular level , generally identify with a reasonable post-Enlightenment religion that people would be a lot less likely than other religionists of whatever sect to be aggressive.
(As usual religious mystics seem to be extraordinarily peaceful regardless of sect.)

One difference is that Jews ostracise and diminish those who practice Jewry differently, while Muslims fight and kill those who practice different types of Islam. It is strange. The so-called "religion of peace" is, by far, the most warlike and violent religion. I'm no expert but Sufism appears to be the most peaceful branch of Islam, and also one of the most marginalised.

It seems to me that people who don't identify with religions (or ideologies) are the safest, and those who most intensely identify with religion and ideologies are the most dangerous.

On the other hand Jews have been marginalised in European societies by having their work limited to certain trades, and this limitation of their status in society has been a direct cause of their feeling that they are 'other' and must cling to their ethnicity. Judaism remains an ethnic religion which is defined by praxis not by faith in any miracle.

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate ,so there is no continuous interpretation of the Koran, and there are a great many different interpretations of the Koran.

While secularists follow reason we/they are more likely to be seduced by fundamentalism, Nazism, or Communism because we lack a tradition of mercy and obedience to a merciful Authority. UK and US are still doing some terrible atrocities such as arming Israel, and quite recently Guantanamo Bay and renditions.
I still view best education for all at the expense of the state as fundamental to education in empathy. Jews are comparatively easy to educate beyond their ethnicity, for which there is much evidence; whereas the world of Islam needs to modernise from within. To this end we can watch what happens with Turkey.

Muslims routinely engage in terrible atrocities too. Should we continue to treat these as lesser sins than those of Americans, British and Jews?

[Belindi]

Jews vary in their ways of being Jews. Some sorts of Jews more than others are influenced by Enlightenment values and less affected by family traditions of practice and Biblical historicity or lack of it. Muslims too vary as to whether they identity as Sunni, Shia, Whabbi, Salafi, Berelvi, Sufi and Deobandi. It seems the general difference between Islam and Judaism is the former includes profession of faith in the Muhammad myth, whereas the latter is praxis with no foundation myth,

I wonder if Sy Borg and others hold that if a people, at popular level , generally identify with a reasonable post-Enlightenment religion that people would be a lot less likely than other religionists of whatever sect to be aggressive.
(As usual religious mystics seem to be extraordinarily peaceful regardless of sect.)

One difference is that Jews ostracise and diminish those who practice Jewry differently, while Muslims fight and kill those who practice different types of Islam. It is strange. The so-called "religion of peace" is, by far, the most warlike and violent religion. I'm no expert but Sufism appears to be the most peaceful branch of Islam, and also one of the most marginalised.

It seems to me that people who don't identify with religions (or ideologies) are the safest, and those who most intensely identify with religion and ideologies are the most dangerous.

On the other hand Jews have been marginalised in European societies by having their work limited to certain trades, and this limitation of their status in society has been a direct cause of their feeling that they are 'other' and must cling to their ethnicity. Judaism remains an ethnic religion which is defined by praxis not by faith in any miracle.

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate ,so there is no continuous interpretation of the Koran, and there are a great many different interpretations of the Koran.

While secularists follow reason we/they are more likely to be seduced by fundamentalism, Nazism, or Communism because we lack a tradition of mercy and obedience to a merciful Authority. UK and US are still doing some terrible atrocities such as arming Israel, and quite recently Guantanamo Bay and renditions.
I still view best education for all at the expense of the state as fundamental to education in empathy. Jews are comparatively easy to educate beyond their ethnicity, for which there is much evidence; whereas the world of Islam needs to modernise from within. To this end we can watch what happens with Turkey.

Muslims routinely engage in terrible atrocities too. Should we continue to treat these as lesser sins than those of
Americans, British and Jews?

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate so there are many different versions of Islam and what a Muslim is and should be. Best to specify which Muslims and which atrocities. There is no excuse for the aeroplanes that refuelled in Scotland to let anyone from any religion be imprisoned somewhere that torture can be carried out.

[Sy Borg]

One difference is that Jews ostracise and diminish those who practice Jewry differently, while Muslims fight and kill those who practice different types of Islam. It is strange. The so-called "religion of peace" is, by far, the most warlike and violent religion. I'm no expert but Sufism appears to be the most peaceful branch of Islam, and also one of the most marginalised.

It seems to me that people who don't identify with religions (or ideologies) are the safest, and those who most intensely identify with religion and ideologies are the most dangerous.

On the other hand Jews have been marginalised in European societies by having their work limited to certain trades, and this limitation of their status in society has been a direct cause of their feeling that they are 'other' and must cling to their ethnicity. Judaism remains an ethnic religion which is defined by praxis not by faith in any miracle.

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate ,so there is no continuous interpretation of the Koran, and there are a great many different interpretations of the Koran.

While secularists follow reason we/they are more likely to be seduced by fundamentalism, Nazism, or Communism because we lack a tradition of mercy and obedience to a merciful Authority. UK and US are still doing some terrible atrocities such as arming Israel, and quite recently Guantanamo Bay and renditions.
I still view best education for all at the expense of the state as fundamental to education in empathy. Jews are comparatively easy to educate beyond their ethnicity, for which there is much evidence; whereas the world of Islam needs to modernise from within. To this end we can watch what happens with Turkey.

Muslims routinely engage in terrible atrocities too. Should we continue to treat these as lesser sins than those of
Americans, British and Jews?

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate so there are many different versions of Islam and what a Muslim is and should be. Best to specify which Muslims and which atrocities. There is no excuse for the aeroplanes that refuelled in Scotland to let anyone from any religion be imprisoned somewhere that torture can be carried out.

There is no excuse for sending missiles to kill more than a thousand of civilians and to kidnap and torture a couple of hundred more.

There is no excuse for a huge amount of what humans have done in warfare. Trouble is, humans make war. It's a wicked problem.

[Belindi]

On the other hand Jews have been marginalised in European societies by having their work limited to certain trades, and this limitation of their status in society has been a direct cause of their feeling that they are 'other' and must cling to their ethnicity. Judaism remains an ethnic religion which is defined by praxis not by faith in any miracle.

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate ,so there is no continuous interpretation of the Koran, and there are a great many different interpretations of the Koran.

While secularists follow reason we/they are more likely to be seduced by fundamentalism, Nazism, or Communism because we lack a tradition of mercy and obedience to a merciful Authority. UK and US are still doing some terrible atrocities such as arming Israel, and quite recently Guantanamo Bay and renditions.
I still view best education for all at the expense of the state as fundamental to education in empathy. Jews are comparatively easy to educate beyond their ethnicity, for which there is much evidence; whereas the world of Islam needs to modernise from within. To this end we can watch what happens with Turkey.

Muslims routinely engage in terrible atrocities too. Should we continue to treat these as lesser sins than those of
Americans, British and Jews?

Islam has not been centralised since the Umayyad Caliphate so there are many different versions of Islam and what a Muslim is and should be. Best to specify which Muslims and which atrocities. There is no excuse for the aeroplanes that refuelled in Scotland to let anyone from any religion be imprisoned somewhere that torture can be carried out.

There is no excuse for sending missiles to kill more than a thousand of civilians and to kidnap and torture a couple of hundred more.

There is no excuse for a huge amount of what humans have done in warfare. Trouble is, humans make war. It's a wicked problem.

Of course there is no excuse. But why say the obvious that atrocities are inexcusable? I'm not interested in ' atrocity abc is worse than atrocity xyz'. I am interested in how to stop atrocities, and that is why I mentioned the renditions to torture overseas with the American rendition aeroplanes refuelling in Scotland. That atrocity is closer to home than atrocities in countries that I don't belong to. The relevance of a US atrocity is that the UK and the US work together as one as far as foreign policy is concerned.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no excuse for sending missiles to kill more than a thousand of civilians and to kidnap and torture a couple of hundred more.

Agreed.

There is no excuse for invading and (militarily) occupying someone else's land, either.

But such statements solve nothing.

There is no excuse for not working toward a peaceful settlement between the political states of Israel and Palestine. Then this topic can separately discuss anti-Jewish (religious) discrimination, without risking confusion.

[Sy Borg]

There is no excuse for sending missiles to kill more than a thousand of civilians and to kidnap and torture a couple of hundred more.

Agreed.

There is no excuse for invading and (militarily) occupying someone else's land, either.

But such statements solve nothing.

There is no excuse for not working toward a peaceful settlement between the political states of Israel and Palestine. Then this topic can separately discuss anti-Jewish (religious) discrimination, without risking confusion.

There is every excuse for not working toward a peaceful settlement between the political states of Israel and Palestine - such as seventy years of their stubborn BS. Let them duke it out and finish it once and for all.

Generally, after a weaker opponent is badly beaten up, they will cut their losses and accept the winner's terms. Palestine has repeatedly failed to take the pragmatic route for the sake of its people, to cut their losses. No, this is about religious and political pride, not the wellbeing of people.

Thus, Hamas sees the conflict as a zero sum game. Hamas's brief has never been a two-state solution but the total annihilation of Israel and the death of all Jews. How can Israel make a deal with them? Obviously it's impossible, which is why no deal has been made in all this time.

After seventy years, with the situation worse than ever, this conflict seems only likely to end when one or both parties are destroyed or scattered. Yet so many westerners side with Hamas because they are the underdog, and thus seen as "the noble oppressed" falling prey to "wicked oppressors". Hamas is oppressed, but far from noble. They could have been pragmatic and helped Palestinians to lead good, happy and productive lives (as many Palestinians did living and working in Israel) but Hamas instead lead the people into hell.

[Good_Egg]

There is no excuse for not working toward a peaceful settlement between the political states of Israel and Palestine.

Peace with an opponent who is committed to one's non-existence is not possible.

Failing to pursue the impossible is entirely excusable.

Then this topic can separately discuss anti-Jewish (religious) discrimination, without risking confusion.

Whether anti-Jewish discrimination is religious or racial or cultural is somewhat beside the point. What difference does it make ?

Attempting to hold one of two warring parties to a higher standard than the other seems like a form of discrimination.

Bias is bias, whether or not it's motivated by religious or racial sentiment.

If there were a religion called Sinisterism whose adherents believed it a religious duty to remake the world in line with their doctrine, would you not stand up for the right of everyone else to live free from their bias and bigotry ? Despite their protests that their doctrine is true ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Then this topic can separately discuss anti-Jewish (religious) discrimination, without risking confusion.

Whether anti-Jewish discrimination is religious or racial or cultural is somewhat beside the point. What difference does it make ?

In this case, I think the difference is significant. The current conflict is a territorial dispute, a competition for control of historic-Palestine. Land; territory; it's a nationalistic dispute. This is not good, but it is quite different from persecution on the basis of religion (or race, or...). Discrimination is quite easy to condemn outright. Those who discriminate are in the wrong, in the view of most people. While those who fight over land usually both have a reason for believing their struggle is morally justifiable. Sometimes, those reasons are good reasons.

[Good_Egg]

Discrimination is quite easy to condemn outright. Those who discriminate are in the wrong, in the view of most people.

I think you're mistaken. Your weak appeal to the authority of "most people" might have alerted you to the fact that you're on much muddier ground here than you'd like to think.

You know that the original meaning of "discriminate" is something like "to make fine distinctions". It is a positive attribute - someone who is undiscriminating treats good and bad alike, failing to respond to relevant differences. Like servng up ripe and unripe and rotten fruit without regard for the difference.

You're using "discriminate" in the (?feminist?) sense that arose in the 1970s. Akin to prejudice, discrimination in this sense is a negative thing, meaning to respond to differences that one believes ought to be irrelevant. The classic example would be an employer who prefers to hire male engineers.

So whether an act constitutes discrimination in the bad sense is not an objective fact, but depends on one's other beliefs as to what is relevant in any particular situation. Are a person's culture and ideology relevant to how you treat them ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Discrimination is quite easy to condemn outright. Those who discriminate are in the wrong, in the view of most people.

I think you're mistaken. Your weak appeal to the authority of "most people" might have alerted you to the fact that you're on much muddier ground here than you'd like to think.

You know that the original meaning of "discriminate" is something like "to make fine distinctions".

OK, yes, I have often used "discriminate" in the way you describe. But you know as well as I do that "discrimination" is also (in recent times) used as a catch-all term for the -isms — racism, misogyny, ageism, religion-ism (?), and so on. And you also know that's the meaning I intended when I wrote the above, I think?

[Sy Borg]

If - as in the corrupt UN - there is a huge focus on the misdeeds of Jews and an equivalent lack of interest is far worse misdeeds by Muslims then that is indeed anti-Semitism.

[Good_Egg]

But you know as well as I do that "discrimination" is also (in recent times) used as a catch-all term for the -isms — racism, misogyny, ageism, religion-ism (?), and so on. And you also know that's the meaning I intended when I wrote the above, I think?

Yes, I know.

The point of describing both usages and the difference between them is to make clear that these -isms involve a value judgment as to relevance.

So if we see anti-semitism as one of the -isms, then we might conclude that anyone who can honestly say that they don't care that Israel is a Jewish ethno-state is not anti-semitic.

Whereas anyone whose view of Israel's recent actions re Gaza is coloured by their dislike of the notion of a Jewish state is being discriminatory in your sense - judging on the basis of an irrelevant criterion.