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

[Sy Borg]

I would like to see how you would respond if a neighbour shot missiles that killed thousands of civilians and ran in the kidnap and rape hundreds more?

What Israel is doing is self-defence. They are trying to neutralise a constant threat. They have gone extreme, but it's understandable after six decades of attacks to want to finx the problem once and for all. The Palestinians were much better off before Hamas lead them into greater extremism rather than de-escalation.

I have not seen a single ant-Semite on this board make the slightest criticism of Hamas. As far as the (surprisingly plentiful) anti-Semites on this board are concerned, Hamas is entirely blameless, jut bombing The Oppressor a la Marx.

As for whether the US is overbalanced towards defence, it's hard to say. As far as I can tell, Russia an China are serious competitors. The US is not so dominant that Russia and China fear them, hence the nonstop provocations. So perhaps the US is not too militarily powerful but as powerful as it needs to be to maintain its position? Having not developed defence budgets personally, I don't know for sure what the right amount would be during times of geopolitical instability.

But they won't "fix the problem", they will exterminate the Palestinians.

Palestine has rejected the two-state solution multiple times. Hamas's aim is not to share land with Israel but to exterminate or scatter all Israelis, as did all other Arab lands (no one made a fuss about that).

If Hamas was not so determined to exterminate Jews then maybe Jews would be less inclined to exterminate Hamas? Are Palestinians better off for their (wealthy and comfortable) leaders' decision to settle on a two-state solution? When does Hamas they take ANY responsibility for what has happened. The way you and other speak, you'd think they hadn't just perpetrated the most deadly attack on a nation since 9/11.

Since 1948 native Palestinians have been badly treated by Israel some of whose prime ministers have been kinder than others notably Ben Gurion and Menahem Begin. Netanyahu is unpopular including in Israel.

Hamas is caused by fear among those Palestinian voters who are warlike; fear of the Israeli oppressor and what he is still going to do in the few days left before Israel crushes Gaza. Have you never seen a cornered fox or badger?

Sixty years, multiple attempts to get Palestine to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians brought this on themselves by refusing to compromise against a stronger enemy, and a refusal to accept the existence of Israel per se. As if Muslims had not scattered them enough in the past.

At some point one is either pragmatic or one makes a rod for one's own back. Palestine could have had this settled decades ago and they would probably have many more of their people making a good living in Israel than there already are, and they might have even become prosperous. Their stridency and refusal to compromise, however, resulted in a leader like Netanyahu. If there was not a constant threat Israel would not have elected what is essentially a wartime leader.

[Pattern-chaser]

Just as one can murder "by accident". In the UK we have a separate word for it: "manslaughter" instead of (intentional) "murder".

So, in the same way that we can or could do almost anything by accident, it would seem silly to claim that discrimination cannot occur by accident.

What is it about this that you disagree with?

Criminal justice distinguishes intent, the act itself, and the consequences of the act.

You can commit by accident any wrong that is defined in terms of the act itself or its consequences. You cannot commit by accident a wrong that is defined by intent. Because of you don't intend it then you fail to meet the definition of the offence.

You can exceed the speed limit by accident (and most of us have done so at some point). Because it is defined as a wrong regardless of intent and regardless of consequences.

You can kill someone by accident. (Which may comprise the offence of manslaughter if you have been culpable negligent).

What you cannot do by accident is commit murder, because the definition of the crime of murder requires murderous intent.

So when it comes to discrimination, the question I'm asking is whether you personally consider discriminatory intent to be part of the definition of the wrong of discrimination, or not.

Is it or is it not discrimination if the act disadvantages black people or women or Jews without being driven by prejudice against those groups ? Yes or no ?

Because you seem to be saying on the one hand that other people can be accidentally racist or sexist, and should take care not to be, and apologise if it turns out (as a judgment of consequences) that they have been.

But on the other hand you seem to be saying that criticism of Israel could be antisemitic, if picking on Jews is the underlying motivation (as a judgment of intent). Which in your case it isn't and so you are innocent of antisemitism.

Can you see that this looks like a big fat double standard ?

Intent plays a part, I agree. But I don't see the importance of the point you make. We distinguish murder from manslaughter, based on intent, *but* the victim is no less dead in either case. If you wish, we could have two words, to describe discrimination with and without intent, but if my actions have the form, function, and effect of discrimination, then I have discriminated — or substitute our new word for unintended discrimination here — haven't I?

[Belinda]

But they won't "fix the problem", they will exterminate the Palestinians.

Palestine has rejected the two-state solution multiple times. Hamas's aim is not to share land with Israel but to exterminate or scatter all Israelis, as did all other Arab lands (no one made a fuss about that).

If Hamas was not so determined to exterminate Jews then maybe Jews would be less inclined to exterminate Hamas? Are Palestinians better off for their (wealthy and comfortable) leaders' decision to settle on a two-state solution? When does Hamas they take ANY responsibility for what has happened. The way you and other speak, you'd think they hadn't just perpetrated the most deadly attack on a nation since 9/11.

Since 1948 native Palestinians have been badly treated by Israel some of whose prime ministers have been kinder than others notably Ben Gurion and Menahem Begin. Netanyahu is unpopular including in Israel.

Hamas is caused by fear among those Palestinian voters who are warlike; fear of the Israeli oppressor and what he is still going to do in the few days left before Israel crushes Gaza. Have you never seen a cornered fox or badger?

Sixty years, multiple attempts to get Palestine to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians brought this on themselves by refusing to compromise against a stronger enemy, and a refusal to accept the existence of Israel per se. As if Muslims had not scattered them enough in the past.

At some point one is either pragmatic or one makes a rod for one's own back. Palestine could have had this settled decades ago and they would probably have many more of their people making a good living in Israel than there already are, and they might have even become prosperous. Their stridency and refusal to compromise, however, resulted in a leader like Netanyahu. If there was not a constant threat Israel would not have elected what is essentially a wartime leader.

I agree with the above, except that Israel was always a threat based on the planting of a lot of nationalistic individuals on their territory who were themselves unconnected with the Arab economy.

Anyway, the time is now not then. I do agree that it would be better if Palestinians had given in to Israeli rule , but only if Israel was not going to regard Arabs as second class citizens. With Israel's record of immigrating illegal 'settlers' that was unlikely. One thing is certain; nothing Netanyahu can say justifies his cruelty.

[Sy Borg]

Palestine has rejected the two-state solution multiple times. Hamas's aim is not to share land with Israel but to exterminate or scatter all Israelis, as did all other Arab lands (no one made a fuss about that).

If Hamas was not so determined to exterminate Jews then maybe Jews would be less inclined to exterminate Hamas? Are Palestinians better off for their (wealthy and comfortable) leaders' decision to settle on a two-state solution? When does Hamas they take ANY responsibility for what has happened. The way you and other speak, you'd think they hadn't just perpetrated the most deadly attack on a nation since 9/11.

Since 1948 native Palestinians have been badly treated by Israel some of whose prime ministers have been kinder than others notably Ben Gurion and Menahem Begin. Netanyahu is unpopular including in Israel.

Hamas is caused by fear among those Palestinian voters who are warlike; fear of the Israeli oppressor and what he is still going to do in the few days left before Israel crushes Gaza. Have you never seen a cornered fox or badger?

Sixty years, multiple attempts to get Palestine to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians brought this on themselves by refusing to compromise against a stronger enemy, and a refusal to accept the existence of Israel per se. As if Muslims had not scattered them enough in the past.

At some point one is either pragmatic or one makes a rod for one's own back. Palestine could have had this settled decades ago and they would probably have many more of their people making a good living in Israel than there already are, and they might have even become prosperous. Their stridency and refusal to compromise, however, resulted in a leader like Netanyahu. If there was not a constant threat Israel would not have elected what is essentially a wartime leader.

I agree with the above, except that Israel was always a threat based on the planting of a lot of nationalistic individuals on their territory who were themselves unconnected with the Arab economy.

Anyway, the time is now not then. I do agree that it would be better if Palestinians had given in to Israeli rule , but only if Israel was not going to regard Arabs as second class citizens. With Israel's record of immigrating illegal 'settlers' that was unlikely. One thing is certain; nothing Netanyahu can say justifies his cruelty.

From what I've seen Palestinians working in Israel are not second class citizens, and they were very happy living there (until this). I doubt there would be so many settlers/invaders if Israel didn't feel the need to create a safety buffer zone. Netanyahu is extreme but he is responding to extremity.

Look at the "despots" the west has unseated - Saddam and Gaddafi. Both were considered to be overly brutal yet, since their deposition, we see why they were so harsh. It was only their harshness that allowed Iraqis and Libyans to have prosperous and peaceful lives, until the west interfered, in which case sectarian violence caused humanitarian disasters.

My views here have changed. If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

For some time, Palestine has been deeply and profoundly self-destructive and their leaders are expert at playing the victim game when their violent actions lead to inevitable consequences. Now they are seeking martyrdom to make a point - that is, the wealthy Hamas leaders calling the shots from safe countries seek the martyrdom of the people from which they stole, which allows them to enjoy great luxury as their "pawns" are placed in harm's way.

I'm curious. What do you see as an appropriate response by Israel to Hamas's attack? I note that the UN claimed that Israel had no right to defend itself at all, which says a great deal about that organisation's ingrained cultural anti-Semitism (which is related to the anti-Semitism in universities).

[Pattern-chaser]

If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

...and yet the Jewish community held onto its hope of reclaiming the homeland it lost nearly 3000 years before? And that is reasonable, rational, and acceptable? Surely we should apply the same standards to both sides?

[Belinda]

Since 1948 native Palestinians have been badly treated by Israel some of whose prime ministers have been kinder than others notably Ben Gurion and Menahem Begin. Netanyahu is unpopular including in Israel.

Hamas is caused by fear among those Palestinian voters who are warlike; fear of the Israeli oppressor and what he is still going to do in the few days left before Israel crushes Gaza. Have you never seen a cornered fox or badger?

Sixty years, multiple attempts to get Palestine to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians brought this on themselves by refusing to compromise against a stronger enemy, and a refusal to accept the existence of Israel per se. As if Muslims had not scattered them enough in the past.

At some point one is either pragmatic or one makes a rod for one's own back. Palestine could have had this settled decades ago and they would probably have many more of their people making a good living in Israel than there already are, and they might have even become prosperous. Their stridency and refusal to compromise, however, resulted in a leader like Netanyahu. If there was not a constant threat Israel would not have elected what is essentially a wartime leader.

I agree with the above, except that Israel was always a threat based on the planting of a lot of nationalistic individuals on their territory who were themselves unconnected with the Arab economy.

Anyway, the time is now not then. I do agree that it would be better if Palestinians had given in to Israeli rule , but only if Israel was not going to regard Arabs as second class citizens. With Israel's record of immigrating illegal 'settlers' that was unlikely. One thing is certain; nothing Netanyahu can say justifies his cruelty.

From what I've seen Palestinians working in Israel are not second class citizens, and they were very happy living there (until this). I doubt there would be so many settlers/invaders if Israel didn't feel the need to create a safety buffer zone. Netanyahu is extreme but he is responding to extremity.

Look at the "despots" the west has unseated - Saddam and Gaddafi. Both were considered to be overly brutal yet, since their deposition, we see why they were so harsh. It was only their harshness that allowed Iraqis and Libyans to have prosperous and peaceful lives, until the west interfered, in which case sectarian violence caused humanitarian disasters.

My views here have changed. If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

For some time, Palestine has been deeply and profoundly self-destructive and their leaders are expert at playing the victim game when their violent actions lead to inevitable consequences. Now they are seeking martyrdom to make a point - that is, the wealthy Hamas leaders calling the shots from safe countries seek the martyrdom of the people from which they stole, which allows them to enjoy great luxury as their "pawns" are placed in harm's way.

I'm curious. What do you see as an appropriate response by Israel to Hamas's attack? I note that the UN claimed that Israel had no right to defend itself at all, which says a great deal about that organisation's ingrained cultural anti-Semitism (which is related to the anti-Semitism in universities).

That a long standing foe breaks international law, does not justify a response that breaks international law.
All societies have an elite governing class , and Hamas should have been invited to talks with reps from the US, Egypt, the UN, Israel, and the UK

[Gertie]

Hi Belindi, just to clarify that's my own attempt at a relevant potted history - not to be taken as 'gospel' . I studied the Old Testament and have retained an interest in theology. Only the last two lines about the ghoul Kushner are quoted from The Guardian. (Ironically The Guardian site often deletes my comments on the current genocide!).



Right. I'd say by and large trade has superceded invasion as an obviously better way of getting your hands on other peeps' resources, and that if you have trade dominance you can 'peacefully' exploit. The Middle East sits on a ton of oil, which keeps dominant interests greedy eyes' fixed on it. Giant multinationals are the new colonisers. When 'we' invaded Iraq, the idea was it would be ''settled'' by our corporations.



How do you mean?



I think you're broadly right.

Thanks for your elucidation. I cannot imagine why The Guardian would delete your comments.

For a while at least,any comment using the words ''ethnic cleansing'', ''anti-semitism'' or ''genocide'' seemed to be auto-deleted. The Guardian is sensitive to racism, and especially anti-semitism since it went gung-ho after Corbyn for that like the rest of the media. Of course now with what's going on in Gaza becoming more obscene by the day, it's getting increasingly harder to disappear such terms and opinions about Israel. But the attitude that it's a worse crime to say something which could be interpreted as anti-semitic than to silently watch the mass slaughter of civilians, including thousands of children, is out there. Which suits Israel of course.

What I mean by my second last paragraph is unclear because my thinking on the topic is a little muddled, and that is why I read others' posts, to try to find ideas that make sense to me.

The connection between my last paragraph and the penultimate one is that Judeo-Christianity is strongly doctrinal especially its moral code.['quote]

I'd say Judaism (and Islam from the little I know) more-so in principle than Christianity. Paul's version of Christianity, which largely won the day, moves away from endless Judaic laws and prescription, to a relationship with Jesus as saviour. Salvation by Faith in the resurrection, rather than through 'moral' Works/Law. But when it comes to Church history, that's a different matter. With Jesus's prophesied imminent transformational institution of Yahweh's Final Judgement and the institution of Yahweh's Kingdom on Earth ruled from Jerusalem never showing up, they've fallen back on interpretation and doctrine. In the end it's always down to the people who run and constitute the religions, and doctrine becomes the religion.

Doctrines can be and are interpreted liberally or conservatively , and the several interpretations are reflected in the various religious dogmas of the different sects. Insofar as I'm a follower of Jesus of Nazareth I interpret the Gospels liberally , bearing in mind that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being not a supernatural god. So people today fall into one of two broad categories: The followers of old and often outworn traditions, or dissenters to old traditions i.e. liberals and pragmatists.

These two categories of moral mind sets are reflected by political parties and their respective home and foreign policies.

Ah I'm with you now. Yes I'd agree that there tend to be certain broad dispositions where-by you can make a pretty good guess that if someone is dispositionally religiously conservative they'll tend to be socially conservative too, and drawn to Right leaning politics. And vice-versa. My view of Jesus largely fits my own dispositions too and it boggles my mind how people get some interpretations. That room for interpretation is part of what makes for a successful, lasting religion I suppose.

By the way, is it true that in the USA there is no proper Labour party , and US Democrats are equivalent to UK Conservatives?

Historically I think so. But I'd say the same for the UK at the mo. Since Clinton and Blair came up with their pragmatic centrist Third Way doctrine the voting choice in both countries has pretty much become a failing neo-con status quo or an ever-more radical right. There looked to be a moment when Corbyn and Sanders could have offered a real Leftist alternative, but both were effectively stomped out by their own parties, as much as the other vested interests which they threatened. Now we're left with defending the status quo again, which won't hold long term imo, while the Far Right continues its rise across the wealthy west. The nationalist UK Reform party, which is becoming mainstream, isn't much different to the ''The Jews will not Replace us!'' neo-fascists.

What do you think?

Referring to your reply to me regarding trade. Can we accept that trade brings peace as much as it brings exploitation? What is it exactly about multi -national corporations that is 'unchristianly' ?

Yep. Trade can be ethical or exploitative, but it beats invasion.

I didn't say multinationals are unChristianly, I said they've largely replaced colonisation as a way of aquiring the Others' resources. I'm on dodgy ground here but my view is multinationals tend to get to be multinationals often through under-cutting competitors and using their financial power to exploit weaker workforces and influence governments. Like powerful trading blocs use deals and tariffs to exploit weaker nations. It's better than armed colonisation of course, but 'free-marketism' is essentially Might makes Right. Now globalisation and emerging blocs are threatening the hegemony the rich 'west' had. We're in ''interesting times'', and we're seeing how wealthy 'western' nations are responding in real time.

Is there a modern interpretation of the story of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple and their misuse of traditional Jewish temple behaviour ? I admire Jesus for his initiative to clean up traditional Judaism when some Jews profiteered from the Roman occupation.

There are always interpretations! From did it happen at all, to it being an accurate account which was a significant step towards execution, resurrection and all that entails. But you always have to bear in mind the people writing the gospels had a very different world view to ours, had their own proseletysing mission, and a way of telling stories which fit into (and was 'credentialled' by) allusions to historical and theological context. The money-changer story is in all four gospels, so there's a good chance something like that happened imo. But what the gospel writers hoped people will get from the story will be part of their overall message about who Jesus was and his life and death meant theologically, rather than social commentary.

Having said that Liberation Theology takes this approach seriously as relevant to the here-and-now.

The connection between the political situation in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and the exploitation of peoples in modern times is not that Jews are all guilty but that some people of all ethnicities are not attached to the Golden Rule.

Absolutely.

A version of the Golden Rule is found in Leviticus btw, along with all the shellfish eating, sacrifice making, menstruating Sabbath resting, etc stuff. And Jesus is reported as saying “'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Tho 'Love your neighbour/friend' would likely have meant fellow Jew to them then).

Pauline Christianity is certainly something else!.

That it is. From what we can tell (mainly from Acts) it was Paul's shift from Justification by Law/Works to Justification by Faith inspied by his vision of the risen Jesus, which led to the rift between him and the remaining disciples who actually knew Jesus, led by James and Peter in Jerusalem. The upshot of their theological disagreement seems to be the disciples gave Paul permission to go away and spread his version to the Gentiles, while they remained the carriers of Jesus's message amongst the Jews.

This set Paul off on his journeys around the Mediteranean setting up new churches and preaching his Salvation by Faith message. He still threw in a few of his own rules mind, but without the burden of converts having to subscibe to all the tedious and wacky Leviticus stuff, and most notably male circumcision. (This was a biggie for Jews as part of the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham who he gave the Promised Land to). Anyway I'm guessing circumcision might be a bizarro and tough sell in recruiting adult Gentile males to his new religion! That bit of foreskin might be what 'tipped' Christianity into a world religion, bless it.

One of the benefits of Judeo Christianity is its capability to evolve, the whole thing held together by a human life lived in real time. I went to a public discussion by three theologians holding responsible jobs. One of them described Judeo Christianity as a filthy rusty old ship which in all its voyages throughout the storms of change had carried its cargo of The Golden Rule. I believe the speaker was C of E.
Another meeting I attended answered my scepticism about Jesus, who was tortured to death two thousand yours ago by the Romans, knowing anything about me. The speaker, a Methodist , replied "It's a moving icon". It seems to me both images make sense.

Those are nice metaphors. My own experience of Christian churches (small town methodist chapel) has been mostly gentle, well-meaning and benign. Since then I've known lots of lovely people from different religions. I reckon if we exclude the effects of indoctrination, good people take the good from religions, and bad people the bad. Like most things. Some horrific things have been done in the name of religion too, and it's especially hard to reason with people who believe they have special access to eternal truth, are beyond our mortal worldly concerns, and 'the other' is literally evil. There are pros and cons to the licence interpretation gives. I take a ''by their fruits ye shall know them'' approach to religious people.

I do understand many of us feel a need for a structure or narrative framework to hang a meaningful world view on, and give it a shape which resonates with us. You just have to hope the kinder ones win out. To take Jesus as an archetype or exemplar of how to lead a good and meaningful life seems like a fine interpretation to me.

Regarding the whole political mind sets of both UK and US, thanks for your elucidation. My late friend who had dual US and UK citizenship some years ago alerted me to how well Obama and Cameron got on together.

Interesting! Did you see Obama was spotted dropping in to see Sunak the other day? Gotta wonder what that was about.

The thing about the Blair-Clinton meeting of minds was how soon Blair switched to best buds with Clinton's successor Bush. Becoming Bush's poodle, then his Iraq attack dog. That's political pragmatism I guess, little room for principles. If the international community had the wherewithal to try War Crimes no matter who does it, even the likes of Blair and Bush, rogue governments like Netanyahu's might have had second thoughts if they believed they would personally suffer.

[Sy Borg]

If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

...and yet the Jewish community held onto its hope of reclaiming the homeland it lost nearly 3000 years before? And that is reasonable, rational, and acceptable? Surely we should apply the same standards to both sides?

You might not like it, but the post-world order made a space for Israel, a place for Jews to feel safe after the unprecedented levels of persecution they experienced (an issue that is seemingly not of interest to you).

At some point in 60+ years you'd think Palestine might pragmatically accept this so that Palestine and its people can move on and prosper. Instead, Hamas chose the path of endless war - at the expense of the wellbeing of Palestinians. Now the Palestinian people are reaping the usual rewards of endless war.

The Sudanese need to find a way to blame their predicament on Jews. Leveraging anti-Semitism and anti-white sentiment seems to be the only way to get people to care about injustice.

[Sy Borg]

Sixty years, multiple attempts to get Palestine to agree to a two-state solution. The Palestinians brought this on themselves by refusing to compromise against a stronger enemy, and a refusal to accept the existence of Israel per se. As if Muslims had not scattered them enough in the past.

At some point one is either pragmatic or one makes a rod for one's own back. Palestine could have had this settled decades ago and they would probably have many more of their people making a good living in Israel than there already are, and they might have even become prosperous. Their stridency and refusal to compromise, however, resulted in a leader like Netanyahu. If there was not a constant threat Israel would not have elected what is essentially a wartime leader.

I agree with the above, except that Israel was always a threat based on the planting of a lot of nationalistic individuals on their territory who were themselves unconnected with the Arab economy.

Anyway, the time is now not then. I do agree that it would be better if Palestinians had given in to Israeli rule , but only if Israel was not going to regard Arabs as second class citizens. With Israel's record of immigrating illegal 'settlers' that was unlikely. One thing is certain; nothing Netanyahu can say justifies his cruelty.

From what I've seen Palestinians working in Israel are not second class citizens, and they were very happy living there (until this). I doubt there would be so many settlers/invaders if Israel didn't feel the need to create a safety buffer zone. Netanyahu is extreme but he is responding to extremity.

Look at the "despots" the west has unseated - Saddam and Gaddafi. Both were considered to be overly brutal yet, since their deposition, we see why they were so harsh. It was only their harshness that allowed Iraqis and Libyans to have prosperous and peaceful lives, until the west interfered, in which case sectarian violence caused humanitarian disasters.

My views here have changed. If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

For some time, Palestine has been deeply and profoundly self-destructive and their leaders are expert at playing the victim game when their violent actions lead to inevitable consequences. Now they are seeking martyrdom to make a point - that is, the wealthy Hamas leaders calling the shots from safe countries seek the martyrdom of the people from which they stole, which allows them to enjoy great luxury as their "pawns" are placed in harm's way.

I'm curious. What do you see as an appropriate response by Israel to Hamas's attack? I note that the UN claimed that Israel had no right to defend itself at all, which says a great deal about that organisation's ingrained cultural anti-Semitism (which is related to the anti-Semitism in universities).

That a long standing foe breaks international law, does not justify a response that breaks international law.
All societies have an elite governing class , and Hamas should have been invited to talks with reps from the US, Egypt, the UN, Israel, and the UK

Hamas should have conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that their inclusion would not be a waste of time. If they want a seat at the table, they can jolly well behave like civilised human beings first. Shooting missiles at civilians and throwing gay people off roofs does little for one's credibility.

[Pattern-chaser]

If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

...and yet the Jewish community held onto its hope of reclaiming the homeland it lost nearly 3000 years before? And that is reasonable, rational, and acceptable? Surely we should apply the same standards to both sides?

You might not like it, but the post-world order made a space for Israel, a place for Jews to feel safe after the unprecedented levels of persecution they experienced (an issue that is seemingly not of interest to you).

The issue is of great interest to me, but that isn't what I commented-on.

At some point in 60+ years you'd think Palestine might pragmatically accept this so that Palestine and its people can move on and prosper.

So you think the Palestinians should "pragmatically ... move on and prosper", after "60+ years", but also that it was/is acceptable for the Jewish community to pursue their own dream of reclaiming a homeland they were ejected from nearly 3000 years ago. And so I ask again:

Don't both sides deserve to be treated the same?

[Belinda]

I agree with the above, except that Israel was always a threat based on the planting of a lot of nationalistic individuals on their territory who were themselves unconnected with the Arab economy.

Anyway, the time is now not then. I do agree that it would be better if Palestinians had given in to Israeli rule , but only if Israel was not going to regard Arabs as second class citizens. With Israel's record of immigrating illegal 'settlers' that was unlikely. One thing is certain; nothing Netanyahu can say justifies his cruelty.

From what I've seen Palestinians working in Israel are not second class citizens, and they were very happy living there (until this). I doubt there would be so many settlers/invaders if Israel didn't feel the need to create a safety buffer zone. Netanyahu is extreme but he is responding to extremity.

Look at the "despots" the west has unseated - Saddam and Gaddafi. Both were considered to be overly brutal yet, since their deposition, we see why they were so harsh. It was only their harshness that allowed Iraqis and Libyans to have prosperous and peaceful lives, until the west interfered, in which case sectarian violence caused humanitarian disasters.

My views here have changed. If we gave Palestinians a decade to sort themselves out, that would be decent. If we gave them 20 years, that would be generous. If we gave them 30 years, that would be very generous. Forty years is exceedingly generous. Thus, forty years ago, I thought like you about this. Thirty years ago too, from memory. About ten years ago I lost patience.

For some time, Palestine has been deeply and profoundly self-destructive and their leaders are expert at playing the victim game when their violent actions lead to inevitable consequences. Now they are seeking martyrdom to make a point - that is, the wealthy Hamas leaders calling the shots from safe countries seek the martyrdom of the people from which they stole, which allows them to enjoy great luxury as their "pawns" are placed in harm's way.

I'm curious. What do you see as an appropriate response by Israel to Hamas's attack? I note that the UN claimed that Israel had no right to defend itself at all, which says a great deal about that organisation's ingrained cultural anti-Semitism (which is related to the anti-Semitism in universities).

That a long standing foe breaks international law, does not justify a response that breaks international law.
All societies have an elite governing class , and Hamas should have been invited to talks with reps from the US, Egypt, the UN, Israel, and the UK

Hamas should have conducted themselves in a way that would suggest that their inclusion would not be a waste of time. If they want a seat at the table, they can jolly well behave like civilised human beings first. Shooting missiles at civilians and throwing gay people off roofs does little for one's credibility.

Yes, but resentment , or hopelessness, alone won't improve the situation. How do police improve a hostage situation? Peace makers don't have a good choice of alternatives to bargaining.
For UK and US to stop arming Israel may be the beginning of successful bargaining.

[Good_Egg]

I don't see the importance of the point you make. We distinguish murder from manslaughter, based on intent, *but* the victim is no less dead in either case.

It seems to me something like a foundational principle of justice to distinguish murder from accidental death, with manslaughter as an intermediate category.

The corpse is indeed equally dead, and their family and friends equally deprived of their presence, in each case. But too great an emphasis on that fact undermines justice, by tending to equalize the weight of moral disapproval in the 3 cases.

It's part of the whole (modern, Western, progressive) trend of fetishizing victimhood.

if my actions have the form, function, and effect of discrimination, then I have discriminated — or substitute our new word for unintended discrimination here — haven't I?

So if your support for the cause of a Palestinian nation has the "form, function, and effect" of an antisemitic act then any protest you might make that you're not antisemitic is mere unimportant quibbling about terminology?

I guess that's as close to an admission of antisemitism as I'm going to get. I should quit while I'm ahead...

[Pattern-chaser]

if my actions have the form, function, and effect of discrimination, then I have discriminated — or substitute our new word for unintended discrimination here — haven't I?

So if your support for the cause of a Palestinian nation has the "form, function, and effect" of an antisemitic act then any protest you might make that you're not antisemitic is mere unimportant quibbling about terminology?

I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Sorry.

I guess that's as close to an admission of antisemitism as I'm going to get. I should quit while I'm ahead...

Oh, no. I do not, and will never, admit to discrimination against members of the Jewish faith.

My sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people remains intact.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems to me something like a foundational principle of justice to distinguish murder from accidental death, with manslaughter as an intermediate category.

No-one is responsible for an accidental death. Murder and manslaughter describe situations where someone *is* responsible for the death.

Big difference, IMO.

[Good_Egg]

No-one is responsible for an accidental death. Murder and manslaughter describe situations where someone *is* responsible for the death.

Big difference, IMO.

I'd agree.

But your argument that "The victim is just as dead, the grieving are just as bereaved" makes out that the difference is small. That the intent or level of knowledge in the mind of the killer is less important than the fact of the suffering of the victims. Does that suffering not cry out for compensation and/or retribution ?

It's like you're telling one story ("big difference") when you're thinking about law and justice, and another story (of unimportant difference) when you're feeling-with the victims.

Analogously, you seem to be arguing that what matters is whether an act has the "form, function and effect" of discrimination (rather than whether discrimination is intended). Whenever you're empathizing with the victims, those on the sharp end of a double standard.

Until it comes to your own speech-acts, when your innocence of intent against Jewish religion and culture becomes the important factor.