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

[Pattern-chaser]

I can be as mistaken as the next man, but hate plays no part in my opinions or thoughts.

What I seek to dissuade you from is the "duck philosophy" that intent doesn't matter, that harm is the measure of evil. That if it quacks like a bigot then it's a bigot. That if it looks to a Jew like anti-Jewish bias then it is anti-Jewish bias.

I think you're innocent. And I'm baffled as to how you can continue to spout a philosophy which counts you guilty.

What philosophy is it that I support, that counts me guilty? Guilty of what? Sorry, I can't see what you're getting at.

I neither hate Jews, nor wish to make Israel 'un-exist'.

Your position seemed to be that the 1948 settlement was wrong and should be rectified, that Israel is not a legitimate country with the same right and duty to defend its citizens as any other but is no more than a "brutal occupation" of Palestimian lands.

If you want to back off from that, and admit that (regardless of any issues you may have with Israel's conduct regarding border disputes or civil rights issues with how the country treats its own citizens) Israel is a legitimate country with the right to wage war on those who have attacked it, and continue to do so until they surrender, then come out and say that.

Wow! Hmm. I'll try to turn those words into something that I feel reflects my views.

The 1948 "settlement" was very wrong, at the time. But much has happened since then, and I think we are way past the point where Israel could somehow be 'undone'. Israel is a country, recognised by most UN members, therefore it is "legitimate". It has the same rights to self-defence as any nation. And, also in common with any nation, it does not have the right to usurp its neighbours' lands. Israel was 'given' 55% of historic Palestine in 1947, but has since grabbed much more than that. This additional land-grab is the "brutal occupation" I refer to.

Israel would have the right to "wage war" on any other nation that threatened it, but no such attack has taken place since Israel was founded. Last October was a legitimate military operation taken by an occupied people against their USA-backed-and-financed occupier/enemy. It was not an "attack", but an act of self-defence. I do not support the destruction of Israel, but I wholeheartedly support the recovery by Palestinians of (some of) their land, perhaps with a return to 1947 borders?

[Sy Borg]

I don't have disgust for the cleric's hatred. I don't like it, it doesn't resonate with me, but I just see it as an example of the intractable Palestinian attitudes. Seventy years, never once have they compromised.

I just see this as an example of intractable Israeli attitudes. Nearly three thousand years, never once have they compromised.


We can exchange comments like this forever, but it gets us nowhere. Whatever the solution to this problem is, it must surely revolve around some practical compromises? Not entrenched attitudes, but a wish for a better future?

That is exactly the point - the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise. No to give Israel the win, but to simply be ale to move forward rather than in a culture of resentment and glorification of martyrdom.

Their entrenched attitudes have lead them to this.

[Good_Egg]

Israel is a country, recognised by most UN members, therefore it is "legitimate". It has the same rights to self-defence as any nation. And, also in common with any nation, it does not have the right to usurp its neighbours' lands. Israel was 'given' 55% of historic Palestine in 1947, but has since grabbed much more than that. This additional land-grab is the "brutal occupation" I refer to.

Israel would have the right to "wage war" on any other nation that threatened it, but no such attack has taken place since Israel was founded. Last October was a legitimate military operation taken by an occupied people against their USA-backed-and-financed occupier/enemy. It was not an "attack", but an act of self-defence. I do not support the destruction of Israel, but I wholeheartedly support the recovery by Palestinians of (some of) their land, perhaps with a return to 1947 borders?

Could be we're making progress here. We're agreed that Israel has a right of self-defence. The question at issue is then how far that right extends.

It clearly does extend to "hot pursuit" raids into territory that Israel does not rightfully own, seeking to eliminate its attackers.

If your neighbour declares that their aim is your total destruction, and uses a piece of land as a platform from which to attack you with short-range weapons, can taking that land away from them be an act of self-defence ?

If it were the case that you would - given the power to do so - restore to Palestinians some of the land that they occupied in say 1968, with the well-meaning intent that they should live there peacefully, but the reality were that they would value and use that land militarily as a step towards the eradication of Israel, what could aptly be said about you ? Would the term "sucker" be appropriate ?

That's one issue - the ethics of self-defence.

[Pattern-chaser]

If your neighbour declares that their aim is your total destruction, and uses a piece of land...

Their land, that you occupy! They want you off their land. Could anything be more reasonable? Would we, in their situation, not want the same?

...as a platform from which to attack you with short-range weapons, can taking that land away from them be an act of self-defence ?

[Edited, as I misread your words.]

No, it can't. The land you want to take from them — the land that you have already taken from them, and are occupying militarily — is their land, not yours. There can be no excuse for this that could be woven into an "act of self-defence".

If it were the case that you would - given the power to do so - restore to Palestinians some of the land that they occupied in say 1968, with the well-meaning intent that they should live there peacefully, but the reality were that they would value and use that land militarily as a step towards the eradication of Israel, what could aptly be said about you ? Would the term "sucker" be appropriate ?

There are too many "if"s there to make a sensible response. I could pose a contrasting question just as provocative as the one you have offered here, but what would it achieve? The situation is as it is. Not all participants in this conflict are extremists, although far too many are. Some would simply like to see a just peace. I am one of them. If that makes me a "sucker", so be it.

[Pattern-chaser]

That is exactly the point - the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise.

And the Israelis have behaved differently? When has Israel compromised, since the nakba in 1947? When have they even offered a compromise? Their current aim is to control and own all of Palestine, exterminating any/all who would stand in the way of this aim, for whatever reason. They even object to food aid for civilians, protesting that it only allows them to breed more so-called terrorists!

[Sy Borg]

That is exactly the point - the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise.

And the Israelis have behaved differently? When has Israel compromised, since the nakba in 1947? When have they even offered a compromise? Their current aim is to control and own all of Palestine, exterminating any/all who would stand in the way of this aim, for whatever reason. They even object to food aid for civilians, protesting that it only allows them to breed more so-called terrorists!

That's the usual Oppressor/Oppressed line.

Multiple times, Israel has offered a two-state solution, but it was always turned down. Yes, it takes two to make a fight and both sides are utter morons whose endless fighting has earned them the contempt of the world. However, while Israel is obstinate and selfish, Palestine is utterly fanatical and unreasonable.

This is war, so atrocities are to be expected. The whole "rules of war" notion is hypocritical nonsense. Nations have routinely ignored rules or war for my entire lifetime without consequence. The issue is always selectively raised as a play for moral superiority, and it's usually hypocritical. Everyone ignore rules of war - because it is war, not sport. It's life and death, not a game.

Hamas uses civilians as human shields as their primary modus operandi - also against the rules of war, but you're cool with that because that is resistance against against the Evil Jewish Capitalist Oppressor. Hamas deliberately brought Palestinian civilians into the war as publicity tools, thus turning them into targets. Still, their suffering can be exploited to cover for Hamas's culpability in exposing Palestinians to danger.

[Good_Egg]

... but the main issue for this thread is what anti-semitism is.

One possible view is that it's about intent. That anything you say or do because of an underlying distaste or animosity for Jews or Jewishness is antisemitic, regardless of consequences. Meaning that to be innocent of antisemitism is to have no such intent.

Another possible view is that it's about differential consequences and nothing else. That anything you say or do that has more-negative consequences for Jews than for other groups is antisemitic, regardless of truth or justice or intent. The duck philosophy - that if it looks/sounds like what a hate-filled bigot would do or say then it is (pretty much the same as) hate-filled bigotry, regardless of anything else, is of this type.

On that basis, focussing on the misdeeds of the country that Jews identify with is antisemitic, because such a focus is differentially negative for Jews.

If you want to be found innocent of discrimination then you need a different concept of what discrimination is. A view that moves beyond the duck philosophy that differential impact comprises discrimination.

[Belinda]

I don't have disgust for the cleric's hatred. I don't like it, it doesn't resonate with me, but I just see it as an example of the intractable Palestinian attitudes. Seventy years, never once have they compromised.

I just see this as an example of intractable Israeli attitudes. Nearly three thousand years, never once have they compromised.


We can exchange comments like this forever, but it gets us nowhere. Whatever the solution to this problem is, it must surely revolve around some practical compromises? Not entrenched attitudes, but a wish for a better future?

That is exactly the point - the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to compromise. No to give Israel the win, but to simply be ale to move forward rather than in a culture of resentment and glorification of martyrdom.

Their entrenched attitudes have lead them to this.

Sy Borg, in your posts you ignore the imbalance of power between Israel and Palestine. Israel supported as it is by the US and the UK is a lot stronger than Palestine. Israel has taken advantage of this by bombing and starving Gaza, and for decades Israel has allowed illegal settlers on the Palestinian West Bank to build homes there and extract more than a reasonable share of water .

The only defence Israel, the US, and the UK have is 'Might is Right'. Your stance seems to me to be that it's not Israel's fault, including illegal settlements. Religious affiliations are an instance of how people identify themselves. Most modern people don't identify others , i.e. third parties , by their religious sects, except for purposes of propaganda.

[Pattern-chaser]

That's the usual Oppressor/Oppressed line.

No, it's just an observation that neither side has so far been good at compromise. The extremists of both sides want to control all of historic Palestine. Clearly, these two 'solutions' cannot co-exist. Something more is needed. What is it? What is the workable solution to this mess?

[Sy Borg]

That's the usual Oppressor/Oppressed line.

No, it's just an observation that neither side has so far been good at compromise. The extremists of both sides want to control all of historic Palestine. Clearly, these two 'solutions' cannot co-exist. Something more is needed. What is it? What is the workable solution to this mess?

Once, compromise was possible. Hamas has made it impossible. There is no compromise with someone who sends missiles at you at any opportunity and who's charter has always demanded your destruction, and Palestine has never wavered. There has never been a suggestion that Palestine might compromise, despite Israel's occasional attempts to make a deal.

Islamic extremists are not known for their capacity to compromise. After seventy years, and only a hardening of attitudes, it appears they are actually incapable of compromise. It's not something they do - they either win or they fight until they win.

[Pattern-chaser]

There has never been a suggestion that Palestine might compromise, despite Israel's occasional attempts to make a deal.

These "attempts" might have been more credible if they weren't accompanied by a steadily-expanding area of military occupation.

Who could deal with someone who is intent on worsening the situation that needs to be discussed? In 1947, Israel was given 'only' 55% of Palestine. In 1967 they took a load more. Since then, they have continued to take more and more. Given that expansion of the occupation still proceeds, how could the Palestinians sit down with Israel to discuss getting (at least some of) their land back?

[Sy Borg]

There has never been a suggestion that Palestine might compromise, despite Israel's occasional attempts to make a deal.

These "attempts" might have been more credible if they weren't accompanied by a steadily-expanding area of military occupation.

Who could deal with someone who is intent on worsening the situation that needs to be discussed? In 1947, Israel was given 'only' 55% of Palestine. In 1967 they took a load more. Since then, they have continued to take more and more. Given that expansion of the occupation still proceeds, how could the Palestinians sit down with Israel to discuss getting (at least some of) their land back?

Excuses. That wasn't the whole time. Seventy years of refusing to back down, no matter how much it harms your people.

It looks like madness, but maybe not. Pushing blind hatred of Israel is a gravy train for Hamas leaders, who live in safety and luxury as they make decisions that make Palestinian civilians look indistinguishable from soldiers. This is designed to boost civilian casualties, which allows Hamas to easily manipulate soft, naive, virtue-signalling western dupes.

Hamas's three top leaders are worth $11 billion. I wonder how they made that money, and I wonder if that reveals how much they care towards poor Palestinians?

[Belinda]

There has never been a suggestion that Palestine might compromise, despite Israel's occasional attempts to make a deal.

These "attempts" might have been more credible if they weren't accompanied by a steadily-expanding area of military occupation.

Who could deal with someone who is intent on worsening the situation that needs to be discussed? In 1947, Israel was given 'only' 55% of Palestine. In 1967 they took a load more. Since then, they have continued to take more and more. Given that expansion of the occupation still proceeds, how could the Palestinians sit down with Israel to discuss getting (at least some of) their land back?

Excuses. That wasn't the whole time. Seventy years of refusing to back down, no matter how much it harms your people.

It looks like madness, but maybe not. Pushing blind hatred of Israel is a gravy train for Hamas leaders, who live in safety and luxury as they make decisions that make Palestinian civilians look indistinguishable from soldiers. This is designed to boost civilian casualties, which allows Hamas to easily manipulate soft, naive, virtue-signalling western dupes.

Hamas's three top leaders are worth $11 billion. I wonder how they made that money, and I wonder if that reveals how much they care towards poor Palestinians?

Your point of view about Hamas needs to be said. But there is more. The behaviour of the Israelis in Gaza and in the West Bank is not justified by the unjustifiable Hamas or even by those Palestinians who vote for Hamas. Civilised people don't kill or deliberately starve children , nor wipe out whole populations and those who go there to feed and water starving and dehydrated people.
Nazis, and Right Wing Israelis are tribal and have tribal values. The civilised conversation is about how to quench their tribal fears that make them cruel . Sending arms and moral support won't make peace.

Your description of Hamas is that they are more like a Mafia than a legitimate government. I am pretty sure that civilised people deal with recognised criminals in a pragmatic manner without endangering non-combatants.

[Sy Borg]

There has never been a suggestion that Palestine might compromise, despite Israel's occasional attempts to make a deal.

These "attempts" might have been more credible if they weren't accompanied by a steadily-expanding area of military occupation.

Who could deal with someone who is intent on worsening the situation that needs to be discussed? In 1947, Israel was given 'only' 55% of Palestine. In 1967 they took a load more. Since then, they have continued to take more and more. Given that expansion of the occupation still proceeds, how could the Palestinians sit down with Israel to discuss getting (at least some of) their land back?

Excuses. That wasn't the whole time. Seventy years of refusing to back down, no matter how much it harms your people.

It looks like madness, but maybe not. Pushing blind hatred of Israel is a gravy train for Hamas leaders, who live in safety and luxury as they make decisions that make Palestinian civilians look indistinguishable from soldiers. This is designed to boost civilian casualties, which allows Hamas to easily manipulate soft, naive, virtue-signalling western dupes.

Hamas's three top leaders are worth $11 billion. I wonder how they made that money, and I wonder if that reveals how much they care towards poor Palestinians?

Your point of view about Hamas needs to be said. But there is more. The behaviour of the Israelis in Gaza and in the West Bank is not justified by the unjustifiable Hamas or even by those Palestinians who vote for Hamas. Civilised people don't kill or deliberately starve children , nor wipe out whole populations and those who go there to feed and water starving and dehydrated people.
Nazis, and Right Wing Israelis are tribal and have tribal values. The civilised conversation is about how to quench their tribal fears that make them cruel . Sending arms and moral support won't make peace.

Your description of Hamas is that they are more like a Mafia than a legitimate government. I am pretty sure that civilised people deal with recognised criminals in a pragmatic manner without endangering non-combatants.

Facing the fanaticism of Palestine's intractable stated aim of destroying Israel for seventy years, with multiple attempts to reach a compromise failed, Israel is entitled to try to sort this out once and for all.

Of course, Hamas could have ended this in October and prevented all subsequent deaths by returning the hostages unharmed. They chose war.

I suspect that the Israeli hostages have been harmed or killed, so Hamas cannot return the dead and abused without further retribution. So they keep Israel's faint hope alive that the hostages will be returned unharmed.

The left is at least as tribal as the right - obsessing about the deemed Oppressor vs the deemed Oppressed. It was astonishing to see Ivy league academics saying under oath that they don' consider calls for genocide of Jews to be necessarily against the universities' policies. Imagine that same response regarding calls for genocide of any other ethno-religious group! Also consider large groups of left wing protesters at universities harassing Jewish students.

Tribalism is an ugly feature of both sides of politics.

[Pattern-chaser]

Today, six months ago, Hamas murdered three people I knew — two peace activists and a guy I went to school with — committing horrific massacres, kidnapping Israelis, many of them civilians, with 133 still unjustifiably held by Hamas in Gaza. The women taken captive are likely facing rape, abuse, and torture based on testimonies from released hostages. These appalling crimes cannot be justified in any way.

Since then, my country has destroyed the occupied Gaza Strip, brutally bombing entire families and tens of thousands of Palestinians inside their houses, knowingly using faulty AI hunting programs that also marked civilians as targets, with documented evidence of drones and soldiers murdering unarmed people and a systematic policy of shooting civilians re-entering certain areas of Northern Gaza. Hundreds of Palestinians were taken captive from their homes, many of them civilians, at least 27 killed in military camps due to torture and inhumane conditions. More children were killed by Israel in the first 4 months than all world conflicts combined for the past 4 years. These crimes—along with a military occupation and colonial land policies that existed long before October 7th—are ongoing and cannot be justified. They also happened with the diplomatic and financial support of several Western governments.

We must do everything now to urgently bring about a ceasefire, to end the mass killing and starvation in Gaza, and to release the Israeli hostages who are dying slowly with each passing day. Then, we need to move toward a political solution, which for me means rejecting the current system of Israeli-Jewish supremacy over occupied Palestinians, while also rejecting Hamas’s fundamentalist vision of Palestinian-Islamist supremacy and zero-sum subordination of Israelis.

It means, instead, promoting a post-apartheid vision of equality between Palestinians and Israelis—whether in two independent nation-states side by side, a confederation, or one secular binational state—the key being that both peoples, who in 2024 call this land home, are not going anywhere and deserve full political and individual rights in it. Security, freedom and redistribution of resources in a fair way, while holding some of those who committed crimes accountable, and maybe, one day, forgiving.

I realize this may be difficult to hear for some of you, it may seem absurd to talk about it now, but in certain ways, it’s more important now than ever to clarify where we stand. So that’s where I stand, even if it’s unpopular, and I wanted to make it clear.