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

[Sculptor1]

The conflict between Israel and Palestine didn't start on Oct 7. I don't condone Hamas' actions on Oct 7, but understand how they were provoked.
Israel's continued settlement expansion in the West Bank is considered illegal under international law,
Israeli security forces conduct raids and operations in the West Bank and, Gaza resulting in civilian casualties, significant property damage, and the imprisonment of thousands of Palestinians without charges.

In the meantime, China is expanding vis settlements into Russia, Bhutan, Nepal and India,

Whatabout ery..
If China can do it then Israel's genocide is okay?

More naive use of the word genocide.

So you think the ICJ is "childish"?

[Sy Borg]

In the meantime, China is expanding vis settlements into Russia, Bhutan, Nepal and India,

Whatabout ery..
If China can do it then Israel's genocide is okay?

More naive use of the word genocide.

So you think the ICJ is "childish"?

No, just captured. Notice how they have cracked down on the US's and China's misbehaviour? No? Me neither. All very selective, and anti-Semitism is back in fashion.

[Sculptor1]

Whatabout ery..
If China can do it then Israel's genocide is okay?

More naive use of the word genocide.

So you think the ICJ is "childish"?

No, just captured. Notice how they have cracked down on the US's and China's misbehaviour? No? Me neither. All very selective, and anti-Semitism is back in fashion.

CHildish weaponised nonsense You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Pattern-chaser]

And none of you give a damn about the Sudanese, who have been doing it much harder than the Palestinians for many years. Why? Marxism. Since the Sudanese (actual) genocide is not perpetrated by Jews or Whites, those influenced by Marxist notions of Oppressor and Oppressed do not care.

Over-focus on Israel at the expense of other states behaving questionably is indeed anti-Semitism, and it is clearly rife on this board.

The title of this topic is "What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?". It focusses directly on Israel and the Middle East. Other conflicts are sad and wrong, but off-topic here, yes?

[Sculptor1]

Baby deaths.
Only one 10mnth old baby died on Oct 6 attacks, and another lost from failed Cesarian.

But thousands of babies have died at the hands of the Israeli "indiscriminate bombing"Biden.

Nov. 15: Israeli troops enter Gaza's biggest hospital, Al Shifa, the directly causes the death of newborns when a IDF attack the building and cut the power to vital services.

[Good_Egg]

You make some good points here but I don't think you “say it all”.

True. In a world of fractal complexity, "Says it all" can never be accurate.

In Palestine I hope we can agree that objectively the “good people” ship has sailed.

Well no. I see every statement from Israel "advising" civilians where to go to be safe as an attempt to do what they can - to minimize civilian casualties whilst not giving away information to the enemy they are fighting. You may say it is too little, but to say there is no good intention left is an overstatement.

I would agree that intentionally harming civilians is evil.

Good. If you would only apply that insight to every Hamas rocket fired at Israeli towns and villages then you might have as low a view of Hamas as those you're arguing against.

I believe that Hamas killed civilians on Oct 7...

Yes. Intentionally.

...and Israel has killed civilians for the last 6 months.

Is it the case that the level of intent there is what is in dispute ? Or is it that you are actually arguing that intent doesn't matter?

I hope it matters that the magnitude of killing must enter into the discussion. Where Hamas killed less than 1,000 civilians on Oct 7, Israel has killed tens of thousands.

So you're saying that your principle is that whichever side is losing in a war is killing fewer people and is therefore more moral than the side that is winning ? Can you really not see how stupid a philosophy that is ? The moral thing that everyone should do is lose ?

The civilian deaths by IDF were not accidents as Israel officials that stated that all Palestinians in Gaza need to be evacuated or killed.

That's not proof of intent. Anyone might reasonably hold the view that if civilians are not evacuated from a war zone then they will be killed. Believing that there will be civilian casualties is not the same as intending civilian casualties. To think that is to misunderstand intent.

I rather suspect that in any army in the world, soldiers are motivated largely by the survival of themselves and others in their unit. And that if there's the slightest chance that the apparent-civilian they see is an armed enemy in disguise then they'll shoot them to be on the safe side...

It has to be evil when IDF soldiers brag about committing crimes against humanity...

Yes. Do Hamas fighters brag ? Not on your preferred propaganda channel, presumably.

on the other hand they say that all Gaza Palestinians are Hamas also to justify killing them.

The discussion so far presumes that there are civilians - people on both sides who are innocent of what their society's fighters do, who are identifiably noncombatant.

How would you answer those who say that in Gaza that distinction has been deliberately blurred ? And who has done that blurring ?

[Sy Borg]

And none of you give a damn about the Sudanese, who have been doing it much harder than the Palestinians for many years. Why? Marxism. Since the Sudanese (actual) genocide is not perpetrated by Jews or Whites, those influenced by Marxist notions of Oppressor and Oppressed do not care.

Over-focus on Israel at the expense of other states behaving questionably is indeed anti-Semitism, and it is clearly rife on this board.

The title of this topic is "What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?". It focusses directly on Israel and the Middle East. Other conflicts are sad and wrong, but off-topic here, yes?

No, it's exactly on topic.

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

In fact, while every single day has bought more hand wringing about Israel by all parts of the press, today was the first day I saw an article about Sudan in Google News for months. Presumably, that disaster will slip away so anti-Semitic journalists can focus on saving the dark skinned Oppressed from the lighter skinned Oppressors.

You need to be Jewish or white to be deemed an Oppressor, according to today's intensely anti-Semitic social Marxism, as taught to academics and journalists in universities for years. That's why there were huge anti-Semitic protests on university campuses, even before Israel's retaliation. That's why Presidents of Ivy league universities said on public record that calls for the genocide of Jews was not necessarily against university rules, depending on context. Of course, calls for genocide of any other group would be considered unacceptable but it's believed that those deemed to be Oppressors deserve all the grief they get. That's why a UN representative - a product of social Marxist education systems - claimed (on a technicality) that Israel had no right to militarily defend itself against Hamas bombings.

People have been trained to automatically think in ways that are racist against Jews and whites. In fact, bigotry against these groups is not officially considered to be racism in academia, due to a redefinition (to a "system of disadvantage"), designed specifically so that Jews and whites could be targeted with impunity.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

So if I call out against racism, I'm being sexist? Or if I call out against the treatment of disabled people, I'm ignoring (and therefore against) ending the use of fossil fuels? No, this is taking it too far.

To focus on the conflict that is mainly occupying our TV screens at the moment does not indicate that we don't care about climate change, or the next POTUS. We can discuss all of those things, and more, but not all at the same time. Humans can't do that. And to focus, maybe positively, on one thing, does not make one anti-everything-else. I'm afraid that argument simply doesn't work.

[Sy Borg]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

So if I call out against racism, I'm being sexist? Or if I call out against the treatment of disabled people, I'm ignoring (and therefore against) ending the use of fossil fuels? No, this is taking it too far.

To focus on the conflict that is mainly occupying our TV screens at the moment does not indicate that we don't care about climate change, or the next POTUS. We can discuss all of those things, and more, but not all at the same time. Humans can't do that. And to focus, maybe positively, on one thing, does not make one anti-everything-else. I'm afraid that argument simply doesn't work.

One moment you say that Sudan is not relevant. Now you claim that sexism and disability discrimination are equally relevant, which is simply irrational. You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the fact remains that focus on Israel is not only disproportionate, but extremely so, and that is indeed anti-Semitism.

Indeed, your own focus on Israel over other issues suggests what I think of as "indirect anti-Semitism", where someone has no personal racism against Jews but is deeply influenced by anti-Semitic material and attitudes taught in universities.

A new study commissioned by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) and carried out by the Network Contagion Research Institute, found a correlation between foreign donors and increased antisemitism on college campuses. The report entitled, “The Corruption of the American Mind,” identified the existence of billions of dollars of funding, that had not been reported to the Department of Education, which has had a “substantial impact on fermenting growing levels of antisemitic discourse and campus politics at U.S. universities.”

The report discerned that these universities had a greater prevalence of “political campaigns to silence academics” and speakers, more students exposed to “antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric” and an increase in reports of “antisemitic incidents” when compared to institutions that did not receive those funds. Universities that accepted Middle Eastern donors’ money in particular were found to have, on average, 300% more antisemitic incidents than those that did not. And, students expressed greater exposure to antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric.

Qatar was identified as the single largest foreign donor to American universities, donating at least $4.7 billion between 2001 and 2021, much of which reportedly came with strings attached and were unreported. Qatar is one of Hamas’ largest political and financial donors, and home to where its 3 top leaders — with $11 billion in personal assets — live, play and orchestrate their terrorist activities, including the Oct. 7 massacre. Qatar owns Al Jazeera — a news operation that purports journalistic integrity but often repeats Hamas’ claims without verification.

https://www.denverpost.com/2023/12/28/a ... donations/

[Good_Egg]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

So if I call out against racism, I'm being sexist? Or if I call out against the treatment of disabled people, I'm ignoring (and therefore against) ending the use of fossil fuels? No, this is taking it too far.

"Taking it too far" is the noise made by someone condemned by the very principles they claim to believe in.

You have not disavowed the view that anything that disadvantages black people is racist full stop. In the court of progressive opinion, racism is the ultimate crime, and there is no defence of reasonableness.

As long as you go along with this poisonous nonsense, then when others claim that your (perfectly reasonable, IMO) choice - to focus on the conflict that everyone else is talking about - disadvantages Jews and is therefore antisemitic, then you stand condemned by your own philosophy.

Trying to put it as plainly as I can....

[Pattern-chaser]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

So if I call out against racism, I'm being sexist? Or if I call out against the treatment of disabled people, I'm ignoring (and therefore against) ending the use of fossil fuels? No, this is taking it too far.

To focus on the conflict that is mainly occupying our TV screens at the moment does not indicate that we don't care about climate change, or the next POTUS. We can discuss all of those things, and more, but not all at the same time. Humans can't do that. And to focus, maybe positively, on one thing, does not make one anti-everything-else. I'm afraid that argument simply doesn't work.

One moment you say that Sudan is not relevant. Now you claim that sexism and disability discrimination are equally relevant, which is simply irrational.

Of course it's "irrational". I was applying *your* logic to demonstrate its unhelpfulness.

You can wriggle and squirm all you like, but the fact remains that focus on Israel is not only disproportionate, but extremely so, and that is indeed anti-Semitism.

Here, I'm questioning your argument, summarised by the top quote in this post. By your logic, as displayed there, one cannot go on about the Holocaust without being anti-Russian! For while Hitler and his cohorts were about their deadly business, Russians were killed by Stalin's order:

Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin's regime were 20 million or higher. After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953), around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag, some 390,000 deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[12] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories. According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were "purposive" while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[2] The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes, though not always, included with the victims of the Stalin era.

By the worst estimates, Stalin killed more than three times as many Russians as died in Nazi camps.

So, by your logic, mentioning the Holocaust without also acknowledging the (possibly) far higher numbers of Russians killed in the same conflict (WW2), makes one anti-Russian.

I submit that your 'logic' just isn't helpful. And, by the Goddess, we could do with "helpful" when discussing this awful conflict.

[Sy Borg]

So, by your logic, mentioning the Holocaust without also acknowledging the (possibly) far higher numbers of Russians killed in the same conflict (WW2), makes one anti-Russian.

I submit that your 'logic' just isn't helpful. And, by the Goddess, we could do with "helpful" when discussing this awful conflict.

My logic is the most helpful possible, being centrist. Your "logic", by contrast, is part of the problem. Millions have been influenced by journalists and academics who had been trained in social Marxism at university, who denigrate Jews because they have been deemed The Oppressor. Then these jaundiced observers spread their anti-Semitism to a general public, who largely lap up whatever they are fed.

Today I see all these pieces in the media complaining about how the Sudanese war has been ignored. They even quote the UN complaining about it being ignored.

It might have helped if the UN didn't use up over half of its resolutions against Israel, which of course meant reduced focus on the rest of the world. Western journalists are likewise creating a distorted view of the world by focusing on their obsessions and sensationalising everything. The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic. There's no getting away from it.

[Belinda]

And none of you give a damn about the Sudanese, who have been doing it much harder than the Palestinians for many years. Why? Marxism. Since the Sudanese (actual) genocide is not perpetrated by Jews or Whites, those influenced by Marxist notions of Oppressor and Oppressed do not care.

Over-focus on Israel at the expense of other states behaving questionably is indeed anti-Semitism, and it is clearly rife on this board.

The title of this topic is "What constitutes an ‘anti-Semitic’ statement?". It focusses directly on Israel and the Middle East. Other conflicts are sad and wrong, but off-topic here, yes?

No, it's exactly on topic.

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

In fact, while every single day has bought more hand wringing about Israel by all parts of the press, today was the first day I saw an article about Sudan in Google News for months. Presumably, that disaster will slip away so anti-Semitic journalists can focus on saving the dark skinned Oppressed from the lighter skinned Oppressors.

You need to be Jewish or white to be deemed an Oppressor, according to today's intensely anti-Semitic social Marxism, as taught to academics and journalists in universities for years. That's why there were huge anti-Semitic protests on university campuses, even before Israel's retaliation. That's why Presidents of Ivy league universities said on public record that calls for the genocide of Jews was not necessarily against university rules, depending on context. Of course, calls for genocide of any other group would be considered unacceptable but it's believed that those deemed to be Oppressors deserve all the grief they get. That's why a UN representative - a product of social Marxist education systems - claimed (on a technicality) that Israel had no right to militarily defend itself against Hamas bombings.

People have been trained to automatically think in ways that are racist against Jews and whites. In fact, bigotry against these groups is not officially considered to be racism in academia, due to a redefinition (to a "system of disadvantage"), designed specifically so that Jews and whites could be targeted with impunity.

I read The Guardian, and I watch Al Jazeera and BBC news on TV. I suppose I am one of those Marxists that you decry. I don't look at Google News, and I note that some of its more principled employees are protesting against Google's business dealings with Israel.

Do you deny that Likud is very Right Wing?
Likud members can;t claim to be Jews when they are supporting their ongoing theft of Palestinian lands on the West Bank

The narrative in 1 Kings 21 describes a case of false testimony. King Ahab of Israel tried to convince Naboth the Jezreelite to sell him the vineyard Naboth owned adjacent to the king's palace. Ahab wanted the land to use as a vegetable garden, but Naboth refused to sell or trade the property to Ahab saying, "The LORD forbid that I should give up to you what I have inherited from my fathers!"[20] Ahab's wife Jezebel then conspired to obtain the vineyard by writing letters in Ahab's name to the elders and nobles in Naboth's town instructing them to have two scoundrels bear false witness claiming that Naboth has cursed both God and the king. After Naboth was subsequently stoned to death, Ahab seized possession of Naboth's vineyard. The text describes the LORD as very angry with Ahab, and the prophet Elijah pronounces judgment on both Ahab and Jezebel.[21]

[Pattern-chaser]

My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.

...

By the worst estimates, Stalin killed more than three times as many Russians as died in Nazi camps. So, by your logic, mentioning the Holocaust without also acknowledging the (possibly) far higher numbers of Russians killed in the same conflict (WW2), makes one anti-Russian.

I submit that your 'logic' just isn't helpful. And, by the Goddess, we could do with "helpful" when discussing this awful conflict.

My logic is the most helpful possible, being centrist. Your "logic", by contrast, is part of the problem. Millions have been influenced by journalists and academics who had been trained in social Marxism at university, who denigrate Jews because they have been deemed The Oppressor. Then these jaundiced observers spread their anti-Semitism to a general public, who largely lap up whatever they are fed.

This exchange is not a political or ideological one. It's more basic than that. You claim that anyone who criticises Israel without taking into account — and citing, clearly! — every other vaguely-similar situation across the world, is "anti-Semitic" (which term, in this case, must mean anti-Israel, as the target of criticism is Israel, not Jews or the Jewish faith).

The problem with that is that, since the beginning of recorded human history, our world has been filled with such conflicts. It simply isn't possible, in a purely practical sense, to mention them all, or even most of them, when discussing just one of them. There are just too many of them. But should we prevent the discussion of one because we can't list all the others every time we do it?

All such conflicts are wrong. So any action against just one of them is a step in the right direction. Action against all of them would be better, but impractical to achieve all at the same time. In practice, that level of multitasking might actually prevent us from considering each issue justly and fairly, with appropriate scope, depth, and breadth.

The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic.

So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? After all, to do so without mentioning Israel (and all the other similar situations throughout the world) would be displaying anti-Sudanese discrimination/prejudice, by your logic.

The end result of following your recommendations is that no 'military injustice' can be morally discussed in isolation, but only all together, all at the same time, so that no-one is criticised when someone else equally guilty is not mentioned explicitly. Looked at in one way, your logic offers a Bullies Defence, that no bully can be stopped without stopping all bullies, everywhere, to avoid 'unfair' focus on any one bully. It just doesn't make sense. It isn't helpful, and it isn't justifiable.

[Belinda]

Pattern-chaser:
"So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? "

Since dictator Al-Bashir was deposed Sudan's people have suffered from merciless militias. What Likud and the Sudanese militias have in common is "merciless".

[ Revenue Management Act define the regulatory framework governing the hydrocarbon sector.[3]

[3] Petroleum Act, Laws of South Sudan, Ch. II–V, 2012. Also, Laura M. James. “Fields of Control: Oil and (In)security in Sudan and South Sudan,” Small Arms Survey, HSBA working paper 40, November 2015, pg. 18. “Energy Capital & Power Re-releases Africa Energy Series: South Sudan Report,” Energy Capital & Power, October 8, 2021. David K. Deng. “Oil and Sustainable Peace in South Sudan,” South Sudan Law Society working paper, February 2015, pg. 3–5, accessed July 13, 2022.

National oil companies (NOCs) based in Asia are the major foreign oil companies in the oil sector in South Sudan. The China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), and Malaysia’s Petronas hold large stakes in the leading consortia operating in South Sudan. The leading consortia operating in South Sudan are the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the Dar Petroleum Operating Company, and the Sudd Petroleum Operating Company. [1] ]