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

[Pattern-chaser]

The people of Israel are not responsible for the actions of their government any more than the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas, or even the people of the US for our government's actions.

This is contrary to the basic structures and strictures of democracy. Not only is it the dictatorship of the majority, it also requires us to accept the final result of a vote, even though we might have voted the other way. The actions of our governments are *our* actions. We gave them that right, and that responsibility, when we voted them in. We are all responsible for the actions of the governments we voted into power. All of us that live in democracies, that is.

Not in a position to discuss this at the moment but I do not believe that the US is a functioning democracy or even close. I doubt that Israel or Palestine are any better.

I think if your country claims to be democratic, and holds elections, and so forth, that they are sort of obliged — by this commitment to democracy —to follow the basic rules and tenets of democracy. The most important foundation of democracy is that, when a democratic decision has been reached, all must accept and follow it, even (especially) if they didn't vote for it themselves.

The governments we elect — to govern for us, so that we don't have to do it ourselves — rule in *our* name, and with the authority that *we* gave them. We are all responsible for the actions of our governments, if we live in democratic countries.

Even if our practical implementation of democracy is less than perfect. If we call it democracy, then the rules of democracy must apply, yes?

[Pattern-chaser]

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist.

Don't think that's quite accurate.

PC has said that Israel does have the right to defend itself against armies from "third party" nations.

So logically, to the extent that Hamas is an Iranian-sponsored guerilla force, he would I think acknowledge that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas.

No, Hamas is not, nor does it represent, a "third-party" country. Hamas are the elected government of Gaza, which is, in turn, part of the State of Palestine that is (illegally and brutally) occupied by Israeli forces. As such, Hamas' actions are, in Judith Butler's words, "armed resistance". I'm not familiar with the Geneva Convention, but it surely includes some acceptance of military action carried out by the people of an occupied nation, with the aim of repelling the invading forces? E.g. the heroic actions of the French Resistance in WW2.

To the extent that Hamas is merely enacting the will of the Palestinians in Gaza, he sees a difference. But to that extent all the Palestinians in Gaza are complicit in Hamas' crimes...

Reality is messy and doesn't always fit our neat categories.

Quite so.

[Lagayascienza]

On the TV news tonight, and today in the papers I read, there were stories on the awful situation in Sudan, the awful events in Ukraine, China's shenanigans in the South China Sea and elsewhere, and about the destruction of Gaza. These are all distressing, but what makes the Israeli destruction of Palestine notable and especially depressing is how long it has been going on.

I do not agree with what Hamas did - killing civilians and taking hostages cannot be condoned. But ask yourselves, what would have happened if Hamas had not done this? The Answer is, nothing. At least nothing new. Israel would have pushed on with it's occupation of ever more Palestinian territory, mostly under the radar as the Palestinians were herded into smaller and smaller ghettos.

So, what can the Palestinians do? Must they just lay down and die? Can they not oppose Israel's avarice and cruelty? If someone was taking your land I would you not put up a fight? What sort of fight by the Palestinians would be acceptable?

[Sculptor1]

I am not an antisemite. However, this has been a six-decade long disaster for the Palestinian people whose land should never have been partitioned. And ever since the partition, the Palestinians have suffered death by a thousands cuts as Israel invades more of what is left of Palestinian territory. It has been a disaster for the Palestinians and it may well end up being a disaster for Israel, too, if/when it's backers in the West can no longer protect it. Whatever happens, the 1.8 billion in the Muslim world (and many in the West) will not forgive or forget Israel's avaricious and cruel destruction of the Palestine. It is a crime against humanity which even many Jewish people recognise as such.

Yes. But the media want you to believe it happend on Oct 7th, yet just three days before Israel bombed Gaza.
Isreal has a constant population of its own hostages in illegal detention.
THe hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Mo_reese]

The people of Israel are not responsible for the actions of their government any more than the Palestinians are responsible for the actions of Hamas, or even the people of the US for our government's actions.

I think if your country claims to be democratic, and holds elections, and so forth, that they are sort of obliged — by this commitment to democracy —to follow the basic rules and tenets of democracy. The most important foundation of democracy is that, when a democratic decision has been reached, all must accept and follow it, even (especially) if they didn't vote for it themselves.

The governments we elect — to govern for us, so that we don't have to do it ourselves — rule in *our* name, and with the authority that *we* gave them. We are all responsible for the actions of our governments, if we live in democratic countries.

Even if our practical implementation of democracy is less than perfect. If we call it democracy, then the rules of democracy must apply, yes?

I think if your country claims to be democratic, and holds elections, and so forth, that they are sort of obliged — by this commitment to democracy —to follow the basic rules and tenets of democracy. The most important foundation of democracy is that, when a democratic decision has been reached, all must accept and follow it, even (especially) if they didn't vote for it themselves.

The governments we elect — to govern for us, so that we don't have to do it ourselves — rule in *our* name, and with the authority that *we* gave them. We are all responsible for the actions of our governments, if we live in democratic countries.

Even if our practical implementation of democracy is less than perfect. If we call it democracy, then the rules of democracy must apply, yes?

This is probably a good topic for a separate thread. I do not think that the US is a functioning democracy. I do agree that it is the responsibility of the people to insure their government represents them but often that isn't possible. The Palestinians in Gaza may not approve of Hamas but Hamas was their only alternative to being subjugated by Israel. My point, and I think I have one, is that even though one might say the Gaza Palestinians are responsible for electing Hamas, that shouldn't be justification for their slaughter by Israel.

I have been around for a long time and have watched us lose our freedoms and liberties continually. Congress just passed a law to outlaw a social media company because, in my opinion, the US government could not control the content. They've demonized anti-genocide protests and have passed a law to allow spying on Americans without warrants. They will not spend a dime on healthcare but give hundreds of billions to authoritative, non-democratic governments for war. This noose is tightening and those on the Left are too few to stop it. Those on the Reich Right welcome it and the Establishment sycophants that worship at the feet of Clinton and Obama are ambivalent.

[Sy Borg]

Like Hamas, you do not believe Israel has a right to exist.

Don't think that's quite accurate.

PC has said that Israel does have the right to defend itself against armies from "third party" nations.

So logically, to the extent that Hamas is an Iranian-sponsored guerilla force, he would I think acknowledge that Israel has the right to defend itself against Hamas.

No, Hamas is not, nor does it represent, a "third-party" country. Hamas are the elected government of Gaza, which is, in turn, part of the State of Palestine that is (illegally and brutally) occupied by Israeli forces. As such, Hamas' actions are, in Judith Butler's words, "armed resistance". I'm not familiar with the Geneva Convention, but it surely includes some acceptance of military action carried out by the people of an occupied nation, with the aim of repelling the invading forces? E.g. the heroic actions of the French Resistance in WW2.

Hamas were elected in 2007 and have not held elections since. They also murder and torture their political opposition.

Still, you clearly hold anti-Semitic attitudes. You believe that Israel should not exist. Imagine that claim on any other nation or group. Based on your comments, you believe that Jews have less right to their ancestral lands than do Arabs. You have zero criticism of Hamas for an unprovoked attack that killed over a thousand and kidnapped hundreds more. You falsely claim Israel has been committing genocide for decades when Palestinian populations have grown faster than Israeli ones.

Hamas is ultimately a terrorist group. They kidnapped - and continue to hold (if they are still alive) - hundreds of civilians. When Israel kills civilians, they are human shields that Hamas uses as sacrificial lambs to gain international attention, or mistakes made because Hamas replicates the look of aid vehicles. Hamas simply attacked civilians because they could. In what world can a group steal and harm hundreds of innocent civilians and not be deemed a terrorist organisation?

In an anti-Semitic world, it seems. Poor old Jews. They have copped it so hard for so long. Even someone like you, normally all for human rights, shows racism against against the Jewish people, valuing them less than Arabs. You deny this but you believe they Jews should have been largely eliminated from the world seventy years ago (which is what would have happened without the creation of Israel) and only begrudgingly accept that they have a right to exist today.

You still can't explain why Philippines, Bhutan and Vietnam, who are all suffering from having their territories ever more invaded by China, are not sending missiles into China and kidnapping and torturing Chinese? Why do you think they are not taking Hamas's armed resistance approach and turning their people into human shields? It appears that those governments don't operate like terrorist groups, unlike Hamas.

[Pattern-chaser]

My point, and I think I have one, is that even though one might say the Gaza Palestinians are responsible for electing Hamas, that shouldn't be justification for their slaughter by Israel.

Yes, whatever else is so, there is no excuse for slaughter. Especially by an occupying power preying on those whose land they have stolen by overwhelming military force. But it applies across the board — slaughter is unacceptable.

[Pattern-chaser]

Still, you clearly hold anti-Semitic attitudes. You believe that Israel should not exist...

No!

I will no longer answer these continuing allegations. They are untrue and inaccurate, and I have explained this, and my position/opinion, many times. I will not do so again.

[Lagayascienza]

The police in NYC have arrested hundreds of Jewish demonstrators who were showing their support for the people of Gaza and who are disgusted by the Israeli governments actions there.

“We as American Jews will not be used, we will not be complicit and we will not be silent. Judaism is a beautiful, thousands-year-old tradition, and Israel is a 76-year-old colonial apartheid state,” Morgan Bassichis, an organizer with Jewish Voice for Peace, told the crowd.

And there are many Jews in Israel who feel the same way. I don't think we could accuse these jews of antisemitism any more than anyone could accuse French people of being anti-French for disagreeing with things French governments do.

[Mo_reese]

I don't understand the purpose of name-calling someone as anti-Semitic. It can't be intended to convince others to change their views, but it does tend to end rational discussion. It looks to me like it does more harm than good. Most of those that are standing up against Israel's actions are not anti-Semitic but anti-genocide. It is a disservice to those great many Jewish people that oppose Israel's actions, oppose genocide by trying to include them under the Zionist umbrella. I personally stand with my Jewish friends against anti-Antisemitism and resent those that try to alienate us from each other.
I strongly oppose actions by Hamas that included civilians but do not believe that Israel's response is justified. Israel's actions are not aimed at establishing peace but clearing Gaza of Palestinians.

[Pattern-chaser]

It is a disservice to those great many Jewish people that oppose Israel's actions, oppose genocide by trying to include them under the Zionist umbrella. I personally stand with my Jewish friends against anti-Antisemitism and resent those that try to alienate us from each other.

Yes, I found out a few days ago that not all Zionists are Jewish. It turns out there are Christian Zionists, who outnumber their Jewish counterparts 30 to 1. [In this context, Zionism is the scriptural belief that God gave the Jews a homeland, and that most or all of historic Palestine is that homeland.]

In addition, and as you say, not all Jews are Zionists. The only information I can find tells me only that around 20% of British Jews are not Zionists (80% are). I don't know how this spreads across the world.

[Sy Borg]

I don't understand the purpose of name-calling someone as anti-Semitic. It can't be intended to convince others to change their views, but it does tend to end rational discussion. It looks to me like it does more harm than good. Most of those that are standing up against Israel's actions are not anti-Semitic but anti-genocide. It is a disservice to those great many Jewish people that oppose Israel's actions, oppose genocide by trying to include them under the Zionist umbrella. I personally stand with my Jewish friends against anti-Antisemitism and resent those that try to alienate us from each other.
I strongly oppose actions by Hamas that included civilians but do not believe that Israel's response is justified. Israel's actions are not aimed at establishing peace but clearing Gaza of Palestinians.

I don't understand why anti-Semitic people are so worried about it being called out by others. If someone is clearly anti-Semitic, why not say it? Must we always be politically correct? If you judge the wrongs of Jews more than the wrongs of others, then why not own your anti-Semitism? That's what it is.

It's not name-calling to call out a person whose views are clearly biased against Jews, focused on everything they do wrong while ignoring all the many wrongs being perpetrated by others. Yes, Israel has done some appalling things, but they are far from alone, or even close to the worst, on the world stage, as the clearly corrupted UN would have you believe.

Just as "racism" has been redefined so it is impossible to be racist against white people, it is now possible for rapidly rising populations to be victims of genocide. As philosophy enthusiats, we should be ready to call out BS rather that use it as political propaganda, as you and others here have done.

Mo, it's refreshing to see you finally admit that Arabs actually did something wrong. It only took 20 pages, many of them with my posts about anti-Semitic double standards but someone finally cracked and almost managed to admit that Hamas are not entirely innocent victims.

Still, your critique of Hamas is weak. Out of the blue they send missiles into Israel, killing thousands. They they stormed in, killed, raped and tortured some more Jewish people, before making off with hundreds of hostages. Israel is bombing them until they return the hostages. Thy won't return the hostages and then they and everyone else blames Israel ...? Hello? Any interest in the idea of Hamas saving its people by returning the hostages?

And yes, many Jews are anti-Semitic too, just as many whites are racist against white people (Google Gemini's abortive launch made that obvious), as each group has been encouraged to do by the cultural Marxism that crept into universities. Once universities were places that welcomes debate and different opinions. Now they are places that demand students adopt certain opinions, and the graduates of this indoctrination are undermining, and damaging, their societies. There is a difference between self-criticism and self-hatred. The latter is being promoted (for justice's sake, apparently) and it is now rife.

[Good_Egg]

Pattern-chaser 's stated view of discrimination is that whether someone has such animosity or not doesn't matter - it's an act of discrimination regardless.

You're putting forward the (common) view that criticism is only antisemitic if it is motivated by "a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart".

Okay.

So if PC's opinion is that actions (not intention) is what matters (when using the label of discrimination), how does Syborg's opinion that the (action of) criticizing Israel alone (leaving out Hamas, Congo etc), which is something that folks with and without traditional anti Semitic intentions could do, is de facto anti Semitism (discrimination), differ fundamentally?

Fair enough question.

What do you think, Sy Borg ?

Are you arguing that the action of singling out Israel for criticism is so blatant, so obviously biased, that it is evidence of anti-Jewish intent and therefore antisemitic ? How many of the nations of the world came to their present boundaries by conquest, after all ?

Or are you saying that discrimination is discrimination regardless of intent, and any bias that disadvantages Jews is antisemitic, regardless of how reasonable such a bias might be ? (We're all influenced by the news we read, after all ?)

[Sy Borg]

Pattern-chaser 's stated view of discrimination is that whether someone has such animosity or not doesn't matter - it's an act of discrimination regardless.

You're putting forward the (common) view that criticism is only antisemitic if it is motivated by "a personal animosity towards all things Jewish in their heart".

Okay.

So if PC's opinion is that actions (not intention) is what matters (when using the label of discrimination), how does Syborg's opinion that the (action of) criticizing Israel alone (leaving out Hamas, Congo etc), which is something that folks with and without traditional anti Semitic intentions could do, is de facto anti Semitism (discrimination), differ fundamentally?

Fair enough question.

What do you think, Sy Borg ?

Are you arguing that the action of singling out Israel for criticism is so blatant, so obviously biased, that it is evidence of anti-Jewish intent and therefore antisemitic ? How many of the nations of the world came to their present boundaries by conquest, after all ?

Or are you saying that discrimination is discrimination regardless of intent, and any bias that disadvantages Jews is antisemitic, regardless of how reasonable such a bias might be ? (We're all influenced by the news we read, after all ?)

The bias based on media exposure is reasonable for "normies", not for philosophy-heads. I think that the singling out of Israel over all others is anti-Semitic. As you suggest, not all anti-Semitism is driven by ill intent, but it's still anti-Semitism. It's been some time that I've spoken about Sudan, but no one is interested but their interest in Palestine grows more intense by the day.

Also, there has been an infantilisation of Palestinians, as if being dubbed "The Oppressed" means that they lack moral agency like a child. The choice has been there all along to evacuate human shields and give up hostages but, somehow, this is treated as reasonable. If that's fair, maybe Jews should have gone into Germany and killed, tortured and raped German innocents as retribution for wrongs of the past? Would people consider this to be as reasonable as they seem to find Hamas's terrorist and continuing intransigence (despite the human cost)?

[Belinda]

Sy Borg wrote:

----there has been an infantilisation of Palestinians, as if being dubbed "The Oppressed" means that they lack moral agency like a child. The choice has been there all along to evacuate human shields and give up hostages but, somehow, this is treated as reasonable. If that's fair, maybe Jews should have gone into Germany and killed, tortured and raped German innocents as retribution for wrongs of the past? Would people consider this to be as reasonable as they seem to find Hamas's terrorist and continuing intransigence (despite the human cost)?

Lack of moral agency is not "like a child" whose immature morality is supplemented by parents and others. To lack moral agency is a large part of being vulnerable. Nobody chooses to be vulnerable.

" Revenge is mine" said the Lord. Good Jews don't seek retribution, especially through violence ---"thou shalt not kill". These are non negotiable commands for Jews. It is high time that you view the present state of Israel under Likud as a political not a religious state.

In fact nobody is perfectly good in a relative world. The best measure of relative goodness is the quantity and quality of harm wreaked or avoided. The existential harm done by Israel and Israelis far exceeds that done by Hamas and Palestinians.

Weep for the moral decline and fall of Israel . Perhaps Israel would not have been a rogue state if America had left it alone.