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

[Sy Borg]

I'm going to say something that everyone will probably dislike but, this being a philosophy forum, it has to be said.

We human are not in control. The Earth is. Our extreme populations and consumption are acting as a change agent on the planet.

This happens from time to time. Over two billion years ago, cyanobacteria proliferated to the point where it flooded the Earth with oxygen, which killed most of the anaerobic organisms at the time. There was a long period where an alien visitor would figure that it was game over for life. However, the oxygen made multicellular organisms possible, and then came the Cambrian explosion, and now here we are, on the precipice of another major extinction event. The human legacy won't be oxygen but technology. No idea how that will play out in the far future.

Anyway, with eight billion people, something has to give, and that will at some stage mean shocking losses of life, possibly unprecedented, until population and available resources reach some degree of sustainability.

The current wars are part of all that. It looks like Iran will be a big player as they are now close to nuclear status. If they get it, then the technology may be given to rebel groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then the US has a scary decision to make. It seems like the dovetailing of Russia/Ukraine and Israel/Palestine will be extremely destructive, and will tend to spread as each is effectively a proxy war.

[Consul]

We human are not in control. The Earth is.

The Earth doesn't make any political decisions like constructing nuclear weapons and declaring war.

[Consul]

I'm going to say something that everyone will probably dislike but, this being a philosophy forum, it has to be said.
We human are not in control. The Earth is. Our extreme populations and consumption are acting as a change agent on the planet.

Philosophical ideas are "change agents" too, including those embodied by political ideologies.

"Today more than ever before the serious-minded are convinced that philosophy has practical tasks. The life of both the individual and the community is not molded by their mere needs and fortunes but also at all times by the strength of dominant ideas. Ideas are spiritual powers. They belong to the realm of thought. But thought has its own discipline and its own critique—philosophy. Therefore philosophy is called upon to include within its scope the pressing problems of the contemporary world and to co-operate in the work that needs to be done."

(Hartmann, Nicolai. New Ways of Ontology. Translated by Reinhard C. Kuhn. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953. p. 3)

[Sculptor1]

Yea, as we all know, the Jews love to kill children and to drink their blood. *DUH!*

You ought to know better than to make such a stupid insulting comment.
If you cant play nice you need to run along and take a long walk, preferably off a long pier.

Come on, can't you stomach a piece of sarcasm?!

…If you seriously think there is a moral symmetry between the terrorism of Hamas and the counterterrorism of the Israeli army, or even a moral asymmetry in favor of Hamas, you really need to adjust your moral compass!

One man's terrorists is another man's freedom fighter
One mans innocent victim is another man's "collateral damage."
You are ridiculous.

No, you are irresponsibly relativizing and thereby excusing Hamas's barbaric crimes!

No - you are irresponsbly ignoring the facts.
The conflict did not start last week.
Denial of water, energy, and food, is a series of war crimes against international convention.
But for decades Isreal has stolen land, denied basic rights, illegally detained. BARBARIC
When you continue to poke a caged bear they bite. Palestine is a brutalised population.
Yet you chose euphamisms like "collateral damage" to one side and "barbaric" to the other.

[Good_Egg]

If your means involves deliberately murdering civilians in order to put pressure on decision-makers, then you're a terrorist. Regardless of what end you are seeking to bring about.

I believe "terrorism" is about only the end(s), not the means. If one acts in a way intended to cause terror in one's victims, one is a terrorist. That seems pretty clear and simple to me.

"Causing terror" is a means. (In this case to the "liberation" of Palestine). You'd have to be really twisted to value terror for it's own sake...

I find that comparing the Palestinian activists and World War 2's French Resistance is useful. The latter are remembered by human history (written by the victors, of course) as heroes and heroines. They struggled against overwhelming odds to rid their land of a brutal military occupation. And they struck at the enemy in any and every way that was within their means. But we do not remember them as terrorists...

We don't remember them as terrorists because their targets were an occupying army. If they had targeted German civilians in Germany then they would be terrorists, however much we might think that their end was just.

... although they seem to conform to the definition of the word, because we 'balance' their actions against (what we see as) the injustice of their enemy's position/actions. And the result of our 'balancing' is to conclude that their actions were laudable and reasonable.

What you're saying here is that you think terrorism is justified in a good cause. Is that really what you want to argue ?

[Sculptor1]

800 children killed and counting.

Were those Palestinian children deliberately murdered by the Israeli army as direct targets of its military action? – NO!
Who is ultimately responsible for their death? – HAMAS!

Israel is.
Yes, Israel has the intension of wiping Palestine off the map.
Please pay attention to the history of the region since WW2.

[Pattern-chaser]

How can Isreal justify the 1900 people they have already killed this week, and claim that Hamas is wrong to attackt the inncent?

There is no symmetry of guilt, because there is a big difference between the deliberate terrorist mass-murdering of innocent people and the unintentional killing of innocent people as regrettable yet unavoidable "collateral damage" in the context of justified counterterrorist military action. If Hamas hadn't attacked the Israelis, the innocent Palestinians unintentionally killed by the Israeli army would still be alive; so Hamas are ultimately responsible for their death.

According to your reasoning, then, the state of Israel is responsible for many thousands of deaths in occupied Palestine. If the Israelis had never invaded Palestine, all of these people would still be alive.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find that comparing the Palestinian activists and World War 2's French Resistance is useful. The latter are remembered by human history (written by the victors, of course) as heroes and heroines. They struggled against overwhelming odds to rid their land of a brutal military occupation. And they struck at the enemy in any and every way that was within their means. But we do not remember them as terrorists...

We don't remember them as terrorists because their targets were an occupying army. If they had targeted German civilians in Germany then they would be terrorists, however much we might think that their end was just.

In WW2, all the Germans in France were soldiers or administrators, and the latter were also soldiers, but in administrative roles. In Palestine, all Israelis based there are soldiers or militant settlers, actively displacing Palestinians and occupying their lands instead. In the context of war — and a brutal and oppressive military occupation is surely war — all Israelis in Palestine are enemy combatants. Israelis based in Israel are a different matter, but even then, in the context of war, Israel is the enemy, and thus a 'valid' target, just as civilians in WW2 London and Berlin were bombed by their enemies.

Obviously there are no clear-cut and morally-right guidelines that apply here. War tends to suppress all aspects of decent behaviour. But it seems 'fair' to see anyone, of either side, who causes the death of an enemy civilian to be 'in the wrong'.

This whole situation began in 1948, when UK/US/UN appeased Jewish terrorists by 'giving' them land in the Middle East, land that belonged to Palestinian people, and which they did not willingly give up. From then on, wrong piled upon wrong, until we reach the present-day. I see no easy answers.

[Sculptor1]

How can Isreal justify the 1900 people they have already killed this week, and claim that Hamas is wrong to attackt the inncent?

There is no symmetry of guilt, because there is a big difference between the deliberate terrorist mass-murdering of innocent people and the unintentional killing of innocent people as regrettable yet unavoidable "collateral damage" in the context of justified counterterrorist military action. If Hamas hadn't attacked the Israelis, the innocent Palestinians unintentionally killed by the Israeli army would still be alive; so Hamas are ultimately responsible for their death.

According to your reasoning, then, the state of Israel is responsible for many thousands of deaths in occupied Palestine. If the Israelis had never invaded Palestine, all of these people would still be alive.

Yes. Had there been no Balfour Declaration, no Sykes/Pichot agreement - documents made completely without regard to the wishes of those who lived in the region; had there been no Jewish terrorist group killing British occupiers; had there not been a seizure of power from the British before the expiry of the Mandate.
Has the Israelis not stolen, imprisoned the local people; had they not stolen the land and started several wars against the Arab nations. Had Israel not denied basic rights. Had they not blockaded Gaza. Had they not destroyed thousands of buildings and prevented their rebuilding by banning building material. Had they not banned medicines..
the list of calumnies goes on an on...
So tens of thousands of deaths and the suffering of millions would have been avoided had Jews just stayed home in the US and Europe for the last 100 years.

And what is their claim about?? How on earth can one take that seriously?

Was it ever wise to re-set the geographical clock to the time of the Emperor Hadrian??
Yes, Israel exists, even Hamas has agreed to recognise it, yet where is Israel's response? Are they giving back the stolen territories? Are they going to respect international law.?
No.

[Sy Borg]

We human are not in control. The Earth is.

The Earth doesn't make any political decisions like constructing nuclear weapons and declaring war.

Doesn't it? Is it not Earth but Mars or Jupiter?

Or do you believe that humans are separate from the Earth?

Nuclear bombs are chaotic elements of the larger change agent. A bit like oxygen-laded cyanobacteria poop.

Thanks for engaging. Everyone else is determinedly avoiding philosophy in favour of chasing shiny political objects.

[Sy Borg]

I'm going to say something that everyone will probably dislike but, this being a philosophy forum, it has to be said.
We human are not in control. The Earth is. Our extreme populations and consumption are acting as a change agent on the planet.

Philosophical ideas are "change agents" too, including those embodied by political ideologies.

"Today more than ever before the serious-minded are convinced that philosophy has practical tasks. The life of both the individual and the community is not molded by their mere needs and fortunes but also at all times by the strength of dominant ideas. Ideas are spiritual powers. They belong to the realm of thought. But thought has its own discipline and its own critique—philosophy. Therefore philosophy is called upon to include within its scope the pressing problems of the contemporary world and to co-operate in the work that needs to be done."

(Hartmann, Nicolai. New Ways of Ontology. Translated by Reinhard C. Kuhn. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953. p. 3)

It's interesting to consider the role of ideas in reality. Such memes evolve, mutate and reproduce rather like genes.

Alas, it's fairly clear that there's a lower percentage of philosophical thinking in today's milieu than, say, in the 60s and 70s. Around the mid-80s, people seemed to lose patience with the search depth and decided to just chase money.

I suspect that rapid population growth played a role there. Philosophy seems to be most embraced by those in the best and worst positions in life. Those who retire with sufficient wealth are in a position to reflect on life. Those in despair may use philosophical thinking the deal with the cruelty of life. Those in the middle - of breeding and working age - tend to be fully occupied trying to sustain themselves and have little time for philosophy. It will be interesting to see what philosophies are imbued in AI.

The main memes I see floating around this issue are:

- concerns about justice for displaced Palestinians
- concerns about the security of Israel
- racism - both antisemitism and Islamophobia.

The larger concern is Iran getting nukes and giving them to insurgent groups like Hamas annd Hezbollah, because these smaller groups do not have the discipline of nations. The more insurgent groups that have nuclear bombs, the more likely that ill-conceived and wildly self-destructive strikes that trigger WWIII more likely.

[Consul]

Yes, Israel has the intension of wiping Palestine off the map.

Really? Is there an Israeli counterpart of the Hamas Convenant?

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

Please pay attention to the history of the region since WW2.

Given their existential circumstances in Europe, the Zionists had the understandable intention to create a Jewish state in the geographic region called Palestine. It took a long time, but eventually they were successful. The state of Israel has existed since 1948. The Zionists' struggle wasn't always peaceful; but if it always had been, there would be no Jewish state in Palestine due to the Muslims' (ongoing) violent resistance. Were the Jews morally justified in forcibly realizing Israel? I think they were.

[Consul]

According to your reasoning, then, the state of Israel is responsible for many thousands of deaths in occupied Palestine. If the Israelis had never invaded Palestine, all of these people would still be alive.

That's a perverse moral logic! What you're saying in effect is that the very creation of the state of Israel is an "original sin" making the Israelis morally responsible for all Palestinian victims.

There is a relevant difference between the invasion of America by Europeans and the 20th-century "invasion" of Palestine by Jews: Palestine is the Jews' ancient homeland, so their "invasion" is a "back to the roots" remigration. When they came back, the land wasn't unpopulated, and they weren't invited by the Muslims to return; so a nonpeaceful conflict and clash of religions was foreseeable and inevitable.

[Sculptor1]

How can Isreal justify the 1900 people they have already killed this week, and claim that Hamas is wrong to attackt the inncent?

There is no symmetry of guilt, because there is a big difference between the deliberate terrorist mass-murdering of innocent people and the unintentional killing of innocent people as regrettable yet unavoidable "collateral damage" in the context of justified counterterrorist military action. If Hamas hadn't attacked the Israelis, the innocent Palestinians unintentionally killed by the Israeli army would still be alive; so Hamas are ultimately responsible for their death.

According to your reasoning, then, the state of Israel is responsible for many thousands of deaths in occupied Palestine. If the Israelis had never invaded Palestine, all of these people would still be alive.

Yes. Had there been no Balfour Declaration, no Sykes/Pichot agreement - documents made completely without regard to the wishes of those who lived in the region; had there been no Jewish terrorist group killing British occupiers; had there not been a seizure of power from the British before the expiry of the Mandate.
Has the Israelis not stolen, imprisoned the local people; had they not stolen the land and started several wars against the Arab nations. Had Israel not denied basic rights. Had they not blockaded Gaza. Had they not destroyed thousands of buildings and prevented their rebuilding by banning building material. Had they not banned medicines..
the list of calumnies goes on an on...
So tens of thousands of deaths and the suffering of millions would have been avoided had Jews just stayed home in the US and Europe for the last 100 years.

And what is their claim about?? How on earth can one take that seriously?

Was it ever wise to re-set the geographical clock to the time of the Emperor Hadrian??
Yes, Israel exists, even Hamas has agreed to recognise it, yet where is Israel's response? Are they giving back the stolen territories? Are they going to respect international law.?
No.

Palestinian support Hamas is a terrorist outfit that controls Gaza. They attacked Israel with 5,000 rockets, targeting innocent people in Israel. More than thousands were killed, and more than 200 were captured by terrorists.

Israel is doing what needs to be done, basically tit for tat. Kill your enemy before your enemy kills you.

What do you want to say about this, Mr. Sculptor? Do terrorists have the right to kill innocent people?

Your numbers are false.
What do I say? LOL Israel has killed 800 children this week - did they "support" Hamas?

Israelis support Netanyahu who controls Gaza, which is state sponsored terrorism organisation. He has been attacking, murdering, stealing from, oppressing, illegally occupying, and denying basic human rights building materials and medicine for years.
Now he has committed war crimes to civilians by cutting off their food, water and energy. Netanyahu is a terrorist - he uses terror for political ends
Palestinians are the rightful owners of the occupied territories, and Israel stands against international law in defiance of UN agreements.

[Good_Egg]

The conflict did not start last week.

Something happened last week. And that something was initiated by Hamas, has cost thousands of civilian lives, and will cost more until another truce in the ongoing conflict is established.

That loss of civilian life has benefitted nobody except the haters of Israel who have been given a new bunch of retaliatory actions to hate Israel for.

And that was the whole point of last week's action. Refreshing the hate.

If you're so caught up in the historical and ongoing conflict that you can't recognise last week's action as a Bad Thing then there's probably nothing anyone can say to get past the blinkers.

Any sensible person has less sympathy for Hamas as a result of last week.