Philosophy Discussion Forums

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 8:08 amLast night I had a conversation with an Israeli enthusiast and even he said he saw how the Zionists were the problem. He preferred the two-state solution because nobody could change the fact that the Zionists always attract opposition and will not back down from their plans, and they are supported by the Americans. He saw the only chance in dividing the land and effectively creating two countries. So essentially the whole conflict is caused by the Zionists, and although Hamas (and before them the PLO) are guilty of atrocities, the Zionists are no better. Between them they are creating a conflict that could spread and cause untold suffering and death.

The problem with the Palestinian refugees from Gaza is that Egypt and Lebanon see the Zionists as effectively driving Arabs out of the country in an ethnic cleansing and forcing their countries to absorb populations that overwhelm their resources. It is a complex issue, but in principle they are against ethnic cleansing.

The Ur-Zionists had planned to create a Jewish state in Palestine, and they succeeded. As for the contemporary Zionists, there are several types of them (including radical Neo-Zionists), not all of which support the Greater Israel idea—which is to make (at least) the Gaza Strip and the West Bank part of Israel.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 5:11 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 29th, 2023, 6:42 am There will be Palestinian pragmatists who would just like to get on with life who would detest Hamas for their disruptions.

Yes - very true. (And similarly peace-intending Israelis).

One of the important questions for philosophy seems to be the relationship between the individual and the collective.

There are individual Gazans who "detest Hamas" and have had no part in bringing about the violence. People with clean hands.

And there are individuals who support Hamas in the full knowledge of
- Hamas policy of launching rocket attacks from the immediate vicinity of schools and hospitals, so that any return fire causes civilian casualties
- Hamas' inability to inflict serious military damage on Israel. The only pathway by which their actions lead to their desired aim is by mobilising international opinion against Israel. So that civilian casualties on "their own side" are an intended part of the strategy - it won't work without them.
These individuals are getting exactly what they voted for, what they chose.

Similarly, there are individuals in Gaza who have had their land taken from them and have been exiled from their home villages. And individuals who have been born and brought up in Gaza and have as individuals no just claim on land anywhere else.

At the individual level, I think we can all recognise this. Where observers differ is how they characterise the Palestinians in Gaza as a collective

Anyone who sees the group as being characterised by the displaced peaceful individuals will see the Palestinians as the wronged party, the victims who deserve our sympathy and support.

Whereas anyone who sees the same group as being characterised by the Gaza-indigenous warmongering individuals who intend civilian casualties will see them as the problem, the immediate cause of the suffering.

You see where I'm coming from ?

Has anyone come across any intellectually-rigorous process for assigning group characteristics that are not shared by all individuals in the group ?

Or are we doomed to over-simplify differently in purely-subjective ways and thereby fail to agree ?

Yes, I did not mean to side with one or the other. I prefer to look on from philosophy's Mt Olympus, partially because the philosophical issues are far less complex than the political ones, which can fairly be described as chaotic, uncontrolled. The broader sweep of history discards the confusing devils in the detail and considers events in context with longer term dynamics. Philosophy v politics is akin to deep ocean currents v waves in the shallows.

My point was not partisan, rather an observation that societies tend to divide roughly down the middle. If a nation is doing x, you can be sure about a half of the population would rather they did y.

Even when there are more than two major parties, the sympathies will ultimately fall roughly into two camps - nationalists and internationalists. The former worry that the latter will weaken their nation's ability to defend and sustain itself during hard times. The latter worries about minorities unfairly excluded by survival-of-the-fittest nationalists during good times. The former wants more homogeneity and coordination while the latter wants more diversity and pluralism.

Of course, if either side gets their way, the society is worse for it - resulting in division and either stagnation or chaos - because societies need to be both protective and expansive to some extent. It's strange that, after dealing with political matters for so long, each political side still fails to comprehend the value of the other. Thus, the polity continues to be largely populated by demonised strawmen. The usual standard of thinking about these issues remains tribal and primitive.

Alas, the Greeks. For all their faults, their great insights are being swept away by an avalanche of post-modern nonsense, encouraged by commercially-oriented algorithms that play on life's natural negativity bias.

Good_Egg wrote: ↑October 30th, 2023, 5:11 amOne of the important questions for philosophy seems to be the relationship between the individual and the collective.

There are individual Gazans who "detest Hamas" and have had no part in bringing about the violence. People with clean hands.

And there are individuals who support Hamas in the full knowledge of
- Hamas policy of launching rocket attacks from the immediate vicinity of schools and hospitals, so that any return fire causes civilian casualties
- Hamas' inability to inflict serious military damage on Israel. The only pathway by which their actions lead to their desired aim is by mobilising international opinion against Israel. So that civilian casualties on "their own side" are an intended part of the strategy - it won't work without them.
These individuals are getting exactly what they voted for, what they chose.

Western media often convey the wrong impression that all Palestinians are morally innocent except for the members of Hamas. Although there are different degrees of guilt, the Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip who support or sympathize with Hamas (or other anti-Israel Islamist groups such as Hezbollah) are morally responsible too for what now happens to them and the truly innocent Palestinians, who are themselves victims of Hamas' reign of terror.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 27th, 2023, 2:25 pm The two countries have been doing this same dance for many decades. Muslim extremists never stop, so the war is either for forever or Israel decides to end it.

Right, because the only thing those Islamists will ever accept is the one-state, i.e. no-Israel, solution: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!"

value wrote: ↑October 26th, 2023, 7:32 amReason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge. Philosophy can be the solution in my opinion and because of it, philosophy should be held responsible.

The whole shebang is fuelled by contrary philosophical ideas, especially political or ideological ones (such as Islamism and Zionism).

"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)

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 7:27 am ...the only thing those Islamists will ever accept is the one-state, i.e. no-Israel, solution: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!"

I recently read a description on social media, posted by a Palestinian (I think). She commented that the proverb (if that's what it is) promotes a pro-Palestine sentiment, not a specifically anti-Israeli one. It refers to Palestine's freedom from one border to the other. She asserted that this is not an anti-Semitic slogan, as the Western media have claimed.

I think I believe her, but this conflict, like all conflicts, is characterised by propaganda (i.e. untruths or exaggerations) from all involved parties (and not a few non-involved parties).

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 8:12 am

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 7:27 am ...the only thing those Islamists will ever accept is the one-state, i.e. no-Israel, solution: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!"

I recently read a description on social media, posted by a Palestinian (I think). She commented that the proverb (if that's what it is) promotes a pro-Palestine sentiment, not a specifically anti-Israeli one. It refers to Palestine's freedom from one border to the other. She asserted that this is not an anti-Semitic slogan, as the Western media have claimed.

I think I believe her, but this conflict, like all conflicts, is characterised by propaganda (i.e. untruths or exaggerations) from all involved parties (and not a few non-involved parties).

Are you really so naive? That slogan is to be read as follows: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free—and Palestine won't be free unless Israel is wiped off the map!" Their intention to eradicate Israel is an intention to ethnic cleansing: The Jews have to go!

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 9:12 am Are you really so naive? That slogan is to be read as follows: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free—and Palestine won't be free unless Israel is wiped off the map!" Their intention to eradicate Israel is an intention to ethnic cleansing: The Jews have to go!

The fact that Jews have lived in the land for hundreds of years, but that the Zionists created the problems for them doesn't suggest that the "proverb" is a reaction to Zionism? I remember a Palestinian saying to me that because they too are Semites, how can they be antisemitic?

Arab Jews were expelled from positions for revealing the atrocities that happened in 1948, there are professors now living in Britain, who had lost their professorship for revealing the lies behind the propaganda. It is an extremely volatile situation brought on by the Zionists whose intention from the beginning was to expel the Arabs, and people like the racist Churchill were helpers in that sense.

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 7:27 am ...the only thing those Islamists will ever accept is the one-state, i.e. no-Israel, solution: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!"

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 8:12 am I recently read a description on social media, posted by a Palestinian (I think). She commented that the proverb (if that's what it is) promotes a pro-Palestine sentiment, not a specifically anti-Israeli one. It refers to Palestine's freedom from one border to the other. She asserted that this is not an anti-Semitic slogan, as the Western media have claimed.

I think I believe her, but this conflict, like all conflicts, is characterised by propaganda (i.e. untruths or exaggerations) from all involved parties (and not a few non-involved parties).

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 9:12 am Are you really so naive? That slogan is to be read as follows: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free—and Palestine won't be free unless Israel is wiped off the map!" Their intention to eradicate Israel is an intention to ethnic cleansing: The Jews have to go!

As far as I know, this may be mere propaganda. Do we have any fact-checked reassurance that this is so, or not so?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 11:03 am

Consul wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 9:12 am Are you really so naive? That slogan is to be read as follows: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free—and Palestine won't be free unless Israel is wiped off the map!" Their intention to eradicate Israel is an intention to ethnic cleansing: The Jews have to go!

As far as I know, this may be mere propaganda. Do we have any fact-checked reassurance that this is so, or not so?

Yes, we do—that this is so: Understanding Hamas’s Genocidal Ideology

"“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgroun ... ll-be-free

(I know the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] is a Jewish NGO. So what? They are dead right about that anti-Israel slogan.)

For the record, can't repeat it enough...

The following organization might be of interest. Similar to eco-feminism, it seeks to establish a basis for peace in efforts to protect nature.

EcoPeace was formed in 1994, bringing together Israelis, Palestinians, Egyptians and Jordanians in the wake of the Arab-Israeli peace processes of the 1990s. As a tri-lateral organization that brings together Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists, EcoPeace's primary objective is the promotion of cooperative efforts to protect a shared environmental heritage.

EcoPeace Middle East is an organization that promotes peace and cooperation between Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians through environmental initiatives. The organization recognizes that environmental issues, such as water scarcity and pollution, are shared problems that require cooperation and collaboration to solve. EcoPeace Middle East's work is an example of how environmentalism can be used as a tool for promoting peace and cooperation between different groups of people.

Working for peace through environmental cooperation. We are Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists working together to protect our water — and our future.
https://ecopeaceme.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoPeace_Middle_East


Reason and intellect is a higher good than war and revenge. Philosophy can be the solution in my opinion and because of it, philosophy should be held responsible.

"Modern man is to be expected to evolve beyond barbaric practices such as war and revenge if it intends to secure longer term prosperity. Intelligence before practice means overcoming darkness before it was ever present, and thus, to prevent war and revenge in favour of reason."

Here is some more reading material:


Arab–Israeli peace projects
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%8 ... e_projects

American philosopher Henry David Thoreau:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

Please speed it up a notch...

value wrote: ↑July 13th, 2023, 5:50 amThere are rumors that Adam Sandler was in love with a Palestinian girl in real life.

Stoppelmann wrote: ↑October 31st, 2023, 9:54 amThe fact that Jews have lived in the land for hundreds of years, but that the Zionists created the problems for them doesn't suggest that the "proverb" is a reaction to Zionism? I remember a Palestinian saying to me that because they too are Semites, how can they be antisemitic?

Arab Jews were expelled from positions for revealing the atrocities that happened in 1948, there are professors now living in Britain, who had lost their professorship for revealing the lies behind the propaganda. It is an extremely volatile situation brought on by the Zionists whose intention from the beginning was to expel the Arabs, and people like the racist Churchill were helpers in that sense.

* Since "anti-Semitism" is generally used in the sense of "anti-Judaism", Palestinians can certainly be anti-Semites (and most of them are).

* During the 20th century the Arabs have never been happy about Jewish immigrants to Palestine, but it doesn't follow that the basic idea of Zionism is an inexcusable "original sin" legitimizing all Arab violence against the Jews in Palestine (such as the current Hamas terrorism).

* It is false that the Zionists' "intention from the beginning was to expel the Arabs."
The First Zionist Congress took place in 1897 in Basel/Switzerland, where the political goal of Zionism was formulated in a manifesto called the Basler Programm (Basel Program):

"Der Zionismus erstrebt für das jüdische Volk die Schaffung einer öffentlich-rechtlich gesicherten Heimstätte in Palästina."
—
"Zionism seeks to establish a home[stead] in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law."

Note that the German noun "Heimstätte" ("homestead") doesn't mean "Staat" ("state")!

There is no statement in the Basel Program to the effect that the original Zionists intended "to expel the Arabs" or to render Palestine "Arab-free"!

The word "Staat"/"state" does occur in Theodor Herzl's famous book Der Judenstaat/The Jewish State from 1896:

"The idea which I develop in this pamphlet is an age-old one: the establishment of a Jewish State. The world resounds with outcries against the Jews, and this is what awakens the dormant idea."

(Herzl, Theodor. The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). 1896. Translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Herzl Press, 1970. p. 27)

By the way, did you know that Herzl considered both Palestine and Argentinia as a possible homeland for the Jews in the Diaspora?

"If the Powers show themselves willing to grant the Jewish people sovereignty over a neutral territory, the Society will negotiate for the land to be taken. Two regions are possibilities: Palestine and Argentina.
…
"Is Palestine or Argentina preferable? The Society will take whatever it is given and whatever is favored by the public opinion of the Jewish people. The Society will determine both points."

(Herzl, Theodor. The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). 1896. Translated by Harry Zohn. New York: Herzl Press, 1970. pp. 51-2)

He prefers Palestine, mainly because "Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland." (p. 52)

And that's why 20th-century Jewish immigration to Palestine can rightly be regarded as a kind of remigration.

There is truth in saying that…

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
—Abba Eban, 1973

"In 1947 the Palestinian Arabs and their allies rejected a U.N. proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, just as 10 years before they had rejected a similar partitioning proposed by the Peel Commission. More recently, both at Camp David and at Taba, Arab negotiators rejected proposals that would have led to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Apparently many Palestinian Arabs – and much of the Arab world – continue to think that they can do better than a two-state solution. After decades of conflict, it seems the Arabs have not given up their ultimate goal of making all of Palestine into an Arab state."

Herschel I. Grossman: For peace in the Middle East: A two-state solution?