Scholar

I don't view it from a moralistic sense. I think, realistically, this is too much of a security concern for them to uphold some moralistic ideals while they are basically in a constant state of war. Remember, we are talking about a population of less than 10 million people, Iran alone has 9x that population. I think sometimes it is hard to grasp how outnumbered Israel is, and how easy a genuine situation could occur that would be the equivalent of the holocaust. You can't even stop paying for slaughterhouses because you don't want to feel less energetic and so forth, how are you having these types of standards for Israeli, who exist in a far worse context and do things far less aggregious than your own behaviour? Obviously they need to try to adapt, it's not a fair situation for them. But I don't know if the Israeli's can afford empathy in the state they are in. Maybe they can and I am wrong in my assessment, I just wouldn't be so sure that they can, and project my own morality onto them. They are not wiping them out, and HAMAS doesn't exist to protect palestinians. They are moving them out of their homelands, which is shitty, but in the end, you have to understand that there will be no solution to this situation, that would require wisdom on both sides which, due the very situation those sides find themselves in, will not be acquired.

Because Russia is not surrounded by states that want to eradicate them and their entire race. The question is not whether they are wrong however, but whether it is a arbitrary or a genuine goal in terms of national security. Meaning, can you defend yourself if you do not hold certain territory? The problem is once you withdraw aid you lose negotation power completely, you lose influence completely. This is like, dipomacy 101. You want to have at least some influence, because it is better to nudge them a little bit in the right direction than have no influential power at all. Diplomacy is very pragmatic, and it needs to be, so a lot of people usually demand a type of moral idealism in diplomacy when that is really not the appropriate place to do so. It would be different if it was a more egregious violation of rights. But as we speak now, HAMAS is must be destroyed and Israel should be supported in that endeavor.

I am saying stopping all aid if you don't meet our moral standards is a blunt diplomatic tool that will lead to more harm than good.

Wait a second! So, yo ucan defend your house without stealing other people's houses, but somehow when Russia does that to Ukraine and the Dombass region suddenly it is a rational geopolitical goal? How does that even make sense. Of course grabbing land is one of the way you ensure national security.

Because people are incredibly biased, I blame stage green.

Sure, I just wouldn't be so sure about your approach. Israel is at it's developmental stage, and I agree we should encourage fair treatment of palestinians. But you are suggesting the usage of a very blunt tool. Usually not being sensitive to the stage of other countries only leads to more suffering. Less support of Israel could mean more suffering for Israelis and Palestinians. So we have to be more mature than just project our moralistic ideals and then refuse to aid anyone who does not meet them.

HAMAS would be doing what it does even if Israel stopped all stealing of land, and in fact, even if it gave back much of the stolen land and granted palestinians equal rights. They have their own stage-red/blue motivations. They genuinely want to eradicate Israel from the face of the planet, at this point it is a completely self-sustaining ideology.

The problem with what you are seeing here is that I think you are missing an essential aspect of societal evolution. The way societies adapt and survive is through general moralistic attitudes and frameworks. So, to you, you think "Oh, Israel can be a strong nation defending itself from it's neighbours who want to destroy them, be at war with HAMAS who are hellbent on destroying them even if they stop settling, but at the same time they should not be so right wing that they will settle in ways that are unfair and go beyond their national security needs!". But that's not how any of this works. You can't just have the best of all worlds, that requires stage yellow, as you should know. You are expecting way too much from them.

You forget the being surrounded by children who would kill them on the basis of their ethnicity if they had the opportunity.

It depends on the situation. I would reserve judgement. What is clearly unethical though is funding factory farms so that you feel a little more energy during the day. That's easy to say for you, not living in the middle east, surrounded by states and people who want to eradicate your race.

Sure, that is what will naturally happen. I think however the reality with HAMAS is not as simple. A lot of it is driven by outside actors, so while it is an outlet of palestinian valid frustration, I also believe it is a kind of dysfunctional outgrowth which is used by opportunists. But you have to admit that the way Israel is going about establishing a foothold is far more ethical than pretty much any other historical example you could think of. I would say what is happening in China alone, with the Uyghur people, is worse in pure ethical terms. The killings, from what I understand, are mostly a result of the violent conflict and power struggle, and of course the deaths will affect palestinians disproportionately, so I would view that as a seperate issue. But overall, I would say they are handling things farely well, considering how humans usually act.

I will cease this conversation with you because you are not able to engage with the substance of what I am saying.

This isn't what being rational means. They are not actually achieving their purpose, they in fact achieve the opposite. They will lose more land now, not less. They will get destroyed if Israel plays this right. By your logic, I as a vegan be rational and go on a killing spree because "That's the only means I have, I have no other choice but to kill you people because you don't want to go vegan!". This would be the case if everyone was hellbent on continuing to consume animal products. There is a point where the moral thing to do is to submit to the greater force of nature. If you do not do so, you will simply cause more harm and suffering. And in this situation, we are talking about forces of nature. Israel has no other choice in this situation. Sure, it is to some degree understandable, but it is still ignorant. And at some point, the greater natural force will have no choice but to extinguish any resistance. That is how human civilization has always, and still does, evolve.

You have more of a duty to advocate for the end of factory farms than you have for advocating for any type of human suffering that currently exists on this planet. Don't give me this nonsense about morality. You are completely and utterly self-serving, much more so than the Israeli's are. And of course you guys were justifying what HAMAS did, don't move the goal post. I said from the beginning, the palestinians have every right to defend themselves. What constitues rational defense is another question. This is like a lion and a gazelle. Of course the gazelle can kick the lion if it tries to eat it. But the lion is not wrong for trying to survive, even if it is unfair. This is what you are too biased to see.

Of course it does. I am not morally justified to go on a killing spree because people are not vegan, because it would not change anything and make the situation worse. Morality is directly linked to what is rational. Israel is justified in self-preservation. HAMAS reaction is expected to some degree, however much of it is fueled by outside nationstate actors. Point 3 is not true, this is delusional and biased.

Of course, every person on this planet is driven by something, including all rapists and murderers that ever lived. This doesn't change that HAMAS is acting contrary to any of their perceived goals, harming the Palestinians more, and therefore being irrational, while the Israeli's genuinely are acting in their interest, even if not perfectly. What you perceive as gross injustice is self-preservation for someone else. What is more injustice is that individuals have to be tortured and killed so you can feel a little better and have a little more energy during the day. And yet, you point to the Israeli's and claim they are committing atrocities. They are not as bad as you think, even if it is not fair for the palestinians. The palestinians are valid in the way they feel, there is simply no good solution in this situation, so the injustice will continue, as slavery had to continue for thousands of years for the sake of self-preservation. This is no different.

No, HAMAS is not justified because their actions are senseless and irrational. They don't achieve any goal, in fact, the opposite of their goal. I can't just go on a killing spree because nobody wants to go vegan, contemplate how insane that is. Israel has attempted to create peace, you are just too biased to recognize this. You don't appreciate true dilemmas.

Of course, you would murder endless beings for your own self-preservation, like I said, you are not a vegan and even if you were, you still torture and wipe out other living individuals for your own convinience. You are just too biased to see this. I am saying you are delusional in the way you apply your moral standards. You would act far worse if you were in the position of the israeli's, that's what you are not grasping, because you are so cushioned from the actual forces of evolution that you can afford to be in a position where you don't have to make significant moral choices that actually carry weight for you and others. The difference between the worst ethnonationalist Israelite and a Palestine civilian is smaller than between you and a vegan.

Colonization doesn't justify the type of terrorism HAMAS is engaging it. First and foremost, you have a moral duty to your own people rather than to bask in self-righteous acts of terror that will only bring more harm to your people. HAMAS isn't doing this so palestinians can prosper, that's not how they operate, they are ideologically driven and funded by states like Iran to be used as pawns. HAMAS is not the major threat to Israel, the neighbouring nationstates to israel are, and they are, in principle, willing to wipe out the jewish population if the opportunity presents itself. Palestinians don't get randomly slaughtered, there is obviously an active conflict going on. And yes, the Israeli are in power, so of course they will dominate the plaestinians. You are too biased to recognized this, but Israel is actually acting in farely high moral character considering the situation that is presented to them. I don't presume I would fare much better in the situation, and I know for certain that if you were in the situation, it would be hell on earth.

That's delusional, they are doing just fine using the means they have been for the past decades.

Like I said you are looking at this from a lense that makes no sense. Israel is under existential threat due to almost every actor in the middle east wanting to wipe the jews from the planet. Israel doesn't care about your petty moral views, they are trying not to get genocided again, and they will do what is necessary to achieve that. They have far better justifications for their unfair treatment of palestinians than you have for eating animal products. There is no strict morality that you can just apply across the board from your western lense.

You are misunderstanding my position. I think the palestinian perspective is valid, but I also believe the Israeli perspective is valid. What HAMAS did was not justified however, nor did it achieve anything but more suffering.

I don't identify myself as a zionist. What do you mean your comprehension levels? I just don't think you are trying to understand what I am saying in good faith. What I am saying is you have way too high standards for Israel, higher than you have for yourself. You are not looking at this objectively. The question wasn't if you side with Palestine, but whether HAMAS is justified in it's actions. You are missing the entire point why the Ethnostate exists and why Israel is acting the way it does. It isn't because people are being "immoral". Go read my other posts in this thread, my response to Roy. If you believe western imperialism and colonialism happened because people were immoral, you don't understand evolution, human nature, and human development.

You need to re-read what I wrote, I have no interest in a conversation with you if you lack basic comprehension of my points. Europe needs migrants because of their collapsing demographics: This is another issue where in reality there are no good solutions. Israel is in a situation where it is acting in self-preservation, facing actual genocide by other nationstates if they weaken, while the palestinians obviously suffer the consequences of that self-preservation drive, and having their own self-preservation drive, they will of course fight as well. Often times when we face true dilemmas, we tend to moralize. We don't believe that there are "unresolvable issues", we will sooner delude ourselves than face the truth in that way. We will think that one side is simply correct. If you are not a sociopath, it is exceptionally difficult to actually admit to the flow of nature. To realize that if the gazelle does not escape the lion, it will be eaten alive, and if it does escape the lion, the lion will starve. There is no good resolution here. This is what reality is, and this is what the palestine-israel conflict is. It is not nearly as simple as the ukraine-russia conflict. We also tend to enjoy moralizing about the past. We like to point at european colonialism, not realize that people back then were driven by survival to a degree we cannot really fathom today. The reality is, if you did not enslave other people 2000 years ago, you would be weaker than a society that will enslave people. This means, if you did not want to be enslaved, you will have become the slave. Slavery was a necessity of human evolution. And so was colonialism. It just takes one actor, out of all nation actors of the world, to engage in colonialism, for everyone to be required to engage in it lest they will become colonized. Life is a competition in that way. Most often, you are not given the choice whether or not to engage in moral atrocities. People here in the west, like people on this forum, criticize the Israeli state, which is acting as a direct result of real self-preservation forces, while they themselves commit moral atrocities they are completely ignorant of, and are even unwilling to admit are atroctiries. Not because of pressures of self-preservation, but simply because of laziness.

Also, of course Israel is ethnonationalist. If everyone around you wants to kill you for your ethnicity and wants to destroy your country, the natural human response is ethnonationalism. This is the evolutionary function of ethnonationalism. In fact, I would go so far s to say, ethnonationalism is the healthy collective response to the situation israel is in. Of course, there is a degree of ethnonationalism which is helpful, and then there is ethnonationalism which will lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering. That is the danger of each developmental stage, however.