Be on the right side of history.

[Paradoxed]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Calling it a genocide is childish.

The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group is a genocide, in whole or in part. Consider the civilian casualties (90 percent women and children). About 10% of the Gaza Strip's population has been killed, injured, or is missing. That percentage is only going to rise.

Keep pretending you are nuanced and more adult than me.

Edited July 26 by Paradoxed

[Leo Gura]

Keep in mind that genocide evolves. It becomes less direct and more indirect because the direct means are clearly outlawed but the indirect means are not.

Israel is good at doing stuff indirectly with plausible deniability. That's their whoe gameplan with the settlements: steal land in an indirect way so it cannot be stopped.

That's how devilry works. It is like water, squeezing through any crack.

Edited July 26 by Leo Gura

[Merkabah Star]

8 hours ago, Heaven said:

Maybe you’re wrong? Obviously he does. 

War criminal. 

[Nivsch]

@zazen Any claim about "genocide in Gaza" has to, at the same time, be addressed to Mosoul and some other cities in Iraq and ask the exact same questions regarding US and Europeen countries that participated in the coalition, because otherwise the critisism isn't fair and hypocrite.

Edited July 26 by Nivsch

[Yimpa]

44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's how devilry works. It is like water, squeezing through any crack.

And these old farts need an enema.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Paradoxed said:

The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group is a genocide, in whole or in part. Consider the civilian casualties (90 percent women and children). About 10% of the Gaza Strip's population has been killed, injured, or is missing. That percentage is only going to rise.

Keep pretending you are nuanced and more adult than me.

None of the statistics on Israeli civilian causality ratios (as declared by Hamas themselves) indicate indiscriminate killing or a genocide. This is simply a childish and false notion.

Genocide also requires a systemic intent of eradication, for which there is no evidence of. At best you can point to some right wing nutjobs who make unhinged statements.

 

The problem with this whole idea of genocide is that you would expect to see the same civilian causality ratios and general military behavior in the context of any nation given it participated in war against an insurgency group like Hamas, in a highly populated civilian area.

 

You can say that Israel is exploiting the general conflict to expand it's security and interests, as it has from the beginning, but it in no way had any interest in "genociding" palestinians, nor does it have such interest now. The behavior is in line with how any nation state would respond to an attack such as october 7th. As far as the oppressive dynamics between Israel and Palestine, those can equally be expected given the historical context, from any equivalent nation state. In fact, many nations states would have long committed a full and complete ethnic cleansing, such as to render the problem a non-issue.

 

The problem with uni-perspectival moralistic analyses is that they fundamentally fail to capture the real dynamics of human behavior and therefore such perspectives become ineffective in understanding conflict.

For most people it is hard to reconcile that from the perspective of the israeli's, oppressive means are justified to maintain a jewish nation state and therefore a collective, ethnocentric security. Considering the persecution of jews throughout history, it can be expected that they as a people would prioritize their kin over an outgroup which participated in attempts of their eradication throughout the 20th century, to such a degree that they are willing to forgo universal morality to achieve the basic survival of their family.

In the end, a human will eradicate a thousand innocent lifes before they sacrifice their own kin. A naive, stage green notion of morality dictates that the proper moral viewpoint is universal, that somehow the interest of everyone can be fundamentally aligned and reconciled. This is a profoundly destructive and naive view, because the interests of individuals can be existentially opposed.

 

A fully universalized understanding of harmony will include oppositional, ingroup preference. If an ant had to make the decision between killing it's own queen or to condemn a million human beings to death, the right thing to do for the ant would be to condemn the humans. The reason for why this is necessary lies in the holonic nature of reality, in that, you cannot actually centralize the distribution of love without losing the foundation upon which interest is built in the first place. Ingroup preference is the root from which more universal considerations can sprout.

 

 

In this way, a palestinian who has lost his family to a bombing targetting a Hamas general can be justified to kill Israeli soldiers, and even to assassinate Israeli politicians, while the Israeli military was justified in killing the Hamas general to protect their own kin. Once you recognize the reality of this proposition, you realize why conflict is so tricky, and why naive notions of universalism do not help the situation at all.

Universalism is necessarily uni-perspectival, and engaging in it will make you blind to the workings of reality, and to the wisdom of the dynamics at play. It could not possibly work for a singular, universal morality to maximize the interests of most beings, because there are existential contradictions in the interests of beings. You see this best in nature.

 

 

You can complain about the lion eating the gazelle, but the lion won't give a shit because it will always love itself and it's cubs more than the gazelle. There is no reconciling this situation, there is no peace between the gazelle and the lion.

Now, human beings have potential to eventually achieve peace, but it is naive to expect this to happen everywhere, instantly. The best way to do so is to give humans security, so they feel comfortable expanding their identity and care.

Edited July 26 by Scholar

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, Paradoxed said:

-Arrogantly asking congress to give him weapons faster (while committing genocide, 92,000+ expected to be have killed directly from attacks, 186,000+ Palestinians expected to die indirectly from this war, 90% women and children)

-Claims he killed "practically no civilians in Rafah" (blatant lie)

-Said "Gays for Gaza is like chickens for KFC"- implying this genocide is justified because Palestine is bad on gay rights (Israel doesn't allow gay marriage btw)

-Said anti-genocide protestors should be ashamed of themselves

-Accused anti-genocide protestors of being funded by Iran (no evidence)

-Claimed Iran tried to have Trump assassinated (he wants the US to wage a war with Iran)

Watching our congressmen cheer him on is disgusting. He is the modern day Adolf Hitler. You talk about being on the right side of history OP? Get a grip.

From top to down:

- The numbers shows that (38-15)/15 is a killed ratio of 1.5:1 which is better (not good absolutly of course but my claim is relative) than any other urban war done by western military.

- There was one incident when hamas weapon caused Israeli attack to indirectly harm civilians. If you know about more events please add here maybe I miss some but that is what I heard.

- Israel accept gays like Europeen countries do when in Gaza they would be executed. You can go to the thread about the support of gay marriage in Israel and read all the detailed there.

You make far reaching claims from emotions and unfamiliarity with Israel. Please try to answer with rational evidence.

Edited July 26 by Nivsch

[Raze]

10 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

From top to down:

- The numbers shows that (38-15)/15 is a killed ratio of 1.5:1 which is better (not good absolutly of course but my claim is relative) than any other urban war done by western military.

- There was one incident when hamas weapon caused Israeli attack to indirectly harm civilians. If you know about more events please add here maybe I miss some but that is what I heard.

- Israel accept gays like Europeen countries do when in Gaza the would be executed. You can go to the thread about the support of gay marriage in Israel and read all the detailed there.

You make far reaching claims from emotions and unfamiliarity with Israel. Please try to answer with rational evidence.

What is your opinion on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqusa-96WLs

 

and this

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/bf4mfymnmn4t1wyvdkx4h/Letter.pdf?rlkey=z3ekl4u9gtya2p33ek6ud2zet&e=1&dl=0

Edited July 26 by Raze

[Scholar]

There is a very simple way of demonstrating the limitation of uniperspectival moral universalization (eradication of ingroup preference):

If you want to be truly moral and say the Israe is not justified to kill a thousand palestinian civilians to save a singular Israeli citizen, then you run into the problem that you have to equally rid yourself of the ingroup preferences which you currently apply to yourself an others.

Namely, the fact that there is no justifiable reason to prefer the life of an human over the life of a animal. If you recognize your bias, you will realize that, through a simple moral calculus as applied to basic human rights, maximization of palestinian and israeli causalities, and human causalities in general, could not possibly be viewed as something negative given that that the vast majority of these humans actively participate in behavior equivalent to the worst human genocide that ever occured. The vast majority of those killed in the conflict are mass-murderers, who consume the tortured corpses of individuals in the form of animal products.

Now, you will not care about any of this because you are a human, and like any zionist, any fascist, any racial supremacist, you simply do not care about the outgroup. To you it is utterly obvious that the life of a human is worth a thousand animals, maybe millions, maybe all animals.

 

 

That is what you are, and you have no problem being this way. There is a necessity for this kind of selfishness or ingroup preference that you cannot see, and that you reject fundamentally because of how utterly blind you are to your own biases. You are, from the perspective of a universal ethical position, worse than a racial supremacist vegan zionists who intentionally bombs palestinian civilians.

Edited July 26 by Scholar

[DocWatts]

People who try to defend the actions of the Israeli government by decrying that they're supposedly a 'democracy' probably would have tried to say the same thing about South Africa in the 1980s, or the American South under Jim Crow segregation, for that matter. At best all three of these governments were hybrid regimes, not full democracies. Sorry Israeli - you don't get to call yourself a full democracy when your government is systematically denying millions of people within your borders access to basic human rights.

Edited July 26 by DocWatts

[Scholar]

5 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

People who try to defend the actions of the Israeli government by decrying that they're supposedly a 'democracy' probably would have tried to say the same thing about South Africa in the 1980s, or the American South under Jim Crow segregation, for that matter. At best all three of these governments were hybrid regimes, not full democracies.

You don't have to defend their actions. All you need to do is declare an ingroup preference for demcratic societies and therefore the support of those societies given an irreconcilable conflict.

Or recognize that they are your ally, your family.

 

That's how the world works, and how it needs to work to function. Nobody will be honest about it, or self-aware enough to see this, but in the end, your contracted moral positions are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Edited July 26 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There is a very simple way of demonstrating the limitation of uniperspectival moral universalization (eradication of ingroup preference):

If you want to be truly moral and say the Israe is not justified to kill a thousand palestinian civilians to save a singular Israeli citizen, then you run into the problem that you have to equally rid yourself of the ingroup preferences which you currently apply to yourself an others.

Namely, the fact that there is no justifiable reason to prefer the life of an human over the life of a animal. If you recognize your bias, you will realize that, through a simple moral calculus as applied to basic human rights, maximization of palestinian and israeli causalities, and human causalities in general, could not possibly be viewed as something negative given that that the vast majority of these humans actively participate in behavior equivalent to the worst human genocide that ever occured. The vast majority of those killed in the conflict are mass-murderers, who consume the tortured corpses of individuals in the form of animal products.

Now, you will not care about any of this because you are a human, and like any zionist, any fascist, any racial supremacist, you simply do not care. To you it is utterly obvious that the life of a human is worth a thousand animals, maybe millions, maybe all animals.

That is what you are, and you have no problem being this way. There is a necessity for this kind of selfishness or ingroup preference that you cannot see, and that you reject fundamentally because of how utterly blind you are to your own biases. You are, from the perspective of a universal ethical position, worse than a racial supremacist vegan zionists who intentionally bombs palestinian civilians.

Haha, by this logic stop whining about the Holocaust.

The problem is that when genocide comes for you, you will start to cry and act outraged. So there is a clear double-standard afoot.

It is obvious to any objective outside observer that Israel is engaged in the domination and abuse of a minority group. And the only reason you don't see that as problematic is because you benefit from it in some way.

[gambler]

58 minutes ago, Scholar said:

None of the statistics on Israeli civilian causality ratios (as declared by Hamas themselves) indicate indiscriminate killing or a genocide. This is simply a childish and false notion.

Genocide also requires a systemic intent of eradication, for which there is no evidence of. At best you can point to some right wing nutjobs who make unhinged statements.

 

The problem with this whole idea of genocide is that you would expect to see the same civilian causality ratios and general military behavior in the context of any nation given it participated in war against an insurgency group like Hamas, in a highly populated civilian area.

 

You can say that Israel is exploiting the general conflict to expand it's security and interests, as it has from the beginning, but it in no way had any interest in "genociding" palestinians, nor does it have such interest now. The behavior is in line with how any nation state would respond to an attack such as october 7th. As far as the oppressive dynamics between Israel and Palestine, those can equally be expected given the historical context, from any equivalent nation state. In fact, many nations states would have long committed a full and complete ethnic cleansing, such as to render the problem a non-issue.

 

The problem with uni-perspectival moralistic analyses is that they fundamentally fail to capture the real dynamics of human behavior and therefore such perspectives become ineffective in understanding conflict.

For most people it is hard to reconcile that from the perspective of the israeli's, oppressive means are justified to maintain a jewish nation state and therefore a collective, ethnocentric security. Considering the persecution of jews throughout history, it can be expected that they as a people would prioritize their kin over an outgroup which participated in attempts of their eradication throughout the 20th century, to such a degree that they are willing to forgo universal morality to achieve the basic survival of their family.

In the end, a human will eradicate a thousand innocent lifes before they sacrifice their own kin. A naive, stage green notion of morality dictates that the proper moral viewpoint is universal, that somehow the interest of everyone can be fundamentally aligned and reconciled. This is a profoundly destructive and naive view, because the interests of individuals can be existentially opposed.

 

A fully universalized understanding of harmony will include oppositional, ingroup preference. If an ant had to make the decision between killing it's own queen or the condemn a million human beings to death, the right thing to do for the ant would be to condemn the humans. The reason for why this is necessary lies in the holonic nature of reality, in that, you cannot actually centralize the distribution of love without losing the foundation upon which interest is built in the first place. Ingroup preference is the root from which more universal considerations can sprout.

 

 

In this way, a palestinian who has lost his family to a bombing targetting a Hamas general can be justified to kill Israeli soldiers, and to assassinate Israeli politicians, while the Israeli military was justified in killing the Hamas general to protect their own kin. Once you recognize the reality of this proposition, you realize why conflict is so tricky, and why naive notions of universalism do not help the situation at all.

Universalism is necessarily uni-perspectival, and engaging in it will make you blind to the workings of reality, and to the wisdom of the dynamics at play. 

While the PLO did take up arms against Israel in 1948 (and why shouldn't they have? Israel went to Arab villages expelling Palestinians, the so-called "transfer of population". Again, I referenced to you before the Tantura documentary where the film makers dig up documents and even IDF veterans in the film testify the order from Ben Gurion to drive Arabs out. They even show a document where he ordered a report to find the best way to cover it all up. This despite Israel's propaganda that the Arabs willingly left because of orders from Arab leaders), they did recognize Israel's right to exist when it signed the Oslo accords, and while that recognition is now ambiguous, there is still support for a two-state solution so that demonstrates the acknowledgment of Israel's existence. If we are talking about the past, again the creation of the nation of Israel signaled the undeniable "transfer of population" of Arabs from the "Jewish homeland". There was reason for both to eradicate the other under the belief of "my land, you won't kick me out", "our land, we can't have you all be a part of it". But again, one side has shown recognition of Israel's right to exist before and demonstrated acknowledging Israel's existence via support of a two state solution. Israel on the other hand has never recognized Palestine's right to exist. In fact, Palestine doesn't exist. And Palestinians don't exist.

Edited July 26 by gambler

[Nivsch]

14 minutes ago, Raze said:

What is your opinion on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqusa-96WLs

I won't argue with you on the fact that this is indeed a hugely difficult reality to Gazans and quite traumatizing to tens of thousands of them.

[DocWatts]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You don't have to defend their actions. All you need to do is declare an ingroup preference for demcratic societies and therefore the support of those societies given a irreconcilable conflict.

Or recognize that they are your ally.

That's how the world works, and how it needs to work to function. You contracted moral positions in the end are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

We're not living in the 1950s anymore. The whole world basically recognizes that what the Israeli government is doing is completely unacceptable. Israel should be treated as a pariah state on the world stage, similar to South Africa's apartheid regime.

Edited July 26 by DocWatts

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Haha, by this logic stop whining about the Holocaust.

The problem is that when genocide comes for you, you will start to cry and act outraged. So there is a clear double-standard afoot.

It is obvious to any objective outside observer that Israel is engaged in the domination and abuse of a minority group. And the only reason you don't see that as problematic is because you benefit from it in some way.

Why would I stop whining about the holocaust? I have my own, clear preferences. When the genocide comes for me, I will cry and act outraged. If Israel killed one of my loved ones in, from their perspective, a justified bombing for a priority Hamas leader, I would still be justified to assassinate Netanjahu and violently resist the Israeli occupation.

 

It's funny how you are missing the entire point of what I am saying and flailing about unable to escape the contracted perspective that I have attempted to describe to you the limitation of.

 

It is obvious to any objective outside observer that Palestinians are engaged in the domination and abuse of a minority group (animals). The only reason you don't see that as problematic is because you benefit from it in some way. We can do the moral calculus and I can describe to you how only a fool wouldn't recognize that, from an objective perspective, the death of any human is a positive thing and will be hard to be framed any other way even with attempted utilitarian addendums. But that would go over your head, I'm sure.

 

 

I can understand the palestinian seeking to resist the Israeli occupation, and I can understand the Israeli desire for security. Both of them are fools, but no greater fools than those who cannot see what I am elucidating here. The difference between you and them is minor to me.

Edited July 26 by Scholar

[Scholar]

6 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

We're not living in the 1950s anymore. The whole world basically recognizes that what the Israeli government is doing is completely unacceptable. Israel should be treated as a pariah state on the world stage, similar to South Africa's apartheid regime.

This is delusional. Most of the western world still supports Israel, especially the US.

[Nivsch]

11 minutes ago, gambler said:

the creation of the nation of Israel signaled the undeniable "transfer of population" of Arabs from the "Jewish homeland". There was reason for both to eradicate the other under the belief of "my land, you won't kick me out", "our land, we can't have you all be a part of it"

But did you see the frames when the other side said (I assume this was probably the case) those things too?

By the way who stands behind the escalation between the sides in 1920s and 1930s? Or maybe this is actually a chicken and an egg?

Edited July 26 by Nivsch

[gambler]

Just now, Nivsch said:

But did you see the frames when the other side said (I assume this was probably the case) those things too?

By the way who stands behind the escalation between the sides in 1920s and 1930s? Or maybe this is a chicken and a egg?

 

That period saw occasional instances of violence but not enough to accurately be characterized as "eradication attempts"

[Scholar]

This is the condundrum:

In some ways, I would want a mother to sacrifice her child to save 10 others, especially if amongst those 10 others was my child. However, I recognize that this is naive, it contradicts human nature to such a degree, that expecting this behavior, let alone enforcing in in people, would lead not to a utopia, but the opposite.

 

I also recognize that I would rather sacrifice a thousand children before I sacrifice mine. I would sacrifice all the children on the planet, in fact. That is my nature, there is no point in denying it, as little point as there is in denying the nature of the ant. Demanding of the ant to care about humans is absurd, as absurd as these propositions are that are being thrown around here.

 

It's the childish ramblings of fools who will only stoke the fires of suffering and misery.