whYNOT

It can't be stressed enough: the "Jewish" identity is both a race and a religion. One can be A. Jewish by birth (one or both parent/s Jews) - and not at all be a practicing Jew. (An atheist, say). B. one can be both. With another small category, C. those of another ethnicity who convert to Judaism and practice the religion. This is hardly heard of in other religions, e.g. one can be Christian or Muslim and be of any race. The point being that Zionism and a Jewish homeland was not predominantly designed for the religious. The Zionists knew one did not have to be, say, a rabbi, to fall prey to persecution; secularists were included: the Nazis didn't discriminate, but researched an individual's background a few generations back to prove Jewish ethnicity, irrespective of religiosity. Of course, determinism lies under this. The criticism about Israel being Zionist-apartheid, rests on this, at times deliberate by those who know better. The nation is condemned for its "discriminatory" and/or "supremacist-racist" practice of being highly selective on who immigrates there, for the large part, limited to ethnic or ethnic-religious or converted Jews. Since a free and protective homeland for international Jews of all sorts was its intended identity. Open the borders to all comers and that identity disappears and the Jewish population would flee and make for easier targets in other countries. With the new resurgence of racism, original Zionism has proved its necessity again.

The 'ultras' cannot be taken lightly, but - they have a long way to go to gain a majority. Their present influence is completely owed to a coalition. The country is much more secularist than people imagine "Israel's ultra-Orthodox, known as haredim, make up 13% of the country's 9.7 million population". And here's an article arguing they had peaked. July '23 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj3vP2_iL-DAxWJVEEAHaJ8BfsQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fforeignpolicy.com%2F2023%2F07%2F27%2Fisrael-ultra-orthodox-judicial-religion-netanyahu%2F&usg=AOvVaw1sf-11JpatwK3g9GCvvqW0&opi=89978449

The endless cycle of parent-to-child indoctrination on, and Jihadist resistance to, the evil Zionist entity could gradually be broken. However this program will be presented, the "Israeli-genociders" will continue their clamor. This is merely another means, they will spout. If they are not already. I saw, in another framing of the voluntary relocation plan, that there is being considered a fund to pay for each Gazan's moving-settling expenses. Doesn't matter: that will be viewed as a bribe or inducement - and still "ethnic cleansing". You can't win with some. Because no perfect answer to the quandary suggests itself, I don't think it's rationalizing to take the viewpoint that here is a value for value, trade-off. Those who cannot tolerate being administered/governed by Israel and whose Islamist ideology will not be moderated--are equally those whom the Israelis will willingly pay to be rid of. And other countries who've been extolling them so highly, will be welcome to take them in... Others, who quickly recognize the economic and living standards improving their lives, outside the never-ending Gazan/Hamas death spiral, and who begin a reconciliation with Israel would surely be welcomed to remain on by most Israelis and the Knesset.

Morris throws more light on the pre-48 (lesser known) internal, "civil" war between incoming or already settled, land-owning Jews within the partitioned territory - and the Arabs living there. The attacks upon each other, basically kicked off by the latter's refusal to coexist with a large influx of "Jews"; and as things spiral out of control, some atrocities were committed by both. Since it's the feelings of the Arabs/Palestinians back then which is given the bulk of the sympathetic attention, it would be fair to consider also the psychological mindset of those surviving Jews shipped in from Germany, Poland, etc, penniless and homeless, now, officially promised their own homeland. With those 700,000+ from several Arab nations who joined them, refugees like my mother and her family from Egypt. Whatever area the desperate Jews were granted they took with gratitude. They would let nothing, e.g. the coming '48 war, stop them. The attitude was something like "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" (and passively accept death, as they'd seen many others). It helps to understand how their credo "never again" drives them today.

Lighter:

Make no bones about it, those who accuse Israel of "apartheid" want nothing more but to see Israel overcome or subverted by Islam through a "One State solution". Pick one outcome: It may occur gradually by majoritarian 'demographics', the change to Islamic law - or by violent overthrow, murder and expulsion of the Jews there, by a militant Islamic group like Hamas. About 8 million Jewish Israelis and about 8 million Palestinians, think about it. The founding principle for a safe homeland, and a (mostly) Jewish ethno-religious identity that they had - and have - every right to sustain - could not last more than a few generations. The effect ~could~ be compared to one or two hundred million Chinese immigrating to the US and agitating for Communism. That is the dilemma Israelis have faced, and why Fatah/PLO contemptuously rejected the most favorable terms (95% sovereignty of the West Bank and half of Jerusalem, was offered to them). It knows they have Israel, by its virtues, between a rock and a hard place and must just wait patiently to grab the country's land and wealth. Anywhere else in the Arab lands, a troublesome militant group would have been "ethnically cleansed"/expelled long ago. When you hear "Israel apartheid", safely assume it is uttered by ignorant dupes or by most malign people. You will be one of the few who listens to the expertise of Benny Morris, I guess, more on this and its background by him. And no, he doesn't altogether paint the 1948 Jewish refugees into Israel in a rosy light, unlike the "perfect" standards which all Israel critics hold it to. Unseen elsewhere. (Hmm, it seems "the Holy Land" still harbors mystical connotations, even to secularists and atheists...)

If there is only one honest and objectively knowledgeable historian to listen to, among an online slew of pretenders and haters of the good welcoming Israel's demise, (i.e. ethnic cleansing) I urge this one, it will be worth your time; 2 hours of Dr Benny Morris in this searching exchange of facts and aspirations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYUkb49BdmQ

Some sense from Jordan Peterson

Life from the rubble, maybe. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67843832 In previous wars there, it had become unofficially and tacitly admitted by some neutral observers that a Hamas propaganda technique was to stage such dramatic 'rescues', the injured rushed into hospitals, etc,. for briefed, selected cameramen. I had confirmation from a correspondent I knew. When you tell anyone this information - and that casualties have always been exaggerated and/or fabricated by the Gazan 'ministry of health', they evince shocked disbelief. Why would they naively disbelieve? What are fibs on numbers and faked images (promoting the "genocide by Israel" narrative) in relation to what everyone now knows the atrocious extents Hamas CAN be capable of. The Hamas defensive weapons - and its propaganda tools - are its civilians, evidently. If it cared the slightest for their lives, it would surrender tomorrow, release hostages and avoid more certain casualties. [And would not have brought this war down upon its people]. I can't state for sure this specific rescue scene was staged, with a 'model', although it seems quite miraculous that the infant could survive with only scratches, but I know that SOME are. The medics/doctors have to be involved, as with MSF, UNICEF and UNRWA and others.

Valid query by one speaker in the video. "How are people who are so bright, so well educated, the finest that Western society has to offer, be not just so stupid, but also downright prejudiced and racist?" Objectivists could answer that intelligence and education don't alone propel the certainty of thinking, they may more often be the recyclng of others' thinking.

Which "Muslims"; what "rights"? I logically distinguish "Islamists" or Islamic fundamentalists from others - as in: all Islamists are Muslim but not all Muslims are Islamists. That's not a distinction recognized by collectivists. (I have mixed with many Muslims in most areas and apply the same individualist principles of personal merit to each as to any one in an ostensible 'group'). But according to collectivists, all that matters is "race" (etc.) and whether that race can claim victimhood from 'oppressors' in their past. Most selectively. Here are displayed the hypocrisy and self-contradictions of this bunch isolating and tormenting the most victimized, least belligerent and least numerous people in history, in this newfound anti-Jewish racism. Second, what "rights"? where? All American and other westernized Muslims apparently enjoy the same rights as any 'group'. Do Muslims in theocratic countries enjoy proper rights too? Do other religions there, e.g. Coptic Christians and a few remaining Jews or atheists and unbelievers partake, as well? Usually, where some tolerance exists, dhimmi status is applied . But - who protects one's (individual) rights - or 'grants' - and therefore has the power to arbitrarily remove any entitlements, as in "human rights"? One's nation-state. Which is exactly what the Palestinians and Gazans, after being displaced and abandoned by their countries (e.g. Jordan and Egypt) following the latter's failed wars of aggression on Israel do not have - AND have refused every opportunity to achieve. In the case of Gaza, they completely were left to determine their future as a nation, by Israel, although, rightly, after continuing violent attacks, were distrusted and embargoed to prevent weapons and materiel entering. Becomng very clear, most Palestinians actually desire "river to sea", and "two-state" was the fantasy only of the Israelis, who bent over backwards with compromises to pursue that. A productive people and its government will always tend to seek peaceful relations with their neighbors, avoiding the human cost and expense, energy, and worries of strife. The "rights" of Gazans are and have been, particularly abused. Not by Israel. When a regime regularly and deliberately incites a conflict inviting a reaction from its powerful neighbor, until the most savage attack and violent response of all, it's the innocents who will pay - who will have any existing basic "rights to life" obliterated. In this war, all the rights abuses as well as moral culpability for the citizens' losses lies with their rulers. But according to the alliance of radical Left-plus - Islamists , it has (somehow) become incumbent upon - the Israelis - to uphold the human rights Gazans never possessed from their Islamist regime. The shock to leftist Jews has been how their traditional fears of the "right wing anti-Semites" have been misplaced. The racist new Left is the growing menace.

Conservative intellectuals ask (and answer) the right question: how did the secular, radical Left get into bed with Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists to enable the comeback of virulent Judeophobia? Intellectual agnostics need to get off the fence. Israel (etc.), is not the cause it's a symptom of the ideological rot. https://youtu.be/8Um4Hq1HLWo?si=JFQ_dtk_M5u0PbB6

"Bad faith"? (In Oslo) Excuse me, but wrong. -What the world saw: SEPT. 13, 1993 The historic Oslo Accord is signed at the White House. Palestinians and Israelis agree to recognize the other’s right to exist: “It is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict” and “strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace.” Soon Israel begins its promised withdrawal from lands occupied since the 1967 war; Jericho and Gaza are transferred to the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat — Israel’s implacable enemy for 30 years — returns from exile to establish the Palestinian Authority. The parties agree that the most sensitive “final status” issues — permanent borders, Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees, and Jerusalem — will be addressed later. OCT. 14, 1994 Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat are awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in the Oslo Accord...". -And what occurred shortly after, in May '95: Arafat speaks to Johannesburg Muslims. The peace accord was a ruse - he calls for a jihad. Whose bad faith? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinkfSWy6WDAxW0XUEAHW3nBXEQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Farchive%2Fopinions%2F1994%2F05%2F26%2Farafats-loose-lips%2Fffd735a8-fe5f-4172-87fa-a77b4261c820%2F&usg=AOvVaw3cznRZjF4-EVl2OYqckfhZ&opi=89978449 The lengthy trickery of Jihadist revisionist propaganda won't be refuted, I'm afraid, it is too entrenched.

Someone who knows wars and Israel's problems, intimately and up close https://merionwest.com/2023/12/19/richard-kemp-israels-existential-campaign-to-destroy-hamas/

For chrissakes, killing 5 civilians to one, or even 10: 1, will be usually considered indiscriminate. They are not unheard of in other, just wars. But you can take this to the bank-- the Gazan casualty ratio is very closely two to one. In that concentrated terrain, I repeat, that is abnormal. The IDF is having to fight with great self-restraint. And will make mistakes, to under-react or over-react to the sudden presence of a person. Too slow, you and your men could be killed, too fast you might kill an innocent or a fellow soldier. Again, anticipated and exploited by Hamas. Out of there, fighting in open ground, they'd be defeated and surrender in one or two days. They obviously will not budge. We have self-styled military experts passing unfounded claims. One does not ~need~ like me to have been in that kind of urban, guerrilla conflict situation with civilians all around to understand better, but use your imagination. In the war context, "indiscriminate" goes with "disproportionate": anti-concepts. You must fight not to defeat an enemy and end their threat to you, one also is dutybound to minimize ~their~ losses, to approximate your own.

Moral judgments being made, without reference to the implicit and explicit normative doctrines . . It often appears that O'ists defer to the default doctrine, altruism. This ~moral~ debate at large is between altruists and all others everywhere who maintain any degree of self-worth: i.e. my life is *no less* important than any others. It's demanded of Israel that it leaves this battle uncompleted. Its sworn enemy of Jews, Hamas, mustn't be completely defeated, they indicate. But since these attacks will only recur at a later stage, prompting another war --- it's not just Israelis' right to self-defense -- it's in their rational self-interest to finish the heavy task now. The Islamists plainly are widely admired for their ~extremist~ altruism, for martyrdom of civilians and their own families in "the cause" [of murdering Zionists] - by regular altruists, who wouldn't go quite so far... To go to that degree, amid all the general (ultimately, self-created) suffering of Palestinians resisting Israel's peace efforts - HAS TO demonstrate the supreme righteousness of the Hamas 'cause', runs the warped moralizing of altruists all over. . Israel, otoh, is being "selfish". They actually believe their lives matter more than the self-sacrificial Islamist enemy. Best for all concerned, the Jews offer themselves up for the slaughter, or just go back to where they came from. Everyone is doing it. The common debate I see outside, is moral equivalence and moral equivocation made between a terrorist group with submissive civilians under their totalitarian control and the most liberal democratic country in the area. But why here? Its imperfect politics aside, It isn't a ~morally~ just evaluation of Israel. . With a rational ethics based on "the standard of value, man's life" from which to form value-judgments on any issue, why do Objectivists not use the code?

You are paranoid about "RT". The very least, read the other side to see what they are thinking; which information " they " propagate. . Do you want to learn or to be told what to think? With such recall, you should remember I - twice at least- linked directly to RANDCorp's own website and its page Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. (pub. 2019). No misrepresentation, there it is, in its own words. I asked WHY? Their mission statement as laid out was "a sinister joke" and I thought it shocking. The Cold War over, but the anti-Russian enmity continued, up until the invasion and of course, hugely more, after. What cannot be denied, the West was intent on *making* Russia its enemy - without miltary, ideological or geopolitical cause and necessity. Now, naturally that enmity runs both ways. The Western strategy has been proven "wrong" (in practical and moral terms". Whatever the attempts to undermine/weaken/overthrow Russia by leading it to exhaust itself militarily, economically, forcing a regime change etc., etc. - did not work. The price paid for that failure was and is colossal. The effects of the 'experts' failure to properly identify their ooponent will be around for a long while. The world is being divided by a new fault line, put simply. Worse - it did not work, but predictably would not work. The possible outcomes were high-risk, anyway. And too, the misinformation disseminated by the West to encourage/ prolong the fighting - has been proven practically wrong and immoral - sacrificial. The consequences show that. The dark side, e.g. RT propaganda, was greatly more realistic, matching Russia's general hard realism concerning the war and their economy, it must be concluded. Stunning that you and everyone cling to that - evasive - western "narrative" against all present evidence of their false or omitted information.

I expect an explanation for that put-down. Specify. Evading what? Your normal one-liner won't suffice. Form a reasoned counterargument for once. On reading journalism widely and propaganda techniques? being fearful of hearing opposing facts/ opinions, e.g., 'judging a book by its cover'? I've covered those. How many have been as upfront and self-explanatory as I've been? exhaustive (if not boringly repetitive). "Evading" what?

Ha! I can read AL like a book. I knew RT would get him excited. AL, I believe you are an actuary, a notary or other nit-picking, quibbling profession. Irrelevant. Objection overruled.

Dispelled: any doubts Hamas shares humanitarian concerns for their suffering Gazans. This time, it is *Israel* that offered a humanitarian respite. Confounding the cynics. Hamas makes their premises obvious with every move, but, everyone wants to believe the 'freedom fighter' fantasy. The so-called "oppressed" expose they are the oppressors. Expect a military escalation from the IDF. I don't see the terrorists lasting long. https://www.rt.com/news/589423-hamas-rejects-israeli-truce-offer/

There are not nor should be, stipulated rules of war. There should be no "rules" introduced to an inherently brutal and amoral business. Along with O. Ghate, rules are the attempt "to sanitize" wars. Going further, they are the attempt to make killing and being killed, "ethical", normal and "acceptable". The terrible human cost of war mustn't be lessened in the public consciousness. What is this - the 'rules' and 'scores' for some war video game in popular entertainment, I sense? Thereby, wars proliferate. What there is remaining, is a chosen, rational policy by one party to an unavoidable - defensive - war. In effect: "WE do not stoop to such and such tactics". Allowing for the fog of war, and human error - as much as is humanly possible. Even at some cost to our soldiers - even when the enemy does. The only law in war: Win. End it.

That was a war that needn't have happened. Clear cut. The info is in. To the simple-minded, being against that war, urging diplomacy, and warning of its likely outcomes and condemning the (litany of) evasions by the Western bloc in tacitly and eventually allowing the death of a half- million men and the country's destruction - in order "to defend Europe" --equates with "Pro-Putin"... Contra the actions, or inactions, by the western powers and their propagandizing for a "righteous" conflict to dangerously continue, unnegotiated (from the start til the present), does not equate with "pro-Russia", in general. Or being "anti-West" in general. You could'nt grasp that false alternative then, clearly do not now. There's my reply to the simple-minded "in the exactly same way". Evasion of the known (or of possible or most probable) foul outcomes, equates with Objectivist "evil". In exactly the same way, Hamas evaded - welcomed, in fact - the certain consequences of their deeds upon ordinary Gazans.

The "scholar of genocide" cannot get the simplest cause/effect right: "...during the 1948 war that led to the creation of the State of Israel ... " It's on public record, the 1948 creation of Israel ~preceded~ and supposedly justified the combined Arab attack against Israel. War began a few days later. The Nakba "catastrophe" when Palestinians were ordered to temporarily flee by the Arab attackers - and- many forced to flee by Israelis before hostilities began - was made all the worse -- the Jewish pigs won! He might have included that the Arab war was clearly meant to "genocide" the Jews... "We will throw them into the sea !!", was the published Arab warcry. Not a "textbook case of" intended "genocide"? Where do these "expert" creeps spreading falsehood and bile come from? "Israel’s campaign to displace Gazans—and potentially expel them altogether into Egypt—is yet another chapter in the Nakba, in which an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes during the 1948 war that led to the creation of the State of Israel. But the assault on Gaza can also be understood in other terms: as a textbook case of genocide..."