whYNOT

Sent on by my wife's old friend. Ralph Lewinsohn had moved many years ago to a kibbutz, Kfar Aza, one of the first to be hit in October. Several neighbors were killed and 5 are still in captivity, while he and his family hid in their safe room and were overlooked. (He was one of those "lefties" (in the Israel context) inhabiting the "Gazan envelope" of an organization who volunteered to regularly pick up sickly Gazans at the border checkpoints and drive them to hospital in Jerusalem for (free) medical attention and back. Doing so, they believed, was building bridges with Palestinians. He has since had to review all he once believed. Only now are he and other kibbutzniks contemplating the return to their burned-out homes. This essay is long but one of the best analyses with honest introspection out there. JOSHUA HOFFMAN - MAY 22, 2024 In Israel, we do not deny the destruction currently taking place across Gaza, the unfortunate civilian casualties, the living hell that much of the Strip has become — all, of course, as a result of Israel’s response to the unprecedented Palestinian terror attacks on October 7th. We are fully aware that Israel’s incursions into Rafah will make daily life throughout Gaza even worse for the enclave’s people, and we do not lose sleep knowing that they are undergoing immense suffering, regardless of who is to blame. What’s more, we are not trying to sugarcoat or circumvent these inconvenient truths. We are very much at peace with the consequences. Why? Because, after witnessing the testimony about a woman murdered by a sharp object inserted into her genital area, our empathy evaporated. After seeing the testimony about an 8-year-old girl whose hands were amputated and left to bleed in fear — and by the time help arrived, she couldn’t be saved — our empathy evaporated. After hearing about another woman who was raped in the terror attack, had to undergo an abortion, and is now hospitalized in a mental health facility, our empathy evaporated. After learning of an infant who was placed in an oven and baked to death, our empathy evaporated. After being told that a pregnant woman’s abdomen was cut open, her fetus beheaded, and then she was murdered, our empathy evaporated. After seeing footage of a children’s room splattered with blood, perhaps from babies who were beheaded, our empathy evaporated. After hearing about a woman who was raped during the massacre, her breasts mutilated and used as a football before she was shot in the head, our empathy evaporated. And then, just mere days after one of the world’s most heinous terror attacks engulfed Israel, we were made out to be the “bad guys,” the “bully,” the “oppressor,” the “occupiers.” Crowds across the world celebrated this so-called Palestinian “act of liberation” and even called for our deaths and the destruction of our country. Ironically, the Jews have done more to “liberate” the Palestinians than Palestinian leaders have done themselves. In one anecdote, the Arab population dramatically increased after Zionists eradicated malaria from the region in the 1920s. Since the State of Israel’s founding in 1948, we’ve tried to accommodate the Palestinians every which way — territorial concessions, peace agreements, financial aid, work opportunities, and more — but nothing seems to work. If anything, these gestures had the opposite affect: more vile terrorism against mostly innocent Israeli civilians. So we put up checkpoints and walls to better protect our borders, just as any country would reasonably do. Our politicians and security establishments let us down on October 7th, but we know that doesn’t change the very intentions of so many Palestinians: to exact as much hurt and spite on as many Jews as possible. This wasn’t the first time, and it probably won’t be the last one. When terror groups hijack territories like they have done in Gaza, using it as a launchpad for Islamic jihad, significant military action is the only way, despite the risk to innocents. If Israel did not respond in the ways it has, there would also be a paramount risk to innocents — the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in towns that border Gaza. If you’re asking us to deny our own citizens the same right that you would fight for on behalf of others, well, that’s an awkward act of self-sabotage — and more of a you problem than an Israel problem. Surely, we understand that this will make some people feel uncomfortable, particularly those who were raised within the constructs of “safetyism” — where parents endeavor to overly protect their children from potentially harmful situations. As these children mature into adults, they become acculturated to avoiding anything that may seem challenging or burdensome, ultimately putting them at risk of developing what social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls “fragility of mind and emotion” — lacking resilience in life and in relationships as a result of being protected from anything difficult or uncomfortable. Israelis have literally been born into difficulty and hardship. Many of them know that, despite their most sincere intentions, the idea of true peace with the Arabs is an illusion, an imaginary assumption that has no basis in reality. Partial peace is possible, meaning peace mixed with terrorism, which will exist provided Israel has sufficient deterrent power. On October 7th, this deterrent power either collapsed or was on a lengthy hiatus. The closest Israel and the Palestinians got to “partial peace” was in 1993 and 1995, when they signed the Oslo Accords, a pair of agreements aimed at achieving peaceful coexistence and fulfilling the “right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians’ leader at the time, said of the Oslo Accords: “I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it ‘Sulha Dania’ (a despicable truce). But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace accord.”1 In other words, Arafat compared the Oslo Accords with the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty, a 10-year truce between Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca, which Muhammad broke two years later when he attacked them and conquered Mecca. Arafat even went as far as to tell a Palestinian journalist: “I am entering Palestine through the door of Oslo, despite all my reservations, in order to return the Palestine Liberation Organization and the resistance to it, and I promise you that you will see the Jews fleeing from Palestine like mice fleeing from a sinking ship. This will not happen in my lifetime, but it will happen in your lifetime.” Still, Israel adhered to the Oslo Accords, withdrawing its troops from Gaza in 1993. The Palestinian National Authority was promptly created to administer self-rule over 98-percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza, while receiving an estimated $25 billion in financial aid from the U.S. and other Western countries, the highest-per-capita assistance in the world. But the money ended up going to places not named peace or prosperity for the Palestinian people. “Instead of creating the independent and robust civil institutions necessary for good governance, promoting peace with Israel, and improving the lives of its people, the billions of dollars of international aid were used to create a corrupt dictatorship focusing on enriching its elites, inciting its people against Israel, advocating terrorism, and waging a massive international campaign to demonize, delegitimize, and destroy the Jewish state,” according to Ziva Dahl, a Senior Fellow with the Haym Salomon Center.2 Then, in 2000, at the Camp David Summit, the Israelis were willing to give up 92 percent of the West Bank, as well as its sovereignty in parts of Jerusalem’s Old City and in Jerusalem’s Arab-majority neighborhoods — unprecedented concessions. Arafat not only declined; he refused to make a counteroffer, and the Palestinians launched the Second Intifada, marked by an onslaught of suicide bombings against Israelis, resulting in more than a thousand Israeli casualties, the third-most in Israel’s history, and 70 percent of which were civilians. It was at this time that the Palestinian Authority started incorporating Islam into its political rhetoric, adding jihad to its agenda. Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip, Hamas continued to gain steam after being founded in the late 1980s. Following Israel’s complete withdrawal from the enclave in 2005, elections were held in Gaza. Hamas reportedly won and violently expelled the Palestinian Authority from the strip in 2007, en route to creating a deeply Islamic society rooted in ambitions to establish a caliphate in the Levant. For example, in Article 7 of its charter, Hamas describes itself as “one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders.” The charter also includes a hadith (an Islamic commandment) suggesting that the Day of Judgment would not come until the Muslims fight and kill the Jews. This is all to say: The assumption that real peace is possible between Israel and the Palestinians, peace like the one between the U.S. and Mexico or between Spain and France, is an assumption that has no basis. The Jewish enemy will always be present, and they will always wait for us, while examining our weak points, waiting for revelations of our weakness, and then attacking. Hence, October 7th. Hence, the destruction, civilian casualties, and living hell in Gaza. And hence why many Israelis, myself included, accept the situation for what it is. But the impetus for our position does not stem from being “pro-Jewish” or “pro-Israel.” Our position is rooted in knowing that the Israeli military is deeply grounded in humanitarianism. As the joke goes, we thought about responding proportionally, but our soldiers didn’t want to go into Gaza to rape women, behead babies, mutilate bodies, and burn entire families to death. The Israeli response has been robust, yet surgical. If we truly wanted to erase Gaza, we would have done so just a few days into the war. Such capabilities are not in question. Of course, this does not mean that there are not evil Israelis and lovely Palestinians, but this is not a dispute between two peoples. It is a dispute between two cultures, where ethno-social constructs are the primary source of conflict. Our culture celebrates life. We get excited when flowers bloom in the desert and when a new museum opens. Unfortunately, we cannot say anything remotely similar about our enemies and their supporters, who predominantly cheer on death and promote boundless antisemitic hate. As Golda Meir, the former Israeli prime minister, used to say: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” Until that day comes, the tragedy unfolding in Gaza is the least of our worries

That a nihilist terror group/government and much of the Gazan populace that has proven itself to be death-lovers should be trusted at all, admired by many, and granted "recognition" by some cowardly EU gvts., while the only rights-respecting nation in the ME and a people who esteem all lives, yet not at the cost of their own, are vilified for their moral standards - and very existence - has been - disturbing. The youthful few (Kiyah Willis) who see and think for themselves and fearlessly speak out against the horde, carry the single, positive future for mankind and give one hope. Right now, it doesn't look good. A ToI op-ed that reminds of the prevailing subjectivity and "moral equivalence", in fact, of moral inversion. "The harsh bigotry of impossible/unreal expectations" widely applied to Israel, with the contrasting, "soft bigotry of low expectations", to Palestinians. (The premise: "These are enraged infants who [correctly] hate Jews - what else would you expect them to do? But do not hurt any in reprisal!" The portion of the West's infantile adults, who have "feelings" and little more, naturally identify with them 'in solidarity'.) https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-broken-record/?_gl=1*sh9zg*_ga*MTA5NDA4OTc0MC4xNzEyOTc0ODc2*_ga_RJR2XWQR34*MTcxNzAzOTIzNi4zNC4xLjE3MTcwMzk1NTguMC4wLjA.

Either way, she's remarkable. From scratch, (and even from her earlier, admitted, prejudice), to conceptualize and evaluate the crucial facts so efficiently.

There are some non-Objectivists out there who exemplify reason, rationality and free will, with "a moral compass" - like the above, outstanding young woman - and apparently a few Objectivists who do not.

Sure, you may!

"Man", one would think, is entirely the rational animal, which constitutes both his biological and volitional cognitive nature. I.e., there cannot be any contradiction and split between "human nature" and "man's nature", unless one is allowed. Indeed, ""man--every man--is an end in himself..."" according to AR. And all life as well. Therefore, the identical, shared, "end in itself" which she observed every life form to possess in common, whether insentient or sentient. "End", to mean an independent 'closed system', I suggest; the self-generating *life force* which self-perpetuates and self-maintains an organism's survival mode. Except - for man in particular, biological survival isn't a sufficient purpose, and his 'mode' is non-automatic. I feel that "end-in-itself" is the metaphysical recognition, preceding epistemology and ethics. O'ist ethics rests upon it. I will be interested in more, Stephen. On how "the power of human rationality functions to preserve one's fellows and indeed the human species for the sake of the species"? How can this be achieved by a person? I don't believe you mean it as one's selfless duty to others, but it seems to me you say this preservation of others/the species might be primary, rather than being the valuable effects of one's self-serving actions which are often/sometimes of benefit to some others--also. They are the same species as one, with their life values, and ends in themselves as well. Pleasure - too - would be derived from seeing such beneficial outcomes to lives of others. Partaking in joint enterprises to the mutual advantage of all, as one example. Intellectual expounding, creating artworks, a few more. Here too, I don't find a contradiction and/or conflict with rational egoism.

No comment https://www.jns.org/biden-ends-the-us-israel-alliance-at-a-fortuitous-moment/

Yup, the final section where Sam reverts to his basic Leftist-altruist convictions is not his best. Limited to Israel and antisemitic protests in "solidarity" with Jihadists, he's knowledgeable, very good and right, and although an atheist, a long-time moral/intellectual backer of Israel, as I am. No one speaker, anyone, anywhere on the net, has it all correct. Take away the best leave the rest.

Just caught sight of this. Reminds us of the virtue of justice. To think in principles. Over and above, one (not) being Jewish or Muslim which is immaterial, are the moral evaluations one needs to make about the collectivism/tribalism which has consistently and historically turned on only one, single "collective", whenever (Western) societies have suffered discord and fractures. And it is hardly the Muslims. Simply: "blame the Jews". For anything. To the point of violence. They are the smallest and most passivist group so it's safe for the racist bullies, now mostly on the hard Left, to do so. Zionism and its validity. No one can look at the modern landscape and its wholesale and far-reaching mass vilification of all Jews in once safe countries today, and not be aware of the fact that there will always be revivals of such racist feelings. Worse and greater now than '30's Europe and Germany, because of the internet. . So much so, that many Jews are considering leaving those previous havens and going - of all insecure places - to Israel. (If we can't make it there, we can't make it anywhere) The retrospective validation for Zionism again today is on every second headline. If there were not already a "safe" place in the world, it could well be necessary now to make one. Grames, you are wrong: overall it was not "Jewish supremacism" to mark for Israel's creation, it was imposed Jewish inferiority-by-race. I use your argument: if Zionism was and is valid (self-interested!) to found a safe place for world Jewry, agnostic, secular or practicing, then everything which is a consequence of Zionism is valid.

"Is" comes first, and irreducible. The sequence: metaphysics and epistemology, then the ethics logically following (by necessity), was the unique feat AR performed in her essay. Often - the metaphysics, the general nature of life and specifically man's life and nature, gets left behind or taken for granted. I believe the full justification of rational egoism is weakened. Tad, I thank you for your response. But could you quote my post to alert me? In this forum, by some mutual consent or orders from high, it seems I have been excluded ("canceled"?) from debate.

The objective Sam Harris. Betters any analysis and moral evaluation I've heard elsewhere.

The 'figures' match, Jerusalem and Washington agree. Caution. From RT: "Israel’s airstrikes and ground offensive in Gaza have left more Palestinian civilians dead than Hamas fighters, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has acknowledged. During his appearance on the CBS TV news program Face the Nation on Sunday, Blinken was asked if Washington agreed with the recent claim by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the attacks on Gaza have so far resulted in the death of 14,000 “terrorists” and 16,000 civilians. "Yes, we do,” the Secretary of State replied. “Israel has processes, procedures, rules and regulations to try to minimize civilian harm,” but they “have not been applied consistently and effectively. There’s a gap between the stated intent and some of the results we've seen,” he explained. Blinken stressed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are fighting “an enemy that hides in civilian infrastructure, hides behind civilians,” which makes it problematic to determine what actually happened in each of the individual incidents..." -- At almost 1 : 1 the IDF is setting records for lowest casualty ratio in urban warfare. Leave alone, an enemy which exposes its citizen-martyrs. The "genocide" criers should be shamed, but won't be. Plainly on their part, it was always about saving Hamas terrorists' lives and exploiting civilian deaths.

If it's in man's nature, does it not exist 'inside' of nature? "Is" supplies the "ought". To turn against our nature, there's "the evil".

The realization that the life of a common cockroach is also "an end in itself", may be disconcerting at first. Rand's "organism" relates to all living things - "man", included. "On the *physical* level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex...- are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life"