Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1657
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Easy Truth last won the day on April 15

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

3669 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

159

Reputation

  1. Does that not include those who can read and write??? The demonization of more than 5 million people (Palestinians) is akin to how the Jews were seen as sewer rats. That is nonsense. It's a contradiction. Following a philosophy without knowing the reason for it is valuing faith-based ethics. If that's what you're selling then you're definitely posting in the wrong forum.
  2. The unjustified hate usually comes from their success as a community. This was true of Armenians, Chinese, and Indians in Africa. They stick together, do business together, and help each other more than outsiders. Another other issue with Christians is that their messiah was not supported by the Jews. Finally, one would suspect any religious group that thinks they are the chosen one of the creator will get animosity from other "believers". If we are into outcomes, then the oil-rich countries, have great outcomes. Some have high levels of socialism like Norway, and some are feudal states with great healthcare and education for their "people" The question is not about Jewish people, it is regarding the behavior of the government of Israel which ultimately is run by a philosophy that is Zionism which will push it toward a faith-based ethnic bias toward "its" people. It was part of this blindness that allowed them to prop up Hamas to weaken the PLO. PLO had already accepted Israel's existence.
  3. However, some would argue that the current conflict is a minimal conflict, as only 1400 Israelis were murdered out of a country of 8 million. Or 1400 in the last ten years etc. Assuming the minimum is based on Body count. Then hasn't the strategy worked in keeping it at a minimum? Why is there such an overreaction? To make it minimal Israel could get rid of all Palestinians. As in Kill them all. Why is that not a solution openly advocated? A holocaust for different people. As long as we don't suffer a holocaust, it's okay for others to suffer one. They deserve it, we don't. But if Palestinians have hatred of Jews in their DNA, determined, guaranteed, then that is the proper ... final solution. I would assume that you would see that as immoral on some grounds. I would argue because there are good and bad amongst them. There are innocents involved. A strategy of getting children killed as collateral damage creates a world that Israelis don't want. Seething anger all around them ... forever ... toward all Jewish people. This whole thing has to be turned around and IT IS POSSIBLE.
  4. It's an untenable premise to say that China, Iran et. al. want to "destroy civilization". They can't because they would be destroyed themselves. (you might as well start out by saying they are all suicidal) They want to destroy the balance of power, they want more power. We currently have a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies (not originated by the axis of evil). "The enemy is here" in some sense within ourselves. But regarding this conflict, as far as statism goes, both sides in this conflict are fighting for a state that benefits them over the rights of others. Both believe their collective is in the right, both assert ownership as a collective. One single state that supports individual rights would suffice for both. Some in this thread are painting Palestinians as "permanent savages" that consider Jews as less than. The idea is that they can never change, the hate will never go away, etc. It may be true that some Palestinians are criminals but not all of them because such a society does NOT survive. Meanwhile, part of their belief system includes the first testament of the Jews. They believe in the same god, the god of Adam and Eve. They believe the same things all the way to Abraham. Now, are we to emphasize that they're both irrational or that they have something in common? Both sides are human before they are religious. As humans, there is a conflict of interest, a conflict about collective ownership. As humans, they both have a rational capability and this problem is solvable. Not simple, but solvable. We know the solution, "one state or multiple states ... that respect individual rights" where ownership and "rights" are not collectively dolled out based on your DNA or religious affiliation and where no one may initiate force. There will come a time when the war will stop. Some on both sides will still want revenge. But those people will have to make peace within themselves as the world moves on.
  5. Hamas, the organization, the bureaucracy is the evil segment of the Palestinian population. It is a segment. And it is in control. The settlers that kill Palestinians are Israeli citizens. A segment. They don't represent all of Israel. The right-wing government of Sharon onward etc. has been a segment in control. Voted in like Hamas. Now there is no moral equivalency at one particular time or another. Each committed something horrible, ultimately bombing babies versus chopping their heads off. Right now babies are being pulled out of the rubble in Gaza as one can watch the video. No one chopped their heads, they were crushed under the rubble. There is no moral equivalency there? Maybe not exactly equal but there is quite a bit. Each offense did not elicit an immediate reaction from the other side at that time. But in aggregate, you have two segments that are "representing" the whole and punishing innocents of the other side and using retaliation as justification. If we look at the whole picture as collectives, Israel looks better. A more Western culture, modern, productive, etc. But the conflict is about ownership. Who does the land belong to? Does it belong to some ethno-religious people who claim their religion as their ownership right? Just because some countries, the leaders claim their territory as being a particular religion, India saying Hindu, Saudi Arabia saying, Sunni Islam, Malaysian Bhudists, or northern Irish Protestants claiming the land for their people is not a support for individual rights. At its core Zionism has this fault. This irrational foundation has and will cause wars and will cause people to dislike the Jewish people forever.
  6. I assume you don't really mean this. At least in the long run. In the short run, I could see an argument like "We will fight to achieve a lasting peace". War as a means to it. Because the way it's worded it implies that you are for perpetual war and I suspect you are not for perpetual war. We used to be in fear of nuclear war, potentially with a very totalitarian regime (the Soviet Union). We coexist with North Korea et al. We have survived successfully "considering" those totalitarian regimes. And closer to this conflict, there has been lasting peace with Egypt and to some extent with the PLO. The issue is: Can you get a lasting agreement where there will be no physical violence (for the most part and from the majority in each group)? This has to be the goal. You can't lose sight of it. Otherwise, you're suggesting what Hamas wants in reverse. Israel cannot convert Muslims, I'll grant you that. But we live with people all around us who have internal conflicts. It is to our benefit to not infuriate them when they will live separate lives. Now in the case of a criminal, we should use force. You are correct that individual Hamas members, especially those who perpetrated the attack should be killed. I would not disagree. It's the issue of the long term that HAS to be dealt with. If we are effective in planning the long term, "peace" has to be part of the conversation. The fundamental disagreement that we are having seems to be centered around our understanding of the nature of each of the combatants. That one side is permanently and perpetually warlike and the other is peaceful. I would argue that both sides have been on a war stance since the start. Both claiming defense. Both claim retaliation. Now those claims will not change. And here is where the aggression starts. With this assertion. With this belief. If you had said for the most part it is not proven to be totalitarian, you might have had a point, but to say that there is NOTHING totalitarian about it, a government based on religion? I mean, it's obvious. Of course, there's going to be some totalitarianism. At its core it is faith-based. Now if Israel was not a Jewish state, supporting individual rights, then there would be nothing totalitarian about Zionism. But then, that's not Zionism.
  7. The way you look at the situation is based on two collectives in conflict with each other. Not that it is entirely invalid, but the nuances will not be seen and the solution will not be available. PLO also was dedicated to wiping out Israel. And by default, Israel progressively has ended up "wiping out" the "many" of the other side. At a minimum, Palestinians are a second-class citizen in their own land. The right-wing governments ever since Sharon have not used the carrot as much as the previous ones. They became more and more hardline when they saw they could get away with it. That is primarily what the world is reacting to. Palestinians did not reject the 2 state solution, they did not agree to the deal put in front of them. Otherwise, they would not even have come to the negotiating table. The "Foul" that the world cries is because the Palestinians have no voice anymore and have been treated that way by Israel (collectively through these series of governments). The strong have won militarily and subjugated the "other". The US did not do that in Japan or Germany after so many of its (American) citizens were killed. Your knee-jerk reaction to destroy Gaza will end up being a long-term problem. At least acknowledge that it is a hard problem to solve.
  8. If my neighbor without any provocation, initiated force for no reason, then I would retaliate the only way that I can. But if I have provoked them, or I have in fact enraged them, then I'm being stupid or insensitive or at worst pathological. The history of this war has both sides, as a whole, enraging the other. Zionism at that beginning was an initiation of force. This land is ours because "of our religion" does not make sense. But now that we have a more advanced country that has similar values to the West, you would be better off supporting Israel. This is the current logic used apparently that won't solve the problem. Once both sides have a majority that deals with the fact that the cycle of violence is not in their best interest, they will come up with something that works. Both sides are vulnerable. Both sides can kill many innocents of the other side. There have been problems created by Israelis too, for instance: "Between January and November 2008, 515 criminal suits were opened by Israel against settlers for violence against Arabs or Israeli security forces; 502 of these involved "right wing radicals" while 13 involved "left wing anarchists".[7][8] In 2008, the senior Israeli commander in the West Bank said that a hard core of a few hundred activists were involved in violence against the Palestinians and Israeli soldiers.[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence But even before that, you had the Irgun, the terrorist organization that would empty out the country of Palestinians who had lived there for centuries. Now having said that, it does not justify what Hamas has done. It only illuminates the problem itself which is collective punishment used by both sides. Ultimately the Palestinians will purge the "violent ones" if they see it will benefit them. The way it is right now, the peaceful Palestinian leadership did not benefit them, as the PLO has little authority anymore. Most Israelis will live side by side and most Palestinians would too. But the inability to bridge the gap, which is emotional, will not allow it. You have a right to be angry, something horrific has happened. The problem is that your line of argument, your proposals, and your solution will not work in the long run.
  9. But are you going to get rid of them by enraging those who could in fact make peace with you? Most Palestinians are going to be like anyone else, they don't want war and will compromise. To paint them all as being evil is implying they are not human. This is also the case with all those other countries that you mention. Once you see them as collectively evil, there is NO solution except mutual annihilation in this case. Like Israel is good and Plastenians and their 1 billion supporters are all evil. World War three is around the corner.
  10. You sound like you see an obvious solution. What is it? Since killing 100 Palestinians is required to get each Hamas leader, I would assume there are around 1000 Hamas leaders in Gaza. That would mean killing 100,000 non-combatants to get those 1000 people. This is a low estimate, the implication being that Israel will simply perpetuate the animosity which will grow with enemies that will gather strength in disparate parts of the world. In this sense, Israel lost this public relations war against these Kamakazi forces before it started. It became far too confident about the chess game it was playing. If there is a realistic long-term solution, it has to be created on the negotiating table. Multiple Muslim countries normalized relations with Israel when it was thought to be impossible. Israel currently gets half of its oil from a Muslim country (Azerbaijan). People will bring up the fact that Hamas's charter says Israel should not exist. But they forgot that the PLO's charter said the same thing yet negotiations were successful and their charter changed. I don't deny that the attack by Hamas was heinous and uncalled for, unjustified, savage, horrific, and evil. But it did not grow for years into this kind of sophisticated savagery without any provocation.
  11. Yes, it is existential. So why don't they make a lasting peace with their enemies which are gaining in population and technology? Israel is evading that reality. But my interest lies in not being dragged into a nonsensically initiated war. I would agree with Grames that Zionism cannot be a justification for anything.
  12. How does one determine the truth about this? Because if in fact, ALL people in Gaza are in fact murderous criminals, then yes, they should be in a prison, maybe some should be killed. But no society is completely full of psychopaths. One can reasonably make the case that Gaza has a society in which its leadership is promoting its citizens to kill Israeli people. Based on that threat Israel has a right to use force against them. Does this in fact justify collective punishment? What you say (that Gaza is under the control of Hamas) seems to be correct but there is a nuance: "Israeli-Egyptian blockade that has been in place since 2007. This blockade has resulted in severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods in and out of Gaza, making it difficult for residents to access basic necessities and opportunities. " "it is surrounded by state of the art electronic surveillance system set up and controlled by Israel. The sea is controlled by Israel. The border crossings are all controlled by Israel who dictates what goes in and out (people and goods). There is one border crossing into Egypt that has been shut down since 2013 and opened very few times since then. Israel controls everything land, air and sea, borders are patrolled by heavy armored vehicles and tanks. At some point baby milk and other goods were forbidden to enter Gaza by Israel" If true, this is in fact provocation of a population. But is this state of affairs what created murderers? Did Hamas create the frustration inside Gaza? Hamas was preferred by the Israeli government in order to weaken the PLO. So, it seems like some convoluted errors in policy have created such an explosive situation. "That is a hard if not impossible balance to strike year after year, especially as Gaza's internal pressures mount. Its 2 million inhabitants are packed into an area roughly the size of Philadelphia, 80 percent of them impoverished and 46 percent unemployed. Some 108,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage flow daily from the Gaza Strip into the Mediterranean Sea, and potable water can be hard to come by. Against this backdrop and absent any path to something better for Gazans, no military strategy to contain the violence can succeed in the long run. Without a safety valve, Gaza was bound to explode." "once all the killing is done, Israel will have to do something even harder if it's to have any hope of preventing the next war and the one after that: It will need to rebuild Gaza into something better than it was. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have a chance at economic prosperity, potentially even at the risk of loosening the blockade. That means ensuring Gaza's inhabitants have political options apart from Hamas and the corrupt and pliant Palestinian Authority. And it means rebuilding the social fabric of Gaza, which will likely be even more tattered after what could be a devastating war that could leave the enclave that much more hostile to Israel." This ends up putting the ultimate solution or responsibility in the hands of Israel. It is not altruistic but rather ... practical. https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/the-inevitable-ongoing-failure-of-israels-gaza-strategy.html https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Gaza-called-the-largest-open-air-prison-and-when-did-you-first-hear-this-phrase
  13. Well, the contradictions make the situation very complicated. Hamas is a "movement" and is supposedly elected. There is a hierarchy, a leadership, and a charter that negotiators use. It seems that the current Israeli administration has made the case that "Palestinian" is not a real thing. Yet Hamas is believed to exist within the geographical area of Gaza, likely a minority of the people that live there. Ideally. It seems like the objective is that Hamas will be uprooted and not voted for again. Yes, looks like Israel is even more entrenched now. I am wondering what the position of the US should be in all this.
  14. If 1500 people are willing to give up their lives for it, by default, Palestine must be a "thing". Also, killing 1900 Israelis does justify the word genocide on the part of Hamas. That attack on Israel was a heinous act that I had thought either mentally ill people or extremely desperate people could do. I am assuming what I have heard and seen is true. But it seems like some mastermind planned it. What I am afraid of is there are such horrible people out there in charge and the West is vulnerable. As far as I know, Hamas has not threatened the US as of yet, but I hope we are not creating that situation. The other realization is that those "horrible people" who are in charge of this "are" Hamas, and perhaps the leadership in Iran. That would mean the population that they control must be too terrified to overthrow them. After all, we see what they are capable of. Yes, which implies that the mastermind wanted this state of affairs. I suspect that the hope is that Hamas will be destroyed as ISIS was. I don't know how similar that is because Hamas was a resistance movement that was voted for ... (Democratically?). Bottom line shouldn't we consider the aspirations of Palestinians as a "real" thing for our own survival? Because we can't wipe them all out and rid the world of them.
  15. Of course. It can take time. Or maybe you are at the final stages of your struggle. It's like one is digging a tunnel out of a mountain, you don't know when you will hit the air. The next strike of the ax or thousands more. But you have to dig as you are doing. The wonderful thing about Objectivism is that it reflects a world that makes sense. It's not fraudulent. It's about honest discourse about reality. Ultimately that is what is needed for healing psychologically. Keep in mind, that is the philosophy itself. Not the practitioners. In my experience, there are rational and irrational Objectivists. The philosophy is like the American Constitution. It gives direction but some will practice it allowing contradictions in their "practice". Then the question is "How are you dealing with it?". Some of it is about being inspired by art. And then there is expression. How are you expressing your emotions? What you say here seems coherent on this forum. You are visible to me and the struggle is a familiar one. But what about artistic expression? Debilitating emotions have to be expressed to move out, they clutter up one's psyche. And there is a tremendous risk as many will not appreciate or understand one's artistic expression. But it's honest, some will respect it, and it's a breakthrough.
×
×
  • Create New...