Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[Craig24]

14 minutes ago, EC said:

why can't the long-term solution be for these groups to learn to respect the individual rights of one another and drop any form of tribalism

The word "solution" implies an ability to make them learn respect for rights.  You think that's actually possible?

[Easy Truth]

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

That's fine but you must show me what Israel is doing wrong here.  Hamas has openly stated they exist to destroy Israel.  Hamas backs that stated intent in action (terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians).  Israel is left with two options:  Destroy Hamas (risking collateral damage) or take no action and be destroyed by Hamas.  If you see a third option that secures Israel from future attacks that somehow leaves Palestinians unharmed I'm all ears.   

Keep in mind the PLO wanted the destruction of Israel too, but the PLO was negotiated with. They were awful terrorists too. They changed. And of course, Israel was also created through terrorism against the British.

Assuming Hamas were a pathological organization that would attack civilians at random without any provocation, then it would be a simple choice. It has to be destroyed. But if the process to destroy them will create a permanent state of war, negotiation ought to happen. 

If the choice was as simple as "destroy Hamas or don't" it would be simple but the action by Israel right now will not destroy Hamas. Hamas has to be destroyed internally by the Palestinians themselves.

Hamas, as a resistance organization, is allowing for Palasteninans to be "heard" the only way possible, it is getting a reaction. If in the future, Palestinians are consistently ignored, this organization will live on as an option for Palestinians. In other words, the enemy has to be heard and a non-violent dialog created, otherwise, war is their only way of communicating.

Is the invasion of Gaza a temper tantrum of the Israeli community or a well-thought-out plan ahead? Is there a method to the madness? Will this invasion of Gaza destroy Hamas? Will this massive destruction and loss of life be remembered by Palestineans as a lesson to not be heinous again, or as a focal point of hate ingrained in their history?

If one can make the case that the current invasion will create harmonious communication, then the validity of the "eternal war" may have some legs. But Hamas is being Martyred, with many giving their lives for their people, so they will have more staying power. Israel in a sense has fallen into their trap. The choices are not simply to destroy Hamas or take no action.

[Eiuol]

16 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

You absolutely must always respect the rights of those trying to harm you.

Or more specifically, they still maintain their rights, but because they initiated force, it isn't a violation of their rights to respond with self-defense. For whatever reason, people supportive of individual rights like to argue that people "lose" their rights if they initiate force. But that's not true. And anyway, it's not as if Palestinians are equivalent to Hamas! 

 

[EC]

8 hours ago, Craig24 said:

The word "solution" implies an ability to make them learn respect for rights.  You think that's actually possible?

"Make them", as in force minds? Absolutely not. Teach people and spread the correct ideas. Help people understand that the "terrorist wars" are against *militant* Islam (and their supporters directly and culturally with all that entails) and not some specific religion, like Islam itself, or something. Perfectly possible? Probably not, at least quickly, but imagine something like Japan even after they had to be nuked to end WWII. The average citizens very quickly accepted a much more free society with better pro-liberty ideas and put them into practice and became one of the more successful rights respecting nations to this day. And WWII was a long ass time ago, my Grandpa who died at 90 nearly three years ago told me that he was only 14 when the war ended (not that I don't know the actual dates but just to put the amount of time in a more human perspective of time since that war). 

By the way, obviously eliminating Hamas is just, but, just like after 9/11 , the best option is to take the head off the snake itself, and the main target both then and now should have been and should be Iran. No Iran equals no Iranian funded and directed proxy wars.

Edited December 12, 2023 by EC

[whYNOT]

20 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

 

This is false. You absolutely must always respect the rights of those trying to harm you. An entire body of criminal law exists to protect the rights of criminals and the accused. It carefully delineates what kinds of actions are justifiable or unjustifiable in the course of bringing a criminal to justice.

This is not some courtesy granted out of pity or mercy, but a basic foundation of justice.

Preempting all possible future threats is neither a necessary nor possible nor morally justifiable course of action.

 

Dunno what "rights" playbook you refer to, but it's not the O'ist political-individualist one.

Someone comes to harm you, they abnegate their rights. You, on the other hand, retain the right in justice, to physically defend yourself (to death, if necessary)--until/unless the police arrive and take over. The Gvt holds the monopoly on retaliatory force, and thereafter is bound by due process and the (delineated) rights of the arrested-accused. I.e. "Justice".

This "crime" was committed in broad daylight in front of many witnesses/victims and numbers of video recordings and statements of intent , leaving no doubt about the identity and guilt of the "accused".

You mix up "human" rights with the "rights" of an enemy force that came to harm your citizens. The Gvt. -  must - without equivocation - defend its citizens to remove the danger and prevent further harm, conducting the selfsame retaliation back to the source, into enemy territory to overthrow the regime's leaders, if they deem it essential. 

If (e.g. Hamas) has not a care about their own citizens' lives and "human" rights, in fact, welcome numerous deaths for vile purposes, they are not just legally complicit, they are morally responsible for their deaths --when a clearly stronger country (Israel) retaliates to an initiation of force.

One might relate Hamas' acts and the predictable outcome to the colloquial "suicide by cop". 

To say again, Hamas knew with 100% certainty what the consequences would be - many dead Gazans. Likely, they underestimated the intensity of Israel's response and assumed the international community, as on every occasion previously, would pressure Israel to curtail the war.  For that mistake the terrorist entity will most likely cease to exist in Gaza.

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

It would appear the consensus is Israel must commit self-immolation in order to preserve "humanitarian" sentiments.

Rather be ethnically-cleansed than risk being seen as "the genociders".

This is also the central message on socialist websites. 

Rather Israel should "go" - than the Palestinians/Gazans begin to wake up to their reality. And learn to take value in their own lives. Learn to get past their hatred and envy of Jews. 

The rational aspirations for proper freedoms will not be stopped by Israelis, conversely - the Palestinians would be aided and financed in finding their independence. It would be a relief to Israel. But not the PLO nor Hamas wanted that.

Whatever the faults of Israel, the "faults" of the Palestinians and their leaders, is evidently on another level.

So double standards are rife.

But "equal" legitimacy -and value of life - of the respective regimes and governments and societies predominates.

Such self-sacrificial evasions promoted on an Objectivist forum, I am surprised.  I will try to put it down to lack of knowledge and the shock of images and statistics of war and why you don't start one, or (by diplomacy means) allow one to start -- ever--until directly attacked or threatened.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Or more specifically, they still maintain their rights, but because they initiated force, it isn't a violation of their rights to respond with self-defense. For whatever reason, people supportive of individual rights like to argue that people "lose" their rights if they initiate force. But that's not true. And anyway, it's not as if Palestinians are equivalent to Hamas! 

 

Rights come from one's right to "freedom of action".

But your attacker must be permitted - by you - his freedom of action to hurt or kill you?

Ridiculous contradiction. He lost his right by starting the act of violence.

Edited December 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

3 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

But your attacker must be permitted - by you - his freedom of action to hurt or kill you?

You forgot to finish the sentence, where I say that it isn't a violation of their rights if you respond with self-defense. They aren't losing anything since you are not initiating force. It's not okay to respond with force because they lost their rights, what makes it okay is that you have the right to self-defense when somebody initiates force against you. 

[EC]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You forgot to finish the sentence, where I say that it isn't a violation of their rights if you respond with self-defense. They aren't losing anything since you are not initiating force. It's not okay to respond with force because they lost their rights, what makes it okay is that you have the right to self-defense when somebody initiates force against you. 

Exactly. And not that it completely applies in the specific context of this war but force can be implicit also. Crimes, spying, hacking, mass intimidation, harassment and stalking via collusion,  property theft and destruction, destroying a citizen's ability to live and survive via interference, negative lies and false rumors while sabotaging work and connections. All of these and more especially when done secretly and via mass collusion are initiations of force and require self-defense both legally and morally until the government brings the people involved to justice and/or refuses or worse yet is directly involved in the mass crimes and sanctions, directs, and participates in the crimes while everyone is gaslighting and pretending that it isn't happening.

[tadmjones]

By no Iran we would mean no Iranian regime headed by Islamic fundamentalists, yeah?

Various Israeli and Iranian regimes have had more allied positions toward each other in the past. Even after the Iranian revolution Israel provided aid to Iran in their war with Iraq.

[EC]

43 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

By no Iran we would mean no Iranian regime headed by Islamic fundamentalists, yeah?

Various Israeli and Iranian regimes have had more allied positions toward each other in the past. Even after the Iranian revolution Israel provided aid to Iran in their war with Iraq.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/end-states-who-sponsor-terrorism/ and a ton of others if you search. As an Objectivist on an Objectivist forum one should expect that my views are identical.

[EC]

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2023/12/israel-is-not-morally-required-to-sacrifice-its-people-to-save-gazan-civilians/

This is also an excellent overview with the site containing much more on these subjects with a search.

Again, regurgitating tons of well-written articles and analysis on these subjects just causes everything to get lost in "translation" and/or misinterpreted when it should simply be assumed that an Objectivist/Capitalist on an Objectivist forum simply shares and endorses material from official Objectivist and Capitalist sources without any changes or distortions. In fact, the only place my views would differ from standard ideas would be in regards to physics and only to eliminate contradictions while allowing for proven quantum physics and gravity principles and Objectivist principles to exist together with no contradictions, as they must and do.

[tadmjones]

I don’t recall any Objectivist treatises on physics, do you mean interpretations of quantum physics published by self identified ‘Objectivists’?

And by the same token do you mean you take your standards of foreign policy from Rand’s interpretation of specific events or accept statements of standards from self identified O’ist uncritically, especially as they delineate specific events?

Perhaps O’ist forums are not places for discussion , debate , just a search space for the ‘correct’ positions?

[EC]

10 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I don’t recall any Objectivist treatises on physics, do you mean interpretations of quantum physics published by self identified ‘Objectivists’?

And by the same token do you mean you take your standards of foreign policy from Rand’s interpretation of specific events or accept statements of standards from self identified O’ist uncritically, especially as they delineate specific events?

Perhaps O’ist forums are not places for discussion , debate , just a search space for the ‘correct’ positions?

I mean the leaning towards classical mechanics over advanced modern physics of most Objectivists is all.

And, as to the second point, all I'm saying is that I individually arrived at all the same conclusions on all of these concrete issues and fully agree with them, not was somehow influenced by them "uncritically" after the fact. All I'm saying is that the articles and source materials are professionally written and edited for publication while presenting the same information and ideas in a better format than spur-of-the-moment off-hand remarks written quickly on a phone, etc.

Discussion is fine obviously as long as it's centered around Objectivist principles, and people are asking intelligent honest questions about issues in the context of appropriate Objectivist replies and not implicitly nor explicitly promoting anti-Objectivist ideas of any type. "Debates" with those of non-Objectivist views are supposed to be limited only to the moderated "Debate Forum" and require strict moderation as per the rules of this site when GC created it and developed the forum rules over time.

That said, I'm not here to debate you either nor justify myself to you, so move on. I just find it extremely insulting that you would believe that Objectivists in the context of an Objectivist forum would either hold non-Objectivist views or somehow arrived at the same conclusions as the professional New Intellectuals, and in some manner didn't arrive at the same conclusions independently via the application of principles and ideas via the usage of reason instead of some sort of "parroting" that you are irrationally implying without reason nor evidence.

[SpookyKitty]

15 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If (e.g. Hamas) has not a care about their own citizens' lives and "human" rights, in fact, welcome numerous deaths for vile purposes, they are not just legally complicit, they are morally responsible for their deaths --when a clearly stronger country (Israel) retaliates to an initiation of force.

Let me ask you this, if some crazy Israeli citizen committed a terrorist attack on US soil and ran away back to Tel Aviv, does the US have the right to nuke Israel?

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by SpookyKitty

[whYNOT]

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You forgot to finish the sentence, where I say that it isn't a violation of their rights if you respond with self-defense.

And how, it isn't a violation of their rights! But it stops short. 

The poster's original statement: "You must absolutely always respect the rights of those trying to harm you".

A bizarre misinterpretation. As the victim of an attack, it is your "moral imperative" [Rand] to defend yourself, and -- as far as you're concerned --you will not have a remaining iota of respect for his rights, he has renounced them.

Rights are not held (or granted) by the government; Gvts exist only for their protection. One's *respect* for others' rights is like an unspoken compact, individual-to-individual.

Individual rights are absolute - while one's respect for a specific person's rights, may not always be absolute. 

 

[EC]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

Let me ask you this, if some crazy Israeli citizen committed a terrorist attack on US soil and ran away back to Tel Aviv, does the US have the right to nuke Israel?

 

You're falsely equivocating an individual's criminal attack with state sponsored terrorism, so aren't even asking a valid question. But *any* state or proxy that supports and engages in terrorism negates its "right" to exist and is opening itself to complete destruction whenever a rights respecting nation decides it is in its best interest do to its nature and purpose of protecting the individual rights of its citizens (in this case specifically, the right to life).

[whYNOT]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

Let me ask you this, if some crazy Israeli citizen committed a terrorist attack on US soil and ran away back to Tel Aviv, does the US have the right to nuke Israel?

 

See, this mode exposes the wrongful thinking and altruist doctrine of Israel's critics;

This operation in Gaza is not about vindictive punishment and payback. This is how - they - think.

No, its major purpose is ending an ongoing and future menace.

(besides the point, a Hamas leader swore weeks back, their Oct attack was the beginning of more).

What the critics ~say~ they want:

a "proportionate" response from Israel, and no further. Hamas killed xyz Israelis, lsrael should have stopped there also.

These excess casualty numbers signify genocide! *

An eye for an eye has penetrated even the secular leftists. Who believe war is like a football match with set rules.

What many of the critics ~actually~ want:

Hamas to survive to be able to keep assaulting Israel .

*Noted by observers and me, crowds were massing around the world yelling about Israel committing genocide, in that short lull ~ a few days before~ Israel even attacked. No Gazan casuaties at that point. The timing of the global propaganda campaign vilifying "Zionists", i.e. Jews, designed in advance and orchestrated by Islamists was a little premature. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by whYNOT

[SpookyKitty]

32 minutes ago, EC said:

You're falsely equivocating an individual's criminal attack with state sponsored terrorism, so aren't even asking a valid question. But *any* state or proxy that supports and engages in terrorism negates its "right" to exist and is opening itself to complete destruction whenever a rights respecting nation decides it is in its best interest do to its nature and purpose of protecting the individual rights of its citizens (in this case specifically, the right to life).

So your answer is that, yes, the US does have the right to nuke Israel if an Israeli terrorist attacks it?

19 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

See, this mode exposes the wrongful thinking and altruist doctrine of Israel's critics;

This operation in Gaza is not about vindictive punishment and payback. This is how - they - think.

No, its major purpose is ending an ongoing and future menace.

(besides the point, a Hamas leader swore weeks back, their Oct attack was the beginning of more).

What the critics ~say~ they want:

a "proportionate" response from Israel, and no further. Hamas killed xyz Israelis, lsrael should have stopped there also.

These excess casualty numbers signify genocide! *

An eye for an eye has penetrated even the secular leftists. Who believe war is like a football match with set rules.

What many of the critics ~actually~ want:

Hamas to survive to be able to keep assaulting Israel .

*Noted by observers and me, crowds were massing around the world yelling about Israel committing genocide, in that short lull ~ a few days before~ Israel even attacked. No Gazan casuaties at that point. The timing of the global propaganda campaign vilifying "Zionists", i.e. Jews, designed in advance and orchestrated by Islamists was a little premature. 

Well, congratulations on taking down that ridiculous strawman, but you still haven't answered my original question.

[EC]

19 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

So your answer is that, yes, the US does have the right to nuke Israel if an Israeli terrorist attacks it?

Well, congratulations on taking down that ridiculous strawman, but you still haven't answered my original question.

No, you just dropped context and equivocated again while ignoring me stating that your question is completely invalid. Lone criminal act versus state sponsored terrorism.

Done with this conversation, do your homework and read through the legitimate sources supplied and then ask legitimate questions based on your new understanding or this conversation is essentially pointless.

[SpookyKitty]

10 minutes ago, EC said:

No, you just dropped context and equivocated again while ignoring me stating that your question is completely invalid. Lone criminal act versus state sponsored terrorism.

No, my question is not invalid, that's just your (incorrect) opinion. I'm not equivocating anything since I never stated and do not believe that acts of individual terrorism are the same as acts of state sponsored terrorism. Your mere stating that a question is invalid doesn't make it so.

I am simply asking you whether or not individual acts of terrorism are sufficient to justify a nuclear strike.

Edited December 12, 2023 by SpookyKitty

[tadmjones]

The Israeli government at one time allowed Hamas to form or allowed them to move into Gaza as a political tool that would be useful internally and internationally in ultimately ending a ‘two state solution’ solution. 

Do those actions qualify as state sponsored terrorism?

I am not making an argument that is necessarily the case , just trying to apply the rigidity of the moral standard to a particular.

Edited December 12, 2023 by tadmjones

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

you will not have a remaining iota of respect for his rights, he has renounced them.

This is incorrect though, you shouldn't cease to respect their rights. You responded as if respecting their rights would mean you would have to forgo self-defense. I can see why you would think that SK meant some kind of self sacrificial action. So I posted to clarify. And then SK liked my post, suggesting that my added clarification was the correct interpretation. If you want to talk about what Rand thought, she has never spoken about anyone losing rights, not even people who have violated rights. 

A person may try to harm me in some way, but the fact that they want to harm does not itself mean they lose all rights whatsoever. You still can't initiate force against them. In the context of this discussion, Palestinians are not categorically without rights, and if any Palestinians want harm in some vague way doesn't give Israel free reign. Against Hamas, sure, since they explicitly call for the initiation of force for the sake of Islamic fundamentalism. 

50 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

I am simply asking you whether or not individual acts of terrorism are sufficient to justify a nuclear strike.

It's a pretty good question actually. Since the claim is stated that any act of retaliation is justified, it makes sense to go to the extreme. Nuclear strike on one person, with millions of casualties of people who did nothing at all. That's absurd, so you would have to modify the original claim to be that there is some rational limit to what kind of collateral damage is justified.

It's pretty common that the reaction to reductio ad absurdum is "that conclusion is ridiculous, you're taking me out of context, that's not what I meant, your question is invalid because of how ridiculous it is!"   

[EC]

4 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

No, my question is not invalid, that's just your (incorrect) opinion. I'm not equivocating anything since I never stated and do not believe that acts of individual terrorism are the same as acts of state sponsored terrorism. Your mere stating that a question is invalid doesn't make it so.

I am simply asking you whether or not individual acts of terrorism are sufficient to justify a nuclear strike.

I didn't merely state that it is invalid I explained it is invalid because you equivocated two completely different contexts, one was an individual acting alone in a criminal act versus an instance of state sponsored terrorism and then asked a question based on that false equivocation. That *reason* is what makes it an invalid question, not that "I stated it", i.e. pointed out the fallacy that makes it invalid. 

*If* in some bizarro world that doesn't exist Israel supported a terrorist strike on the US then of course the US would have the right of retaliation to protect American citizens from the threat. But again that wasn't your question, your question was about a lone individual without any support from anyone else, let alone the nation they happened to be a citizen of, would require a retaliatory response against the country wasn't involved in the crime. With the answer being of course not. These are two completely different contexts requiring two completely different government responses. It doesn't matter where an individual's origin country is if they are committing what is a crime if it was truly just their self with no outside support of their government. That is a crime committed by that individual not their government. It's when their government supports, endorses, is a part of causing or directly engaging in that requires a response against that nation. Two completely different situations and contexts, and again, not just because "I stated it to be so" but because they are.

Edited December 13, 2023 by EC

[SpookyKitty]

2 hours ago, EC said:

I didn't merely state that it is invalid I explained it is invalid because you equivocated two completely different contexts, one was an individual acting alone in a criminal act versus an instance of state sponsored terrorism and then asked a question based on that false equivocation. That *reason* is what makes it an invalid question, not that "I stated it", i.e. pointed out the fallacy that makes it invalid.

Please provide textual evidence of where I did this. It seems to me that this ephemeral equivocation exists only in your head, i.e., is a totally unjustified assumption about my argument that you made and does not exist in reality.

Quote

*If* in some bizarro world that doesn't exist Israel supported a terrorist strike on the US then of course the US would have the right of retaliation to protect American citizens from the threat. But again that wasn't your question, your question was about a lone individual without any support from anyone else, let alone the nation they happened to be a citizen of, would require a retaliatory response against the country wasn't involved in the crime. With the answer being of course not. These are two completely different contexts requiring two completely different government responses. It doesn't matter where an individual's origin country is if they are committing what is a crime if it was truly just their self with no outside support of their government. That is a crime committed by that individual not their government. It's when their government supports, endorses, is a part of causing or directly engaging in that requires a response against that nation.

Good. Then we agree. The crimes of an individual are not automatically the crimes of his government or his countrymen. How then is the US going to keep itself safe from such hypothetical Israeli terrorists if it has no right to attack Israel?