Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, EC said:

A nuclear strike. Which again should be directed at Iran.  To protect the United States,  Israel and the world from terrorism. 

But wouldn't the world just saved attack the US because of international conventions around first strike nuclear actions ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2024 at 4:52 PM, EC said:

A nuclear strike. Which again should be directed at Iran.  To protect the United States,  Israel and the world from terrorism. 

I don't agree, but then I'm sure you'd not be in line with a bargain struck with the Houthis. Which will be regarded, if only at the discussion stage, as a weakening of resolve by the equivocating West, the reward for Houthis committing terror attacks by sea and Hamas in Israel, and USA making concessions to Iran. It supports my criticism of the changing Admins, in turn, obstructing or aiding Israel in finding resolution to the Palestinian/ME problems - their own way - with the moral-diplomatic (and not overtly military) assistance of the US, e.g. Trump's salutary Abraham accords (that if fast-tracked by this Administration could have thwarted Iran's and its proxies' aggressive, regional ambitions). 

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/us-could-remove-houthis-from-terror-list-in-exchange-for-red-sea-quiet-report-795268

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 8:24 PM, whYNOT said:

I don't agree, but then I'm sure you'd not be in line with a bargain struck with the Houthis. Which will be regarded, if only at the discussion stage, as a weakening of resolve by the equivocating West, the reward for Houthis committing terror attacks by sea and Hamas in Israel, and USA making concessions to Iran. It supports my criticism of the changing Admins, in turn, obstructing or aiding Israel in finding resolution to the Palestinian/ME problems - their own way - with the moral-diplomatic (and not overtly military) assistance of the US, e.g. Trump's salutary Abraham accords (that if fast-tracked by this Administration could have thwarted Iran's and its proxies' aggressive, regional ambitions). 

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/us-could-remove-houthis-from-terror-list-in-exchange-for-red-sea-quiet-report-795268

 

Change your mind? Should have happened on 9/12, and with certainty needs to happen now or a totalitarian terrorist regime becomes "morally" sanctioned,  evil spreads exponentially, WW3 starts and civilization ceases to exist. 

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

nope

Well, allowing an evil terrorist dictatorship that supports almost all terrorism and a large percentage of the evil in the world to attack a semi-free nation regardless of how "successful" without immediately leveling that illegal dictatorship either with conventional weapons and/or nukes means every principle of a moral free society has been tossed out the windows and civilization has already fallen.  It will be an extremely short amount of time now until it completely falls into the abyss and ceases to exist. Evil/nihilism/immorality has now essentially won and the world's existence is now numbered and that number can likely be counted in mere days now as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, EC said:

Well, allowing an evil terrorist dictatorship that supports almost all terrorism and a large percentage of the evil in the world to attack a semi-free nation regardless of how "successful" without immediately leveling that illegal dictatorship either with conventional weapons and/or nukes means every principle of a moral free society has been tossed out the windows and civilization has already fallen.  It will be an extremely short amount of time now until it completely falls into the abyss and ceases to exist. Evil/nihilism/immorality has now essentially won and the world's existence is now numbered and that number can likely be counted in mere days now as a result. 

The Iranian mullahs and their regime are undoubtedly state sponsors of terrorism, ie Hezbollah, Hamas ect, but the current US administration has recently lessened sanctions against Iran that some have described as basically' giving Iran billions in cash' , true or truish does that make the US complicit in their sponsorship?

The US state department told Iran it would be best to inform Turkey of launching , what Iran calls reprisals for the attack on their embassy in Syria(?) that killed at least one senior Iranian military commander. The previous US admin killed an Iranian military official 'ex country' and admitted that they know the Iranians would retaliate will a strike but that the strike would be relatively 'minimal' and was allowed as an act of 'face saving'. So , basically, the big boys play at a game were strikes and counter strikes , tits for tats, are expected and warranted.

With Jordan seemingly siding with Israel in this particular 'tat' , it looks like something closer to an Abrahamic Accord thingy forming against Iran , than a prelude to doomsday, no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 3:24 PM, tadmjones said:

The Iranian mullahs and their regime are undoubtedly state sponsors of terrorism, ie Hezbollah, Hamas ect, but the current US administration has recently lessened sanctions against Iran that some have described as basically' giving Iran billions in cash' , true or truish does that make the US complicit in their sponsorship?

The US state department told Iran it would be best to inform Turkey of launching , what Iran calls reprisals for the attack on their embassy in Syria(?) that killed at least one senior Iranian military commander. The previous US admin killed an Iranian military official 'ex country' and admitted that they know the Iranians would retaliate will a strike but that the strike would be relatively 'minimal' and was allowed as an act of 'face saving'. So , basically, the big boys play at a game were strikes and counter strikes , tits for tats, are expected and warranted.

With Jordan seemingly siding with Israel in this particular 'tat' , it looks like something closer to an Abrahamic Accord thingy forming against Iran , than a prelude to doomsday, no ?

I understand that there are a million details, but the point is that the principle of allowing a totalitarian dictatorship that is the principle creator of virtually all terrorism in the world to exist and continue its actions against anyone at any time, let alone semi-free nations like Israel and our nation, regardless of how it can be "defended against" is appeasement of evil and is why it ( 😉 proof of hacking domestic terrorism as I type this out,  but don't derail) this has continued to occur and will continue to occur and get exponentially worse. Especially, a rights violating terrorist dictatorship like Iran potentially possessing nukes.  Peikoff wrote after 9/11 that "states" that support terrorism need to be ended,  we didn't do and things keep getting worse and will continue getting exponentially worse as a function of time.  Ending totalitarian dictatorships that are the source of terrorism, mass death, and evil,  while enslaving their own population while attempting to enslave and/or destroy the entire world is the only moral action especially when they start explicitly attacking semi-free free nations and/or threatening their existence not to mention the existence of the world itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 9:24 PM, tadmjones said:

 

With Jordan seemingly siding with Israel in this particular 'tat' , it looks like something closer to an Abrahamic Accord thingy forming against Iran , than a prelude to doomsday, no ?

The Saudis too

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/saudi-arabia-acknowledges-helping-defend-israel-against-iran-797201

"The best defense is offense", turned on its head. The exemplary manner in which the USN, USAF, the rest of the hasty coalition - and Israel's own defense systems responded, showed that robust defense plays a bigger role in modern war. The attack should have made plain Tehran's motives and methods to the world, how it operates through proxies sowing terror abroad, while playing the big innocent in diplomatic circles - and importantly, it will be less feared now by its neighbors. This stresses how swiftly the Abraham Accords must be revived. A consortium of "moderate" nations will feel more urgently empowered to escape Iran's grasp. The changes will adapt Palestinian minds to the new unity (feared by Iran) and proceed from there to serious negotiations with Israel. . ("Palestine", not the necessary *cause* and condition of M.E. peace, as Islamists and Israel-detractors have always deceitfully insisted - but an *effect* of peaceful national relations -- with Iran permanently cut out . . . 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2024 at 8:42 PM, EC said:

Well, allowing an evil terrorist dictatorship that supports almost all terrorism and a large percentage of the evil in the world to attack a semi-free nation regardless of how "successful" without immediately leveling that illegal dictatorship either with conventional weapons and/or nukes means every principle of a moral free society has been tossed out the windows and civilization has already fallen. 

Who is "allowing"?

I'll first point out that Iran was not consistently, economically, financially, morally and intellectually, diplomatically and militarily isolated by the West -- as was e.g. their treatment of Russia, rightly - during - the Cold War (not after). I trust world leaders have now learned to not try to placate, bargain with and bribe ideologically-evil regimes "to be good".

Nukes are out. Ground forces will not fare well invading that mountain terrain against a formidable army. .

I've reminded before, that whereas Rand wrote any free nation had the right to invade a country and overturn its dictatorial regime - and also added, in effect, a "right" was not to be taken to be a (self-sacrificial) duty. The last gets forgotten.

So leave it to Israel. Better (I think) the gvt. bides their time for now, and later hits a few Iranian military and nuclear installations. Israel has to live there and Israel must decide.

The emphasis on ~defense~ by the US presently is the right one, I believe. (While they and their partners will have to face up to and eliminate the seaward provocations in the Gulf, this international initiation of force).

For Israel: This is a long-term commitment, not about floating principles and the instant gratification of beating the foe.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, EC said:

I understand that there are a million details, but the point is that the principle of allowing a totalitarian dictatorship that is the principle creator of virtually all terrorism in the world to exist and continue its actions against anyone at any time, let alone semi-free nations like Israel and our nation, regardless of how it can be "defended against" is appeasement of evil and is why it ( 😉 proof of hacking domestic terrorism as I type this out,  but don't derail) this has continued to occur and will continue to occur and get exponentially worse. Especially, a rights violating terrorist dictatorship like Iran potentially possessing nukes.  Peikoff wrote after 9/11 that "states" that support terrorism need to be ended,  we didn't do and things keep getting worse and will continue getting exponentially worse as a function of time.  Ending totalitarian dictatorships that are the source of terrorism, mass death, and evil,  while enslaving their own population while attempting to enslave and/or destroy the entire world is the only moral action especially when they start explicitly attacking semi-free free nations and/or threatening their existence not to mention the existence of the world itself. 

Well said, @EC. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Who is "allowing"?

I'll first point out that Iran was not consistently, economically, financially, morally and intellectually, diplomatically and militarily isolated by the West -- as was e.g. their treatment of Russia, rightly - during - the Cold War (not after). I trust world leaders have now learned to not try to placate, bargain with and bribe ideologically-evil regimes "to be good".

Nukes are out. Ground forces will not fare well invading that mountain terrain against a formidable army. .

I've reminded before, that whereas Rand wrote any free nation had the right to invade a country and overturn its dictatorial regime - and also added, in effect, a "right" was not to be taken to be a (self-sacrificial) duty. The last gets forgotten.

So leave it to Israel. Better (I think) the gvt. bides their time for now, and later hits a few Iranian military and nuclear installations. Israel has to live there and Israel must decide.

The emphasis on ~defense~ by the US presently is the right one, I believe. (While they and their partners will have to face up to and eliminate the seaward provocations in the Gulf, this international initiation of force).

For Israel: This is a long-term commitment, not about floating principles and the instant gratification of beating the foe.

Yeah, because my position,  Dr. Peikoff's position, and Yaron Brooks position is a "floating" principle and the alternative has "worked" over the last 20+ years.  Oh yeah,  it hasn't and thousands have died, a dictatorship of evil has been appeased and passively had it's very immoral existence sanctioned when it has zero right to exist while enslaving its own citizens with the goal of enslaving the entire world and/or destroying it in the process while leaving the door open for the mass death of all 8 billion people on the planet.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EC said:

Yaron Brook states my position and the dependence *only* correct and moral position on this issue here. No other positions are true or of value. 

https://www.youtube.com/live/KyTjUFpzYaI?si=DOjBYuy9g7DCxOFS

Subsequent to Rand, authoritarianism/intrinsicism has caused divisiveness among Objectivists.

No, I don't take Brooks (or Peikoff) as 'the final word' (specifically, on applications - implementations of O'ism to reality).

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC said:

Yeah, because my position,  Dr. Peikoff's position, and Yaron Brooks position is a "floating" principle and the alternative has "worked" over the last 20+ years.  Oh yeah,  it hasn't and thousands have died...

You know what I'm reminded of? "The operation was successful but the patient died". :)

There's what happens when (total) context is dropped, and foreseeable consequences of actions ignored, and reality/real lives shoe-horned into pre-selected and usually inappropriate principles. 

I do not consider this is "acting on principles"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2024 at 12:09 PM, whYNOT said:

You know what I'm reminded of? "The operation was successful but the patient died". :)

There's what happens when (total) context is dropped, and foreseeable consequences of actions ignored, and reality/real lives shoe-horned into pre-selected and usually inappropriate principles. 

I do not consider this is "acting on principles"

The consequences were foreseeable and written in plain text by Objectivists right after 9/11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...