@BitconnectCarlos @tim wood @RogueAI

A brief discussion about the new Jewish-American documentary "Israelism" ...


addendum to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847621

Yes, but if we refer to the diaspora of the Jews across the world, we are talking about the ethno-religious group,

Yes this is the group I was referring to. The Jewish people as a whole, an ethno-religious group. If I were referring to the aggressors in Israel I would likely say Zionist, or Netanyahu’s government.

10,000 children slaughtered and counting.

More than 10,000 children have been killed in Gaza since October 7, Hamas-run health ministry says
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-17-24/h_257bdc236b13560cf82166ffb89b8a22

You think the Hamas-run health ministry is credible?

Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding.

Yes, and have been shown to be numerous times.

They’re most likely underestimates, as it takes time to confirm. I’m sure it’s well over 12000 at this point. I’m being deliberately conservative.

Dumb. As usual. — Benkei

The only thing dumb is your remark about the video(s). Which inclines me to believe the fellow who makes them, in all of his videos that you are so dismissive of, is making good points. I myself am not in a position to verify them, but they seem about right.

Do you think the Israeli numbers are credible? I would hazard neither can be trusted. But I also find it extremely hard to think the numbers aren't at least in that neighbourhood given the disparity in both technology and funding. — AmadeusD

Both have vested interests in manipulating the data. That being said, I'm sure thousands of children have been killed.

Yes this is the group I was referring to. The Jewish people as a whole, an ethno-religious group. If I were referring to the aggressors in Israel I would likely say Zionist, or Netanyahu’s government. — Punshhh

:up:

It seems about right to you because you're dumb. There has been plenty of discussion about war and annexation of land in this thread, which is the crime of aggression under international law. That you then post a fucking tiktok style video as a sort of argument, is indeed fucking dumb.

The only thing dumb is your remark about the video(s). Which inclines me to believe the fellow who makes them, in all of his videos that you are so dismissive of, is making good points. I myself am not in a position to verify them, but they seem about right. — tim wood

So the basic message of that video: once you have war, then you can steal land. :roll:

Well, in order for that to be successful in acquiring land through war in the present, not only should you have a) a peace deal where the loser admits the transfer of territory and b) international recognition of your new land borders.

And as we know, both a) and b) are difficult for Israel.

I suspect that the Israeli government is looking to reduce the number of children in Gaza. By dropping mines that resemble cans of food on a starving population.

https://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1749801408566583732?s=20

It seems about right to you because you're dumb. There has been plenty of discussion about war and annexation of land in this thread, — Benkei

It has been my impression that much of the many pages of this discussion has been about cherry-picking the history, even thousands of years of it. By which process pretty much anything can be proved. My own view is that sometimes history need not be consulted, that sometimes an event is sufficient in itself for all purposes, and I hold the events of 7 October to have made that just such a day. And it seems reasonable to me that the Israelis should in response seek the destruction of Hamas. And by reasonable I mean susceptible to reason and in particular not to be properly resolved by knee-jerk faux and misplaced compassion. Ranting may feel good, but as with other exercises of personal pleasure, is most seemly kept private.

As to waging war to take land being illegal, no complaints here, but what exactly then were the purposes of Israel's enemies in attacking Israel as many times as they have?

I'm dumb but you're smart. Tell us then what in your well-considered opinion is the purpose of the Palestinians, at least as expressed by their government - no doubt individuals might express an entire spectrum of desires. That is, what, exactly, do you say they want? And what, exactly - same exercise - do you say the Israelis should do?

Two sentences from you should suffice. Are you up to it?

So the basic message of that video: once you have war, then you can steal land. — ssu

Are you arguing here that the Israelis start wars against their neighbors in order to take their land?

Hamas isn't the Palestine state, just like Hezbollah isn't Lebanon. — ssu

Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza and were voted in democratically. If elections were held in the WB, Hamas would win. I want to believe that Hamas is not the voice of the palestinians, but they quite likely are.

Even the "moderate" PLO has the martyr fund where they pay families of those martyrs who kill Jews.

I'm not wasting my time on an apologist like you. We've gone through this 3 years ago and again 2 years ago. Get brain surgery or something if you keep forgetting everything.

This is more or less where I sit, fwiw. I can't possibly know what numbers are accurate, but it seems pretty wild to think that it's just not happening something like how it's reported from either side.

Given your invective and nonresponse, I accuse you of things too terrible to mention here, but that seem obvious given your inability/unwillingness to do anything else but blame Israelis for basically defending their own lives. On planet earth only one people is routinely disqualified from that right, and only one kind of person so disqualifies them.

@Benkei

Just a note - from a third party - you are both now not talking about anything but that you are having negative emotional reactions to each other. I would suggest perhaps either resetting to a position in whcih you can both speak about where you are disagreeing, instead of yelling at each other, or agreeing to part ways without such intense personal negativity.

I hope not to see fall-outs like this on a forum like this. I'm sure the basic notion we all hold is trying to avoid needless suffering. I may be hte wrong person to be making this call given my commitment to relativism, but that aside, I am well-aware of the practical need for shared values and language.

Could we return to somethign resembling a discussion instead of a primal argument? If this seems a bit high-falutin' i'm sorry. I just don't like seeing people losing humanity over an already-immeasurable loss of humanity :\

I would love to have a discussion with you but gave up on tim 2 years ago. He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76.

Asking me to again set out my position is disingenuous from him. Not only have a recently explained it again I've engaged him enough in this thread in the past. But you're right. I should just ignore him.

I appreciate your sentiment to me, and I feel the same.

It's just that i'm sure you're capable of not devolving into pissing matches. It may well be the case that Tim is ideologically blinded, and is being disingenuous and wasting your time. I'm addressing hte general vibe and cordiality. I know this is a political discussion so a wide berth is given. This is just a personal appeal.

I should just ignore him. — Benkei

If that's what's needed, that might be the go.

I would love to have a discussion with you but gave up on tim 2 years ago. He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76. — Benkei

I scrolled through p. 76 twice. didn't find you there. Try again? And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?

I scrolled through p. 76 twice. didn't find you there. Try again? And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap? — tim wood

People in such political threads, even mods, often forget that we are in a philosophy forum and at the very least philosophical investigation goes along with not taking one's own OBVIOUS truths for granted. So one can't possibly think to score points by venting their frustration at interlocutors when they bring up arguments that question their obvious truths. It's not matter of not losing humanity, it's matter of what one takes to be a philosophical investigation as applied also to political issues, I'd say especially to political issues (think of Socrates' philosophy in a period of democratic turmoil and how it ended up). Philosophical investigation is not an ideological/moral/emotional contest. It's about investigating and question our core reasons for our beliefs.

And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?

We have to wade through propaganda, vested interests, media control and bias and try to remain unbiased ourselves.

In the literature it's known as "the hard problem of calling the Jews".

Yes, are we getting to the nub of the issue here?

Are we dealing with a traumatised psyche, not just of the Jewish people, but of civilisation as a whole. Why is the concept of genocide so worrying? It must have happened many times in prehistory, prior to modern civilisation.

He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.

Edit: check page 76. — Benkei

That page is simply proof where you yourself admit you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say I specifically spoke to you then now did I? Try again.

Are we dealing with a traumatised psyche, not just of the Jewish people, but of civilisation as a whole. Why is the concept of genocide so worrying? It must have happened many times in prehistory, prior to modern civilisation. — Punshhh

This issue (the word "genocide" was coined by a Jew and arguably an ardent Zionist http://www.aapjstudies.org/index.php?id=110) touches on several Western core assumptions, the first ones that come to mind: universal right to life and freedom, universal right to national self-determination, fight against ignorance and error (e.g. racial prejudices), land ownership, international legal order, jus in bello, democracy (to what extent does Netanyahou represents the Jews?). All these core assumptions deserve to be investigated and questioned as applied also to the conflict we are discussing. They all are potential sources of mystification.

We have to wade through propaganda, vested interests, media control and bias and try to remain unbiased ourselves. — Punshhh

The first thing I would do, it's not to give for granted my understanding of their meaning. So I will ask myself: how would I identify and discriminate "propaganda", "vested interest", "media control", "bias" wrt what it is not "propaganda", "vested interest", "media control", "bias" in concrete cases? Does my interlocutor share my understanding of such notions? If my understanding of such notions is not clear enough and differs enough from my interlocutors' understanding of such notions, then we will likely fail to understand each other while discussing topics that presuppose a shared understanding of such notions. And this is very common in heated political debates like this one.

Are you arguing here that the Israelis start wars against their neighbors in order to take their land? — tim wood

Well, we do generally call the 1967 war a "pre-emptive strike" by Israel, hence it started that war. And it was that war where the occupied territories were taken by Israel, which was condemned by the UN security council, including the US. So with that said, it appears so.

Yes, it gave back the land it took from Egypt after a peace deal (btw. Israel had already started building settlements there too, hence used the similar tactic in Sinai too). But then again, similar issue is at hand would be the two-state solution. Something that actually the Palestinians would be OK with.

So if your going to disprove that, good luck rewriting history!

If elections were held in the WB, Hamas would win. I want to believe that Hamas is not the voice of the palestinians, but they quite likely are. — BitconnectCarlos

I think especially because of the "Operation Swords of Iron", nobody has in mind the peace process anymore.

The only way I see a negotiated settlement (or anything like that) coming out of this is if simply attitudes would change in the US and Israel would find it's situation similar to white South Africa. But that's hardly going to happen anytime soon, so the war continues. But I guess it can happen.