Christians have been traditionally well treated in Israel, but sadly there has been an uptick in anti-Christian activity lately. It seems to mostly come from the ultra-orthodox. Very sad, but many Jews are unlikely to be sympathetic due to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In any case maybe it'll work out for them.

“Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).

Because the Israeli cause isn't just, every action following it, is contaminated by that unjust cause. You cannot act ethically right in that case. In the case of the Palestinians, their cause is just but Hamas pursued it via unjust means. — Benkei

By "Israeli cause" you mean Israel's existence as a state, period? Is "Palestine" really for the Palestinians? Are they the original inhabitants? And the Jews are colonizers? Whose land is it really, Benkei?

So their actions are also unjust but they could, if they had used other means - for instance only attacking Israeli soldiers involved in the occupation - they would've been fully in their rights. — Benkei

This would be a huge step up from what happened on 10/7.

I get a sense that maybe you'll agree with my view that neither side can be expected to act in a completely rational manner here, after all the damage that has been done. Would you agree with that?

If so, what approach would you suggest going forward? — Tzeentch

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to.

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is? — Tzeentch

The moment Israel attained statehood it needed to defend itself in 1948. Without force there would be no state.

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine? — Tzeentch

Violence radicalizes, no doubt. But the Palestinians numbers have boomed. If Israel is trying to genocide them it has done a terrible job.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. That has been the case since the beginning. We can criticize the scale, but not the tool.And yes I have never denied the existence of ultranationalist elements. Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. — Benkei

Yes it is an ethnostate surrounded by Muslim nations. Just as the Muslims govern in a special way that promotes Islamic ideals, Israel perpetuates Jewish life and Jewish ideals. Israel absolutely values the lives of its own citizens above those of surrounding nations, but this hardly unique to Israel. We should keep in mind that Judaism is not a race. It is an ethnicity and a religion. You may not like the idea of a state with a religious/ethnic character but this is hardly unique to Israel.

I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. Or maybe I misunderstood you because the grammar. I've just never heard of the idea that Israel ought to be 100% Jewish and I don't see it in the Likud platform.

As to Hamas supporting a two state solution on paper... recent events make this irrelvant.

actual ethnic cleansing — Tzeentch

Ethnic cleansing. Genocide. One square inch of Israel on Muslim lands constitutes ethnic cleansing for a certain side. Excuse me if I sound jaded.

Since when has Hamas been in favor of a two state solution? In their charter they demand the annihilation of Israel. Where did Likud state that Israel should be entirely Jewish? This strikes me as a radical minority position.

What do you think "from the river to the sea" means? They wish to free it all from Israel. I think it's fairly straight forward.

"From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free"

It is a call for ethnic cleansing. The chanters do not wish to share the land; they wish to annex it all and subjugate the Jews under Muslim rule assuming there are any Jews still left alive. At best subjugation, at worst genocide.

When Israel expands its opponents call that ethnic cleansing, but the same standard is not applied when "Palestine" expands and Israel shrinks. The same people harping against the genocide of Palestinians eagerly support the genocide/subjugation of Israeli Jews with such chants.

One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! — frank

Do you think one day there will be Jewish presidents of Arab nations?

I see where you're coming from, frank. It's a nice idea. Unfortunately granting the Palestinians full Israeli citizenship just isn't feasible if Israel is looking to survive as a democratic, Jewish state. There have been periods where Israel has tried treating them nice but it's hard when your very existence drives a certain element of palestinian society to homicidal rage.

Armed resistance to occupation is legal and can be derived from every people's right to self-determination. — Tzeentch

Hamas, and many Palestinians, consider the existence ofany Jewish state in "Palestine" to be "occupation" of Arab lands. So I guess it's just endless fighting until Israel ceases to exist.

WW2 comparisons are pointless anyway — Tzeentch

1400 dead is the most Jews killed since the Holocaust, and then to have protests erupt around the world with anti-Semitic slogans being shouted ("gas the Jews" in Sydney) and the major uptick in anti-Semitism over the past 5-10 years leaves some of us worried.

I see your point about giving up using the word 'evil', but if anything I think that it is a word we should use with caution. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, I would agree. Part of the confusion is that some of us are using it in a more religious sense and others aren't. Evil in a religious sense is an interesting concept and has been written about extensively, but evil in just a normal, secular context is often used synonymously with "bad" which can be confusing. Honestly, in a non-religious context I'd just scrap the term entirely - a main point of language ought to be clarity, especially in philosophical discussion.

Okay. I prefer the precision of it. — 180 Proof

Alright, and that speaks to your psychology. I'd venture to say that most people don't quite share your intense predilection towards philosophical precision. Personally, under a non-theistic worldview I would find impassioned speeches and mass movements much, much more appealing - they appeal to the whole of the human as opposed to just the rational mind.

EDIT: Oh, and mass movements do tend to get things done and execute on plans as opposed to philosophers who are not the most active group out there.

I understand, but they're still complicit in the suffering and mental anguish of a neuroatypical person.

I just don't think regimes that do really bad things can be just labeled "good" (FDR goes well beyond the inevitably of doing some bad things as head of state because of lack of political capital) — Saphsin

I understand, and my intention going to this topic was never to specifically advocate for FDR or to defend him against all criticism. In any case, I don't disagree with anything you've said here philosophically but maybe our discussion could go in a more historical direction going back to an earlier claim:

FDR supported Mussolini and worked with racist-Southern Democrats to block anti-lynching laws. — Saphsin

FDR admired Italy's social programs and he may have admired Mussolini personally (any material you bring in here is welcome, I'm unsure as to FDR's exact attitude towards Mussolini), but this was between '33-'36 at which point Italy invaded Abyssinia and relations soured. I don't see anything wrong with FDR engaging with Italy in this period, and had FDR somehow been successful in swaying Italy over the Allies that would have saved us a lot of trouble.

On the anti-lynching bill, FDR personally regarded lynching as murder but according to his own words he needed the political support of southern democrats and pushing through the anti-lynching bill would have sabotaged his political capital with that group. If FDR is accurately representing the scenario that I can envision scenarios where he decision here is justified.

Sounds like "evil" is a case-by-case, "in the eye of the beholder," "I know it when I see it" prospect for you, BC, and not an applicable principle with explicit criteria? — 180 Proof

I'll engage with what you said earlier:

• In a religious context, of discourse, evil denotes disobeying (i.e. to willfully sin – rebel – against) "god".

• In a nonreligious / secular context, or discourse, evil amounts to ... indifference to, or inflicting, gratuitous harm that culminates in destroying moral agency. — 180 Proof

I mostly agree with your religious definition. We could dive a little further into different types of evil and it's nature but by and large what you're saying here is reasonable.

In a non-religious context we should probably just stop using the word "evil" since it's a confusing, religiously-grounded word and instead use descriptors like "bad" or "very bad." Regardless, I don't see any reason to prefer your definition over any number of other definitions assuming both are coherent.

So, in fact, "evil" can reach a point that an oppressive regime cannot be said to be "counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere". — 180 Proof

of course.

Your example of the FDR admininstration is that on-balance the worst one could say about the regime during WW2 is that it was 'very bad but not evil'. — 180 Proof

no, i would never describe the fdr regime during ww2 as "very bad, but not evil" because it's a terrible description. as long as you're not a nazi or pro-axis the fdr regime is a good during WWII. one can say that specific policies implemented by fdr were bad/oppressive, but the bigger picture is clear.

I guess if I were forced to answer, I would say FDR is less evil than Stalin, but I also don't find it a productive question. — Saphsin

the two aren't remotely in the same ballpark.

Stalin did so much evil that he's completely unredeemable. Stalin's hand was forced once the Germans attacked in '41 so it's not even like he made a heroic decision to fight at that point - he had to.

I was thinking more along the lines of FDR's decision to place Japanese-Americans into internment camps. That was clearly a bad decision and oppressive, but it would be unfair to stop historical analysis there and label the FDR administration as evil.

No, I don't believe that because oppressive policies in one area can be counterbalanced by good policy elsewhere. We also need to be on watch that the definition of evil isn't constantly being cheapened as this removes our ability to combat real evil.

Typical whataboutery of "everybody does it". Funny thing too, I said "regimes" in general and not "Israel" in particular. Why so defensive? Their oppressive policies are not "evil", y'know, like "everybody elses", are they? — 180 Proof

If we're talking about oppression in the broad sense then every regime oppresses - it's just a matter of nature and extent. Even if we remove regimes from the picture humans oppress; it's what we do - we accept some things and not others. I support others call out genuine injustice where it exists, but I will police tone and phrasing.

Every regime practices oppression. Every one of them. Apartheid is evil, but Israel is not apartheid. And if you want to condemn ethnic cleansing we can start with the Assyrians ethnically cleansing the Hebrews in 3000 BCE. The Jews have been the victims of ethnic cleansing countless times over their history, some only a generation back. It's really the Europeans who created this "whose land is whose" with their insistence on firm borders.

But lets not side track.

But, the question may be can we really eliminate evil? — Jack Cummins

No because evil is part of the human condition so the only real way to destroy evil would be to destroy humanity. The best we can do is contain and try to tame our demons; a problem arises when people consider themselves to be victims and consider their cause so just and noble that any means used to achieve it are justified via the utopian end. Certain people consider themselves outside the scope of traditional morality because they consider themselves so incredibly noble and intelligent that they can see the "big picture" and correctly do the utilitarian math so those regular, old boring rules don't apply to them.

Even if the US removed itself from foreign affairs entirely there'd still be plenty of legitimate grounds for criticism - from you and me both. My point is that the oppression doesn't stop and even if the US were to make huge concessions overseas we can still hurl any number of names at it for its domestic behavior. The US is just a troubled country, especially now, and I don't see how any politician or administration can immediately step in and solve these issues.

It's interesting how you have this conception of institutional guilt - the implication with you is that every US administration is seemingly responsible or accountable for every action taken by every previous administration and that all this guilt accumulates and seemingly never decreases (or is there a way?)

So yeah, going by that logic any established country or group is going to be more evil than whatever is newly spawned.

Ok, but presumably you don't think al-Qaeda or ISIS are the good guys. Is there a side that you support in ISIS vs the US? Is there any government or NGO that you actually like? Who are your heroes?

You keep saying that but Israel is worst on human rights from the three entities now named. Both in numbers and types of abuses. So you keep defending Israel despite it being worse than Hamas, the latter which you apparently find horrendously evil and bad since it's your go-to scapegoat. — Benkei

I don't believe Israel is objectively worse from a moral standpoint than Hamas. The US might have more human rights abuses than a smaller terrorist group -- is the US the bad guy in this case? Hamas' abuse is pervasive & ongoing towards the palestinian population and there's too many human rights abuses to count and it would be impossible to count them all. Hamas is also obviously a genocidal organization that strives for the elimination (or at least subjugation) of Israeli culture in the region, but I'm sure you know this. Hamas is a genocidal and racist organization but some of us still like to support them as they are the "under dogs."

The PA is obviously shitty, but Hamas is even worse on human rights. But yes, everyone oppresses the Palestinian people.

Finally, a place where atheists can gather and not be bothered by those stupid theists and their sky daddy. A place where science can be celebrated and ancient superstition shunned. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony God's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own intelligence.

Interesting discussion on laws and enforceability. In my home state of Massachusetts we have a number of antiquated laws that are technically on the books but are never enforced and it would take too much time and effort to remove them. Lawmakers have more important things to do.

In basic military training, wake up time is 4:45am and this rule is on the books and considered binding to recruits. However, it is an institutional norm (at least in the later weeks of basic training) for recruits to wake up before 4:45am to get a jump on the day and allow for better preparation. Drill sergeants turn a blind eye to this because it makes their lives easier (I would not mention this to them, however.) This practice was considered widespread when I went through.

So in some cases institutional norms precede rules/laws. After all humans run society, not words written on pieces of paper by people decades ago who would have likely agreed that practices can change over time and that their words are not to be considered eternal ritual.

Couple this with the fact that 'civility' is always the privilege of those who are not affected by issues - or at least are comfortable with them - it basically puts the ball in their court and keeps it there. — StreetlightX

Agree 100% and I want to re-post this for visibility.

I am rarely interested in coming to a conclusion on somebody else's intelligence or goodness. — Judaka

It's interesting you say that - I always try to gauge these things from people. I just won't engage someone in conversation seriously if I judge them to be low intelligence.

I also find goodness important to gauge and my judgment on someone's core decency will affect how I interact with them.

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. — Benkei

So here's where it gets interesting: Religious scripture here binds the Jewish people, and in this case the teaching is clear - one cannot deliver one's community to certain death. However, I suppose if the population in this case were not Jewish they'd be free to make that decision according to however that community decides (the choice would ideally be left to the community, not a council.) For the Jews, however, this is not a "you have your views and I have mine."

Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives. — Benkei

Yep, this was the logic employed as Lodz i.e. saving lives is paramount, and difficult sacrifices need to be made to preserve the greater whole. I believe that to be true honest secular humanistic logic and it likely saves the most lives.

https://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205375.pdf

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner? — Benkei

I fully understand that their decisions were not free. As unfortunate as it is, this is one of those cases where the leaders need to sacrifice themselves for their community -- that is real leadership. It would have been extremely honorable and it reminds me of the King of Denmark when he told the Nazis upon occupation that if the yellow star were made mandatory for Jews in his country he'd be the first to wear it.

I'm not aware of any explicit argument that Arendt makes but her tone is very clear in Eichmann in Jerusalem. I 100% understand that these men were in very difficult situations, and I also understand that the Holocaust was occurring regardless, but I do have to blame these men for assisting with the organization and deportation to what at the time was known to be certain death. I don't care how scared you are or how much you're trying to save the community in the long run -- there are just certain things you can't ever do, like rip a child from it's mothers arms to be shipped to its death (the fact that it was Jewish policemen often assisting with deportations is extremely disturbing.)

Even if the Nazis would have came in and done worse, you can't do evil yourself. There's an old rabbinic phrase that goes something like 'Let them kill you, but don't cross the line.'

It is possible that continuously giving in to the Devil was the "best" course of action here and maybe it extended people's survivability the longest, but I reject that world. I just can't bear it.

Then yeah, your conclusion follows from the logic: If you correctly, 100% understand the reality of the situation and all those stupid wrong people that keep insisting on civility when there's genocide and racism everywhere then they're pieces of shit and they need to shut up and get in line.

But I could do the same right back at you: Every government in the world is committing genocide against its minority populations and you need to STFU and get in line. I better not hear dissent. Burn everything down.

I feel like I could make the case for this one under your definition of genocide.

I agree with the OP I was just trying to take the discussion a little further.

If we want to address Israel then before we address that we need to address our conflicting conceptions of genocide and racism. I find your conception of genocide too broad. My objection is that, if I remember your definition correctly, it allowed for one to make the jump from 'X [assuming X is the stronger power] implements policies that undermine social institutions of Y [weaker] group' to 'X is essentially committing genocide against Y.' I find this conclusions carries absurd implications.

How so? A disagreement would normally occasion an attempt to refute the claim. Whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant to, well, the irrelevancy of tone policing. — StreetlightX

Refuting the claim would be very cumbersome and we wouldn't even be able to make it through the claim. For example, let's start with your first example: "Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land" if I were to seriously try to engage this I would stop you at the word "apartheid" and we would begin a detail comparison of both the apartheid system in South Africa and the current state of racial affairs in Israel. You and I also just disagree on what being a racist means.

Whether or not you agree or disagree is irrelevant to, well, the irrelevancy of tone policing. — StreetlightX

I do not agree with this.

"Israel is an apartheid state that regularly murders Palestinians and steals their land"

If you are correct, this is a very important fact and you're doing good by trying to spread it. If this is incorrect then it's very defamatory.

But, if you'd rather not waste time, then thanks for your posts they have been wonderful — StreetlightX

Are you being serious right now? :chin:

well, the response has missed the point. — StreetlightX

The responses "misses the point" only if the person agrees with you in regard to your last points -- the points you made about Israel and Rumsfeld. If I fully agreed with you there I wouldn't be condemning you for incivility I'd say you were just stating a fact.

I know from a psychological standpoint that it makes no sense to engage an opponent who's not going to be civil. I'm not going to waste my time.

Sure, let's see how political or philosophical discourse occurs without civility. Mods, do we have the green light here to drop civility? Streetlight, you have an idea here - do you want to try it out?

Why? The issue effects you as well. If transwomen (whether with or without a penis) are not allowed in women's changing rooms then they'll be in men's changing rooms. And transmen (whether with or without a vagina) want to use men's changing rooms. — Michael

Then maybe a third changing room might be plausible? I can 100% understand why transwomen wouldn't want to be in men's locker rooms.

Transmen in men's changing rooms are not the same as transwomen in women's changing rooms for reasons beyond my control. Somehow you never really hear of transmen traumatizing men with their vaginas in changing rooms.

And if little girls and boys can get traumatised from just seeing genitalia maybe people need to reconsider what they are teaching kids about sex in the first place. Especially in a spa, which tend to be mixed in the Netherlands anyways, nakedness isn't sexual. I suppose if you're an upstuck Jesus freak this sort of thing will scar you for life but we can squarely blame the parents for that. — Benkei

Then the problem is Judeo-Christian morality, but good luck convincing America of that. What is the replacement value system here, by the way? Do we know of an alternative framework we should be shifting to here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWgnepX54Lg

^A real life situation where a black woman along with other women encounter a transwoman with a penis in a spa changing room and start complaining to management.

I feel really bad for that receptionist because you know it's not her who makes the rules here. In any case, the moment you pull the "we're protecting little girls" line it's no longer an argument, it's an order. Can anyone honestly watch that video and tell me that they'd do any better than the white man who tries to confront the anti-trans black woman? The message is clear: Some portion of women want trans women out of their intimate spaces, and we need to balance acceptance for trans folk against concerns like the one made in the video.

I can't help but think that as a man I'm entitled to less of an opinion on this issue than a woman.

Can anyone tell me the correct philosophical response to: "You're traumatizing my little girls."