The problem with people using children as the face of victimhood here ignores the facts I pointed out earlier.
People are having more children they can afford and more than the land can house for often ideological reasons to outnumber the other side.

You can't just have loads of children and blame all their problems on someone else.

"Does Abu Talal not worry about bringing children into such a world?

"No, because if I lose 200 of my grandchildren, I will still have 200 left.""

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10475261

I think most would agree that the conditions under which Israel attained statehood were far from ideal. I heard that part of the reason the process was rushed was that the Jewish population at the time was facing a large amount of displaced Jews from Arab countries and they needed a central governing body. In any case I think your approach is right: What's done is done, and we need to be looking at the future to best deal with the situation. At the end of the day the statehood comes down to security and logistics, and sure some case can be made about ancient claims and ancient ties but many will surely be unconvinced here.

I think it's clear that Jews have been the victims of bigotry and oppression for thousands of years, and that Christians or those who called themselves Christians were largely responsible for their plight. Certainly the Holocaust was a peculiarly European phenomenon. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, the key here is "called themselves Christians." To be fair there is/was plenty of Muslim anti-semitism as well and as a Jew I'm not going play this game of "which religion oppressed us more?"

Jewish history should not be described as a history of victimhood. I think that's a terrible way to describe it. We're just a minority who was essentially forced into a socially undesirable trade (money lending) in the Middle Ages which often made us targets. However, Jews certainly had their share of instigators & powerful, influential figures and its patently dishonest to make out our history as one of sheer victimhood at the hands of more powerful groups. It also ignores so many other accomplishments and victories and only reinforces Jewish paranoia.

Especially in the modern age and under John Paul II relations between Jews and Christians were probably the best they've ever been. Looking forward, I'm much more optimistic about Jews' relations with Christians, particularly religious Protestants, than those with Muslims or the secular world.

Ok, where do we start? — ssu

You cite 10 different detailed claims which is just too much for me to respond to. It's information overload and I don't have the time or effort to respond to all 10 in detail in one post. There was one that struck me as very, very egregious that I wanted to address here which does make me seriously question the author's intentions:

• Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994) Amendment No. 7: Benefits for Discharged Soldiers (2008): Allows the use of military/national service as a criterion for the allocation of benefits in higher education.The vast majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel are exempted from military service and do not serve in the Israeli army for political and historical reasons.

Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. However, Arab Israelis are free to join the military if they wish in which case they receive the same benefits as any other soldier.

This point is really just condemning Israel for providing benefits to its veterans when more Jews serve than Arabs (because Jews are required to serve.) It's incredibly dishonest to present this as racism and if this claim is in the same vein as others it feels like propaganda.

EDIT: The author has transformed Israeli cultural sensitivity (via excluding Arabs from consciption) and Israeli's ability to provide veterans with educational benefits into an act of racism. That is vile and it speaks directly to the author.

We need to draw a distinction here between the proper actions and policies of a state and abstract moral judgments. When it comes to political discussions, we are talking about the former. The central function of a state is security - the protection of its own citizens. Morality may be one factor in decision-making, but it should not be the whole picture. Thus, even if your argument is sound it does not carry overriding prescriptive force for what Israel ought to do.

I do have to make one more gripe:

Who deprived the Palestinians there? The state of Israel, so they ought not have...What about the sense of historic? — fdrake

Read what I wrote earlier - the majority of Palestinians according to historians like Benny Morris were not deprived due to Israeli actions, but rather fled on their own volition due to fear of war. That would make the Arab aggressors responsible for the disenfranchisement.

The problem with people using children as the face of victimhood here ignores the facts I pointed out earlier.
People are having more children they can afford and more than the land can house for often ideological reasons to outnumber the other side.

You can't just have loads of children and blame all their problems on someone else.

"Does Abu Talal not worry about bringing children into such a world?

"No, because if I lose 200 of my grandchildren, I will still have 200 left."" — Andrew4Handel

As readers have probably noticed, Andrew is a parody account aimed at making supporters of Israel look like sociopathic child murderers. I'm no fan of Israeli policy but I think you are probably taking this too far.

As readers have probably noticed, Andrew is a parody account aimed at making supporters of Israel look like sociopathic child murderers. I'm no fan of Israeli policy but I think you are probably taking this too far. — Baden

What are you on about? Abu Talal does not mind having 400 Grand children because losing 200 of the doesn't matter when you have so many spares. It is what you call canon fodder.

Can you or anyone produce an actual argument about why anyone in this region is entitled to have a large family and how that is beneficial to resolving the conflict and in the child's interests?

As I said, this level of parody, while very cutting, is kind of in bad taste. Anyway, you've been rumbled so you can pack up the circus now.

Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. However, Arab Israelis are free to join the military if they wish in which case they receive the same benefits as any other soldier.

This point is really just condemning Israel for providing benefits to its veterans when more Jews serve than Arabs (because Jews are required to serve.) It's incredibly dishonest to present this as racism and if this claim is in the same vein as others it feels like propaganda. — BitconnectCarlos

Ooh well played. "There's too many things to respond to so I'll just cherrypick one, decontextualise it from all the other examples of apartheid laws". Never mind that this was like, I don't know, the fifth point in that list so you read at least four others. That doesn't feel like propapanda but just straight up dishonest.

So Arab Israelis aren't Israeli enough to defend their own country because their "brethren" are fighting with Israel. Except, of course, you're all semites so... eh...?

"According to Alexander Scholch, Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

Now the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories is 13.7 million. If you don't care about over population then you don't care about children and you are simply lying if you say otherwise.

Making a claim over land does not entitle you to overpopulate and destroy it. I am still waiting from an actual argument from Baden other than bizarre ad hominem style retorts.

Where are all these extra humans supposed to live? The earth is a finite size with finite resources.

Pro natalists are deluded because no problem is solved by having children and any problem is exacerbated.

Not at all out of place. Quite necessary I would think from the point of view of 'just war' theory. On a smaller scale it is a matter that lawyers and judges need to deal with very frequently. — Tobias

Alright we can try our best here. I'm not saying that moral judgement is impossible in this area, only that it's more difficult and needs to be considered among other factors as well. Throughout this thread I've tried to introduce morality probably dozens of times and have tried to bring up just war theory.

By definition the suicide bomber is dead and the threat has dissipated. What sort of 'security' does bulldozing a family house bring? — Tobias

Have you considered that Palestinian authorities in the past will greatly reward the families of suicide bombers providing them with an economic incentive? Maybe bulldozing property could be considered a way of dissipating that incentive. Everything isn't about morality and a narrow focus on morality excludes other important factors.

Probably not, but if you want to attack Americans for their black pages in history the genocide on the Amerindians (or native Amercans whichever term you prefer) is an easier target. However, two wrongs do not make a right. So Israels actions do not suddenly become moral because those of the Americans in preceding centuries were immoral. — Tobias

I intentionally cited a more morally ambiguous event. Moral criticism always occurs in a context - it is not ahistorical, absent of culture - although I suppose it might be in a philosophy classroom.

The broader question is how the story of, say, the American civil war is told and how we come to understand it. That matters and it carries real-world repercussions. A set of facts of moral facts, say - X, Y, Z might be true and philosophically sound but this is an entirely different issue from how the bigger picture should be presented and processed and understood.

For instance, while its true that Uyghurs conducted terrorist attacks against Chinese civilians, to present overriding importance to these attacks as opposed to China's ongoing genocide is awful.

If that argument flies no one can judge anything. However, it does not fly. If you are mugged in the subway the perpetrator will provided he is caught, be punished irrespective of his intractable historical circumstance. We punish him because we think mugging you is wrong. We recognise each other's pain and are capable of discerning suffering from pleasure. A historical situation makes behaviour understandable, maybe even excusable, but not right or justified. — Tobias

I agree with your point, but I do still believe we need to be careful going forward. I'm perfectly content condemning certain actions or historical events, again I'm just stressing the importance of viewing certain actions and policies in a broader historical and cultural context which historically some philosophers have ignored.

Whatever moral theory you might like and presents a cogent argument for your position. — Tobias

Who are we talking about in particular? The morality of the ground soldiers? How about NCOs or junior officers? Or maybe we could talk about the morality of senior officers like Colonels who may be the ones behind, e.g. a raid? Or are we talking about morality for the entire state of Israel?

I do not think I need to expand much. When you say "well I have family in Israel and so that is why I embrace the position that Israel did not commit war crimes" you do that. You apparently hold the position that whether or not country X committed war crimes is dependent on whether the parties have relatives on country X. — Tobias

Just to be clear I meant to deny war crimes in this current flare-up, not across Israel's entire history. I of course acknowledge certain crimes committed by Israeli forces - Jish and Deir Yassin, for example.

Yes of course there is a difference. Being evil is a characteristic of a person or entity and doing evil is judgment passed on an action. — Tobias

You're not wrong, but when I approach subjects like politics or practical action the language that I use is different from the language that a philosopher would use in a philosophy paper. If you want to you can spend time harping on this fairly irrelevant issue but I'm just going to drop it. I don't see any meaningful difference between what other posters have described Israel as and "evil."

Hey Benkei, I found an online article with the title "30 reasons why Israel is awesome." I'd like a response to all of them... maybe by the end of the week? Could I get it double spaced as well? At least 8 pages please.

Let me know when I can copy and paste the article here. :smile:

So Arab Israelis aren't Israeli enough to defend their own country because their "brethren" are fighting with Israel. Except, of course, you're all semites so... eh...? — Benkei

Wait, what? Are you actually arguing in favor of conscripting Arabs here into the IDF?! And I'm the insensitive one?!?! Cultural context, man.

You're either an anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic parody account or mentally ill. Either way, you're not contributing anything with these bizarre anti-natalist posts.

Never mind that this was like, I don't know, the fifth point in that list so you read at least four others. That doesn't feel like propapanda but just straight up dishonest. — Benkei

It would only be dishonest if I committed myself to the position that I know everything about Israeli history and law and there is 100% no racial problem.

I have never said this. I 100% acknowledge that I don't know Israeli law like the back of my hand and that there may very well be racial problems. In fact, I'm positive that Israel does have racial problems we're only discussing here the extent and nature of them. Is it more the population? Is it the laws? Informal practices? These details matter. America has obvious racial issues but we don't call it apartheid... right? maybe?

Of all the reasons to excuse the murder of children by Israel, antinatialism is probably my favorite - not only does it make people who defend Israeli actions look more insane than they already are, it shows up antinatalism for the utter trash heap of a notion that it is. Two birds, one stone.

I suspect some Presidents and VPs curse at what Israel is doing, I know Carter and Clinton have been pissed off before.

But if they don't go public and say something, things remains the same.

"During the Second Intifada (2000–2005) Haaretz reported that Palestinian militant gunmen used civilians and children as human shields by surrounding themselves with children while shooting at IDF forces"

"According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers "2004 Global Report on the Use of Child Soldiers", there were at least nine documented suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and March 2004"

"According to Amnesty International, between 2000 and 2004 during the First Intifada "more than 100 Israeli children... [were] killed and hundreds of others injured in suicide bombings, shootings and other attacks carried out by Palestinian armed groups in Israel and in the Occupied Territories."

"The Avivim school bus massacre was a terrorist attack on an Israeli school bus on May 22, 1970 in which 12 Israeli civilians were killed, nine of them children, and 25 were wounded. The attack took place on the road to Moshav Avivim, near Israel's border with Lebanon. Two bazooka shells were fired at the bus.[27] The attack was one of the first carried out by the PFLP-GC.[28]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

Palestinian terrorism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_terrorism

And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll.

And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll. — Baden

Is this topic just narrowly focusing on this particular incident or can the conflict throughout its many years and manifestations be brought to bear on the current situation? I think you at least have to give @Andrew4Handel leeway there as this conflict has been going on for practically a century, and the current form at least since 1967.

Anyone who brings up anti-natalism again here will be mercilessly modded. Hope that answers your q.

"The children of Gaza, like many other groups within the population, suffer from systematic violations of their rights at the hands of Hamas. Through economic, physical, and mental abuses, Hamas has consistently demonstrated its willingness to prioritize its terror campaign against Israel, even at the cost of the welfare of Palestinian children. Hamas' activities targeting children essentially constitute para-military training characterized by indoctrination of hate towards Israel. These form an early recruitment pool for Hamas' military wing."

"The Hamas religious authority, the waqf, has carried out exorcism campaigns, in which preachers perform exorcism rites on children at schools in Gaza. Speeches delivered during these ceremonies proclaim a desire to drive children to Islamic repentance. In reality, the rites instill fear in children who do not understand their wrongdoings, and ultimately encourage compliance with Hamas' Islamist doctrine, which is presented as the "Islamic alternative."

"In 2015, Hamas posted on its Facebook page pictures of a young boy, about five years old, wearing a military uniform and carrying an automatic gun. The pictures were captioned, "These are our lion cubs. We have brought them up on the love of Jihad and martyrdom."

"During the 2014 Gaza War, 11 children were killed by Hamas rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel. In one particularly bloody incident, eight children were killed in Shati Refugee Camp by a misfired rocket. In an earlier incident in 2010,"

https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/hamas/hamas/the-status-of-children-in-gaza/

LOL. An IDF website. You sad pathetic piece of shit. At least@BitconnectCarlos makes an honest attempt.

Pangloss may have been right after all, needing only a qualification to make that clear. "The best of all possible worlds." Maybe he did not mean theoretically possible, but rather that which is possible in given circumstances. Implying that people, mostly, try to do good and the best they can - under their circumstances. Maybe - one supposes - there are people so broken they cannot, and maybe in the Mideast are a disproportionate number of such people at this time. But it leads to a proposition:

If both the Israelis and the Palestinians wanted peace, there would be peace.

But there is not peace. Either or both don't want peace or other actors prevent peace. And against that are a lot of people doing the best they can, creating for themselves their own "best of possible worlds." And after the blood is again washed off the streets, I cannot decide whether the tragedy or the irony is the worse.

So this threads OP already phrased it in a biased way to always make one side the unethical. If we are using parity here, then the OP should have said something like “Are both the Israelis and Palestinians killing innocent civilians wrong?” But it only mentions one side. This is saying implicitly that only one side should be held to a higher standard. This then goes back to weather any side should be doing these killings. The answer is no of course but it becomes about ending cyclical violence and not about one side being held to a different standard. Either murderous killing is wrong or it’s not. And if it’s not then the OP should have been phrased to note weather murder is ok in the name of reclaiming land.

You haven't been paying attention if you bring up the moral equivalence argument again. The thread title is entirely accurate.

↪Andrew4Handel LOL. An IDF website. You sad pathetic piece of shit. At least@BitconnectCarlos makes an honest attempt. — Benkei

Which presents evidence. There is tonnes of evidence on line none of which you seem interested in.

You and others here have a hysterical tonne about you inexplicable and disproportionate.

But it’s the heart of the debate here. Is murderous killing wrong in the name of reclaiming land? No. Argument over.

Your post is just a blurb with no relationship to anything anyone posted. As far as evidence go, there's plenty available without resorting to propaganda sites.

If the IDF were a fair and balanced review of the 2014 escalation it would mention its own killing of innocent children and the number. And the Israeli indoctrination and institutionalised racism that has 3/4st of its Jewish Jewish youth considering Arabs inferior. I could go on but I know arguments are wasted on you.

Yeah, you're not paying attention.