I'll refer you to my dog analogy. We all know what happens to the dog that finally bites its abusive masters. Gaza will basically be razed to the ground. People will start starving in about two weeks. — Benkei

Well, that was predictable then.

Who is the leader of your race/religion? Who do I go to if I need to speak to, e.g., the leader of the black people? Take me to your leader so you can become blameworthy through him.

Let's start with a simple case. The Shmazi's in Shmermany have been elected with over 80% support of the populace. They start a war of conquest and extermination against Shmoland, which is no threat to Shmermany. What is Shmoland morally allowed to do in fighting this war of aggression? I would argue: anything. Nothing is off the table for them in their fight for survival.

OK, so anything is on the table.

Let's spin this further: Shmoland knew about the plans and has anticipated the plans for years. They easily turn back the attacker, suffering limited casualties. The leadership now believes there is no actual threat to their country. However, motivated purely by revenge, they now nuke Shmermany's main cities into oblivion.

Justified?

Why Israel's Response to Hamas was Justified

Brain In A Vat episode just released - they speak with a London-based International Rights rights Lawyer.

However, she is Natasha Hausdorff, the Director of UK Lawyers For Israel. One can tell this is not a particularly impartial conversation (all three are Jewish, i believe).

OK, so anything is on the table.

Let's spin this further: Shmoland knew about the plans and has anticipated the plans for years. They easily turn back the attacker, suffering limited casualties. The leadership now believes there is no actual threat to their country. However, motivated purely by revenge, they now nuke Shmermany's main cities into oblivion.

Justified? — Echarmion

Let's just rename the countries for ease.

Revenge attacks are not justified. If Poland truly believes Germany is not a threat, they are not justified in attacking them. But in the age of nukes, what you describe is an impossible situation. Poland has already been attacked by Germany. The German people still hate Poland and want them eliminated. Germany can possibly develop a nuke of their own, or try and get one from another country that is hostile to Poland. Poland will have to be vigilant, up to the point of taking preemptive action against Germany, if it looks like a nuclear take is imminent.

If Hamas got their hands on a nuke, would they hesitate to use it against Israel? I don't think so.

Revenge attacks are not justified — RogueAI

Right. So we do agree that one is allowed to select an effective means to meet an attack, even if that means heavy casualties, but that intention matters. So your goal needs to be justifiable as well. And from this follows also that you must have a reasonable plan for how your selected end leads to your goal. E.g. noone in the 21st century can reasonably claim that terror bombing civilians will lead to the collapse of your opponent's morale, because this assumption has been pretty conclusively disproven in the 20th century.

Now in the real world intentions are never as pure nor as easily discernible as in the thought experiment. So usually we need to look at what people do and try to figure out what the goal might be, as well as how reasonable an approach to that goal it is.

To get back to the topic, the criticism of Israel's military action is not simply that it is prima facie inadmissible. It's also that it seems to be calculated not for defense, but for displacement, and that it seems unreasonable to assume it will be succesful unless the goal is actually to (mostly) depopulate the Gaza strip, in which case we are no longer talking about defense, are we?

Hausdorff is insane. The same lady who wants to sue the BBC on reporting that several NGOs had stated Israel was punishing the civilian population in Gaza. Which according to her is reprehensible moral equivalence.

I've not listened as yet, but as noted, It definitely seems an impossibility that its impartial. The opening five minutes seemed to make it quite clear the guest was on a high-horse and it wasn't going to be a discussion. Ill see how i feel shortly after listening.

20 mins in: Weirdly for this particular Podcast, this entire conversation hinges on empirical facts.
25 mins in: She is utterly lost in her own mind. Her take on proportionality isn't academic. Its racist. The only word that mattered in her take was "jews".
40 mins in: She seems to be the exact stereotype she takes issue with. It's actually getting difficult to continue listening - and the hosts inability to push back seems extremely out of character, and honestly a red flag in itself. So much emotive nonsense pretending to be argumentation.

End: She is insane. She literally accounts for the anti-semitism as a result of moving to Scientism as a 'new religious movement'. What the hell... As notedd, the hosts entirely fail to challenge her in any way. This wasn't their usual podcast. This was just a platform for Natasha to rant.

Natasha's take on the facts seems to be "true everything Israel ever says" and if you don't take that line, she cannot believe it. Can't really understand that.
Do you have any sources for why she might be wrong, though? If her facts are correct, then I can only disagree as a matter of taste really.

I note it would be wonderful to see a conversation between Natasha and Jeff McMahon.

I didn't listen, I looked her up.

Who is the leader of your race/religion? Who do I go to if I need to speak to, e.g., the leader of the black people? Take me to your leader so you can become blameworthy through him.

That’s a weak and nebulous response.

Let’s turn that around, say I’m a concerned Jew who is the representative leader of my people who I can go to and implore him/her to show restraint in Gaza?

Jews are a religion when it suits them and a nation-race when it suits them. It's purposefully obfuscated so they can tut-tut when you critisise Israel and call you an anti-semite.

Edit: also, all human rights treaty and countries with a constitution explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. So if they choose option 1, the discrimination in Israel is even more egregious.

The attempt to make the criticism of the state of Israel to be anti-semitic goes a bit over. States and their policies and the people are two really different things. Or otherwise there are a lot of racist people here: just add up all those in the forum who have ever criticized either the policies of Russia, China or the US, the UK or Iran or Afghanistan or Syria or Venezuela and so on... a lot of racists and haters here!

But I guess modern propaganda is that you have to be aggressive and basically outrageous in your views. It isn't anymore of countering the most preposterous accusations yet admitting that things like collateral damage, like uh, nearly all Western armed forces do when in war. No, you just attack anyone who makes criticisms and accuse them of anti-semitism and hope that does the trick and that it spreads the fear of being called an anti-semite.

It doesn't work because there's ample amount of Israelis and Jewish living abroad that are critical to the right-wing administration and it's policies and tactics in this war. There's still room for actual discussion, not just for a lithurgy that is only a declaration on who's side you stand.

It gives lots of wriggle room and lets apologists etc off the hook. While shutting down any discussion of the predicament Israel and therefore the Jewish diaspora find themselves in.

I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position.

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else.

This raises the issue of the fate of the Jews and how they adjust to and are treated by and in civilisation as a whole. (I may start a thread about this as it is the elephant in the room)

They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism — Punshhh

Yes, not as sticky a paedophilia though.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else. — Punshhh

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Actors like the Netanyahu government or uncouth lobby groups like AIPAC try to foster this intentionally, acting as though they represent "the Jews", when in fact they represent very narrow, (and in these cases quite problematic) agendas.

The ultimate result of this, is that these actors and groups present an image of undue legitimacy, whereas the people that are involuntarily associated with them ("the Jews") unduly suffer in the blowback.

Calling out these specific interests, what they stand for and who they represent exposes them and denies them the use of these labels as a shield against criticism.

I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position. — Punshhh

That is the problem. It makes also the classic "one state solution" totally impossible, because the ordinary way this would be solved is simply that being "Israeli" would actually mean similar thing as being "Palestinian" especially prior Israel's independence. There's no cultural assimilation of muslims and Christians to a homeland of the Jews. Hence everybody, right from the UN in the 1940's, has purposed the two state solution.

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism. — Punshhh

This is for especially the US a big issue, just like Hitler and national socialism is for Germany. With the US the issue with minorities is actually larger than in other American states, as the Latin countries have their culprit for everything bad, like the previous caste-system and the weak situation of the Indian population, just lying there over the Atlantic, their former colonizers.

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Yes, I see this. How do you suggest we describe these people and groups of people?
I would use alternative terminology, but don’t know any other.

I am aware of the circumstance where there are a large number of people of the Jewish diaspora around the world who would distance themselves from actions of the Israeli state. But how would I refer to them?

Don't think of it as alternative terminology, but using accurate language, and demand from others also that they use accurate language.

Don't allow a Netanyahu to pretend to speak for all Jews, when in fact he speaks only for Israelis, and only a (ever-shrinking) portion of them.

And yet Netanyahu’s words and actions do impact the lives of everyone in the world who identifies as a Jew, or of Jewish heritage.

When I speak of these people, how would I refer to them without using the word Jew?

How can we call "the good Jews" and "the bad Jews"? They are both "Jews"! Very thorny philosophical problem. In the literature it's known as "the hard problem of calling the Jews".

When I speak of these people, how would I refer to them without using the word Jew? — Punshhh

Zionists

Not all Zionists agree with what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza:
https://readerwall.com/zionists-in-tel-aviv-protest-to-topple-netanyahu-administration/

I agree. But, whilst 'Jews' is the concept of referring to the ethno-religious group, 'Zionist' is the political movement or faction that is committing the atrocities in Gaza. I think the latter is more - let's say - suitable to refer to them.

Zionists

No that doesn’t work. Because it refers to people involved in establishing the Jewish homeland in Israel. This leaves out the wider Jewish diaspora across the world.

Yes, but if we refer to the diaspora of the Jews across the world, we are talking about the ethno-religious group, integrated with people who are not necessarily agree with the war. Yet, if we want to refer to them as the perpetrators of the genocide in Gaza, I guess it is more suitable to say 'Zionists', because this is their political and military faction.

Another example: Hezbollah. This political and military faction represents an exclusive group of people, but not all the Muslims nor Lebanese citizens.

demand from others also that they use accurate language. — Tzeentch

This doesn’t go well :sweat:

Another video - brief:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qg-DH_ipvTQ

Dumb. As usual.