Well, I was going to say something... Anyhow, fwiw, from a linguistic perspective, the question is somewhat analagous to asking a biologist if salmon are better than cod. Languages evolve to fill sociocultural spaces as animals evolve to fill environmental niches. It's the nature of human language that when a sociocultural gap or function becomes available, it will fill it. So, in their own context, languages can't really be said to be better than one another. Also, humans can both easily handle their own language and several more at the same time once we receive sufficient early exposure, so there's not really an issue of unwieldiness either. You might get some traction on the idea if you focus on writing systems though.

By the way, I've read enough to confirm to myself that Hamas did rape and sexually abuse Israeli women, quite possibly in a planned and systematic way. I've already said I wouldn't object to every member of the group being killed. In fact, if it would have ended the war at the outset, it would have been a far preferable outcome to what we have now as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what I could add to that. Probably that if anyone has had direct experience of someone who suffered that horror, they may understandably be immune to ideas of restraint or compromise.

I appreciate that perspective, but what are they reading? And how do we separate out the day-to-day reality of who people are from what is selectively presented to us? My direct exposure to Palestinians is limited but having had, often through teaching online, students from all over the world, I've noted thst commonalities tend to trump differences and that's maybe why I tend to have a relatively positive view of the average person that may not take account of highly objectionable attitudes or beliefs they don't reveal to me. I'm willing to learn more on this, but again, qualitative studies, long form interviews is what I'm after. Anyhow, I agree completely war does degrade people and the cycle of degradation seems to have gotten completely out of control here. I don't think that was an inevitability if there had been different leadership on both sides.

It looks OK. There is an answer to the question from a linguistic perspective too. I might get involved.

Discussion or post? And what was it about? Then I'll go check.

I heard another disheartening statistic lately. According to one poll, 75% of the palestinian population supported the 10/7 attacks. I am now sympathetic to the view that the society now needs to be fundamentally restructured. — BitconnectCarlos

I would like to know the context for that but remember the way the attacks are presented is just as skewed on the Palestinian side. I would like to know what it is these people actually support. I doubt all 75% would say they support the indiscriminate killing of Israeli civilians any more than Israelis would say that. Instead, they are likely to simply deny that's happened and claim to be supporting a justifiable military operation. But there's just not enough information there. A qualitative study is likely to be more revealing.

Firstly:

"Hamas's fighters did not behead Israeli babies, was the conclusion of an investigation conducted by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz"

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/did-hamas-fightersdecapitate-israeli-babies-israeli-newspaper-answers/

Secondly, regardless of that argument, you are not against killing babies or civilians as long as they are Palestinians. You continually justify it. In fact, it's hard to understand how you think you have any credibility when, with a simple change of label, you could be a Hamas spokesman justifying their killings. You are that person for whom the enemy, including its civilians, are nothing. That's your burden of confusion and moral emptiness to live with and I pity you.

Of course, Israel could be more brutal. It could nuke Gaza or just completely level it, but we ought not to give credit to them for not being as brutal as possible if we also want to claim they are civilized. because we are entitled to have certain expectations of civilized countries even in war. I acknowledge, for example, that if Hamas was granted Israel's military capability, they would likely be more brutal than Israel is being now, but it is of no credit to anyone just to be better than Hamas. The bar has to be higher. And what disturbs me here is when I get the impression from some that it's not.

I have had (online) students from Gaza. The last one I spoke to was trying to get out, on a scholarship to America, far as I remember. He didn't hate the West. He wasn't a fanatic. And he wasn't inferior to any of my other students either. He was an earnest, polite, and respectful guy looking for a better life and that is my base presumption of who people in Israel and Gaza, despite their shitty governments, are. It's also my base presumption that if any of us here had to bear direct witness to the killing there, we would not be so quick to gloss over the details of how this operation is being conducted, regardless of whether we thought some kind of operation needed to be undertaken. What's frustrated me on this thread is the unwillingness to look at the reality of what's going on head on. That requires at the very least humanizing, not generalizing.

And I'm sure you know by now that in Gaza the line between civilian and military is essentially nil. Hamas does not wear uniforms. — BitconnectCarlos

No, it's not. Civilians are civilians and militants are miltiants regardless of their fashion choices. You have to consider the logic of the alternative. If the line is really literally nil for you and you also support eliminating the military then you would be saying you support elimintaing 1.5 million people, only roughly 40,000 (less than 3%) of whom are actual militants, 50% of whom are children. I don't believe you do, but again, words have consequences and this idea that everyone in Gaza is Hamas is used to justify killing civilians and should not be so used. It's that simple. Talk about being civilized. The first rule should be "protect the innocent", no? Incidentally, Hamas have used a similar argument, that Israeli civilians are indistinguishable from the military due to their compulsory military service. This is again just an excuse to dehumanize innocent civilians so they may be attacked with impunity.

Here's where nuance comes in, for me at least. There's a difference, for example, between a targeted missile strike on an apartment that kills an enemy militant and also an innocent civilian from the apartment next door and simply bombing the apartment block and killing 100 innocent civilians and the militant. Every option in between could also be explored ethically but the former shows some respect for civilian life and the latter doesn't. This idea of respecting and protecting civilian life is expressed in the Geneva conventions as follows:

"In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects in the war-zone; the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.[6] Although ratified by 173 countries, the only countries that are currently not signatories to Protocol I are the United States, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty#:~:text=International%20law,-Following%20the%20Second&text=In%201977%2C%20Protocol%20I%20was,and%20civilian%20objects%20as%20possible.

It's expressed there because it reflects the appropriate, in my view, moral intuition that civilians should not be indiscriminately or unnecessarily punished during war. It's telling that the U.S. and Israel are two of only six countries that haven't signed up to this (although others have signed and simply ignore it).

Thanks for clarifying.

It confuses me that it's so fucking stupid. Superior in every way possible would include e.g. intelligence, which would make you a racist. So you ought to get busy, stop fucking around, and withdraw or clarify.

I did say it because I meant it. There is a moral superiority of the West to others. What's shocking is that you can't admit it. — Hanover

Your claim was not limited to morality. Your claim as it is written is that the West is superior to the non-West in every possible way. Are you saying now you didn't mean that? Feel free to clarify.

This is the quote under scrutiny:

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. — Hanover

The sweeping nature of which makes it obviously false. But I still want it admitted so and withdrawn without any BS attempts to pretend he never said that.

Just read @Hanover's post.

Lol. You know what you wrote is amazingly stupid at best and now you're just going to try to babble it away. Withdraw the comment and get it over with. Or be held to the utterly moronic idea that Western societies are superior "in every way possible"--your words--to non-Western societies.

I'm just going to keep doing this until you both realize how amazing (ly stupid) you are being and withdraw the comment / endorsement thereof. And no that doesn't mean I don't believe Sweden isn't (in most senses) better than Saudi Arabia. It means you're going to get held to those words until they burn you so bad in shame and embarrassment that you can't stand it any longer.

It's amazingly amazing for example how superior and more civilized American politics is to, say, Japanese politics. Trump is probably the best example of this. Americans also live longer and are more intelligent than the Japanese. Yes, indeedie. Superior in every possible way...

All societies are not created equal — RogueAI

No one said they were. Have fun with your irrelevant comments before looking at the words you actually endorsed.

It must feel amazing to feel superior in every way to every one who's not Western, morally and in every way possible all the time every day, like I guess in your choice of ice cream and how you move your fat privileged butt down the street. Yes, amazing. Ly stupid. Expect to be mocked incessantly from now on as you deserve.

I don't expect anything of you but I think one day Hanover is going to wake up and have a serious D'Oh! moment over that comment.

Not causing massive death is indeed a good goal and I'd agree with that. — schopenhauer1

Ok, we do agree on something at least. :up:

Just take the UN off the table :lol: . The UN represents world opinion, you know, the whole world. But let's just take that off the table because the whole world wants Israel to stop committing war crimes. No, you don't get to dismiss the entire world (which have condemned Hamas btw.) because you don't like what they have to say.

Which is why I brought up WW2 and Britain fighting German and not being only defensive. Was that legitimate, yes or no? As I stated previously: — schopenhauer1

Of course it was legitimate. Germany had probably the most powerful military in the world and could easily have defeated and subjugated Britain. It's mind boggling that you think you are making any kind of relevant point here.

In theory, I agree. If Israel can make Hamas stand down and not kill civilians, that would make total sense. After what they did, and so close to it, the fact that you think Hamas should just be invited for a handshake and a side-eye and what, a "noogie", "Eh, you got us!.. You guys..", that's just insane to me. — schopenhauer1

What's insane is that you on the one hand claim to be against killing civilians but think my idea that Israel stop killing massive amounts of civilians is insane. The other stuff you wrote is a frankly idiotic strawman. Are the only two choices you can think of here 1) destroy an entire city of 1.5 million people committing multiple war crimes in the process 2) invite your enemy for a handshake and a side eye? Did I anywhere suggest those were the only two options? Or have you decided to join the kindergartners again? You get one more chance and then you don't get any more of my time.

To be clear, in case I'm misinterpreted again. I think certain cultures are better than others. I think Swedish culture is better than Saudi Arabian culture, Thai culture is better than North Korean culture etc. But I don't accept a sweeping Western superiority and I definitely don't accept a sweeping Western superiority as a cover for war crimes.

Just curious. Do you think that despite the terror nature of the groups, there is a fundamental difference in Hamas versus the IRA, mainly concerning the intensity of actions the points at which they would stand down versus perpetually continue, and thus the circumstances aren't apples to apples? — schopenhauer1

The IRA blew up pubs full of off-duty soldiers and civilians, killed old folks at a remembrance parade and bombed the entire British cabinet in a Brighton hotel. There is no "fundamental" difference in intensity between that and what Hamas does with suicide bombings, rocket attacks, or the massacre of innocent concert goers. But the point won't be illluminated by quibbles over divergences in the tactics of the IRA and Hamas or their ideologies. It's the cultural, racial, and geographical closeness of Britain and Ireland and the political sway of Ireland in the U.S. that made it impossible for the British to use massive indiscriminate force and collective punishment against the Irish. That is what dictated they be civilized. Whether, for example, the IRA would have ever stood down is irrelevant to this dynamic.

So we need to wake up, be honest with ourselves, and recognize that the current level of destruction of the Palestinian population, including civilian life and infrastructure, is an option (for we "civilized" Westerners) not simply due to the nature of Hamas but because the Palestinians are poor and lacking powerful allies and because they diverge from us ethnically and culturally, so they can more easily be dismissed as expendable. @Hanover's speech on the superiority of all things Western illustrates this well. Of course, what's really uncivilized is this othering that sets ethical arguments on different planes according to such an artificial, albeit convenient (for us), dichotomy.

Also, a tangential but Irish-related question. Strategically, Ireland didn't enter WW2 because they were not fans of Britain and remained somewhat neutral (with some help at various times to Allies). Was that the right decision simply because Ireland's hands were "clean" of being involved in a war? If Britain remained defensive only and did not attack German positions, would they have been the "better" for it? — schopenhauer1

Ireland stayed neutral for political not moral reasons. I'm not sure what the moral thing to do was given the information available at the time and Ireland's military weakness. But the mere fact that I'm Irish makes zero difference to how I would analyse it.

The fear isn't invented, at least not for the raped women and burned babies. Are you suggesting the only way to lose is by complete takeover? — Hanover

You've moved the goalposts here. The fear of Israel being destroyed by Hamas is invented. The fear that Hamas will unjustifiably attack and kill innocent Israelis is not invented, just as the fear of Palestinian civilians that the IDF will unjustifiably attack and kill them is not invented. So, what I'm suggesting is that, for a start and at a minimum, Israel stops committing war crimes. I would also contend that their current actions could no more be a defence of civilized values than smashing someone in the face with a hammer could be a defence of kindness. Shooting people carrying white flags is not civilized. Bombing people on routes you told them to go to because they were safe is not civilized. Israel, whatever the proposed justifications for its actions, is not currently defending civilized values, which is why every civilized country in the world bar the U.S. wants them to stop doing what they are doing.

My position is that Hamas set this in motion, — Hanover

Yes, Hamas did set the current set of hostilities (but not the hostilities in general) in motion. I have described that as a combination of strategic idiocy and murderousness, which you can take to mean I also hold them responsible for what's happening to their own people. That doesn't absolve Israel of agency though. The IRA once bombed the entire British cabinet almost killing the Prime Minister. Britain had a right to defend itself and could have bombed Derry and probably have killed many IRA operatives, including the commander Martin McGuinness, but they chose not to because the killing of innocent civilians and even the extra-judicial killing of an IRA commander was considered unacceptable to a civilised country. What they did instead was to open unpublicized background communication channels with the group and appeal to more moderate elements in the nationalist community to get the IRA to stop. Which worked. Contrast this to Israel which decided to fund Hamas as part of a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinians to prevent the only possible solution (two state) to the conflict. If Britain had chosen to fund the IRA to prevent any possible peaceful solution and followed Israel's path of escalation, the whole island of Ireland would have joined a war against them and we would have a similar disaster to the current situation in Israel/Palestine. So, Israel is not and has no right to call itself civilized simply because it is fighting against an uncivilized opponent. It is not and has not shown itself to be interested in peace or a civilized solution to the conflict. Just the opposite. And that Hamas is bad, evil, uncivilized, etc does not change that fact one iota.

Agree. What I'm primarily against is the escalation of violence by whatever side does it. Both sides seem too willing to go to the extremes and I see no end in sight.

It's an impossibility for Hamas to militarily defeat Israel, a nuclear state backed up by the U.S. Talk about an invented fear. Are you also worried about Honduras taking over California? Should we go in and bomb just in case? It's absurd. The only existential threat is to the Palestinians. They're the ones who just had their city of 1.5 million people destroyed and you're telling me the danger is Israelis being ethnically cleansed? Again, come on... And I'm not a fan of, say, Iran as a society either. But so what? If I don't want to wipe them from the earth militarily, is that supposed to indicate some guilt complex about being Western?

So, I think number one, lay off the John Wayne movies and Rudyard Kipling books. Two, my personal values are superior to plenty of people, including you, where we differ imo. I have no problem saying that. It has nothing to do with whether I'm Western or not. We're not some monolithic group. I mean isn't that in itself something of a Western value that we understand we don't all share the same values? Finally, I'll have some of what you're drinking today. It's been fun.

It's almost like making excuses for war crimes and then claiming our values are superior because we're Western would make us sound like some opium-addled Victorian grandpa who really deserves some kick ass satirising to drag him from his stupor...

It's not possible to justify killling thousands of children if one of the ways we're superior is that we don't kill thousands of children to impose our superior values. There is a difference between imposing and defending. — Hanover

Have you considered the options for defending the value of civility that don't involve bombing schools and designated safe routes, shooting white flag carriers, and pulling the plug on newborn babies in incubators? Because those things don't seem all that civil. It's almost like they're the opposite of civility... It's almost like war crimes do not constitute superior values but are barbaric and something we should be against. Right?

This a caricature of your opponent's position — Hanover

Satire to be exact and much deserved.

That is the purpose of terrorism, to destablize, to ruin, and evoke fear. — Hanover

And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? Honestly, I feel like you constantly make arguments that undermine your own position and I can't make sense of why you don't see that. You've inadvertently justified Hamas's attacks with your right to defend argument combined with your justifications for killing civilians and now you've demonstrated that the IDF are no less deserving of the label "terrorists" than Hamas. If you would just remove yourself from the situation and see it as group A vs group B and focus on the actions of each, I think you could come up with a coherent position but you won't do that. Everything is coloured with the fact that you will support Israel no matter what. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.

Anyway, yes, I can agree that a Hamas government would be awful but probably no worse than, say, Saudi Arabia which is a country that is protected and coddled by the U.S. because... oil.

And this:

The point here is that equality is not a wedding vow, and it is worth admitting that we (meaning the West and its values) are superior to others, in terms of morality, technology, civility, and in every way possible. To the extent you accept or reject this notion of exceptionalism will likely color your view on how aggressively you defend those values versus how aggressively you declare it imperialistic and try to quash it. — Hanover

has me scratching my head. Really, you need to read this again, consider the implications, and potentially rephrase it so you don't sound like some Victorian "white man's burden" carrier. Otherwise, be prepared to get your ass satired off. I mean, dude...

More good stuff from Haaretz. Sorry, full articles behind pay wall but it's worth noting there are plenty of moderate and sensible voices within Israel who don't tow the government line even in a time of war.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-18/ty-article-opinion/.premium/israel-killed-thousands-of-children-in-gaza-how-can-so-many-israelis-remain-indifferent/0000018c-788c-d55c-a7cc-fb8edb100000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-19/ty-article/.premium/dont-let-bibis-bluff-fool-you-israel-is-heading-toward-full-reoccupation-of-gaza/0000018c-7e2f-de44-a9be-7fbfafef0000

Anyway, Hamas's unique combination of strategic idiocy and murderousness combined with Israel's opportunism and utter lack of restraint = the end of Gaza. Seems the Israelis feel they won't get this chance again and I can't see them letting it slip away.

It is, of course, but not for Israel. It's been informative who here has kept defending this insanity. God save their souls. — Benkei

This is the worst of the gaslighting. That these Hamas militants with their tiny rockets, rifles, and hang gliders are a real military threat (even an existential one!) to a nuclear powered proxy of the world's superpower that will only accept their complete subjugation or displacement and actually has the means to achieve that. Analagous to Trump claiming the election is stolen while trying to steal it himself.

You can conceptualise a sculpture by the rock it's formed of or by the empty space chiselled out to make it. Either way you have a structure. So, there's a sense, yes, that words are empty but they are the emptiness that allows for the structure we call "meaning". They're nothing and everything at the same time. The way to resolve this then is not to look at form, which may lead to paradox, but process. Not what they are, but how they function. And they do function...

The way I interpret the story is as a commentary on the dynamics of society in general, not as seriously presenting the ostensible ethical dilemma (though that’s the obvious conceit that draws us in). So, in order for society to function, what is sacrificed is the sense of wonder and imagination of the child substituted over time by a conceptual scheme of relationships that impose a set of more or less instrumental values that define what it is to be happy and successful and direct behaviour along clearly delineated paths which aim to make individuals in some sense superfluous. The “inner child” must be continuously tortured for people to be “happy” in so far as those people are integrated properly into an efficiently functioning whole and the more properly integrated they are, the more ideal and well-oiled the society is, the more the child must be continuously neglected, tortured and beaten, up, i.e. the more the imaginative faculties and the freedom they threaten any established order with are repressed and degraded. So, there’s a certain moral perfection to a society where no one goes astray, where there is no crime, people cooperate fully etc., but the emptiness of this social morality is highlighted by the cost necessary to achieve it.

My first intervention on this recent iteration of this thread was to call Hamas butchers and animals. But of course the strategy of you and other weak-minded fools on here is to try to smear any criticism of Israel with support for Hamas no matter how clear the condemnation of that group. It's so insipid and pathetic, I can't imagine it working on anyone with any degree of intelligence. That you can is all your problem. You've proven yourself to be entirely out of your depth here.

Israel basher! — Mikie

Au contraire, morality works like this: in the decades long conflict of Israel vs Palestine, when Israel attacks and kills Palestinian civilians, that is good because they are the good guys but when the Palestinians do the same, that is bad because they are the bad guys. If you want to know whether killing innocent people is good or not, you need do no more than look at what people they are. If they are "Palestinian", killing them is good. If they are "Israeli", killing them is bad. If the IDF is doing the killing, it is good killing. If Hamas is doing the killing, it is bad killing. This is also very convenient because the IDF does much more killing so there is much more good killing than bad killing and the world is good and right. If you disagree with any of this, you are indeed irrational and simply hate the good guys. In fact, you are probably a bad guy, like Hamas.

(Someone once entertained the subversive idea that the good guys were the innocent civilians on both sides caught up in this cycle of senseless violence and the bad guys were the Israeli and Gazan leaderships perpetuating it in their respective ways, but that someone was called an anti-semite and taken out with white phosphorous, so cartoon world is once again perfect).

Leaving the kindergarten level commentators behind, here are a couple of interesting headlines from Israeli newspaper Haaretz, which tends to try at least to offer a nuanced and critical view of the conflict going on in Israel's name:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/graphic-videos-and-incitement-how-the-idf-is-misleading-israelis-on-telegram/0000018c-5ab5-df2f-adac-febd01c30000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-09/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/the-israeli-army-has-dropped-the-restraint-in-gaza-and-data-shows-unprecedented-killing/0000018c-4cca-db23-ad9f-6cdae8ad0000

Amazingly, even the good guys' newspapers don't all believe the good guys are good guys.