• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hamas must be eradicated

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
There’s really nothing to discuss. You made it very clear where you stand on other threads that you support Hamas. They exist because of Israel’s oppression is what you said.
You don't see the difference between the position

"Hamas exist because of Israel's oppression"
and
"Hamas are good, actually"?

A thing can be bad, but also directly attributable to another bad thing. This isn't that hard to understand.

"Oh, so you say lung cancer is a result of smoking cigarettes? You must support cancer, then."
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
You don't see the difference between the position

"Hamas exist because of Israel's oppression"
and
"Hamas are good, actually"?

A thing can be bad, but also directly attributable to another bad thing. This isn't that hard to understand.

"Oh, so you say lung cancer is a result of smoking cigarettes? You must support cancer, then."
Yeah but would they exist if Israel wasn’t oppressing? That’s the million dollar question. Until one knows, one probably shouldn’t use the language that they exist because of the oppression.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Yeah but would they exist if Israel wasn’t oppressing?
Hard to say. Hamas was founded following decades of Israeli occupation. Do I think an extremist, militant, anti-Semite group would still exist? Yeah, probably. But the modern form of Hamas, being the de-facto governing body of the city of Gaza, I would find it hard to believe that would exist without the decades of explicit war crimes and oppression. Extremist groups tend to thrive and gain power in circumstances where people feel they are being treated unjustly or are under immediate threat by an outside force.

That’s the million dollar question. Until one knows, one probably shouldn’t use the language that they exist because of the oppression.
I think it's fine to reach conclusions based on evidence, even if we don't have a parallel time line reality we can look into. I feel comfortable in saying that Hamas would certainly not exist in its current form without the compounding effects of decades of oppression of the Palestinain people.

The point is, even if someone was saying this with insufficient reason, it doesn't therefore follow that to say "x is a result of y" that therefore that person "supports x". That's not a reasonable inference.
 

Jimmy

King Phenomenon
Hard to say. Hamas was founded following decades of Israeli occupation. Do I think an extremist, militant, anti-Semite group would still exist? Yeah, probably. But the modern form of Hamas, being the de-facto governing body of the city of Gaza, I would find it hard to believe that would exist without the decades of explicit war crimes and oppression. Extremist groups tend to thrive and gain power in circumstances where people feel they are being treated unjustly or are under immediate threat by an outside force.


I think it's fine to reach conclusions based on evidence, even if we don't have a parallel time line reality we can look into. I feel comfortable in saying that Hamas would certainly not exist in its current form without the compounding effects of decades of oppression of the Palestinain people.

The point is, even if someone was saying this with insufficient reason, it doesn't therefore follow that to say "x is a result of y" that therefore that person "supports x". That's not a reasonable inference.
Wouldn’t exist in its current form? Would they be kinder? That’s a little vague. But I don’t think we can know. Perhaps it would be them oppressing the Jews. I guess we’ll never know.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Wouldn’t exist in its current form? Would they be kinder?
No, I mean they would most likely not have the significant power, resources and numbers that they do.

That’s a little vague. But I don’t think we can know. Perhaps it would be them oppressing the Jews. I guess we’ll never know.
Right. So what's the point of the question?

The point is that we can make some accurate inferences, such as the well-known fact that extremist groups thrive on oppression, militants tend to arise from oppressed groups, and Hamas formed in the 1980s immediately following a popular Palestinian protest against Israeli occupation and oppression. I think it's fair to say that Israeli occupation and oppression, at the very least, contributed strongly to the existence of Hamas.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
@icehorse, I can't believe that you are being this casual about so many human lives - most of which have little real choice about their relevant circunstances, no less.

I used to believe that we had similar views regarding Muslim communities.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
What hamas did was wrong but there is no genocide to occur
They didn't have the power to. But if you gave any of those guys who paraglided in a nuclear trigger, my guess is that they'd all use it without compunction. Israel on the hand, probably has nukes but doesn't use them. There's an abstract leap you have to make with this.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
@icehorse, I can't believe that you are being this casual about so many human lives - most of which have little real choice about their relevant circunstances, no less.

I used to believe that we had similar views regarding Muslim communities.
Did you read my post carefully? I was NOT talking about Palestinians, I was talking about their few, terrorist "leaders". Plus, I suggested imprisoning them.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Hard to say. Hamas was founded following decades of Israeli occupation. Do I think an extremist, militant, anti-Semite group would still exist? Yeah, probably. But the modern form of Hamas, being the de-facto governing body of the city of Gaza, I would find it hard to believe that would exist without the decades of explicit war crimes and oppression. Extremist groups tend to thrive and gain power in circumstances where people feel they are being treated unjustly or are under immediate threat by an outside force.
Well the nazi's came into existence, and probably had those same kinds of feelings, but no one today would say they were justified in having them. But if your economy stinks because of lost wars and inflation, then that is where a population is probably is at risk for contracting general extremism. But today, we simply say the nazi's were straight up anti-semites / anti-outgroup, and they were, simply because they needed a scapegoat. All populations that failed at prosperity need one, because simply blaming circumstances that you (sometimes) can't control is ineffective, because an abstract concept can't feel your pain

So I am skeptical that the oppression can be tied to other people. That is the direction that always evades personal responsibility

But I am optimistic in that I think that people can always turn things around. The Gazans, if their leaders didn't hijack their economy to build tunnels or mortar tubes or whatever, could have set up a giant mediterranean resort / shipping-route trade town. But you need people in power who care about that kind of thing, and it might take a few generations to turn it around
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
To be clear, I'm making a distinction between Palestinian civilians, and members of Hamas.
I think every honest person makes that distinction.

Shouldn't Israel make it clear to the protestors of the world , that Israel is freeing Palestine ?
What does "freeing Palestine" look like and how can Israel make it clear to protesters around the world that Israel is trying to liberate Palestine in the face of the lived reality of Israel's bombing of Gaza?
 

jes-us

Active Member
What does "freeing Palestine" look like and how can Israel make it clear to protesters around the world that Israel is trying to liberate Palestine in the face of the lived reality of Israel's bombing of Gaza?
Israel can make a transparent news statement explaining that Palestine has been controlled by Terror for years , the people persecuted from within Palestine . They can explain that yes unfortunately some civilians may be accidently killed if they haven't moved out of the way like Israel explained to do . Freedom always comes with a cost of life unfortunately . In England many many years we overthrew our King at the times , think it was king James , that cost life but we became free .
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Well the nazi's came into existence, and probably had those same kinds of feelings, but no one today would say they were justified in having them.
I agree. I don't believe Hamas being a result of Israeli war crimes and occupations necessarily justifies the actions or aims of Hamas.

But if your economy stinks because of lost wars and inflation, then that is where a population is probably is at risk for contracting general extremism. But today, we simply say the nazi's were straight up anti-semites / anti-outgroup, and they were, simply because they needed a scapegoat. All populations that failed at prosperity need one, because simply blaming circumstances that you (sometimes) can't control is ineffective, because an abstract concept can't feel your pain

So I am skeptical that the oppression can be tied to other people. That is the direction that always evades personal responsibility
I think you can still hold groups personally responsible for their ideologies and actions while still acknowledging the material circumstances that lead to them. I mean, if I believed that material circumstances alleviate personal responsibility for acts, I wouldn't be able to criticise both Hamas and Israel the way I do. If we're going to argue that previous wrongs can go some way towards justifying subsequent wrongs, we find ourselves with no moral basis to make any judgement whatsoever.

Nevertheless, I think there is value in understanding the material circumstances that lead to extremism. We're not simply talking about distant historical events leading to current animosity - we're talking about ongoing policies that are still directly impacting people today. We don't have to assume people are lacking in autonomy or responsibility for their actions to still consider how certain actions and events can contribute directly to certain consequences.

But I am optimistic in that I think that people can always turn things around. The Gazans, if their leaders didn't hijack their economy to build tunnels or mortar tubes or whatever, could have set up a giant mediterranean resort / shipping-route trade town. But you need people in power who care about that kind of thing, and it might take a few generations to turn it around
It's not as simple as "If Gaza had good people in power", because having good people in power also relies on the material conditions, needs and desire of the people. If the people of Gaza were less concerned with having war crimes inflicted on them by an invasive outside force, they would probably be less pliable to the violent extremists who promise "liberatory" violence than the would the people concerned with building resorts. I'm fairly certain the people of Gaza are somewhat more motivated by the sentiment "Those people bombing your homes and killing your children deserve violent death" than by the sentiment "You know what we need? Tourism!"
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I think you can still hold groups personally responsible for their ideologies and actions while still acknowledging the material circumstances that lead to them. I mean, if I believed that material circumstances alleviate personal responsibility for acts, I wouldn't be able to criticise both Hamas and Israel the way I do.
You could still do it, you'd just word it slightly differently, because the ontology would be different. There would be more of a stress on the 'impersonal' material forces, of a sort, that took the form of present forms. Alternatively, you would have to be prepared to argue that there is something special in humans themselves, that prevents them from being a completely blank slate that is shaped by mere material conditions. I think humans are special in that way, but it seems evidenced to be rare. I don't know
Nevertheless, I think there is value in understanding the material circumstances that lead to extremism. We're not simply talking about distant historical events leading to current animosity - we're talking about ongoing policies that are still directly impacting people today. We don't have to assume people are lacking in autonomy or responsibility for their actions to still consider how certain actions and events can contribute directly to certain consequences.
Well we are talking about both in this case, aren't we, because all of the people there probably have a deep feeling about the history of the land. In what way, in your thinking, is the autonomy factor within humans separable from the physical / material factor? What do they bring to the table, which cannot be traced back to the material.
It's not as simple as "If Gaza had good people in power", because having good people in power also relies on the material conditions, needs and desire of the people.
Well where does it start? I can't believe that the Israelis want to purposely create a neighbor that would viciously attack them. Who wants that? What purpose would that possibly serve?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You could still do it, you'd just word it slightly differently, because the ontology would be different. There would be more of a stress on the 'impersonal' material forces, of a sort, that took the form of present forms. Alternatively, you would have to be prepared to argue that there is something special in humans themselves, that prevents them from being a completely blank slate that is shaped by mere material conditions. I think humans are special in that way, but it seems evidenced to be rare. I don't know
There are extremist and violent groups everywhere, and yet not everywhere do those extremist groups hold significant power. Why do you think they hold power in Gaza? Is there some inherent, material moral failing that people who live in that region all seem to possess that allows them to be more favourable to extremist voices, or do you take the position that the material conditions of those people can be a significant influence on ideology and outcomes? Like I said, I think it makes perfect sense for the people of Palestine to be much more motivated by a sentiment that promises retribution against their oppressors than a sentiment that says "we need more infrastructure for tourism", and I think it's pretty obvious why this isn't simply a result of a moral failings of millions of people.

Well where does it start? I can't believe that the Israelis want to purposely create a neighbor that would viciously attack them. Who wants that? What purpose would that possibly serve?
They get to then attack that neighbour and seize their land. I mean, what was it that Nazi Germany got out of scapegoating Jews and socialists? Turns out they got a lot. They used it as a pretext to attack their ideological enemies, consolidate state power and annex neighbouring territory in the name of the fatherland.

Israel has the backing of the USA and one of the most heavily funded and effective armies in the world. They get a lot out of antagonising a significantly weaker neighbour while losing very little. If Israel had nothing to gain from Palestine, they simply would not be engaging in the wide-ranging settler-colonialism that we see today on the west bank. They definitely want the land, and they want to consolidate power in the region. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Israel steals land and kills Palestinians, which leads to more Palestinian extremists, which leads to more terrorist attacks again Israeli civilians (with very little reaching the political class), which leads to more stealing of land.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
They definitely want the land, and they want to consolidate power in the region.
From a purely strategic perspective, if I was surrounded by enemies, I would fight hard to get non-gerrymandered borders. The WB is sort of the poster child for excessively gerrymandered, indefensible borders.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
From a purely strategic perspective, if I was surrounded by enemies, I would fight hard to get non-gerrymandered borders. The WB is sort of the poster child for excessively gerrymandered, indefensible borders.
Is it really surprising that you find yourself surrounded by enemies when you invade them, steal their land, kill their people, deny their basic rights and continually colonise the areas you have forced them into? I mean, it's not like these regions weren't already very, very anti-Semitic anyway, which hardly helps. The question is whether or not subsequent events have made that problem worse or better.

Your take on these events leaves no room open for any options other than Israel allowing itself to be destroyed by the animosity of its neighbours, or Israel totally and completely obliterating its neighbours.
 
Last edited:
Top