Israel Should Be Stopped

[ImmortalFlame]

I do not believe you can remotely document Bide's supposed dishonesty given his position. Though Trump is avoiding any position or even comments of proposed resolution leaving it in Biden's lap, which is disingenuous at least.. It is a fact the conservative view is radically pro Israel and anti-Islamic. Biden does not represent this radical position

In what way has Biden been dishonest on this issue???

Where have I called Biden dishonest?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The regardless of what group?!?!?!? is not reflected in your posts.

How, exactly? Be specific.

You like many others are trying to isolate this conflict and the issues surrounding it in isolation from history.

I'm not isolating "the conflict", I'm isolating the specific acts. "The conflict" is a broader issue with broader solutions. What I address are ACTS and whether or not they are justified. It's all well and good talking about solutions to "the conflict", but for me that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not THE ACT is justified. This is why I call out Hamas for killing over a thousand civilians, despite also understanding the lengthy and complicated history of the region that lead to the formation and empowerment of Hamas and the inevitability of the act given Israel's continued crimes in the region and the disillusion of many of the people of Gaza to the possibility of peaceful cooperation, while also calling out Israel for the war crimes it inflicts upon the people of Gaza, despite also understanding that this was in response to the aforementioned terrorist act and the fact that a disproportionate response was inevitable given the history of Israel's military actions in the region.

You can separate ACTS for a basis of moral judgement, while understanding the history that lead to them. The issue is when you try and roll them all into one. THAT'S when you get tribalism. That's when you stop seeing this or that act as a unjustified or immoral one, worthy of condemnation, and start seeing these acts are merely part of a morally equivalent battle between historic forces capable of doing no better. That's when you reduce things to ACTUAL tribalism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is a matter of fact that the relationship between Judaism, Christianity and Islam in history and today is tribalism.

And that's bad, so we ought not to engage in it but instead to judge moral agents by their actions while understanding the history and seeking to resolve the issues history raises with solutions aimed at a better future.

Indiscriminate violence by Jews and Muslims is not justified.

I agree. So what does pointing out "Jews did X" or "Muslims did X" actually achieve? What point is being made, if not just drawing multiple false equivalences? When you stated "The history of genocide of Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other minorities in the history of Islamic countries fits the 1948 UN definition" in response to someone arguing that what Israel is CURRENTLY DOING meets the definition of genocide, what point did you think you were making?

 

[shunyadragon]

How, exactly? Be specific.

Your selective bias against Israel in the conflict and neglecting history..

I'm not isolating "the conflict", I'm isolating the specific acts. "The conflict" is a broader issue with broader solutions. What I address are ACTS and whether or not they are justified. It's all well and good talking about solutions to "the conflict", but for me that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not THE ACT is justified. This is why I call out Hamas for killing over a thousand civilians, despite also understanding the lengthy and complicated history of the region that lead to the formation and empowerment of Hamas and the inevitability of the act given Israel's continued crimes in the region and the disillusion of many of the people of Gaza to the possibility of peaceful cooperation, while also calling out Israel for the war crimes it inflicts upon the people of Gaza, despite also understanding that this was in response to the aforementioned terrorist act and the fact that a disproportionate response was inevitable given the history of Israel's military actions in the region.

You can separate ACTS for a basis of moral judgement, while understanding the history that lead to them. The issue is when you try and roll them all into one. THAT'S when you get tribalism. That's when you stop seeing this or that act as a unjustified or immoral one, worthy of condemnation, and start seeing these acts are merely part of a morally equivalent battle between historic forces capable of doing no better. That's when you reduce things to ACTUAL tribalism.

If you consider specific acts you have to consider an unbiased history of the conflict, The underlying history is indeed defined by tribalism in the war over the tribal Holy Lands of both religions. You are being very very biased at which specific acts you what to consider relevant.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your selective bias against Israel in the conflict and neglecting history..

Where? What bias? What history am I neglecting?

Tell me.

If you consider specific acts you have to consider an unbiased history of the conflict,

No. The history may be relevant to understanding the root causes of an act, but they have no bearing on the morality of the act in terms of outcome. Just because Sally kicked you in the shin on Monday may lead to you stabbing a cat to death on Thursday, it doesn't remove the moral weight of the act of stabbing a cat.

The underlying history is indeed defined by tribalism in the war over the tribal Holy Lands of both religions. You are being very very biased at which specific acts you what to consider relevant.

You keep saying this, but I have been addressing the crimes of both sides since the beginning and explicitly making an argument that means that actions on BOTH sides aren't morally justified.

Why do you keep insisting I am biased? What actual thing have I said betrays a bias, and why is it in your interest to accuse me of something I have not done?

 

[shunyadragon]

And that's bad, so we ought not to engage in it but instead to judge moral agents by their actions while understanding the history and seeking to resolve the issues history raises with solutions aimed at a better future.


I agree. So what does pointing out "Jews did X" or "Muslims did X" actually achieve? What point is being made, if not just drawing multiple false equivalences? When you stated "The history of genocide of Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other minorities in the history of Islamic countries fits the 1948 UN definition" in response to someone arguing that what Israel is CURRENTLY DOING meets the definition of genocide, what point did you think you were making?

You are being selective as to what Jews did X and not putting it in context of the tribal conflict over the Holy LAnds in history,

You are th one being in selective denial of history

 

[shunyadragon]

Where? What bias? What history am I neglecting?

Tell me.


No. The history may be relevant to understanding the root causes of an act, but they have no bearing on the morality of the act in terms of outcome. Just because Sally kicked you in the shin on Monday may lead to you stabbing a cat to death on Thursday, it doesn't remove the moral weight of the act of stabbing a cat.


You keep saying this, but I have been addressing the crimes of both sides since the beginning and explicitly making an argument that means that actions on BOTH sides aren't morally justified.

Why do you keep insisting I am biased? What actual thing have I said betrays a bias, and why is it in your interest to accuse me of something I have not done?

. . . because you view and posts are selectively biased against Israel.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are being selective as to what Jews did X

That's just outright false. I have avoided saying "Jews did" in any of my posts. I am talking about the state of Israel. YOU are the one who couches things in terms of "Jews and Muslims and Christians", as if the history of these groups has any role in justifying crimes against civilian members of those groups.

and not putting it in context of the tribal conflict over the Holy LAnds in history,

So, I have to explain the entire history of the Gaza/Israel conflict before I can say "Israel dropping bombs on civilians is bad"?

You are th one being in selective denial of history

Where?? Tell me where!

Also, you ignored my question:

So what does pointing out "Jews did X" or "Muslims did X" actually achieve? What point is being made, if not just drawing multiple false equivalences? When you stated "The history of genocide of Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other minorities in the history of Islamic countries fits the 1948 UN definition" in response to someone arguing that what Israel is CURRENTLY DOING meets the definition of genocide, what point did you think you were making?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

. . . because you view and posts are selectively biased against Israel.

That's just blatantly false, and you should be embarrassed for suggesting it. Literally, read my posts.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where? What bias? What history am I neglecting?

Tell me.


No. The history may be relevant to understanding the root causes of an act, but they have no bearing on the morality of the act in terms of outcome. Just because Sally kicked you in the shin on Monday may lead to you stabbing a cat to death on Thursday, it doesn't remove the moral weight of the act of stabbing a cat.


You keep saying this, but I have been addressing the crimes of both sides since the beginning and explicitly making an argument that means that actions on BOTH sides aren't morally justified.

Why do you keep insisting I am biased? What actual thing have I said betrays a bias, and why is it in your interest to accuse me of something I have not done?

. . . because you view and posts are selectively biased against Israel.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's just blatantly false, and you should be embarrassed for suggesting it. Literally, read my posts.

IT is absolutely true that the weight of your argument is Jews do X

 

[shunyadragon]

Where have I called Biden dishonest?

Ypu conceded reluctantly some points with Biden, but then sarcastically slammed hid with 'it seems'

But I think it's folly to suggest that the president of the most powerful military and economic force on the planet is utterly powerless to do anything about war crimes committed by intransigent states. I get that there is a degree to which geopolitics renders the USA unable to meaningfully respond, but at the same time I don't think that's a good enough excuse for the people who are rightly horrified at what seems to be Biden's total disinterest in challenging or suggesting consequences for war crimes, and his continued support of nations engaging in them. It's not enough to simply say "Well, what could he do??". The levers of power must operate in some fashion.

The question you have NOT constructively responded to is "Well, what could he do??"

Being president of the most powerful country in the world does not make him "in some fashion" a dictator to do what he wants.

Please respond constructively "Well, what could he do??"

 

[shunyadragon]

And that's bad, so we ought not to engage in it but instead to judge moral agents by their actions while understanding the history and seeking to resolve the issues history raises with solutions aimed at a better future.


I agree. So what does pointing out "Jews did X" or "Muslims did X" actually achieve? What point is being made, if not just drawing multiple false equivalences? When you stated "The history of genocide of Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other minorities in the history of Islamic countries fits the 1948 UN definition" in response to someone arguing that what Israel is CURRENTLY DOING meets the definition of genocide, what point did you think you were making?

CURRENTLY DOING is far to narrow a biased judgement that you are selectively making against Israel in the greater context of the history of the wars and violence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think this view is a little over-broad and little too callous towards the concept of innocent civilians. You don't have to believe either side are innocent in order to rightly and justifiably believe that one side is committing horrendous acts against innocent parties, or to believe that - while bad actors exist on both sides - the bulk of responsibility for potential solutions lies in the actions of the side with the greater power to do so. I do not think it is relevant to point out the fact that Muslims have committed genocide, unless you genuinely want to imply that the history of a religious movement is in any way relevant to justifying the mass murder of people within that movement (a position that certainly Hamas would agree with, at the very least, and I believe we ought not stoop to this level).

This is not a war-by-genocide between Muslims and Jews. This is a modern, developed nation state using its overwhelming military force and potential war crimes on a territory populated predominantly by civilians in response to acts of murderous terrorism committed against its civilians. I don't think the religion of either side can go any way towards justifying that. You don't solve the issues caused by tribalism by engaging in tribalism.

One point I would like to make clear is Israel is NOT a modern secular state. It is Jewish Nation for Jews only as written in the Constitution and Laws.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where? What bias? What history am I neglecting?

Tell me.

You are narrowly and selectively condemning Israel for CURRENTLY Doing and avoiding the greater issue of the tribal history of wars and violence by Judaism and Islam. This is one chapter in a tribal war over the Holy Lands both claim.

No. The history may be relevant to understanding the root causes of an act, but they have no bearing on the morality of the act in terms of outcome. Just because Sally kicked you in the shin on Monday may lead to you stabbing a cat to death on Thursday, it doesn't remove the moral weight of the act of stabbing a cat.

Terrible irrelevant example.

You keep saying this, but I have been addressing the crimes of both sides since the beginning and explicitly making an argument that means that actions on BOTH sides aren't morally justified.

Nothing is morally justified here. Again you are denying this is a no holds barred tribal war over Holy Lands of both religions based on Old Testament morality.

Why do you keep insisting I am biased? What actual thing have I said betrays a bias, and why is it in your interest to accuse me of something I have not done?

. . . because you are focusing on the CURRENT DOING only.

 

[wellwisher]

You people see this conflict as picking a side.
Uncritical support for Israel dooms all to war.

I give responsibility for massive civilian death &
destruction to Israel because it's culpable.
This isn't self defense. That would be a very
different set of actions, eg, allowing more private
gun ownership, ending settler invasion of Gaza,
allowing Gaza to thrive economically.

One underlying problem, that I see, is the use of human shields, by Hamas, in a war zone. If you gave Israel the option to fight Hamas with or without the human shields, they would prefer make this a soldier war and leave all the civilians, out.

But Hamas does wish to play by humane rules of war, since Israel will kick their butts. They need the human shields to slow down Israel. Israel has to take action, while having them handicapped, trying to minimize killing the shields. The human shields body count is shifting the body count math and this is bring spun for the continued division. Human shield body count should go to Hamas.

How should the human shield problem be addressed. Isn't that against international law? If there was no more human shields than the only people killed, by continued conflict, will be soldiers. No civilians would not be treated as piles of cord wood, to hide behind. That is not how good leaders treat their own people; sacrifice your own people . One can see why Israel needs Hamas gone. It is to save Palestinian and Israeli civilians from the Hamas Mafia.

 

[Revoltingest]

Never proposed this, and please cite me fully and correctly.

I cited the portion that inspired my question.
Excess verbiage is pared away for clarity.

I strongly object to your one sided view of the responsibility of the conflict, death and suffering that is resulting between two intransigent combatants with a tribal religious agenda,

I strongly object to your apparent dismissal of this
conflict as inevitable & unavoidable. And you
ignoring just what led up to it over the past 70+
years of Israel's oppression, apartheid, & now
genocide.
Israel chose this path. Israel refuses to give them
justice & prosperity. It reaps what it sows.

 

[Revoltingest]

You people?!?!?!

Israel apologists.

You have strongly emphasized picking a side against Israel. See bold below.

I pick the side for peace,
This requires Israel, being the 500# gorilla in this
conflict to reverse policies that cause the conflict,
eg, apartheid, economic embargo, group punishment,
allowing settlers to steal Palestinian land, torture.
Palestinians are the victims.
Victims don't have the lion's share of responsibility
for ending victimhood. That falls on the abuser.

Actually it is more relevant to take a more objective view of the tribal wars in history and today, and NOT take sides,

The question of self defence here is not what is happening. Both sides justify their efforts at annihilation of the other.tribe.

As above you have an extreme one sided biased against Israel. It is fact as far as this war the Hamas attacked first, but even that is problematic considering the thousands of years of religious war and violence between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which you selectively avoid..

Your misunderstanding isn't just wrong.
It's dangerous because it ignores any
possibility of real resolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

How, exactly? Be specific.


I'm not isolating "the conflict", I'm isolating the specific acts. "The conflict" is a broader issue with broader solutions. What I address are ACTS and whether or not they are justified. It's all well and good talking about solutions to "the conflict", but for me that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not THE ACT is justified. This is why I call out Hamas for killing over a thousand civilians, despite also understanding the lengthy and complicated history of the region that lead to the formation and empowerment of Hamas and the inevitability of the act given Israel's continued crimes in the region and the disillusion of many of the people of Gaza to the possibility of peaceful cooperation, while also calling out Israel for the war crimes it inflicts upon the people of Gaza, despite also understanding that this was in response to the aforementioned terrorist act and the fact that a disproportionate response was inevitable given the history of Israel's military actions in the region.

You can separate ACTS for a basis of moral judgement, while understanding the history that lead to them. The issue is when you try and roll them all into one. THAT'S when you get tribalism. That's when you stop seeing this or that act as a unjustified or immoral one, worthy of condemnation, and start seeing these acts are merely part of a morally equivalent battle between historic forces capable of doing no better. That's when you reduce things to ACTUAL tribalism.

No you canot separate individual ACTs for moral judgement to justify a on sided agenda basing your argument CURRENT DOING..

 

[shunyadragon]

Israel apologists.

Unfortunate and tragic one sided generalization,

I pick the side for peace,

Peace is not a bumper sticker.

This requires Israel, being the 500# gorilla in this
conflict to reverse policies that cause the conflict,
eg, apartheid, economic embargo, group punishment,
allowing settlers to steal Palestinian land, torture.
Palestinians are the victims.
Victims don't have the lion's share of responsibility
for ending victimhood. That falls on the abuser.

Your misunderstanding isn't just wrong.
It's dangerous because it ignores any
possibility of real resolution.

Your one sided generalization is not only wrong it is very dangerous.

You and others have failed to "Bell the Cat." You have failed to present a realistic solution not only to this war but to the longest tribal war in history over the tribal Holy Lands both claim. They have been negotiating for a resolution since before 1948.

In Israel and the Arab world secual governments that negociate reasonable secular solutions, Israel is a Jewish State for Jews only, Most Islamic governments are based on Islamic Laws and beliefs and Laws, and all who live there must comply and other religions such as Baha'is Jews and minorities are suppressed and persecuted. This monolithic belief extends to belief in the Palestine Islamic Holy Lands. This a world based on tribal rule and conflict.