Gaza Crisis: Are we morally wrong?

[Gary Childress]

What if we (Americans) are morally wrong to back Israel and enable Israel's campaign in Gaza? What if Israel is morally wrong in its conduct of the war against Gaza? Then what? Do we keep doing what we are doing even though it would be morally wrong to do so? What would be said of us in the end? Would it not matter? What would God think of us? Would it not matter?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024 ... ia-incited

Finally, the question: ARE we morally wrong? Is Israel morally wrong? And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

[Gary Childress]

You said: Is Israel morally wrong in their conduct of the war in Gaza after October 7, 2023?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The question of moral judgment in Israel's conduct of the Gaza war after October 7, 2023, involves deeply complex ethical, historical, and legal considerations. This period has been marked by escalated hostilities following a major attack by Hamas on Israeli territory, and Israel's subsequent military response. Here are some central points that inform views on the moral dimensions of the conflict:

1. Protection of Civilians
One core principle of international law and moral standards in war is the protection of civilians. Hamas’s initial attacks on October 7, which targeted civilians, were widely condemned as violations of this principle. In response, Israel has launched extensive airstrikes and a ground operation in Gaza aimed at dismantling Hamas, which is embedded within a densely populated civilian area. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas infrastructure and leaders, but significant civilian casualties have raised questions about proportionality and the adequacy of measures to minimize harm to non-combatants.

Critics argue that Israel’s tactics, including airstrikes in residential areas, risk disproportionate civilian harm. Supporters, however, argue that Hamas’s use of civilian shields complicates efforts to target military assets without causing collateral damage. Moral assessments here hinge on whether Israel's approach is seen as an unavoidable outcome of Hamas's tactics or as an excessive application of force.

2. Humanitarian Crisis
The humanitarian impact on Gaza has been dire, with significant casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and restrictions on essential supplies like food, water, and medical aid. This has led to criticisms of Israel's blockade policies and restrictions on aid flows into Gaza. From a moral standpoint, denying civilians access to necessities can be seen as collective punishment, which is generally condemned in international law.

Supporters of Israel’s actions might argue that it is Hamas, through its governance of Gaza and its initiation of hostilities, that is responsible for the dire conditions, as it has often rejected or misused aid. Israel maintains that it facilitates humanitarian aid when possible, though critics claim these measures are insufficient or delayed, contributing to suffering among civilians.

3. Right to Self-Defense vs. Responsibility to Protect
Israel has asserted that its military actions are an exercise of its right to self-defense, particularly in the wake of the attacks on October 7. This right is recognized in international law; however, self-defense also requires that responses are proportionate and discriminate between combatants and civilians.

This raises questions of proportionality, where critics argue that the scale of Israel’s response surpasses a reasonable standard for self-defense. Supporters might counter that the full elimination of a hostile, well-armed militant organization embedded within Gaza is necessary for long-term peace and stability in Israel and the region.

4. Long-Term Implications
The moral dimension also involves long-term outcomes and the viability of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Persistent conflict, high civilian casualties, and destruction could fuel further resentment, radicalization, and cycles of violence. A growing number of observers worry that both the immediate tactics and broader strategies are undermining prospects for peace, which might call into question the morality of the current approach from a long-term ethical perspective.

Summary
Moral evaluations of Israel’s actions depend on perspectives regarding the balance of rights and responsibilities: the right to defend its citizens against attacks, versus the obligation to minimize harm to civilians, uphold humanitarian principles, and consider the impact on long-term peace.

Critics argue that the civilian toll and humanitarian crises suggest moral failings, while others assert that Israel’s actions are a difficult but necessary response to an unprecedented security threat. The ethical implications remain contested, with valid concerns and moral arguments on all sides.

So it doesn't look like ChatGPT can give us a definitive answer as to whether Israel is wrong or not (and by extension the US--for assisting them). That leaves it up to us to determine what is right and what is wrong. Is anyone out there a master of moral calculus who can tell us what is right and what is wrong with respect to the war in Gaza?

What would God want us to do? What would God want all of us to do? Would God want us to forgive and mend our wounds and those of the people we have hurt? Or would God want us to destroy those who are evil or wrong? And if it is the latter, then who is evil or wrong? Does anyone know? Are there any theists out there who can supply an answer?

[attofishpi]

-

[seeds]

...Finally, the question: ARE we [Americans] morally wrong? Is Israel morally wrong? And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

Let's see now...

...Are we Americans morally wrong to supply money, weaponry, and tactical support to help a group of people slaughter thousands of innocent men, women, and children who were violently expelled from their homes and lands and forced (by the people we are supporting) to subsist for decades in what has been called an "open-air prison"?

Hmm, that's a tough one, Gary. Let me think about it for a while.


_______

[Age]

What if we (Americans) are morally wrong to back Israel and enable Israel's campaign in Gaza?

What do mean by, 'What if ...'?

Absolutely any one backing 'war', the killing, harming, damaging, and/or scarring of human beings, and especially more so in regards to children, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong.

Do you adult human beings, REALLY, need to be reminded of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

What if Israel is morally wrong in its conduct of the war against Gaza?

Any adult human being who conducts in war is doing, morally, Wrong.

Then what?

Then they are just 'doing Wrong'.

Do we keep doing what we are doing even though it would be morally wrong to do so?

Do you, REALLY, need to ask this question, to others, to find out what the answer is?

What would be said of us in the end?

Just how selfish, blind, and stupid adult human beings REALLY WERE, back when this was being written.

Would it not matter?

Are you here, really, asking if the backing of the maiming and killing of children 'matters' or not, then I am pretty sure you ALREADY KNOW the answer to this question.

What would God think of us?

God does not 'think'. God 'knows'.

Would it not matter?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024 ... ia-incited

Finally, the question: ARE we morally wrong?

All adult human beings do, morally, Wrong things, as well what is, morally, Right.

Is Israel morally wrong?

Countries cannot do morally wrong, nor right, things. Only adult beings can.

And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

Very simply and very easily. Which is also the exact same way you can find out when not in the middle of a war.

[Age]

You said: Is Israel morally wrong in their conduct of the war in Gaza after October 7, 2023?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The question of moral judgment in Israel's conduct of the Gaza war after October 7, 2023, involves deeply complex ethical, historical, and legal considerations. This period has been marked by escalated hostilities following a major attack by Hamas on Israeli territory, and Israel's subsequent military response. Here are some central points that inform views on the moral dimensions of the conflict:

1. Protection of Civilians
One core principle of international law and moral standards in war is the protection of civilians. Hamas’s initial attacks on October 7, which targeted civilians, were widely condemned as violations of this principle. In response, Israel has launched extensive airstrikes and a ground operation in Gaza aimed at dismantling Hamas, which is embedded within a densely populated civilian area. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas infrastructure and leaders, but significant civilian casualties have raised questions about proportionality and the adequacy of measures to minimize harm to non-combatants.

Critics argue that Israel’s tactics, including airstrikes in residential areas, risk disproportionate civilian harm. Supporters, however, argue that Hamas’s use of civilian shields complicates efforts to target military assets without causing collateral damage. Moral assessments here hinge on whether Israel's approach is seen as an unavoidable outcome of Hamas's tactics or as an excessive application of force.

2. Humanitarian Crisis
The humanitarian impact on Gaza has been dire, with significant casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and restrictions on essential supplies like food, water, and medical aid. This has led to criticisms of Israel's blockade policies and restrictions on aid flows into Gaza. From a moral standpoint, denying civilians access to necessities can be seen as collective punishment, which is generally condemned in international law.

Supporters of Israel’s actions might argue that it is Hamas, through its governance of Gaza and its initiation of hostilities, that is responsible for the dire conditions, as it has often rejected or misused aid. Israel maintains that it facilitates humanitarian aid when possible, though critics claim these measures are insufficient or delayed, contributing to suffering among civilians.

3. Right to Self-Defense vs. Responsibility to Protect
Israel has asserted that its military actions are an exercise of its right to self-defense, particularly in the wake of the attacks on October 7. This right is recognized in international law; however, self-defense also requires that responses are proportionate and discriminate between combatants and civilians.

This raises questions of proportionality, where critics argue that the scale of Israel’s response surpasses a reasonable standard for self-defense. Supporters might counter that the full elimination of a hostile, well-armed militant organization embedded within Gaza is necessary for long-term peace and stability in Israel and the region.

4. Long-Term Implications
The moral dimension also involves long-term outcomes and the viability of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Persistent conflict, high civilian casualties, and destruction could fuel further resentment, radicalization, and cycles of violence. A growing number of observers worry that both the immediate tactics and broader strategies are undermining prospects for peace, which might call into question the morality of the current approach from a long-term ethical perspective.

Summary
Moral evaluations of Israel’s actions depend on perspectives regarding the balance of rights and responsibilities: the right to defend its citizens against attacks, versus the obligation to minimize harm to civilians, uphold humanitarian principles, and consider the impact on long-term peace.

Critics argue that the civilian toll and humanitarian crises suggest moral failings, while others assert that Israel’s actions are a difficult but necessary response to an unprecedented security threat. The ethical implications remain contested, with valid concerns and moral arguments on all sides.

So it doesn't look like ChatGPT can give us a definitive answer as to whether Israel is wrong or not (and by extension the US--for assisting them). That leaves it up to us to determine what is right and what is wrong.

As ALWAYS.

Is anyone out there a master of moral calculus who can tell us what is right and what is wrong with respect to the war in Gaza?

Yes.

What would God want us to do?

To stop abusing.

What would God want all of us to do?

To learn, and teach, how to stop abusing so as to only do what is Right, in Life, only. Which, in turn, will make a much better, and more peaceful and heaven like world, for every one.

Would God want us to forgive and mend our wounds and those of the people we have hurt?

God knows that only after you have gained FULLY 'understanding', that is; the 'understanding' of how and why all human beings think and do what they do, then what, naturally, follows is just FULL 'forgiveness', itself, anyway.

See, you can only REALLY forgive only after you have obtained REAL understanding, itself. That is; only after you can understand "yourself" FULLY can you then understand and forgive others FULLY, as well.

Or would God want us to destroy those who are evil or wrong?

If that was the case, then absolutely no individual human being would be destroyed. As there is no human beings that is evil nor wrong in and of itself. Although absolutely every adult human beings does do some things that are Wrong, and/or so-called 'evil', in Life. Which would mean that EVERY adult human beings would be destroyed. Which in and of itself would not be a bad thing at all as children NATURALLY seek out what is good and Right, in Life. And, as things are 'now', when this is being written, a whole new 'reset' could be a very good thing indeed.

If not the destroying of all adult human beings but the enforced removal or separation of children from their parents would certainly ADULTS reevaluate their lives and consider on what path they are heading down and what 'world' they are making for their children.

And if it is the latter, then who is evil or wrong?

NO one is 'evil' nor 'wrong', but ALL adult human beings do some evil or Wrong things.

Does anyone know?

Yes.

Are there any theists out there who can supply an answer?

[Alexiev]

What if we (Americans) are morally wrong to back Israel and enable Israel's campaign in Gaza?

What do mean by, 'What if ...'?

Absolutely any one backing 'war', the killing, harming, damaging, and/or scarring of human beings, and especially more so in regards to children, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong.

Do you adult human beings, REALLY, need to be reminded of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

So it's an irrefutable fact that America was morally wrong sending Lend Lease aid to the UK in World War 2?

[Age]

What if we (Americans) are morally wrong to back Israel and enable Israel's campaign in Gaza?

What do mean by, 'What if ...'?

Absolutely any one backing 'war', the killing, harming, damaging, and/or scarring of human beings, and especially more so in regards to children, is ABSOLUTELY Wrong.

Do you adult human beings, REALLY, need to be reminded of this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

So it's an irrefutable fact that America was morally wrong sending Lend Lease aid to the UK in World War 2?

If you say so.

[Impenitent]

people fighting each other over scraps of land...

history never repeats

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

...Finally, the question: ARE we [Americans] morally wrong? Is Israel morally wrong? And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

Let's see now...

...Are we Americans morally wrong to supply money, weaponry, and tactical support to help a group of people slaughter thousands of innocent men, women, and children who were violently expelled from their homes and lands and forced (by the people we are supporting) to subsist for decades in what has been called an "open-air prison"?

Hmm, that's a tough one, Gary. Let me think about it for a while.


_______

The pushback seems to generally be that Israel has no choice but to destroy Hamas, that Hamas would keep firing rockets at them if Israel doesn't fight back and that Israel couldn't retaliate effectively without harming civilians because Hamas had stationed most of its military assets around civilian centers such as schools, hospitals, refugee camps and mosques. There is also an accusation floating around that Hamas has killed some of its own civilians when they tried to flee form dangerous areas because Hamas wanted to use them as human shields.

Of course, there's fog of war right now that makes finding truth difficult, so it's difficult to know what is true and what isn't true. One would hope it's not true, but then, one would also hope that Hamas wouldn't wantonly kill Israeli civilians either but it seems indisputable that they did when they overran the border on 10/7.

And if we stop giving Israel military aid, what would happen to Israel and its people at the hands of Hamas. Would Hamas seek to dismantle Israel upon threat of violence? That seems to have been in Hamas' charter according to reports I've seen.

If it were not for those things, it seems like it would be a clear cut case against Israel. \_('_')_/

[Gary Childress]

Is GOD morally wrong in such a deception

I don't know. It might not be God that is deceiving me. It could be other people, possibly including some of his alleged followers, I suppose. \_('_')_/

[seeds]

...Finally, the question: ARE we [Americans] morally wrong? Is Israel morally wrong? And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

Let's see now...

...Are we Americans morally wrong to supply money, weaponry, and tactical support to help a group of people slaughter thousands of innocent men, women, and children who were violently expelled from their homes and lands and forced (by the people we are supporting) to subsist for decades in what has been called an "open-air prison"?

Hmm, that's a tough one, Gary. Let me think about it for a while.


_______

The pushback seems to generally be that Israel has no choice but to destroy Hamas, that Hamas would keep firing rockets at them if Israel doesn't fight back...

Yes, and the pushback always seems to completely ignore the fundamental reason for the existence of Hamas in the first place.

Care to guess what that might be, Gary?

...and that Israel couldn't retaliate effectively without harming civilians because Hamas had stationed most of its military assets around civilian centers...

The following image...



...is an arial photograph of the town I grew up in back in the 50s and 60s. It is a suburb of Detroit, Michigan called Hazel Park. It is 2.82 square miles in size and is rectangularly delineated by four large roads in the middle area of the photograph.

As of 2022, the population density of that tiny area called Hazel Park was 5,346 people per square mile.

Well, the population density of the 5 by 25-mile stretch of land (outdoor prison/concentration camp) called Gaza is estimated to be 15,603 people per square mile, almost 3 times the population density of that cramped little area called Hazel Park in the above photo.

And the point is that no matter where Hamas (Palestinian freedom fighters) stations itself (be it underground or on the surface), it is bound to be near civilians.

They (the Gazans) are a desperate people who are being oppressed by a group of land grabbers who are not only in possession of nuclear weaponry but are backed by the most powerful military on the planet.

In which case, is it reasonable to assume that they (the Gazans/Palestinians) are supposed to deal with their oppressors under the equivalent of some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules?

Of course, there's fog of war right now that makes finding truth difficult, so it's difficult to know what is true and what isn't true.

The truth is not difficult at all, Gary, for it's been obvious for many decades now...

• 1. It was immoral for the West to hand over lands that belonged to someone else to the Jewish people.
  
  2. It is immoral for the Jews to treat the Gazans in pretty much the same way that the Germans treated the Jews.
  
  3. It is immoral of us (Americans) to help perpetuate this horrible situation.

However, as I have pointed out many times before, that's nothing compared to the real depths of America's immorality as seen in how America's former Secretary of State - Madelaine Albright - once stated that the deaths of 500,000 (that's five hundred thousand) Iraqi children was "...worth the price..." of attaining one of America's imperialistic goals.

We are in for some serious karmic blowback, Gary.
_______

[Gary Childress]

Let's see now...

...Are we Americans morally wrong to supply money, weaponry, and tactical support to help a group of people slaughter thousands of innocent men, women, and children who were violently expelled from their homes and lands and forced (by the people we are supporting) to subsist for decades in what has been called an "open-air prison"?

Hmm, that's a tough one, Gary. Let me think about it for a while.


_______

The pushback seems to generally be that Israel has no choice but to destroy Hamas, that Hamas would keep firing rockets at them if Israel doesn't fight back...

Yes, and the pushback always seems to completely ignore the fundamental reason for the existence of Hamas in the first place.

Care to guess what that might be, Gary?

...and that Israel couldn't retaliate effectively without harming civilians because Hamas had stationed most of its military assets around civilian centers...

The following image...



...is an arial photograph of the town I grew up in back in the 50s and 60s. It is a suburb of Detroit, Michigan called Hazel Park. It is 2.82 square miles in size and is rectangularly delineated by four large roads in the middle area of the photograph.

As of 2022, the population density of that tiny area called Hazel Park was 5,346 people per square mile.

Well, the population density of the 5 by 25-mile stretch of land (outdoor prison/concentration camp) called Gaza is estimated to be 15,603 people per square mile, almost 3 times the population density of that cramped little area called Hazel Park in the above photo.

And the point is that no matter where Hamas (Palestinian freedom fighters) stations itself (be it underground or on the surface), it is bound to be near civilians.

They (the Gazans) are a desperate people who are being oppressed by a group of land grabbers who are not only in possession of nuclear weaponry but are backed by the most powerful military on the planet.

In which case, is it reasonable to assume that they (the Gazans/Palestinians) are supposed to deal with their oppressors under the equivalent of some sort of Marquess of Queensberry rules?

Of course, there's fog of war right now that makes finding truth difficult, so it's difficult to know what is true and what isn't true.

The truth is not difficult at all, Gary, for it's been obvious for many decades now...

• 1. It was immoral for the West to hand over lands that belonged to someone else to the Jewish people.
  
  2. It is immoral for the Jews to treat the Gazans in pretty much the same way that the Germans treated the Jews.
  
  3. It is immoral of us (Americans) to help perpetuate this horrible situation.

However, as I have pointed out many times before, that's nothing compared to the real depths of America's immorality as seen in how America's former Secretary of State - Madelaine Albright - once stated that the deaths of 500,000 (that's five hundred thousand) Iraqi children was "...worth the price..." of attaining one of America's imperialistic goals.

We are in for some serious karmic blowback, Gary.
_______

If we stop supporting Israel, then Israel will fall. A lot of otherwise innocent Israelis will probably die horribly. What should we do? Or is it not true that Israel will fall, or is it not true that a lot of otherwise innocent Israelis would die horribly?

[seeds]

If we stop supporting Israel, then Israel will fall. A lot of otherwise innocent Israelis will probably die horribly. What should we do?

At this point, Gary, there's only one plausible solution to this dilemma.

It is clear that the next American president and Benjamin Netanyahu, both working on behalf of their respective nations, need to perform this Jewish ritual,...



...which, according to Google's AI Overview is:

"...In Jewish tradition, the act of swinging a chicken above one's head, known as "Kapparot," is a symbolic ritual performed on the eve of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, where the person believes they are transferring their sins to the chicken, essentially asking for atonement by symbolically "giving" their sins to the bird which will then be slaughtered..."

I mean, seeing how it is Jewish religious mythology (among others) that stands at the root of this problem, then doesn't it make perfect senseto use the prescribed workings of the Jewish religion to transfer the sins of both our nations to a chicken and then kill the chicken?

Surely, then, the Islamic world will be divinely compelled to forgive the West and Israel for its land-stealing activities.

Furthermore, isn't the atonement of sin via animal sacrifice what the Israelis are hoping to achieve through their ultimate goal of rebuilding their old temple in the same spot that holds one of Islam's three holiest sites (the Al-Masjid al-Aqsa Mosque)?

Again, according to Google's AI Overview:

According to Jewish tradition, if a Third Temple were to be built, the animals that would be sacrificed would likely include bulls, sheep, goats, and doves, as these are the types of animals prescribed in the Torah for sacrificial offerings, with specific requirements regarding their quality and condition being followed strictly.

Good grief, it's bad enough right now with what Israel has immorally done to the Palestinians, but just imagine how bad things will get for Israel (and America) if and when they try to rebuild their old temple.

Yet, that's the planned insanity that America is willing to support, even if it helps to instigate World War Three.

And let's not be naive or deluded in any way, for you know good and well that America's main reason for supporting Israel is because it represents a strategic geographical location for our imperialistic plans for greater access to that oil-rich region of the world.

(Note: In case it wasn't clear in my sarcastic diatribe, I have no solution, for it seems that the inevitable outcome for both Israel and its partner in crime (America), is pretty much set in stone.)
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

What if we (Americans) are morally wrong to back Israel and enable Israel's campaign in Gaza? What if Israel is morally wrong in its conduct of the war against Gaza? Then what? Do we keep doing what we are doing even though it would be morally wrong to do so? What would be said of us in the end? Would it not matter? What would God think of us? Would it not matter?

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024 ... ia-incited

Finally, the question: ARE we morally wrong? Is Israel morally wrong? And how can we know or find out an answer to that question in the middle of a war?

War by nature is immoral.
Once a war [immoral] is started, both sides are already engaged in something immoral.
Given the existing circumstances, it is immoral for the US to back Israel, but at the same time it is also immoral for Hamas to continue with the war.
The moral thing to do is to prevent a war from starting in the first place; this is not very feasible given the psychological state of the majority at present.
This is why it is critical to establish a moral model and system that will prevent wars from happening at all.

At present, Hamas insist it will continue with as many Oct7 as they can, till they can get rid of all Jew from that land which they claim is theirs.
In this case, it is rational for Israel to want to get rid of Hamas to ensure the Jews survive on that land.
While Israel want to get rid of Hamas to avoid further Oct7, Hamas is defending itself using civilians as a shield, thus the inevitable killing of civilians. It is noted Israel had exercised a lot of caution to minimize the killing of civilians.

While there is a land issue [proximate cause], the real ultimate root cause is the religion, where the religion instigates and wants to exterminate the Jews who are heavily condemned with the holy text of the religion.
The AntiSemitism in the Q is more than the Mein Kampf.
https://www.cspii.org/learn-political-i ... cal-islam/

This is why Iran & Gang who are Shia will partner with the arch enemies Hamas [Sunni] to get rid of the Jews in the name of their God & religion which is condoned in their main holy texts.
Where there is no such common goal, the Sunni [80%] and Shia [15%] will kill each other.

That the US support Israel is secondary, what is critical is the root cause of the conflict is inherent in the religion. Deal with the religion, and the land issue [moral and others] can be resolved easily.