I assume Israel ought to change its religious convictions as well? The Zionist movement has been fueling a lot of the current war with Illegal settlements. I don't think an "eye for an eye" is an effective strategy for peace if both sides adopt the position. (Not that Israel isn't trying to take more than an "eye" from the Palestinians in the present situation.)Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 9:00 amWar by nature is immoral.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:25 am 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?
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.
I also question the accuracy of the current crisis being fueled solely by religion. The Palestinians want a place to live. That is a pretty universal human sentiment and certainly everyone ought to have a place to live that isn't an open air prison--unless they are actually guilty of something. Religion certainly provides strength and conviction to do things, even if they are the wrong things to do, but it seems like maybe more than just a religious matter. Arab states at the UN recently have reiterated that they will guarantee Israel peace in exchange for a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders. In my opinion, Israel ought to swallow a little ambition and hubris and come to the table for everyone's benefit, not just their own. Otherwise, all this is just going to keep on escalating until everyone is dragged in and destroyed.
You said: Is it true that Arab states have offered Israel peace in exchange for pre-1967 borders for a Palestinian state?ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Yes, Arab states have indeed offered Israel peace in exchange for returning to the pre-1967 borders and establishing a Palestinian state. This proposal is most notably outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. Presented by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League, the initiative proposed a two-state solution, with Israel withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders and recognizing an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, Arab states promised to recognize Israel and establish normal diplomatic relations, effectively offering a path to regional peace and normalization.
Key points of the Arab Peace Initiative include:
Full Israeli Withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 Six-Day War (the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights).
Creation of a Palestinian State alongside Israel, based on the pre-1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
Just Solution for Palestinian Refugees that is agreed upon in line with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, though the exact nature of this solution has been open to negotiation.
Normalization of Relations between Israel and all Arab countries upon Israel’s acceptance of these terms.
The proposal has been revisited multiple times since 2002, but despite some informal dialogues and back-channel negotiations, it has not led to a comprehensive peace agreement. Israel has expressed concerns over security, the specific terms regarding Palestinian refugees, and whether a complete return to 1967 borders is practical. Some Israeli leaders have shown interest in the initiative’s potential but have generally viewed it as a basis for discussion rather than an outright offer they can accept as-is.
Over the years, changing geopolitical dynamics, especially normalization agreements like the Abraham Accords (between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan), have altered the landscape somewhat. These agreements bypass the conditions of the Arab Peace Initiative, offering normalization without addressing the Palestinian issue directly. Nonetheless, the Arab Peace Initiative remains a significant framework representing a regional consensus for peace based on a two-state solution.
