The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

You were using the term “enemy combatants” deliberately there to mean the same thing that Alexiev and I have been using it to mean - the military non POW status that has fewer rights to not get tortured than any civilian or proper military prisoner - right?

… exactly and in the only way the term is used universally. No one yet being deported is actually an enemy combatant by any genuine definition.

[seeds]

Israel didn't start the shooting, if we stick to a starting point as the day the rockets were fired and Hamas crossed into Israel.

Well, if you want to keep going back, it's ultimately the Pharaoh of Egypt's fault for releasing his slaves to wander in the desert. But that might be a bit silly.

The truth is that Israel owned the territory you call Gaza from well before 1,000 BC, and continuously until AD 70, when the nation was officially smashed by the Romans; but Jews remained on the land throughout the modern era, until Israel was officially reconsituted in 1948.

They didn't want, or try, to move the Gazans. They didn't want the war, either. But Hamas started it, Hamas is keeping it going, and only Hamas can shut it down...and they simply won't.

According to AI Overview (bolding and emphasis mine)...

A Genetic Chronicle of the First Peoples in the Americas ...
The term "Native American" didn't appear as a self-identified term until later, but the people who are now known as Native Americans have been in North America for thousands of years. The earliest evidence suggests they arrived at least 30,000 years ago, crossing the Bering land bridge from Asia. The term "Native American" is a modern label used to describe the indigenous peoples of the Americas...

The point is that as long as you two guys would be perfectly okay with the "Native Americans"...

(with the aid and support of the most powerful military force on the planet)

...reclaiming the land that you and your ancestors have been living on for hundreds of years, and removing you from your homes and livelihood and forcing you and your children to live in what has been called an "open-air prison,"...

...then, by all means, support Israel.

However, if you think you might have a problem with that scenario and hold a grudge for what those "Native Americans" and their powerful supporters did (and keep doing) to you and yours,...

...then, for crying out loud, wake up to what's going on over there.
_______

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to think you understand what terrorists think and feel.

Nope. I just understand words, and what they refer to.

"Terrorist" is a different category from "criminal" and "combatant." But all three can overlap, of course.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether terrorists would prefer to be known as "criminals" or "enemy combatants", or whether these labels would encourage or discourage terrorism. Remember Bobby Sands?

Well, you seem to think that "enemy combatant" is some kind of badge of honour. I don't see it that way. I don't think most people do. But then, some people also think "criminal" and "terrorist" are also honourifics. People think odd things. You can't prevent it. Some people are just evil.

[Gary Childress]

The point is that as long as you two guys would be perfectly okay with the "Native Americans"...

(with the aid and support of the most powerful military force on the planet)

...reclaiming the land that you and your ancestors have been living on for hundreds of years, and removing you from your homes and livelihood and forcing you and your children to live in what has been called an "open-air prison,"...

...then, by all means, support Israel.

However, if you think you might have a problem with that scenario and hold a grudge for what those "Native Americans" and their powerful supporters did (and keep doing) to you and yours,...

...then, for crying out loud, wake up to what's going on over there.
_______

What "two guys" are you referring to? Not me I hope.

[Immanuel Can]

This is wearing me out. And the misunderstandings and abuses of history are getting to be too much for me to keep addressing. If you go back and read what I've written, I've covered everything already.

It shouldn't. It's very easy.

History favours Jewish ownership of their homeland. In length of time past, length of time living there, and present residence, it's their land -- whether or not one believes that God also gave it to them. And whereas many Palestinians live happily in Israel, integrated with the Israeli population (1.8 million of them, in fact) a great many more imagine they can seize the land and kill the Jews, instead.

Hamas is the genocidal organization. Jews want the two-state solution, and tried to get it by establishing the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian homelands. They did not try to kill the Palestinians, they tried to live with them. Hamas and Hezbollah have blown that to pieces. But not before bilking their own people of billions of dollars, and then starting and keeping going a war that's killing many of the Palestinians, and a fair number of Israelis as well.

Just ask yourself: right now, who has hostages? Why did they take them, and why haven't they given them back?

And there it is.

[Gary Childress]

This is wearing me out. And the misunderstandings and abuses of history are getting to be too much for me to keep addressing. If you go back and read what I've written, I've covered everything already.

It shouldn't. It's very easy.

History favours Jewish ownership of their homeland. In length of time past, length of time living there, and present residence, it's their land -- whether or not one believes that God also gave it to them. And whereas many Palestinians live happily in Israel, integrated with the Israeli population (1.8 million of them, in fact) a great many more imagine they can seize the land and kill the Jews, instead.

Hamas is the genocidal organization. Jews want the two-state solution, and tried to get it by establishing the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian homelands. They did not try to kill the Palestinians, they tried to live with them. Hamas and Hezbollah have blown that to pieces. But not before bilking their own people of billions of dollars, and then starting and keeping going a war that's killing many of the Palestinians, and a fair number of Israelis as well.

Just ask yourself: right now, who has hostages? Why did they take them, and why haven't they given them back?

And there it is.

How does history "favor" Jewish ownership? If that is true, does history favor ownership of N. America and Canada by indigenous peoples?

[Alexiev]

Well, you seem to think that "enemy combatant" is some kind of badge of honour. I don't see it that way. I don't think most people do. But then, some people also think "criminal" and "terrorist" are also honourifics. People think odd things. You can't prevent it. Some people are just evil.

Yes, some people are evil. Take you, for instance.

Bobby Sands was willing to starve himself to death protesting being called a criminal instead of an enemy combatant. So some people (especially terrorists like Bobby Sands) want to be called enemy combatants instead of criminals. I'd guess that most soldiers would agree. Not you, though.

[Immanuel Can]

How does history "favor" Jewish ownership? If that is true, does history favor ownership of N. America and Canada by indigenous peoples?

Well, I'm a Theist, so I think all land is held only by the grace of God. But if there's no God, then it's impossible to understand what you mean by anybody legitimately "owning" anything, including land. In that case, might makes right: whoever has the land, has it. No more can be said. Power is all their is. Nietzsche saw that point so clearly. From a Nietzschean perspective, the fact that the Israelis are stronger than the Palestinians militarily is as much justification as can be had for them keeping it.

However, maybe you're not in agreement with Nietzsche, and you think that there can be some other grounds of a moral right to own. In that case, I can't imagine what it would be, and you'd have to explain it to me...because nothing obvious suggests itself. How would you judge who has a right to a particular piece of land, absent any appeal to Divinely given right?

I'd be interested in knowing what metric you'd use.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you seem to think that "enemy combatant" is some kind of badge of honour. I don't see it that way. I don't think most people do. But then, some people also think "criminal" and "terrorist" are also honourifics. People think odd things. You can't prevent it. Some people are just evil.

Yes, some people are evil. Take you, for instance.

I've got news for you: in some ways, we're all evil. That's why we need to be saved from ourselves.

Bobby Sands was willing to starve himself to death protesting being called a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.

I don't know him, and I can't say I admire his judgment. He may have felt that way; nobody else is obligated to.

[Gary Childress]

How does history "favor" Jewish ownership? If that is true, does history favor ownership of N. America and Canada by indigenous peoples?

Well, I'm a Theist, so I think all land is held only by the grace of God. But if there's no God, then it's impossible to understand what you mean by anybody legitimately "owning" anything, including land. In that case, might makes right: whoever has the land, has it. No more can be said. Power is all their is. Nietzsche saw that point so clearly. From a Nietzschean perspective, the fact that the Israelis are stronger than the Palestinians militarily is as much justification as can be had for them keeping it.

However, maybe you're not in agreement with Nietzsche, and you think that there can be some other grounds of a moral right to own. In that case, I can't imagine what it would be, and you'd have to explain it to me...because nothing obvious suggests itself. How would you judge who has a right to a particular piece of land, absent any appeal to Divinely given right?

I'd be interested in knowing what metric you'd use.

Is Gaza held by Palestinians by the grace of God? How do you know when God approves of an owner of a land and when God doesn't? Are there times when humans do things that are not approved of by God? And if so, how do you know who has God's "grace" and who doesn't? Is that something you decide for yourself or do you consult God directly in order to find out who the rightful owner of a piece of land is?

[Immanuel Can]

How does history "favor" Jewish ownership? If that is true, does history favor ownership of N. America and Canada by indigenous peoples?

Well, I'm a Theist, so I think all land is held only by the grace of God. But if there's no God, then it's impossible to understand what you mean by anybody legitimately "owning" anything, including land. In that case, might makes right: whoever has the land, has it. No more can be said. Power is all their is. Nietzsche saw that point so clearly. From a Nietzschean perspective, the fact that the Israelis are stronger than the Palestinians militarily is as much justification as can be had for them keeping it.

However, maybe you're not in agreement with Nietzsche, and you think that there can be some other grounds of a moral right to own. In that case, I can't imagine what it would be, and you'd have to explain it to me...because nothing obvious suggests itself. How would you judge who has a right to a particular piece of land, absent any appeal to Divinely given right?

I'd be interested in knowing what metric you'd use.

Is Gaza held by Palestinians by the grace of God?

Well, he allowed them to have it for a time, for sure. But land ownership, in Theist thinking, is stewardship. We answer for what we do with what God has allowed us to have.

How do you know when God approves of an owner of a land and when God doesn't?

The more important question is, what does God approve of? What I know is of considerably lower importance in what happens.

Are there times when humans do things that are not approved of by God?

Oh, yes, of course. That's called "sin."

And if so, how do you know who has God's "grace" and who doesn't?

Some people have thought that whatever happens, that's what God has allowed, and thus approved. But that's clearly not the case, since, as you suggest, mankind can do things of which God does not approve. In such cases, God is patient and calls men to repent; and if they will not, what often happens is that they end up losing that privilege of stewardship that they once had.

You can read about this process in Torah, actually, in reference to a thing called "the Babylonian Captivity," which is what happened when the nation of Israel failed to take their stewarship responsibility under God seriously. They went into exile, for a time; and then God restored the nation.

Is that something you decide for yourself or do you consult God directly in order to find out who the rightful owner of a piece of land is?

Well, God owns all the land, as I said before. And like any real owner, He can designate who occupies what place for what time. But apart from His saying so, nobody owns any particular land.

[Gary Childress]

Well, I'm a Theist, so I think all land is held only by the grace of God. But if there's no God, then it's impossible to understand what you mean by anybody legitimately "owning" anything, including land. In that case, might makes right: whoever has the land, has it. No more can be said. Power is all their is. Nietzsche saw that point so clearly. From a Nietzschean perspective, the fact that the Israelis are stronger than the Palestinians militarily is as much justification as can be had for them keeping it.

However, maybe you're not in agreement with Nietzsche, and you think that there can be some other grounds of a moral right to own. In that case, I can't imagine what it would be, and you'd have to explain it to me...because nothing obvious suggests itself. How would you judge who has a right to a particular piece of land, absent any appeal to Divinely given right?

I'd be interested in knowing what metric you'd use.

Is Gaza held by Palestinians by the grace of God?

Well, he allowed them to have it for a time, for sure. But land ownership, in Theist thinking, is stewardship. We answer for what we do with what God has allowed us to have.

How do you know when God approves of an owner of a land and when God doesn't?

The more important question is, what does God approve of? What I know is of considerably lower importance in what happens.

Are there times when humans do things that are not approved of by God?

Oh, yes, of course. That's called "sin."

And if so, how do you know who has God's "grace" and who doesn't?

Some people have thought that whatever happens, that's what God has allowed, and thus approved. But that's clearly not the case, since, as you suggest, mankind can do things of which God does not approve. In such cases, God is patient and calls men to repent; and if they will not, what often happens is that they end up losing that privilege of stewardship that they once had.

You can read about this process in Torah, actually, in reference to a thing called "the Babylonian Captivity," which is what happened when the nation of Israel failed to take their stewarship responsibility under God seriously. They went into exile, for a time; and then God restored the nation.

Is that something you decide for yourself or do you consult God directly in order to find out who the rightful owner of a piece of land is?

Well, God owns all the land, as I said before. And like any real owner, He can designate who occupies what place for what time. But apart from His saying so, nobody owns any particular land.

How do we know if Israelis have not been good stewards of the land and have angered God? How do we know if God is happy with the way Israel has responded in the current crisis? Is it possible that God is angry with the Israelites and has therefore taken favor away from them among many people on Earth? If critics of Israel have the upper hand in discussions about the current situation in Gaza, could that be a sign that Israel is doing something wrong? Perhaps God is saying, ease up on my other children or something? Is it possible that we know God's verdict by responding truthfully and thoughtfully to those who criticize us? I mean, right now, there are some strong critics out there. Many of their arguments are compelling. If Israel remains unflinching and keeps pounding Gaza, it's going to increase resistance. I understand that Israel has refused a proposal from Qatar for a ceasefire on the grounds that it is too lenient on Hamas. Maybe Israel ought to bite the bullet and accept it if it would save lives, as a token of goodwill? Is it necessary to destroy Hamas to the last man taking whatever human shields with them? A lot of people in the third world empathize with the Palestinians because they feel they are victims of American/European neo-colonialism. And they feel taken advantage of. I see very little way to reassure them otherwise, not after what many in the third world have been through at the hands of the US in particular. I wish I could say we are saints but it doesn't seem to be a defensible argument.

[Alexiev]

Well, you seem to think that "enemy combatant" is some kind of badge of honour. I don't see it that way. I don't think most people do. But then, some people also think "criminal" and "terrorist" are also honourifics. People think odd things. You can't prevent it. Some people are just evil.

Yes, some people are evil. Take you, for instance.

I've got news for you: in some ways, we're all evil. That's why we need to be saved from ourselves.

Bobby Sands was willing to starve himself to death protesting being called a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.

I don't know him, and I can't say I admire his judgment. He may have felt that way; nobody else is obligated to.

Of course nobody is "obligated to". Geez, Louise! That has nothing to do with my point. Bobby Sands was famous. Google him.

[Immanuel Can]

How do we know if Israelis have not been good stewards of the land and have angered God?

That's up to Him, isn't it? It's not for me to tell God what to think. But He's already made it clear what He values; and I suspect that Israel's dance with that has been more than a little equivocal, historically speaking. That's certainly the tale Torah tells, as well.

However what it also says is that while God will sometimes chastise His chosen people, He will never abandon them. They may wander, and He may rebuke, but He will also restore.

But as for why people have the territories they do, as Paul says in his Areopagus address,

"He [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might feel around for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us..." (Acts 17:26-27)

How do we know if God is happy with the way Israel has responded in the current crisis?

Well, what we know is not really the issue. We're merely human, and there is a great deal we do not know. The decision of God is what matters.

Perhaps God is saying, ease up on my other children or something?

He could be...but in what form?

It's far from clear that the present state of Israel is in a wonderful spiritual condition. Like any other nation, they can make mistakes. On the other hand, the cause of the present war is genocidal aggression from Hamas, so it's hard to know what we could expect them to do. What they are doing is probably not the ideal, but it's hard to see what choices Hamas is leaving them: abandon the hostages? Accept annihilation? What should they do?

Maybe Israel ought to bite the bullet and accept it if it would save lives, as a token of goodwill?

I don't know the terms, so I can't speak to that. In any case, it would just be one man's opinion if I did. But I can see that Hamas is not prepared to give up, and the minute that Israel relents, will renew hostilities. I don't know what one does when one finds one has an implacable enemy on one's very border, and one lives in a state only a little bigger than New Jersey.

Is it necessary to destroy Hamas to the last man taking whatever human shields with them?

Well, Hamas could surrender and give up the hostages. Then the war would instantly be over. But they won't, obviously.

A lot of people in the third world empathize with the Palestinians because they feel they are victims of American/European neo-colonialism.

Yes, that's a nonsense view, really. Those people don't know what they're talking about. The antipathy between the Arabs and Jews vastly predates any "colonialism." It was Edward Said who really came up with that silly idea, and he devised it to excuse everything the Arabs could choose to do, blaming Western powers who were very late into the Mideast "game" for everything that's been done by the Arabs.

Don't buy the "postcolonialism" nonsense. I lived in a former colony, just after it achieved independence. And I can tell you for sure that everything it had going for it, it lost when it became independent, and it was the fault of tribal thinking, not of colonial interference. What people in the West don't really understand is that in addition to the furniture of modernity, such as factories, accounting practices, contractual relations, public works, educational plans and such, there is a whole set of values, beliefs and morals that make a modern state function effectively; and people who abandon those values soon loose all the gains of modernity and descend into tribalism, corruption and even murder, in spite of still having all the furniture.

In the case of Gaza, all the UN aid (furniture of Western Christian thinking) was soon converted into concrete for tunnels, rockets, bombs and guns, which were used to heighten tribal animosities instead of benefitting the populace. The problem was not a lack of money, nor a lack of Western compassion, nor the presence of any Western interference in the situation: it was the barbarism in the hearts of Hamas operatives, and those who supported them.

[Immanuel Can]

Bobby Sands was famous.

Sorry...but I'm not understanding what his choice has to do with me, or with the present point.