The USA and Israel

[Alexis Jacobi]

The very WORST moral position for an onlooker in this situation is to sympathize at all with Hamas. That's to side with demonstrated homicidal maniacs.

I sympathize with the Palestinian struggle, but my most obvious alliances are with Israel.

Both Israel and Hamas (and other strict Islamic groups) are distasteful to my sensibilities, but I cannot see the Muslim Brotherhood’s religious-bases objectives as substantially different from Israel’s. They mirror each other.

You are no moralist, Manny. You demonstrate your failure in this area with every post.

Doing more research I do accept that condemnable and cruel sexual and other torture was inflicted by some Hamas fighters. I had doubts. Now I don’t.

I do not validate or excuse it, but I do see it as part of a vicious cycle of (always escalating) violence and cruelty on both sides.

Yet as Miko Peled (Israeli Pro-Palestinian rights activist) said: take what Hamas and all Palestinians have done to Israelis, magnify it 1,000 times, and it will not equal the harm done to Palestinians by Israel.

There, you moral looser, you fraud, is where the real moral problem is.

[Alexis Jacobi]

In fact, for Hamas, that's their "second best outcome": that if they cannot defeat the Jews themselves, they succeed in distracting from their own corruption, homicidal mania and ineptitude, and garner sympathy from a morally-confused Leftist-propagandized world.

What are your sources on the topic of Hamas’ corruption? Can you post reputable links?

The topic of ‘moral confusion’ requires more exposition. I don’t accept the strict divisions between a right-tending and a left-tending morality. I would say there is severe general moral confusion.

And you are (obviously) morally confused but can’t see yourself. That is a moral problem!

[Gary Childress]

No, I've repeatedly said what my solution is: Hamas needs to be arrested by an international coalition, and brought to justice accordingly.

That will not happen.

Do you know whose fault that is? It's the fault of those who are afraid to intervene, or who don't like Israel and would rather see Hamas kill Jews -- even if that would also mean that Hamas ends up causing the total destruction of Gaza. In fact, for Hamas, that's their "second best outcome": that if they cannot defeat the Jews themselves, they succeed in distracting from their own corruption, homicidal mania and ineptitude, and garner sympathy from a morally-confused Leftist-propagandized world. Then they get something for their strategy...not the first thing they want, but maybe they think they can get the international community to turn on Israel. At any rate, they're preventing further extension of the Abraham Accords.

The very WORST moral position for an onlooker in this situation is to sympathize at all with Hamas. That's to side with demonstrated homicidal maniacs.

Is that you, siding with Hamas?

Hamas has dehumanized itself in its own singleminded vindictive mission to dehumanize Israel in order to destroy it as retaliation for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

So the question becomes, do the rest of us onlookers also play this game of dehumanization by treating Gazans as mere bodies standing in the way of a morally superior outcome (the destruction of the evil that is Hamas)? Do the rest of us equally become monsters in order to back whatever favored monster we may have in the game?

I have no desire whatsoever to see Hamas destroy Israel. It makes me cringe to think such a thing. Does that mean I must wholesale support the killing of tens of thousands of Gazans because their leadership (Hamas at this moment) has embraced evil? What kind of choice is that? Certainly not a moral one.

By the same token, since George Bush Jr.'s administration committed evil by invading a country that did not attack us, am I to believe that my own life is fodder for any would-be retribution against the US? Is my life now valueless because my leaders chose evil against my knowledge and will? If Iraqis decide to launch a missile in retaliation and it lands on me, do I have no recourse but to reap what my leaders have sown for me?

It is not morally rational to support evil in order to stop evil.

[Immanuel Can]

The very WORST moral position for an onlooker in this situation is to sympathize at all with Hamas. That's to side with demonstrated homicidal maniacs.

I sympathize with the Palestinian struggle, but my most obvious alliances are with Israel.

Would that it were so simple, of course...that Palestinians had not elected Hamas, and that Palestinians did not dance in the streets when Jews were massacred. How great it would be if we lived in a world like that. But the best we can do is say that the Palestinians are people who are wrong, and sometimes wrong in extreme ways, and still have a right to live-and-let-live, if that's what they're willing to do. So we need to get rid of Hamas, just as I've suggested, and then make a new and better offer to the Palestinian people.

But as you say, I don't think the sane solution is one that is going to come about. I'd be surprised and happy if it did, but I think it won't.

[Gary Childress]

But as you say, I don't think the sane solution is one that is going to come about. I'd be surprised and happy if it did, but I think it won't.

If there is a God and God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then I would assume something will happen to bring about a sane solution. Otherwise, God must be a helpless bystander as well.

[phyllo]

But as you say, I don't think the sane solution is one that is going to come about. I'd be surprised and happy if it did, but I think it won't.

If there is a God and God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then I would assume something will happen to bring about a sane solution. Otherwise, God must be a helpless bystander as well.

You forgot that Satan is the master of this world.

[Gary Childress]

But as you say, I don't think the sane solution is one that is going to come about. I'd be surprised and happy if it did, but I think it won't.

If there is a God and God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then I would assume something will happen to bring about a sane solution. Otherwise, God must be a helpless bystander as well.

You forgot that Satan is the master of this world.

Well, sometimes it seems that way. But in the end, good ought to prevail. If there is a God and God is good, then it will.

[phyllo]

Well, sometimes it seems that way. But in the end, good ought to prevail. If there is a God and God is good, then it will.

What time is "the end"? So I can set my alarm.

[Gary Childress]

Well, sometimes it seems that way. But in the end, good ought to prevail. If there is a God and God is good, then it will.

What time is "the end"? So I can set my alarm.

Well, I suppose that's true also. There certainly appears to be evil in the world. And if good is going to prevail "in the end" then I guess we won't find out until the end, whenever that is.

I'd rather good prevail before "the end" comes. After "the end" it seems like there won't be any time to enjoy all the goodness.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[FlashDangerpants]

Which half are you serious about?

Good question...

And the answer is....?

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, for Hamas, that's their "second best outcome": that if they cannot defeat the Jews themselves, they succeed in distracting from their own corruption, homicidal mania and ineptitude, and garner sympathy from a morally-confused Leftist-propagandized world.

What are your sources on the topic of Hamas’ corruption? Can you post reputable links?

Read my last one. It's from West Point. It's in there. But here's another: https://nypost.com/2023/11/07/news/hama ... -in-qatar/.

[Immanuel Can]

So the question becomes, do the rest of us onlookers also play this game of dehumanization by treating Gazans as mere bodies standing in the way of a morally superior outcome (the destruction of the evil that is Hamas)?

Well, it would be convenient to imagine that it was just that easy to divide responsibility: that Israel was being the aggressor, and Gazans the helpless victims. But there's multiple problems with that construction of the situation. One is that the first victimizers of the Palestinians are Hamas. Hamas has robbed and abused Gazans, but Gazans chose Hamas. Hamas launched the massacre in Israel, and continues to fire the rockets that make the war continue, and lines up Gazans as human shields.

A second is that Gazans chose Hamas. And unfortunately, a great many completely sympathize with Hamas, and want Hamas to win. How else did all those terrorist tunnels get built and kept so secret, if the Gazans were against harming Israelis?

The third is that Hamas has Israel out of options: how does one stop fighting against an enemy who is entirely dedicated to your destruction? So far, nobody here seems to be able to say just HOW Israel can stop, so long as Hamas continues. So if we want Israel to desist, do we not need to tell them how we're going to make it possible for them, short of them all being massacred -- if not in this conflict, in the very next one Hamas arranges? For Hamas has not relented, and will not quit attacking.

Ceasefires? Hamas breaks them. Two-state solutions? Neither the Palestinians nor Hamas will accept one. So how is Israel to be secured against what Hamas is clearly devoted to doing? Anybody who wants Israel to quit the war has to tell them how it can be done. That's only fair.

Meanwhile, it's just not reasonable or practical, let alone moral, to tell the Israelis, "Just be willing to be wiped out from the river to the sea," or even "Just be prepared to permit perpetual massacre raids from hateful terrorists on your people forever." So what do you tell them?

[Immanuel Can]

But as you say, I don't think the sane solution is one that is going to come about. I'd be surprised and happy if it did, but I think it won't.

If there is a God and God is benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then I would assume something will happen to bring about a sane solution. Otherwise, God must be a helpless bystander as well.

Well, I think something WILL happen. But man will be given a lot of latitude, first. Let nobody say God's got us all locked up on short chains: clearly, what Hamas shows is that we can do a great deal of evil prior to the Final Intervention. But it will come. And when it does, you can be quite sure that all the injustices involved will be remedied...and the very last drop of blood or uttered curse-word will be answered for.

[Wizard22]

And the answer is....?

I haven't decided yet.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Read my last one. It's from West Point. It's in there. But here's another

I suggest, you foolish man, greater discrimination when you drink down such *news reporting* as the article you submitted. It is filled with insinuation but has no real substance. I did a bit of research on Benjamin Weinthal (one author) and he is pretty deeply enmeshed with news reporting that, let's face it, has more to do with spreading mis- and disinformation within a news environment where people select the *truths* they want to believe, for varied reasons, but cannot be said to be interested in a full picture. The New York Post? Are you for real?

Your insinuation has a function and a purpose: to discredit and to undermine the validity of Palestinian or Hamas opposition to the Israeli state and it manifold operations. Had you a less contaminated brain you would, at the least, recognize that we are all swimming in propaganda narratives coming from all sides. Your insinuation also involves rhetorical trickery: you present a condemning picture, which may or may not have elements of truth in it, and you ask that I deny it or debunk it. Doing that I am then trapped in your rhetorical mud puddle.

Your sole purpose, you fraud, is to discredit the Palestinian resistance at all points, on all levels, because your objective, which you pursue even if it involves lies, mistruths, calumny and any other dubious trait, is to defend the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness. Your zealousness, which you present as enlightened vision, blinds you. You cannot face this so you double-down on your *position* time and again. Again, all of these fallacies and intellectual errors stem from the main root: religious fanaticism. You are a religious fanatic and a Christian Zionist. You say you are a friend of Jews and of Israel but in fact, because you are deeply involved in lies and lying, you are not. You contribute to bad outcomes even when you profess to serve a transforming higher value.

If genuine philosophical pursuit is supposed to be an activity of truth-seeking and gaining a foothold in sound and reasonable perspectives, you are a total failure.

What I have learned from you I might speak of if I refer to your Demiurge: that imago you refer to when you mention the name of Jesus Christ. The actual fact, Manny, is that employing the metaphysical logic within your own system, you are a Satan worshipper. You lie constantly, primarily to yourself (self-deception) and then you spread your lies in concert with many others but all directed by vast media interests and propaganda-systems. You are chained, through your own choices, down there at a low level of the Platonic Cave feeding on, reveling in, imagery that is fed to you. You are in thrall to a sort of blinded psycho-political demonism.

As you know I am not speaking to a you-singular I am speaking about a you-plural. But neither do I exclude anyone from the pitfall of failure to discern our actual position within a large and powerful system that molds and controls our perception.

I have given you, time and again, a discounted avenue to your intellectual liberation (access to the 10-Week Email Course) but no more. Now I am fining you for your willed stupidity. It has simply put become intolerable! $499.00 is the fee that you must pay. Interest accrues daily.

IMMANUEL CAN: Where learned you this, fool?
ALEXIS JACOBI: Not i' the stocks, fool.