Hamas and Netanyahu: Another Plague Upon Humanity

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if were me, right after the attacks, I would probably start trying to negotiate to get the hostages back, bury the dead, treat the wounded, and try to rebuild some of the wreckage. What else ought a person do?

Israel's doing all that.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

[Iwannaplato]

Well, if were me, right after the attacks, I would probably start trying to negotiate to get the hostages back, bury the dead, treat the wounded, and try to rebuild some of the wreckage. What else ought a person do?

Israel's doing all that.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

When is it alright to kill unborn children and small children? Why do the Israeli's get a pass? I can see ho some belief systems allow for this, but I find it hard to understand yours allowing for it.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if were me, right after the attacks, I would probably start trying to negotiate to get the hostages back, bury the dead, treat the wounded, and try to rebuild some of the wreckage. What else ought a person do?

Israel's doing all that.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

When is it alright to kill unborn children and small children?

Nobody said it was. I understand Israel's trying to avoid that. But it's bound to happen in a war, isn't it? However, it's certainly better than just lining them up and severing their heads. That much, we can grant.

Why do the Israeli's get a pass?

They don't. But they're a secular state. Gaza's an Islamic one. What do you expect?

[Gary Childress]

Well, if were me, right after the attacks, I would probably start trying to negotiate to get the hostages back, bury the dead, treat the wounded, and try to rebuild some of the wreckage. What else ought a person do?

Israel's doing all that.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

When is it alright to kill unborn children and small children? Why do the Israeli's get a pass? I can see ho some belief systems allow for this, but I find it hard to understand yours allowing for it.

Fetuses past 6 months, small children, and adults seem to clearly suffer a lot more than fetuses do at the early stages of pregnancy (if you're now trying to accuse people of having abortions in early stages of pregnancy of "murder" or accusing them doing no differently than Hamas).

What do you mean by "why do the Israelis get a pass". It appears to me that ARE getting a "pass". They're getting a pass to kill innocent civilians as we speak. They don't seem to be listening to anyone who is asking them not to.

[Iwannaplato]

Nobody said it was.

Well, it's going to happen. They know that. They know that they will kill not only unborn children but also the mothers with them.

I understand Israel's trying to avoid that.

They may be trying to minimize it but they are not trying to avoid it. They are waging war in an incredibly densely populated area.

But it's bound to happen in a war, isn't it?

Yes, which is why some people refuse to serve in wars.

However, it's certainly better than just lining them up and severing their heads. That much, we can grant.

But that's not how Christian morality works. They are worse then me so I get to kill children.

Why do the Israeli's get a pass?

They don't. But they're a secular state. Gaza's an Islamic one. What do you expect?

What I meant was that you are justifying the actions that will without doubt cause the deaths of unborn children (and already born children of all ages).

Yes, not carrying out the war might have negative consequences for Israel. But that's possible with all sorts of moral restrictions. That if you follow them, you may not get what you want. Otherwise we wouldn't need morals, at least according to those who think we have to have them, and we could just let self-interest guide actions.

So, when is it ok to klll children?

And what part of the NT justifies this?

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody said it was.

Well, it's going to happen. They know that. They know that they will kill not only unborn children but also the mothers with them.

Very likely indeed, since Hamas is definitely using innocents as human shields. And the Israelis might even end up killing their own people, the hostages that Hamas has abducted. So it's all pretty bad.

However, it's certainly better than just lining them up and severing their heads. That much, we can grant.

But that's not how Christian morality works. They are worse then me so I get to kill children.

Nobody said they do. I agree that war is bad...and I also suggest that genocidal, unprovoked war is morally worse than provoked, somewhat-restrained war. But war's just plain bad.

Why do the Israeli's get a pass?

They don't. But they're a secular state. Gaza's an Islamic one. What do you expect?

What I meant was that you are justifying the actions that will without doubt cause the deaths of unborn children (and already born children of all ages).

You'll have to show me where. I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. As I've pointed out, we're talking about a secular state fighting against an Islamic one: the whole thing's a disaster. So I'm saying that even if provoked, Israel's fighting a war is going to kill some innocent people, and that's bad. And Hamas having started a war, willfully and gleefully butchering civilians, taking hostages and using their own citizens as human shields is bad.

I'm simply asking what alternative you might suppose Hamas is leaving to Israel? How can they get out of this? If you and I are going to tell them to do so, we're going to need to say how they can do it.

[Iwannaplato]

Very likely indeed, since Hamas is definitely using innocents as human shields. And the Israelis might even end up killing their own people, the hostages that Hamas has abducted. So it's all pretty bad.

Yup.

Nobody said they do. I agree that war is bad...and I also suggest that genocidal, unprovoked war is morally worse than provoked, somewhat-restrained war. But war's just plain bad.

I think saying that the war is unprovoked is missing a lot of history, but that's all peripheral to my point.

You'll have to show me where.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

You seem to have there and in the posts before said that there is no other alternative. I can see the argument from a consequentialist point of view that there is no option the Israelis will be happy with, but a deontologist doesn't really have that swing room
Yes, you haven't come right out and said that it's ok. But if you notice how your posts function in relation to someone saying it is wrong what Israel is doing, it functions as a defense.

But fine. If you are not saying it is ok, could you then say that it is immoral of Israel to carry out actions that will kill both born and unborn children?

I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. As I've pointed out, we're talking about a secular state fighting against an Islamic one: the whole thing's a disaster. So I'm saying that even if provoked, Israel's fighting a war is going to kill some innocent people, and that's bad. And Hamas having started a war, willfully and gleefully butchering civilians, taking hostages and using their own citizens as human shields is bad.

I'm simply asking what alternative you might suppose Hamas is leaving to Israel? How can they get out of this? If you and I are going to tell them to do so, we're going to need to say how they can do it.

Again, my take on Christian morality is that the actions of others do not justify committing sins oneself. Perhaps that's not how you see Christianity.

It seems like to a Christian the action of killing children, including unborn children, has to be avoided at all costs. And there is eternity to work out any needed justice involved.

I don't have to propose some alternative and defend it as in some way ok for Israel. That's not how deontological moral absolutes work. More Palestinian children have died than Israeli. Is it morally wrong for Israel to kill children? Or can one justify this based on consequences?

[Immanuel Can]

I think saying that the war is unprovoked is missing a lot of history, but that's all peripheral to my point.

I think that imagining that the Palestinians are indigenous and Israelis are not is missing even more history. But we'll let that be.

You'll have to show me where.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

You seem to have there and in the posts before said that there is no other alternative.

No, I'm just sizing up the problem rightly. For it is quite true that what the Israeli's say is right: if the Palestinians laid down their arms tonight, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. But if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israelis tomorrow.

That's a fair assessment, not given the Israeli's statements only, but given the Palestinians' own claims.

Yes, you haven't come right out and said that it's ok.

Indeed I have not. And with good reason. What you're witnessing is a war between secularism and Islam. Nothing's okay there.

But if you notice how your posts function in relation to someone saying it is wrong what Israel is doing, it functions as a defense.

I don't think it does. I don't defend war. But I do think that attacking civilians deliberately and harming some accidentally have different moral weights, even though both are wrong. In particular, the viciousness of the intention is quite different. I have no doubt that it would serve Israel very well if NO civilians were ever harmed. I'm certain they'd prefer that, if we only say it would be better strategically, from an international perspective. The problem is that they can't get at Hamas without some involuntary harm coming to civilians, and Hamas is making it impossible for them not to respond...and are using their own civilians as human shields, in the hope of getting them killed so as to leverage it against international opinion.

And too many people are falling for it. But who surprised and slaughtered the Israeli civilians? Hamas did it. Who put the Palestinian civilians in harm's way? Hamas did. And who holds them in Gaza when the Israelis gave them warning to flee? Hamas does. And who will not stop shooting rockets and won't surrender, so as to save their own people? Hamas. So on whose hands are the most dead babies?

There's blame to be had on both sides: but it's far from being equal blame.

I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. As I've pointed out, we're talking about a secular state fighting against an Islamic one: the whole thing's a disaster. So I'm saying that even if provoked, Israel's fighting a war is going to kill some innocent people, and that's bad. And Hamas having started a war, willfully and gleefully butchering civilians, taking hostages and using their own citizens as human shields is bad.

I'm simply asking what alternative you might suppose Hamas is leaving to Israel? How can they get out of this? If you and I are going to tell them to do so, we're going to need to say how they can do it.

Again, my take on Christian morality is that the actions of others do not justify committing sins oneself.

Whom are you asking to behave like Christians: the Israelis or Hamas? Is either a reasonable expectation?

I don't have to propose some alternative and defend it as in some way ok for Israel.

Well, if we can't tell them HOW they can stop, how can we expect that they should?

See, here's what I'm concerned about, Iwanna.

Low-information liberals, the kinds of people who find it really easy to oppose a war, but who have no desire to understand the situation of Israel, start demanding that Israel just quit. Hamas responds with terror, or with more promised to renew the war at all costs. Israel cannot quit, because to quit is to die. The low-information liberals start to get mad at Israel; anti-semitism rises. "Why won't Israel stop," they cry. But Israel has no way to be able to quit. Hamas has pulled them into a war which it is not going to let them out of. Hamas multiplies casualties, goes on a PR campaign internationally...and low-information liberals start to see Israel as the problem. Anti-semitism rises further. Calls for Israel to quit increase: but Israel cannot quit, because the Palestinians won't let Israel quit...

Consequence? A worldwide wave of antisemitism, over a situation that Israel cannot control, and isn't responsible for creating, and cannot quit without capitulation to genocide.

That outcome is not just not in the Palestinian interest; it's not in Israel's interest either. So that's why we need a practical plan. Israel needs some way to be allowed to stop. So what's your proposal?

[Gary Childress]

I think saying that the war is unprovoked is missing a lot of history, but that's all peripheral to my point.

I think that imagining that the Palestinians are indigenous and Israelis are not is missing even more history. But we'll let that be.

You'll have to show me where.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

You seem to have there and in the posts before said that there is no other alternative.

No, I'm just sizing up the problem rightly. For it is quite true that what the Israeli's say is right: if the Palestinians laid down their arms tonight, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. But if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israelis tomorrow.

That's a fair assessment, not given the Israeli's statements only, but given the Palestinians' own claims.

Yes, you haven't come right out and said that it's ok.

Indeed I have not. And with good reason. What you're witnessing is a war between secularism and Islam. Nothing's okay there.

But if you notice how your posts function in relation to someone saying it is wrong what Israel is doing, it functions as a defense.

I don't think it does. I don't defend war. But I do think that attacking civilians deliberately and harming some accidentally have different moral weights, even though both are wrong. In particular, the viciousness of the intention is quite different. I have no doubt that it would serve Israel very well if NO civilians were ever harmed. I'm certain they'd prefer that, if we only say it would be better strategically, from an international perspective. The problem is that they can't get at Hamas without some involuntary harm coming to civilians, and Hamas is making it impossible for them not to respond...and are using their own civilians as human shields, in the hope of getting them killed so as to leverage it against international opinion.

And too many people are falling for it. But who surprised and slaughtered the Israeli civilians? Hamas did it. Who put the Palestinian civilians in harm's way? Hamas did. And who holds them in Gaza when the Israelis gave them warning to flee? Hamas does. And who will not stop shooting rockets and won't surrender, so as to save their own people? Hamas. So on whose hands are the most dead babies?

There's blame to be had on both sides: but it's far from being equal blame.

I don't think that's what I'm doing at all. As I've pointed out, we're talking about a secular state fighting against an Islamic one: the whole thing's a disaster. So I'm saying that even if provoked, Israel's fighting a war is going to kill some innocent people, and that's bad. And Hamas having started a war, willfully and gleefully butchering civilians, taking hostages and using their own citizens as human shields is bad.

I'm simply asking what alternative you might suppose Hamas is leaving to Israel? How can they get out of this? If you and I are going to tell them to do so, we're going to need to say how they can do it.

Again, my take on Christian morality is that the actions of others do not justify committing sins oneself.

Whom are you asking to behave like Christians: the Israelis or Hamas? Is either a reasonable expectation?

I don't have to propose some alternative and defend it as in some way ok for Israel.

Well, if we can't tell them HOW they can stop, how can we expect that they should?

How to stop is the same way anyone stops something. I thought people had "free will"?

[Immanuel Can]

How to stop is the same way anyone stops something.

That's another mere tautology, like "malice is malice." If you want the Israeli's to stop, then surely you must be able to tell them how that can be made possible; if you cannot, then you're admitting you think it's impossible. And if it's impossible, you can't ask it anymore.

[Iwannaplato]

I think that imagining that the Palestinians are indigenous and Israelis are not is missing even more history. But we'll let that be.

Is that what I said? I missed that.

rNo, I'm just sizing up the problem rightly. For it is quite true that what the Israeli's say is right: if the Palestinians laid down their arms tonight, there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow. But if the Israelis laid down their arms, there would be no Israelis tomorrow.

That's a fair assessment, not given the Israeli's statements only, but given the Palestinians' own claims.

Right, you don't see: what else can they do? as a justification on your part for their killing children. Fine. We'll see if you say it is immoral.

Yes, you haven't come right out and said that it's ok.

Indeed I have not. And with good reason. What you're witnessing is a war between secularism and Islam. Nothing's okay there.

So, we'll see if you can condemn it. Or if, for some reason, you can't condemn the actions of certain groups of people.

But if you notice how your posts function in relation to someone saying it is wrong what Israel is doing, it functions as a defense.

I don't think it does. I don't defend war. But I do think that attacking civilians deliberately and harming some accidentally have different moral weights, even though both are wrong.

Of course.

In particular, the viciousness of the intention is quite different. I have no doubt that it would serve Israel very well if NO civilians were ever harmed. I'm certain they'd prefer that,

Ah, you know their intentions and goals.

if we only say it would be better strategically, from an international perspective. The problem is that they can't get at Hamas without some involuntary harm coming to civilians, and Hamas is making it impossible for them not to respond...and are using their own civilians as human shields, in the hope of getting them killed so as to leverage it against international opinion.

Yes, you keep repeating this.

And too many people are falling for it. But who surprised and slaughtered the Israeli civilians? Hamas did it.

And as far as I can tell from a Christian perspective two wrongs don't make a right. But then there are many Christian perspectives, so we'll see if you get around to taking a stand.

Who put the Palestinian civilians in harm's way? Hamas did. And who holds them in Gaza when the Israelis gave them warning to flee? Hamas does.

Do you look at maps? They are not allowed to flee into Egypt for the most part and they certainly can't flee into Israel. Shall they flee into the sea?

And who will not stop shooting rockets and won't surrender, so as to save their own people? Hamas. So on whose hands are the most dead babies?

Hamas having blame does not relieve Israel from blame. This seems the implicit claim so far in everything you write.

There's blame to be had on both sides: but it's far from being equal blame.

You really don't undertand what I am asking you. I haven't seen you explicitly say that Israel should not be killing babies. That this is sinful behavior. You can repeat for the 20th time that their not as bad as Hamas, but can you manage to condemn their killing babies?

Whom are you asking to behave like Christians: the Israelis or Hamas? Is either a reasonable expectation?

So, if an atheist has an abortion, is it OK? Are you saying that's it's ok to kill babies if other people are killing more babies of your race?

I don't have to propose some alternative and defend it as in some way ok for Israel.

Well, if we can't tell them HOW they can stop, how can we expect that they should?

So,
you are defending their actions, but you can't admit it.

See, here's what I'm concerned about, Iwanna.

Low-information liberals, the kinds of people who find it really easy to oppose a war, but who have no desire to understand the situation of Israel, start demanding that Israel just quit. Hamas responds with terror, or with more promised to renew the war at all costs. Israel cannot quit, because to quit is to die.

So, it is ok for them to kill babies. Certain circumstances lead to situations where it is ok to kill babies.
In your version of Christianity not killing the unborn is not an absolute rule. You can engage in actions that will kill the unborn and children - and you know that more Palestinian babies will die then Israeli babie - without it being immoral.

The low-information liberals start to get mad at Israel; anti-semitism rises. "Why won't Israel stop," they cry. But Israel has no way to be able to quit. Hamas has pulled them into a war which it is not going to let them out of. Hamas multiplies casualties, goes on a PR campaign internationally...and low-information liberals start to see Israel as the problem. Anti-semitism rises further. Calls for Israel to quit increase: but Israel cannot quit, because the Palestinians won't let Israel quit...

So, you are a consequentialist when it comes to baby killing.

Consequence? A worldwide wave of antisemitism, over a situation that Israel cannot control, and isn't responsible for creating, and cannot quit without capitulation to genocide.

That outcome is not just not in the Palestinian interest; it's not in Israel's interest either. So that's why we need a practical plan. Israel needs some way to be allowed to stop. So what's your proposal?

I think you are a very slimy person. I asked you numerous times to take a stand and instead you pose questions, rather than being clear. You have obviously been defending Israeli killing of children (because Hamas is worse morally, though you never manage to say that Israel is being immoral) And child of 10 up to any adult would see the above and your previous posts as saying it is not immoral for Israel to kill babies, but when this is pointed out 'I never said that'.

You don't seem to understand that what we do when we speak is a statement.

Then you make a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know. About what my position on the whole conflict is and so on.

And never manage to make a clear statement.

It's slimy, disingenuous. It has no honor.

You cannot admit what you defacto are saying and doing, while at the same time incredulous that anyone could disagree with what you cannot be honest about.

And then on a basic conversation partner issue, you're evasive as a rule, repeat yourself rather than actually responding to the point made.

Your responses are of the type children use.'
You shouldn't have played with your father's gun.
Jimmy took it out and actually shot the gun in the backyard.
I will talk to Jimmy later. I am telling you it was wrong and you know that.
My friend Joe gets to...
I am talking about your behavior.
Yeah, but other people do worse things.

Here you using such arguments in defense of someone else.

And yes, I understand that stopping the war on the Israeli side could very well lead to awful consequences, but that's the price of being moral, sometimes.

This has all been explained before to give context to a direct question which you simply cannot answer as a Christian. Even when that questions is present several times. I understand, you want to avoid saying something or facing cognitive dissoanance or whatever.

But then you should probably shut up moralizing to others and expecting them to justify their positions when you cannot take a stand yourself. Unless you don't mind being a hypocrite. IOW I am not telling you to shut up, I am saying that when you moralize and expect others to justify and take stands, while behaving like this, you're a hypocrite. Of course if that doesn't matter to you, blabber away.

[Immanuel Can]

...what else can they do?

Not butcher Israeli civilians in such vicious and brutal ways that it makes grown men who see it on film weep? That would be a nice start.

In particular, the viciousness of the intention is quite different. I have no doubt that it would serve Israel very well if NO civilians were ever harmed. I'm certain they'd prefer that,

Ah, you know their intentions and goals.

Well, I don't think they're stupid. And they are constantly issuing pronouncements to the effect that they are doing the most they can to mitigate the harm to civilians. Why would they be doing that, if they think that harming civilians is cost-free for them, and they're trying to do it? They have to know that if they could reassure the world that few or no civilians were harmed, it would free them to be harder on Hamas. It would also position them much better for international relations later, particularly with regard to future Abraham Accords.

Do you think they don't know that? Of course they do. If you and I know it, you can be sure they do too...Just as Hamas knew full well that butchering Israeli citizens would force a war, or shielding themselves with their own people would make Palestinian civilian deaths inevitable and far worse in number. These are not idiots: they may be immoral, but they know their own strategies.

if we only say it would be better strategically, from an international perspective. The problem is that they can't get at Hamas without some involuntary harm coming to civilians, and Hamas is making it impossible for them not to respond...and are using their own civilians as human shields, in the hope of getting them killed so as to leverage it against international opinion.

Yes, you keep repeating this.

Because it's true, of course.

And too many people are falling for it. But who surprised and slaughtered the Israeli civilians? Hamas did it.

And as far as I can tell from a Christian perspective two wrongs don't make a right.

There's no implication of that.

Do you look at maps? They are not allowed to flee into Egypt for the most part and they certainly can't flee into Israel. Shall they flee into the sea?

I do look at maps. And I know that the majority of the fighting is taking place in northern Gaza, and the Israelis have encouraged citizens to go to the southern half. But Hamas has blocked its people, because of its desire to keep the "human shields" in place.

You see, Hamas clearly knows exactly what Israel knows: that civilian casualties are bad for Israel's business, but good for Hamas's.

As for Egypt, you have to ask yourself quite different questions, like "Why would Muslim Arabs not want other Muslim Arabs to have refuge in their country?" "Where is the Muslim-Muslim love?" But they don't. And here's another question: when Bashaar al Asad killed almost 900,000 of his own people, where were Western liberals? Where were the street marches, the outrage, the international pressure? Current estimates on the Gaza war are around 8,000. That's bad: but it's nowhere near the tragedy of Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Syria or Yemen (About 377,000 dead Arabs in that one).

I'm tempted to think that the only mideastern nation the West is interested in blaming and hating is Israel. And I don't think the evinced concern for dead Arabs is genuine at all, given the previous indifference of such liberals to much more vicious and devastating instances of organized murder in the same regions.

And who will not stop shooting rockets and won't surrender, so as to save their own people? Hamas. So on whose hands are the most dead babies?

Hamas having blame does not relieve Israel from blame.

You keep coming back to this, though I've neither said nor implied it even once. It makes me wonder if they idea isn't just occurring in your own conscience: but I assure you it's not my point.

I haven't seen you explicitly say that Israel should not be killing babies.

I've already condemned war...repeatedly. But you seem determined to turn what they're doing into a deliberate "killing of babies" like Hamas did. I don't think they're parallel. And I think paralleling them is ethically dishonest. Israel is doing something bad, called "war." Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians and cutting the heads of babies, or ripping them out of the wombs of their pregnant mothers and then killing them in front of that mother's eyes (Yes, that's apparently in the Hamas films, according to the media.)

Are those sins equivalent? I'd be interested in knowing your perspective on that.

I don't have to propose some alternative and defend it as in some way ok for Israel.

Well, if we can't tell them HOW they can stop, how can we expect that they should?

So,you are defending their actions, but you can't admit it.

Not at all. I'm asking you how to get them to STOP.

And you can't think of a way. So I don't know what you're asking for. If Israel is left with no option but to continue to bomb Hamas, civilians are going to die. So what's the alternative they have?

Israel needs some way to be allowed to stop. So what's your proposal?

I think you are a very slimy person.

Ad hominem. I know what that means. It means you can't answer the question, so you deflect to insulting the speaker.

But honestly, Iwanna...if you are advocating for something here, I want to know what it is. Is it the genocide of Israel? If it's not, then you need to have a plan for how Israel can stop the war.

You have obviously been defending Israeli killing of children

I have not done so even once. Look back, and you'll see.

But I have also resisted the false equivalency you're attempting to create, which is the impression that Israel came into Gaza to "kill babies," just like Hamas came into Israel. And I notice that you're very scant of mention of all the attrocities of Hamas, too....and I can't help but wonder why, since their attrocities were far more flagrant than those of the Israelis, and are in fact, on film...which Hamas itself proudly made. Meanwhile, Israel seems to be conducting a war while attempting to mitigate civilian casualties, and you don't given them a stitch of credit for doing things like bringing supplies and incubators into Gaza...which is also on film.

I have to say, your current attention to children is very, very selective...and a little troubling.

And yes, I understand that stopping the war on the Israeli side could very well lead to awful consequences, but that's the price of being moral, sometimes.

Wait.

So your plan is this...Hamas and Israel have both done evil. So Israel should allow itself to be slaughtered by Hamas in a genocide. And you say, "that's the price"? Is there a price for Hamas and its allies? Or is Israel the only side that should pay a price for evil?

This has all been explained before to give context to a direct question which you simply cannot answer as a Christian.

I keep answering it, but you don't like the answer. And that's because I'm refusing your false equivalency.

You're doing a very transparent thing here, Iwanna: you're interpreting Israel's war as deliberate "baby murder," and Hamas's deliberate baby murder as an irrelevant detail, unimportant to what should happen here. So much so, that you even believe, as you have said, that the Israeli's have to "pay the price," the whole price of the conflict...even to the point of being wiped out "from the river to the sea," as the Palestinians chant.

That is my stand. You have it. You just don't like it. But I'm not currying favour here: I'm just telling the truth.

And you know what else? I actually think you actually know that.

[commonsense]

Well, if were me, right after the attacks, I would probably start trying to negotiate to get the hostages back, bury the dead, treat the wounded, and try to rebuild some of the wreckage. What else ought a person do?

Israel's doing all that.

But you have an implacable enemy on your border, one that is drooling to slit your throat, rape your women and behead your children, and has no interest whatsoever in negotiation. It's continually shooting rockets into your territory, and continually planning the next massacre, and is so indifferent to its own welfare and that of its own citizens that it turns them into jihadis and human shields. And it will not grant you any right to exist, no matter how long you're there, and no matter how you may threaten. The minute you back down, they will eat you alive.

So what do you do with that?

When is it alright to kill unborn children and small children? Why do the Israeli's get a pass? I can see ho some belief systems allow for this, but I find it hard to understand yours allowing for it.

I thought you were talking about the indifference to human life that is owned by Hamas!

[accelafine]

Apparently, the Netanyahu government was monetarily backing Hamas for a while because they knew they could count on Hamas to undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinians crisis, giving the Netanyahu government the upper hand over the Palestinians instead of allowing more moderate Palestinian officials to protest Israeli control. Israeli extremists have been illegally advocating for Israeli settlements to overrun the Palestinians. It appears that Hamas and the Netanyahu government along with Israeli extremists all need to go. Fuck both groups. Both Israel and Gaza deserve better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ9PKQbkJv8

Sounds like another ridiculous conspiracy theory. What could Israel possibly have to gain by bankrolling Hamas? Not that it would need to anyway. Hamas has been pocketing aid to Gaza for decades. How else do you think its leaders because billionaires?

[Iwannaplato]

I thought you were talking about the indifference to human life that is owned by Hamas!

If I had a Christian, anti-abortion person justifying Hamas, I'd ask that person similar questions. There are likely other categories of person I might take a similar line with.

People don't seem to realize that more than one side can be unethical, and if they have absolute, deontological positions, they really can't throw up consequentialist arguments (or in IC's case implicit arguments he can't seem to manage taking a stand on) and be consistent.