I'm glad to see FAIR sticking to its principals instead of letting anger win. The Hamas attacks were brutal and vicious. People praising them are ignoring that fact. But we need not be brutal and vicious in our response. We need not sink to that level.
I'm glad to see FAIR sticking to its principals instead of letting anger win. The Hamas attacks were brutal and vicious. People praising them are ignoring that fact. But we need not be brutal and vicious in our response. We need not sink to that level.
So (sarcastically, of course) is "I sank to that level." I believe we should stand our ground but with good morals. Otherwise we aren't the good people we pretend to be.
Humans make our most evil decisions when we view human conflict as good people vs bad people instead of moral choices vs immoral. Look at any atrocity in history - including Hamas's rape, torture, and murder of Israeli people - and you will find that mindset. But there are no magical chosen ones who can do whatever despicable thing they want and still be good people.
My argument is that we should be using good morals to combat bad. Hamas did a terrible thing. People who are arguing, "Hamas are good people who were pushed to do this" are fooling themselves. Hamas chose to be bad people when they chose bad morals.
Good people are dead people if they aren't willing to do bad things when needed.
When I am looking at someone who is threating to kill me I'm not considering "good or bad", "moral or immoral". I'm thinking "kill or be killed".
The false choice is what you propose: if you do a bad thing you can't be a good person. And that highlights the biggest tension of the human condition. We can define "good" and "bad", but can't seem to accept that both exist in people and that "co-existence" is not their definition.
My comment has to do with responding in kind because "they started it," not with avoiding asserting your beliefs. If we have a vengeful attitude, then everyone has a right to react with aggression to every perceived attack. This is what I'm arguing against. And to clarify, I'm talking about verbal/ideological threats. A physical threat is a different scenario. The rules are more dog-eat-dog in a violenclt situation.
Let's say I overhear someone saying that Israel was asking for it, and Hamas is only fighting for the rights of Palestinians. If I respond by saying the speaker deserves to be raped like Israeli women were, or I beat them up because they are verbally supporting violent extremism, then I am responding in kind. I am defending my right to live free from the threat of physical violence by attacking someone promoting violence. But I'm also increasing tension and promoting an altercation between myself and this other person. And since we are all representatives of our belief systems, I'm also promoting an altercation between my political/ideological group and the other person's.
In a nutshell, as long as it isn't a physical threat, I believe we should take the opportunity to show the other person how their view is harmful in an assertive, non-aggressive way. It's the only way to make progress.
It's a lovely, luxury sentiment until your daughter is raped and killed at a music festival or someone kills your family in front of you. It's not like hamas selected an actual political or military target to go after - they went straight for civilians. It is necessary to crush the people who did this.
When waging war one must NEVER allow emotions to over-ride reason. No matter what atrocities have been perpetuated against YOU, exercising restraint goes far beyond a moral luxury. Restraint and reason are pragmatic and critical to victory.
Remember the Abu Graib videos which showed US guards humiliating muslim prisoners (in violation of the rules of war and civilization)? Those guards had emotional reasons to exact revenge for 9/11 - they would not be human if they did not feel the desire for revenge. Unfortunately, when the video leaked it incited much anti-American hatred and rallied the resistance (for many Iraqis, America was an aggressor attacking and innocent nation). I have heard an estimate that that video extended the war by a few years and cost many soldier's lives.
The history of war shows that treating the enemy cruelly galvanizes their resolve and creates enemies faster than you can kill them. If you want to end Hamas' influence you must erode their popular support ... which means waging war surgically, rationally and with restraint.
As I said, when there is a physical threat, a physical response is often needed. However, we need not sink to their level. We shouldn't send in our soldiers to rape and to kill civilians.
It's not a luxury. If your morals only last until you are provoked, then they aren't morals. You were just in a good mood.
Your original comment appeared to suggest that Israel should moderate itтАЩs response to the hamas outrage. Of course no sane person could advocate or condone what Hamas did, and clearly Israel is not responding in kind. So not clear on the genesis of your original comment.
I was referring to the substack article from FAIR about canceling people for conmemning Israel/being pro-Palestine. My original comment was referring to sticking to principals/morals even when someone is saying something you believe to be very wrong. Using violence/aggression to silence opinions you tends to worsen the situation, makes people arguing for peace/dialogue into hypocrits, and makes the "sane" group into a villain. That's what I was trying to get at; I was pleased that FAIR wasn't being hypocritical and was sticking to its principals, even in a terrible situation.
Not sinking to that level is difficult when you know Hamas will repeat their horrible killings over and over till every Jew is gone. Isn't that in their charter?
Hamas carried out a physical act of violence, so a physical response is necessary. I'm talking about sinking to their level. There is a difference between defending yourself (or country, etc.) from a physical threat and harming civilians. I'm talking about avoiding unnecessary and cruel acts just because we are rightfully angry that Hamas did something despicable.
Dana, do you feel that way regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The majority of the war has been aimed at Ukrainian civilians. Russia has constantly bombed hospitals, schools, apartment building, homes, farms and many other civilian infrastructures ie train stations, restaurants and the list goes on plus the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Like Hamas, Russia does not want Ukraine to exist. Would love your thoughts?
I cannot speak for Dana but I think your example is awesome! Western aid for Ukraine has been contingent on Ukrainian 'behavior.'
One thing they had to do is root out much corruption in their government because NATO wasn't going to send billions to have it line the pockets of oligarchs (many of whom are connected to Russian oligarchs!)
Another condition is following the 'rules of war' that prohibit, torture, targeting civilian populations & mistreating POW's (as the Russians are doing).
The problem is mistakes happen and there are always some bad apples. The trick is to practice restraint and not to become a monster when you fight a monster.
Yes, I do. I think that physical actions require physical responses, but I think coming at the situation with a vengeful attitude tends to destroy people's moral character until they are no better than the "bad guys." I attribute it to the fact that when people feel they have a moral motivation, they tend to think any action towards their goal is also moral.
To use a mundane example: Say a coworker is trash talking behind your back. Well, when they slip up and do something stupid/embarrassing, why not talk about them? They deserve it; they did the same to you. But now you are locked in a battle with this person, and they have a valid reason to think you are a scummy person. If you'd confronted them directly instead, you are more likely to stop the problem, and they don't have the excuse that you were doing it too.
Obviously, in situations like Ukraine or Israel, a stern talking-to isn't going to cut it. Military response is necessary and morals get murky. But if the goal is to retaliate, instead of to stop the invasion/violence, a lot more bad will come of it. That's why I argue for sticking to morals and avoiding unnecessary violence.
Hamas hates Israel and feels they deserved the attacks. They feel that taking Palestinian land was a moral flaw on Israel's part. So they (Hamas) feel justified in committing war crimes because they have a moral reason behind their actions. Same with Russia. They feel Ukraine was stolen from them and see themselves as revenging themselves against a bunch of thieves.
The use of the word "thieves" is not accurate. For Putin, it's all about power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), Ukraine became an independent country and was recognized internationally along with a number of other countries dropping out of the USSR at the same time. Putin, is actually the thief in this regard. With regard to the Jewish state, Palestinians have had the chance to become their own state/country but refused to do what's best in the interest of their people. Jews and Arabs have always lived side by side since time began and actually Judism predates Islam by 3000 years. Hamas loves to hate more than they love their children hence the tragic lives of ordinary Palestinians to this day who live in abject poverty. Only those in power, Hamas for example, live in luxary.
Please, name one pro Hamas protester whoтАЩs been physically attacked or arrested for their opinions? Now reverse that question with Isreali. There is no equivalency. Fired, doxxed, published on a database, shamed and denied employment are small mercies for the advocates of murdering innocents.
I agree that supporting mass murder, rape, and torture is despicable and that pro-Israel advocates have been attacked. However, I don't think seeking retribution against someone with whom we disagree is at all merciful. I think it's right and reasonable to be angry at the disparity in how different sides are treated. But retribution for an opinion isn't right.
My argument is that we need to stick to morals and principals even when others don't. What makes someone "the good guy" isn't just what they believe, it's how they act. People don't change their minds on heated subjects like this if you (literally or metaphorically) beat their wrong opinion out of them. To show people that they are on the wrong side, you have to make it clear that their side is acting immorally. The best contrast is for them to see that their side treats people like dirt while your side treats people with dignity, even during heated disagreement.
I'm glad to see FAIR sticking to its principals instead of letting anger win. The Hamas attacks were brutal and vicious. People praising them are ignoring that fact. But we need not be brutal and vicious in our response. We need not sink to that level.
"I did not sink to that level" is a good epitaph.
So (sarcastically, of course) is "I sank to that level." I believe we should stand our ground but with good morals. Otherwise we aren't the good people we pretend to be.
Humans make our most evil decisions when we view human conflict as good people vs bad people instead of moral choices vs immoral. Look at any atrocity in history - including Hamas's rape, torture, and murder of Israeli people - and you will find that mindset. But there are no magical chosen ones who can do whatever despicable thing they want and still be good people.
My argument is that we should be using good morals to combat bad. Hamas did a terrible thing. People who are arguing, "Hamas are good people who were pushed to do this" are fooling themselves. Hamas chose to be bad people when they chose bad morals.
Good people are dead people if they aren't willing to do bad things when needed.
When I am looking at someone who is threating to kill me I'm not considering "good or bad", "moral or immoral". I'm thinking "kill or be killed".
The false choice is what you propose: if you do a bad thing you can't be a good person. And that highlights the biggest tension of the human condition. We can define "good" and "bad", but can't seem to accept that both exist in people and that "co-existence" is not their definition.
My comment has to do with responding in kind because "they started it," not with avoiding asserting your beliefs. If we have a vengeful attitude, then everyone has a right to react with aggression to every perceived attack. This is what I'm arguing against. And to clarify, I'm talking about verbal/ideological threats. A physical threat is a different scenario. The rules are more dog-eat-dog in a violenclt situation.
Let's say I overhear someone saying that Israel was asking for it, and Hamas is only fighting for the rights of Palestinians. If I respond by saying the speaker deserves to be raped like Israeli women were, or I beat them up because they are verbally supporting violent extremism, then I am responding in kind. I am defending my right to live free from the threat of physical violence by attacking someone promoting violence. But I'm also increasing tension and promoting an altercation between myself and this other person. And since we are all representatives of our belief systems, I'm also promoting an altercation between my political/ideological group and the other person's.
In a nutshell, as long as it isn't a physical threat, I believe we should take the opportunity to show the other person how their view is harmful in an assertive, non-aggressive way. It's the only way to make progress.
It's a lovely, luxury sentiment until your daughter is raped and killed at a music festival or someone kills your family in front of you. It's not like hamas selected an actual political or military target to go after - they went straight for civilians. It is necessary to crush the people who did this.
When waging war one must NEVER allow emotions to over-ride reason. No matter what atrocities have been perpetuated against YOU, exercising restraint goes far beyond a moral luxury. Restraint and reason are pragmatic and critical to victory.
Remember the Abu Graib videos which showed US guards humiliating muslim prisoners (in violation of the rules of war and civilization)? Those guards had emotional reasons to exact revenge for 9/11 - they would not be human if they did not feel the desire for revenge. Unfortunately, when the video leaked it incited much anti-American hatred and rallied the resistance (for many Iraqis, America was an aggressor attacking and innocent nation). I have heard an estimate that that video extended the war by a few years and cost many soldier's lives.
The history of war shows that treating the enemy cruelly galvanizes their resolve and creates enemies faster than you can kill them. If you want to end Hamas' influence you must erode their popular support ... which means waging war surgically, rationally and with restraint.
good point.
As I said, when there is a physical threat, a physical response is often needed. However, we need not sink to their level. We shouldn't send in our soldiers to rape and to kill civilians.
It's not a luxury. If your morals only last until you are provoked, then they aren't morals. You were just in a good mood.
Your original comment appeared to suggest that Israel should moderate itтАЩs response to the hamas outrage. Of course no sane person could advocate or condone what Hamas did, and clearly Israel is not responding in kind. So not clear on the genesis of your original comment.
I was referring to the substack article from FAIR about canceling people for conmemning Israel/being pro-Palestine. My original comment was referring to sticking to principals/morals even when someone is saying something you believe to be very wrong. Using violence/aggression to silence opinions you tends to worsen the situation, makes people arguing for peace/dialogue into hypocrits, and makes the "sane" group into a villain. That's what I was trying to get at; I was pleased that FAIR wasn't being hypocritical and was sticking to its principals, even in a terrible situation.
Not sinking to that level is difficult when you know Hamas will repeat their horrible killings over and over till every Jew is gone. Isn't that in their charter?
Hamas carried out a physical act of violence, so a physical response is necessary. I'm talking about sinking to their level. There is a difference between defending yourself (or country, etc.) from a physical threat and harming civilians. I'm talking about avoiding unnecessary and cruel acts just because we are rightfully angry that Hamas did something despicable.
Dana, do you feel that way regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The majority of the war has been aimed at Ukrainian civilians. Russia has constantly bombed hospitals, schools, apartment building, homes, farms and many other civilian infrastructures ie train stations, restaurants and the list goes on plus the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. Like Hamas, Russia does not want Ukraine to exist. Would love your thoughts?
I cannot speak for Dana but I think your example is awesome! Western aid for Ukraine has been contingent on Ukrainian 'behavior.'
One thing they had to do is root out much corruption in their government because NATO wasn't going to send billions to have it line the pockets of oligarchs (many of whom are connected to Russian oligarchs!)
Another condition is following the 'rules of war' that prohibit, torture, targeting civilian populations & mistreating POW's (as the Russians are doing).
The problem is mistakes happen and there are always some bad apples. The trick is to practice restraint and not to become a monster when you fight a monster.
Yes, I do. I think that physical actions require physical responses, but I think coming at the situation with a vengeful attitude tends to destroy people's moral character until they are no better than the "bad guys." I attribute it to the fact that when people feel they have a moral motivation, they tend to think any action towards their goal is also moral.
To use a mundane example: Say a coworker is trash talking behind your back. Well, when they slip up and do something stupid/embarrassing, why not talk about them? They deserve it; they did the same to you. But now you are locked in a battle with this person, and they have a valid reason to think you are a scummy person. If you'd confronted them directly instead, you are more likely to stop the problem, and they don't have the excuse that you were doing it too.
Obviously, in situations like Ukraine or Israel, a stern talking-to isn't going to cut it. Military response is necessary and morals get murky. But if the goal is to retaliate, instead of to stop the invasion/violence, a lot more bad will come of it. That's why I argue for sticking to morals and avoiding unnecessary violence.
Hamas hates Israel and feels they deserved the attacks. They feel that taking Palestinian land was a moral flaw on Israel's part. So they (Hamas) feel justified in committing war crimes because they have a moral reason behind their actions. Same with Russia. They feel Ukraine was stolen from them and see themselves as revenging themselves against a bunch of thieves.
The use of the word "thieves" is not accurate. For Putin, it's all about power. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), Ukraine became an independent country and was recognized internationally along with a number of other countries dropping out of the USSR at the same time. Putin, is actually the thief in this regard. With regard to the Jewish state, Palestinians have had the chance to become their own state/country but refused to do what's best in the interest of their people. Jews and Arabs have always lived side by side since time began and actually Judism predates Islam by 3000 years. Hamas loves to hate more than they love their children hence the tragic lives of ordinary Palestinians to this day who live in abject poverty. Only those in power, Hamas for example, live in luxary.
Please, name one pro Hamas protester whoтАЩs been physically attacked or arrested for their opinions? Now reverse that question with Isreali. There is no equivalency. Fired, doxxed, published on a database, shamed and denied employment are small mercies for the advocates of murdering innocents.
I agree that supporting mass murder, rape, and torture is despicable and that pro-Israel advocates have been attacked. However, I don't think seeking retribution against someone with whom we disagree is at all merciful. I think it's right and reasonable to be angry at the disparity in how different sides are treated. But retribution for an opinion isn't right.
My argument is that we need to stick to morals and principals even when others don't. What makes someone "the good guy" isn't just what they believe, it's how they act. People don't change their minds on heated subjects like this if you (literally or metaphorically) beat their wrong opinion out of them. To show people that they are on the wrong side, you have to make it clear that their side is acting immorally. The best contrast is for them to see that their side treats people like dirt while your side treats people with dignity, even during heated disagreement.