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.
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.
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.