Hamas is the True Face of Palestinian Nihilism | New Ideal Podcast

Is the world turning a blind eye to Hamas' true destructive intentions? Onkar and Elan highlight the facts that must be faced.
Subscribe to ARI’s KZbin channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/

[@mustang607]

Some groups exist to destroy, not build. Although many of these promise something better will be built after complete destruction.

[@solowingpixi]

Such a painful fact but it’s sadly true. The crazy part is sure there will be hiccups and bitter disagreements when you conduct diplomacy peacefully, but violence will just set things backwards and do irreversible damage or even mutate into something like hell itself. Some might think it naïve to treat intra and inter-State conflict as abnormal, a failure of Reason, especially when it’s doing so for the sake of lasting peace.

[@co9971]

I have only been researching this conflict for the last 6 days but this is the conclusion that I have been coming to .

[@Leningrad_Underground]

Well done. 6 whole days . 6 days without sleep you should be hallucinating by now Better get some sleep now.

[@yaroslavmuradian5959]

Cannot be more true.

[@85NP85]

Elan Journo is great. Has been my fav ARI commentator for a long time.

[@ardiris2715]

Gazans chose to stay in Gaza with full knowledge this ware was likely some year. You can't hide that many missiles in that small an area without everyone knowing they are there.

[@CreativeCat333]

They can't even move.

[@ardiris2715]

Go to Egypt or go to hell.

[@DuhYaThink]

Cool story bro 😎

[@DavidCodyPeppers.]

The Oslo Accords were a series of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that aimed to establish a framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first Oslo Accord, known as Oslo I or the Declaration of Principles, was signed in 1993. It led to the recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Subsequent agreements, such as Oslo II in 1995, outlined the gradual transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from certain areas. The Oslo Accords were seen as a significant step toward achieving peace in the region, but their implementation faced challenges and setbacks over the years. Peace! \o/

[@wurzel9671]

ChatGPT?

[@DavidCodyPeppers.]

@@wurzel9671 Did you use a keyboard? And yes it is. But knowing history as well as I do it's factual. Unlike chat gpt telling me Sharon was assassinated. That made me laugh. Peace! \o/

[@stellaKAU]

Well said. As long as we and Israeli think of Palestinians as brothers and cousins, the more we are telling ourselves they are like us. Well that is faulty premise to start with. They are not like us and they are not our brothers nor cousins. They are an abomination to God who told us not to mix with them. ‘We’ did but when God allowed Hagar to perish, for some reason had mercy on her and a boy. Even though they received mercy to live, they were not blessed and obviously they kept sinning against God. As long as they look at baal, and as long as we tolerate that abomination, baal will keep creeping into our lives. Wake up. Those who are not pleasing to God, should not be pleasing to us!

[@DavidCodyPeppers.]

I win. Peace! \o/

[@DavidCodyPeppers.]

Lol. Peace! \o/

[@mikeg2482]

People or groups in volatile environments will occasionally get into a physical fight. The objective preferred response is for uninvolved observers to separate the fighting parties until they regain some basic self-control of their mouths, fists, emotions, and impulses. Then the neutral people might ask the calmed fighters to make a reasonable attempt at communication or a handshake or just avoid each other for a while. Because this response works, it operates by reason, it applies logic and intellectual fundamentals, and it increases objectivity while decreasing coercive force. The valued objective response from police, or village protectors, or uninvolved observers when they arrive on scene to break up a violent fight and restore peace is that they NEVER go over to one of the fighters to give him more weapons while telling him to inflict more injury on the other guy. NEVER. In opposition to the above described rational, objective, and trusted approach, Elan and Onkar (as representatives of the Ayn Rand Institute) are instead recommending that the neutral observers of this situation should encourage and insert additional weapons, ammunition, injury, murder, and destruction to an already-started fight. These two men are overtly advocating for the uninvolved outsiders to support more violence and additional primitive barbaric action. Elan and Onkar are clearly NOT recommending the long-established rational moral standard of having a mutual cease-fire followed by professionally facilitated mediation and diplomatic negotiation. Why not? The UN and several regional countries (such as Turkey, Russia, etc) have already strongly recommended cease-fire followed by non-violent diplomatic resolution ... this is the approach of reason, rationality, communication, and attempted resolution. These people are already offering to host and guide a non-violent response that follows agreed rational tenets of international law. So, why are Elan and Onkar overtly going AGAINST the rational, moral, valued standard of behavior? They are recommending the opposite of cease-fire, the opposite of professionally facilitated mediation, and the opposite of diplomatic negotiation. Their viewpoint is anti-morality, anti-Objectivism, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. I'd like to hear reasonable thoughts from other people about these points that I am making. Do you think that I am missing or misunderstanding some important factors which therefore has me thinking incorrectly about this? If yes, please provide some specific detail for me to consider about what you think that I am missing or misunderstanding. Thanks in advance.

[@joshuagould548]

Yes, with all due respect, you're missing the part where Hamas, and its supporters, do not want a peaceful resolution; they want violence, and the obliteration of Israel, and Jews, in general. It's stated, very clearly, in the Hamas doctrine. They don't even hide it. Besides, this cease-fire approach has been tried again and again through the decades every time something happens. It's never worked. The Israelis still have to stand at-the-ready, in constant fear of Hamas waging a conflict. This is no way to live, and as you can see, only emboldens Hamas to keep attacking. Elan is saying that if someone is committed to your destruction, and there is no reasoning with them, then you must absolutely destroy them. Flatten them. Do not pull any punches, and do not send aid to them. Break their spirit, break their will, break their ideology. Regardless of collateral damage, regardless of the human shields they put in front of themselves, destroy them. Obviously don't TRY to kill innocent people, but if the enemy decides to take shelter in a neighborhood of civilians, or a hospital, well, I suppose it'd be okay to wait briefly for conditions to change in your favor (maybe the enemy will leave), but if they don't, then glass that efing place. Hamas clearly doesn't care about the lives of its people, nor does it care about innocent lives in general. If your enemy is bloodthirsty, then meet them in kind. Look at Japan and Germany pre-WW2 compared to today. It works.

[@mikeg2482]

Hello Joshua, and thank you for your perspectives in response to my post. I'll say a few more things that come to mind as I read your thoughts ... I'm not ignoring what you said, and I will give more thought to your statements as I watch the situation unfold during the coming weeks and months. 1) As I recall, the Jewish doctrines include fairly barbaric and openly hostile adversarial relationship to everyone who is not Jewish. Intended long-range planning to enslave and own other people. Lying to non-Jewish and stealing from non-Jewish and killing non-Jewish is not a sin nor a crime. Non-Jewish are mentally inferior and we need to abolish their governments and replace them with our people through bloodshed, deception, bribery, extortion, etc. 2) The United Nations Office of The High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously documented some defining concepts in their Additional Protocol 1 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949: A group qualifies as a “national liberation movement”, and shall NOT be deemed to be “terrorists” if there is an armed conflict in which that group is exercising their right to survival and self-determination by … Fighting against colonial domination, and … Fighting against alien occupation, and … Fighting against a racist regime The international court of justice has already ruled that these three conditions are confirmed to exist in reality for the Palestinians, and the court has concluded that those people therefore have a right to fight for their self-determination while being labeled as a national liberation movement (not terrorists). Perhaps more importantly, the court's decision is shared and supported by the populations and representatives in substantial Asian territories such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Russia, Indonesia, etc. A high majority of the regional populations agree that Israel is intentionally and persistently demonstrating colonial domination, alien occupation, and being a racist regime. Most importantly, Israel itself has provided repeated confirmation of their own actions that match the definition of these concepts. Article 18 of the 4th Geneva Convention states that civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded, the sick, the affirm, and maternity cases shall at all times be protected and respected by both of the fighting parties. Violation of this is a war crime, and Israel has repeatedly stated that that they will continue to ignore and violate this law. The 1945 Nuremberg Charter states that wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages is a war crime. Israel has repeatedly stated that they have done this and they will continue to do this. USA and Israel are signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which states: Article 2A … killing members of a targeted group is a genocidal action. Israel has repeatedly stated that they have done this and they will continue to do this. Article 2B … causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a targeted group is a genocidal action. Israel has repeatedly stated that they have done this and they will continue to do this. Article 2C … it is is a genocidal action to deliberately inflict on a targeted group living conditions that are calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Israel has repeatedly stated that they have done this and they will continue to do this. 3) If I'm recalling correctly, the Palestinians and their supporters did accept a two-state solution during prior mediation. It's my understanding that it is Israel who violated the two-state solution by ignoring their own treaties and bailing on their own agreement ... while proceeding to deepen their own colonial domination to create barbaric realities such as Hebron and other places, where Palestinians must ask permission from Jewish people in order to get drinking water that is not poisoned. That region of the world is massive, and they all observe that there are zero Palestinians who are doing colonial domination, alien occupation, and being a racist regime that exercises daily control over the food and water needed by Israeli people. You say flatten them and glass them "regardless of collateral damage". But then the 8 million Israeli's will need to face the music of Turkey marching through Syria to extinguish them as a proportional response. Additionally, there are the substantial quantities and abilities of hypersonic missiles, ICBM's, SU-57's and similar weapons controlled by Russia, Turkey, Iran, and their economic allies, political allies, cultural allies ... these combined tools would quickly wipe out all Israeli-USA military resources existing in Israel, in the entire Mideast, in the Mediterranean, and in the Persian Gulf. Even if someone can re-interpret things to make it look like Israel is correct to avoid cease-fire, correct to avoid mediation, and correct to instead try for mass murder, it still seems anti-rational to do so ... because it seems to be a certain Israeli mass suicide given the very predictable reaction that it will cause.

[@lesguil4023]

i thought Ayn Rand was the high priestess of nihilistic selfishness. who would have known that nihilism was going to be a point of contention for this institution.

[@ominousparallel3854]

Can you give source that supports the thesis in your first sentence? I am not holding my breath.

[@user-mj9iq5fy5r]

stick to philosophy stay out of politics

[@DeathEater93]

Political philosophy is part of philosophy

[@user-mj9iq5fy5r]

really because it sounds a lot like emotional fervor@@DeathEater93

[@ThreeFingerG]

It seems you've bought the popular notion that applied politics is icky and not be discussed and somehow adulterates the sophistication of your philosophic endeavors. Irrational on your part. You only think this way because of the sorry state of modern politics. We can and should talk about philosophy AND the applied sciences to which it relates. If you're an Objectivist: be integrated, and expand the scope of that integration to the extent you are able.

[@ominousparallel3854]

Philosophy’s only purpose is to be applied. This is a very uneducated comment.

[@DynastieArtistique]

If you told that to Rand she would laugh in your face