Philosophical Ramifications of the Israel War

Benedict Beckeld discusses the philosophical consequences and ramifications for the West of the Israel-Gaza War. They involve multiculturalism, human ethical worth, the Enlightenment understanding of cultures, and the laws of war.
First article (the longer version of this video):
Benedict Beckeld, "What One Must Understand about the New Israel War", Merion West, November 11, 2023. merionwest.com/2023/11/11/wha...
Second article:
Benedict Beckeld, "Islam and the West: Culturally and Theologically Divided", Merion West, December 22, 2023.
merionwest.com/2023/12/22/isl...
Twitter: benedictbeckeld?l...
Facebook: / benedictbeckeld
My website: www.benedictbeckeld.com
Image credits:
Hobbes:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Cleveland Museum of Art, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Hegel:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Jakob Schlesinger, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Marathon:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... ("Les Héros de Marathon")
Georges Rochegrosse, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Zama:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Art Institute of Chicago, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Milvian Bridge:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Peter Paul Rubens, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Tours:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Charles de Steuben, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Waterloo:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... ("The Chassé Division at the Battle of Waterloo")
Jan Hoynck van Papendrecht (1858-1933), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Omaha Beach:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Chief Photographer's Mate (CPHOM) Robert F. Sargent, U.S. Coast Guard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Destruction of Carthage:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Machiavelli:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Santi di Tito, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Voltaire:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Nicolas de Largillière, Portrait de Voltaire (1694-1778) en 1718, Musée Carnavalet
(Picture of Voltaire's and Condorcet's "Notes on Pascal's 'Pensées'" is my own: Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de, "Notes de Voltaire et de Condorcet sur les pensées de Pascal", HardPress: Miami 2016.)
Rousseau:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
(Picture of Rousseau's "Emile" is my own: J.-J. Rousseau, "Émile ou de l'éducation", Librairie Garnier Frères: Paris 1924.)
Sermon on the Mount:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Carl Bloch, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Battle of Blenheim:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Robert Alexander Hillingford, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Since lots of anti-Semites and left-wing radicals have been trying to spam the comments section here with various anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish tropes, accusing Israel of not being interested in peace, etc., I'll pin a brief run-down of the relevant history here, even though it's not actually what this video is about: The six-day war - leading to the so-called occupation - was provoked by Syria (which was egged on by the Soviet Union) and by Egypt, which in its turn was egged on by Syria (the Syrian leadership accused Nasser of cowardice, which compelled the latter to raise his war rhetoric and military preparedness). It was Egypt that took measures that were known by all to be considered Casus Belli, such as blocking Israeli shipping from the Straits of Tiran, and insisting that UN peacekeepers withdraw from the Sinai so as to have no hindrance when attacking Israel (and the UN under U Thant, very shamefully, complied). Once the peacekeepers were gone, war against Israel was as inevitable and predictable as possibly could be, and the Israelis had the temerity to actually try to survive, which they did by attacking first, since Israel, with its tiny surface, has extremely little space for a defensive war, and since it was public knowledge that the Arabs' goal was nothing short of the annihilation of the entire state. Jordan, which at the time was occupying the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which they had taken in the Arab war against Israel following immediately upon the latter's independence, was initially not involved in the conflict. Shortly before the war the Israelis contacted king Hussein of Jordan and pleaded with him to stay out of the war, emphasizing that Israel was simply defending itself against the Syrian and Egyptian aggression and had no beef with Jordan. But within just a few hours after the beginning of fighting, Jordan attacked Israel, opening up a completely new front in the east. If king Hussein had kept out of the war (as wisely he did six years later, during the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel), then Jordan would even today control the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and hardly anyone would ever have heard of a "Palestinian" people, and no one would have been demanding the independence of a "Palestinian" state (the term Palestinian has historically nothing to do with the people who are today called Palestinian and has simply been co-opted by them as an anti-Israeli tool; earlier in the century, "Palestinians" referred mostly to the Jews living in the area - the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was part of that co-opting, and it's worth pointing out that it was founded in 1964, three years BEFORE the land was taken that they now claim is the only thing they want to "liberate"). Israel won the war and in the process captured the Sinai and Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria, and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Shortly after the war, on June 19, 1967, Israel offered to return all conquered territory to all three Arab neighbors, with the one exception of east Jerusalem, in exchange for peace. This peace offer was answered on August 1 by the Arabs during their meeting in Khartoum, Sudan, with the famous threefold "No": no to negotiations with Israel, no to peace with Israel, and no to recognition of Israel. The conquered areas thus remained under Israeli control. When, another failed war later, Egypt finally decided that they wanted peace with Israel, Israel right away returned all of the Sinai, in spite of the fact that in the meantime the Israelis had discovered oil and built airfields there, and in spite of Sinai's strategic nature as a buffer zone (by dint of its depth). Israel also offered to return Gaza, but Egypt refused. So if you actually want peace with Israel, you can easily have it. Even though Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights in the 1980s, three Israeli prime ministers (Rabin, Barak, and Olmert) offered to return it to Syria in exchange for peace - just in the same way as with Egypt. Syria's answer was always negative. As for Jordan, it renounced all claims to the West Bank toward the end of the 1980s. Peace between the two countries came in 1994. It's also worth pointing out that six years later, shortly before the Yom Kippur war in 1973, Israel had a good idea that they would be attacked again, but this time did not act preemptively, in part because they would not receive any American aid if they did (Kissinger himself had said so). And so they waited, and had to fight on their own soil, suffering great losses and much destruction before being able to drive the Arab armies back, a fact which gives even more validity to their earlier decision, six years previously, to attack when they knew that they were about to be attacked. Once you know this history, and many other details that are perfectly well documented, the idea of Israel as an occupying aggressor falls apart completely. Its borders with Egypt and Jordan have been set by peace treaties. Its border with Lebanon, the so-called blue line, is recognized by both sides and by the UN, even though there's no peace treaty. Its border with Syria as it existed before the six-day war is perfectly clear and would be set if Syria would only accept the peace offer, which seems just as unlikely now as it ever did. As for the borders with a future Palestinian state, Israel has made two peace offers in this century alone, by Ehud Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008, with the proposal that the Palestinian Authority take control over all of Gaza and all of the West Bank even with parts of east Jerusalem (96% under Barak's proposal and 93% under Olmert's) and that Israel recognize a new Palestinian state in these areas. Both these offers were rejected by the Palestinian side, with the additional perversity, after the 2000 offer, that the peace proposal was instead met by the so-called second Intifada, on Arafat's explicit orders. Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and handed authority over to the Palestinian Authority, keeping control only over airspace and the territorial sea, in accordance with the Oslo Accords, signed by Arafat himself. Not one single Israeli, civilian or military, was allowed to stay there. In 2006 Hamas won an election over Fatah and in 2007 staged a coup against Fatah and, after a Hamas-Fatah fight with about 200 deaths, took power in Gaza and renewed rocket attacks against Israel from there. There was no blockade of Gaza by Israel after its withdrawal. The blockade was instituted only in 2008 after continued Hamas attacks on southern Israel. The two Israeli peace offers in this century are worth emphasizing since they also included compensatory territory. During the Camp David negotiations in 2000, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered the PA all of Gaza and 96% of the West Bank plus certain city areas of eastern Jerusalem - as well as neighboring Israeli territory by Gaza as compensation for the 4% of the West Bank that Israel would keep - along with official Israeli recognition of the Palestinian state that would be formed on all this territory. Without offering a counterproposal, as I said above, Arafat and the PA rejected this offer and ordered the commencement of the second Intifada, which cost thousands of lives and destroyed the goodwill that had grown in diplomatic circles since the Oslo Accords. Next, in 2008, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert invited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to his office in Jerusalem and offered the PA, in addition to Gaza, which by then was controlled by Palestinians (Hamas), 93% of the West Bank and, as additional compensation for the remainder of the West Bank, some of Israel's own areas along the so-called Green Line (often referred to as the borders of 1967), along with official Israeli recognition. Abbas did not formally reject this offer, but he simply ignored it by never answering it, and so de facto he rejected it. So Israel has twice in this century, 2000 and 2008, offered the Palestinians a state on practically all the territory they've demanded, with additional compensatory territory as well, but the Palestinian leadership has rejected the offers. And then of course there were all the Israeli peace offers in the previous century, as outlined above. As for the "Palestinians": You can't be pro-peace and call for the blood of Jews to be spilled in the streets. You can't be pro-peace and reject every single peace agreement placed before you. The Arabs said no to peace in 1947, 1948, 1967, 1973, 2000, and 2008, and have never abandoned their quest to exterminate the Jewish people and the Jewish state. They've terrorized Jewish civilians long before Israel built a single settlement, and that's a fact. The settlements are not the obstacle to peace. The Palestinians not wanting peace is the obstacle. The settlements can be negotiated, and land swaps can be made, just as Israel proposed in 2000 and 2008. Both proposals were rejected without a single counter-proposal. According to the Oslo Accords, Israel has the right to build in Area C of the West Bank. And handing over the settlements in Gaza to the Palestinians gave absolutely no peace but has rather created more terror, war, and death. More than 3,000 greenhouses were left behind in Gaza. Palestinians trashed them immediately, instead of using them for themselves. But for the biased UN and for naive Westerners, a Jew building a house in a disputed territory is a greater obstacle to peace than just about every hostile act of war, terror, and anti-Semitic rhetoric and indoctrination taken by the Palestinians for almost a century to rid the Middle East of Jews. There's a reason why even other Arab nations want nothing to do with the Palestinians. So, in sum, anyone who thinks that Israel or the Jews are the obstacle to peace is either an ignoramus or an anti-Semite.

[@charlesrae3793]

Or both..

[@BenedictBeckeld]

​@@charlesrae3793 Yes, definitely.

[@bjornditlefnistad6406]

I am conservative and against mass immigration. But I support the Palestinians. Just as my country, Norway, belongs to me and other Norwegians, Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. The Palestinians have the same right to fight for and take back their country as other peoples.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

⁠@@bjornditlefnistad6406Then I’m afraid you’re unaware of the history of the region. Even if you think indigeneity is the crucial issue, this would not change the outcome. The Jews have a far longer history in the land than the so-called Palestinians, and there was never a Palestine.

[@andriyka17]

As I understood you are not a follower of Plato. In that case I don't understand what exactly you mean when you talk about peace, as there is no such thing as universal(objective) "Peace". IMHO, Israel and Jews are the obstacle to Palestinian vision of peace and in the end we can't get to the situation when both sides will see division of land as fair. Could you, please, explain your vision how Palestinian vision of peace can match with Jewish vision of peace?

[@gagacoco5577]

I shared your video as many need to watch it. I wish the west would unite and stop this spread of madness from escalating further. It feels like selective blindness with irreversible consequences.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Agreed, of course, and thank you for sharing!

[@nicof.9368]

Thank you Professor Beckeld for youre realistic point of view. This view is refreshing when we are surrounded by idealistic political analyses.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you, I appreciate that. Indeed part of the idea is that the West needs to embrace Realpolitik right away.

[@jebjeb1498]

Thank you,Dr Benedict.I will share it.I agree with all you have said.In fact,I was aghast that politicians cling so deludely to the idea of 'peace process' and 'two state solution'.Wars of annihilation have not been that uncommon in history.You either win civilisational conflicts or you are subjugated if you survive them.Thanks again.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you, I'm glad you appreciated it, and thanks for sharing!

[@sylvarogre5469]

Thank you for another intetesting talk. I shall have to read your articles since I am in no position to have a real conversation. My you also have a good year ahead of you.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. The second article in particular goes into considerable detail.

[@r.a.t.t.s1686]

A note on the last minute or so, I believe that European youth (who are actually European) are functioning under a paradigm of American Imperial occupation. My evidence is anecdotal but many many young men ive known online in Germany, Ireland, and Sweden are aware of the fact that their countries are American satraps, and that the myth of American cooperation and partnership is fading (especially as 3rd world migrants come in ever larger numbers to displace the European populations.) I believe that the continued entry of 3rd world migrants and the Ukraine war have been key nodes that are responsible for this development. Especially the American destruction of Germany's Nordstream II pipeline (which, as far as I'm concerned, is only believed the be the fault of Ukraine/Russia by pro NATO political elites in Europe who are forced to believe that narrative.) As an American myself I see no way for America to continue its domination of Europe without more direct assaults on Europe through third world migration and the sanctions generated by what is in reality a border conflict between Slavs 800 miles away from Berlin. How this will affect the mood of Europe is to me predictable.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

It is indeed true that many people in the countries you mention have that awareness, although I'd argue that they're still not sufficiently aware of it, that is, that they don't fully appreciate the degree to which their way of life is dependent on America. But current events may indeed be making them more aware, so I think you're right on that point. But I'd say that the more Europe is Islamized (which I take it is what you mean by third-world immigration), the more it will fall away from America's orbit.

[@Cornflakes-sr3nq]

The chosebros have been instrumental in the multicult and the postwar paradigm of Europe/Anglospherr, and now it's all changing masks and tact since the golems got away from them. And they're not westerners/Europeans.

[@publicdomain1103]

The greedy corporate master is not the same....

[@andrewhosfeld]

This reminded me of Orwell’s 1940 review of Mein Kampf: "Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them ‘I offer you struggle, danger and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet." I’d also add that people, especially in citizen democracies/republics, seem to assume that parties/pols have a sincere commitment to deliver their promises and their honesty to conflict resolution. Instead of asking, why would these parties/pols deliver on these promises if these are the very things that delivered them power?

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Do you mean that they wouldn't keep their promises because being able to continue to promise is what keeps them in power?

[@andrewhosfeld]

@@BenedictBeckeld its more that I ask if the actual incentive to ‘fix’ said problem is sincere among the pols and parties. The process seems to be a perpetual struggle that should beg the question, do these pols sincerely want to ‘fix’ issues that got them elected/in power or as others have noted, the pols/parties in power find superseding problems to take over the priorities. It’s not so much a claim I am making but a question I have to propose considering all the money, time etc spent on issues that never resolve or even improve if that makes sense.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

I see, yes, I think it differs from politician to politician, but I'd probably say that there's a general tendency among liberals and pseudo-conservatives of attempting only very lukewarm remedies to our problems. They often skirt around the actual core of the issue, which would be too politically incorrect to utter.

[@andrewhosfeld]

@@BenedictBeckeld please bare with me when I at times might throw ideas out. All my Professors at university retired 🤪. Right now I’m brainstorming different ideas as to why democratic republics like those in the west are in the state they are and what the possible outcomes might be in the near future. Okiophobia is certainly a factor I’m interested in in explaining why we are witnessing the politics of today but I am also interested in the structural problems being a factor. In this case about parties not delivering, it seems the structure doesn’t incentivize pols/parties to rectify issues. Rather it might very well do the opposite.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

@@andrewhosfeld Ha, that's all right - that was actually my favorite kind of student when I was a professor myself. So yes, I do touch to some extent on the structural issues in the oikophobia book, e.g. about how liberalism has an internal contradiction that causes its own demise, but it's true that this could be a whole other discussion. Another problem is that democracy itself tends not to think long-term, but only till the next election, which disincentivizes real solutions - a problem already de Tocqueville among others identified - whereas an authoritarian regime like China takes a very long view and can afford to be patient.

[@OmarAhmed-jo1cf]

power , but what type of power , The roman empire's multi-culturalism as long as you fight for rome hadn't worked out long term , but then the German's exceptionalism hadn't worked as well , maybe something in-between would be needed . The former didn't work out eventually because even though Rome incorporated new people , it wanted to incorporate them AS Romans , they couldn't create a set of values than can be shared by different peoples , the latter didn't work because it eventually led to so many enemies . Western liberalism is trying to incorporate different peoples under shared values , conservatives are saying but not to this extent , maybe they want to export the values outside but don't want to be fundamentally affected inside by the outside . the Muslim ummah has no problem incorporating different peoples and have teachings about freeing salves (which gained popularity with African Americans in the 60's) and humbleness , thats an advantage they have over the western conservatives who like to be more isolated and arrogant . The Muslims also have values not intrinsic to liberal western values , like a cohesive family unit , symbolism , patience in playing the long game due to faith in Allah and bans on things that may cause depression like prostitution and alcohol , that help them grow while staying together . Islam combines the 2 and that is why its considered to be a real threat to western values as a whole , unless you accept to learn from the other side there will always be a consistent blind spot in your psyche utilized by the "other" to its fullest extent . The blind spot the Muslims need to work on is enabling a progressive atmosphere which only occurred during the islamic golden age . Groups like Hamas are not playing a primarily tactical game like the Nazis , nor a strategic game like USSR , nor an economic game like China , they play political and that is the blind spot for israel and its allies . They understand that they can just play a long game of hit and run then wait for the political implications as the overall position of the US and israel in the middle east is untenable from a moral perspective and will always continue to create new enemies for them from unexpected sources . Do you know the although weakened significantly , El-Qaeda is still active ? , how did the 20 year war on terror go ?, how about regime change in Afghanistan go ?, Taliban still came back on top .

[@11-AisexualsforGod-11]

Cooperation turns to competition with overpopulation.. The source if western individualism

[@AntonioPerales-bb8pm]

Predatory 👈 individualism.

[@nissimtrifonov5314]

Very well said, thank you.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thanks!

[@AlvaroNeira]

Sophistry.

[@jaialaiwarrior]

Boo. One-word thesaurus-derived insults are as sophistric a contribution as any. Is your comment meant as a joke?

[@christophesiewecke9208]

The ideas you are so casually dismissing at the beginning of your video are kind of fundamental to Western ideology, are they not? One of the ideas of liberalism is that all human beings are fundamentally the same and deserve equal rights and freedoms. A rejection of liberalism, which you are suggesting and seemingly supporting seems dangerous. It would lead to some people seeing themselves as fundamentally superior to others, an idea that nazi, fascist and stalinist regimes all espoused and promoted, leading to many millions of deaths. I fear that embracing your ideas on a larger scale leads to the very return to the might makes right kind of world order that emphasizes power over human dignity and progress which you assert is inevitable. In essence, by embracing your ideas, the western world could end up in the very negative place you claim it would end up in by not embracing your ideas. I don't know, I'm just some idiot on the internet who believes to his core that all humans have the right to the same freedoms and privileges that many of us benefit from in the West. What do I know?

[@BenedictBeckeld]

What you refer to as "Western ideology" is far more complex and multi-faceted than you make it out to be. Western political philosophy contains both liberal and conservative branches, and beyond that you have several foundations of Western philosophy, some of which recognize human beings' equal worth by definition, and some of which don't. I am not talking primarily about how citizens should be treated, but about how to think of survival and about how a civilization's enemies ought to be approached (for example by keeping those away who do not accept the liberal ideas you and I treasure). By your logic, the allies launching air raids against Nazi Germany were anti-Western. If you're genuinely interested, do read the longer article - the second to which I link in the description - which might clarify some things on this point.

[@christophesiewecke9208]

@@BenedictBeckeld I am always weary of anyone focusing on enemies and characterizing some groups as barbarians. All civilizations have had run-ins with groups of "barbarians" and the ones that survive tend to be a blend of that "barbarian" group and the original civilization (case in point: Western civilization as a blend of the Germanic "barbarian" cultures and the Roman civilization). I admit that I oversimplified "Western Ideology" but the basis of any modern liberal democracy (which all western countries claim to be) is that all citizens should be treated equally. Admittedly, this is almost never the case, especially as the privilege of wealth usually trumps other factors and allows rich individuals to be immune to many if not most laws in any country. While not perfect, the ideal is something that is laudable and should continuously be aspired to. I will try to read your articles, but based on your video, your views seem to indicate that you believe some people are intrinsically better than others, and even if true occasionally, it can be a slippery slope when starting from that assumption. At first you might only be deporting convicted criminals that don't accept the values of the society they immigrated to, but very quickly, one can imagine that native citizens who are non-violent political dissidents will be deported, etc. Dismissing the concept of equality is a dangerous precedent to set. I fear that embracing the mindset that other groups are automatically your enemy just because they lack the perspective or life experience and privilege that you and I have enjoyed does not lead to anything but the tribalistic dehumanization of others. Demonization and dehumanization is exactly how you get large groups of people that consider minority groups to be lesser and worthy of extermination in the first place. On the subject of enemies, one does not make peace with their friends, but only with their enemies. My idealistic view of humanity may be naive, but I think it's important that we still aspire to it, despite the practical limitations of reality. You mention the allied bombing of Nazi Germany. They were atrocious and resulted in the death of an insane amount of innocent people. They were also a pragmatic solution given the reality of the era. We set up the Geneva Conventions and other rules of war to try to prevent such atrocities from occuring again, which I think we can all agree is a laudable goal. Also I agree that the bombing wasn't really anti-western, especially given that the Nazi regime in Germany was a western regime based on what I consider to be an extremely flawed western ideology. When I oversimplified Western Ideology earlier, I think you know what I meant: liberal pluralistic democratic values that embrace equality and human rights. I tried to avoid it, but I think it bears mentioning, the attacks on October 7th are arguably a strong indication that the mindset espoused by the state of Israel under Netanyahu is not working. The man promised safety and security to Jewish people, and his policies lead to the greatest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. I'm just an idealistic idiot on the internet, I don't know what the right answer to the current conflict in the middle east is, but I doubt that dehumanizing millions of people and wantonly killing tens of thousands of people is going to help. I suspect that it will just make things worse. I suppose that only time will tell.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

I appreciate that you take the matter seriously and don't engage in invective, unlike some commenters around here. You say that the basis of modern liberal democracy "is that all citizens should be treated equally" - yes, I said in my first reply to you that this is not what it's about. It's about how to understand certain external threats. I do believe some people are better or more important than others (but not "intrinsically" - it depends on their actions). But you believe that too - everyone does. But only some of us formulate it philosophically. There is of course the Christian ethic of all human beings being equal in God's eyes, but this understanding is not the only one that is part of the Western fabric, and even some Christian thinkers have understood that even if this is true in theory, one cannot always act according to that maxim. As you yourself say, sometimes one is "pragmatic", and I argue that we have entered an era in which that's necessary. There's no slippery slope: Native citizens can't be deported, because there is no place to deport them to. I am referring to foreigners who express hostility to the host civilization. Their countries of origin would not accept any of us if we went there with a hostile mind and a desire to subvert their governments, so why should we accept them? "I fear that embracing the mindset that other groups are automatically your enemy just because they lack the perspective or life experience and privilege that you and I have enjoyed does not lead to anything but the tribalistic dehumanization of others." - Where did I say or write this? "Life experience"? No, I'm referring to those groups whose beliefs are actively hostile to you, to me, and to everything we hold dear. Read that second article, and you'll see what I mean. It's a detailed exploration of the subject. Happy new year!

[@christophesiewecke9208]

@@TeaParty1776 Western ideologies are derived from those things, yes.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

@@TeaParty1776 Individual rights concern the citizens of a polity, and I'm talking here about external threats, not citizens, and, furthermore, even though Locke was a bit of a hippie for his day, he would have been much stricter than I, since he didn't want either Catholics or Muslims as part of his polity, because he felt they would be loyal to an external political entity. So don't lecture me about Locke (or Rand, for that matter).

[@jakedee4117]

I think I'm broadly sympathetic to your views on multi-culturalism but I'm not sympathetic to Israel's actions in this current war which I just regard as the latest "hot" phase in a 70-year-old war. If you are fighting for the same piece of ground, over and over for 70 years then you're doing something wrong. "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him" (proverbs 16:7). You can strip out any theological notions of Yahweh and that old proverb still makes a lot of sense. "When an engineer's calculations please the Lord, he makes his bridge stand for a long time" would have the same meaning. I am also sympathetic to the notion raised in Nick Land's essay "War is God" which may be similar to your own positions. You can find that in his "Xenosystems Fragments" online

[@oremfrien]

I'm actually in the other camp, which is to say that I'm broadly unsympathetic to Beckfield's views but am sympathetic to Israel's war here. Your fundamental thesis seems to be that if a country is fighting over the same piece of ground for 70 years then it is doing something wrong and cite to the Bible as a rearticulation of this claim. However, you have not actually clarified why this reasoning is so. In fact, most border regions between different countries were the sites of generational conflict like Alsace-Lorraine (between France and Germany from 1870-1945), the Caucasus (between Russia, the Indigenous People and the Persians from 1817-Present), Somaliland (1991-Present), etc. These conflicts exist because the peoples on opposite sides of those conflicts have both (i) irreconcilable geopolitical desires and (ii) no sufficient power to compel the other side to obey. It requires no invocation of the Divine. Border conflicts that were swiftly settled (such as the US-Mexican border conflicts in the 1848-1853 and 1901) were swiftly settled because one side was so much stronger than the other that the weaker side sued for peace since they could see no alternative. For all of the discussion about how Hamas is relatively weaker than Israel, this ignores how Hamas is part of a wider Iranian-led axis in the Middle East and Israel is part of a wider Saudi-led axis in the Middle East and these two sides are roughly equal in strength. Thus, Israel-Palestine sits exactly where other generational conflicts do in that you have both (i) irreconcilable geopolitical desires and (ii) no sufficient power to compel the other side to obey. None of this, however, says anything about which geopolitical desires are moral if any are. I would argue that the mission of Hamas to create a Palestinian state is a moral one (since the Palestinian people should have political agency) but their mission to exterminate the Jews is a deeply immoral one (for obvious reasons), but the geopolitical desires of Israel are to remove Hamas as a governing entity, which is a moral one (since it would protect both Israeli and Palestinian civilians from these thugs' brutality) and to recover hostages taken by Hamas which is also moral (for obvious reasons) and to do so with as little cost to Palestinian civilians as reasonably possible which is moral (since enemy civilian casualties should be lessened). One the whole, therefore, Israel is the more moral entity.

[@jakedee4117]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, you are mistaken if you believe that I used the Proverbs quote because it is biblical authority. I used it because it shows an ancient truth that is relevant here. That it is also ancient Jewish wisdom that the current Jewish state is working directly against is merely a piquant irony. Just as the truth of an engineer's calculation is shown by the machines they build working, so a man's excellence is shown by him being at peace with his enemies, rather than being constantly at war with them. If you do not like biblical quotations maybe I could make the point better with a secular analogy from Ancient China. Bian Que was the most famous doctor in all of China and had two brothers who were also doctors. When asked which of the three brothers was the best doctor, Bian Que replied that his eldest brother was the best because he could prevent the disease from ever entering the house. His second brother was the next best because he could cure the disease in its early stages. Bian Que himself was the least skilled because he could only cure the disease when it had already become serious. That is what is meant by having your ways "please the Lord", your stuff actually works. The best doctor is one whose patients are healthy, the best guard dog is in the house that burglars never try to enter, and the best national defense means that even the enemies are at peace with you. Your example of the alsace-lorraine border dispute between France and Germany shows us a way how this peace might be achieved. The Franco Prussian war of 1870 didn't solve it, WWI didn't solve it and WWII didn't solve it, but it is solved now and war between the two nations seems absurd. The integration of the European nations solved it, first the coal and steel pact and later the broader EU. The strengths of all were added together so the prosperity of one was added to the prosperity of all. Israel is perusing the opposite strategy hoping that the continuing poverty and weakness of the Palestinians will ensure its long-term safety. It won't. I'm not interested in calculating who is the most "moral" party in this conflict. Morality can't be separated from what actually works. There is no moral obligation to support failure. This way is failing and will continue to fail and therefore I won't support it.@@oremfrien

[@oremfrien]

@@jakedee4117 In relevant parts: "I used the Proverbs quote...because it shows an ancient truth that is relevant here." You have not established it to be true. Please demonstrate why it is true. Such a demonstration would occur outside of the original claim. If I claimed that a car with the license plate number 8445HH3 went 100 mph on the freeway yesterday, the fact that I claimed this does not prove the truth of the statement, but video camera footage from a freeway could. You have not done this. "That is what is meant by having your ways "please the Lord", your stuff actually works." In this case, the Ancient Egyptian idea of having a theocracy and a barely-better than subsistence economy with large scale slavery is better than modern society since it lasted for over 3000 years while modernity is barely 300 years old. It's bizarre to claim that because something endures that it is in any way desirable. "The best doctor is one whose patients are healthy, the best guard dog is in the house that burglars never try to enter, and the best national defense means that even the enemies are at peace with you." This would appear to be true, but you ignore the human element here. Not everyone chooses to attack the weakest position; some people choose to attack a stronger position because they don't like the person in such a stronger position. "WWII didn't solve [the Alsace-Lorraine Conflict], but it is solved now and war between the two nations seems absurd. The integration of the European nations solved it, first the coal and steel pact and later the broader EU. The strengths of all were added together so the prosperity of one was added to the prosperity of all. " World War II DID solve it. When France not only reoccupied the region and parts of Germany at the end of World War II (until West German independence in 1948), Germany was forbidden from having a strong military which prevented further attack. Then, the creation of the European Community (the forerunner to the EU) ended the period of German Nationalism to such an extent that there were no longer irreconcilable differences between Germany and France. By removing (i) irreconcilable differences and making (ii) French military strength -- backed by the Americans -- far superior to the German military, there was no longer any conflict. "Israel is perusing the opposite strategy hoping that the continuing poverty and weakness of the Palestinians will ensure its long-term safety." I couldn't disagree more with the view that Israel has eschewed regional integration. Israel is pursuing an active strategy of regional integration. They signed treaties with more Middle Eastern countries, continually increase trade volumes with Turkey, coordinate militarily with the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Saudis. They even proposed help to Iran following a recent earthquake (which the Iranians rejected). The only group that (in the last 15 years) that they haven't tried to do this with are the Palestinians. The reason that Israel had been less successful with regional integration than, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran have been is the general dislike for Israel (which has to do with what Israel is -- a Jewish State created by Jews who were mostly born in Europe) than anything Israel has done. "Morality can't be separated from what actually works." This is an absurd idea. Just because something works does not make it moral. Slavery is a very effective economic model, but that does not make it moral. And just because something is moral does not mean that it will work, such as the end-state imagined by anarcho-communists. "There is no moral obligation to support failure. This way is failing and will continue to fail and therefore I won't support it." The "it" here is very ambiguous. If you are referring to Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, what would you propose? Even in the two-state solution paradigm (which I support -- I am a believer in the 2003 Geneva Initiative), Hamas can't be a party to that so it needs to be destroyed anyway.

[@jakedee4117]

Again thank you for your reply. So you have asked me to “prove” proverb 16:7. What would you accept as an adequate proof? I am using arguments from analogy and inductive reasoning, these aren’t capable of mathematically precise proofs. You seem to accept that a doctor whose patients are all healthy is the best doctor, but how could that be proved? That a long life of healthy living is better than a short life of sickness and intense medical procedures seems axiomatic. It may be useful here to explore the medical analogy further to see how the short life of suffering under intense medical procedures could in some ways be “better”, or at least appear so. In the story of the ancient doctor Bian Que, he says that because he prescribes medicines and performs surgeries he has become well known, but his elder brother who can stop the illness from ever entering the house is totally unknown. I immediately think of Dr. Younan Nowzaradan, also known as “Dr. Now” star of the reality TV show “My 600lb Life”. He has become an expert in all manner of surgeries and regimes for the morbidly obese. He and his hospital have become famous and no doubt prosperous too. And yet I do not think that these procedures represent great successes for the American health system. Rather they represent major failings, 600lb people should not exist. In an analogous way the constant warfare engaged in by the state of Israel does not represent the successes of the state of Israel, they are its failures and in a healthy state they would not exist. Now the question becomes how that is to be achieved, the moral position is the one that achieves it. The moral position is not to find a rhetorical exercise that can shift the blame onto the other party and continue a few more decades of bloody tribal warfare. The moral position is the one that works, how could it be a moral position that also fails? A plan that was called moral but also fails is just a bad plan disguised in moral language, like a medical intervention that is described in fancy technical language but kills the patient. “The surgery was a success, but the patient died” as the old joke has it. Attempting to cast ancient civilizations as being immoral because they did not adopt modern techniques is a false analogy and also rather bizarre. Ancient Egypt surviving for 3000+ years is a significant achievement. Any decision to act this way or that must be made in a certain time and place. To condemn the ancient Egyptians for not adopting modern liberal democracy is as bizarre as condemning the Scythians horse tribes for not riding motorcycles. Moving on to more specific points. I believe that a long-term regional peace with Israel and its neighbors through regional integration is possible and real word examples show us some of how it can be achieved. Peaceful integration is not the path Israel has chosen, it has chosen the path of overwhelming military force and constant warfare. Israel is currently at war on three fronts, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, and has been for many years. Any attempt to say that they aren’t real wars is political subterfuge and camouflage. In any other nation and in any other context, running an open-ended campaign of bombings and artillery strikes is called war. But here it isn’t for political reasons. The treaty of Versailles and the Maginot line did not protect the French from the Germans after WWI, the war came back bigger, bloodier and worse than before. The Morgenthau plan which would have de-industrialized and disarmed Germany after WWII was considered but rejected in favor of the Marshall plan and European integration. This included massive investment in German industry and German re-armament. That was the moral plan, the plan that worked. That is the path forward for Israel. Constant warfare is not just doomed to fail, it is failure itself. When a man’s path pleases the Lord, he causes even his enemies to be at peace with him. Peace be with you. @@oremfrien

[@oremfrien]

@@jakedee4117 Let's respond in kind: "You seem to accept that a doctor whose patients are all healthy is the best doctor," I don't agree with this because there can be many things that lead to a person being healthy other than the careful attention paid to them by their doctors and many things that lead to a person being unhealthy other than the careful attention of their doctors. For example, if a doctor has a group of patients with genetically-weakened immune systems (who therefore get sick more often) or live in food deserts, he is not a worse doctor because his patients get sick more often. Similarly, if a doctor has a group of patients who have naturally robust immune systems or those patients have access to nutritive food, he will get better results all else equal. Your analysis is just overly simplistic here. "It may be useful here to explore the medical analogy further to see how the short life of suffering under intense medical procedures could in some ways be “better”, or at least appear so." That's not necessary. I would agree with you that a healthy life is better; my disagreement with you is that the only or primary cause of a change in "healthiness" is the effectiveness of the doctor. "And yet I do not think that these procedures [to combat obesity by Dr. Younan Nowzaradan] represent great successes for the American health system. Rather they represent major failings, 600lb people should not exist." I would agree that the existence of 600 lb people is not a positive indicator of the American health system, but I disagree that the ability to cure a person of such a malady is not a great success in learning how to improve the body and life of a person at an individual level. "In an analogous way the constant warfare engaged in by the state of Israel does not represent the successes of the state of Israel, they are its failures and in a healthy state they would not exist." Again, you ignore that Israel is faced with irreconcilable desires from the outside and insufficient power on its own to compel obeissance. Any country in a similar position faces the same issues. This is why every country in the Middle East has seen warfare at some point since 1970. Your point would be to say that Dr. Nowzaradan is personally a failure because he deals with obesity situations (which are bad) that he did not create, but that's simply not the case. He inherits a situation that is a bad situation; the same with Israel. Drawing bad cards at the poker table does not make you a bad poker player since your receipt of cards is random. "The moral position is not to find a rhetorical exercise that can shift the blame onto the other party and continue a few more decades of bloody tribal warfare." I agree. Morality exists independently of previous biases, but by examining the situation against deontologocial precepts and consequential benefits all designed to lead to human flourishing. "The moral position is the one that works," I disagree. A moral position can also fail because of extrinsic issues or problems that morality does not account for. "how could it be a moral position that also fails?" If such a position aligns with deodeontologocial precepts and consequential benefits to promote human flourishing but not with reality, it will fail. For example, in this very video, Beckfield supports how Rome committed genocide against the Carthaginians because he argues that it had long-term economic and security benefits, but this flies in the face of human rights, personal dignity, and other deontological precepts. That's why it's immoral. (Furthermore, after the Second Punic War, Carthage was no threat to Rome militarily, so there was no need for extermination.) However, if we were to assume that without the Third Punic War the economic and security situation in the Mediterranean would be worse off, perhaps you could argue that the moral choice to let the Carthaginians live is a moral choice that fails. "like a medical intervention that is described in fancy technical language but kills the patient. “The surgery was a success, but the patient died” as the old joke has it." And the joke ignores how the surgery may well have been necessary -- but for the surgery, the patient would surely have died -- but complications or unforeseen issues or the patient's pre-existing condition made death post-surgery still very possible. The joke works on a simplistic level were a doctor being successful is judged by the result, but not on the complex level of how surgery actually works. "To condemn the ancient Egyptians for not adopting modern liberal democracy is as bizarre as condemning the Scythians horse tribes for not riding motorcycles." I'm not condemning the Egyptian choice in their time; I'm arguing that your position that something that endures is somehow moral is ridiculous. If you believe that the Ancient Egyptian system is better than ours, there are a few countries that are rank theocracies with barely-better than subsistence economies and underpaid labor that I could recommend for you to live in. You wouldn't live in these places because you know that such systems do not lead to human flourishing "Israel is currently at war on three fronts, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, and has been for many years." I completely agree, but it's not because Israel has not attempted regional integration; it's that those countries are part of an Iranian axis that opposes the very existence of Israel. That's the problem. You can't integrate with someone who wants to kill you. "the Marshall plan and European integration. This included massive investment in German industry and German re-armament. That was the moral plan, the plan that worked." It worked because the leaders chosen to run Germany after World War II by the victors did not retain German nationalist ambitions. They were actually militarily defeated. "That is the path forward for Israel. Constant warfare is not just doomed to fail, it is failure itself." Again, you need to provide an avenue for the regional integration you seek (the integration with the Iranian axis). What you are asking for is similar to asking for a regional integration between North and South Vietnam in the late 1950s when each country wants to annex the other. You can't negotiate with someone who wants to end you as their primary goal. Now, if Iran's regime fell and the country became a true republic, I believe regional integration would happen pretty quickly.

[@antonifondupencat2578]

A wonderful analysis, you deserve greater audience and commendation. I believe you would be a competent politician

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you very much! Well, at least the audience is growing, for which I'm grateful. (I'm not sure about being a politician, though - I think I'd find it exceedingly difficult to dissimulate!)

[@sizor3ds]

His analysis is crap. It’s just 15 minutes of “why maybe genocide is good actually”

[@antonifondupencat2578]

@@BenedictBeckeld The merit is in fact to act, as a societal whole, specifically under current vicissitudes. I would be more afraid to not elucidate my assertions rather than being afraid of telling them. Here’s one of my favorite quotes; “Do you want to know who you are? Don’t ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you” - T. Jefferson

[@qingzhou9983]

He basically is arguing a very simple and ancient point with too much flowery arguments: A Society has Moral Code trying to rise above itself against the Brutal Force of the Reality, the Survival of the Fit. He is on the side of the Reality and promotes racing to the Bottom: the Will To Power. Nothing wrong with that, except he wrongly deny the power of Human Noble Aspiration which made today a Much Better World than Rome or even the Imperialist British Empire period. In short, if everyone thinks like him (I agree most or vast majority thought like him in human history), we will still in Rome Empire.

[@andriyka17]

Creating the case of conflict between civilization and barbarians you step on the shaky ground, as "civilization" is exactly how Germans justified themselves in the war against wild barbarian Soviets. That's exactly how imperialists justify their atrocities. Going deep into the roots of Athenian civilization one can quickly recall genocide after Siege of Melos that left Thucydides shocked and paved the road for Athenian's defeat in Peloponnesian War. And you can easily find this position of conflict between civilization and barbarians as another thought cliche. Are you an imperialist?

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Not at all. All the Israeli peace offers to which I refer in the pinned comment are not something that an imperialist would do. I generally support different peoples having their own forms of life and government as long as they leave others alone. As for the idea of a thought cliché that I mention, and to which you refer, it doesn't simply mean that something has been thought before (e.g. the dichotomy between barbarianism and civilization), but that certain things keep being insisted upon in spite of all evidence to the contrary (e.g. two-state solution, as I mention).

[@angelikafranz4545]

Sadly true.

[@Forkroute]

I came back from 29 days of picking up bodies, body parts, and personal belongings of the Israeli deceased who lived around Gaza. Only to speak to young Germans, who use arguments made by SS commander Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppe D trial, who tried to create a moral equivalence between the Allies' bombing and the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Multiculturalism has never been a coherent ideology and as a policy, it is self-destructive.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you for doing that work; I can barely begin to imagine how horrible it must have been. And yes, many Germans have this false sense of moral superiority by dint of the fact that they are not their grandfathers, which in turn makes them more similar to their grandfathers in the end.

[@Forkroute]

@@BenedictBeckeld to me multiculturalism was never a political philosophy; it's a bourgeois aesthetic, and was marketed as such. The philosophy behind it and post-colonial studies, is post-modern thought

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Oh yes, I couldn't agree more.

[@Narrowcros]

True, it started by allowing Jews to settle in Europe. Although after wwii Europe finally didnt want them and send them to the middle east to create problems there

[@Narrowcros]

@@Forkroute multiculturism is only supported through the likes of Geroge Soros and others Jews to damage culture and to make white people focus on others.

[@IbrahimHaddad-pq9zg]

Peace will come when the jews learn to love palestinians.

[@polemeros]

LOL. What planet do you live on?

[@javierrodriguez4218]

Wow, such sophisticated BS.

[@soulsmouls]

Yeah. Neo-Liberals suffer from dunning kruger. I loved the part where he talked about christianity. He will be surprised what christians in the holy land would tell him. And he does not understand that Neo-Liberals who allied with Zionists after WW2 are the very people who push multicultilarism. He just does not get it. Dunning kruger.

[@karinelaguerre5348]

Not even sophisticated.