How Do We Reach Such People?

 

The depravity of Hamas is shocking but not surprising. The kneejerk supportive reaction of many Muslims, even many American Muslims, is also not surprising given the structural resistance within that creed for critical introspection.  However, the number of non-Muslim Westerners who cheered the Hamas atrocities—and the intensity of that support–was a shocking and terrifying surprise. Affirming intentionally inhumane behavior is not a matter of ideological or geopolitical disagreement, nor in the case of non-Muslim American college kids, was it a function of defensive religious partisanship.  Such people are characterologically and cognitively deformed.  How can Americans get that way?

Could this really be merely the result of the bumper-sticker level of dialog on college campuses with its dogmatic categories based on race, sexual “identity” definitions of the moment, epithets of “denier,” “hater” or “____phobic” hurled at dissidents?

The one-size-fits-all category of oppressor/victim informed the dubious ideas that those who burned cities and injured people after the death of George Floyd should not be held culpable and that incarceration for violent minority offenders is unjust regardless of legal and factual guilt or innocence.  But can it really cause people to approve the dismemberment of babies, rape, torture, and murder?

George Orwell pondered the effect of dumbing down language in Politics and the English Language:

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

What we are witnessing is not merely the depressing fact that younger Americans have absorbed some bad ideological content but that their mode of thinking and knowing itself appears to have been significantly damaged.  What do you do with people who are being conditioned to become immune to natural human inclinations, common sense, evidence, logic, or original thought?

The sheer insanity of LGBTQ+ support for Hamas, or #MeToo devotees cheering rapists and misogyny, makes sense only if truth and justice are nothing more than allegiance to the workings of The Narrative in the moment.  Resisting oppressors is justice and intersectional analysis denies or postpones even the most obvious conflicts of interest. That’s nuts.

The bumper-sticker thought processes of the woke seem to be the natural excretions of spectacularly vapid habits of mind as found in the works of prominent word salad emitters as if to validate Orwell’s notion that bad language and defective thought are both cause and effect.  First, here is a sample of ethical deep thoughts from the incomparable Judith Butler:

[W]e must recognize that ethics requires us to risk ourselves precisely at moments of unknowingness, when what forms us diverges from what lies before us, when our willingness to become undone in relation to others constitutes our chance of becoming human. To be undone by another is a primary necessity, an anguish, to be sure, but also a chance–to be addressed, claimed, bound to what is not me, but also to be moved, to be prompted to act, to address myself elsewhere, and so to vacate the self-sufficient “I” as a kind of possession. If we speak and try to give an account from this place, we will not be irresponsible, or, if we are, we will surely be forgiven.

So there, Kant, Aristotle, Maimonides, and Mill– take that!  (Extra credit for diagramming the second sentence in the sample above.)  Clarity in wokedom is reserved for politically useful artificial categories and identification of enemies.  If in pursuing ethical inquiry, we were to make the mistake of thinking of ourselves as individuals expected to act on a well-informed conscience ready to work through even grey areas and nuance, then Robin DiAngelo is on the spot to push us each back into our assigned roles and race-defined categories:

Being good or bad is not relevant. Racism is a multilayered system embedded in our culture. All of us are socialized into the system of racism. Racism cannot be avoided. Whites have blind spots on racism, and I have blind spots on racism. Racism is complex, and I don’t have to understand every nuance of the feedback to validate that feedback. Whites are / I am unconsciously invested in racism. Bias is implicit and unconscious.

Like mental patients who have constructed defenses against whatever intrusive realities might threaten the carefully crafted fictional world, we have a growing mass of malignant loons reinforcing each other’s delusion in a sea of stupid filled with linguistic garbage.  There is growing evidence that the woke are less happy and more likely to report mental disorders (especially young left-leaning women).  Does that make them more or less amenable to a new outlook? How do we roll back the rise of insanity and militant incompetence to be able to reach and rescue such people?  Do we need a new language that provides both therapy and apostolate?  Are we looking at a moment of momentous opportunity for uplifting reforms or the brink of despair?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 205 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: To be undone by another is a primary necessity, an anguish, to be sure, but also a chance–to be addressed, claimed, bound to what is not me, but also to be moved, to be prompted to act, to address myself elsewhere, and so to vacate the self-sufficient “I” as a kind of possession.

    I had to reread this a half dozen times. I don’t know who “the incomparable Judith Butler” is so I assumed you were quoting a credible voice. But the sentence didn’t make sense. It seemed to be saying that giving up one’s own ethics and responsibility and joining the group is a defense and an exculpatory rationale for people to think and feel that which is wrong.

    But I disagree with this. What is she saying? Your suggestion to diagram the sentence added a bit of clarity to why you quoted it.

    I suppose that’s just what it was actually intended to mean.

    Butler is famous for rambling vapid prose. She is one of the Founding Mothers BirthPersons of sexual identity newthink. A sample:

    The misapprehension about gender performativity is this: that gender is a choice, or that gender is a role, or that gender is a construction that one puts on, as one puts on clothes in the morning, that there is a ‘one’ who is prior to this gender, a one who goes to the wardrobe of gender and decides with deliberation which gender it will be today.

    If you delve, sexual identity is either a choice or intrinsic to that which can’t really have intrinsic qualities. For Butler, “woman” is not a class of people but a performance that constructs “gendered” reality. Performativity is “that reiterative power of discourse to produce the phenomena that it regulates and constrains” which is to say that language itself constructs, limits and presents that which we perceive as reality. Hope that clears it up.

    You might think that when some Mickey Spillane imitator writes that “she had legs that wouldn’t quit on their long way up and with a bust that would’ve put a hammerlock on his eyeballs but for those piercing baby blues above a smirk that said ‘you ain’t man enough to deserve to kiss this’ and to top it off, she held that .38 like it was just part of the whole package…” that the author has a particularized image of an actual female figure in mind when in fact he is merely stringing applications of constrained categorical thought in socially constructed language choices.

    Well, that may be so, but what’s her phone number?

    I too prefer a broad that’s built, not socially constructed.

    • #31
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians?  The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    • #32
  3. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    The U.S. designated Hamas a terrorist organization in 1997. The 1988 charter of Hamas called for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic society in historic Palestine. The Arabs in the Gaza Strip elected Hamas knowing full well what the organization was and its aims.

    ETA: But you know all this, Zafar.

    • #33
  4. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    Entirely related.

     

    • #34
  5. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    It’s hard to hear what they’re saying over the screams of Hamas’ victims and the wailing of their families.  Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty.  Simple condemnation of Hamas’ barbarity without a “but…” appended would make future pleas for the Palestinians more effective, imho.

    • #35
  6. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    A neighbor enquired of me: “As a lifelong pacifist, do I have to choose a side?”
    And I said “yes.”

    Note, here, that I hadn’t asked him to punch anyone. Only to convey some sympathy and solidarity with  Jews (not Israelis, mind, just Jews) in our own, small community, neighbors and friends whose pain and fear had been met with an awkward, eerie silence. 

    He is a kind man. But that silence! And the irritated reaction to the suggestion that he might share some of that kindness towards Jews—is telling.

    Want to know something really sad? I remember having a “conversation” with one my Rico-friends in which I declared myself completely willing to host him and his family, should some anti-semitic pogrom break out in his locality.  I don’t doubt my own willingness to help, but I know that when I made that offer,  I was picturing my little community as a safe, welcoming place, one where innocent people would be defended.

    It is uncomfortable, to put it mildly, to find myself wondering, in the silence, whether I can still believe this? 

     

     

     

    • #36
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Terry Mott (View Comment):
    Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty.

    Especially since sovereign Palestinians elected Hamas.

    • #37
  8. Terry Mott Member
    Terry Mott
    @TerryMott

    GrannyDude (View Comment):

    A neighbor enquired of me: “As a lifelong pacifist, do I have to choose a side?”
    And I said “yes.”

    Note, here, that I hadn’t asked him to punch anyone. Only to convey some sympathy and solidarity with Jews (not Israelis, mind, just Jews) in our own, small community, neighbors and friends whose pain and fear had been met with an awkward, eerie silence.

    He is a kind man. But that silence! And the irritated reaction to the suggestion that he might share some of that kindness towards Jews—is telling.

    Want to know something really sad? I remember having a “conversation” with one my Rico-friends in which I declared myself completely willing to host him and his family, should some anti-semitic pogrom break out in his locality. I don’t doubt my own willingness to help, but I know that when I made that offer, I was picturing my little community as a safe, welcoming place, one where innocent people would be defended.

    It is uncomfortable, to put it mildly, to find myself wondering, in the silence, whether I can still believe this?

     

     

     

    I know what you mean. A young man of my acquaintance recently repeated the “open-air prison” shibboleth, as well as “the Jews killed Christ.”  He’s very conservative for his age.  I was shocked.

    • #38
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    It’s hard to hear what they’re saying over the screams of Hamas’ victims and the wailing of their families. Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty. Simple condemnation of Hamas’ barbarity without a “but…” appended would make future pleas for the Palestinians more effective, imho.

    I don’t know that it would.  People seem pretty stuck in their views.

    As for condemning without a but.  How much sympathy for Palestinian civilian casualties have you seen expressed on Ricochet without a version of ‘but it’s their fault’ tacked on the end?

    It’s sad, but that’s how we all seem to approach this stuff.

    • #39
  10. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    How many demonstrators say that the atrocities were unacceptable, that they understand that an Israeli response is unavoidable, urge Palestinians to eschew support for terrorism and express the hope that this message is so widely accepted and shared such that Israelis will feel less threatened and less inclined to inflict damage?

    At the present time, the Palestinian flag and “from the river to the sea” are seen correctly as an unambiguous endorsement of the Oct 7 horror show precisely because there is zero effort by Palestinians and their supporters to make any such distinction and so many who expressly endorsed the abomination.

    To expect much less demand that the rest of us “listen” to what they are “really”saying and pretend to hear an innocuous alternative message is absurd.

    • #40
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    It’s hard to hear what they’re saying over the screams of Hamas’ victims and the wailing of their families. Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty. Simple condemnation of Hamas’ barbarity without a “but…” appended would make future pleas for the Palestinians more effective, imho.

    I don’t know that it would. People seem pretty stuck in their views.

    As for condemning without a but. How much sympathy for Palestinian civilian casualties have you seen expressed on Ricochet without a version of ‘but it’s their fault’ tacked on the end?

    It’s sad, but that’s how we all seem to approach this stuff.

    That’s what happens in war. And you know, you absolutely do know, that Hamas deliberately locates its headquarters, command centers, rocket launch sites, munitions dumps, etc., in or next to civilian buildings. That includes hospitals, mosques, office buildings, refugee camps, and so on. It. Is. Deliberate.

    • #41
  12. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    How many demonstrators say that the atrocities were unacceptable, that they understand that an Israeli response is unavoidable, urge Palestinians to eschew support for terrorism and express the hope that this message is so widely accepted and shared such that Israelis will feel less threatened and less inclined to inflict damage?

    At the present time, the Palestinian flag and “from the river to the sea” are seen correctly as an unambiguous endorsement of the Oct 7 horror show precisely because there is zero effort by Palestinians and their supporters to make any such distinction and so many who expressly endorsed the abomination.

    To expect much less demand that the rest of us “listen” to what they are “really”saying and pretend to hear an innocuous alternative message is absurd.

    The frogs are supposed to “listen” to the scorpions who want free taxi rides: This time the scorpions won’t sting. Really. They promise.

    • #42
  13. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Great post, OB. I need to think on this, but this thought keeps nudging me:

    “Example (or experience, if you will – Dawg) is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.” – Edmund Burke

     

    The Darwinian corollary is that those too dumb or otherwise defective will go extinct. The concern is whether they take the sentient down with them.

    But will they spawn before going extinct?  Studies have been done showing women would prefer strong, masculine men as mates, but what are they being offered?  Man-bun wearing, thin, pale, weak echoes of maleness. Seems the weaker the men become, the more strident, shrill, violent, the females become…

    • #43
  14. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.” Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    BLM and antifa are excused because of “white supremacy.” I’ve noted before that this started when I was a kid — academic excellence was “acting white.” 

    This is all very intentional on the part of the Left, since people taught to resent and envy — people who adopt the victim mentality — will excuse every evil they commit as being someone else’s fault. They become the revolutionaries. The destroyers of all objective values. 

    We’re at the end of our civilizational cycle. Bishop Barron explicates the situation beautifully, if tragically. “You will be as gods” was the false promise leading to The Fall, and our civilization has fallen for it.

    • #44
  15. GrannyDude Member
    GrannyDude
    @GrannyDude

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    It’s hard to hear what they’re saying over the screams of Hamas’ victims and the wailing of their families. Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty. Simple condemnation of Hamas’ barbarity without a “but…” appended would make future pleas for the Palestinians more effective, imho.

    I don’t know that it would. People seem pretty stuck in their views.

    As for condemning without a but. How much sympathy for Palestinian civilian casualties have you seen expressed on Ricochet without a version of ‘but it’s their fault’ tacked on the end?

    It’s sad, but that’s how we all seem to approach this stuff.

    What part of “Glory to the Martyrs” do you not understand? 

    • #45
  16. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    How many demonstrators say that the atrocities were unacceptable, that they understand that an Israeli response is unavoidable, urge Palestinians to eschew support for terrorism and express the hope that this message is so widely accepted and shared such that Israelis will feel less threatened and less inclined to inflict damage?

    At the present time, the Palestinian flag and “from the river to the sea” are seen correctly as an unambiguous endorsement of the Oct 7 horror show precisely because there is zero effort by Palestinians and their supporters to make any such distinction and so many who expressly endorsed the abomination.

    To expect much less demand that the rest of us “listen” to what they are “really”saying and pretend to hear an innocuous alternative message is absurd.

    Indeed. When people are celebrating the rape of babies, by marching and chanting for genocide, there is nothing left to discuss. 

    • #46
  17. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    How many demonstrators say that the atrocities were unacceptable, that they understand that an Israeli response is unavoidable, urge Palestinians to eschew support for terrorism and express the hope that this message is so widely accepted and shared such that Israelis will feel less threatened and less inclined to inflict damage?

    Do you really want to reach people who don’t already agree with you?

    • #47
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.”

    We see a lot of that, actually.

    Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    As opposed to all the fault of the Muslims?

    Way to go!

    • #48
  19. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Seems relevant to a number of conversations we’re having here:

    https://x.com/RitchieTorres/status/1719856894032875796?s=20

     

     

     

     

    • #49
  20. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.”

    We see a lot of that, actually.

    Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    As opposed to all the fault of the Muslims?

    Way to go!

    Hamas’s actions are Hamas’s fault and no one else’s. They brought on the Israeli response and they use their own people as shields, so civilian casualties in the conflict are their fault too. The failure to condemn them for the atrocities they commit and to make excuses — occupation, displacement, apartheid, open-air prison, etc., etc. — is the moral indifferentism Bishop Barron addresses. A sensible and morally coherent response is to — at minimum — condemn the rape, torture, and beheading of women and children. That so many are incapable of making that judgment call and, indeed, glorifying the atrocities, signals the end of all civility. And it’s your side — the Left — which has “accomplished” the upending of western (objective) values.

    • #50
  21. BDB Member
    BDB
    @BDB

    Wa-a-ay back when the motto on my blog was “Freedom is wasted on him who will not work to make others free.”  Later I changed it to “If history has taught us anything, it is this: the surest way to change a man’s mind is with a rock.”

    YMMV.

    • #51
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.”

    We see a lot of that, actually.

    Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    As opposed to all the fault of the Muslims?

    Way to go!

    Hamas’s actions are Hamas’s fault and no one else’s.

    Thank you.

    Now tell me why criticism of Israel’s actions or policies is only and always blaming everything on The Joos.

    • #52
  23. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Great post, OB. I need to think on this, but this thought keeps nudging me:

    “Example (or experience, if you will – Dawg) is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.” – Edmund Burke

     

    Also, Ben Franklin: “Experience keeps a hard school, but fools will learn in no other.”

    • #53
  24. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    Old Bathos: To be undone by another is a primary necessity, an anguish, to be sure, but also a chance–to be addressed, claimed, bound to what is not me, but also to be moved, to be prompted to act, to address myself elsewhere, and so to vacate the self-sufficient “I” as a kind of possession.

    I had to reread this a half dozen times. I don’t know who “the incomparable Judith Butler” is so I assumed you were quoting a credible voice. But the sentence didn’t make sense. It seemed to be saying that giving up one’s own ethics and responsibility and joining the group is a defense and an exculpatory rationale for people to think and feel that which is wrong.

    But I disagree with this. What is she saying? Your suggestion to diagram the sentence added a bit of clarity to why you quoted it.

    I suppose that’s just what it was actually intended to mean.

    Butler is famous for rambling vapid prose. She is one of the Founding Mothers BirthPersons of sexual identity newthink. A sample:

    The misapprehension about gender performativity is this: that gender is a choice, or that gender is a role, or that gender is a construction that one puts on, as one puts on clothes in the morning, that there is a ‘one’ who is prior to this gender, a one who goes to the wardrobe of gender and decides with deliberation which gender it will be today.

    If you delve, sexual identity is either a choice or intrinsic to that which can’t really have intrinsic qualities. For Butler, “woman” is not a class of people but a performance that constructs “gendered” reality. Performativity is “that reiterative power of discourse to produce the phenomena that it regulates and constrains” which is to say that language itself constructs, limits and presents that which we perceive as reality. Hope that clears it up.

    You might think that when some Mickey Spillane imitator writes that “she had legs that wouldn’t quit on their long way up and with a bust that would’ve put a hammerlock on his eyeballs but for those piercing baby blues above a smirk that said ‘you ain’t man enough to deserve to kiss this’ and to top it off, she held that .38 like it was just part of the whole package…” that the author has a particularized image of an actual female figure in mind when in fact he is merely stringing applications of constrained categorical thought in socially constructed language choices.

    I don’t know who this Judith Butler is, either, but she must be teaching at one of our elite universities.

    • #54
  25. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    What they are saying is “Let’s kill all the Jews.”

    • #55
  26. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Terry Mott (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    How many of those demonstrators would say they were there to support Hamas and how many would say they were there to support Palestinians? The first step to reaching people is to hear what they are actually saying. jmho.

    It’s hard to hear what they’re saying over the screams of Hamas’ victims and the wailing of their families. Maybe now’s not the best time to argue for Palestinian sovereignty. Simple condemnation of Hamas’ barbarity without a “but…” appended would make future pleas for the Palestinians more effective, imho.

    I don’t know that it would. People seem pretty stuck in their views.

    As for condemning without a but. How much sympathy for Palestinian civilian casualties have you seen expressed on Ricochet without a version of ‘but it’s their fault’ tacked on the end?

    It’s sad, but that’s how we all seem to approach this stuff.

    I don’t think most of the dead or wounded Palestinian civilians are directly to blame for Hamas actions. Many (though as you point out, we don’t know how many) are indirectly to blame in the sense that they contributed to the general antiSemitism and voted for/support (or at least get out of the way) of Hamas launching rockets, etc. 

    In any case, no civilian deserves to die in a war. Most civilized people agree on this. 

    Just not Hamas. 

    • #56
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.”

    We see a lot of that, actually.

    Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    As opposed to all the fault of the Muslims?

    Way to go!

    The ethos(es) of the region are the fault of all concerned, to one degree or another. 

    The deaths in Israel were the fault of one nation. Period. 

    • #57
  28. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    Would there be an invasion into Gaza from the Israelis if Hamas didn’t attack? 

     

    • #58
  29. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):
    I don’t know who this Judith Butler is, either, but she must be teaching at one of our elite universities.

    Radical feminist Marxist queer theorist moonbat. Opposes the existence of Israel. Supports Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Opposes the institution of marriage. (And a professor of literature, unsurprisingly.)

    • #59
  30. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    Entirely related.

     

    Yes, excellent! Thanks for posting.

    Irresponsibility — a lack of (moral) agency — is the ideological water we’re swimming in. Hamas leaders say it — “no one should blame us for what we do.”

    We see a lot of that, actually.

    Because, you see, it’s all the fault of the Jews. (take note Zafar).

    As opposed to all the fault of the Muslims?

    Way to go!

    Hamas’s actions are Hamas’s fault and no one else’s.

    Thank you.

    Now tell me why criticism of Israel’s actions or policies is only and always blaming everything on The Joos.

    Well, when you criticize Israel for defending itself from murderous enemies…

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.