Metsfanmax wrote:It is actually a fairly common position among public atheist intellectuals to single out Islam as more dangerous/violent than other major religions. Christopher Hitchens took a similar stance. Richard Dawkins is known for making similar comments as well.
And they largely have a point. However, Harris uses "Muslim" as a synonym for "Palestinian." That's why he's a racist. In Harris' mind, every single Palestinian is an obeisant Muslim who prays five times a day and wears a beard. The fact of Islam as a unifying community value, instead of a fanatically observed philosophy, among the vast majority of people is not one Harris accepts. Yet, he would never say "oh look 89% of people in Denmark are Christian - if I go to Denmark it's probably the law that all virgins who are raped must marry their rapist and it's illegal to get tattoos or lend money. What is with the Danish?!"
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Sam Harris:
Why Don't I Criticize Israel?The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could.
An incredibly uninformed screed. Hamas controls the only armed apparatus capable of resistance in Gaza at this time, it is not the representative of the Palestinian people.
As he pointed out, Hamas
is the representative of the Palestinian people, if we take their election several years back as counting what the Palestinian people want. And also as he pointed out, it doesn't matter if Hamas doesn't represent
all of the Palestinian people; it represents enough of them to make the threat credible.
- First, Palestine has not been able to hold elections that meet international norms so the fact that they have a slim majority in the legislative branch, while not controlling the executive branch, is relatively meaningless.
- Second, who people vote for during the middle of a war is not necessarily whom they would vote for during peace.
- Third, as previously noted, Israel has assisted in politically empowering Hamas so that it has the ability to appeal beyond its actual popularity.
- Fourth, the Democratic Party platform says the Democratic Party supports "
Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel," even though it's clear
few Democrats support that. People support parties that will largely deliver what they want, they don't necessarily agree with every line of text in the party's manifesto.
-
Fifth, and most important, by this logic attacks against Israeli civilians (attacks that aren't happening) are completely justified because the Israeli government was elected by Israeli civilians.
Metsfanmax wrote:I think he was arguing this as a matter of realism. It is never in Israel's interest to kill innocent civilians unless its policy is that of outright extermination of all Palestinians (which it is clearly not). Every time it does so, it loses international credibility.
Again, an article of faith unsupported by any shred of evidence.
It is mind-boggling to me that you are actually considering the rants of someone who is sitting in judgement on a class of people characterized by race. "This race is guilty, because ..." Astonishing.