FURTHER CORRESPONDENCES BY MARC SUSSELMAN PART 8

21 October 2023

MS said:

s. wallerstein,

Since you included me in the email, I believe I have a right to offer my two cents on the subject, with the qualification that I have to be brief, since I am in the process of writing a brief that has to be filed in the U.S. Supreme Court next week.

Question: Should the oppressed be governed by the same ethical principles as the oppressor?

First, in any given situation, one has to determine who are the oppressed and who are the oppressor(s). In the context you raise, it is assumed that Israel is the oppressor and that the Palestinians are the oppressed. Evaluating this context requires reviewing the history of the conflict, which I included in my response to Prof. Butler’s article, “The Compass Of Mourning.” Did the Jews have a right to emigrate to Palestine even before the Holocaust? Did the Arabs who were living there have a right to exclude Jews from emigrating there? In that situation, who were the oppressed and who were the oppressor? When the UN proposed a partition of Palestine to create a Jewish state, and a Palestinian state, and the Jews accepted the proposed partition, but the Arabs rejected it, who was the oppressor and who the oppressed at this point? When Israel was attacked by five Arab nations in 1967, with the objective of "driving the Jews into the sea," who was the oppressor and who the oppressed? When Israel prevailed in that war and occupied the West Bank, previously governed by Jordan, and over four decades made efforts to reach a two-state settlement, which would have provided the Palestinians with their own state, but the Palestinians, led first by Arafat, and then Abbas, refused to agree to an end to hostilities in order to obtain the Palestinian state, who was the oppressor and who the oppressed? And when a two-state solution became unachievable because of the rejection by the Palestinians, who was the oppressor and who the oppressed?

In a clear-cut case in which, for example, a person pulls a knife on an individual, and threatens to kill him, clearly the person whose life is threaten is the oppressed, and the knife wielder is the oppressor. The oppressed has the right to defend himself, and, if he can, disarm the oppressor and kill him/her as long as the oppressor continues to threaten the oppressed’s life. But what if the oppressor’s life is not at stake? Does self-defense justify the use of deadly force to kill the oppressor, who, for example, allegedly stole the oppressed’s land. Even if Israel does qualify as an oppressor in terms of having obtained control over land which the Palestinians claim belong to them (which I am only proposing for purposes of argument, but which, given what I describe above, I do not believe is the case), does the oppressed have a moral right to kill the oppressed based on an allegation that the oppressed land was stolen? Short of the oppressor actually threatening the life of the oppressed – not arguably occupying the oppressed’s land, or making the oppressed’s living conditions intolerable, or discriminating against the oppressed – is the use of deadly force justifiable? In the case of slavery, I would argue that the use of deadly force is justifiable. But are the Palestinians either in the West Bank or in Gaza, “slaves” of the Israelis? I do not believe so. Under these circumstances, I reject a moral code that says the oppressed have a right to use deadly force, and I reject the proposition that the oppressed should be governed by a different moral code than the oppressor.

********

23 October 2023

MS said:

My wife and I attended the funeral yesterday of Samantha Woll. We did not know her, but wanted to pay our respects. She was an amazing person. Several eulogies were given, which spoke of her selflessness, her constant optimism, her wonderful smile which lit up a room as soon as she walked in. Dana Nessel, the Attorney General of Michigan, spoke of how she always reached out to bridge gaps between groups of people. The funeral was attended by Muslims, African-Amercins, Hindus, who knew her. The memorial chapel was filled with sobbing, by women and men.

The Detroit police have stated that at this point in the investigation, they do not have evidence that her murder was motivated by anti-Semtism.

********

MS said:

I believe that Israel should stop the aerial bombing of Gaza. It is not doing any good, and innocent Palestinians are being killed. I don't know what they think they are accomplishing.

********

MS said:

Pillette displays once more his utter ignorance about Israel and Judaism. There are only two classes of American Jews who support Israel, the upper Westside of N.Y., and the Orthodox Jews of Crown Heights?! What nonsense and utter stupidity. There are literally millions of Jews who fall in neither of these categories – middle class Jews, Reform Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, secular Jews – who are staunch supporters of Israel and its right to exist, even if they disagree, from time to time, with Israel’s policies. And the only source Pillette has for learning about Israel is the NYT and the NYRB? How about reading a book about the founding of Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the history of the Jewish people. There are literally hundreds of books on the subjects, but, of course, that would require too much effort for Pillette, who would rather wallow in his ignorance and spew nonsense.

********

MS said:

David,

When are you going to answer s. wallenstein's question whether different moral codes are justified as between the oppressed and the oppressor, assuming that one can accurately identify who the oppressed and the oppressor are in a particular situation, taking into account the full history of the two populations?

********

26 October 2023

MS said:

Below is a link to a panel discussion which was recently conducted at Dartmouth College regarding the Hamas terrorist attack and Israel’s response.

It was moderated by Susannah Heschel, the daughter of Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who was active in the civil rights movement.

I did not agree with everything which was said, but it was informative and thought provoking.

"https://youtu.be/om2FmYGfN7o"

********

27 October 2023

MS said:

How many more people have to die before the federal government bans the sale and ownership of AR-15 automatic rifles. 100? 500? 1,000? 5,000? 10.000?

********

Michael said:

David's weapon in his youth,
Was a one-shot sling.
I'm pretty sure God the Almighty,
Is angry over the AR-15.

--David used his one-shot sling to defend himself from wild animals while protecting his flock. I seriously doubt that God the Almighty thinks it necessary for God-fearing civilians to own & use assault weapons.

********

MS said:

So, Steve, because this guy helped you out by giving change to the guy who was hassling you, would you feel obliged to curb your tongue if he told you he is an ardent supporter of Trump and hopes he becomes the next President of the U.S.?

You may feel that way, but I do not. I do not believe that I have to reciprocate to someone with whom I disagree on a significant tissue - like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - by suppressing my opinion because s/he came to my defense on another issue.

********

MS said:

So you seem to think that people are more important than ideas. Let's argue about that.

********

MS said:

I don't believe that the example you offer exemplifies the principle you were asking be discussed.

You asked whether the moral code for the oppressed may be justifiably different from the moral code of the oppressor. I understood that the oppressed party was being oppressed by the oppressor party, as many are arguing in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the Palestinians are the oppressed, and therefore should be judged by a different moral code than that of their purported oppressor, the Israelis.

In your example, the youth from the impoverished family is not being oppressed by the particular rich kid.

********

29 October 2023

MS said:

Your comment is despicable. You never responded to the following question which I emailed to you last week:

Suppose your home is broken into and the intruder brutally kills a member of your family, then leaves. The police have identified the murderer and know where he is located. He has taken refuge in the home where his family lives, and is holding up there. The family members do not wish to protect him, but they are being held hostage by their miscreant son, brother. The police ask you, “What do you want us to do?’ You say, “I want you to apprehend this murderer.” The police say, well that will not be easy. He is holding up in a house occupied by other people, and he is armed. If we storm the house, there is a risk that innocent people will die. We cannot tell you what the likelihood of that risk is. Do you want us to just let him go. You say, “Well, I do not want innocent people to die, but I also cannot accept this murderer going free. Is there any other option besides storming the house?” The police say, “Yes. We can wait him out. Eventually he will have to come out to get food. We can try smoking him out, but that could also harm innocent people.” You say, “Well, I prefer that you wait him out, and hopefully he will eventually emerge and you can either apprehend him, or kill him.” But what if that does not work, what do you want the police to do? Leave and let the murderer go free, or storm the house, knowing there is a likelihood that some of the innocent occupants will be injured or killed. What do you want the police to do?

“This is the predicament that the Israelis find themselves in. But they do not have the option of waiting until Hamas supporters try to leave Gaza. They won’t. So what is Israel to do? Let the Hamas murderers go free, or storm Gaza and try to keep the casualties of innocent Palestinians to a minimum, knowing that the death of some untold number of Palestinians will inevitably die. All the liberals, the good-hearted, moral people say, “We want a ceasefire.” But that will guarantee that the Hamas murderers are never apprehended or called to account. What would you want the IDF to do if your wife had been raped and killed; your infant son beheaded?”

Why haven’t you responded to this hypothetical? In your smug sanctimony, can you claim that you would tell the police to let the murderer go free?

And what is your response to the assertions of the son of the founder of Hamas, which I also emailed to you, that Israel must destroy Hamas, otherwise Hamas will threaten all of the Mideast.

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/10/23/israel-spy-hamas-founding-leader-son-gaza-lead-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/hamas-attack-on-israel"

You are a more craven individual than I previously thought.

********

MS said:

Bravo to Bernie Wolff for pointing out the stupidity of his eminent cousin.

Not an existential threat? On October 7, .016 of the Israeli population was massacred. A comparable event in the United States, with its population of 331.9 million people would be a massacre of 5,310,400 people. If terrorists from Mexico killed 5,310,400 Americans in one day, is there any question that we would consider it an existential threat to our country? What an idiot!

********

MS said:

You are correct. It would “only” be 53,137 Americans killed in one day. That compares to the estimated 140,000 Japanese killed at Hiroshima. So, a 38% Hiroshima attack in one day is still not an existential threat?

********

Michael said:

I believe more than 53,137 American lives were lost because of the Vietnam War.

********

30 October 2023

MS said:

Hamas is teaching the world how to motivate world opinion against the population of any country – invade the country; kill several thousand of its people; then retreat back to where you came from, and hide among the population; when the country you invaded strikes back, show the invaders’ collateral damage killing civilians and accuse the invader of atrocities. World opinion will denounce the invader for crimes against humanity. This is a very effective tactic especially against Jews, since a large percentage of the world hates Jews already, for killing Christ.

********

Michael said:

As a Catholic I do not believe the Jews killed Christ. Many times in the Four Gospels, Jesus speaks of his willingness to be crucified by the Roman occupation forces. Even if the Sanhedrin played a part it was just a part. The crucifixion was the result of many factors. I however blame most of Jesus' sufferings on Judas Iscariot. I will not lose any sleep if that idiot is thrown into Hell on the Day of Judgement. Screw him!!!!

********

31 October 2023

MS said:

"https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/10/30/morgue-burial-israel-hamas-attack-pkg-sidner-lead-vpx.cnn"

Yes, let’s have a cease fire and give Hamas time to re-arm.

********

MS said:

To answer Prof. Wilson’s inquiry, Hamas has been dedicated to the annihilation of Israel, and the death of all its Jewish inhabitants, from its inception. Here are a few excerpts from its founding Charter:

“Tempestuous oceans of creeds and hopes. For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, its ultimate goal is Islam, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution. … The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian … Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.”

“Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.”

Does this sound like an organization which Israel can reach a peaceful rapprochement with?

********

MS said:

I have just read the article by Prof. Joseph Levine, professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, linked to by DDA. Prof. Levine argues that it is not anti-Semitic to assert that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state. He is willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as a “Jewish people.” He contends, however, that denominating a state as a Jewish state necessarily excludes those living in Israel who are not Jewish, predominantly the Muslim Palestinians. Therefore, it is not possible for Israel to be both a Jewish state and a democracy, even though there are Palestinains who sit in the Knesset.

Prof. Levine’s contention is just another example of Geroge Orwell’s recognition that, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.” There is a gaping flaw in Prof. Levine’s specious contention, and the flaw is this: There are a total of 41 nations that have a declared and recognized state religion. Many of those nations assert that they are democracies.

See "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion"

Let’s look at some examples, shall we. The state religion of England is Anglicanism. Not every individual living in England who claims to be a citizen of Great Britain is a member of the Anglican faith. I am pretty sure that England maintains that it is a democracy. But any nation which has a state religion is a state of that religion. England is therefore an Anglican nation, just as Israel claims to be a Jewish nation. According to the esteemed Prof. Levine, it is logically impossible for England to be both an Anglican nation and a democracy.

There are four nations whose declared national state religion is Catholicism: Costa Rica, Liechtenstein, Malta and Monaco. They are, therefore, Catholic nations. Not everybody living in these countries and claiming to be citizens are Catholic. Last time I checked, they each claim to be democracies – a logical impossibility according to Prof. Levine.

Continuing. There is one nation whose declared national state religion is Eastern Orthodoxy: Greece. Not every citizen of Greece belongs to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe Greece maintains that it is a democracy – another logical impossibility according to Prof. Levine.

There are three nations which have declared Lutheranism as their national state religion: Denmark, Iceland, Norway. I am pretty sure that there are quite a few citizens of these countries who do not observe the Lutheran religion. Last I checked, each of these nations maintain they are a democracy – a logical impossibility according to Prof. Levine.

There are two nations which have declared Calvinism as the national state religion: Scotland and Tuvalu. I don’t know much about Tuvalu, but I am quite sure that there are people living in Scotland who maintain that they are citizens of Scotland, but are not avowed Calvinists. I believe Scotland maintains it is a democracy – logically impossible according to Prof. Levine.

There are 26 nations which have designated Islam as their national state religion. I will not bother to list them all. I am pretty sure that two of them claim to be democracies: Egypt and Malaysia. Not all of their citizens are Muslims.

In sum, Prof. Levine is full of sh-t. And you can quote me on that.

Post-script:

So, is it anti-Semitic to assert that Israel cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy, when there are a total of 13 other nations which assert that they have a state religion, and are also democracies? Yes, I believe it is anti-Semitic to single out the one Jewish state that asserts it is a democracy, and claim that this is false, even if the declarant is a Jew.

********

1 November 2023

MS said:

"Bombing accident"?

No, it was intentional. The IDF was willing to kill hundreds of innocent civilians in order to kill one Hamas leader. They said so explicitly.

Another opinion by our reigning moral expert. What is your answer, David, to the realistic hypothetical I presented to s. wallerstein regarding what the police should do to apprehend the murderer who invaded your home and killed your wife, or beheaded your infant child, and then retreated to the refuge of his family’s home?

Moreover, returning to our persistent dispute regarding the source of our moral convictions, from whence do you derive your moral conviction that it is immoral to engage in conduct in self-defense which will have the certain consequence of killing innocent civilians as collateral damage? You reject the proposition that you know this as a true moral proposition without proof. So, where is your proof? How do you derive this proposition from your meta-ethical theory?

********

MS said:

A question for David Zimmerman and s. wallerstein.

1. If P then Q.

P = intentionally fires a weapon directly at an individual, who dies

Q = the person who fired the weapon intended to kill the individual.

2. P = intentionally fires a weapon directly at an individual who dies, where there is a high likelihood, but no certainty, that bystanders will also die

Q = the person who fired the weapon intended to kill the bystanders

By what logic, syllogistic or ethical, does 1 = 2?

********

Michael said:

Please nobody assume that this back and forth between MS and those at Dr. Wolff's Philosopher Stone blog, who do not back the present military efforts of the current Israeli government, is an isolated occurrence. Division as such is spreading like a wildfire throughout the entire globe. Perhaps we're living in an End Time where Jewish & Christian & Islamic prophecies are merging into a single thread. The New Age religious belief in the Age of Aquarius, the Jewish belief in Elijah's return and the rising of the Third Temple & Sacrifices being done by Jewish men in Jerusalem who don't want to wait anymore for the Third Temple construction, the Christian belief in a Rapture and a Anti-Christ and a Great Tribulation, the Islamic belief in the Madhi, the Iranian belief in a Thirteenth Imam, the belief by Mormons of going to a New Planet, the Catholic prophecies of Fatima & La Sette & Nostradamus & the Lost Book of Nostradamus containing his son Cesar Nostradamus's painted illustrations of the future are all funneling into a complex intricately designed point in time. Or am I wrong?

********

Michael said:

I just want to give Marc Susselman a shout out of thanks for allowing me to post his correspondences that he wrote. And I feel that if Israel needs any friends this is a point in time where Israel needs them the most. Although the bombing campaign has had mass civilian casualties and negative effects I still agree to back Israel in its right to thrive and prosper through these trying events that are occuring around the world. I agree with Marc that Israel should defend itself. One of the reasons I continue to agree with Marc over Israel is that I feel that no matter how bad things get for Israel I believe that some good will come from it when all this is over.

********

The End.