Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
Here we go again. No rest afforded to the victims. If Covid isn't enough, why not add a few misiles and kill civilians. Whatever else will be said about this massacre, Israel cannot be said to be defending itself from territory it is occupying. It's a contradiction in terms.
The US needs to stop sending military support to the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons and is destroying the lives of civilians which lands it is stealing. This issue will not stop until the occupation stops. Utterly horrifying and contemptible behavior from the Israeli state.
For some decent coverage on the topic, it's good to look at Israeli sources instead of US ones.
Haaretz is offering good, careful coverage of the current situation:
https://www.haaretz.com/
Also crucial is B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.btselem.org/
EDIT:
For important recent information on the Israel situation Human Rights Watch recently issued a strongly worded condemnation of the situation of the Palestinians. It's worth a look for those who may not be aware of the extent of Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
The US needs to stop sending military support to the only country in the Middle East which has nuclear weapons and is destroying the lives of civilians which lands it is stealing. This issue will not stop until the occupation stops. Utterly horrifying and contemptible behavior from the Israeli state.
For some decent coverage on the topic, it's good to look at Israeli sources instead of US ones.
Haaretz is offering good, careful coverage of the current situation:
https://www.haaretz.com/
Also crucial is B'Tselem The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.btselem.org/
EDIT:
For important recent information on the Israel situation Human Rights Watch recently issued a strongly worded condemnation of the situation of the Palestinians. It's worth a look for those who may not be aware of the extent of Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
Comments (7611)
How can you steal something from someone that doesn't belong to them? Does a cow being turned into a burger belong to you. Does a plant growing in the wild belong to you. What belongs to you and why?
How can a "outraged" position be based on such a shallow unanalytic version of reality? As it is not my position I can't help you there but I really hope the Israeli's defeat this kind of (whatever) propaganda.
We agree for once.
Of course you don't. You don't even moderate this forum. You are affiliated with a set of left-wing intellectuals who are antagonistic towards my person. I would like to put our dispute aside. They do not agree to doing so. They keep engaging in crypto-Fascist mafia collaboration so as to put me in a bad sort of way. I have made it so that they can't do this unless they spread misinformation. Seeing that I am here, how that misinformation could be spread is through you. You are not going to do so. I have just told you why. This is how I deal with people who let the social ecology of the world turn into a Sartrean hell because of what is thought to be "cool".
Not anymore.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
No. Having kids you can't provide for is wrong by most traditional moral systems no?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Ah ok, so that one was a misphrasing. The other two? You think moral systems are invalid yet advertise your AN. You think there is no basis on which to condemn yet you condemn people for having children.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Why would you think that? I would think "Not getting murdered" or something like that would come first. What's your argument that that one should be prominent?
But just to make sure we're on the same page here, this is all in the ridiculous scenario the people have rights at all right? I mean, what a ridiculous notion! But if it were the case somehow, the primary right would be not to exist because......
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Sure I can agree with all that.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I don't know. Seems pretty natural to claim humans have rights and to do everything one can to enforce those. I don't think there has ever been a society where people didn't have rights of some sort.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I'm interested in knowing why. I don't see how you can despise christianity and islam but love judaism. They're in the same "family".
Palestinian land belongs to Palestinians. And by every metric outside of Israeli settler colonialist fanaticism, the theft of that land is illegal.
Who are the Palestinians and what legitimizes you to make this statement? Who made you the person who decides what belongs whom?
Israeli terrorists simply admitting to stealing land.
I'm not the one deciding on anything - at this point I'm simply deferring to international law.
And in any case this appeal to abstraction 'what really is anything anyway?' is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that Israeli settler colonialism is a project of terrorism, insofar as it consists of forced displacement along with the upholding and maintenance of consistent conditions of misery upon Palestinian people.
I spent a few Years In British Prisons. You don't know me. I know what persecution eviction and disenfranchisement is is. I don't own where I live and never know when I might be evicted. What about you?
I am a gay person the only non Christian in my Immediate family. You don't know me.
Why the hell would you do that?
What convinced you international law had any authority?
Since when has any international body prevented genocide?
That is actually the biggest lie of this whole thread deferring your prejudices to someone else.
Well insofar as Israel is ignoring international law and committing genocide, you're right that it's not particularly effective at the moment. Nor alot of other moments. Nonetheless, it's on the right side of recognizing that Israeli settler colonialism is a project that is terroristic through and through.
But you should be allowed to pool your money to buy fighter jets and bomb some people into submission as retaliation for the past and present deeds of some other group of people, which probably overlaps, though not perfectly, with the the bombed group.
It's hard to not see a performative contradiction between you saying "it's all fictions, we're just pretentious animals" while at the same time explicitly and vehemently arguing for the right to exercise violence in the defense of a number of these fictions (the fiction of jewish religion, the fiction of a jewish people and the fiction of a state called Israel).
Why do you care to take a position in a conflict between fictions? And why take specifically the side that, as a matter of practical fact, causes more death and destruction in the pursuit of its fictions then the other?
The UN is Israel's biggest enemy it has only survived thanks to the USA themselves and my country of occupation the UK. Have you actually read a history book? Which country issued the Balfour declaration? Yours?
Please give me one philosophical reason to accept the UN's edicts or anyone else's. Or this bizarre phantom international law.
My point was you keep arguing using certain concepts then immediately question them when someone else uses them. An example was "right" but that was a "misphrasing" when you said that people have a right not to be dragged into life. Sure, I don't really believe that was a misphrasing, but sure. But there are still 2 other examples.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Quoting Andrew4Handel
And
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Quoting Andrew4Handel
And I'm sure many more to come.
I'm sure if anyone started trespassing on your home you'd call the cops, despite claiming that people can't own land.
Or another example:
Quoting Echarmion
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Good job. Want a medal?
You're clearly not arguing from a levelheaded position. Look, I'm sorry for the shitty life you had but you keep contradicting yourself here. Maybe take a break.
What a shockingly trivial response. I can cite you many genocide and crimes the UN failed to prevent including the Rwandan genocide and the The Sierra Leone atrocities (they were ended by the UK and USA) Likewise the Kosovo genocide. You have not defended the authority of international law so fake apologies for me ridiculing it.
I agree. I do think the kind of sentiment expressed in the video is widespread, but most are simply too savvy to come right out and say it. It's why these expressions ought to be publicized when and where they can. It's so easy to find:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1390480250526593024[/tweet]
You asked me 'who makes decisions' and I gave you an answer. I happen to agree with those decisions, because they coincide with helping to stem the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
No I want an end to parental child abuse and religious abuse. Child abuse is Rife among Arabs. Do you support this or have you lobotomised yourself?
Feel free to say the word genocide a thousand more times. For whose benefit is this other than yourself? Neither You nor the Anti-Semitic UN have any power to validate this definition.
And by the way do you not consider the nearly 2 million Arabs in Israel Palestinians. The only racism and genocidal sentiment in this thread seems to be emanating from you.
I will. Hopefully the more normalized it is, the more people will recognize Israeli genocide for what it is.
I am not interested in you. I am interested in the Jews and Israel.
:down:
Yeah something about your posts gave that away.
Word salad. So you can arbitrarily accuse anyone of of genocide. Well done for the modern trend of making false and heinous allegations against people who disagree with you.
Well yes but in this case I am accusing a state that is committing genocide of genocide.
I am not a psychiatrist so I can't help you.
I have know many mentally ill people. It is a terrible condition. Your claims do not validate themselves due to your own beliefs.
International law
Where does it derive it's authority from.
Answer: if you are seeking a response please search for another forum.
Or if you are less cynical another thread here.
Tell that to however awarded me with a university degree.
I don't know whether I learned the term ad hominem before or during my degree studies.
Are you familiar with the term tautology?
You can't determine the definition of genocide based on your pathological vilification of Israel (The Jews?)
So your Anti Israeli sentiment is based on a video involving 4 people. You have to be joking me! or maybe I just ended up in your nightmare somehow.
Yes I am bad at lying and being phony.
I am not going to read your garbage. There is a huge literature on this subject. You can't resolve the issues this way. You are not hoodwinking me.
Why don't you just go to The Gaza strip and throw a few thousand rockets into Israel yourself.
You don't care about the Israeli Arabs and non Jews targeted. Who exactly do you care about in your faux outrage?
Are you done lying and slurring people who oppose you and being wrapped in your own superficial reality? The genocide of your imagination unfortunately is the source of genocide because you have invented it and are willing to carry it out.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Neither. Child abuse is rife among poor people, Arab or not. It's not very common in the Emirates for example. Also, is your argument literally "Arabs abuse their children therefore they're the bad guys in the conflict with Israel"? Wow.
But anyways, since I keep critiquing your points and you either ignore them or you contradict yourself, then I don't think I gain anything by responding to you anymore. I can't have a conversation with someone that doesn't respond.
And what's "Child abuse"? What's an "Arab"? All fictions of course!
I have literally posted thousands of words on this thread and you think that is my sole argument?
I pointed out that a man having 14 children and 2 wives in a conflict zone is not the Jews or Israelis' fault.
Firing thousands of rockets arbitrarily into Israel is arguably worse than creating thousands of unnecessary children to suffer. (Make up your own mind).
Can I be bothered to reiterate the argument.
You can blame other people for your own problems but not for your decision to pointlessly create children.
I could arguably blame lots of people for my problems but as soon as I choose to create children it is no one else's fault.
But who cares just carry on creating children and blaming everyone else but the parents for their suffering. The Jews are histories biggest scapegoats and it is horrifying to see it happening here.
No it is not.
Only the wealthy win in this scenario.
It's disastrous that you even think it's an argument... "They had too many kids, kill em and their kids". Amazing honestly.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
And no one disagreed. That makes it ok to blow up the man, his 2 wives and his 14 children? Yikes.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
"Thousands". Right. You know Israeli rockets kill over 100x more Palestinians than Hamas rockets do right? This is not an exaggeration these are real statistics.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
So let me get this straight: Your main problem with the Palestinians isn't the terrorism (by Hamas) but that they have too many kids? And thusly, they deserve to be blown up?
Huh, guess Hamas is not so bad. After all, their rockets reduce the number of people that can have children! It's win win! Yay for murder by both sides!
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Literally not a soul has blamed the Jews for the number of children that Palestinians have being higher than usual.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I should be more specific. Child abuse is rife among people who benefit from having many children. Farming communities and the like. This is assuming you count having too many children as abuse.
Where have I made this egregious claim that people and their children should be killed because they had large families. This is libellous slander. I simply said anyone especially large families in a warzone are responsible for the suffering of their children You are apparently another prolific liar on this thread.
I have stated that if I had children none of the people who made me suffer are responsible for my children's suffering. What exactly is your point that parents are not responsible for the suffering they had deliberately to outnumber the other side in war? Derisible.
I have not advocated killing anyone this thread. So lie yourself blue I don't care.
No one did that. When did this happen?
However Hamas has fired over 2,000 rockets now into Israel that has millions of Arab Palestinians living there. Why the hell do you want to prolong the conflict? Lies like the prolific fantasies on here prolong the division and fantasy..
How can an antinatalist differentiate between anyone creating a child knowing that they will all suffer? Most people I know with mental health issues etc did not have deliberately abusive parents.
But years ago in my country of birth the UK I watched Open University demographics programme where a Gazan man living in a 2 bedroom house claimed he had 8 children to outnumber the Jews. I have never heard the equivalent of say someone living in Belsen Bergen having 10 children to outnumber the Nazi's
What a disgraceful statement.
Slavery has been present every day throughout human history. My ancestors were slaves. What do you actually know about slavery to make such a fatuous statement?
The IDF added that they it was examining the origins of the drone, and whether it came from Syria or Jordan. It has reported multiple drone launches by Hamas forces over the course of the fighting, including a explosives-laden unit that was downed and “fell on the launch squad” in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, killing two militants.
1. Sure and Israel has offered to give them a state in the past, but with Hamas in power Israel is absolutely under no obligation to go in that direction these days. Hamas is a terrorist group, not a legitimate government. Giving them independent statehood is a serious security concern for Israel.
2. "revert to its inhabitants" is just rhetoric. they just wanted to maintain the status quo with arabs in charge. It's always been fine if there's a state where Arabs are in charge with a Jewish minority.
3. Israelis did not aggress in '67.
4. But you can uproot the forces that were trying to destroy you. russia was still defending when it pressed into germany. were the allies "aggressing" by pressing into germany? sure you can say that they were going on the offensive, but to describe them as the "aggressors" in the conflict seems strange to me.
5. In 1948 the arabs declared war on Israel and sought to wipe it out. there was talk of a second holocaust at the time. Land taken and held in '48 was a necessary security measure and I'm not going to apologize for it. Israel was extremely vulnerable w/ 1947 boundaries.
8. Could you just expound a little further on this?
9. i'll agree with you that the israeli government is more recalcitrant that it was in the past and this is due to several factors, but then again so is hamas. neither side right now has a serious interest in peace.
You're making these demands of Israel but it's never going to be your family who bears the repercussions. It's easy to tell Israel to loosen their security or to let Hamas import anything completely unrestricted or to give back half their land when you're halfway around the world. If there was a homeless problem in your community would you be willing to let some live in your home? How would you feel about fundamentalists muslims as your neighbors? They need a place to live too, why not next to you? They can invite their friends over too.
"Less than a week ago, Netanyahu’s career was on the rocks... A diverse collection of competing political parties finally found something to agree upon: the controversial PM’s time was up. And opposing politicians were just days away from agreeing on a new coalition.
Then came forced evictions of Israeli Arabs. Then ultra-Orthodox parades through holy sites began shouting “death to Arabs”. Then Israeli police stormed Al Aqsa mosque. Now, the leader of a right-wing party pivotal to the challenge on Netanyahu’s power – and the man tipped to take the top job – has declared the move to be “off the table”.
Why? Naftali Bennett’s Yamina (New Right) party supports Jewish-Israeli settlements within territories allocated to Palestine under a 1948 UN mandate. But his unlikely coalition of Netanyahu opponents included an Islamist Arab-Israeli party. And the sudden surge in civil unrest has made such an alliance untenable."
Imagine supporting war crimes so some corrupt politician can retain his hold on power, all the while bleating about Hamas while Israel murders children in real time.
It's not a new tactic.
But it does get progressively worse since Gaza suffers from each "war". Such considerations should automatically impeach any prime minister or president who goes to war prior to an election.
Not unlike the US going to Iraq prior to the 2004 elections.
Nevertheless, one positive aspect out of this carnage is that public opinion has never been as strong as it is now for the Palestinian cause. Took way too many deaths to get to this point. Yet here we are.
But we still don't know when this assault will stop...
Quoting 180 Proof
Everybody's ancestors were fucking slaves at some time. Go suck on that. Just 3-4 generations ago my ancestors were slaves AND, the mulatto ones from St. Anne's Bay & Spanish Town, were slaveholders as late as WW I (despite the UK outlawing slavery about 70 years before). 1963, the year I born, Jim Crow apartheid was still very much a live issue in the US; as a child, elderly survivors told me stories from the Deep South of plantation life and their formerly enslaved parents & grandparents. (So gfy, Andy, my bona fides is sketched-out on p.13 of this thread.) I've also been a life long student of the extant scholarship on both slavery and ethnic cleasing, and their egregous transgenerational socioeconomic legacies, particularly here in the Americas, Africa and the Meditteranean basin. That's overkill compared to your demonstrated, Dunning Kruger, fatuous know-nothing-ism, I know; so run along now and go play slap-and-tickle with the other moral cretins and mindless asslicking Netanyahu apologists. :shade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4pPP0wVFnY
Thanks for the link.
:up:
You could not care less about the genocide of LGBTQ Palestinians by Hamas. You only care, or pretend to care, about violence when it is interracial or across ethnic lines. You do not care about flesh and blood individuals and their actual sources of suffering, only about fomenting racial tension and intergroup conflict. I'll have to look out for others like you in the future. Thanks for the discussion.
If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed.
Like the US got rid of Al Qaeda and The Taliban?
You won't get rid of Hamas by killing it. You could kill its leaders, new ones will come in, probably worse. Look at how ISIS arose.
It's cliché, but it's true: you can't kill an idea. Or even an ideology. You can only change moods and expectations by changing the circumstances that led the people in Gaza to choose Hamas in the first place.
And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. Both are carrying out terroristic acts against innocent people. The difference: Netanyahu has killed far more people, including children. You can't seem to get your mind around this, and so have to focus solely on Hamas while ignoring Israel.
Let me try to make it clearer: no one is saying that Hamas sending rockets into Israel is a good thing. The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. And not to pretend that every bombing is an "accident" or that it was aimed at Hamas (ask yourself if this pretext was used by Hamas -- would you buy it?).
We're either in favor of terrorism and the killing of innocent citizens or we're not. Condemning Hamas for killing innocent human beings is absolutely correct; now simply swapping "Hamas" for "Israel's government" and including Palestinians in the "human being" category, and we're in total agreement. That's the first step, and really shouldn't be hard if we have the slightest bit of empathy or morality as a people.
The second step is the ability to count. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. No false equivalency here -- the power inequality is obvious. If you can't recognize that, you're deluding yourself.
Taking out media buildings is also a war crime.
If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior.
Exactly right. Same with Israel and the people they elect. But it's just pure confusion to equate the two, when one is a gigantic bully, funded and backed (economically and diplomatically) by the world's superpower (the United States), who have lead a vicious occupation for decades, with the people being occupied and oppressed, with little resources and no military or economic backing by the US.
Bitconnect and others want to ignore this imbalance (and history), as if it's irrelevant. It's essentially blaming the victim. When there is finally a reaction, the reaction is used as an excuse to decimate them even further, all under the guise of "self-defense."
I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed.
Quoting Xtrix
Hamas builds their military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General.
Quoting Xtrix
Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. Also among the Palestinian victim count are Palestinians killed by Hamas rockets that misfire, which is actually around 20-25% of them. That's at least 700 rockets fired by Hamas that hit the Gaza area. Last I heard at least 8 children were killed this during one of these misfires.
Quoting Xtrix
If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though if there was a legal procedure for that, I wouldn't be opposed to that.
Exactly.
It's not dissimilar from the US reaction in relation to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Afghanistan isn't even mentioned.
BitconnectCarlos, for example, recognizes that Israel is not perfect and that settlements are a "necessary evil". This would be the equivalent of what a patriot Democrat or a "centrist Republican" would say about US policy in Iraq at the time, in terms of war crimes and all the mess that comes with that.
But putting Carlos aside for the moment, It's very, very hard to step away from your country and look at it neutrally. It's a bit like critiquing your family. But this doesn't take away from the facts you point out.
Once you find out that "terrorism" is not limited to Muslims at all, and that the meaning of the word is essentially violence, then things become clear. And we use this word to refer to all acts of violence on behalf of states.
If someone doesn't accept this fact about terrorism, then one can begin to make these distinctions of an "army" vs. "fanatics" of "defense" vs "terror" and so on. And then you begin looking for justifications for things which lack them.
I'm glad you can take a nuanced for of this. You're right. But notice I didn't say Israeli state, I said Netanyahu's government. By your standards, I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse.
What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. You're basically pointing out that Israel has far greater defense mechanisms and military might than Hamas -- far more advanced, far better funded, far more sophisticated, etc. Yes, no kidding. That's exactly the point here.
So yes, I'm absolutely holding it against Israel that they're clearly the stronger force. All the more reason not to succumb to behavior which we condemn the other side for doing -- namely, killing innocent people.
If it's wrong for Hamas to "intend" it, it's wrong for Israel to actually do it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem?
Not as "easy," perhaps, but not impossible. I'd say that's worth doing in spite of being "harder" rather than killing innocent children.
(Accepting a ceasefire is an “easy” first step btw.)
?
Think you are mixing the Six Day War with Yom Kippur war here. Or something.
I think one of the reasons why this conflict continues is the belief that Israel has a special right, or claim, to Palestine (by which I mean the geographical area that currently covers the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). I'm uncertain whether you share that belief. Statements like those you made I've quoted above suggest you do. The references you make in other posts to a "land conflict" and your criticisms of "ownership" of property suggest you do not.
Personally, I don't know where the Jews originated (though I do know how they did--by the bearing of children), or where the Hebrew language came to be spoken, written. The Old Testament indicates neither the Jews nor Hebrew originated in Palestine. Instead, it indicates they exterminated those who were there before them or drove them from that land, and were granted it by God.
Regardless, I don't think the fact that a certain people lived in a certain place a long time ago and have always wanted to live there means they have a claim to it that entitles them to live there once again or always. I think this particularly true where those said to have such a claim have been largely absent from the land since the time of Hadrian. Likewise, I don't think God grants rights or title to property.
So, I think there's no reasonable basis for the contention that Palestine is the Jewish homeland or that the Jews have rights in it superior to those of others for religious or other reasons. That belief merely encourages violence, and war.
If that belief is not accepted, we have a situation in which it was decided by certain great powers that a Jewish state would be created which would come to exist in land inhabited at the time by people who felt very strongly that state should not exist. Unsurprisingly, they resented the imposition of that state.
Unsurprisingly, the result was, and still is, a disaster. I think it was foolish for anyone to think that the creation of the State of Israel wouldn't result in continuing conflict. Frankly, I think this was anticipated, but it wasn't of the greatest concern to those involved in the creation of the state.
What matters now is what's taking place now, but what's taking place now won't be resolved unless what took place then is disregarded by all sides and a "separate peace" arrived at. I doubt that will take place until one side or the other wins out completely, or "peace" at least in the sense of a cessation of hostilities is imposed by third parties.
:100:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yes. Like the preeminent example of white privilege, letting former slave-owners back into real- and personal property ownership after the civil war. The combatants were tired, wanted to move on, and didn't really care about the slaves all that much anyway. "Here Jewish People, take this and leave us alone. Those indigs won't give you much trouble." :roll:
I care about the dignity and self-determination of David as he resists oppression of bloodthirsty Goliath. Solidarity always with the oppressed – Jew or Gentile – against every oppressor. If you cared about the Israeli people, now and in the long-run, you would call for them to rise up today, oust war criminal Bibi's regime, and break the nearly sixty year cycle of oppression as only they, the oppressors, can.
This is just a semantic issue. Yes, Israel went on the offensive but I wouldn't call Israel the aggressor (therefore they didn't aggress.) If A starts attacking B and B manages to gain the upper hand and subdues A, B is not the aggressor. A was the aggressor even despite B managing to come out on top.
Yes. All settler colonialism is like this. At least the Israeli's didn't kill them all when they created the state. Maybe they would've liked to, less trouble for them today. But they got into the state building affair a couple hundred years late, when it was more complicated to eradicate people willy-nilly and they couldn't conquer the whole Arab world.
Not that what happens today is nice - the contrary, it is most horrific.
How history might have been different if colonialism took place 150 years later. Maybe more indigenous people would be alive.
People now see Gaza and are shocked. How would we see what happened to indigenous people in the whole American continent, parts of Africa, Australia and the like?
Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(636%E2%80%93637)
The siege of Jerusalem was part of the Muslim conquest of the Levant and the result of the military efforts of the Rashidun Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire in the year 636-637/38. The Muslim conquest of the city solidified Arab control over Palestine, which would not again be threatened until the First Crusade in 1099.
True. I can't help but think that while the Jews are looking at their own history, Palestinians are looking at history in general, and how colonialism worked in the past. and saying: "Not this time!" It starts with an inch and becomes a mile. As I used to opine on the wilderness movement and "compromise": We keep slicing the the pie until the last slice is thinner than the knife we would cut it with. Pretty soon compromise means giving some back.
Yeah, my guess is a lot of people with a blind spot for Israel have some sort of Abrahamic belief. The current understanding, as far as I know, is that the Hebrews just were Canaanites, and it's questionable whether the united monarchy and first temple are historical. But still, it's worth mentioning – God doesn't give anyone land! It doesn't work that way! If that fact were accepted, much of the talk would be demystified.
Well you point to something important. If we go back far enough, everybody's an invader or colonialist of some kind.
Maybe not the Aborigines in Australia. But in many parts of the world this is the case. But now it would be silly for country X to say to country Y "my people lived here 500-2500 years ago, this is rightfully mine." It would be a million wars.
Settler colonialism is ending. Israel might be the last place in which this is practiced from the European lineage. Now we look at Gaza and see monstrosities, which they are. Human history is ugly...
Absolutely. I think if Israel doesn't go back to resolution 242 and help with a "two state solution" of some kind, as a start, they may be leading down a path of destruction.
The Samson Option, mentioned by Handel4 or whatever name he uses is crazy. In effect it would mean Israel would be willing to bring down the whole world if it feels threatened by bombing Europe!
I wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't brought up, because it sounds so insane. But it's a doctrine they have. How seriously they take this, is an open question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
One author's interpretation goes like this:
"...in the "aftermath of a second Holocaust", Israel could "bring down the pillars of the world (attack Moscow and European capitals for instance)" as well as the "holy places of Islam." He writes that "abandonment of proportionality is the essence" of the Samson Option."
Chomsky corroborates something similar to this, it's called "nishtagea" in Hebrew.
What the...
So an attack that which ends up with annexations of lands from Jordan, Syria and Egypt isn't aggression?
With that logic I assume you think that Operation Barbarossa was just a pre-emptive attack, hence a defensive operation. And turned out to be one unsuccessful one in that. But Stalin was planning for a war!
Sounds like an evangelical Christian wet dream. The Jewish people who are capable of parsing the people from the Israeli state know that Jews are all over the place and not going anywhere. They are welcome here and in many places. There's no need to burn the damn house down. On the other hand, I can think of a planet that would probably be glad to see all humans go.
:100:
Yes and yes. We can only hope they don't ever go through with it.
All homo sapiens emerged from Africa about 70,000 years ago, and they're still moving around. "Colonialism" has not ended. People are still on the move. Look at migration into Europe, or the US. Around 40% of the population of London are non-whites. London is being colonised, yet it's peaceful. It's not entirely unproblematic, but it's a long way from what's going on in Israel and Gaza. So you have to look to another explanation than your knee jerk left wing dogma - that welcomes diversity in Western countries, yet defends everyone else's mono-culturalism.
Considering there aren't any hominin than us, Homo Sapiens, around, I wouldn't give any people a waiver in this case.
I bet if had the others been left alone (by us), there likely would be still other hominins around even today...
:sweat:
IF
[quote=Desmond Tutu]If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.[/quote]
[quote=Elie Wiesel]Indifference, to me, is the epitome of evil.[/quote]
[quote=Mark Twain]No amount of evidence can persuade an idiot.[/quote]
THEN this thread's ethnic cleansing (post-1967 zionist US client-apartheid state) apologists:
@BitconnectCarlos ?
@Joshs ?
@Echarmion
@Number2018
@Judaka
@Andrew4Handel ?
QED.
Quoting Christoffer
:up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU438kMknbQ
"We must attack every Jew on planet earth we must slaughter and Kill them with Allah's help"
Yes these are the people you are supporting.
Perhaps. Assuming the other hominin species were peaceful too.
Knee jerk reaction? I'm speaking about settler colonialism.
In any case, Netanyahu is looking for even more blood now. He's speaking about a "clear victory".
I said, knee jerk left wing dogma. It's easy to look at this, and see nothing but the suffering, and immediately form an opinion; getting so emotionally hung up on the tragic scenes no deeper understanding is sought - and that, it seems to me, is where the left always are.
I'm saying, I see nothing more substantial than that in your arguments. Plenty of hyperbole, and appeals to emotion in support of a purely a one sided view.
I wonder where people like you would have stood in 1948 - the Jews displaced by the holocaust in Europe, and pleading with the axis powers for a homeland? I imagine you'd have been there weeping for them, using similarly emotionally hyperbolic arguments in support of Zionism that you now describe as settler colonialism.
I look at the investment Jews have brought to the region, and think perhaps that Arab belligerence from 1948 onward, was in retrospect, a mistake. They should have welcomed these displaced people - not gang up, and launch one war after another against World War II refugees.
It's not clear to me what my views would be after WWII. It's not like many people in the US, including Roosevelt cared about the Holocaust. In fact, the Holocaust did not become a major issue until the 60's more or less. Maybe I would have supported Israel back then, maybe I wouldn't care.
The US and I suppose a large portion of the population might have been indifferent. There was Japan to worry about after Germany surrendered and then Korea soon came afterwards.
Today settler colonialism is looked at as brutal behavior. It is now recognized as such in the US, Canada and in Australia. Not in Israel. We've also improved quite a bit in terms of racism and sexism, but there's a long way to go. So there is such a thing as moral progress. It's slow but it happens.
I'm simply looking today at Gaza and saying what is evident for everyone to see: it is horrendous. I don't see the issue here being much more complex than one of the largest armies in the world pounding an open air prison to smithereens.
You may wish to find more nuance if you'd like. As there surely was more nuance is Apartheid South Africa too. But that wasn't the point of protesting South Africa.
And it is not the main point in Gaza.
I'm curious how one endures that high level of self-deception for so long. I'm sure I've had my moments before, but the feats are impressive.
I agree it's horrendous, but that's just the surface of things. There are deeper causes to all this that don't allow for an emotive conclusion. It's very complicated. It goes back over a century to the first world war, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Second World War and the withdrawal of the British from the Mandate for Palestine established by the League of Nations in 1922. The 1947-49 Palestinian War, was seminal. But one thing we can say with reasonable certainty is that the Palestinians would have been far better off accepting Resolution 181 of the UN General Assembly. Instead Nikba - and generation after generation of suffering. Yes, it's horrendous, but Arab belligerence has played a very large part in causing this catastrophe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
followed by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%931948_civil_war_in_Mandatory_Palestine
But that's the thing. We can talk of history for a long time. We can even go back to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as a catalyst that would lead to the creation of Israel eventually.
We can speak of how the Palestinians could have accepted the UN partition which would have given them 45% of Palestine, which was once 100%, but it would've been better than what they have now.
We could also mention how the US could have taken in most of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and we could speak of the Jewish population in the Kibbutz living in Palestine before Israel existed.
All that is complex and multi-faceted and includes many actors.
But that's not the point at all. What's relevant and the reason why people are angry at Israel is because of the occupation and enslavement of Gaza and the way they treat Palestinians as sub-human, with caloric restrictions imposed on them.
The occupation of land and the bombardment of Gaza are not complicated. Israel just needs to stop and give them a state. It's can only be complicated if you are an Israeli trying to rationalize the unjustifiable. The same way many in the US rationalized war crimes in Iraq or way back in Vietnam. For the vast majority of victims, it is not complicated.
That Israel has offered the Palestinians a State in the past is disingenuous. If you look at those proposals, it requires Palestinians to cede land that Israel has illegally occupied and settled. That's not an offer, that's an insult.
The second part of your argument is also an argument to deny Israel a right to a State. The Israeli State is a serious security concern for Palestinians - in fact, more so considering the military capabilities of Israel. It doesn't make for a good argument in my view.
I'd also point out that Hamas is not just a terrorist group and terrorist groups have evolved into peace partners as well. This is why one of the few countries with a sensible classification is the UK; where the military wing is considered a terrorist organisation but the political (and social activist) wing of Hamas is recognised as representing the interest of Palestinians.
Also, when it comes to cease fire violations, the IDF takes the cake. In that respect Hamas has proved more trustworthy than the Israeli government. You put too much weight in what people say as opposed to what they actually do. The "we'll destroy you" language is coming from both sides' extremists but the situation on the ground proves only one is actually doing what they're saying - and it isn't Hamas.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
How is it just rhetoric if you form the ethnic majority in a region but get less of a say and get less territory? How is it not a valid argument to expect representation?
Uhuh. You can't annex land and not call it aggression. There's an important difference between occupation and annexation. The latter is not what the Allied forces did. Those forces occupied German territory but they didn't claim that land as part of their country. The occupation lasted so long due to the tensions between the USSR and the Western countries but at no point did any of those countries laid claim that parts of Germany were in fact French, Russian, American or English. Nor did they settle the land with a view to permanently keep it.
So your comparison is simply wrong and what the Israeli did, while initially legal and rightful in 1967, turned into a crime because they decided to annex the land.
I'm not looking for an apology, I'm looking for recognition that what Israel has done and is doing is immoral. I also don't think the 1947 borders were indefensible. Israel was simply vulnerable as a fledgling state and that had rather little to do with the geographical disposition of the state borders of the partition plan.
I also think that saying the Arabs declared war on Israel denies the intricacies of the time. There was a civil war fought between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews that resulted in the displacement of Arabs. And while both sides committed crimes against civilians, during the civil war, it was mostly committed by the Jews (with 24 to 33 mass killings, depending on which historian you consult) as opposed to 3 by the Arabs. During the war in 1948 both sides were mostly adhering to the rules except, again, for IDF war crimes. According to Jewish historian Ilan Pappé the goal was ethnic cleansing and it "carr[ied] with it atrocious acts of mass killing and butchering of thousands of Palestinians were killed ruthlessly and savagely by Israeli troops of all backgrounds, ranks and ages." and he continues "If it is possible Israel's conduct in 1948 would be brought onto the stage of international tribunals; this may deliver a message even to the peace camp in Israel that reconciliation entails recognition of war crimes and collective atrocities. This cannot be done from within, as any reference in the Israeli press to expulsion, massacre or destruction in 1948 is usually denied and attributed to self hate and service to the enemy in times of war. This reaction encompasses academia, the media and educational system, as well as political circles."
Bluntly put, Israel has a history of war crimes since its inception and it supresses dissent through laws (Nakba Law) and social pressure.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/22/israelandthepalestinians.usa
Hamas has publicly announced that in 2017 as well through a declaration of general principles. Literally:
I'm making these demands because it is quite clear the Palestinians have been open to peace at least since the 90s (Oslo Accords, Camp David Accords) and clearly again since 2008. It's Israel who is not open to peace and has not been because it wants to maintain the settlements in illegally occupied land. If Israel would announce today that they are prepared to move back to the 1967 borders, it would have lasting peace.
I'm making these demands because Israel has been worse than the other side every step of the way.
I'm making these demands because it's the right thing to do.
You make a pretty good post and then you end with what is really a totally idiotic analogy. Why are Palestinians "homeless"? It's not a problem that just appeared out of nowhere. If there was a homeless problem I caused because I took their house then I wouldn't have any moral claim to be living in that house in the first place.
And you keep pointing to muslim fundamentalism with a big stick in your eye failing to see the extremism in Israel itself. It's not "reticence" it's a fucking Apartheid state in 2021 for God's sake where a majority of Israelis are now condoning it. That is, over 50% of Jewish Israelis think Arab Israelis ought to be second class citizens and so we see discrimination enacted through law in every strata of society there. Did you read HRW or Amnesty reports on this?
Exactly what the Jews said in 1947.
Quoting Manuel
No, the territory was 100% ruled by the British - after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
See the Treaty of Sèvres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres
But the British were in a terrible state after WWII, and couldn't maintain their commitments. Resolution 181 was based on demographics. The Jews accepted it. The Arabs rejected it and launched militia attacks on Jews that then led to a wider conflict.
"The first casualties after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the General Assembly were passengers on a Jewish bus driving on the Coastal Plain near Kfar Sirkin on 30 November. An eight-man gang from Jaffa ambushed the bus killing five and wounding others. Half an hour later they ambushed a second bus, southbound from Hadera, killing two more. Arab snipers attacked Jewish buses in Jerusalem and Haifa."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2012
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel_in_2020
Israel withdrew all it's settlers from The Gaza strip in 2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks
Sure. No one else cared.
Quoting counterpunch
Fine. The point is most of the people living in Palestine were Palestinians. Why should they accept some other people coming in to take their land?
But again. This is not the point of the thread. I've already stated the point many times. If you want to start another thread dealing with the conditions of how Israel was created and why it was complicated, you can do that.
The occupation now, the time that matters for the issue at hand, is not hard to understand. If the the situation were inverted and Jews lived in Gaza and the West Bank, I don't think you'd raise these points. It would be simple: Palestine needs to give Jews what is their land as stated in 242. That's it.
And if you continue the text you quoted:
Anyway, seems that it's abhorred that one could think of this conflict in any other way than one side being the innocent victim and the other the bloodthirsty perpetrator. Demands for justice usually start wars. What's so difficult in accepting that Israel carries on an apartheid state and has treated from start the Palestinians as second rate citizens and Hamas wants to kill all the Jews?
Quoting Manuel
Peaceful too?
Anyway, off topic...
See my comments above for why it's not "that simple." It's a hugely complex issue, with wrongs and rights on both sides. That what makes it the most intractable conflict in the world. I completely accept that the Palestinians have suffered - and I have sympathy for that, but they've also inflicted suffering, and have done so to resist political compromise solutions. The zero sum Arab solution is, and always has been the eradication of Israel. Is that what you want too? Unreasonableness invites unreasonableness. We all have spiritual ancestry there.
By that logic "build that wall!" Is that your logic? I'm guessing it's not - Manuel!
Quoting Manuel
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you merely want to weep over the Palestinian causalities, I'll leave you alone with your grief.
The facts of the matter remain that the one state that is actually carrying out a program of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and pogroms is Israel. Not as a matter of what they "intend", but as a matter of what has happened, and is continuing to happen. As such, the call is to put a stop to that actual happening. If the history is complex, - and it is - this is where it has led. And that 'where' is as simple as it can be. The numbers speak for themselves, no matter how many copy and paste URLs @Andrew4Handel iterates:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/enn0lesh/status/1392970491678257153[/tweet]*
*These numbers being already far out of date.
This is asymmetrical terrorism carried out by a state which is exclusively responsible for the continued perpetuation of violence and misery in the region.
We may not have much of it left. History that is.
Nice quote. Never heard of it. :roll:
Feel free to analyze the profound complexities of WMD's in Iraq or of Japanese aggression in WWII. :up:
The reason Gaza suffers more casualties is because Israel has created bunkers for civilians and has the highly sophisticated Iron dome defence system. The aggressor once again was Hamas. The person defending themselves is Israel.
Unethically and pointlessly firing rockets from among civilians knowing rockets will be returned and your own civilians will die is a double act of aggression against Gazan's and Israeli's (including the nearly 2 million Israeli Arabs)
The number of casualties does not prove who started the aggression and who has some kind of moral upper hand.
That isn't even a logical moral stance. It's a war. War could be described as a crime in it's nature.
People forget the survival of fittest and the use of force and exploitation necessary to maintain civilisations. No one's country (repeating myself here) has more of a valid justification for their statehood (or survival).) No country is legitimate or legitimised by written claims or verbal statements(nor any moral claim by that matter)
You are using black and white type rhetoric/polemic because you consider the situation to be unambiguous which it clearly is not. You are exacerbating the situation by having a position that means neither side will want to compromise.
International law has no validity (else where does it get it from?) and is divisive and self serving and only applies by consent. No one is going to compromise without reasonable demands being made on them.
Agreed. It is reasonable that Israel cease its genocide of the Palestinian people, immediately remove all its illegal settlements, and compensate the Palestinian territories for the nearly incalculable damage it has inflicted upon it - all of which counts as among Israel's monumental acts of aggression, thinly masquerading under the veneer of 'defence' by the sycophants who continually draw attention away from its world-historical cruelty.
I knew you you would respond to that. You want The Jews expelled from the Middle east and to have no internal security. Your stance on them threatens there existence and is genocidal.
They withdrew their settlements from Gaza as requested and what did that achieve? Thousands of rocket attacks. Your position removes any chance of compromise by Israel or it's supporters and is hysterical.
Please feel free to respond the rest of my post about the validity of nation states and international law etc.
You are just ranting and shouting slogans.
Also as I said previously a Palestinian Arab having 14 children cannot blame Israel for their suffering it is called personal responsibility. Apparently anything a Palestinian Arab does is completely justified or excused because of Israel's conduct. Well that is demented and is certainly not going to make the world a safer place. Enjoy your eternal conflicts.
Ethnicity does not define land entitlement. Last time looked I had to pay rent and taxes and didn't get anything for free because of my ethnicity.
Israel's illegal settlements do not constitute its entire presence in the Middle-East - unless of course, you're admitting more than you'd care to do right now. And Israel's internal security would be inestimably improved by not deliberately cultivating an entire population whose misery and poverty is a direct result of Israeli state policy.
I should add that the very first policy that ought to be enacted is the cessation of all US 'aid' and weapons sales to Israel. Their sponsorship of state terrorism is as much as cause of the present situation as anything Israel - or Hamas for that matter - has ever done.
Israel withdrew its Settlements from The Gaza Strip and that clearly reduced it's security and also made it much more difficult for Gazans to travel freely in Israel and to the West Bank. In What way are Hamas or the Palestinian Authority dictatorship (who have had Billions in Aid) helping their people as opposed to causing their misery and not offering them a way out?
I don't believe the Gaza or WB are technically annexed; I've heard both referred to as 'self-governing' or 'disputed territories' but not part of Israel proper.
Regardless, if I was to ask you who was the aggressor on the Eastern front in WWII, you'd say Germany, right? But what about when the Soviets pushed them all the way back to Berlin and crossed Poland in the process? The Soviets crossed into Poland and ended up controlling part of Berlin, but were they aggressors in the war? No.
Before Operation Barbarossa the two sides has a truce and it was clearly Germany who was the aggressor. I've never heard any history or historians suggesting that the Soviets had aggressive intentions towards Germany during this period before the Germany attacked. Before the 6 day war the historical circumstances between Israel and the Arab world were extremely different.
In 1948, the year of Israel's independence, there were about 150,000 Jews in Iraq.[49] Persecution of Jews greatly increased that year:
I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity.
Quoting Xtrix
Israel uses many methods under normal circumstances to try to destroy and infiltrate Hamas - spies, intelligence, quick isolated raids against targets in the area; what you're seeing right now with the killing coming from Israeli is simply in response to Hamas escalating the situation earlier when they started firing the rockets after the Israelis raided al-Aqsa.
Quoting Xtrix
Hamas stores and fires weapons from schools, hospitals, office buildings, and other populated areas. Additionally they have a large network of tunnels under civilian infrastructure so how are you going to hit those? Israel does not do this. Israel has a separate military infrastucture that exists apart form residential areas... it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly.
Quoting Xtrix
I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel?
Quoting Xtrix
So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion.
https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1394900465498869762
^A real illustration of the difficulty of the situation. You want to further decrease casualties on the Palestinian side? Good luck.
You were saying that in 1967 Israel wasn't the aggressor.
After the 1967 war the Israeli borders were like this:
Was this before or after Israel blockaded its ports of entry and exit, whittled away its key infrastructure like electricity, water, roads, sewerage, and medical services, crippled its economy, restricted the population's caloric intake, continually barred the entry of human rights observers and international reporters, mired it in poverty, dismantled education opportunities, imposed vaccine apartheid during a global pandemic, shrunk its territory, regularly employed lethal force in situations that did not call for it, and engaged in periodic warfare involving copious war crimes? To name a small part of a much larger list that doesn't even cover the documented crimes against humanity in the West Bank.
Israel struck first because the Egyptians closed the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping and then began mobilizing on the border after kicking out UNEF. I don't consider Israel the aggressor in this conflict, it was well known before that a closure of that strait would be an act of war and Egypt went ahead with it regardless and then began mobilizing.
The fact that a country acquired a land after a war is irrelevant as to whether they were the aggressors.
That would be stupid considering Hamas currently has a much more pragmatic leadership than before, willing to discuss 1967 borders - and possibly less if a Palestinian referendum would support it.
Gaza was under the control of Egypt. West Bank under Jordan. The Golan Heights part of Syria.
These areas were annexed by Israel.
When you annex territory, you simply can't deny being an aggressor.
Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war?
The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression.
Would be totally cool if a certain present situation might one day come to an end in such celebrated manner after decades of universally acknowledged horror! :love: :love: :love:
Yay historical parallels! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
Or will someone chime in about thr CoMpLeXiTy of East German misery and how 'you can't just get rid of the wall' because HiStOrY iS CoMpLiCaTeD? :gasp: :gasp: :gasp:
I'm not asking about whether Soviet control of East Berlin was good; I'm asking whether we can conclude that the Soviets were the aggressors in WW2 because they came to control part of Berlin/Germany.... and that answer is no.
The reason that the military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression was because the Germans were the ones who initiated aggression and the Soviets were responding to that. Even if the USSR claimed East Germany for itself it wouldn't have changed the fact that the Germans were the aggressors in WWII.
Israel doesn't claim Gaza or WB as being Israel proper even if they do maintain military superiority and preparedness.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of you backtracking on your historical example because the most pertinent part of it - the decades long occupation by a murderous regime - proves the exact opposite of the point you wanted to make. You can, of course, try again.
Streetlight, all we're talking about WW2 here. This is the scope of the conversation - nothing past it. That is all ssu and I were talking about - "who is the aggressor in X war?" It doesn't matter what happens in the years after.
On a sidenote it is somewhat reassuring to see you condemning the Soviet Union.
That's the scope of the conversation you'd like to have, considering that even a moment's reflection upon its consequences would make parallels which you're obviously squirming about trying to avoid.
that was the conversation that ssu and I were having before you decided to jump in and criticize me for not talking about a different subject.
Speaking of genocide apology, since Hamas openly executes and persecutes LGBTQ wouldn't this qualify as genocide for you? And that by that I mean Hamas towards its own Palestinian LGBTQ population. There was an article from news week not too long ago about the hellish life of LGBTQ in Gaza.
Lets start having conversations that you don't want to have.
But don't let that distract us. Tell me more about the Soviet occupation of East Germany and its evils, while you were on the subject. I'm still waiting.
See these are the conversations you don't want to have. You're shutting down conversation here. Now who's the quiet one? You call me the one who's ignoring suffering, I can turn it right back on you and it's super easy.
You're just annoyed because you think I'm being insincere when in reality my sincerity is completely irrelevant. Does the problem exist or not? That's all you gotta ask.
I am a gay person and I definitely do care. Supporting Islamic fundamentalist regimes and claiming to care about peoples welfare makes your whole position untenable hypocritical nonsense.
Lol, you're so transparent. I'd watch every Hamas leader rot in the ground for what they're doing to LGBTQ people in Palestine - right next to Israeli leadership in the same miserable dirt. Considering the one was funded and encouraged by the other. Not that you could say the same.
None of this being of any relevance to Israeli settler colonialism and the atrocities it continues to commit.
But nice try at changing the subject from your shitty historical parallel.
Hamas persecutes innocent Palestinians. Therefore, why can't Israel kill them? I mean if you're against Israel's disregard for the lives of Palestinian civilians then surely you must support every despicable thing Hamas does to them too, right?
You're impressing me today: Just today you've both condemned the Soviet Union and you've condemned Hamas for their treatment of LGBTQ -- and done so strongly -- which was more than 180 was able to do. :party:
I'm on the same page with you here; the Hamas leadership deserves to rot in the ground and Israel's been working towards this goal.
I like your current position - that both sides suck - much more than your previous strategy of only criticizing one side through your writing. Presumably, you can now criticize both more evenly. Huge improvement.
Nope. Israel bears fulls responsibility for everything that is happening, and anyone who 'both-sides' it is a fucking moron.
For everything that's happening? Including Hamas persecuting LGBTQ? That is Israel's fault? When Hamas executes its own civilians for gay sex that is Israel's doing? That is what you are telling me?
The northern Israeli cities of Acre, Nahariya and Haifa opened public bomb shelter after rockets were fired from Lebanon.
The Israeli army however is saying procedures in the north are back to routine. (Noa Shpigel)
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-officials-expect-gaza-cease-fire-within-days-as-rockets-fired-at-south-1.9821476
The problems Hamas poses for its people are for the Palestinians to decide, not Israel.
It's not as if Israel loved the PLO either, they were labeled "terrorists" for the longest time.
You have a very strange view of blame. If your boss is mean to you at work and you go home and kick your dog is it your boss' fault? Even if he was really, really mean to you? Hamas created itself.
When you begin to understand self-responsibility and responsibility in general it'll all become so much clearer. Why can't I say that nothing Israel does is their fault because Hamas was pushing them to do it? It's like agency doesn't exist in your world or it only exists for Israel. Nobody else has it.
Quoting 180 Proof
When did I make any excuses for Israel? I agree that Israel is an apartheid state, they annexed land in 1967 but they don't want the people who were living on those lands. They have been and are still trying to evict those people, they treat them as second-class citizens.
Others among these posters listed made no excuse for Israel. That you named me just demonstrates what you're really about, this is an ego trip for you. Baden seems to think you should be allowed to say literally whatever you want and if it's addressed that's off-topic. Number2018 never even commented on whether Israel was justified. However, because this is your "moral stance" or whatever Baden calls it, you're all good to call people ethnic cleansing, apartheid apologists with no repercussions. Great. Wonder how many of these other posters are guilty only of saying something about you, that you didn't like.
@Maw "Tone", lol. At least half of my posts on this thread have explicitly called out Israel as being in the wrong, being an apartheid state. Yet, because I criticised among others, 180 proof, he decides to list me as an ethnic cleansing, apartheid state apologist. You try to downplay it as "mean names" but it's more than that, these aren't the acts of someone motivated by sympathy, it's something else.
In the asymmetrical distribution of power which Israel levearges at every point as an opressive, aggressor force, it is indeed entirely responsible for everything that happens to it.
:100: :up:
Quoting Judaka
Here you pay lip-service to criticisms of Israeli aggression while you criticize other critics of Israel for our 'moral indignation' and fucking tone:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/536855
STFD, Judaka, and own-up to your tacit approval of (aiding & abetting apologetics for) Bibi's war crimes.
On Saturday, a representative of the Palestinian Health Ministry brought listed the names of 12 families who were killed, each one at its home, each one in a single bombing. Since then, in one air raid before dawn on Sunday, which lasted 70 minutes and was directed at three houses on Al Wehda Street in the Rimal neighborhood of Gaza, three families numbering 38 people in total were killed. Some of the bodies were found on Sunday morning. Palestinian rescue forces only managed to find the rest of the bodies and pull them out from the rubble only on Sunday evening.
Wiping out entire families in Israeli bombings was one of the characteristics of the war in 2014. In the roughly 50 days of the war then, UN figures say that 142 Palestinian families were erased (742 people in total). The numerous incidents then and today attest that these were not mistakes: and that the bombing of a house while all its residents are in it follows a decision from higher up, backed by the examination and approval of military jurists.
An investigation by the human rights group B’Tselem that focused on some 70 of the families who were eradicated in 2014, provided three explanations for the numerous nuclear and extended families that were killed, all at once, in one Israeli bombing on the home of each such family. One explanation was that the Israeli army didn’t provide advance warning to the homeowners or to their tenants; or that the warning didn’t reach the correct address, at all or on time.
In any case, what stands out is the difference between the fate of the buildings that were bombed with their residents inside, and the “towers” – the high-rise buildings that were shelled as of the second day of this latest conflict, during the daytime or early evening.
Reportedly, the owners or the concierge in the towers got prior warning of an hour at most that they must evacuate, usually via phone call from the army or Shin Bet security service, then “warning missiles” fired by drones. These owners/concierges were supposed to warn the other residents in the short time remaining.
Not only highrises were involved. On Thursday evening Omar Shurabji’s home west of Khan Yunis was shelled. A crater formed in the road and one room in the two?story building was destroyed. Two families, with seven people altogether, live in that building.
About 20 minutes before the explosion, the army called Khaled Shurabji and told him to tell his uncle Omar to leave the house, per a report by the Palestinian center for human rights. It is not known whether Omar was there, but the residents of the house all hastened to get out, so there were no casualties.
This very fact that the Israeli army and Shin Bet trouble to call and order the evacuation of the homes shows that the Israeli authorities have current phone numbers for people in each structure slated for destruction. They have the phone numbers for relatives of the people suspected or known to be activists for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
The Palestinian population registry, including that of Gaza, is in the hands of the Israeli Interior Ministry. It includes details such as names, ages, relatives and addresses.
As the Oslo Accords require, the Palestinian interior ministry, through the civil affairs ministry, transfers current information regularly to the Israeli side, especially concerning births and newborns: The registry data must receive Israeli approval, because without that, Palestinians cannot receive an identity card when the time comes, or in the case of minors – they can’t travel alone or with their parents through border crossings controlled by Israel.
It is clear, then, that the army knows the number and names of children, women and elderly who live in every residential building it bombs for any reason."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/gaza-israel-wiping-entire-palestinian-families-hamas-1.9820005?fbclid=IwAR306IXBQT4_RVceJyJ2H-HOXTpnalwWMC4r2d0-9Pvbg9XypO1j8rlFr3s
"Tone" is a generous euphemism for being belligerent and disingenuous, you actually seem to think you're important in the matter of Israel, your status as a "critic of Israel" counts for shit. You value how I treat you - as a critic of Israel, over my criticism of Israel as an apartheid state, guilty of systematic oppression and racism. You're so self-important, 180, it's amazing. "Critic of Israel", you're a pretentious, ego-driven, virtue signalling fraud and I'm not forced to compromise on that view, no matter what.
There it is hahaha
It's a great term, one can't understand the modern left without it.
I expected some pushback from these "defenders" of Israel, aside from actual Israelis. But some arguments here about "complexity" are ridiculous.
Even in the Warsaw ghetto the Judenrat would have been responsible had they turned on their own LGBTQ population. Being a victim doesn't absolve one of responsibility, and it never has.
It would not have been the Nazi's fault either in the theoretical event that the Nazis did nothing to encourage the practice.
This is a philosophy forum, not a board arbitrating real-world matters, the quality of the discourse is actually the most important thing here. This is a place to discuss issues, many of which are highly sensitive and important, but that is not an excuse to degrade the quality of the discourse. The outcomes of these sensitive matters aren't decided here, the stakes are only as high as the posters make them.
Also this is a real life issue with real life people in this forum.
Seems I've rubbed a raw nerve ... Harsher words for some internet asshole than the Butcher Bibi. Quite telling. :roll: Whatever. You're already "compromised", so GFY.
Zionism even had anti-statist branches, based on mutual cooperation. It's what Chomsky's father was in to as was Chomsky himself.
Then again, WWII did not allow for many options for the Jewish people. So the US and Europe are also directly connected to this mess. It need not have played out this way...
Being called pretentious and such is harsher than being called a human right's abuser? 180, what's telling is that you actually believe that what I called you is worse than what I said about the Israeli government. You're always deflecting, you label me an ethnic cleansing and apartheid supporter because I called you out on some bad behaviour. You value how you're treated as a "critic of Israel" more than an explicit condemnation of Israel, which just proves everything I had to say about you.
That is the only way you can justify land ownership or come to claim to own land. Land doesn't give itself to you
Please tell me you joking.. This has to be the most egregious nonsense on the whole thread.
You are comparing this with The Rwanda Genocide, ISIS, 9/11 and the Taliban.
I really question people like this actual motives.
I'm sure 180 condemns any hostile treatment of LGBTQ...
What didn't you understand? By calling Israel an apartheid state, by saying they're guilty of systematic oppression and racial discrimination, all such words naturally carry on to the head-of-state. These words are obviously harsher than saying you're pretentious or self-important, you little princess.
I literally brought this topic up like 2 pages ago and he accused me of spreading lies and refused to condemn hamas.
In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Which is exactly what Israel is doing to Gaza.
The fact that you take the pretext seriously when coming from Bibi and not from Canada is your own blind spot, nothing more.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I didn't once say that. I'm "sympathetic" to any innocent person murdered by terrorists -- whether it's Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. The latter terrorists happen to be the stronger force, with backing from the United States. They're also the occupiers and the aggressors.
The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.
If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. That's a choice Israel has, has rejected for decades, and continues to reject. They want to continue blaming their victims.
Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire.
Very good point indeed.
Still, even accepting this framework, this is a simple choice Israel can make to stop the murdering of innocent people and help itself in the meantime as well. If Israel wants to become even more of an international pariah, then they should continue their war crimes. This appears to be what they're choosing.
Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it.
Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).
Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.
German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then.
I mostly agree. Nevertheless Israel defenders have to mention Hamas and to a less visible extent Muslims in general. Otherwise there is no possible response for the lack of proportionality, none. You have to make Hamas look like a super power.
But yes, US support has not been mentioned much here. Without US support Israel could not be getting away with as much as it does. It gets most of its weapons from the US and the US is the sole vote against the UN resolution condemning the violence. But pressure inside the US is changing rather quickly and sooner or later, this will have a strong reaction in Israel, because they will be isolated and won't be able to kill children like nothing and destroy press buildings.
The actions how Israel defends itself and what it tries or doesn't try to solve the conflict is something surely be a topic to discuss and to be critical about. Any country should be under scrutiny if they have annexed territory with other people than themselves.
Quoting Manuel
The only time Israel anticipated such a move was when the Cold War ended. After the Soviet Union wasn't a threat, they correctly understood that Washington could perhaps look at whom it supports at a new light. This happened to South Africa: suddenly the US didn't need an ally to keep in check Marxist advance in Southern Africa and the Apartheid system became the real issue. Hence Israel took the initiative with the Oslo Peace process. Unluckily the Palestinians didn't understand that this was once in a lifetime opportunity.
What the Israelis didn't then understand, but now have understood is that US supporting Israel isn't because of US Middle-Eastern foreign policy objectives, but because of highly powerful lobbyist groups as AIPAC and the Christian Evangelist movement, which the latter upholds supporting Israel as a religious duty. It hasn't anything to do with classical realpolitik: that's the crazy realpolitik here.
If people think that the new woke crowd can topple the religious right, well, good luck with that! I just assume that Americans will yell at each other and remain in separate tribes. Perhaps the military assistance will be smaller. Israel doesn't actually need it to be the dominant power in the region.
1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies.
Sure. But the real Israel lobby is the military industrial complex including the Pentagon. They have strategic interests in Israel, they can depend on it to do dirty business for the US, including eliminating secular Arab Nationalism as they did when they defeated Nasserism.
I understand the religious right is insane. I'm just pointing to a encouraging phenomena: 15 years ago you would have not seen these protests in the US at all. I suspect it will get stronger, as it has with each Gaza massacre and I don't think it's limited to "woke" people only, thankfully. With the internet, everyone can now see how Gaza is being abused and how the West Bank is being robbed.
Everyone can see that Israel is just destroying innocent people and repeating the word "Hamas", "Hamas", "Hamas" all the time. After a while, it sounds like "support our troops", meaning hollow in content.
How this will pan out, is anybody's guess. Going to resolutions 242 would be best...
If it would be just the military industry, then I guess the US would have done the same as France: switch sides to a more profitable arms export market. This actually has happened thanks to the Peace agreements. Let's not forget that France was the major arms supplier for Israel first and only later did it become to be the US. France helped Israel with it's nuclear weapon, not the US.
And when those arms are partly paid by the US taxpayer, the reason has to be something different than just arms exports. There has to be the religious right, AIPAC, the "Judeo-Christian heritage" and all that in the end to make Israel enjoy such a position that it has.
The big bucks in arms exports are made in Saudi-Arabia:
An honest account of one of the world's unsolved problems in language that's funny and yet not irreverent, serious but yet not depressing.
But I also wouldn’t overstate functionalist causes to policy. There is also the motivation among the U.S. Elite to not change policy trends, either out of some venal sectional interest, narcissistic deafness to criticism, ethical laziness & indifference. If people in this forum thread can act like this, what should we expect of them.
That the US is filled with religious lunatics who want to see the end times after the Palestiniams are decisively erased from their homeland is just ideological icing on a materialist cake.
*[tweet]https://twitter.com/queeralamode/status/1285648178554056710?lang=en[/tweet]
1948-1958 US, reluctant to alienate Arab oil producers by selling arms directly, gives economic aid only.
1961 President Kennedy authorizes first direct arms sale: Hawk missiles.
1962 First US military aid (loans) to Israel.
June 1967 Six-Day War. Israel’s main military supplier, France, imposes arms embargo.
1968 Congress increases aid to Israel 450 percent. Military aid jumps from $7 million in 1967 to $25 million in 1968. US agrees to sell Israel 50 Phantom fighter bombers.
1970 Jordan’s “Black September” crisis; US sees Israel as means to combat Soviet influence in Arab world, increases military aid from $140 million in 1968-1970 to $1.15 billion in 1971-1973.
https://merip.org/1990/05/us-aid-to-israel/
I'm not so sure that Israel wants to "empower" the Gulf States. Just having a same threat (Iran) does go only so far.
Let's remember that Saudi-Arabia was actually in war with Israel and did send a small contingent of troops to fight Israel in 1948 and also in 1973 and has been a huge financier of Israel's enemies in the past. Quite similar is the relationship with the other Gulf States. The normalization of relations just in the past Trump administration shows how strained the relations have been.
Co-operation of Israel with Saudi-Arabia (or Turkey) is more of an unholy alliance that neither side wants to officially acknowledge. Saudi-Arabia doesn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. But let's say like with Egypt and Jordan, Israel is at least in some terms with them and doesn't communicate with them only by either making military strikes or by refraining from using military force (like with Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.).
Sure, but who does Saudi Arabia use these weapons against? Yemen. Besides being a crime of the very worst calibre in global affairs, Saudi Arabia is not going to use all those weapons against an enemy that can fight back to some degree. Like is the case with Hezbollah against Israel. Of course, Israel is vastly superior to Hezbollah by many, many magnitudes. But Hezbollah could hurt Tel Aviv.
Israel gets the best weapons. Sometimes these weapons are tested on the Palestinian population. Other countries sell weapons to Israel too. And you're correct about France back in the day.
All I'm saying is that the Israel lobby goes way beyond AIPAC, which by now, since Sanders ran in 2016 actually, has lost quite a bit of relevance. The Israel lobby includes top US planers and military strategists, since it is an ally when it comes to killing people in the Middle East. This continues to be the case to this day.
But if the US population strongly pressures the government to stop supporting Israeli crimes, this could change to some extent.
Can there even be a "proportional" response, in the traditional sense of the word? What I mean is, given the overall situation and the history, how could any kind of tit for tat reaction be proportional, seeing as the only plausible consequence would be more violence and more death?
This isn't aimed at you, I know you are just asking people to stay on topic. But Western politicians like nothing so much as calling for "proportional reaction", but this seems to really say nothing at all. It can never be proportional to use violence at all where other means exist, and for Israel they definetly do.
1. Except for the hickup that was Rabin, more or less all of them? I'll concede I'm not intimately familiar with every government of Israel, especially before Begin. But anything Likud has been terrible. Not surprising considering its goals:
And other vile nonsense which is as bad as Hamas really - or actually worse considering Hamas' statements in 2017 which accepts the 1967 borders. But Likud fundamentally does not accept a two-state solution, it does not accept its settlements are illegal and believes they should be strengthened (e.g. expanded) and will not be given back.
2. I don't think everybody has to move, Israeli settlers can decide to stay where they are but then under a common rule where they can have 1 person, 1 vote in a sovereign State that isn't Israel but will be a new Palestinian State. Whether those settlers will want to stay is up to them. Israel will have to pay reparations for the land its settlers stole of course if they do decide to stay. But it's already clear that 1967 borders will work too to achieve peace so we're not talking about the 1948 borders. I raised that point to drive home that anything Israel acquired after 1948 has been illegal and morally condemnable. And that despite that the Palestinians have already offered a huge olive branch, which Israel ignores.
3. The Zionism that has resulted in the Apartheid rule in Israel proper, that thinks settler colonialism is a good thing and to be supported by the government and that is not interested in a two state solution. Basically anything that agrees with Likud's points above.
5. Yeah, where you're armed to the teeth, taken my home, continue to oppress my family, kill my family and friends indiscriminately don't complain when I lash out. Sure, it's immoral what Hamas' military wing does but the greater crime that gave rise to Hamas even being created lies with the Israelis. There's no chicken and egg story here, Hamas wasn't created until 1987 as a reaction to the continued oppression and colonisation by Israel of land that isn't theirs. So a Hamas' rocket gets a shrug from me because WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Israel isn't the victim here. You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out.
And if there is a revolution in Saudi-Arabia and the Saudi prefix is dropped? What if Saudi-Arabia goes the way as former US allies like Iran and Pakistan? From friend and ally to an enemy or problematic partner? Just like with Egypt, there is a possibility for a potential conflict.
The place is still a powder keg.
Of course. Then again, it's hard to think of a more repressive government and mentality than the Saudi one. Maybe something like ISIS.
We can still be grateful that no other country in the Middle East has nukes aside from Israel. But Pakistan could always get involved and then it would be a world disaster.
Anything can happen.
Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere.
Actually poor Arabia, if the corrupt Saudi family is ousted.
That Arabia is the enemy that the US craves for: place from where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from, birthplace of Wahhabbism and Osama bin Laden.
I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes.
I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. That's not attained through military control and oppression, in other words, in the long run current Israeli policies will undermine its security objectives.
This is the disturbing issue: Netanyahu's policy is that there simply will be no peace, that the Palestinians and Arabs want only to destroy Israel and push them to the sea, hence giving up anything will makes things just worse. Perpetual war is the answer.
And think of it this way: Hamas just saved Bibi Netanyahu from a political mess he was in.
A must watch! It's the opposite of the martial arts maxim of "hitting where it hurts the most."
Hit where it hurts the least - Israeli Defense Force Motto
Most people buy their land... When you find land belonging to no one, than you may occupy it. What you may not do is occupying someone else's land and take it as your own, aka conquest.
Yes, Russia was an aggressor in WWII - my example was only in regard to the Eastern front fighting against the Germans. I completely agree with your assessment of Russia here. I was only referring to Russia in terms of their Eastern front war against the Nazis. In that context I would not describe them as the aggressor even though they went on the offensive.
That is a great picture by the way, where do you find these? And colorized.
Quoting ssu
Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. I was always taught that these territories naturally fell under Israel's control as the war played out. It's also a difficult issue because, e.g. what's Jordan's "rightful" claim to the West Bank? Commentators never question this because implicitly the Arabs are just considered the rightful owners, but Jordan annexed it in 1950 in the aftermath of the '48 war over international disapproval? Since when has the West Bank been rightfully Jordans'? I don't even think Jordan had an interest in the territory until '47-'48 where it was used as a launching point for attacks on Israel.
The debate now, as usual, (and I'm also guilty of this myself) has largely turned into "Israel is an occupying force murdering its victims" vs "Hamas are evil, so Israel can do what it likes to the Palestinians". So, it's pretty much indistinguishable from every other thread on this general topic. Might as well just call it "Israel vs. the Palestinians" and be done with it. Anyway, I'm not going to intervene much as it would be heavy handed at this point to try to keep it strictly on topic.
The 1967 war was complex because it is based on a pre-emptive form of self-defence that was previously not recognised as valid. But I don't think this is an issue, you can initially defend for the right reasons and have that change into a war of aggression. When Israel decided to occupy the territories, it was still ok (provided there's a sensible way to return the land, instead of an indefinite occupation), but once it took land for itself (settled it) it became an act of aggression. I guess there's some argument to make that the latter decision to settle is the act of aggression itself, leaving the argument that the 1967 war was a defensive war in tact.
I saw a picture on FB from Michael Moore's page. It had an elderly Palestinian couple out on the sidewalk looking up at the home they used to live in. Staring (smugly?) back down at them was a couple from Brooklyn, NY who was now occupying the home. WTF? I did not vet the photo, but it moved me. Realizing my helplessness, and the fact I live on Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapaho land (and I see their ghosts looking at me in the same way), makes me want to quit caring.
I remember when I was young, guys would say: "Turn the whole place into a glass bead and call it peace." But why even do that? Surely there is something worth saving over there? Mountain gazelles, wild boar, foxes, jungle cats, Nubian ibex and the rarely seen leopards, hyenas, jackals and wolves. Now them there is some good people, every one. And the real underdogs.
Another question: If you took DNA samples, who over there has more Neandertal blood?
First sentence - Yes, Israel is extremely important to the Jewish people and the country will defend itself to its last breath.
Second sentence - I agree as well and I don't deny Israeli crimes, although I think we may disagree on the scope of these crimes. Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who writes on this subject who has never shied away from the more brutal details of the wars. We can talk about war crimes on both sides, but rehashing this constantly isn't going to lead us anywhere good in the peace process. We should be forward-looking.
Third sentence - I deny that Israeli is an apartheid state. Israel in the past has definitely been a victim that has faced annihilation on several occasions and that continues to influence the Israeli mindset, as it should (seriously, if your people were almost annihilated on several occasions in the past 80 years would that not change you?) Additionally, Israeli citizens are frequently killed which is considered by Jews everywhere as Israel being attacked. So, Israeli citizen killed = Israel victimized. You are not in a position to tell the Israelis that their suffering is very small/negligible or that when a crazed Hamas killer runs through the streets stabbing people that it's "their fault" for "driving him to this." And then what's even more insane is that there are people who refuse to condemn that *cough 180proof* because how dare you criticize a victim! It is only David using his lowly slingshot to try to hit bloodthirsty Goliath.
I understand that this victim mindset can be counter-productive, but you can't exactly blame the Israeli Jews for it. You can try to work with it, and it's less present among the younger generation, but it's a cultural trauma that you can't just yell at the Jews or Israelis for having. And I 100% agree that Israel has committed atrocities in the past so I agree with you there that we should be condemning those who deny any Israeli war crimes and try to paint Israel as a perfect angel. We may disagree on the scope however.
Aggressors are those who usually take territories.
I don't put so much emphasis on the moral rectitude or the moral justifications for wars. Those typically are just propaganda. And many warmongers talk about justice and to correct the wrongs of the past. The debate about if "a nation is morally just to take military action" is just one question. What kind of military strategy and tactics it uses is another topic, and so is what it's end objectives with the action are. All those are three different questions and even if to opt for a military solution can be understandable/acceptable, the strategy and tactics or the objectives can be quite unacceptable.
In fact, when the Arab neighbors attack the young state of Israel, nobody of them was at all interested in creating an independent Palestine, but to take as much of the former British mandate for themselves as possible. This lead to the fact that they were highly uncoordinated. Jordan annexed the West Bank and even if the annexation was granted by the UK, USA and Iraq, the Arab League for example only accepted that Jordan could annex the territory "until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants." Then of course this was annexed later by Israel in the Six Day war.
Quoting Xtrix
Agreed. I'm against any further aggression from here as long as Hamas stops as well.
Quoting Xtrix
Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? If there's a democratic way to get Bibi out I'd be for it assuming we could replace him with someone a little more moderate.
Quoting Xtrix
It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. And the PA who line their pockets. The Arab world is responsible as well; in 1948 when 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries Israel allowed them in. None of the Arab countries have helped their fellow Arabs who fled or were expelled. What do you think happens to UN or humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian people? It goes to Hamas. Hamas embezzles these funds. What about infrastructure projects? Hamas has done plenty of those - underground tunnels which are used to store and transport weapons. Not much else.
Quoting Xtrix
I've turned pessimistic towards the current Israeli government at this point after further research. I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. I'm sure Israel could help - and it does help - it's just no easy task but I appreciate the optimism.
You were the one saying you'd like Hamas leaders dead, not me. So you've completely missed the point. The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. Although they are by no means equal -- Bibi has killed far more. (Saying "that's because Israel has a better military" -- as you so often do -- is exactly the point: they have far more power.)
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq.
Again, I'll repeat: there is no parity here. If Israel truly cared about protecting itself, and about peace, then it would stop creating conditions in which groups like Hamas gain power, and stop contributing to terrorism itself.
Same is true of the US -- blaming everything on ISIS. Yes, ISIS is awful -- but how did they arise? After years of US terrorism. If you overlook that, you're not really serious about stopping terrorism.
But it's very difficult for people to see that when it's their own "team," no matter what country. Tribalism and propaganda almost always prevail. Israel is no different. Nor are you, as a defender and equivocator for Israel.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, especially the people who have much more privilege and power; namely, the Israeli citizens.
The first step, of course, is recognizing that your government is engaging in war crimes. So, again, you're a good example of why things don't change -- despite your claims of wanting Bibi out.
Many Americans wanted Bush out of office too, without acknowledging that he was a war criminal.
Meanwhile Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran saw that Democratic support for Israel in the U.S. has declined. We credited President Biden this week with not trying to dictate Israel’s security decisions, but he soon bent rhetorically to his party’s left, saying Wednesday he “expected a significant deescalation today.”
Yes -- that weak statement is a step too far for the editorial board.
We're simply living in different realities at this point.
They're going to be the last ones to change.
But when they do they'll claim moral indignation at the world's indifference, bla bla. Nothing new.
Hope this cease fire holds.
"
Yigal Yehoshua, 56, died in hospital in the Israeli town of Be'er Ya'akov on May 17 just days after he was hit in the head with rocks which were thrown at his car by rioters as he drove to his home in Lod last week. "
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9602701/Family-Jewish-father-two-56-lynched-anti-Israeli-riot-city-Lod-donate-organs.html
"The Arab Christian woman, who is now making a successful recovery in hospital, later spoke to Mr Yehoshua's wife Irena and said: 'We are like family now'.
The mother-of-five told Fox News: 'I never believed I would take the kidney of a person who was killed in such a way, in such a criminal way.
'I hurt for the family. I feel that I am taking a kidney of a person who is like family to me. Now I have a family, a different family, a Jewish family.'"
'There is no such thing as Arabs and Jews. Rather, we're just people, and we need to live together.'
If I were to take a step back and view Israel as just another state I could say that Israel is using Gaza and the WB as a bargaining chips. It has shown a willingness to make concessions: It has withdrawn from Gaza and about 40% of the WB and over the other 60% it claims to just govern Israelis and not Palestinians. It has not annexed either of these territories. It continues the blockade with Gaza along with Egypt because of the fear of allowing Hamas unrestricted access to weapons, but Israel doesn't have settlements or troops there. I have no idea who has a rightful claim over the WB though - Jordan? Boundaries shift so often in the middle east that it's hard to make these kind of strong claim over who deserves what. Arab and Jewish communities have been living together for thousands of years in the WB.
I don't understand why so many westerners care so much about Israel and seemingly hold it to the highest moral benchmark. The US took land from Spain and Mexico through warfare, how often do you hear calls to return that land? It's really difficult for me even as someone who grew up in this culture to say who rightfully owns what in the middle east just given its history.
Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. Was FDR a war criminal for bombing Germany and Japan and killing innocents? Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, while Hamas indiscriminately fires at residential areas. How do you not see the difference here? Hamas will force people to stay in places that are going to bombed.
Israel takes 3 steps before it bombs a place:
1) Phone calls.
2) Drops leaflets
3) Will drop a fake bomb called a 'shaker' that makes noise.
I deny war crimes. They have footage of Israelis telling Palestinians that their place is going to be bombed and the Palestinians deciding (or being forced) to stay regardless. Any nation has the fundamental right to defend itself from attacks and to target those who have been targeting it.
Quoting Xtrix
Even if I were to agree with your view, it would imply that, e.g. the Nazi party and all of their crimes were the fault of the allies after WWI because the treaty of versailles was harsh and cruel towards Germany. This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. Even if you do this are Israel's actions initially uncaused? Look into how Israel gained control of Gaza and the WB.
Probably true here again. I hope not.
I was hearing about a certain faction in Iraq wanting to get involved if this fighting continued. If this cease fire breaks, they could get involved.
Enough bloodshed already...
Has Israel proclaimed exactly where it's borders are? I'm not so sure it has.
One basic problem is that Palestinians (and for that matter Lebanon) are so weak it's not sure they can uphold peace like the Jordanian and Egyptian army for the time being. Some one can of course argue that this is the intent of Israel.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Because it says to be a modern democratic country and hence should be treated with the same bar as other ones as let's say as the UK?
Things are still very tense in Jerusalem...
I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing.
It's a manipulation at the top, but a lack of imagination at the bottom as well.
Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). @Andrew4Handel was at least trying to bring this point up with the story of the Arab woman and the transplant. It gives her agency in her empathy.
In a certain sense this is correct. It's correct that Israel helped create Hamas to weaken the PLO, which by the time Hamas branched out into a political entity, the PLO was actually making real strides towards a two state solution, circa 2000 ish.
And of course Hamas won in part because they were speaking about taking action against Israel, after much humiliation and land theft. By now, for Israel, Hamas is a gift. A bit like ISIS for the West: we have to defeat them, etc. But you can't defeat them by killing them: they morph into something more ugly at best. Short of Israel removing the blockade and settlements, Hamas will be around, because what else can they do? They have no autonomy in Gaza, despite Israel's rhetoric.
In the respect in which you are wrong is that, again, the people in Gaza don't really have an option. Well, they could just wave at the sky with peace symbols as they're bombed. Or they can try to fight the most sophisticated army in the Middle East and one of the strongest in the world. Israel is keeping Hamas in power, but Hamas doesn't change the situation in Israel much.
For that to change US policy towards Israel has to change. Then we might see real change in the area. But the power disparity between the Occupied Territories and Israel is so vast and massive, that speaking of "two sides keeping each other in power" is a massive exaggeration.
Again, all collective, no agency.. Did you see my last part?
Quoting Manuel
I do remember in the 90s during Oslo and a little beyond for about a decade, all you saw was car bombings on the news. Before Sharon/Netanyahu, it seemed like Pals were never going to be satisfied with compromise. Netanyahu has changed the dynamics because now he is the one who goes on the offensive, but if you are going to be collectivist on the Hamas side, then you at least have to be consistently collective on the Israeli side, as far as "pushing" people to go aggressive. What puts Hamas in power, also puts Netanyahu in power. Hence they should love each other.
Quoting Manuel
They aren't bombed unless there are rocket attacks against Israel, so would you care to change that as peace symbols when not in (yet another) bombing cycle?
I just see you ignored the free agency vs. collectivist part of my last post. Think about it for a minute.
I see it, but I guess I'm not really understanding the point. Like you said it's subtle. If by free agency you mean the each member in Israel and the Occupied Territories can do different things, as in not get engaged in politics or not identify with any of the ruling political parties or anything else, sure. That happens in virtually all conflict, there's simply too much variety in human beings.
Having said that, what we're speaking here is of the most salient and organized groups of each side. In this case it would be Hamas, the Israeli government and the PLO in the West Bank. We don't mention at the moment other political groups in the Territories nor other political parties in Israel, because for this massacre just now, they're not the main actors. But all people have a range of options available given whatever constraints they have placed on them given life circumstances.
Hamas could not shoot and just be humiliated by Israel as they steal more land and kill more innocent people. It's not as if the Israeli government needs Hamas to kill Palestinians, they do it quite frequently, but it doesn't make the news. Heck they did it before Hamas with the PLO too, also called terrorists.
Where I think you are mistaken is that you seem to think Gazans have a lot of options. They don't.
100%. We must reject this type of error/framing of the conflict.
So now you're ignoring how Netanyahu got into power. It's the same thing on the other side.
Quoting Manuel
Well all agreed, moderates have to take control rather than knee-jerk selecting the protector/agent of wrath as your preferred response. It is not the ONLY response. Agency.. It is not a rule that X causes Y. Also don't start saying "human nature". It takes imagination and courage on both sides. That's where this discussion should be headed. The victim/blame thing just leads to more cycles of violence and extremes. Violence begets more violence begets more violence begets more violence. Repeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1mo79ZBi4
I haven't typed the words "human nature" until just now. I don't know why it should be a problem, because humans have a nature, being that we are natural creatures like everything else in biology. But it is very complex: everything that humans can do, are part of that nature. But that's for another thread.
I think there are real victims in history: Native Americans all throughout the continent, Jews in WWII, the black population in South Africa during apartheid, etc., etc. And I don't think this should be controversial in the least.
Does this mean that there aren't other factors that could be included in these events? No. You can find almost anything in any group: Blacks in South Africa collaborating with the racist government, Palestinians working with the IDF and so on down the line.
It doesn't change the fact that there are victims, even if these victims circumstances are also caused by victims themselves, as is the case with Jews in WWII.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Both sides haven’t been angels in this conflict. Either side is equally bad at compromising. Violence in the form of security. Violence in the form of freedom protection. Still violence. Both reject each other’s historical narratives in relation to the land.
Yes, there are real victims on both sides. What do you mean "even if these victims' circumstances were also caused by the victims themselves?" I agree that there were Jewish leaders who acted atrociously and as collaborators so I'm fine attributing blame to some individual Jews in leadership positions. I don't think I'd go much further than that however.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Absolutely, and when people frame the conflict in this way it just perpetuates the violence. Additionally, throughout history perpetrators very frequently if not always brand themselves as victims.
Sorry. I worded it badly, All I meant to say that even if the victims situation (the Palestinians expulsion) was caused by victims too (Jews in WWII).
I don't mean to take it further than that.
Bibi can thank Hamas for getting a boost in the upcoming elections. And religious extremists hold hostage the whole conflict on both sides. Of course we can ask why it is so, but we will not like the answers.
Let's look at this from a different perspective: How do people calm down and genuinely put things past and want peace?
How did Europeans stop being bellicose at each other? How doesn't Elsas-Lothringen be anymore the hot issue between France and Germany? Where did the nationalistic fervour go?
The answer is obvious: Because millions have died in two World Wars. After two World Wars enough Europeans have died and enough Europeans have thought that killing has to stop. In the Middle East, the death toll has been far lower. Palestinian deaths have not been genocidal. In the 1948 war the estimates are between 3 000 to 13 000 dead. In the first and second Intifada about 7 000 were killed and in later conflicts the numbers seem to be below 10 000. In 73 years Israel has lost in conflicts something like 23 000 soldiers and civilians dead. That is less that my country (which is roughly the same size in population to Israel) lost in 105 days when it fought the Winter War. With our Continuation War the death toll was far more deadly (over 60 000). In the Yugoslav Civil Wars the death toll was 130 000 to 140 000. Somehow nobody isn't wanting a rematch there, so I guess well over hundred thousand dying does silence the warmongers and those who demand "justice" and think they have the "moral right" for the land. In Palestine, this hasn't happened. Who controls the Temple Mount is extremely important for many. And it will be so in the future too.
Excellent question and good answers. I liked how you put this in historical perspective of what it took for people to stop fighting in previous circumstances. Why should this be different?
It is sad to think that it takes so much violence to get to a resolution for both sides.
It really doesn't. Israel simply needs to fuck right back off into its own borders and rewrite its constitution so it stops being a Jewish supremacist state, incompatible with any minimally abiding democracy. Which would mean dismantling its apartheid apparatus too. None of which requires violence. The US could also stop sending $3b a year in terrorism support funding to Israel, which would go a long way too.
The best conversations I have seen recently on this topic on the systemic problems are these conversations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6E9h_MVHc
Actually I think I'm thinking of this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5xt-E5_wI&t=7631s
On the contrary. You might not want to face it, but it’s extremely pertinent.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Like media and residential buildings. Israel says it, so it must be true.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Like most apologists for state terrorism. Swallow the propaganda whole, because it happens to be your team. Basic tribalism; basic propaganda.
You’re simply deluded.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Give me a break.
I didn’t blame Israel for what Hamas does any more than I blame the US for everything ISIS does. But both were created by Israel and the US policy, respectively.
I’m talking about the present. In the PRESENT, Palestinians in Gaza are living in a hellhole. It just so happens they’ve also been living that way for decades, thanks to Israel.
Israel is a terrorist state, as is the US. Your delusions are your own.
If you think Hamas isn't genuinely interested in peace then you are simply clueless about the politics. Just because everybody calls Hamas a terrorist organisation doesn't make it so. So this is sadly just a really superficial regurgitation of shallow media analyses that we see everywhere.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How about you fuck right off with your "subtle" language analysis and analyse the facts on the ground instead? Those facts that in very real terms mean that Palestinians are robbed of their agency by an oppressor that is intent on controlling every strata of Palestinian society because of its "existential" security issue - which is just a reflection of collective paranoia and institutionalised racism.
Factored in..
Killing children receiving trauma treatment? Caused by Israeli policy and military action? Factored in..
If I agree with you in the precision of the IDF, I must conclude these actions were intentional.
Truly, a more ethically fought war has never been waged. IDF precision and harm minimisation at its best:
The responsible way to do this is to actively question your own knowledge. When doing so, the facts presented about the conflict, as it is today, becomes clear. Anything else is bias and denial.
:up:
History is the refuge of the coward.
You fail to understand the difference between the intentional murder of innocents, say, putting a knife through a stranger's back because of his ethnicity on one hand, and the targeting of military targets and infrastructure. Until you understand this difference it's all gonna be the same to you.
Quoting Xtrix
The precautions and the steps taken before bombing are all very well documented.
Quoting Xtrix
There maybe there were some; I don't follow every strike and if a war crime did occur we can prosecute those in charge. Every indiscriminate missile that Hamas fires into a residential area for no other purpose than to kill random Jews living in their homes is a war crime. Where are the telephone calls that Hamas makes? How about leaflets?
Quoting Xtrix
Hamas definitely wasn't created by Israel, the organization is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Was the organization a reaction to Israel? Yes, but reactions aren't causes. Hitler may have came to power as a reaction against the Allied forces and the treaty of Versailles, but those things didn't cause Hitler.
Quoting Xtrix
Again wrong, and you're again ignorant of the reality on the ground. Israel is not the one embezzling funds intended for the Palestinian people or spending them on intricate underground tunnels. To say that this is entirely an Israeli problem simplifies to the conflict to child-like complexity and is not reflective of reality.
If I were Palestinian I would be buying rockets. It would seem to be the only way forward,.So I blame Israel for the Palestinian rockets. I have nothing but disgust for Israel and will risk saying it,
However, it's a complex situation and I can appreciate other views are possible.
I sometimes wonder whether behind the scenes Israel and the US are run by the same people. They certainly seem to share the same broken moral compass. , .
A few things to consider that aren't highly publicized:
-Hamas kills its own civilians when its own rockets misfire or someone aims poorly. I know of at least 8 Palestinian children killed this way. In a sample of 850 Hamas rocket launches, 200 ended up over Gaza so now that Hamas has launched over 3000 rockets we're looking at likely over 700 of Hamas' own missiles dropping over Gaza. These will be reported as Israel, of course.
-Hamas has been known to force its own people to stay in buildings and other places that are going to be bombed.
-Hamas will intentionally build underground tunnels near schools, hospitals, and office buildings so that when Israel strikes it will be impossible not to inflict collateral damage. Hamas will also directly fire weapons from these places which is a war crime. Storing weapons in schools and hospitals also violates the laws of war.
-Hamas in its casualty reports does not distinguish between militants and civilians, so of the 140 or so adults dead they could all be militants but Hamas would not reveal those details.
I'd be interested to know how Israel's response would compare to the US and UK on something like this. If it can be demonstrated that Israel's response is considerably worse or out of line then I would reconsider my position. I'm always open for a discussion about which armaments/weaponry is being used, but what's not open for discussion is whether Israel can retaliate - which, like any other country, it has the right to when under attack. Without the iron dome Israel would likely have 10x its current casualties.
Cunts "deny war crimes".
You're a waste of time, 180. You exist for no other reason than to foment conflict and pit brother against brother. That's your ideology - constant war.
Well, it's my time to waste, BC, while on the shitter. Goebbels would've loved the way you lick jackboots.
The Nazis loved to describe themselves as victims and frame reality as an intractable struggle between groups you would fit right in.
Huh, so Israel.
I strongly reject all framings like this, and I'm aware that there are Israelis - like there are Arabs - who take this framing of the conflict. It's not right to just blame one side, you'll see this framing everywhere from people of all nationalities.
He says right after he frames someone as exactly this.
Fuck you're a moron.
What are you talking about? I said 180 frames reality like this and he doesn't even try to hide it.
You're not furthering the conversation and I'm not going to respond until you lay out, clearly, exactly what you're saying.
You can play your little "gotcha" games with me that no one else understands, I don't care, but maybe keep in mind that there's another poster here who categorically refuses to condemn Hamas for the repression and murder of LGBTQ Palestinians, or for anything for that matter.
So when I accuse someone of viewing the world in black-and-white terms it's because I know this person's posting history and it's not without just cause.
What is so confusing? All I was saying was that we should not frame the conflict like X. Some posters do frame things as X. I do not. I don't know what about this is so confusing for you, but by all means jump into bed with those who condone the genocide of LGBTQ in Palestine.
I doubt you would.
One impartial observing side have been the blue berets in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon. I know a few reservists here who have made a stint in Lebanon and seen how the Israelis operate. And usually they are quite cynical about both sides. Some of them have made memoirs that accurately depicted the low intensity conflict before Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Nobody questions the abilities of the Israeli army. But many notice the the heavy handedness how they approach the conflict. So how does the Israeli army operate?
A small example. One way to counter the threat of ambushes is to simply shoot while driving through places which are suitable for ambushes. So when there is an orchard directly next to the road and you don't have good visibility, then just fire blindly to the orchard with the mounted machine gun to pin down anybody that is there. Israeli patrols used this approach in Lebanon. If then a small 5-year old girl who just happens to be in her family's own orchard is killed by this random shooting, just announce it that a "Palestinian terrorist" was killed that day.
In West Bank and Gaza Israeli military has taken a more "humane" approach: just simply cut down every orchard or forest next to the road that could make an ambush spot. Solution to the problem.
You can compare to other armed forces that operate in an low-intensity environment. I think the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland are the best example of taking another strategy. Even today Police Stations in Northern Ireland are like miniature military fortresses.
Since 1960 the British military has killed 307 people in Northern Ireland of whom half have been Provisional IRA terrorist. Yet it has lost over 700 soldiers in the conflict. Hence in fact the Provisional IRA has killed far more British soldiers and policemen than they have suffered losses. The perpetrators of the bloodiest attack against British forces were caught immediately, but released because there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. Once released, the other one of these was killed while making another bomb, but the other lived as a free man. That you do have PIRA members still living in the UK tells something about how the UK handled the conflict with it's Good Friday agreement etc.
There you can note the difference how a democratic country fights terrorism: with the laws implemented and treating the terrorists as other criminals. Above all, trying to treat the issue as a police matter.
Of course Israel can say that it follows it's own laws. And here's the basic problem: the Apartheid system starts from it's citizens being in different categories.
What metrics would you accept for the comparison?
Here are mine, Israel's policy towards Palestine is colonial expansion, an unjust war, not fought in self defence, because:
(1) Colonial expansion: Israel is expanding constantly through military means. No one gets to take something by force then "defend themselves" from the victim trying to take it back.
(2) Palestine is not a credible military threat to Israel. Israel has more ground forces, an airforce, nuclear weapons, spies and military intelligence and soft power internationally. Hamas and other groups are largely untrained volunteers using old weaponry, have no airforce, and little soft power internationally. Palestine is not a threat to the nationhood of Israel.
(3) Areas of Palestine which were conquered by Israel have two tiered access to roads, enforced by military checkpoints and patrols. This affects al those people who do not flee. The military expansion of Israel has caused an ongoing diaspora.
The adherents among those refugees of a right to return to their historic homeland is precisely the logic of Zionism - return to the ancestral home and build it anew. It can't be denied from one and applied to the other.
So - a state engaged in an asymmetrical conflict, conquering territories, as referenced before killing children and bombing hospitals, making the population that doesn't flee live in squalor, air striking media outlets...
Again, were it another country, it would've been put in Dubya's Axis of Evil.
— BitconnectCarlos
We know for sure they don’t. Israel has all the contact information of all the residents in Gazas, they can make them evacuate before bombing them if they really wanted to. They are killing families purposefully.
“An investigation by the human rights group B’Tselem that focused on some 70 of the families who were eradicated in 2014, provided three explanations for the numerous nuclear and extended families that were killed, all at once, in one Israeli bombing on the home of each such family. One explanation was that the Israeli army didn’t provide advance warning to the homeowners or to their tenants; or that the warning didn’t reach the correct address, at all or on time.
In any case, what stands out is the difference between the fate of the buildings that were bombed with their residents inside, and the “towers” – the high-rise buildings that were shelled as of the second day of this latest conflict, during the daytime or early evening.
Reportedly, the owners or the concierge in the towers got prior warning of an hour at most that they must evacuate, usually via phone call from the army or Shin Bet security service, then “warning missiles” fired by drones. These owners/concierges were supposed to warn the other residents in the short time remaining.
Not only highrises were involved. On Thursday evening Omar Shurabji’s home west of Khan Yunis was shelled. A crater formed in the road and one room in the two?story building was destroyed. Two families, with seven people altogether, live in that building.
About 20 minutes before the explosion, the army called Khaled Shurabji and told him to tell his uncle Omar to leave the house, per a report by the Palestinian center for human rights. It is not known whether Omar was there, but the residents of the house all hastened to get out, so there were no casualties.
This very fact that the Israeli army and Shin Bet trouble to call and order the evacuation of the homes shows that the Israeli authorities have current phone numbers for people in each structure slated for destruction. They have the phone numbers for relatives of the people suspected or known to be activists for Hamas or Islamic Jihad.
The Palestinian population registry, including that of Gaza, is in the hands of the Israeli Interior Ministry. It includes details such as names, ages, relatives and addresses.
As the Oslo Accords require, the Palestinian interior ministry, through the civil affairs ministry, transfers current information regularly to the Israeli side, especially concerning births and newborns: The registry data must receive Israeli approval, because without that, Palestinians cannot receive an identity card when the time comes, or in the case of minors – they can’t travel alone or with their parents through border crossings controlled by Israel.
It is clear, then, that the army knows the number and names of children, women and elderly who live in every residential building it bombs for any reason.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/gaza-israel-wiping-entire-palestinian-families-hamas-1.9820005?fbclid=IwAR2dJmlDOlEId4PX8oLq51nyguj_it9lTEm3XFGR2Cl4SRcLwSgJmlwpWW0
Yes, like the notification they gave to Aljazeera's headquarters in Gaza city before airstriking it!
The United States often says the exact same thing. Like the Al Shifa bombing.
When our team does it, it’s not intentional— because we’re the god guys. When they do it, it’s intentional and they’re evil.
This is what you continually fail to see. You swallow the pretext wholesale. If we look at the real world, and not “intentions,” the death counts tell a slightly different story than the rationalizations we tell ourselves.
If you want to believe it, you’re welcome to.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
As are the war crimes. You selectively choose one and ignore the other.
I guess because it’s a more “civil” kind of war crime, and a more well-intentioned terrorism, we’ll let it slide. We’re the good guys, after all, and everything we do is defensive.
The Nazi archives are filled with similar sentiments.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, they did. They’re factors that led to Hitler. The US bombing of Iraq led to ISIS. Israel’s treatment of Gaza led to Hamas.
You wouldn’t have Hamas without Israeli-imposed conditions. You want to continually translate this as some direct causal link, taking it literally as “Israel created Hamas” or whatever, but you know very well what’s meant. Argue semantics somewhere else.
Hamas is a reaction? Yes. Reactions aren’t causes— right, they’re effects. Effects from what exactly? Israeli treatment. So if Israel is serious about preventing further war, they should perhaps change their policies and stop making Gaza an unlivable shithole.
Front page of Ny Times today, and this only scratches the surface:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/us/israel-gaza-conflict.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
"Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh added, “From doctors to taxi drivers and high-tech workers, everyone joined the general strike as an act of unity that’s a source of pride for Arab citizens. Weeks of the Netanyahu government’s provocative and violent policy of repression have failed and will not succeed in repressing our struggle or diverting us from our path – an organized and just civil struggle against the occupation, the blockade, the attack on Gaza and for peace and equality.”
..In Beit Shemesh, which is experiencing a construction boom, all the cranes were silent on Tuesday. One crane operator said that many operators are Arabs who were striking, and added, “If we would all fight that way for workers’ rights maybe we would achieve something.” The Israel Builders Association said Palestinian workers had observed the strike, with only 150 of the 65,000 Palestinian construction workers coming to work in Israel. This paralyzed building sites, causing losses estimated at 130 million shekels (nearly $40 million). But even before the strike, since the beginning of the operation in Gaza, only 6,000 to 8,000 Palestinians were coming to work every day. According to Yehuda Katav, vice president of the builder’s association, construction has slowed to a snail’s pace. “We cannot build without them,” he said.
Users of public transportation also felt the strike; the Transportation Ministry said 910 drivers, some 10 percent of all bus drivers, didn’t show up for work Tuesday. Egged spokesman Ron Ratner said nearly 300 journeys had to be canceled, while the Kavim bus company warned riders to expect disruptions and avoid unnecessary trips that day."
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-general-strike-highlights-israel-s-dependency-on-palestinian-workers-1.9824446
I'm gonna have to keep it brief today because I have been inundated with responses and I just can't get to everything. In any case, I'm fine with this general position. I certainly agree that Israel should take steps to make its operational procedures more humanitarian, but I refuse a moral equivalence between the standard operating procedures of the IDF and those of Hamas and other terrorist groups.
The Lebanon example could maybe make sense if IDF soldiers had been attacked from there before and had the place was walled off or restricted as a no-go area. Otherwise the practice seems wrong to me.
Quoting ssu
I don't know if these conflicts are comparable. I haven't studied the IRA conflict in detail, but have IRA members ever ran through London stabbing other people indiscriminately until they were eventually shot? Have they ever disguised bombs as balloons and flown them towards Elementary schools? Do hundreds of them throw loads of rocks at random British civilians for no reason other than that they are British? How about random drive-by shootings on civilians? How about recruiting and brainwashing Irish children to blow themselves up at a restaurant? Now imagine growing up your entire life hearing about these things committed against your ethnic group. Every year it was something different. Who would have thought a few dozen stabbing sprees would follow suicide bombings in bars?!
No — we all agree that Israel’s terrorism and war crimes are of a far higher quality. Their way of killing children is much more humane.
I agree about the West Bank, if the two state solution is the goal. I do remember a ton of bombings on Palestinian side and assassination of Rabin on the Israeli side the closer the two sides got to a real agreement. I remember this. Do you? It makes me think though, do agreements matter? You would have to admit that the Pals under the PLO would have to work either on their own or closely with the IDF to keep security. If they don’t, then Israel got nothing and no real progress happened. Essentially, when or if both sides get to a final phase (as has happened), they can’t keep demanding more and more. There has to be a point where you give up something to get something. That also means the leaders in good faith controlling their people or work to bring their own people to accountability. It also means the moderates can’t keep allowing tacit support for extremes during and after the process.
Yet those standard operational procedures (SOPs in general) do matter a lot. It starts from things like is fighting a terrorist group a police matter or a military matter? Do you mimic the Wehrmachts approach fighting partizans in Russia during WW2 or the approach of the Bundespolizei "fighting" the Red Army Fraction terrorists? Operational procedures or what kind of war you fight does matter. One of the most striking differences can be seen when you look at how the Soviet Union fought the Mujaddehin and the US has fought basically the same people for far longer. During the Soviet invasion at least half a million and up to two million civilians died. Now during the twenty years the US has fought in the same country about 40 000 civilians have died. That's the difference between SOPs.
You seem to concentrate on the Hamas, yet conflict is far larger than one group among the Palestinians and Israel's actions towards it. One real issue is that now the more protesters have been the Palestinian citizens of Israel, the so-called "Arab Israelis" who aren't living either in the West Bank or the Gaza concentration camp. To say that every nation has the right to defend itself from attacks is true, but that doesn't give a carte blanche.
Quoting BitconnectCarlosWhy would they? That they nearly killed Prime minister Thatcher in Brighton in 1984 tells about the capability of the PIRA besides the "positive" kill ratio and the ability to survive to a political agreement, whereas similar knife attacks have even happened even here (and not by Hamas, but your local islamist terrorist wannabe ...and he was put down, not shot dead).
(Prime minister Thatcher with her husband and a personal aide being evacuated after the bomb attack. The facial expressions tell something.)
Yet the conflict in Ireland, not just in Northern Ireland but the whole history from the Irish revolt and the IRA, to Irish Independence and then "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland is quite comparable to the Palestinian conflict, if we separate from this the wars that Israel has fought with it's neighbors. In both in Ireland and in Palestine you actually have the British involved and in both occasions the fighting was a low intensity conflict. The fact is that Northern Ireland is rather peaceful now and the political agreement, the Good Friday agreement of 1998, has held should make people think what did the British do differently? Because in my view they did fight a low intensity conflict differently. Starting from the fact that nobody in the media called it a war or even an insurgency.
Don't forget President Anwar Sadat of Egypt. He was killed after making a peace agreement with Israel (and getting back the Sinai) in an military victory parade in 1981. By the usual suspects (religious terrorists, who else?)
I believe this was the case for the Taba negotiations. Namely commit to resolution 242, with some modifications and land exchange. This meant that Israeli's got to keep some land not stipulated in 242 and Palestine would do the same. But the land swap would've been moderate.
This would still be the case for a reasonable resolution of the conflict for the short to medium term. But it's more than enough to work on. Israel has gone very much to the right since 2000 more or less. Yes Hamas beat the PLO in Gaza by very little, but they won. I don't know if there's something to the right of Hamas in Gaza. Maybe.
But it wouldn't really make a difference because the situation on the ground in Gaza is dire. So even if they wanted sophisticated missiles, they can't get them. Nor should they seek them either, don't get me wrong.
So, in short, yes. Moderates or at least a compromise towards moderation is the only way.
The opposing sides in the troubles hated each other but there wasn't the same level of dehumanization. It would have been absolutely inconceivable for the British to have sent warplanes in and bombed Catholic neighbourhoods due to them harboring IRA suspects while the US and other western nations blithely pontificated, over the bodies of dismembered children, about Britain's right to defend itself. No, the Western world would have been in uproar because white Catholics are considered human whereas the Palestinians have yet to reach that level, as demonstrated aptly in this thread. Conclusion: racism is the primary driver behind the defenders of the recent civilian massacres in Gaza.
"Oh, no problem. Can we sell you some white phosphorus?"
*IRA attacks
:100: fuckin' percent!
Generally Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against brown people].
Generally not Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against white people].
You either bite the bullet and say that you would have supported the British in bombing Catholic civilians in order to kill embedded IRA operatives or you are a racist. Own it. (Or explain a fundamental difference between the two "defensive" scenarios.)
(The worst offenders here, imo, are liberals who like to virtue signal about BLM but turn a blind eye to what's happening in Palestine. A racist hypocrite is probably even worse than an honest racist.)
Let's get them out of the closet.
Ok, so you're telling me that the IRA did not go out of its way to maximize civilian casualties. Something tells me that if they did, the British public would see them quite a bit differently and peace would have been a bit more of an obstacle. The ways in which terror attacks are carried out are deeply relevant both morally and for public perception: A strike on an empty bar on a Sunday morning where the enemy gathers is quite different from one against a crowded night club on a Saturday night where young people gather. The IRA does not strike me as morally comparable to Hamas with both the methods and general hatred coming from Hamas running much deeper. To the best of my understanding, the IRA did not try to maximize civilian casualties or recruit child suicide bombers (in all fairness this one even caused backlash among normal Palestinian civilians.) The IRA also did not seek to destroy the UK or define their vision in uncompromising dogmatic religious language. Take a look at the Hamas charter:
https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
Quoting ssu
Unfortunately we can't make this separation otherwise the history and moral judgments that we draw just don't make sense. If we don't consider the wars then it just looks like Israel just grabbed the land out of nowhere.
We need to consider the circumstances under which the land was taken. The conflict cannot be viewed in isolation, it must be viewed as part of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, and even in this conflict things aren't black-and-white. Egypt also helps with the blockade against Gaza because they don't support Hamas either. Others just conveniently ignore the fact the if the Arab countries wanted they could relieve the pressure, but they don't. If your own people aren't stepping into help when they could that is definitely its own issue. Jews have always accepted other Jews into Israel even when doing so was a serious difficulty.
Quoting ssu
Sure we can talk about SOPs and this would be useful discussion to have. I'd suspect the USSR would have been much, much more than brutal than Israel here. I'm certain the Nazis would have been much more brutal as well. I'd suspect the Israeli response would be roughly in line with the US on an issue like this and we can try to draw some numbers. If the US is averaging 2k/year civilians dead in the war on terror then Israel is doing even better, on average and that number includes militants. In these discussions it can be difficult to determine what exactly qualifies as a "humane" number. You drew an example from the Lebanon conflict earlier, but Lebanon was an actual war as opposed to dealing with the Palestinians.
It would still be an extremely useful bit of information to know how IDF SOPs compare with those of the US and UK in low intensity conflicts.
Baden, we in Europe were just fine with Yugoslav's killing well over 100 000 of each other. And in that conflict there were catholics, orthodox and yes, also muslims. When it comes to the Middle East, we simply just tell ourselves that that part of the World is a violent place and these people have been killing each other for ages. Period. If the Swiss would be having an ethnic conflict, we'd have "specialists" giving a multitude of reasons just why the Swiss cannot live in peace with each other and just why it has come to a civil war. And we'd be fine with that: It's just the Swiss, they are so bellicose to each other. And they have so many languages and ethnicities...
Yet I would make an emphasis on the crucial point you made: Basically the British government put it's soldiers and policemen into danger without heavy fire-support. It didn't minimize it's own losses and maximize losses of the other side. Every British government understood that tanks using their cannons, artillery firing shells or the Royal Air Force giving air support to the troops by bombs or rocket fire would mean that everything WOULD BE OVER. The British government could not then deny that there is a war going on. The television pictures would show it. The British government would get criticism and condemnation from European countries (and naturally the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc). It would have the British pop scene making groovy anti-war pop songs and the voters being fed up of the whole mess. Likely the British administration in power would have fallen. It would be just a part in the British malaise would have ended up in something more humiliating than the Suez crisis. Yet the PIRA laid down it's arms and some kind of peace has prevailed in Northern Ireland.
Just to understand how different this was from the present, here's a weekly documentary from 1972. What is telling is how different the interview with a higher ranking officer by the TV journalists is compared to these times. Now we live in an age of classic propaganda where such honest answers wouldn't be given and such questions wouldn't be even asked.
And this is not something only related to the UK. If the Spanish government would have sent the Spanish military into Catalonia with tanks and bombed Barcelona from the air, I think there would be a lot of support for Catalan Independence and widespread condemnation of the Spanish government. But if it would have come to that (or will come to that), in the end after the condemnations we'll just remark "There the Spanish go again...with another civil war of theirs".
So I don't think it's much about racism. We just adapt to people being crazy. Anywhere.
You think the Palestinian conflict is only about Israel and Hamas?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
BC, do you know what the objective was of the "Peace for Galilee" operation? What was the main objective of that war and who were the Israelis going after? Let me quote Prime minister Menachem Begin's speech about the reasons why Israel opted to attack it's neighbor with the operation "Peace for Galilee":
He is not referring to the Syrians as being the terrorists, but the PLO. It was all about the Palestinian conflict.
And for the facts about how much "peace" this invasion got? The the massacres at Shabra and Shatila refugee camps didn't help (even if perpetrated by Israeli allies, the IDF ordering them to clear the refugee camps of PLO fighters was not a great move). Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon only in the year 2000 and basically fought a low intensity war all that time there, for 18 years. The so-called "Southern Lebanese Army", the Israeli proxy, collapsed immediately and the area wasn't taken over by the Lebanese Army, but by Hezbollah, which had fought a long time the Israeli occupiers. And after six years Israel fought another war in Lebanon in 2006, which didn't go so well, actually.
So "Peace for Galilee" indeed, as the Likud Prime minister foresaw and "knew".
But anyway, it's a perpetual war and those in power in Israel totally fine with it. Why seek peace when this off and on -conflict isn't threatening the state?
Not convinced. Sure, there are political reasons for the British not to have bombed Ireland or the Spanish, Catalonia, but it begs the question to bring them up (and obviously if events did unfold in that direction, they would no longer be inconceivable though the reaction imo would not be nearly as glib as you predict). So, the point remains unanswered, why is it inconceivable to us that white western civilians be subject to heavy military artillery bombardments as part of defensive actions against so-called terrorists while perfectly natural that brown non-westerners should be? The idea of the former we find shocking, the latter is simply shrugged off. In the absence of some other explanation for the disparity, my thesis is racism. I invite anyone who objects to provide an alternative (without going off on irrelevant tangents) or maybe tell me why they think the British should have gone ahead and bombed the Irish. At least there might be some consistency there.
No country goes to war without having a reason to justify it's actions to "international community", to avoid denouncements.
Israel had a good reason to go to war but problem is those reasons are not important to other states, so to make it important their police entered sacred place to provoke Arabs into attacking.
This worked because Israel now had a right to defend it self.
The real reason however (behind the scene) was to stop terrorists getting stronger, which if left over would be serious for Israel in the future.
"Killing civilians" is subjective.
There is no other solution or cure.
All of histories horrors centre around people unnecessarily having children. These children are histories canon fodder.
If you have children and expect some kind of natural justice and equality then you are deeply deluded.
These kind of ideological conflicts are not only a distraction from parental responsibility but a deliberate infliction of suffering onto future generations.
These types of anti-natalists are lunatics
Hamas operates like a small nation, the IRA is a domestic terrorist organisation, the scale is incomparable. Just the premise of this latest conflict, Hamas launching thousands of missiles from the territory they govern into Israel, is incomparable to anything that occurred in the conflicts being mentioned.
I do think race, religion, poverty, culture, geopolitics, all of these things do play a role in public opinion about what happens in Gaza and the West Bank. Western nations are guilty of this in domestic affairs, it only makes sense that it makes a difference here. Probably the biggest factor is narrative, Hamas talk, dress and act like stereotypical Islamic terrorists, they terrify people and neatly fit into the war on terror narrative. The change in tone this time has a lot to do with social media, the narrative isn't so easily controlled by governments and the news media. I don't think public opinion on Israel is advanced enough that people abandon their empathy due to racism.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-gantz-non-humanitarian-aid-to-gaza-depends-on-return-of-israeli-soldiers-bodies-1.9836555
:roll:
I refuse to cause suffering to children and I am a lunatic? If that is your notion of reality then I pity reality.
Every antinatalist holds parents responsible for their child's suffering.
The idea that people in a war zone are justified in having however many children they like is sadistic unconscionable child abuse.
Isn't it great that I could have a hundred children and you would blame the Jews and Israel for their suffering?
One only has to let Israelis on the street speak without interruption to recognize that it is a state toxic with a virulent, murderous racism down to its very core.
What's truly anti-semitic imo is the presumption that being Jewish defines your character is such a way that you must support the actions of Israel's right-wing government or take any particular political or ethical stance. There are plenty of Jewish people (Israeli and otherwise), including posters here, who are perfectly entitled to disagree with your position. So, I caution you to curb your anti-semitism in this regard as it is a bannable offence.
Once when just the riot police seems not to have the situation under control, then there is the next step. And this isn't limited to "other races". It genuinely can happen. We are just so hypocrite, self-righteous and full of ourselves when we say that "it could not happen here". But where is that "there" compared to "here"?
Are (or were) the Yugoslavs, like Slovenes, Croats or Serbs etc. white western civilians or not?
(The civil war started in Slovenia. Tanks & were used)
How about the Greeks? They had their Civil War after WW2. And had a hideous military junta afterwards.
(Artillery used in the Greek Civil War)
Or Ukrainians?
Russians? (Yeltsin using tanks in Moscow against the Parliament...and protesters)
Basically if any government feels so much under distress that it rolls out armour on to it's own streets, then there is a possibility of those vehicles using their firepower. That's why it's usually the last thing to do as nothing provokes a crowd more than a tracked armoured artillery pillbox. The possibility that things get out of control is there. Hence it isn't inconceivable that these kinds of tragedies could happen.
(French tanks guarding the Assemblee Nationale during the Algiers Putsch. in Paris, 1961.)
Even in Catalonia in 2017 military units were deployed to assist the riot police, hence the slippery slope was there. It's even more dangerous when the armed forces haven't trained to operate in a state of political upheaval. In an anti-EU protest the Danish military had to resort to live rounds as they didn't have any rubber bullets or other equipment etc. Luckily only few were injured (and good luck trying to find that in a Google search, as nobody wants to remember that an anti-EU demonstration in Denmark got live bullets fired at it!) We have now seen from the developments in Ukraine and Georgia that a Yugoslav-style civil war breakup of the Soviet Union was totally possible. So this isn't something only limited to the Middle East.
We can bring in Fatah, we can bring in Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, we can bring in Black September, we can bring in whoever you like. I only mention Hamas as they are the main players in Gaza right now. Of course Israel would rather have Fatah in charge but Fatah are no angels, either to the Israelis or the Palestinians who they've been known to embezzle billions from.
Quoting ssu
I agree, and I'm pessimistic about the current Israeli leadership's interest in genuine peace. I'm also doubtful of Hamas' interest in peace. A low intensity war serves political purposes for both sides, still I don't draw moral equivalency between a democratic state and a terrorist group. I've stated many times that I'm not binding myself to a position where I need to justify everything Israel does - I'll attempt to make sense of some of it, but I'm not up to the task of defending everything.
Fundamentally though we need to be forward-looking if we ever hope to make peace as opposed to looking back. When one group of people pits blame on entirely one side it's extremely counterproductive and it just makes that side defensive. I believe many young people have an interest in peace and I hope to see this pay dividends in later years assuming the violence doesn't escalate and hatred doesn't enter peoples' hearts through repeated calls to past injustices and demonization of the enemy. We can help accomplish this through dialogues and communication but this is difficult because Hamas will arrest Palestinians for engaging with Israelis, still there is hope.
Apparently, the very fact of this question res ipsa loquitur. Both those of us waiting for an answer and those who've swallowed their forked tongues in the face of this question tacitly agree, it seems, that there are ethical and political stakes to hazard in owning up to this banal, human all to human, ugliness. I've already named names on this thread, and though I await a germaine response from any of them, I won't hold my breath.
Have you ever been to Israel? If you have then you'd know that most Israelis aren't white. Palestinians and Israelis are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
Israelis are POC. And they're indigenous.
Yes, most Israelis are Jewish, so what? My thesis above is that Palestinians are non-white and that's a significant factor in why their deaths are more acceptable to westerners than the deaths of, say, white Irish. So, would it have bothered you if the British had sent warplanes in to bomb the Catholic population of Northern Ireland in which IRA operatives were embedded (something you have supported in the case of Israel)? Yes or no? And, do you not agree, at least, it was inconceivable for that to happen? Have you asked yourself why?
They're Jewish and they're also brown people.
I've stated earlier than Hamas is not the IRA and that these two organizations are not morally comparable.
In any case, white people constantly suppress and murder other white people and I thought ssu flushed this point out pretty well.
EDIT: We've also seen quite a bit of backlash in the US with 26 antisemetic attacks since May 10th in response to Gaza. If israelis are valid targets why not American Jews?
I'll keep asking the question until one of them has the guts to answer it
Your argument now is that the IRA didn't kill civilians or didn't target civilians as in the Birmingham pub bombings or Enniskillen? Because they did. So, you're reduced to arguing that if Hamas had blown up pubs full of Israeli civilians or a hotel with the entire Israeli cabinet in it, they would only have been as bad as the IRA and Israel would not be justified in responding as they are now. Your position is quickly being revealed as absolutely absurd.
For the most part, the IRA did not intentionally target civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas does, and in doing so effectively legitimizes attacks on Jewish communities elsewhere. If Israeli civilians are valid targets, why not American Jews? Especially ones in "Zionist" communities. We've already seen this start to happen here in the US.
"As well as its campaign against the security forces, the IRA became involved, in the middle of the decade, in a "tit for tat" cycle of sectarian killings with loyalist paramilitaries. The worst examples of this occurred in 1975 and 1976. In September 1975, for example, IRA members machine-gunned an Orange Hall in Newtownhamilton, killing five Protestants. On 5 January 1976, in Armagh, IRA members operating under the proxy name South Armagh Republican Action Force shot dead ten Protestant building workers in the Kingsmill massacre.
In similar incidents, the IRA deliberately killed 91 Protestant civilians in 1974–76."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army_campaign
More than Hamas have killed in the past ten years.
More fairy tales or are you going to address the issue, finally?
Or brought up East Germany before realizing that it's actually a really great comparison to the misery of occupation and then turning tail like the disingenuous coward he is?
I don't think he or the others realize that they're racists, or Islamophobic, or bigoted in whatever way, part of what's so pernicious about it, but until they stop demonstrating they are by their own words and the contradictions inherent in their arguments, they'll be judged as such and I'll keep pursuing this line.
Do you support attacks on jewish/zionist communities in the US? If attacks on Israelis are ok, why not these attacks?
Don't troll here. We both know I never said I support attacks on any community. In fact, the only thing I've done here is argue against attacks that are likely to kill innocent civilians.
Quoting Baden
This is a deliberate attempt to derail. Don't even think about trying that again.
His last comment has convinced me you are right. On to the rest of you, you've argued Israel's actions are justified. I have established that the IRA, for example, carried out more damaging attacks on Protestant civilians than Hamas has on Israelis. So, would you have supported the bombing of Catholic neighbourhoods in which IRA operatives were embedded? Yes or no? Why or why not? Give me a reason to think this is not primarily about race, ethnicity etc.
Israeli domestic terror.
Maybe try to be less personally offended given I have no idea who you are, and consider my question a reflection of the current atmosphere.
I know. As if we didn't just have the conversation where I was arguing that attacks on civilians were wrong. He just forgot. Won't be taking that bait any more.
From page 1.
Absolutely. Like the state of Israel.
I wasn't responding to you because I had like 5 other people talking to me. Count it as a conversation if I respond to you.
Quoting StreetlightX
And everyone who supports capitalism, or who thinks their own culture is special, or who supports the police etc.... I've never really been personally offended by you because your general hatred for humanity is just so widespread that I've never really felt personally attacked.
You responding to me on page 1.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And on page 2.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Etc.
Are you ok?
Ok ya got me we exchanged a couple sentences almost 2 weeks ago where all I really did was clarify my position. I know next to nothing about what you believe or who you are.
I think the essence of @Baden's point is intact: what is the distinction between Palestinians and Southern Irish that would've made the UK bombing civilians to get at the IRA not ok but the IDF bombing Palestinians to get at Hamas okay?
I've said on multiple occasions that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle is just not comparable to the one between the UK and the IRA. To the best of my understanding, the IRA didn't intentionally target uninvolved civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. I don't recall them ever recruiting child suicide bombers either. I go into more detail here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/540254
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This reply to you was three hours ago: Quoting Baden
So, you've been refuted on that.
Over 1300 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinian terror attacks in the past 20 years. Thousands more injured.
The IRA does not indiscriminately target civilians as their MO. There may have been times where this happened, I don't know, but it's not how the group normally operates. The group also doesn't seek to destroy England in their charter.
Source? According to this (quoting the Israeli ministry for foreign affairs) it's roughly 1,000 since 2021. The IRA killed a similarly large number in their 20-year campaign (now ended), approximately 600.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Correct. And the fact that you don't know but appear intent on gerrymandering your definition just so it fits Hamas but not the IRA again suggests I am right in my thesis. That is, yes there are some differences but none so significant as the difference between the army sending planes in that kill hundreds of civilians in a matter of days vs. the army never using nor even contemplating using heavy artillery on civilians.
You'd have to be out of your mind to compare the IRA to Palestinian terror:
From a magazine piece:
Unlike Islamic radicalism, Irish nationalism has always been somewhat ideologically underdeveloped. Nonetheless, a few things can be said with certainty about the worldview of the Provisional IRA. Most importantly, perhaps, the Provos did not see the conflict as a zero-sum game. They did not advocate the genocide or ethnic cleansing of the Protestant majority, did not claim that London was the true capital of Ireland, and were not motivated by an ideology of racial or religious supremacism. Their slogan “Brits Out!” referred to the British state alone, not the Protestant community loyal to it.
On a larger scale, the Provisional IRA did not see itself as just one part of a grand holy war against the presence of a Protestant community in Northern Ireland. Unlike Hamas, the Provos never had the benefit of an Iran or a Qatar to provide it with consistent material and moral support. They did not enjoy the solidarity of a global movement of fundamentalist Catholics willing to use terrorism and mass murder to achieve their religious aims. Nor did they have a growing chorus of sympathizers in the Western liberal democracies. At best, they had to rely on the occasional gift of arms from the crazed Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi and what money deluded immigrants in the bars of Boston and New York could be persuaded to part with.
http://www.thetower.org/1429-the-tower-magazine-why-the-ira-is-nothing-like-hamas/
The cruelty of Palestinian terror far outweighs that used by the IRA. The more research I do into the types of attacks conducted by the IRA vs. Palestinian terror the more these organizations become drastically different. I'm not really into an argument here: The two aren't remotely close. Just look into the 2nd Intifata.
I don't know, a discrepancy of 400 civilian deaths is really the tipping point for me. Those 400 civilian deaths would mandate forced eviction of some people south of the currently established border and an air stike on the HQ of An Phoblacht in Dublin. (sarcasm)
The stuff you raised is largely irrelevant. The stated justification for the strikes is Israel defending itself against attacks on its soldiers and civilians, not punishing Hamas for being religious nutters who say crazy outrageous things. Otherwise, we should send planes into the deep south and bomb the Christian fundamentalist nuts.
Alabama mayor suggested 'killing out' gay people
"The only way to change it would be to kill the problem out. I know it's bad to say but with out [sic] killing them out there's no way to fix it."
I guess we're justified in bombing Alabama then.
On the other hand, the actions of the British Army during "Operation Banner" and the actions of the Israeli Armed Forces toward the Palestinians are also different, one should remember.
The British have rare examples of successes in counterinsurgency warfare (Oman, Malaya) and perhaps understand these things better. And it shows in how they dealt with North Ireland.
(British troops in their "Vietnam", during the Malayan emergency. Notice the difference between the whole narrative between the war in Vietnam and the war in Malaysia.)
The failure of Israel to understand this is a political one. It can be seen at best from the failed Lebanon occupation. As one military study puts it aptly:
We can cut through all the distractions. Is it ok to bomb civilian populations in which so-called terrorist operatives are embedded when these operatives present a threat (though a relatively low-level one compared to said bombings) to civilian lives on the opposing side? If it is, it should be OK in the case of both the IRA and HAMAS and their respective communites of origin. If it's not, it shouldn't, right?
“I knew Muhammed [Ishaq Hamid], he was a good man. He was shot and we hoped that he would recover, but he died in hospital. We were protesting not just about the killings taking place in Gaza but also what the Israelis are doing in Jerusalem, taking peoples’ homes. They will continue to try to take our land, and we will continue to resist back. There is no one helping us, so we need to stand up for ourselves.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hamas-gaza-abbas-ramallah-israel-b1853025.html
These, btw, are some of Bitconnect's cartoon terrorists who are so much worse than the IRA, Israel are justified in killing as many Palestinian civilians as necessary to take them out.
Again, dehumanization, racism, and bigotry, just the things he accuses the other side of, are what he himself appears to be steeped in. Same goes for the rest of the apologists. Please wake up to yourselves.
You're a ridiculous person.
I'll keep my failings rather than suffer yours, but that's neither here nor there. Your depiction of the Palestinian resistance was entirely one-sided, stereotyped, shallow and, yes, cartoonish. This is a sample of the side you'd rather not talk about. Both extremes are involved in fighting Israel and both are given similar treatment for it.
When you use that term it shows me that you have a complete inability to emphasize with Jewish victims of terrorism and don't ever, ever pretend otherwise.
This is classic projection. From my time on this site, and unlike you, I have the posts to prove it, what triggers me most is attacks on innocents, particularly children. It doesn't matter a hoot to me what color, religion, or ethnicity they are and for you to suggest it does is very distasteful to say the least. It just happens to be in this conflict that Israel is killing the vast majority of civilians and that is the topic of the thread.
Israel could disassemble its bomb shelters and anti-missile infrastructure so the kill counts would be more even, would you like that? It could also stop its blockade of Gaza so more weapons could be imported.
First read this. Your chance to retract is now.
Quoting Baden
I'm glad to hear that; try to be a little more sensitive with your language next time and don't accuse people of talking about "cartoon terrorists" when these terrorists are very real.
Define "using" as a human shield? If it extends to someone from Hamas entered your house therefore Israel has a right to kill you just to get at him then you may want to do a thought experiment of how you;d view the situation if a guerilla operative decided to use your home as shelter. I have a feeling though you are not trying. Try harder.
I don't think the comparison is appropriate with regards to "invading a house".
I was under the impression that Hamas was utilizing buildings in their sector to launch attacks where civilians lived in also and hadn't evacuated in time before their bombing.
I'm looking it up.
Obviously. It's your one-sided description which I objected to. If you want to justify Israel's response then you have to accurately describe who and what it is responding to. Not every member or supporter of Hamas is a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fanatic completely lacking in empathy (though some obviously are). And this was central to your attempt to forge a distinction between Hamas and the IRA and so a relevant point of contention.
Much of this thread has discussed this matter as though it is necessary to decide who is in the right. Hamas or Israel? When the only sensible answer is that they're both in the wrong. Even many of the critics of Israel seem to think we need to justify Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organisation, otherwise, we can't condemn Israel properly, this is not the case.
Yeah, but, taking the tenants hostage in your house isn't often mentioned when using it as a launching base for mortars and rockets towards Israel.
My one sided description of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I've never pretended to be a neutral bystander. I'm an American Jew with family in Israel and historical ties there.
If someone wants to claim neutrality that's their own delusion. What news sources do they watch? Who do they listen to? Who's story have they heard? Do they understand the region and its history and not just imposing their own cultural attitudes on Middle Eastern people?
I wouldn't dispute that but again, there are inconsistencies with how people view what's a justified response in contexts differing in little other of relevance apart from the ethnicities of those involved. Martin McGuinness was known to be the commander of the IRA by the British for years, for example, but in the end they couldn't even arrest him due to lack of evidence (i.e. respect for the rule of law). The idea that they would have sent planes in to bomb his house and kill him, his entire family and maybe his neighbours too is just ludicrous yet when Israel does exactly that, all of a sudden, it's not only not ludicrous, but justified. My thesis that racism, bigotry, Islamaphobia etc. is involved may be wrong. But there is a huge disparity in response compared to relatively small differences in context.
That's not how it works. Yes, we all have our conscious and unconscious biases, goes without saying, but If you're just here to rah rah for the Israelis because you relate to them more then you're openly admitting to not even attempting to engage in an ethical (philosophical) conversation.
That's not what I'm saying and I've had great, productive convos with several other posters here. And no, I'm not just here to "rah rah" for Israel. I'm providing a moderate Zionist voice in a discussion where that voice is often not represented.
Shawn, Israel has bombed civilian infrastructure, including media outlets, simply because they claim Hamas at some point, used that building. The bar is so low a dwarf wouldn't be able to limbo dance under it. They don't feel they even need the excuse of actively being attacked from there.
Providing a Zionist voice equals not engaging in the ethical debate. You can't, by definition, when your priority is not what is ethically correct, but giving voice to one side of the argument. It's disengenuous to pretend otherwise. I'm not providing a Palestininan voice here, for example, I'm trying to make an ethical argument. Period.
I am a Zionist and I was raised in a Zionist family and you don't get to tell me that my voice isn't valid. I don't think you understand Zionism. All it is is about affirming a Jewish homeland in Israel. It does not involve persecuting anyone.
Are you an Arab? What are you?
Your voice is valid, your arguments are not. And I don't believe I've made any judgements one way or the other on Zionism in this thread other than to state the obvious just now that it puts you on one side of the divide.
:lol:
Sorry I misread.
I've talked about ethics multiple times. You just don't like my position. Did you ever respond to this point I made?
I have talked about ethics in this thread on multiple occasions. Have you recanted your point about Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah that was from the misreading. I thought you were saying the Zionist perspective is invalid and once you go there you're in heavily anti-israel territory and I was wondering where you got this idea from. I'm sure it would be told in Arab households, but if you someone got it elsewhere I'd be interested to hear.
Yes, I did respond.
I don't know where you are getting these ideas. You seem to be responding to a cartoon version of me now. Slow down a bit.
Obviously, many Arab households would be anti-Zionist although if you look at the lack of support among Arab countries for Palestine, you might question the blanket presumption. Secondly, I'm Irish, which is one reason I brought up the IRA as an example.
I believe that those building were being utilized by Hamas to launch or gather intelligence. I don't really know all the details but, they were identified as housing weapons or intelligence gathering activities towards the end goal of launching rockets against Israel.
Ok that makes sense. I can see why people draw parallels between the IRA and the Palestinians and I know the Irish have been doing this for years, but it's just not the same thing. Have you ever been to Israel? The Middle East?
I hate to say it, but I would welcome IRA style terrorism as opposed to Palestinian terrorism in Israel.
Again, you realize how low that bar is? For example, a group of Hamas operatives go into a coffee shop and do some research. Days later, Israel blows it up killing a bunch of innocent civilians. They could (at least theoretically) use that excuse word for word. +There is usually no evidence provided to back up their claims.
Well, the reason for decimating a news station where Al Jazeera and the AP were is not up for disclosure. Yet, these tactics have been demonstrated by Hamas in the past, so, I think that counts.
Your vague glib statements give me the impression you really don't give a fuck and are just killing time again.
I think @ssu nailed it when he said that the narratives branched out in two completely separate ways. It's always useful to remember that the average citizen spends very little time thinking about politics, even within their own country, let alone a specific, smaller nation such as Israel. There's only space for a single paragraph of understanding at best, which is why "Hamas are terorists, Israel is just defending itself" is not necessarily a willfully ignorant representation but an understandable representation if we grant that a person is being informed about Israel via biased channels, with a very low amount of time researching or considering the topic beyond that. That being said, I have agreed with you, I suspect racism, anti-Islamic views, prejudice against the poor, all play their role. I think morality works like this in general, we don't apply it equally, we make exceptions based on our feelings. Public opinion for Gaza and Hamas, is extraordinarily low, for many reasons, this plays a big role.
Many unjust systems in history have been undone by the changing tide of the narrative, especially through peaceful protest. Like most things, it's complicated, it's not just because of racism, that's just one factor. When the narrative of Israel shifts, public opinion shifts. Personally, I feel discussions about Hamas usually just end up distracting from the reality of apartheid. Defenders of Israel use Hamas to derail the focus from Israel, same for mentions of anti-semitic violence in the US, all such things, just distractions and if these distractions become the narrative then Israel is off the hook in the eyes of the public.
I pretty much agree with this.
Which is quite something, though, isn't it? What if there was no "Jewish homeland" in Israel? That would seem to make quite a difference.
Obviously Israel doesn't have to send warplanes in to bomb civilian tower blocks or media centres or the families of Hamas operatives. Only a complete moron would think those responses were absolutely necessary. So, I think we agree their response has been unjustified
That argument isn't part of the topic of the thread and I'm not interested in having it. I've got a specific on-topic point to pursue here. Start a new thread if you want.
Earlier you asked for a source here it is:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993
Over 1362 killed since 2000 and this list is not updated for 2021 with only 1 dead.
Around 3000 killed by Palestinian terror attacks since Israel became a state. I'd be so happy if the Palestinian terrorists started picking out mostly legitimate targets like the IRA. If the IRA was dropped into Gaza it would the moderate voice that is loved by Israel.
Biased sources are not acceptable in any serious debate. I wouldn't present a Palestinian website as evidence of Palestinian casualties, for example, and I doubt you'd accept it. Having said that, the extra numbers wouldn't make any significant difference in terms of our discussion anyway.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I very much doubt it. The IRA were always 100% behind the Palestinians.
Sure they'd have been behind the Palestinans but Israel would have made peace with them in a second and simply withdrew. It's not that easy with Hamas. You don't get it, it's not just about withdrawal from Gaza and the WB. We have no bases or troops or settlements in Gaza to begin with.
Tim, you are babbling. The argument is not whether Israel "had to" kill civilians or target civilian buildings in the way that they did. They chose to. For example, they did not "have to" bomb the media building housing the Associated Press. It was part of a strategic response. If you're going to argue that they are not justified in doing that because they didn't have to, you cannot justify any strategic response. So, you move up a level and discuss what of their choices (none of which they "have to" take by definition) are jusified and what are not and why. My approach has been to try to short circuit the intuitive support for Israel's actions based on an analogy that tends to evoke a different intuitive response but, in substance, is similar. If we take away the words "Israel", "the IRA", "Hamas", "the Irish", "The Palestinians" etc, we maybe meet in the middle and at least agree that you need more than "party A once used a building for some unspecified military purpose" to justify party B bombing and killing innocent civilians in party A's community who happen to be in that building. Can we get that much common ground?
Not following the discussion except sporadically, and just quote-grabbing this one sentence in case I'm missing some context. But didn't the Israelis give sufficient warning for everyone to get out of that building first so that no live would be lost? And wasn't the building used for CURRENT and not just past Hamas terrorist activities? And what kind of news gather organization is AP if they don't know they're sharing a building with a terrorist organization? And finally, didn't AP say last year that reporters shouldn't get worked up over property damage? They said that when BLM and Antifa were burning down small businesses. Guess it all depends on whose building is destroyed.
Thanks, feel free to heap abuse.
Very humanitarian. :roll:
Also, its good that Israel destroyed these bookstores, because it's not like it's of a peice with Israel's effort to descimate things like educational infrastructure (or literally any other social support infrastructure for that matter) in Gaza more broadly or anything:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-bookshop-bombed-israel-palestine-b1851330.html
A small peice in the larger exercise of genocide and dehumanization.
What, you wouldn't want to know if your house was going to be destroyed? At least you get to live.
That's honorable. . .
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What slackers. If Palestinians would only up their game and kill as many Israelis as Israelis have killed them – 1 for 1 – maybe the Israelis would then have the incentives they need to end the occupation, apartheid & ethnic cleasing oppression of Palestinian families & communities. :chin:
Georgia doing some good lately.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1396869240913678338[/tweet]
Same modus operandus as the IRA, in fact. Though the IRA were much more consistent in giving warnings and killed far less civilians than Israel has.
So, you would be happy for ANTIFA to burn down your house as long as you're given a warning. Off-topic. But, ok, check.
Aren't the KKK underdogs? Shouldn't you be rooting for them? They're not the powerful force they use to be. Something something David's slingshot.
If they were underdogs would you support them? Maybe they pick a few random blacks to murder for no reason, but don't sweat it it's just David's slingshot against bloody Goliath.
You'd condone white folks murdering black folks in a black-dominated society? Holy shit you actually bit the bullet on this one.
You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone.
:rofl:
I was offended before because I thought you were only applying your perspective here to Israel, but now that I see you'd throw your own family under the bus I'm less offended and more bemused. You sure did bite that bullet. +1 for philosophical integrity.
This is not what any major religion instructs, by the way. Where are you getting these ideas? Source?
Note the MO btw: East Germany, Japan, Ireland, The US - literally anything to divert attention away from Israel's ethnic cleansing. Don't fall for it. He is incapable of talking about Israel. Because his sophistries simply cannot address the real life genocide at work; they only work - and even then transparently and impotently - in the realm of sheer fantasy and imagined history.
"Fantasy imaginarium" is a productive and useful exercise because it allows us to flush out ideas and rules and apply them to a variety of circumstances, something that you struggle with. Say what you want about 180, but the man has consistent principles that he's willing to apply seriously which is more than I can say about you.
Principles of justice resist favoritism. It's not just philosophical integrity, it's ethical integrity that the same rules apply to everybody equally. Your relationship to a perpretrator ought to be entirely irrelevant as to judging his or her actions. That's why we insist on impartial judges for instance.
And 180 indeed doesn't play identity politics, because he's not a moral black hole.
Ok but civilians aren't perpetrators. 180 refuses to condemn any method used by the oppressed class to gain equality so he turns a blind eye to civilian murder. If you followed our discussion this goes as far as him theoretically refusing to condemn the race-driven murder of his own family if they're in the "oppressor" class.
Imagine thinking Palestinians want 'equality' and not Israel to stop their ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Ok, so you're arguing for guily by association where it concerns Palestinians, because Hamas' actions are the "method used by the oppressed class" but insist on there being innocent civilians on the oppressor's side - because...?
Uhmm... try again?
And before you try again, the "method used by the oppressed class" is a reaction to oppression. You cannot decontextualise what is happening from the ongoing oppression. The worst the oppression, the acquiescience by society at large, the looking the other way or just not caring about "the other" the more moral responsibility for the cause of such violence rests with the oppressor - which in this case is Israel.
If you actively and wilfully create a situation where you increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, don't feign surprise or moral indignation when you are confronted with such an outcome. And since Israel by far has the most influence on the circumstances and wilfully refuses to deal with the Palestinians as an equal negotiation partner for peace, it reaps what it sows.
Israel has no moral standing here, you cannot claim victimhood when you're the oppressor. It has no right to defend itself against a people resisting oppression even if their means aren't always legal and it certainly does not have a right to collectively punish a civilian population, which it has been doing for over 14 years now. It's as if you would repeatedly punch me in the stomach and then complain foul because I kick you in the nuts and then proceed to claim "self defence" as you start hitting me in the face as well.
I've never said Palestinians are "guilty by association." This just isn't my position so I'm not going to respond in more detail. I don't have anything against the Palestinian people as a whole, but terrorist groups embed themselves within the population which puts Israel in a very difficult spot militarily.
You seem to just refuse to acknowledge that this "terrorism" doesn't happen in a vacuum. What was earlier: Israeli occupation, annexation and oppression or Hamas? Tik tok.
Israeli oppression, occupation and annexation are what put Israel in a difficult spot and you're whining about having to deal with the consequences of Israeli war crimes and illegal acts. You don't have moral standing, Israel is not a victim, it does not have a right of self defence against the people it oppresses. Israel is a war criminal and every day the occupation, oppression and annexation continue, you don't have any right to complain about whatever the Palestinians do especially when what they do is a fraction of the violence perpetrated by the oppressor itself. I would start considering Palestinian violence an issue as a problematic means, when the numbers would be reversed and even then their cause would still be just. Israel has neither a just cause nor does it exercise just means.
Any nation has the right to sanction other governments that threaten it or wish it harm or fund terrorism. We do the same with Iran, and I don't hate the Iranian people. We sanction Russia, but I don't hate the Russian people. We've sanctioned a number of nations in the past and it has to do with the ruling body, not the people. In the case of Hamas the blockade is for security reasons.
Quoting Benkei
Israel hasn't annexed Gaza. I'll admit to you that I need to do a deeper dive between the history in that region between '67 and '89 or so but it doesn't change the fact that if we want peace we need to be forward-looking as opposed to playing this game of X caused Y which caused Z, but X was a totally independent, free action undertaken by the enemy and that is the cause of all of our problems and that happened 50 years ago.
If you have any good, neutral resources on the history in Gaza between '67 and maybe '89 or so I'd be happy to watch or read. If you're seriously interested in peace we need to be looking forward.
Quoting Benkei
Where does this come from? Which moral theory? Which great thinker? Maybe the New Testament, book of 180proof? Do not intentionally murder innocents, full stop. So I'm not suppose to complain as my people are getting murdered... I'm not even entitled to that privilege according to you.
If the Dutch military was overseas as they were in '09-'10 and one day a 5 year old Dutch boy was murdered by a terrorist should I tell you that you have no right to complain or be sad? Is it just reasonable blowback to be expected?
Quoting Benkei
What does this even mean? Isn't "war criminal" a label for an individual? It doesn't make sense to say that an entire nation is a war criminal. You're fighting a windmill here.
God's teeth. What a horrible law, or I suppose I should say set of laws, since it appears more than half of the states in our Glorious Union have adopted similar provisions.
Yes, it is quite something. However, there are plenty of backgrounds to which a Jewish homeland in modern day Israel likely sounds quite innocuous - after all, I wouldn't be offended at the idea of, e.g. a Kurdish homeland. Zionism is actually very flexible and you'll get different ideas about the extent of the state or the nature of the government so it certainly can be offensive if framed in highly discriminately, right-wing terms but it need not be.
It strikes me that without the assumption that the disputed land is the Jewish homeland, though, much of the claim that Israel was rightly created, and therefore is entitled to the land in question, isn't as defensible. Israel's existence and location would in that case have been imposed on a population opposing it--by colonial powers, in fact. Acquisition of territory by force and conquest is hardly unusual, of course, but I think the conflict considered as a case of a nation being created and imposed in a disputed area is one thing, and considered as a case of a return to a homeland is another.
This is what happens when your glorious union is a pair of arms dealers and a hedge fund in a trench coat.
That's interesting. For some, loyalty to friends and loved ones really does trump wider considerations, for others it doesn't. And some are conflicted, and reluctantly and ashamedly prioritise loved ones over doing what they feel is right.
I think war is morally dubious and those that only look at the moral justifications typically are the culprits for the war in the first place. Bombing civilians isn't an OK thing and counterproductive...if your objective is to find a solution to the conflict, that is. Sometimes that isn't the objective.
IF you want to win a counter-insurgency, you first HAVE TO UNDERSTAND that no matter how successful you are in military operations, to win YOU NEED A POLITICAL SOLUTION in a counter-insurgency. Or then just wish that the other side utterly dismantles itself by alienating it's supporters from the cause. (Or then there's the Algerian example) Sounds simple, but some people really, really, don't get it. They just assume that talking about a political settlement is just political window dressing for liberals or so. They believe the war propaganda. Yet counter-insurgency is totally different from a conventional war where one side might choose a diplomatic settlement if it is clearly loosing. Insurgencies typically don't go that way.
These people who favour a military solution only, usually the so-called "hawks", become fixated on simply the warfare aspect, getting the "murderous" terrorists, creating lists of targets and military sounding objectives. The "no-nonsense" approach in their minds. Largely this is to uphold the "hawk" image typically for domestic reasons. Yet they really think that killing or jailing every member or supporter of the movement will solve the problem. Well, that might succeed if the "terrorists" or the so-called "insurgency" is a small alienated cabal of 17 members of a death cult that is so mental that people cannot understand why the 16 follow the leader. Yet that doesn't apply to an insurgencies we are talking about. Especially when you create the reasons for the insurgency by an apartheid system in the case of Israel. You might kill and jail every leader and activist, but then that leads just to a new generation coming after that.
The reason why this is so difficult to understand is a) people don't think it through or b) they either support one side or are so morally outraged of some action that they cannot fathom a political solution. Hence they think they that the other side can be and ought to be bombed into submission. By dehumanization, you can get people to think like this.
And of course then there are c) those politicians who have as their objective not to stop conflict, but gain power and political success personally by perpetrating the conflict. Their objective is to make any enemy equivalent to the "alienated death cult cabal" or, at worst, to create one, if the insurgency otherwise could find international and domestic support and understanding.
Still in the end, you need a political solution.
:up: This is the thing that was understood from the start by the British. Even by right-wingers like Thatcher. They talked tough but were always keeping lines of communication open and looking for compromises. Eventually they found one. Israel's strategy is baffling except as an attempt to maintain the conflict for as long as possible as cover for expansions of settlements, expulsions, and further encroachments.
It is. But they can only get away with these "wars" in so far as the US allows it. For the US, the settlements aren't aren't much of a problem, occasional rhetoric aside.
It is somewhat curious that they pound Gaza every X amount of years. By now, popular opinion is very much against them. And regardless of anti-BDS laws or propaganda campaigns, I think they've essentially lost the PR war. They can't get that back anymore.
But the situation in terms of the massacres, not the occupation necessarily, may only change if the US becomes firm with Israel and tells them to stop these massacres or we cut out military aid.
And even then, given how nationalistic Israel is right now, it's not clear that they would acquiesce on settlements, though they would have to give up on Gaza assaults.
Samson option and what that implies may become a factor. Hopefully not.
I do not get something here. I know Israeli's who actually served in the Israeli military and they do not defend the Israeli bombing raids. Not that you cannot defend Israel, but this argument above is rather silly right? Isn't the point of ethical debate that based on argument you establish a certain position and not based on heritage? If that is not possible we can do away with rational discussion or law altogether. Any defendant may come up to me and say "yeah I committed this or that crime but you do not know what it is like to be brought up in this or that neighborhood go to this or that school".
I do not see what your heritage has to do with the position you take. You basically seem to hold the position that your heritage compels you to side with the members of your community against its enemies. You just appeal to heritage as a source of community in which only friends and enemies exist. Now, who else made such a claim?
Hey Tobias, if a gunman told to choose between saving your mother's life or the life of a complete stranger, would you pretend to be an impartial observer? How about if it was your son? Would you reason "oh well, two humans both have equal moral value etc. etc." At the end of the day you choose to save your mother/family (right??). There's nothing wrong with that. You have duties to your family.
In just the same way, the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't some abstract philosophical thought experiment to me; it's deeply personal and I have family living over there that I visit. My position isn't entirely due to my heritage and in the past I had a phase where I was anti-Israel.
Of course we can talk about the ethics of the conflict and I'd agree that Israel has certainly fallen short some times. You'll find plenty of depravity on both sides. I don't think it's an evil entity however that deserves to be wiped out which is a common view in the Middle East.
No I would not, I can also make some ethical sense of familial duties, but I would not confuse ethics and affection. Let's say there is an ethical debate whether the king or my son deserves to be treated for corona first. I would obviously shout "my son my son"! But no one would debate with me because what I am talking about is affection. My opinion would actually carry no value in the debate. If such is the case for you in this conflict than we need to talk no further. Your capabilities to reason are compromised by affection, just as mine would be in the scenario you present to me.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I hope the best for your family. No it is no thought experiment it is an actual conflict. As a lawyer I would in such case advise you to withdraw and not pass judgment., because you cannot be impartial. The second part of your sentence is difficult to grasp. Your position isn't entirely due to your heritage, you were anti-Israel and now you are pro. But I'd think in a thread where a normative judgement is required one leaves their affectionate ties at the doorstep. Or one gives the caveat that the opinion presented is compromised by affective ties. I would say, lay out your pro-Israel arguments without recourse to your own personal commitments. Those arguments can be considered. For the other part, the writers will not pass judgment I would think because they realize your arguments are not ethical but personal and there is no point in arguing about one's personal commitments.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel. Even a good entity may find itself on the wrong side of the (moral or international) law. That there is plenty of depravity on both sides I agree. the point is that superior weaponry brings superior responsibility. I rather have a depraved person opposite to me wielding a potato peeler then one wielding a smith & Wesson. I am allowed by law to use less force against the person with the potato peeler than I am against the one using a Smith & Wesson.
Alright, so lets let the "impartial" observers handle it then. And who would those be? Americans? Europeans? Which ones? Do Indians have a say? How about the Chinese? If Israel obeys some in the West and loosens security, who pays the price when blood is spilled? It's all very well and good to say that Israel shouldn't blockade Gaza, but who pays the price when heavy weaponry is imported from Iran? In any case I'm fine with the West stepping in to help with the process and make suggestions, but we'd like a say too.
I have the self-awareness to admit that I'm partial; I just wish that that the West would realize that they approach the issue through their own biased cultural lenses as well. The Middle East geopolitically should not be treated like Europe. It is not analogous to the struggle between the British and the IRA. It is an extremely complicated issue with a very long history, intense hatreds, constantly shifting borders, and religious fundamentalism thrown in the mix. The stakes are extremely high and I don't have the luxury to take a step back from my own people. If your people were being attacked and under constant threat, I would not tell you to take a step back.
Quoting Tobias
Israel's neighbors have used this type of language constantly since Israel's inception. It's luckily simmered down a little now and progress has been made, but historically this was a very big concern. The environment in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - Israel's formative years - was different from today (but how much have things really changed? Who knows.)
Consider that during the Eichmann trial of 1961 there was a huge outpouring of support for Eichmann in the Arab press and that many Arab nationalists were close with the Nazis during the war. You think these attitudes just go away? The Middle East is today the most anti-Semitic region on the planet with 93% of Palestinians holding some degree of anti-Semitic views. I simply can't take it for granted that modern Arab nationalists don't share these historical sympathies. So sure maybe most Westerners are fine with Israel existing but that attitude is hardly universal.
"Ireland’s government has supported a parliamentary motion condemning Israel’s “de facto annexation” of Palestinian land in what it said was the first use of the phrase by an EU government in relation to Israel.
The foreign minister, Simon Coveney, backed the motion on Tuesday and condemned what he described as Israel’s “manifestly unequal” treatment of the Palestinian people. The draft will be debated on Wednesday evening.
“The scale, pace and strategic nature of Israel’s actions on settlement expansion and the intent behind it have brought us to a point where we need to be honest about what is actually happening on the ground ... It is de facto annexation,” Coveney told parliament.
“This is not something that I, or in my view this house, says lightly. We are the first EU state to do so. But it reflects the huge concern we have about the intent of the actions and, of course, their impact.”
...
Coveney also insisted on adding a condemnation of recent rocket attacks on Israel by the Palestinian militant group Hamas before he agreed to government support for the motion, which had been tabled by the opposition Sinn Féin party. “The acts of terror by Hamas and other militant groups ... should not ever be justified,” Coveney said."
:up:
But this is where many disagree. It's not complicated at all. The facts on the ground are there for everyone to see. The Apartheid laws are there for everyone to read. It's complicated for you because you're conflicted which is a result of your affection.
You're tell me that many disagree that the question of a Jewish homeland is complicated and long lasting? Maybe many Europeans who have no personal or familial involvement, but ask any Arab or Jew and the timeline becomes in the thousands of years because that's how long there's been a Jewish presence in the area which began with a Kingdom in around 1000 BC. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the ruins of the Second Temple.
Just to be clear, are you applying the apartheid point to the treatment of the Palestinians or the treatment of Israeli Arabs?
Palestinians and Non-Jewish Israelis.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, useless religious crap I really don't give a shit about. As if any of that would even remotely justify anything happening now.
I don't expect you to give a shit about it because it's not your people. The issue just begins for you, suddenly, in 1947 or so (or even '67 for some!!). You're like a 5 year old who wanders into a giant toy store wondering how it all came to be and comes across two older children fighting over something (what are they fighting over exactly? many westerners don't know.) I'm not trying to be mean here it was just best analogy I could think of for how many Westerners approach the issue.
Passing judgment on situation X is something different then solving situation X. In a philosophy forum the purpose is to discuss the ethical merits of a given situation or solution, not solving that situation. What I was trying to understand is what the beef was between you and the other posters and now I know, you do not enter into ethical debate at all. Perhaps you want to solve the situation, but than I would advise joining the Israeli or American diplomatic corps.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
They do and that is why it is so important to find some common ground along the lines of ethical argumentation. I am not here actually to defend or attack Israel. I do recognize the existential threat to Israel, and of course the eternal victimization of Jewish people everywhere should also be factored in when passing judgment (however not on individual acts I daresay) but the question remains whether Israeli actions are right or wrong. That is the purpose of this thread. It is a matter of argumentation about right and wrong, but you seem bent on confusing identity with argument.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What you tell us to do is entirely uninteresting because you do not matter one bit. (neither do I). What might be relevant is whether you are right in your advice or not and if so why / why not. You seem to have some odd idea that the truth value of an argument is dependent on who utters it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You are misquoting me. I do not contest that Israels neighbours have such feelings. What I said was this:
"I think you misinterpret the position of your adversaries in this thread. I do not think anyone holds Israel to be 'an evil entity'. What they criticize are the actions and policies of Israel."
I said nothing about other countries. In fact I know anti-semitism among Arab nations runs high. I wonder why you actually misquote, if it is a mistake, it is silly but such things happen, if it is deliberate it is wrong and foul play to say the least.
The only reason people bring up these bullshit religious claims, on both sides, is to argue for an absolute claim at the exclusion of others. These have to be rejected for the obvious fact that it denies rights of those currently living there and because it's obvious nothing can be resolved when arguing from within two different paradigms!
Do you think Apartheid in SA ended because people dredged up 1000 of years of bullshit?
So when's the cut off year? Maybe year 1500? That sounds like a good number. In any case, I'm not expecting you to care. It's a purely religious-cultural issue and it's a big one in Judaism. If your people were expelled 1000 years ago or so from their homes and were trying to migrate back why should I care? Even if it was more recent like 200 years ago would you expect the rest of the world to care? What would you say if I told you the cut off was 150 years and anything before that was too far back and doesn't matter. I don't know much about Dutch culture, does the land you're on mean anything to you?
Jewish culture and religion is centered around the land of Israel, particularly Jerusalem.
What about 1948 for the people of Palestine ? Completely asymmetrical application of principles.
What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid.
Yes, it just also has the unintended consequence of justifying Palestinian right to return. If deprivation of your people's historic home is the benchmark for being justified to return there, it applies equally as well to the Palestinians ousted or displaced by the policies of the state of Israel.
I think most Palestinians actually fled in '48 and for good reason - they thought the Arab countries were about to make a graveyard out of the place. Some were expelled by Israel, but others were advised or ordered by their leaders to flee.
Maybe Israel can begin a discussion about compensation when Arab countries agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews who were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 (and lets not forget compensating all the descendants.) Or when the Palestinians apologize for attacking Israel in '47-'48 with militias before their Arab neighbors. They could also compensate Israel.
Jerusalem? It was Aelia Capitolina for centuries after Hadrian had a Roman city built on what was left by the legions of Titus after they annihilated most of it and the Second Temple about sixty years before Hadrian's time. I've stood at Titus' arch close to the Forum and gazed on the relief showing men of the legions carrying the spoils of the Temple, including the Menorah, in the joint triumph celebrated in his name and that of Vespasian, his father. The land stopped being called Judea during Hadrian's reign as well. It was merged with the province of Syria and became part of Syria Palaestina. "Judea" wasn't used again until Israel started using it in the 20th century.
My point is simply that, as I noted in a prior post, this region has been occupied and governed by many, many people who weren't Jews over thousands of years. Some of those people lived there for many years indeed. So, while Jews may feel they have a special claim to or association with the region, others may reasonably feel that they don't or that they themselves have a similar claim. For me, as I don't think God conveyed real estate to anyone, it follows from this that the claim it is the Jewish "homeland" isn't persuasive and forms no basis or justification for the existence of Israel. Therefore, it shouldn't be a consideration in any conflict between Israel and anyone else. Do you think it should?
Which war crime do you want to talk about in particular? I have nothing against condemning war crimes when they actually occurred: Deir Yassin, for instance -- I condemn that fully.
Quoting Benkei
The Jews back in the 20s and 30s didn't have the means to kill, oppress, or annex Arab lands. On the contrary, they were the ones being murdered in Arab lands through pogroms during a time (1930s) when many Arabs openly supported and sympathized with the Nazi regime. Look into the 1929 Hebron massacre where Arabs went house-to-house killing Jews with household items and gardening tools.
The main, practical intention of the state of Israel is simply to prevent things like this.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.
In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too.
That's one good way how to think of it.
And other thing is that they focus their message on two special audiences: the US and the religious zealots. Perhaps just in the same way that the Arab side focuses their rhetoric on the Arab street, not to other countries and officials. And this makes the discourse in the Middle East so bellicose and utterly aggressive. Also do notice that if anywhere else we discuss security policy, we see sides building deterrences, making moves and countermoves while in the Middle East the other side is portrayed as utterly mad crazies capable of doing anything. End of story: trying to even understand the other side is deplorable, it simply can't because it's evil. Hence if in Europe some developments are found "troubling" or "deeply troubling", equivalent developments in the Middle East are "an existential threat" and "give rise to an imminent war".
And then there are all the armed groups and proxies. Having proxies to fight your wars and / or bombing a proxy of your opponent is totally normal.
What is the actual difference between Palestinians and Israeli Arabs than a passport?
Haste try to divide et impera?
From a legal standpoint, one is an Israeli citizen entitled to Israeli legal rights and the other is not. The Israeli Arabs were just the ones who stayed in Israel during the Independence war.
These kind of discussions are therefore completely redundant. They are just the inflation and propagation of fiction.
Anybody could be invalidated by other peoples false beliefs.
Alright fair enough - I think we could do both though.
It can be sometimes difficult to apply a moral lens to this sort of low intensity warfare & actual warfare but we can do our best.
When it comes to matters of national security, e.g. whether Israel was justified in their pre-emptive strike on Egyptian airfields in '67 applying an ethical analysis of the issue seems out of place. If an enemy mobilizes and surrounds your camp are you allowed to strike? Is that "ethical?"
Quoting Tobias
There are somethings I can certainly say are wrong - massacres, for instance. Security measures such as house raids or bulldozing suicide bombers homes are not so clear.
You could crucify any group or any country like this. Was the North in the American Civil War squeaky clean morality-wise? Of course not. Sure, we can talk about what they did wrong but to only focus on their wrongs and not the crimes of the South does seem dubious. You'd get a very slanted picture of the Civil War if that's all you were presented with.
Part of the problem is also that philosophers like to conceive of morality as ahistorical and this results in 21st century people sitting on their nice couches or chairs behind computer screens judging individuals in an environment and historical circumstance that they just do not know and will never know. I guess this is a question of responsibility or blame which is different from morality. These issues are obviously closely related though.
And even beyond this - which morality are we to judge them by? Utilitarianism? Ethical Egoism? Whether the country is "being nice?"
Quoting Tobias
Could you expand on this a little? I know that I've gravitated towards a certain relativism here. I wasn't sure that I went that far but I might have so please let me know.
Quoting Tobias
There are posters who have waddled into that territory. In my mind there's no real difference between "constantly does evil" and "is evil." There are plenty of posters who have described Israel as being essentially a constantly evil force. Posters here have accused Israel of genocide constantly which is the epitome of evil in my book. Scroll back a little and you'll see plenty of these Israel-Nazi comparisons.
I am unaware of what I wrote that this is in reference to. I oppose Antifa and regard them as the modern incarnation of Hitler's brownshirts, government-sanctioned thugs who did what the government wasn't able to openly do. And FWIW I attended many Occupy protests (as an observer and amateur photographer, not so much a participant) and toward the end, saw the rallies taken over by Antifa and the "black bloc." Thousands of people would demonstrate peacefully during the day, and after dark the Antifa thugs would smash store windows and set fires in the street. What's changed since then is that back then, the MSM publicized the Antifa violence to discredit the peaceful protests. Now, MSM downplays and even denies the violence. I think that's a very bad sign.
That said, I have no idea what your remark meant or what it pertained to.
Every time they collectively punish Palestinians, every time they annex land. In other words, more or less continuous.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Which I have previously defended but to think this is mutually exclusive with Palestinian security from Israeli violence simply doesn't follow.
Lasting peace is not established under the heel of a boot. Israel could be the saviour of Palestinians too and have true lasting peace and an ally in the region - if it would concern itself with a just solution. Since that will never happen in a country where over 50% think non-Jews are inferior, we'll be stuck with this unless the international community intervenes. My hope is there and the Irish statement is a good beginning.
Not at all out of place. Quite necessary I would think from the point of view of 'just war' theory. On a smaller scale it is a matter that lawyers and judges need to deal with very frequently.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Bulldozing houses seems very clear to me. A security measure is not a security measure just because it is worded so. By definition the suicide bomber is dead and the threat has dissipated. What sort of 'security' does bulldozing a family house bring? It is in fact collective punishment, reprisal on a population which runs contrary to established legal principle namely that punishment is a response to a crime. Of course security measures are allowed, but this comes down to punishment.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Probably not, but if you want to attack Americans for their black pages in history the genocide on the Amerindians (or native Amercans whichever term you prefer) is an easier target. However, two wrongs do not make a right. So Israels actions do not suddenly become moral because those of the Americans in preceding centuries were immoral.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If that argument flies no one can judge anything. However, it does not fly. If you are mugged in the subway the perpetrator will provided he is caught, be punished irrespective of his intractable historical circumstance. We punish him because we think mugging you is wrong. We recognise each other's pain and are capable of discerning suffering from pleasure. A historical situation makes behaviour understandable, maybe even excusable, but not right or justified.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Whatever moral theory you might like and presents a cogent argument for your position.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I do not think I need to expand much. When you say "well I have family in Israel and so that is why I embrace the position that Israel did not commit war crimes" you do that. You apparently hold the position that whether or not country X committed war crimes is dependent on whether the parties have relatives on country X.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes of course there is a difference. Being evil is a characteristic of a person or entity and doing evil is judgment passed on an action. Now saying "Israel constantly does evil" is a bit of a silly statement, eveil to whom? Every moment of the day etc. But I do not think anyone said that. Secondly that was not what you said when quoting me, you were implying I overlooked Arab anti-semitism.
Some posters accuse Israel of genocide, and this could be true or not. There are internationally established definitions for when to call a certain action genocidal. It is a heinous war crime but it is something else than calling an entity essentially evil, because that is a metaphysical statement. I do think we are at the heart of the matter though. You feel personally offended an feel like you should defend yourself because you and your loved ones are being called evil by implication. However, I do not think that is what is at stake.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-un/un-rights-chief-bachelet-says-israeli-strikes-on-gaza-may-be-war-crimes-idUSKCN2D80YQ
And of course the real issue is that these Palestinians, who officially aren't even called Palestinians but Arab israelis, do face discrimination in the country even if being citizens.
You frequently throw dozens of potential issues out there for me to address and it's just not worth it for me. When I address one you just move onto something else.
Quoting Benkei
Israel could be the savior of the Palestinian people if it packs up and leaves or agrees to subjugate themselves under Arab rule. You don't get it - this isn't about Gaza. This isn't about the West Bank. The majority position of the Palestinians is that they want all of Palestine, from the river to the sea. Why can't you understand that the problem doesn't solely lay with Israel?
Also source on the 50% figure?
Quoting ssu
What sort of discrimination and who is it coming from? There's a difference institutional racism and racists acts by individuals. I never noticed Arabs being banned from certain places or services when I was in Israel. Arabs have strong representation in government (20%) in Israel and are allowed to vote and I believe should be equal under the law. There are tons of Arabs in high positions in Israeli society. That said I don't know anything about, e.g. the housing industry over there.
If you come to this discussion it's assumed you know the facts. Apparently you don't. I already linked the Amnesty International report. Good moment to educate yourself.
The latest attacks on Gaza was collective punishment, which Israeli does almost every time in an escalation.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Jezus, 48 pages and you aren't paying attention are you? This has been explained as nauseum. One group is oppressed the other isn't. Oppressors don't get to play the victim card, your don't get to whine about existential threat when you have a nuclear arsenal. It's just bullshit and an excuse. Also, most Palestinians are willing to compromise as reported in your bloody link!
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
https://www.haaretz.com/1.4813183
Our Wikipedia :
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) published reports documenting racism in Israel, and the 2007 report suggested that anti-Arab racism in the country was increasing. One analysis of the report summarized it thus: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."[15] The 2008 report from ACRI says the trend of increasing racism is continuing.[16] An Israeli minister charged the poll as biased and not credible.[17] The Israeli government spokesman responded that the Israeli government was "committed to fighting racism whenever it raises it ugly head and is committed to full equality to all Israeli citizens, irrespective of ethnicity, creed or background, as defined by our declaration of independence".[17] Isi Leibler of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs argues that Israeli Jews are troubled by "increasingly hostile, even treasonable outbursts by Israeli Arabs against the state" while it is at war with neighboring countries.
And its laws cause institutionalised racism as well, hence my qualification of Israel as an Apartheid state. Passports have different issue dates for Jewish Israelis, number plates for Jewish Israelis are different, land laws apply differently to Jewish Israelis and non - Jewish Israelis. Quite frankly, where it comes to racism, it's one of the shittiest countries in the world.
The data is a little old and was taken not too long after the second intifata but I'll let it slide. In any case, I can play this game as well -- and you know I can -- simply by citing data on the Palestinians' attitudes on Jews. It goes both ways, agree? I cited earlier that 93% of Palestinians hold anti-Semitic views and trust me I could go further. Does this surprise you? It shouldn't.
I've never denied racism in Israel.
Quoting Benkei
Israel cannot impose peace. It is not possible. The leadership of both parties must sign on to the agreements. It must come from both sides. The attitude that all of Palestine must be reclaimed for the Palestinians is widespread among Palestinians and serves as a significant obstacle for peace, do you agree? It is not just the Israelis.
[/i]Quoting Benkei
The latest attacks on Gaza were in response to Hamas launching thousands of rockets at Israel.
No, I don't agree. It's quite clear the 1967 borders are acceptable to a majority of Palestinians, even Hamas hardliners, which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. There's a difference between wanting and compromising.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's no justification for a war crime.
Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.
The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR.
Quoting Benkei
If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.)
This is getting tiresome. First, I reject Israel has a right to defend itself as long as it occupies, oppresses and annexes land. Currently, the Netherlands is not doing any of these things to Belgians. Second, even if I accept it has such a defence, I can defend but I'm not allowed to collectively punish people.
As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours.
If our tribes were at war and I was launching missiles from my home or a school don't you think that puts you in kind of a tough spot when it comes to a retalitatory strike? What I'd be doing, by the way, I believe is a war crime.
Israel does not 'retaliate' - it hunts down resistance to its settler schemes with no thought given to who gets hurt in the process: in fact the more hurt the better, so as the break the will of its already devastated victims. This is the only way to explain the cruelty according to which it acts at every point. It is a predator state which cries victim any time its subject population dares show any sign of resistance, all the better to continue the cycles of misery which it deliberately propagates.
Israel is not a victim here. It's an Apartheid state and commits war crimes more or less continuously. It has exactly zero moral standing to claim self-defence vis-a-vis the people on the receiving end of those laws and crimes. That Hamas does something that is wrong, is exactly zero justification for Israel to do something wrong as well especially when everything it does is originally contaminated by the original crime of oppression and annexation.
Also, you do realise the right of return is a human right? So you want to deny Palestinians human rights because it would be a logistical nightmare? I really don't give a shit that the consequences of crimes are inconvenient to the perpetrator.
Alright, I'll respond to this analogy. I ignored it at first because it's a little vague so I'll attempt to clarify.
If we were both US citizens I would absolutely not be entitled to kill you if you killed my daughter. You would just be charged with a crime.
But if it's a conflict between two groups then, yes, ideally we only target the murderer/attacker but in reality this is simply not possible. Even if we struck a legitimate military target such as base, there are still plenty of civilians living and working there. There is simply no way to avoid civilian casualties in war and that's a universal fact about war/conflict.
If RoR is a human right then Israel has a right to Gaza and the West Bank because that's what the original Hebrew kingdom encompassed before they were kicked out.
In any case if we're going to go with this we can begin discussions when the Arab nations agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews that were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 as well as all of their descendants. Do they get their homes back? How about their property? Is England or Spain going to compensate us and give Jews their land back when they were expelled centuries ago? Why should Israel fall on the sword and destroy itself when virtually no other nation has done this? Make no mistake about it, full RoR means chaos and destruction of Israel. It means over 5 million moving back a country of 9 million. Arabs are now the majority and can shape the country as they want, and if that means killing or subjugating Jews so be it. Maybe at that point you'd be sympathetic to the Jews and the Jews become the "oppressed minority" but as a Jew I'd rather not take that path even if it is truly "righteous" or whatever.
It's like if you and your neighbor got into a fight and both of you were at fault and you appeared before a judge and the judge only ordered one side to compensate, but not the other and said: "this discussion is only about your wrongs, stop trying to change the subject."
Ok, where do we start?
How about the systemic discrimination based upon legislation:
Then of course the downgrade of Arabic being an official language to only have "special status". (Something that would cause a total outrage in a bi-lingual country as mine)
Then there are things like education:
Then there is the political reality of Arab Israeli political organizations in Israel:
And then there are the feelings toward Palestinians by the Jewish population:
And the list continues...on and on.
Perhaps people who discuss institutional racism in the US ought to compare things to Israel. And we are not even talking about the people that lived on the land that Israel annexed later...the "Palestinians", as if these Palestinians were not Palestinians, but just Arabs living in Israel. The idea is simply crazy: the idea that the same people only subjugated in two different wars that were separated only by 19 years creates different people. It's only divide et impera-move and an attempt to apply smoke and mirrors.
- Israel has a right to defend itself against the people they're oppressing and the land they're occupying.
- Israeli terrorism is more humane.
- The disproportionate death rates is due to Israel being a more powerful military force.
- There is no way to to fight Hamas without killing civilians, because they're intertwined with civilian infrastructure.
- Anyone who cares about Palestinians is virtue-signaling.
Have I missed anything?
They had no choice. Poor Israel. Fascist shithole.
I think justification of the circumstances isn't possible. The situation is as it is now; Israel is there, this is what is happening, what's proper or improper at this time and how is future conflict to be avoided.
If we don't make the assumption that God gave the land to the Jews, or that the Jews are otherwise entitled to it somehow, I think we have to conclude that Israel exists because of political decisions made in the first half of the 20th century which virtually assured conflict and war would result. I think it's clear that Jews have been the victims of bigotry and oppression for thousands of years, and that Christians or those who called themselves Christians were largely responsible for their plight. Certainly the Holocaust was a peculiarly European phenomenon. It happens that Europeans or descendants of Europeans were also largely responsible for the creation of Israel and its location in an area ruled at the time by Christians or nominal Christians, but inhabited by people who were for the most part not Christian and not inclined to live in or with a Jewish nation. So it may be that certain Christians or Christian nations assuaged their guilt by arranging the installation of a Jewish state in non-Christian territory, thereby making violence and continued conflict a virtual certainty. Not a good start. And, arguably at least, a terrible decision.
So, we have, literally, a bloody mess, the resolution of which is unlikely until people tire of the conflict or are compelled to have "peace." But it's one in which Israel's conduct can't be sanctioned by religion or entitlement apart from the fact that it now exists. I think such clarity is needed in assessing what's taking place.
Yeah, let's root for more humane terrorism. :cheer:
Please try and stay on point. Look at the argument:
(1) A people displaced from their historic home ought to be able to return there.
(2) The people of Israel were displaced from their historic home.
(3) The people of Israel have ought to be able to return there.
Valid argument. One you've made.
(1) A people displaced from their historic home ought to be able to return there.
(2) The people of Palestine were displaced from their historic home.
(3) The people of Palestine have a ought to be able to return there.
Just a substitution.
It can be strengthened:
(1) A people ought not do that which deprives others of their historic home.
(2) The people of Israel were deprived of their historic home.
(3) People ought not have deprived them.
A valid argument, same substitution works:
(1) A people ought not do that which deprives others of their historic home.
(2) The people of Palestine were deprived of their historic home.
(3) People ought not have deprived them.
Who deprived the Palestinians there? The state of Israel, so they ought not have...What about the sense of historic?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You are also relying on it being vague and expansive. The people who lived in historic Palestine who have been ousted by Israel's actions would be covered by the time thresh-hold.
Shaky, shaky ground.
I think the counterargument to anything here is:
"Israel has the right to defend itself and Hamas wishes to destroy Israel."
And that basically covers everything. Nothing else needed.
I mean there are plenty of thought terminating cliches that would do it.
Ever heard the term “Sheikh Jarrah?” That’s the name of the neighborhood at the center of the recent Israel-Palestine flare up. It is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem inhabited by mostly Palestinians who became refugees when they were expelled from a West Jerusalem neighborhood (Talbiya) after Israel captured West Jerusalem following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Conversely, Jewish families were also expelled from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and resettled in West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbiya. Most Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah have lived there since the 1948 war (nearly 70 years), and likewise for Jewish families in Talbiya.
After the 1967 6-day war, Israel expanded their occupation to East Jerusalem. Following the occupation of East Jerusalem, court battles have ensued over the Sheikh Jarrah properties, by groups of Jewish people claiming to have owned the property before 1948. Using right of return laws, attempts are being made to expel the current Palestinian residents and replace them with Jewish residents. The problem is, the same right of return is not being extended to these Palestinian families regarding the homes they were evicted from in West Jerusalem in 1948. In fact, right of return laws *only* apply to Jewish people in Israel, so Palestinians who have been expelled and displaced for various reasons over the years have no right to reclaim their previously owned property.
Courts have thus far ruled in favor of the Jewish families claim to the land in Sheikh Jarrah, ordering that they are allowed to charge rent to the current Palestinian families living there. Obviously, the Palestinian families do not believe they should have to pay said rent and have tried to fight it. They're losing that fight, and barring the Israeli Supreme Court stepping in, it's likely that many Palestinian families will be expelled from their homes by the Israeli government in the near future.
Ever wondered why the conflict flared up recently? It wasn't random acts of terrorism, rather, it was in response to these court battles. It was in response to demonstrable ethnic oppression.
This is one example among many of why it is being argued that Israel is an apartheid state. Obviously, it was wrong for both Jews and Palestinians to be expelled from their homes in West and East Jerusalem, respectively, in 1948. But both groups were compensated with comparable homes in their respective new areas in Jerusalem. Fast forward to today, and Jewish families are using ethnically discriminatory right of return laws to expel Palestinians from their homes. And what’s worse, this is taking place in East Jerusalem, an area where Jewish right of return should not apply and Israeli courts should have no jurisdiction anyway!
Folks call this a “dispute” and say it’s complex, but, imo, that’s far too charitable. This is a land grab. It’s part of the ongoing settlement expansion that enflames tensions in the region. If you’ve managed to make it this far, thanks for reading. This is why I'm so outspoken about how this conflict is far different than the caricatures you’ll find among many biased, ignorant Israel supporters. A fair and objective look at this circumstance shows this is yet another case of war crimes, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by the Israeli government.
[/quote]
Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (Wikipedia)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/27/its-time-to-end-the-special-relationship-with-israel/
"Decades of brutal Israeli control have demolished the moral case for unconditional U.S. support. Israeli governments of all stripes have expanded settlements, denied Palestinians legitimate political rights, treated them as second-class citizens within Israel itself, and used Israel’s superior military power to kill and terrorize residents of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon with near impunity...
A more normal relationship—one where U.S. support was conditional rather than automatic—would force Israelis to reconsider their present course and do more to achieve a genuine and lasting peace. In particular, they would have to rethink the belief that Palestinians will simply disappear and begin to consider solutions that would secure the political rights of Jews and Arabs alike... Most important of all, Israel would have to begin dismantling the system of apartheid it has created over the past several decades because even the United States will find it increasingly difficult to sustain a normal relationship if that system remains intact."
Not that any of this will happen under Biden, who is and has been as Israeli bootlicker from day 1.
He's been surprising on several fronts. He might be here too. Depends also on his advisors and possibly the VP, I think.
Kamala Harris? No.
She's not going to do anything to shake the status quo.
He approved $700m+ in arms sales to Israel right as it was committing its most publicly visible and remarked upon war crimes. He has not been surprising on this front. An enabler for genocide, nothing more.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/DiabolicalIdea/status/1397805027012624384[/tweet]
Rehumanization. It's a start. :pray:
Nice that you can be an optimist.
I remember a same kind of front made by Time magazine about those killed in the US by firearms:
And what happened to the gun laws?
Who did America buy it's Land from? Who did Australia Buy it's land from? Who did Britain buy it's land from etc.
The problem here is that lots of people want the same land for purely ideological reasons. It is an ideological conflict supported by ideologues
Humans have overpopulated the world (child abuse/environmental abuse) having a child makes an unwarranted claim on resources and puts you in competition with everyone else.
We could just return to the the prism of survival of the fittest where nature will decide who survives and is strongest. Humans create fictional narratives to justify the claims they make such as nationality claims and ownership claims.
This conflict will not be resolved through ethical fictions rather it is either a war of attrition that will be resolved when people have had enough or the strongest will survive.
People are having more children they can afford and more than the land can house for often ideological reasons to outnumber the other side.
You can't just have loads of children and blame all their problems on someone else.
"Does Abu Talal not worry about bringing children into such a world?
"No, because if I lose 200 of my grandchildren, I will still have 200 left.""
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10475261
I think most would agree that the conditions under which Israel attained statehood were far from ideal. I heard that part of the reason the process was rushed was that the Jewish population at the time was facing a large amount of displaced Jews from Arab countries and they needed a central governing body. In any case I think your approach is right: What's done is done, and we need to be looking at the future to best deal with the situation. At the end of the day the statehood comes down to security and logistics, and sure some case can be made about ancient claims and ancient ties but many will surely be unconvinced here.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Yeah, the key here is "called themselves Christians." To be fair there is/was plenty of Muslim anti-semitism as well and as a Jew I'm not going play this game of "which religion oppressed us more?"
Jewish history should not be described as a history of victimhood. I think that's a terrible way to describe it. We're just a minority who was essentially forced into a socially undesirable trade (money lending) in the Middle Ages which often made us targets. However, Jews certainly had their share of instigators & powerful, influential figures and its patently dishonest to make out our history as one of sheer victimhood at the hands of more powerful groups. It also ignores so many other accomplishments and victories and only reinforces Jewish paranoia.
Especially in the modern age and under John Paul II relations between Jews and Christians were probably the best they've ever been. Looking forward, I'm much more optimistic about Jews' relations with Christians, particularly religious Protestants, than those with Muslims or the secular world.
You cite 10 different detailed claims which is just too much for me to respond to. It's information overload and I don't have the time or effort to respond to all 10 in detail in one post. There was one that struck me as very, very egregious that I wanted to address here which does make me seriously question the author's intentions:
Yes, Israel exempts Arab citizens from conscription because Israel does not believe it civil to force Arab Israelis to fight against their own brethren as Israel is often at war. However, Arab Israelis are free to join the military if they wish in which case they receive the same benefits as any other soldier.
This point is really just condemning Israel for providing benefits to its veterans when more Jews serve than Arabs (because Jews are required to serve.) It's incredibly dishonest to present this as racism and if this claim is in the same vein as others it feels like propaganda.
EDIT: The author has transformed Israeli cultural sensitivity (via excluding Arabs from consciption) and Israeli's ability to provide veterans with educational benefits into an act of racism. That is vile and it speaks directly to the author.
We need to draw a distinction here between the proper actions and policies of a state and abstract moral judgments. When it comes to political discussions, we are talking about the former. The central function of a state is security - the protection of its own citizens. Morality may be one factor in decision-making, but it should not be the whole picture. Thus, even if your argument is sound it does not carry overriding prescriptive force for what Israel ought to do.
I do have to make one more gripe:
Read what I wrote earlier - the majority of Palestinians according to historians like Benny Morris were not deprived due to Israeli actions, but rather fled on their own volition due to fear of war. That would make the Arab aggressors responsible for the disenfranchisement.
As readers have probably noticed, Andrew is a parody account aimed at making supporters of Israel look like sociopathic child murderers. I'm no fan of Israeli policy but I think you are probably taking this too far.
What are you on about? Abu Talal does not mind having 400 Grand children because losing 200 of the doesn't matter when you have so many spares. It is what you call canon fodder.
Can you or anyone produce an actual argument about why anyone in this region is entitled to have a large family and how that is beneficial to resolving the conflict and in the child's interests?
As I said, this level of parody, while very cutting, is kind of in bad taste. Anyway, you've been rumbled so you can pack up the circus now.
Ooh well played. "There's too many things to respond to so I'll just cherrypick one, decontextualise it from all the other examples of apartheid laws". Never mind that this was like, I don't know, the fifth point in that list so you read at least four others. That doesn't feel like propapanda but just straight up dishonest.
So Arab Israelis aren't Israeli enough to defend their own country because their "brethren" are fighting with Israel. Except, of course, you're all semites so... eh...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
Now the combined population of Israel and the Palestinian territories is 13.7 million. If you don't care about over population then you don't care about children and you are simply lying if you say otherwise.
Making a claim over land does not entitle you to overpopulate and destroy it. I am still waiting from an actual argument from Baden other than bizarre ad hominem style retorts.
Where are all these extra humans supposed to live? The earth is a finite size with finite resources.
Alright we can try our best here. I'm not saying that moral judgement is impossible in this area, only that it's more difficult and needs to be considered among other factors as well. Throughout this thread I've tried to introduce morality probably dozens of times and have tried to bring up just war theory.
Quoting Tobias
Have you considered that Palestinian authorities in the past will greatly reward the families of suicide bombers providing them with an economic incentive? Maybe bulldozing property could be considered a way of dissipating that incentive. Everything isn't about morality and a narrow focus on morality excludes other important factors.
Quoting Tobias
I intentionally cited a more morally ambiguous event. Moral criticism always occurs in a context - it is not ahistorical, absent of culture - although I suppose it might be in a philosophy classroom.
The broader question is how the story of, say, the American civil war is told and how we come to understand it. That matters and it carries real-world repercussions. A set of facts of moral facts, say - X, Y, Z might be true and philosophically sound but this is an entirely different issue from how the bigger picture should be presented and processed and understood.
For instance, while its true that Uyghurs conducted terrorist attacks against Chinese civilians, to present overriding importance to these attacks as opposed to China's ongoing genocide is awful.
Quoting Tobias
I agree with your point, but I do still believe we need to be careful going forward. I'm perfectly content condemning certain actions or historical events, again I'm just stressing the importance of viewing certain actions and policies in a broader historical and cultural context which historically some philosophers have ignored.
Quoting Tobias
Who are we talking about in particular? The morality of the ground soldiers? How about NCOs or junior officers? Or maybe we could talk about the morality of senior officers like Colonels who may be the ones behind, e.g. a raid? Or are we talking about morality for the entire state of Israel?
Quoting Tobias
Just to be clear I meant to deny war crimes in this current flare-up, not across Israel's entire history. I of course acknowledge certain crimes committed by Israeli forces - Jish and Deir Yassin, for example.
Quoting Tobias
You're not wrong, but when I approach subjects like politics or practical action the language that I use is different from the language that a philosopher would use in a philosophy paper. If you want to you can spend time harping on this fairly irrelevant issue but I'm just going to drop it. I don't see any meaningful difference between what other posters have described Israel as and "evil."
Hey Benkei, I found an online article with the title "30 reasons why Israel is awesome." I'd like a response to all of them... maybe by the end of the week? Could I get it double spaced as well? At least 8 pages please.
Let me know when I can copy and paste the article here. :smile:
Quoting Benkei
Wait, what? Are you actually arguing in favor of conscripting Arabs here into the IDF?! And I'm the insensitive one?!?! Cultural context, man.
You're either an anti-Israel and possibly anti-semitic parody account or mentally ill. Either way, you're not contributing anything with these bizarre anti-natalist posts.
It would only be dishonest if I committed myself to the position that I know everything about Israeli history and law and there is 100% no racial problem.
I have never said this. I 100% acknowledge that I don't know Israeli law like the back of my hand and that there may very well be racial problems. In fact, I'm positive that Israel does have racial problems we're only discussing here the extent and nature of them. Is it more the population? Is it the laws? Informal practices? These details matter. America has obvious racial issues but we don't call it apartheid... right? maybe?
I suspect some Presidents and VPs curse at what Israel is doing, I know Carter and Clinton have been pissed off before.
But if they don't go public and say something, things remains the same.
"According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers "2004 Global Report on the Use of Child Soldiers", there were at least nine documented suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and March 2004"
"According to Amnesty International, between 2000 and 2004 during the First Intifada "more than 100 Israeli children... [were] killed and hundreds of others injured in suicide bombings, shootings and other attacks carried out by Palestinian armed groups in Israel and in the Occupied Territories."
"The Avivim school bus massacre was a terrorist attack on an Israeli school bus on May 22, 1970 in which 12 Israeli civilians were killed, nine of them children, and 25 were wounded. The attack took place on the road to Moshav Avivim, near Israel's border with Lebanon. Two bazooka shells were fired at the bus.[27] The attack was one of the first carried out by the PFLP-GC.[28]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_terrorism
And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll.
Is this topic just narrowly focusing on this particular incident or can the conflict throughout its many years and manifestations be brought to bear on the current situation? I think you at least have to give @Andrew4Handel leeway there as this conflict has been going on for practically a century, and the current form at least since 1967.
Anyone who brings up anti-natalism again here will be mercilessly modded. Hope that answers your q.
"The Hamas religious authority, the waqf, has carried out exorcism campaigns, in which preachers perform exorcism rites on children at schools in Gaza. Speeches delivered during these ceremonies proclaim a desire to drive children to Islamic repentance. In reality, the rites instill fear in children who do not understand their wrongdoings, and ultimately encourage compliance with Hamas' Islamist doctrine, which is presented as the "Islamic alternative."
"In 2015, Hamas posted on its Facebook page pictures of a young boy, about five years old, wearing a military uniform and carrying an automatic gun. The pictures were captioned, "These are our lion cubs. We have brought them up on the love of Jihad and martyrdom."
"During the 2014 Gaza War, 11 children were killed by Hamas rockets that fell short of their intended targets in Israel. In one particularly bloody incident, eight children were killed in Shati Refugee Camp by a misfired rocket. In an earlier incident in 2010,"
https://www.idf.il/en/minisites/hamas/hamas/the-status-of-children-in-gaza/
Which presents evidence. There is tonnes of evidence on line none of which you seem interested in.
You and others here have a hysterical tonne about you inexplicable and disproportionate.
But it’s the heart of the debate here. Is murderous killing wrong in the name of reclaiming land? No. Argument over.
If the IDF were a fair and balanced review of the 2014 escalation it would mention its own killing of innocent children and the number. And the Israeli indoctrination and institutionalised racism that has 3/4st of its Jewish Jewish youth considering Arabs inferior. I could go on but I know arguments are wasted on you.
The arguments keep switching about the conflict in general (reclaiming land for both sides) and this specific round killing. If it’s just this specific round of killing, then the argument should be “What SHOULD a country do in response to THIS SPECIFIC instance of rocket attacks”. Things like go to the UN, plea with the Palestinians to stop, wait for rockets to stop and do an investigation of the perpetrators after the fact. Are these feasible? Etc. but see people have it both ways waffling between this SPECIFIC incidence of response to rockets/violence and the broader conflict.
:up:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Same for the people of Palestine, since:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
gives mandate for Hamas to force match Israel. To put it bluntly, Palestine isn't doing very well in this regard. And it can't, it doesn't have the military force. So it resorts to the guerrilla and terrorist tactics of an occupied power.
So long as morality can partially factored out for Israel, it can be factored out to at least the same extent for Palestine. Let everyone eat terror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups
True. But at some point you're going to have to link these quotes to an argument relevant to the OP.
Deleted that.
I have said before that this conflict is a microcosm of the human history of warring over territory boundaries and resources, religious fanaticism and over population. Portraying one side as the enemy will harden the debate and feelings on both sides making the situation more intractable.
But I am beginning not to care.
What possible reason is there for dressing up a baby like that? The indoctrination from Hamas starts in early childhood.
More than 600 Palestinian children have been killed and thousands have been injured by the Israeli army in the past four and a half years . Some 25 have been killed this year alone. Hundreds of thousands of others have been prevented from going to school and effectively confined to their homes by Israeli army blockades and curfews. Others have repeatedly been attacked on their way to school by Israeli settlers who continue to carry out such attacks with impunity. Thousands of Palestinian children have been arrested by the Israeli army and hundreds are currently detained and accused of security offences. Many of those detained have been ill-treated or tortured by Israeli forces and some have been forced or pressured to become ‘‘collaborators’’ with Israeli intelligence services. Such practices by Israeli forces violate international human rights and humanitarian law.
So delete evidence that makes the Palestinian look bad, irrational and like the aggressors. The photo is mentioned in the wiki article I linked to anyway
Just repeating because you are doing again what I was noticing here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
The Reuters news agency reported that this was an urgent treatment after Haniyeh's daughter suffered from complications relating to a recent medical procedure
Haniyeh's daughter has been hospitalized at the Tel Aviv hospital for more than a month and also stayed there during Operation Guardian of the Walls, when Hamas fired over 4,000 rockets at Israel, including large barrages at Tel Aviv.
The hospital said that she "is one in more than a thousand patients from Gaza and the territories, children and adults, who come for treatment every year at Ichilov Hospital."
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/307004
These are the people Hamas has called for to be beheaded in the streets.
You don’t explain how I’m doing it, so I’m gonna assume you just have no good response to my point. Dismissing out of hand doesn’t mean it’s not correct. You have moved the goalposts. Granted so do a bunch of others here.
I would never claim that the Palestinians are irrational or illogical for wanting what they want. I would also not say that they "don't have the mandate to fight for it." The Palestinians, like the Jews, have their own history in the land as well as their own cultural and religious traditions that are based in the region. I can object to the means that they use to attain their goal, however. Their tactics are more extreme and violent than the IRA's or the Jewish underground's ever were. I can also reasonably object to how the ruling party treats its own citizens, as should anyone who has done even cursory research on Hamas and Fatah especially in regard to human rights and corruption. These parties are not Israeli puppets and they do make important governance decisions for the Palestinian people.
You share basically nothing with your "Jewish ancestors", no history, no culture, no religion, nothing. It's like comparing 21st century British Catholics to 15th century British Catholics, how can that comparison, possibly make any sense? They have as much in common as an Englishman today and an Arab living in Saudi Arabia... who am I kidding, the Englishman shares much more with some Saudi businessman than some 15th-century peasant.
Ethnic, religious and racial histories promote and justify racism and tribalism, that's why they need to be delegitimised as valid ways of viewing history. Why are you tracking and identifying with the history of the Jews over thousands of years? The history is literally "The Jews did this, the Egyptians did that, The Arabs were here at this time...".
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What is "Israel", what are the "Arab countries", who are the "Palestinians"? These terms just narrativise things as though these are the names of individuals, this just allows people to ignore the reality of what these groups really are. Unthinking, unliving, concepts which can't think, act, talk or do anything. The political entities that you're referring are ruled by autocrats, who act in accordance with domestic and geopolitical goals, profits and their other individual political objectives. 99.99% of the people referred to by these group names are peons in political apparatuses which don't care about them and over which they have no control.
I understand that the middle-east, in particular, subscribes to this way of thinking, but far from that being a justification for you to do it, it's half the reason the place is such a mess. Look at the sectarian violence in Iraq and Syria, that's not something to aim for.
The UN doesn't see it as that clear cut. Nor does Amnesty International - the UN is the UN, Amnesty International is a renowned human rights watchdog.
Would you condemn Israel's expansion into Palestine, torture, forced evictions, and discriminatory laws?
Quoting Judaka
This isn't about me, this is about the Jewish people. The Jewish people have the Torah, countless prayers, numerous holidays which have been celebrated for thousands of years that signal their connection to the land.
Of course I don't expect this to serve as a complete justification. A major reason for Israel's existence is security - Israel exists to protect its citizens and provide for their welfare.
Quoting Judaka
They absolutely should not justify racism, but tribalism - yes, to some extent. These two things are very different: one is disgusting, the other to an extent is a part of life. You can have your own thoughts on this type of thinking but it's really just a fact of life, especially in the Middle East. I'm not going to tell the Palestinians or the Arabs or anyone else for that matter that they don't have a right to their own ethnic or cultural history (or to view things in that way.) I just wish they would tell that story in a different way, one that isn't so hostile to the Jews.
Quoting Judaka
You do know that the Israeli government is based on a parliamentary democracy? Everybody has the right to vote, even Arabs. Arabs have prominent representation in Israeli government. Israel has a legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch. This description may apply to some Arab countries, but not Israel. Israel is far from perfect, but at least it tries to balance and include these western ideals.
Quoting Judaka
I feel ties to the Jewish people and Israel - sue me. I'll present a religious/cultural justification, sure, but I would never expect everyone to be convinced by it. If that case works, great, but if not I'll fall back on principles of general statehood that would apply to any other country or group. I would never tell you that you're not allowed to engage or relate to your ancestors or ethnic history. It's all about how you do it. If you don't want to that's fine too, but don't act like no one else has a right to connect to their people's past.
Realistically, their claim to the land is only backed by UN recognition, or the recognition of the entities who have global influence.
The religious claim may mean something to Jews, but it doesn't mean anything to gentiles.
If you want to speak realistically, Israel's claim to the land is backed by its ability to defend itself - just like any other state.
Without backing from a great power, Israel couldn't defend itself.
Australia is not a person, neither is America. Technically that is not even a country.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Not necessarily, it is also a very real conflict about people wanting to pick olives from their own olive tree, or people being evicted from their homes. Ideology makes everything sound so nice and comfortably theoretical doesn't it?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
And this has to do with what exactly? By all means do not have kids if you don't want to but do not nag us with your choices.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Of course we could but we realized that made life nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. So presto we invented law and morality. Nature does not decide anything, it just is.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
That whole argument is circular. Who survives is by definition stronger so it does not say anything. By all means go call ethics a fiction, but do start wondering whether this forum is the place for you to be. Actually 'fictions' such as nationality, class, race, shared values and so on keep people together, whether they are 'fictions' or not.
I don't expect the world to be sympathetic to Israel. There's almost 2 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. 50 Muslim majority nations and 1 Jewish majority nation. Whose story do you think is going to get told more? If you were to go purely by UN resolutions you would think that Israel is worse than China or North Korea. I'm serious on this one: UN resolutions against Israel far exceed the number given to any other country.
With that last question you're just throwing way too many issues at me without the appropriate framing. For instance you ask me to condemn Israel's "expansion into Palestine" but according to the Palestinians/Arabs the existence of any Jewish state in that region is an "expansion into Palestine." The birth of Israel was the original "expansion" aka "the nakba" - the "humiliation" of the Muslims.
Obviously I condemn any racism full stop, but some of the accusations against Israel on this front are lies or propaganda to make Israel look bad. I catch one of these lies here. I don't deny that Israel has racial problems as would any nation that has been in a conflict with another group over a long history.
Maybe that was true in its past when Israel was beginning, but today Israel has quite a few partnerships with several big powers and it's not out of a sense of paternalism. The IDF is a professional, well-organized force in its own right and they help train other militaries. The support given to it by America does not make or break the IDF.
Israel's military budget is around $20-21 billion, and the US will give around $3.8 billion.
Nevertheless, if China or the US decided Israel shouldn't defend itself, it wouldn't.
It's a regional power, that's it.
It's a regional power for sure and I've never claimed Israel to be anything more than that militarily. It's not anywhere close as strong as the US, China or Russia.
Right. That's why its rights are backed by great powers. That's the political realist stance, anyway.
I think the constructivist approach is that Israel's rights emerge from the whole global soup. The world makes great powers for itself, but those powers don't actually own their influence.
I am amazed that you can frame it this way with a straight face! It's discrimination against Israel in the international theatre that's causing the UN to issue resolutions against Israel's continued history of human rights violations?
Is Israel the worst human rights abuser on the planet? Because thats the impression you'd get from the UN. Organizations like the UN need to be able to fairly distribute their criticism. It is imperative for the integrity of an organization.
I feel like the very idea of giving a nation credit for not being the worst human rights abuser on the planet is beyond the point of parody. But if you're willing to say that it really is an abuser of Palestinian human rights and that ought to stop...
That's just to show that the issues aren't fabricated, propaganda and actually everything is just fine with the Arab Israelis.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You said it very well: there is no objective to make the Arab citizens to be part of the nation as "their brethren" are the enemy.
Here lies the fundamental problem: Israel views itself as the homeland for jews, and that one group of people have conscription while others have not tells of a problem.
Actually military can be used to integrate people into the nation. It also tells that all citizens are treated equally.
Quoting fdrake
It's actually a surprisingly big deal since humans have an unfortunate tendency to demonize others (the Jews know this all too well), and by singling out one group for condemnation above everyone else you embolden bigots and you reinforce Israeli distrust/paranoia to much of the rest of the world.
I agree that the Palestinians are oppressed and that certain Israeli policies and actions make life worse for the Palestinian people.
Getting conscripted by the IDF would put a lot of Arab men in compromising positions with their families and communities. It would be the same way if Jews were drafted into Arab armies to fight against Israel -- it is considered backstabbing one's own people.
What concessions/restoration do you feel Israel owes the people it oppresses, then? Should it at least stop expanding its territory?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
There are no "Jewish" people, and it is about you, these are your arguments. The Jewish people don't share possessions, they don't share a history, they don't share a religion, they are a loosely defined ethnoreligious group of individuals who barely have anything to do with each other.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Props on not being a hypocrite? Too bad it's a subject where it'd be better if you were. Why wouldn't you tell the Palestinians or Arabs to cease believing in ethnic, cultural or religious histories when you're aware that the middle east is being torn apart by sectarian violence? For what reason are you unwilling to condemn this tribalistic, destructive thinking?
"Iran, Hamas and Saudi Arabia do it too" is probably the worst excuse imaginable for doing anything. Western opinion of these nations is extraordinarily low, people generally condemn this kind of shit.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I know.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Why not? I'm a pragmatist, why should I care about "ah but check my DNA, I have a long history and belong to a special people who have done all these things over thousands of years" when I know it's 1. stupid and 2. destructive?
The blockade and the checkpoints are for national security. I'm aware that this is every abuser's excuse, but let me ask you this: If people from northeast England had a history and a culture that painted the Scots as the enemy and in their attacks consistently made an effort to maximize civilian casualties, how much protection would you place on your border if you were in charge assuming such measures were practically feasible? Imagine that the people of Scotland elected you. These procedures have uncovered weapons and dangerous materials.
Security procedures are always unpleasant, but so is the cost of not implementing them.
(Arvid Janhunen fought with the Reds during the Finnish Civil War and later he excelled in battle during WW2 getting the highest war medal in Finland (the Mannerheim-cross) fighting in the army he had 21 years earlier fought against. Many former members of the Red Guard also fought in WW2 in the ranks of the Finnish Army and their commitment in the Winter War showed the unity of the country and that the wounds of the civil war had healed. If Finland would have feared a "fifth column", likely national unity wouldn't have been achieved.)
Yes, I do notice that Arab Israelis can go voluntarily to serve. That they don't do so in large numbers does tell something. And this was just one area where these differences by law appear. And the problem is that Israel is for the Jews. Others come later. Any country that treats a part of it's citizenry as a possible "fifth column" has a serious problem.
would you deny the existence of a group such as, say, the han chinese? do uyghurs exist in your world? it doesn't matter because they exist in our world.
Quoting Judaka
Because it would be like telling the Russians to stop drinking vodka or the Indians to stop doing yoga.
Quoting Judaka
I would never phrase it like that.
All I'm saying is that I was born into a culture & a group and I believe that that culture and history and those teachings have something to offer to the world -- value. I think expressing and sharing that can help others solve their problems and I think people from different cultures with their own unique experiences and judgments genuinely can offer different, valuable insights that can broader one's horizons and make people and society better. And that starts with a knowledge of who you are. People should have some sort of roots or identity.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I acknowledge them as loosely defined ethnicities, I don't acknowledge ethnic histories, beyond a history of how some DNA exists in some region because of a historical event, or a history of tribalism. I acknowledge tribalism exists in our world, otherwise, I wouldn't have to spend time condemning it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I can't condemn the practices of cultures? Why not? You won't condemn things provided they're part of someone's culture?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The Jews have a continuous history spanning thousands of years, who have warred with other ethnic groups, who have special rights to land, who have a unique experience and history. Your DNA gives you a special history that people without your DNA don't have. Isn't that right? That's how you've been talking in this thread, which means you would phrase it exactly as I did.
How can someone look at the middle east and say ethnic histories are making the world a better place? What about the WW2 examples you love so much, what about the role ethnic histories played there?
There are lines that if you don't cross when it comes to practising your "culture", which is often little more than some kind of tourist attraction. How can you actually be practising the culture of Jewish merchants or farmers thousands of years ago when you're living in an advanced economy in the 21st century? Nonsense. Don't bring your ethnicity into politics, don't advance the interpretative relevance of ethnicity past the point of it being more important than the many other ways to see others, etc.
You can condemn cultural practices, but when you say
You're asking millions of people to renounce a large part of their identities and how they understand themselves and history... including everything that informs their values. What are you trying to replace it with? Are you sure you'll be able to effectively make that transition?
No offense, but it's also enormously arrogant in practice. Are you going to honestly just tell Arabs to stop practicing Islam or observing certain cultural rituals that have developed outside of Islam? What on Earth gives you that position as an outsider? Are you just so sure that everything they do and how they process and understand things is flat out wrong? Ok.
Quoting Judaka
So does yours.
Quoting Judaka
You said you were a pragmatist earlier. Ought implies can. We have also seen some very, very bad things happen when we, especially as outsiders, try to erase people's history and culture. Do not do it. You can try to change bad practices and you can question, but do not erase.
Quoting Judaka
Cultures change, technology changes... ways of living were never intended to be preserved at all costs. Jews do however preserve plenty of rituals and practices that have extend that far back though - thousands of years.
Yes I know, but did your position do well in the debate? I think not and there might be a reason for that. I saw your jump to context and identity as an evasive maneuver in the game.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Let's say that it is true, is than fair to punish them to offset and advantage that they did not ask for? You cannot play economics personally. Off course we can also bulldozer the houses down the houses of families of people who's son or daughter is into trading drugs on the basis that some of the revenues will flow to the family. We do we not do that? Why would that be? In any legal system worth its salt, reprisals are considered illegal. That is not for nothing. A state that does not punish the offender but non-offenders does not govern through law but through violence. I wonder, are the houses of settles torn down when they commit violence against Palestinians? I think not. It is actually one of the most odious violations of law.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ohh but I agree with you. It is very much about how the story is told. Therefore I would say we need to include as many perspectives on the story as we can. We need a number of narratives, including the confederate one, or the Israeli one. All those stories weave a tapestry.
Your last point about the Uyghurs intrigues me, because you apply the same kind of reasoning there that I would apply as well, reasoning by proportionality. You might well be right that China's strategy is reprehensible, but reasoning by proportionality is not a safe card for Israel to play. On that from too the body bags lines up on one side makes a much taller stack. You getting yourself into the waters the other posters are drawing you in.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Well, me too, but one has to be very careful to distinguish between understanding and normatively judging. The Israeli reaction can in my point of view not be seen seperable from the cataclysmic memory of the holocaust. It is an event that has changed the world at large fundamentally and probably changed the victims of it much more fundamentally. That goes a long way to understand (at least as best as you can) the position of Israel. It does not make those actions right though. I agree with you it is impossible to find som ahistorical yardstick, but whenever we judge a certain situation,, like you just id the situation of the Uyghurs, we have to as best as we can try to find some common ground. I think we can find it, that is why I love Sting's song about the Russians so much.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think we are talking past each other. I apologise for that. With a theory about morality I thought you meant some ethical theory, such as utilitarianism or deontology or another theory of ethics. The offiicerts, privates, civilians, they might have a position, or perspective and valid though they all are for the discussion, they do not amount to any systematic theory about right and wrong.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ok... but I do not see why having family there is important for the denial or acceptance of any war crime. It makes denial understandable, but not sound. Denial or acceptance of the claim than comes down to psychology, but not argument. The difference is that when we talk ethics we see each other as human beings with whom we have common understanding and who can judge on matters of right and wrong. When we reduce ethics to psychology we cannot. Everything becomes 'understandable' but not anymore debatable.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ok but would you then agree you are not talking about the same thing anymore? Here you basically say: "I am taking it personal and so I decide what words mean, irrespective of what they mean. I hold on to a similarity that I feel is such and therefore it is such irrespective of my interlocutors." You can live by that rule, but it makes discussion at least on that issue pointless. It also blunts your own arguments on this matter because you invent a meaning of a word and then you accuse others of using it. They do not ascribe to your definition of terms though and for good reason.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You're giving so much credit to ethnic histories, the role they serve, it doesn't need to be replaced with anything. They should understand themselves as individuals, which I'm sure even the most ardent believer in ethnic histories already does, it doesn't need to be supplemented with ethnic histories.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not telling anyone to stop practising Islam, or anything like that. Understand this, I am condemning the role of ethnic, religious, racial, cultural histories in politics, prejudice, hate and geopolitics. "Outsider", why would my position be limited to my ethnicity, religion, race or culture, I don't like that kind of thing either. What I can or can't say isn't based on such things and where it is, treating people differently based on such things becomes justified, including the logic of things such as racism. Arabs are humans to me, Jewish people are humans. Humans commenting on the issues of other humans, nothing unusual or problematic with that.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
People can keep their culture, their ethnic histories gotta go.
Look at the situation in Israel from the perspective of ethnic histories. The Jews expelled the Palestinians, stole their land - land they claim is theirs, they are continuing to oppose the Palestinian people through apartheid. The Jews were forced off their land by Arabs, they have been persecuted by Arabs for thousands of years. And on it goes.
You're the one talking about "Jews did this" and "Jews have that", who else is a Palestinian supposed to blame but the "Jews" in your way of recounting history. Do you not see how racism becomes justified? There's no escape either, we can't change our ethnicity, you've inherited acts of aggression against other tribes through your history, you've inherited a history of persecution by other tribes. Is it arrogance to call such an obvious problem out or just basic sense.
Quoting Judaka
The problem is that the culture is derived from the ethnic history. Take away the ethnic history and the whole structure collapses. There is simply no Judaism, and in turn no Christianity, if just decide to abandon ethnic histories since the foundational document of Judaism is the ethnic history of the Hebrews.
So your beliefs, traditions, holidays, mannerisms, language, clothing - whatever you would describe as Jewish culture, it all what, disappears without an ethnic history?
Others are managing to maintain their culture without ethnic histories, in Australia, you got Australian citizenship, you're Australian. You don't need to share any specific ethnicity or ethnic history to practice Australian culture. I don't accept your premise. Do you at least see the problem with ethnic histories?
I'm sure you can manage to keep your culture and lose the ethnic history but if you absolutely insist you can't - okay? Maybe some forms of Islam can't stop being anti-LGBTQ, but you'll join me in saying they need to change, same shit here. Time for reform.
You have my support.
What security procedure requires annexing more and more of Palestine?
Majors holidays that we'd lose off the top of my head if we abandoned ethnic history: Passover, Hanukkah, Sukkot, Purim. We'd also lose all the Jewish/Israeli national holidays like Holocaust remembrance day, founding of Israel day, and a few others.
Jews came to understand God through our interactions with him as detailed in the OT. If you take away those interactions or you don't link yourself to those people then everything fails. The Jewish people formed a covenant with God in the OT and that covenant is extremely important. It's a promise between God that extends to all modern Jews. You need to make that link and the importance of making that link to one's ancestors is repeatedly made in Judaism.
Other cultures have similar links to their ancestors. This is hardly unique to Judaism.
Without the link it's basically "well these people did these things and had these experiences but nothing applies to me."
Quoting Judaka
Of course.
Quoting Judaka
I see a problem in "my people's ethnic history makes my people better than yours." I don't see a problem in "this is my people's ethnic history and I think it's pretty cool and it has something to offer to the world and can help others."
Your analysis here is accurate.
The problem stems from the Independence War of '47-'48 when David Ben-Gurion expelled some of the Arab communities in the area, but not others. I will have to look a little more deeply into why he did this, but regardless the repercussions of this policy are clear. Israeli Arab Muslims frequently call themselves "Palestinians" or "Israeli Palestinians" and many have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza as well as elsewhere. Israel is absolutely a country divided.
It's been difficult. I know for a fact that some participated in the second intifata and other violence and relations between Israeli Jews and its Arab muslim minority have been strained.
Note that the Christian Arabs have been much easier to integrate and assimilate than the Muslim ones. Christian Arabs are one of the most educated groups in Israel. Socio-economically, they're much more similar to the Jews than the Muslim Arabs. They're a model minority that's doing better than Israeli Jews on some important metrics.
The Druze are another group that also do well in Israel. The Israelis have good relations with the Druze and 94% of Druze describe themselves as "Israeli-Druze." No violence here.
What would you like to talk about in particular: The original birth of Israel (which the Arabs consider annexation)? The expansion of '48? '67? A current proposal to annex area C of the West Bank? These are all different issues and deserve their own treatment.
Israel's borders with 3 of its Arab neighbors are either formally settled or de facto settled... the only flexible border is with Syria which has not recognized Israel but there's no Israeli settlers there. Borders with Egypt and Jordan have been fixed. AFAIK Israel has no plans to annex Gaza and I would certainly be against that.
You can literally see the expansion of Israel's territory here. Did the people displaced go willingly, or were they removed and subjugated by military force?
Do you see how the situation in Israel is being exacerbated by the perpetuation of ethnic histories? It doesn't appear you accept Israel is expelling ethnic minorities but on the basis of the importance of the Jewish ethnicity in Jewish culture, wouldn't it make sense that Israel cannot assimilate or include non-Jewish minorities into their culture? That non-Jews cannot share in a Jewish culture you say requires Jewish heritage, doesn't that seem like a problem?
Second question, if a Western nation, explicitly tied their culture to an ethnic or racial group, how do you think that would be received by the other Western nations?
b) I would like to know who Israel is deporting. In any case, Arab Christian and Druze minorities in Israel have always been welcomed and Arab Christians are doing quite well - they're the most educated group in Israel and they out-do the Israeli Jews on some measures so please stop accusing Israel of being racist. Arab Christians are a model minority. The problem is with the Arab Muslims. It's not that we "assimilate" the Arab Christians - Israel acknowledges their own culture and perspective and caters to that. We don't try to make the Jews, but if they want to then they're welcome to.
Quoting Judaka
Very poorly, but in other parts of the world it's the standard. India is for the Indians, China is for the Han Chinese and Japan is for the Japanese. Somehow Jews have been living in India for thousands of years and it's been a great experience for us despite not being the dominant culture or group. The Indians never tried to "assimilate" us/make us more like them, we just dealt with them as equals and respected their traditions. That made for peace. Jews and Indians have never fought. Relations between the two groups are very good.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm sure I'd just say similar things as others already have, so I'll leave that be. As for "Arab Christians", I mean, okay. This is like someone debunking racism in the US by saying "Asians are doing alright", I don't want to respond to this kind of logic seriously, you're smart, give me a break.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yep, well, Israel is held to Western standards, don't act like Israel is being persecuted unfairly when any other Western nation would get the same treatment.
India recognises many ethnicities, there is no "Indian" ethnicity. China is being condemned for their racist treatment of minorities regularly. What's your point anyway? The "rest of the World" is generally doing very poorly on racism, sexism, tribalism, it's terrible. Doing something just because the rest of the world is doing it, that's a pretty lousy justification, nobody is going to accept that.
The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking?
I largely agree with you but to take the devil's advocate, wouldn't it just be the height of colonial attitude to not only conquer and disintegrate other cultures, but to then deny they ever mattered? You mentioned Australia.. That history goes back to Britain, not France, and unfortunately, not the Aborigines. Rather, it is very much an arm from colonial British times. The language we are communicating now is in English. That is not by accident. That is not the "universal" lingua franca. French still speak French. Germans still speak German.. The fact that English is a preferred language of international communication is more about the history of colonialism and later the dominance of the US after WWII. It certainly isn't because it's just part of the universal "West".
There's a huge difference between one country just hating all minorities as opposed to just having an issue with one minority group in particular due to a troubled past. A country which just hates all minorities is bottom of the barrel. There is a big difference here. Of course racism exists in Israel just like it exists everywhere else.
Quoting Judaka
My point is that different groups of people have their own traditions and histories and ways of understanding things and that you, as a westerner, do not get to tell others how to govern unless some serious moral boundary has been crossed. this should come from a sense of humility: you are from but one culture, one group of people among many, and even the west does not have all the answers. I'm honestly amazed at the level of confidence you have in telling Israel - a country that you've presumably never been to or studied in depth and lack cultural exposure to - that they must assimilate their Arab Muslim population, full stop, no questions. How on Earth do you have such confidence?
EDIT: Just to be clear there are obviously efforts made to integrate the Arab Muslims and make things easier for them, but no one should be telling them to lose their history or their background. That's ultimately up to the Arabs.
Quoting Judaka
But this is changing, don't you see? The old "melting pot" idea is on its way out and "lets talk about our culture and our people" is on its way in. Surely you've been noticing this in the West.
I see your point, the West often allows those of an ethnic minority to hold themselves to different standards. The vast majority of Australians would never say that Australian culture belongs to any ethnicity or race but many would say Aboriginal culture belongs to Aboriginals and only them. We see vastly different consequences for when a powerless minority believes in ethnic histories than when the majority does. I don't like these double standards but I do recognise that it's complicated, probably too complicated to talk about in a thread that is on a totally different topic.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's your view. Yet even within if I adopted your view, a serious moral boundary has been crossed. Ethnic histories and their perpetuation are problematic and immoral, and they're at the heart of a conflict that is causing much pain.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Not for the majority group but yes. I argue about this regularly, I do notice that the West is allowing or even celebrating minorities having ethnic and racial histories. It's garbage, I don't support that.
It's a mix of both. Jews were similarly being expelled and dispossessed of their property in Arab lands. It was very difficult, heated, chaotic times. Sometimes the Arabs just fled, other times their leaders advised or ordered them to leave, and other times Israel expelled them. The Arab Palestinians had always opposed the creation of the Jewish state and were first to attack it even before the Arabs were able to. Retaliating against this involved going into Palestinian towns where the militias ran their operations. After 1948 Israel was extremely vulnerable with its fragmented borders.
I obviously don't condone everything and the history here is messy. 1967 is its own story. Israel has been willing to give territory back, like Sinai, in exchange for peace with the Egyptians so these territorial acquisitions are hardly permanent. Israel on numerous occasions has offered to give territory back.
Do you honestly dislike events where people talk about or present their own cultures? I can't imagine thinking that way. I love learning about where other people are from and their experiences.
More importantly, have you noticed that groups without roots tend to struggle more? Groups like Native Americans? African Americans (not Nigerians, who are doing very well)? Was our attempt to assimilate/integrate the Native Americans a good thing?
The snake's rein comes to an end. Turns out not even murdering a bunch of Palestinians - a tried and true election strategy - was enough to save his sorry hide. One can't say the same about Israel aparthied policies.
It's called now days ethnic cleansing. The Jews didn't perpetrate large massacres, but enough to start the Palestinian exodus. Yet I don't know how biased the history is here.
Not a solution like the Turks had to the "Armenian problem".
I don't know too much about those smaller massacres, you'll have to enlighten me on the history there. Where and when did these smaller massacres take place and did news then travel to other villages causing mass exodus? Let's go to the history on this one.
I deeply dislike the term ethnic cleansing in its use as an inflammatory accusation. Expulsion is very different from genocide and those two terms should not be conflated at all. They are so radically different.
Gen. Grant ordered the Jews out of his military district in 1862 during the Civil War, is this "ethnic cleansing?" The term originally referred to the murder during the Bosnian genocide.
@Joshs
@Number2018
@fishfry
@coolazice
@maw
@Baden
This testimonial may be of interest to some of you ...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SjhHhL_15Nw :fire:
I sniff Anti Semitism. Anti Semitism is Anti-Semitism. A handful of ethnic groups have no homeland and you want the Jews to be in perpetual diaspora. Simply repugnant. You have signed your deal with the devil. Likewise most people on this thread have shown time and time again they don't care about children other than the ones that die when Israeli is defending itself against Hamas and other terrorists.
I think it has to do with the alleged moral superiority of the oppressed. The same problem exists in the US: Black people killed by the police, accidentally or purposefully, get great press, while black people killed by other blacks, recklessly or purposefully -- a very much larger number-- get minimal press.
A lot of people are also obsessed with power differentials. Israel has much more power than just about anybody else in the Middle East, so to some, that makes them automatically the bad guys.
Who is "you"? Who argued that Jews should be expelled from the middle east?
If it helps you understand where some of us are coming from: as well as being against Israeli apartheid, I am also for the boycotting of the upcoming World Cup in Qatar due to their use of bonded labour and I'd have some very strong words about the government of that country and their horribly fucked-up culture re foreign labour if it came up for debate. Does that make me Islamaphobic? No; you can be Muslim without supporting that, just as you can be Jewish without supporting Israel's abuse of the Palestinians. For the vast majority of critics of Israel, I'd wager, these are issues of human rights and the religion or ethnicity of the human rights abuser is irrelevant.
For some people they'd rather have Jews perpetually at risk of massacre or death than to have their own homeland because that would be "racist." The very idea of a Jewish homeland is just racist to them.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
:100:
It's all about selective outrage and fomenting division. If Gaza was just some third world country crushed under Hamas with no Israel no one would care because it would just be another boring case of Muslims oppressing Muslims.
Well known is the massacre at the village of Deir Yassin:
Here's a clip from a documentary explaining Deir Yassin. People from both sides are interviewed. If you look the whole clip, it explains interestingly also how many in the US, Middle-East experts and also Secretary of State George Marshall, were opposed to the idea of Israel and feared (correctly) that it would start a war, but Truman had his way. (video clip 9 min 26s)
There were also the massacres at Lydda and Abu Shusha. And similar events happened, yet the overall number of people killed was rather low.
The basic issue was that civilians fleeing the fighting couldn't get back. I assume that large numbers of Palestinians thought they could come back to their homes once the fighting stops. I think this is debatable how systematic, how planned from the Israeli side the exodus was. But perhaps someone other can shed the light on this.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah nobody here that ever posted about terrorism in other countries or Hong Kong. It's selective outrage against injustice. When you complain about Hamas it's just a distraction from Israeli crimes, a dishonest ploy to pretend Israel is not committing terrible crimes.
The Jewish historian Illan Pappe has a whole book documenting the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which has not stopped to this day. And likely-Prime Minister elect Bennett is on record saying that he wants to annex 60% of the West Bank. So there's that.
oh these people know who they are. they're just too far outside the overton window to productively engage, but occasionally we'll hurl insults at each other as a way of saying hi.
Quoting Benkei
i was talking about muslim on muslim oppression which is considered so pervasive in the west (and not without reason) that we just don't talk about it because we just don't care. it's not nearly as exciting as an ethnic struggle! :starstruck:
:up: The real anti-semitism here is from those who would claim being Jewish somehow deprives you of individual political sovereignty. That it makes you a de facto supporter of apartheid. Anyway, in the absence of any evidence, we shouldn't give this any oxygen. It's a tired diversionary tactic.
There's a degree of truth to the idea that ethnic struggles, black vs white, Jewish vs Muslim, Catholic vs. Protestant etc more immediately grab our attention on a human level than internacine conflicts. Possibly because the very idea of oppression, from slavery to the holocaust, has strong historical resonances with racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination. So, our oppression "radar" tends to perk up when clear ethnic differences are at play. However, the obvious lesson from this is that we should heighten our awareness of all types of oppression rather than downplay our awareness of the ethnic form. Any argument to the contrary is perverse, self-defeating, and just more silly whataboutism.
Additionally, an enthostate is definitionally racist. That's not some kind of contentious claim. That's just how words work.
yeah, and japan clearly isn't for the japanese people, italy couldn't possibly be for the italians ... clearly no other state does this.
The 'Japanese people' and 'the Italian people' are anyone with a citizenship, all of whom are subject to the rule of law. This being unlike the theocentrism of the Israel state which accords non-Jews second-class citizenship and segregationist policies. Neither Japan nor Italy have compromised their democracies by institutionally discriminating against non-Shinto or non-Christian members of their own population. Unlike the apartheid state that is Israel.
Would it be the case that Japan or Italy did discriminate like Israel, they too would be shitty countries, deserving of unrelenting critique. But nice to see you continue with your world tour and your whataboutism with yet another poorly drawn comparison that again confirms the utter shitness of the Israeli state as it stands. Maybe you can tell me again about occupied East Germany and how Israel is just like it.
If you want a close analogue to Israel, it would be Iran - a theocracy that carries out acts of international terrorism.
Fact is you don't have an ethicial leg to stand on. If Arabs instituted a state that kept Jews in an open air prison/ghetto that they regularly bombed and built roads especially for Arabs that Jews weren't allowed travel on, you, us, and the rest of the world would be rightly outraged. That you think this should be fine when it's done to Arabs/Muslims makes you, at the very least, a bigot, if not an outright racist.
nice, well i guess all i gotta do is get that full japanese citizenship and ill be 100% japanese and ready to succeed over there. it's all just a piece of paper, isn't it?
Quoting StreetlightX
oh you're telling me now that there's no institutional discrimination in japan or italy? tell me more about how perfect these countries here. this is very unlike you and i thought you would know better than to make this mistake. it's such an easy one to avoid.
Quoting StreetlightX
now you're starting to get it. that lightbulb is slowly turning on.
List out to me Japan's and Italy's apartheid policies. Go on.
And even if you did, btw, this would still not absolve Israel of it's being an apartheid state.
when did i ever say this??? in any case if we started actually applying attention to muslim on muslim oppression the range of topics covered would be much much broader and israel would proportionally receive less attention.
take 2 seconds to understand the intricacies of japan's society and how difficult it is for non-japanese to understand and you might begin to learn. not everything needs to be formally spelled out - discrimination often occurs in back rooms or behind closed doors.
look at who is succeeding in these countries. when you speak the language, know the culture, know the region, have a history... that's gonna help, it's not hard to understand.
So, back to how Israel is systematically engaging in ethnic cleansing both in and outside it's borders and apartheid within them.
look at the leadership, look a the heads of business. look at the power circles.
Would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state to build roads in Israel that Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
This is not the topic of the thread. If you want to start a new thread about that, go ahead. Thing is, you won't find anyone defending that oppression, so the debate is likely to be short lived.
In the meantime, maybe we can talk about Israel's Basic Law, which enshrines racism at the constitutional level.
"This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the [s]State of Israel[/s] US, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in [s]Israel[/s] the US belong only to [s]the Jewish people[/s] white people. That is the founding principle on which the state was established."
Why would anyone object to this type of thing? Perfectly fine. Absolutely not apartheid. Just like Italy, really.
No because Israel is its own country. Israel doesn't build settlements in other Arab countries.
The West Bank is a Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. So, would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state occupying Israeli territory to build roads Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs? And if you object to any of that, you can reduce it to, "would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"?
Quoting Baden
Which sector of the WB are you talking about? Or are you talking about all of it? Why does all of the WB necessarily belong to the Palestinians? What about the Jewish communities there?
Absolutely, just want to put forward a very simple proposition based on a very simple fact that puts defenders of Israel in the position of having to defend hypothetical anti-semitism or condemn Israeli apartheid. There is no other consistent ethical position.
Quoting Baden
Stop squirming and answer the question above. Anti-semitic or not?
You're dropping the earlier discussion because you just don't know. You need to make an effort to learn the history of the demographics in that area before you jump to conclusions like that the Palestinians are just entitled to the entire WB for some reason.
As for the roads are these near security checkpoints? It might make sense to allow some cars through quicker, but I would think this is only around the border.
Jews have lived in the region for thousands of years, continuously. Way, way before Israel. Jewish populations have been ethnically cleansed from Arab lands.
I honestly wouldn't mind if it were in Egypt or something and it was near a border and they just let the Egyptian citizens speed through quicker. It would hasten the process.
I
Yes, Jews being ethnically cleansed from Arab lands and repeatedly subject to massacres in Palestine before the existence of Israel is utterly irrelevant to you. I wouldn't have expected anything different from you.
Dude, you can't even unequivocally say that Jews should be allowed to use roads there, so everything you say now is coated in the absurd.
Answer the question:
Quoting Baden
Yes or no.
I have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about the use of separate roads, right? Near checkpoints? To speed up the process?
I said I wouldn't have a problem if in Arab countries they had some system like that near checkpoints. Gaza is simply not its own country.
America? Britain? France? Brazil?
Ethnically cleanse as in murder? Or move? Was in ethnic cleansing when Israel forced Israelis to move out of Gaza in 2005?
I simply gave you an example of hypothetical anti-semitism, which you squirmed around and refused to condemn because you thought you couldn't without twisting yourself into an ethical doughnut. Funny to watch. Carry on.
I've already said I don't care if X is allowed to use some roads while Y is allowed to use others near checkpoints. No one is building roads in other countries without their permission and Gaza is not a country. It is not independent.
Israel doesn't discriminate.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, obviously.
You know that you're siding with the Israeli right on this one? I just like to let you know when you're further to the right than me.
"This report deals with one of the primary, albeit lesser known, components of Israel’s policy of restricting Palestinian movement in the Occupied Territories: restrictions and prohibitions on Palestinian travel along certain roads in the West Bank. This phenomenon is referred to in the report as the “Forbidden Roads Regime.” The regime, based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994."
https://www.btselem.org/download/200408_forbidden_roads_eng.pdf
(*B'Tselem
"Historian Mordechai Bar-On writes that B'Tselem's reports "frequently included ugly accounts of the behavior of Israeli security officials" and that Israelis "were often disturbed by these reports." At the same time, the Israeli media viewed the organization as "a reliable source of information" and their reports were in most cases proven to be accurate. Israeli military authorities also frequently turned to B'tselem to confirm the IDF's own information. It has also been called the best neutral source for incidents in the Palestinian territories.")
The only person here entirely outside of the overton window is the only guy you seem to agree with.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
... Except Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurds, Libya, Egypt and Islamism in general have all been discussed. It gets plenty of attention really but as Baden pointed out, more whataboutism.
Quoting Baden
If I understand his position it's not so much that they are Muslims but that it's Israel (particularly Israeli Jews) committing the crime and he thinks loyalty trumps justice or something.
Ok, what's funny to me was that the Arabs supported the withdrawal as did the more moderate to left section of the Israeli population, so basically those who are interested in peace or at least going in that direction.
And on the other side we have the Israeli right many of whom do not care about peace and.... you who is against Israel "ethnically cleansing" its own population of Jews. :death:
And therein lies the essence of bigotry. I take the side of my group against the other, whatever the injustice against the other. It's "us" against "them". I agree it doesn't really matter that the "them" are Muslims in this case. As I also emphasized, Bitconnect's type are just as common among anti-semites. Same approach, just different labels.
They can't name names because the charge is bullshit. No-one here called for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East or anything remotely like it.
You're telling me @Andrew4Handlel is the only person in the discussion who is outside of the overton window and who I agree with?
Quoting Benkei
I almost never see Egypt or Jordan or how Hamas treats its own people discussed. If someone does introduce Hamas oppressing its own people it's always either me or Andrew. I cannot remember the last time I heard Egypt or Jordan or Qatar mentioned here. Afghanistan and Iraq are only relevant because of the west's involvement.
Yes, you seem to vascillate between reasonableness and defending the indefensible.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The only reason you bring up Hamas is as a red herring in this thread. "But they do it too!" As if that makes everything ok.
If you want to discuss Hamas, start a thread on it and then every time you point out something they did I'll just say: "Yeah, but Israel did this therefore totally legit!". Or maybe I won't... I suspect you barely know anything about Hamas since you were obviously not aware they've already stated multiple times they'd accept the 1967 borders as a compromise.
Pappe has gotten some criticism, but I think the main argument that the exodus was planned by the Yishev holds. But then again, parts of Galilee did have a considerable amount of Palestinians. I think Benny Morris has a point when he says:
And there is much debate about Plan Dalet, which Pappe finds crucial here.
I haven't commented much on Andrew4Handel's statements. He has expressed a wide range of opinions some of which I would agree with and some of which I wouldn't.
Quoting Benkei
It's entirely how the issue is framed. The question of Hamas need not be a red herring, it's only a red herring if we're single-mindedly focused on Israel.
Here's how we should be framing it: What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.
Hamas accepts '67 borders + RoR. Not just '67 borders AFAIK.
No, this is not the issue. The contributory negligence or guilt of other parties does not excuse Israeli war crimes.
See, it's all in the framing. You only want to talk about Israel, but others take a broader view of the conflict and are actually interested in addressing all the ways in which the Palestinian people are being abused right now. Wouldn't it be easier to help them if we were to focus on several sources as opposed to just one?
No sane person would argue an act justified because of something that happened over 2 millenia, yet here we are.
Are you more interested in helping the Palestinians or in making Israel pay? Pick a side.
It's not an either or issue. Holding Israel accountable yes, withdrawing aid that's undeserved, boycotts etc. are all instruments the international community should employ to force Israel to give up its Apartheid regime, end the occupation, negotiate a two state solution in good faith etc. Everything necessary to save the Palestinians and create a safe and stable Palestine next to to Israel. I find it rather disingenuous for you to pretend I'm not the one interested in peace where you're the one who's continually defending atrocities, eg. perfectly happy with things continuing the way they are because your see no real problem.
Just curious. And I think this is completely valid in this particular thread as everyone has been ALL over the place on this one, moving it away from this specific incident to the conflict in general, to everything else.
Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".
Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified?
I only ask this to see if there is parity between the two sides or if this is more of a pile on. Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?
I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants.
Edit: I would like people to also understand I know that Israel is the more "powerful" country in terms of weapons.. That is factored into this. The questions still remain:
IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence?
If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,
IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends?
Covered that already. Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel). But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides, usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Maybe just read more of the thread.
Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years?
JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie.
Quoting Baden
Yes I saw that. But the key word was "rather see" which is REALLY hard to nail down there. Sounds like you are okay with it cause rather not is not much of a condemnation, but a kind of "meh, not great but it's acceptable" at least how I interpret it.
Make that a goldfish. This is the part that answers your question re me not justifying "exactly" what Hamas has done.
Quoting Baden
Ok, well you had a varying views there, so you can see why it's confusing.. Again, kind of wishy washy. So just to circle back to the OP's phrasing for parity:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Would you agree with those statements, the way they are phrased? Yes or no? If no, why?
Also keep in mind I acknowledged this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
You seemed to answer NO on that, so I simply need the first question answered yes or no.
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas targeting civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas targeting civilians.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day.
Quoting Baden
Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation.
I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario.
Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. It's not a strong condemnation, so it counters (a bit) the other claims as you seem to have some hesitation.
Quoting Baden
That's what I'm trying to understand, whether you think the morality is unequivocal.. your language not so clear..
Quoting Baden
I don't care if you're condescending. Doesn't change it was kind of wishy washy.
Oh I was going to say you were on the YES camp on this, but then you wrote:
Quoting Baden
So, now I can start being condescending and ask if you understand English, because clearly I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years.
Quoting Baden
Show me the "rather" in that sentence. The one I keep repeating to you. The other sentence is a different sentence refering to something different. The sentence above refers to Hamas targeting civilians. The other sentence refers to violence as a response to occupation in general. The two sentences are distinct. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What are you trying to say? If you are trying to say:
"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts, i.e., no.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's not precise.
You said: Quoting Baden
Sorry not rather not, but just "rather" same thing based on the context of that sentence with the use of "justified in fighting"... which is also similarly wishy washy.. Yes you brought up that at the end of the day "think of the children" but again, it seemed to be hemming and hawing about it.
Quoting Baden
Okay, I'm going to try to lower the tension on this point because based on this stronger condemnation and emphasis I will now put you in the YES camp. Cool with me then. Quoting Baden
Yes, is the violence and actions over the last 30 years justified from Hamas, even though they have less weapons? (If I was to combine both of my ideas). You have much more apparently sided with the YES camp to this question (which I am okay with as at least its parity in terms of starting bias):
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power).
Quoting Baden
I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above.
Let's start with that and slowly make progress.
Are you not okay with the conclusions I have made?
Quoting Baden
No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation.. It was this one that I saw hemming and hawing:
Quoting Baden
Correct.
Cool, so my conclusion is correct then here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And we can leave it at that. I have no problem if that is your view.
Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections.
What's the point of saying this? If it's because you are trying to say, "How can you not have interpreted me as being UNEQUIVOCALLY against Hamas' actions in the last 30 years?!!", then I don't care. I got your conclusion and said I'm cool with it. I had some reason based on a couple statements I pointed out that you might have been wishy washy on it, but you seem clearly against it so again, we can leave it as you condemn it and find it EQUALLY as unjustified, and I am ok with that.
No, you're again not able to read English. Keep trying. Read the posts again and try to figure out where you went wrong.
No, not falling for the bait.. Now you're trying to have some caveat..things that I address (even if you have less weapons).. You brought up ideas of occupying force (maybe that to you allows for justification for something.. not violence though it seems but some sort of "fighting").. Otherwise, I don't get why you won't accept the conclusion I have made, because you seemed to have a strong condemnation by focusing mainly on this statement (the un-wishy-washy one) here:
Quoting Baden
Don't worry, you'll get there. What is that a condemnation of, specifically?
Yes, targeting civilians.. So as long as its military force its a-ok. Got it. So not violence in general, only towards military targets.. And I would guess if Israel acted (for parity) you would say the only legitimate action would be targeting Hamas fighters (assuming Israel is simply trying to get rid of the threat at hand and not solve the whole crisis which is a much bigger issue than the violence happening on the ground). But I put a lot in there, so you can parse away.
Correct.
Now, is this conclusion, as it is phrased, general or specific in terms of the target of the violence?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's hard to think of a group that Westerners care more about being killed than the Palestinians actually, aside from other Westerners in wealthy nations. It's a high profile conflict that has been given the weight of the Culture War.
The recent war in Armenia and the ongoing war in Ukraine is killing more people, and white people at that, and it isn't particularly interesting to Western audiences.
What do you want me to agree with? Specific, and then I went a bit further.. Now are you reading the full posts?
Quoting schopenhauer1
This point was brought up and dealt with earlier in the thread.
As an experiment, you should start a thread and see how many unenthusiastic responses you get for it. You'll get your answer. Or rather, just see how long that thread goes.. Harder to judge enthusiasm for a topic, but it's clear in the animus and emotion in the responses.
Incorrect. The correct answer is "general", which is why it was wrong in a very obvious way. The specific stuff you wrote later.
I'm not getting your point. I used the term "violence".. You were more specific that you were against "targeting civilians" which is more specific. That's was I was thinking you were getting at.
I then came to the conclusion (maybe wrong, you tell me then) that you are okay with violence against military.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you mean
"That's what I was thinking you were getting at"?
Are you using your phone and getting auto-corrected or English is not your native language or what? Serious question.
NO I just like to get my reply out without editing. I go back and edit later. As I did even before you pointed that out.
Brilliant. I get it now. I'll just go back to the start, seeing as you've edited everything now and my replies were to the unedited versions and so may not make sense any more, and we can begin again.
Edit: Having checked, it is indeed a hot mess. My sincere apologies to any poor soul who dared to read through that.
I mean you can just say, "edit your responses to be more clear". Not sure if you are trying to say that in a clever way or something.
No, yes, no, sometimes, no. Good night.
By the way, how did my response get positioned before yours? Haha
The icing on the cake :lol:
(Those are my answers to your original edited post btw).
Can you quote which particular questions you are answering in the "original edited post" (is that the first in the recent exchange)? I can't quite align it, unless you're trying to be cheeky or something and those aren't real answers to anything.
They're in order. You can click the reply link to your post and they should line up. Otherwise, I might flesh it out tomorrow. It's 1am here. Going to bed soon.
Moi?
Trying to align it.. Correct me when you're rested.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Baden: No
Quoting schopenhauer1
Baden: Yes
If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?
Baden: No.. (though I guess kind of confusing but this question would have only been contingent if you said "No' to the previous question. If you did answer "yes" to the question above, then you already agreed that "other options than violence should be used". However, all of this confusion on my part can be due to the fact that I am not aligning this to the right question).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Baden: Sometimes
Quoting schopenhauer1
Baden: No..
This could all be misaligned, but if you have corrections, please let me know.
In an imaginary world where all Palestinian factions decided 1967 borders were acceptable and right of return was stricken from the table, do you think Israelis would even vote for it?
Granted that's very imaginary as that right of return thing is always the kicker..
Also, just wondering, besides "spoils of war" was there an initial reason for the settlements? I do know the ultra-orthodox tend to want control of that area because it aligns more with the ancient Judean kingdom/province, so has Biblical and historical significance.
Edit; Nevermind.. I answered my own question.. In the name of security I'm guessing. But military outposts would have been more appropriate to actual security. Settlements seem to be gambling with people's lives on both fronts.
That's my answer. I don't agree. The statement is too general.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's my answer. Yes, there are some situations where other options should be used but certain acts of violence are justified in certain situations.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's my answer. There have to be limits to what's justified even in war.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's my answer. It just depends on the specific scenario. For example, if the IDF invaded Gaza, Palestinian militants would be justified in resisting the invasion with force. Just as if Palestinian militants invaded Israel, the converse would be true. Sometimes one or the other may be more or less justified in using violence. The asymmetry is that Israel is the occupier. In that sense, their violence is constant.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's my answer. There is an asymmetry but I covered this in my very first answer. It doesn't justify attacks on civilians. But this is what happens, tit-for-tat punishment attacks against the innocent create a spiral of hatred that prolongs conflicts. It happened in N. Ireland and it continues to happen in Israel/Palestine. It doesn't seem like an accident either, but a deliberate strategy.
I still don't really know what you're getting at here.
Yes, and we've already been there with the 2000 Camp David Accords. The Israelis offered that and Arafat rejected. Israel has offered insane concessions in the past including returning all of Gaza and the WB + a good chunk of Jerusalem itself including the Old City. I specifically remember Israel offered 1/2 to 3/4 of the Old City which is very generous for a stronger power to offer. I can't speak for this current administration, but past Israeli administrations would have absolutely gone for it. Hamas has never offered this though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's not just spoils of war or security. There's been Jewish communities in that region for 3000 years, so when territory is won back that territory will often have Jewish communities who want to join up with Israel. The thing about the Middle East is that these strict boundaries or borders are a relatively new phenomenon. Arab and Jewish communities had been living side by side for thousands of years all mixed together and now when we draw these borders things can get awkward.
God, next to being uncritical you're also poorly informed.
You're referring to the Camp David Summit and Israel never offered the 1967 borders at all. Palestinians offered several concessions such as land for land to break the impasse. And the idea that the Israelis are magnanimous for returning land that they stole is the typical Orwellian turn that should be resisted. It is not courageous when you're doing things you're supposed to do. You don't get a fucking sticker for giving up the proceeds of a crime.
As Norman Finkelstein wrote: "Judged from the perspective of Palestinians' and Israelis' respective rights under international law, all the concessions at Camp David came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side."
No, they stole our land. We're just being nice enough to give some our land to them. It is not their land. You're just insanely biased in favor of the Arabs for some reason. Are you white or are you an Arab, because if you're a white non-muslim I have no idea what causes you to read history this way. If you're an Arab muslim it makes sense.
If you're really a white European who believes that the issue began in 1947 or '48 then you're really just playing your own game. Everybody else is playing baseball and you're off playing handball with yourself in the corner. Sure, maybe if everything just magically begins in '47 then Israel is the "bad guy" who knows? Who cares? But that's your own viewing of the conflict and it's not one that the actual players in the game share.
Please explain to me e.g. why an Arab massacre perpetrated against the Jews in 1941 in Iraq doesn't matter in this. Is it because Israel wasn't a state? Tell that the Jews.
"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now"
Imagine if Israel started making concentration camps for Germans. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't mind that.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Right. Like Sudan was stolen form Egypt since Egypt owned it 4000+ years ago so Sudan is actually rightfully Egyptian land and this justifies an invasion of Sudan and to confine Sudanese people to small portion of the country (that also happens to be split in 2).
I'd hoped you'd abandoned that position, I confess. Really, it hasn't been Jewish land since (at the latest) the Romans, with that thoroughness and ruthlessness which was characteristic of them whenever the thought their imperium was threatened, crushed the revolt led by Simon Bar Kokhba in 136 C.E. Israel's existence is merely a fact, it isn't something which can be justified or explained as being the restoration of a "homeland" or the return of a gift of land by God, or as the return of stolen property to its rightful owner.
I am speaking here as a Jew, not as an "objective" observer here. I don't think there is such a thing as a truly objective observer. Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that.
Part of the reason this conversation is muddled and confusing is depending on the time I'll either be speaking as a Jew or as an "objective" observer - whatever that may mean. With you I'm capable of being the latter, but the discussion gets more personal it's harder to adopt that lens -- especially when outsiders claim that the land rightfully belongs to the "Palestinians" who apparently only started existing in 1964.
Maybe get a life?
But in any case, nothing, absolutely nothing, that you have mentioned justifies Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
The religious claim to the land needs to be relegated to the rubbish bin where it belongs. It has no place in law or ethics.
It's funny how you think this has anything to do with anything. You're the only one that thinks my skin-colour, religion or ethnicity has any relevance here... which is pretty racist I guess.
:up: :clap:
Quoting Benkei
And so...
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Indeed, let's not discuss death but how many deaths and how the deaths were brought about. Something tells me we're in a whole lot of trouble. Nevertheless, a fine point.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What follows as of necessity?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
[quote=Wikipedia]In Israel the homicide rate produced by criminal activities is relatively low: in 2015, there were 2.4 people killed per 100,000 inhabitants (in Switzerland the number is 0.71, in Russia it is 14.9, in South Africa it is 34, in Venezuela it is 49). In 2009, 135 people were murdered in Israel. The percentage of women killed by their partners who were Arab decreased from 9 out of 11 in 2009 to 10 out of 15 in 2010 and 11 out of 24 in 2011.
According to Israel's police, the number of murders is continually decreasing. In 2018, 103 people were the victims of homicide, compared with 136 people in 2017. The murder rate in 2018 was 1.14 people per 100,000 inhabitants.[/quote]
"In Israel the homicide rate produced by criminal activities is relatively low"...but not ZERO, at least not yet. Sorry to hear that!
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That sure, huh? Heisenberg would've been mortified.
[quote=Jesus Christ]He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.[/quote]
And nothing you've said justifies the Arab world's 2700 year history of murdering, ethnically cleansing, and subjugating Jews to second class citizens. Israel demands reparations now.
Let's have this discussion. Why do we only have to have the discussions that you want? We'll first do my discussion, then we'll do yours, how's that sound?
You want to play the victim game we can play the victim game and don't for a second even think about telling me that the oppression of my people isn't relevant to modern times.
Israel does not get to play the victim card in a situation where it is the perpetrator. You keep trying it, it's still wrong and it makes you sound like an utter &@&$ for continually bringing irrelevant shit up.
Reparations have no bearing on war crimes.
Yeah, me and the entire Middle East...so the people involved in the conflict as opposed to enlightened Europeans who have zero personal or cultural connection to the affair, yet believe they're in perfect right to judge everything.
Nothing you've said justifies the Assyrians destroying the Kingdom of Judea in 750 BCE and ethnically cleansing the Jews there.
:lol:
Why are you laughing at ethic cleansing? Are you a racist?
If you're unwilling to accept that ethnicity and religion play a role in this conflict then it's probably best we stop talking about this.
This isn't my usual line, but if people want to play the victim game we can play the victim game. @Benkai started the victim game, I'm just finishing it.
Neither are dead Jews. But apparently dead Jews are a game to you because you've laughed at the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Just admit you don't care about dead Jews, it'll make things so much easier.
Do you care about dead Jews in the 20th century? 19th century? When do you draw the line?
Ethnic cleansing is par for the course in the Middle East.
I draw the line at what can be done in the present by present day aggressors.
Alright so if the Arabs overran the Jews and made Jews into second class citizens, as Jews have always been under Arab rule, you'd be on the Jews side. Well that's great to hear, but I'm gonna have to say "no thanks" to your support.
Those principles are the luxury of the uninvolved outsider. It makes no difference to you if Israel collapses, and that's fine, it wouldn't matter to me if Australia was in some conflict or war and they got overrun. They were probably the oppressors anyway.
Ah, I see you're not done role-playing. When you are, hit me up.
Amazing.
I couldn't help myself, Benkei started playing the victim game and I had jump right on in there.
Well if you're willing to disavow all of your dialogue with @Benkei...
What people don't understand about these discussions is that there's two Carlos'.
You, @ssu and @Ciceronianus the White are getting the reasonable, "objective" Carlos because your writing actually feels genuine to me. We're having an actual conversation about the subject and you seem to be approaching it from an honest standpoint. I am doing my best to distance myself from my identity to engage you productively.
I've been talking with Benkei for a while on this matter and I've never, ever got the sense he's attempting to be objective. I finally just threw up my hands today with him.
But yeah, this line is not something I'd ever argue with you or ssu because it's totally unproductive. I just had to get it off my chest with Benkei after his tirades.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I did suspect you were posting disingenuously with @Benkei and @StreetlightX, as it seems did they:
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Benkei
Though I believe @Benkei is actually attempting to engage you rationally here. I believe if you asked him principled questions like: "What is a war crime?" and "Why do you believe Israel is an apartheid state?" and other such things they would be able (but perhaps not willing at this point) to give you either detailed answers or resources.
What I didn't understand was which Carlos was displaying your actual intent. From personal experience, if I adopt a troll persona I'm way more serious about the contested claims than I let on - if I'm at the stage of discussion where I start thinking rhetorically and strategically, like you seemed to, it's ceased to be a game because I'm treating it like a strategy. So yeah, I made the assumption that you were like me and the knowingly absurd comments were actually closer to your true position on the issue than the more even handed ones you made - the passion which moves the reason as it were.
But this is, I guess, typical, if you don't have an argument, you can always play the victim. Now where have we seen that before...
If we're going to frame the conflict as a zero-sum game, as other posters have, then I can play that game too. No, history does not begin in 1948 like the Europeans seem to believe. We're not going to solve much by looking back where each side can bring up endless grievances, we're going to do much better by looking forward.
Quoting fdrake
It wasn't those questions that you cited that offended me. It's a number of things that we could dive into if you like but otherwise I'd rather just move on.
Quoting fdrake
It all depends on the way the conflict is being framed. With most people it'll be civil and I'll try to distance myself from my identity as much as possible, but the minute one side appears more intent on simply demonizing the other rather than finding a solution I'm done.
You can of course criticize and ask questions but it's all about how you phrase it. You've asked me a ton of questions and I respond and there's never been an issue. I've been more than happy to admit that Israel is far from perfect.
It's all about the way you frame it. I approach the issue asking "what's the best way to help the Palestinians improve their position today" but others are simply more interested in demonizing one side. Israel is much more amenable to working with a Palestinian government that doesn't demand its immediate dissolution and refuses to recognize it.
As for Benkei, I realize that "tirades" was the wrong word. The issue here is phrasing and approach. And the fact that a white European is so, so convinced that the WB and Gaza, for whatever reason, absolutely belong to the Palestinians 100%.
Quoting Benkei
I just gotta respond to this.
This isn't me angry or bitter at the Romans. I am making a cultural observation here.
Kind of hard to tell when you're speaking as a Jew in the same paragraph but you can transpose my comment to whoever thinks that ought to be part of a cultural identity.
So I understand, and have been told before. The only people I know who got that kind of treatment from Rome were the Carthaginians.
What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas.
Quoting Baden
Yep, becomes reprisal tit-for-tat, revenge, etc. Israel can sort of try to claim "deterrence" too, but I don't see suicidal terrorists being deterred anyways. Once they used up most of their supply, they will stop more likely. I'm not sure what makes Hamas "stop" though.. It certainly isn't seeing their own innocents die anymore than Israel sending over missiles in response to intended violence towards them. Israel too should take into account that Hamas just doesn't give a fuck if a bunch of people die in response to their rockets. As long as they have a show of force, and show they are "really pissed", they are good with it, no matter the consequences towards their own people.
Quoting Baden
It goes back to this:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Or more elaborated version whereby if "BitCarlos cannot say "We are justified to use violence because of X (security)", similarly you cannot say on Palestinian side, "We are justified to use violence because of X (occupying force)". I was looking to make sure there wasn't just blatant bias going on.
I also wanted to see the propensity one has for condoning violence against one side or how even-handed was it. In other words, if you perceive that you are occupied, how violent are you allowed to be and to whom? Conversely, if your civilians are being purposefully targeted (like in the case of Israel's citizens), what is the proper response if those very perpetrators hide back in the crowds? Hence my question here:
I think many people can agree that the circumstances in which Israel became a state were far from ideal. I think you do a good job at digging up the history here, and I like that you cite Benny Morris. I've found Morris never shies away from Israeli atrocities and more or less believes in just putting it all out there.
In any case the approach that I go with is how do we best move forward from where we are now. I think we should be working to bring people from both sides of the fence together. I don't have much faith in Netanyahu, and I have zero in Hamas. I guess I would have to favor a grassroots solutions if that type of thing is at all possible.
The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile.
Give up Right of Return. Give up big settlements in West Bank. Make sure things like assassinations (Rabin) and increasing suicide bombings (Hamas/Hezbollah or whatnot) doesn't occur during process. If this happens, the moderates crack down on their own extremes. Not sure how that looks.
I never said massacres are okay. Massacres are always bad. Israel has sentenced some of the war criminals in those years, although not in a way that one would normally consider fair. Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers?
What specifically from the posts you saw with others made you feel like Israel was being demonised rather than being criticised strongly for human rights violations? Is there a line you draw or is it vibes based?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I mean that's pretty clear, no? Lobbying the state of Israel and it accepting one of the documented compromises Palestine has proposed on territory and were refused or blocked by the state of Israel. Internal demonstration within the state of Israel, proportional violent resistance to military over-reach, supply chain disruptions, trade sanctions on the state etc.
As it stands the Palestinians are using whatever political means available to help themselves; yes, including terrible violence; it's up to Israel to increase the space of acceptable means. It has been for some time, but it doesn't happen.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I didn't read that into their framing at all! I've never gotten "gains for one are losses for the other" framing from @Benkei or @StreetlightX's discussion of it - except in the extremely literal sense that gains in Israel's territory are losses in Palestine's. I think Benkei and Street know more than well enough that collaborative games like politics don't need to be framed as zero sum and typically are not in reality.
From my perspective, your posts were actually the ones which had this framing - though presumably because you detected it (in my eyes a mis-detection) and responded in kind, though I can understand that you felt victimised through identifying with a group you felt were being demonised and have lots of tropes on your side for inferring that demonisation. Again, from my perspective, Israel was being harshly criticised for its numerous human rights violations and this is an emotive issue + being on the "receiving end" of someone's anger (regardless of its motivation) often feels like being stereotyped/demonised/victimised.
So I get it (I think), but I think you misclassified the intent.
I would have thought so but others explicitly reject this "lets first and foremost help the Palestinians" approach. From an exchange yesterday:
Quoting Benkei
I was trying to frame the issue in a constructive, forward-looking way and Benkei, for whatever reason, refocuses the discussion exclusively on Israel. It's ridiculous to me because it implies that Hamas and the PA are either non-existent (or don't matter) or are Israeli puppets - neither of which are true. The PA and Hamas are the direct regional governments of the Palestinian people. They are quite relevant and play an active role in the daily lives of Palestinians.
Quoting fdrake
This is difficult to do as Hamas will arrest Palestinians who attempt to reach out to Israelis.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-gaza-activists/hamas-releases-palestinian-peace-activists-arrested-after-zoom-call-with-israelis-idUSKBN27B2JU
These peace meetings are considered treason by Hamas.
The PA over in the West Bank hasn't had an election in around 10 years and the level of corruption and embezzlement is so widespread that its become just a fact of life, but they get no attention as they are not Hamas. Things have undoubtedly been better in the West Bank though.
"Lets help the Palestinians" is such a better, more constructive approach than "lets make Israel bleed." One of these focuses on an actual legitimate problem, the other is directly counter-productive and actually a big part of the reason that people like Netanyahu are in power.
This is a tactical / operational modus operandi that Israel has.
It's basically a "Tit-for-tat" strategy added with a larger operation every once in a while when some Israeli leader decides a larger operation would look better. For the Palestinians they only have to survive and exist as a potential force and lob sometimes a few rockets to Israel, because otherwise people would forget that there's a conflict going on. And the "security hawks" like Bibi Netanyahu, one rocket is too much for their ego, because they have claimed that they can fight the insurgency and keep the Jewish people safe. Hence some incident happens, other side counters with either firing rockets (Palestinians) or bombing (Israelis). And when an incident is considered too large, then Israel launches a bigger operation.
Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with solving the conflict. On the contrary: the tactics used only keep the low intensity conflict alive and the conflict going on. Here the case is that one has to understand how insurgencies can be won: they need a political solution. How is this so difficult to understand?
Quoting schopenhauer1
What is this obsession/fetish about wars and military actions being justified / unjustified?
As if "the justification" for war is the most important issue. Those who participate in voluntary wars, get themselves involved in others conflicts or start conflicts themselves far away from their own lands might be fixated on "the justification" question. Is it totally inconceivable to fathom that both sides in a conflict could have justified reasons for their action? Both sides would think that they are defending themselves and their people? Why think that for human conflicts there is a moral "righteous justified" reasoning that one side has and the other hasn't? That one side is clearly right and another clearly wrong?
In my view, what is unjustified is to sustain a perpetual conflict without any care or desire to solve it. And, for clarity, a "final solution" type genocide isn't a justified solution. Israel can keep this on as long as they want. Just look at their economic history:
And for that matter, so can the Palestinians. They won't capitulate either. They'll raise the next generation to carry the fight. What else do they have?
Enough people want this conflict to go on. Especially the religious fanatics. People can have this strange discussion of who is morally more justified than the other in a long conflict like this. A better discussion would be how the conflict could be ended. Without the virtue signaling.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sometimes you need to accept that you can’t find the perpetrator or separate him/her from innocent parties and by killing the innocent along with the guilty, you simply create more perpetrators, and more fanatic ones. Sometime after Bloody Sunday where British Soldiers did open fire on and kill civilians in response to gunfire from IRA operatives in the vicinity, the British realised this and that they wouldn’t defeat the IRA this way. In fact they'd become their chief recruiting officers instead. But they actually did want a solution and eventually got one. Had they taken a more heavy handed approach, violence simply would have escalated, the IRA become stronger and more popular, and a peace process virtually impossible. Again, if you want peace you don’t use these tactics.
Just ask yourself: How did (West) Europeans find this harmony to try something as crazy as the European Union? Even if it has it's faults, it's pretty different endeavour from the past. How did the militarism and jingoism die in Europe?
As I've said earlier, the answer was two world wars. Basically one way to find peace is when people truly are so sick and tired of war that they don't give a shit what the war-hawks, the religious zealots claim and want. There are simply too many that have died. Total disasters create change. Countries like West Germany truly had to think things over. That is one answer, but surely not the best answer.
A better way would be that you would have the truly courageous leaders that truly would want peace and would not care that the more easier way for a politician to succeed is to be a hawk. Those politicians who make peace agreements in the Middle East have been killed by their own. Not the hawks: they die of old age.
And those in the military (and the political leaders) have to understand that the British way to deal with insurgencies, as also wrote, is the hard long dreary road to some kind of peace. If you uphold things like the Common Law and treat the terrorists as criminals and put them through the legal system, yes, you do bind your military on how they can fight their opponent. You do restrain your fighting men from using "excessive force" and that does hinder their response. And likely that will mean that more of them will end up as casualties. They simply cannot call in an artillery strike or close air support which turns tables quite quickly in an ambush. Yet calling in that artillery strike or fighter bomber likely will create in the long run more insurgents than they kill. Let's not forget that even if it did go for a longer time, the British lost far more soldiers & policemen killed in Northern Ireland (Operation Banner) than in the Falklands war, in Iraq or in Afghanistan combined.
In fact, I think less Israeli soldiers have been killed fighting the Palestinians in the last 40 years than the British lost in Operation Banner.
Pertinent to this discussion is the apparent fact that Netanyahu might finally lose power in Israel. If this amounts to anything practical on the ground is yet to be seen. Likely not. But, that will also depend on how firm the US is in dealing with Israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/LIVE-lapid-aims-to-announce-new-government-with-bennett-at-the-helm-1.9866751
There's nothing constructive about trying to direct attention away from Israeli oppression, annexation and colonialism. Hamas' crimes against their own is a drop in the ocean of the violence perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians. Until you are capable of fully recognising the extent of Israeli crimes there is simply no use looking beyond it. And in light of your "trip around the world" of tu quoque earlier in this thread, I have no faith that's anything genuine about this.
As to constructive solutions. I have repeatedly said what such solution looks like. It's 1967 borders with right of return. Especially for those Palestinians effectively deported from their homes in East Jerusalem, which to this day cannot leave the country and return to their own homes. The deportation of Palestinians continues.
It's also funny how you point out the lack of objectivity in this situation and couldn't understand a white European could be "in favour" of Palestinians. You seem to continually fail to understand that the impartial, I have no horse in this race other than a respect for humanity, judgment is this - it's based on principles such as international law and human rights. I understand this is very far from the propaganda you've been spoon fed from birth, but there it is. And when you realise I have a no relation, I'm all of a sudden judgmental. Indeed I am. Who else has to render judgment but an outsider precisely because those with ties to the region can't be objective?
I'll notice that except for a few diaspora Jews nobody seems to have defended Israel here. And other than Khaled I think they're mostly white males from western countries.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
.
Hmm... Due process afforded after being charged with an actual crime according to local law. That's already a step up from the "administrative" detention of Israel where no charge is laid and Palestinians are in prison for months and sometimes even years. Try again...
As a white male from a Western country, it's still a tough sell. I think I'd tend to take a stronger position on Palestinian violence than my lefty peers on this: violence is a perfectly acceptable last resort in the face of an existential threat, and the Palestinian crisis, caused and perpetuated by Israel, most certainly qualifies as an existential threat. As such, the prior discussions on "if Israel can't be violent surely Gammas can't be violent" are disingenuous in my eyes: Israel have, or at least had, the power to end this peacefully; the PLO did not, and a peaceful PLO would not have neutered the existential threat to the Palestinian people.
However... The Israel-Palestine conflict of today is not that of the more optimistic past. While most Jews and Palestinians support a peaceful, cooperative two-state solution, Hamas has consciously put itself at odds with peace as an ideal and the mutually agreed conditions of the two-state solution.
It's still impossible to defend Israel, since Hamas' MO is a beast of their own creation, but in fairness it's now difficult to negotiate a peace treaty with an entity that a) refuses to accept peace as a condition of a peace treaty and b) refuses to acknowledge the existence of the other state. Even for the now bipartisan PA, this still strikes me as the most immediate barrier to peace.
That said, given that Israel does not face any kind of existential threat from Palestine, meeting a lobbed, homemade explosive over a fence with multiple strikes to kill many civilians is still indefensible. It's incommensurate. The deterrent defense is untenable: they are killing and angering people who recognise Israel and support a peaceful two-state solution. That is not a deterrent, that's an inticement. I've never felt that Israel had any intention of working toward a peaceful two-state solution, rather their own MO has been to stall in times of peace and kill as many as they can get away with in times of conflict.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Let me add some to this because people forget a few aspects. Israel doesn't recognise a Palestinian State either and even when Rabin and Arafat got close, Palestine would not be a State but an "autonomous region". The refusal to recognise Israel mirrors Israel's refusal to recognise a Palestinian State. And from a negotiation perspective this also makes sense because by recognising a State the right to land is automatically recognised. And in the end territory is a very important aspect of the negotiations.
Hamas has explicitly stated, several times since 2008 in fact, that "[it] considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
I'm confident if this is achieved that Hamas too, will recognise Israel as a State because then the borders, Palestinian rights and status of Jerusalem would be agreed so there's no risk in recognising the other party as sovereign. They've been clear that their resistance is not against Jews but against zionism even though the status of Jerusalem is also clearly a religious issue.
Well, glad to know it was all done by the books. Thanks for setting me straight there. If only the Israeli government could learn such professionalism! /s
But that is precisely what they've refused to agree to, along with, on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the government of that state ceasing hostilities against Israel.
Quoting Benkei
On the first point, true, but then Palestine isn't an autonomous region yet, Israel is and is globally recognised as such (with a few exceptions). In the failed Oslo agreement, both sides agreed to recognise the other as a sovereign state and cease hostilities once the autonomous state of Palestine was established. Hamas reversed that. I don't see this as a barrier to a two-state solution from Israel's point of view, but at the same time it would be extremely trusting, naive even, to think the conflict would end there when your opponent has actively reneged on a promise not to attack you if it gets what it says it wants.
Why is this at the end of every comment? It's the same idea. Now it's "They didn't sentence their murderers so it's fine for us to leave some of ours too". You keep highlighting the intolerance and backwardness of many Arab countries but you can't go 2 sentences without comparing to them. What does that say about Israel?
You make a fair point and I'll try to stop doing that with you. It was nothing personal I was thinking about other posters, but we have our own dialogue and we can keep it civil if we like. I shouldn't have let that other poster affect my tone with you.
Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" while also demonizing said Arabs. The form itself is insane ("The Germans did the holocaust so it's fine for us to slaughter them back") but that you compare Israel to the Arab states you keep demonizing should tell you something about Israel.
You also seem to think that anyone who condemns Israeli atrocities is fine with Arab atrocities. People don't see it as a freaking "atrocity competition" like you seem to. Saying X did something wrong doesn't make Y a saint.
I've never said it was fine. Everybody can be wrong. So what then? What's the upshot?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Why must there be a "so what"? This thread is simply talking about a current atrocity. What do you think the upshot is? You think everyone here is secretly siding with Hamas and threatening poor defenseless Israel?
For the purposes of our discussion we can start with the premise that what Israel did in '48 was wrong. I'm fine with entertaining that idea. Or that Israel was wrong for launching rockets into Gaza. So what then?
Sorry, I just find it meaningless to just point at a state and be like "that's wrong." Ok, what are you going to do about it?
It's a state, it's not an individual. It's a complex network.
I'm not sure this is correct. When was this on the table during the Oslo Accords? As far as I know it has never been on the table to recognise a Palestinian State from the Israeli side. Please provide documentation if you think otherwise but I think you're confusing the recognition of Israel of the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people with a broader recognition.
Absolutely agree. You’ve actually managed to sum up my points in my last few posts better than I so kudos. I was first seeing If the indignity went both ways, but the broader point I was getting at is pretty much what you stated in your last post.
I refer everyone to it as a summation of this thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/545926
I tell you about how Hamas arrests citizens for attempting to make peace through establishing connections in Israel, and your response is that it was 'all done by the books.' I can't imagine anyone who isn't a diehard Hamas supporter saying this. I just wonder how a white Dutchman becomes a diehard Hamas supporter.
Educate yourself : https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention
The problem is that there's a lot of misinformation out there that is a barrier to a fair and just solution. Peace brokers like the USA aren't good brokers for peace due to the persistent bias existing about Israel's role in the conflict and policy choices where they give billions to Israel. You can't negotiate peace if only one side's security is taken seriously when in fact it's the other side getting killed.
Like I said, I'm not defending Israel here, Hamas is on them. That's about as close to a defence of Israel I can muster.
I have no recollection of this or Hamas refusing this. They weren't part of the negotiations during the summit and the Camp David Accords (much older than the summit) was when Hamas wasn't a player. Do you have a link to it somewhere?
Even so, Hamas has changed from their original more extremist views to more moderate views. And I don't think serious peace talks were had since 2008, when it was the first time they communicated a possibility for peace along the 1967 borders and right of return.
I'm not sure Hamas are as much moderate as moderated, that is to say I'm less convinced they'd be as chill if they weren't in coalition. Btw I wasn't suggesting Hamas were at Camp David, just that they declined to continue along that course.
It is true, by the way, that they've rejected all the Camp David and Oslo Accords because those didn't establish a sovereign state and probably didn't adequately deal (in their view) with Jerusalem and the right of return.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/world/middleeast/hamas-is-facing-a-money-crisis-aid-may-be-cut.html
I remembered this as a demand to recognise Israel as a state, which is an essential component of the two-state solution. Apparently we were just asking them to back down on their commitment to the destruction of Israel as per the Hamas covenant.
Ah. So the US reaction references the more assertive demand of the two-state solution: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pcaab448.pdf
Interestingly, their analysis is that it was a ploy to stoke sympathy and attract broader funding. Personally I think it's just religious mania on the back of (rightful) indignation.
A correction to my earlier correction, it was the Oslo agreement after all. The PLO recognised the state of Israel in 1993.
EDIT:
It's a simplistic-seeming summary, but I suspect it's the thick end of the wedge. Or rather Hamas came to power in the first place as a reaction to that. I think Hamas itself is just another bloodthirsty jihadist nutjob organisation, a sort of Palestinian Trump monster emerging like a cry of desperation from a thwarted people with no good options.
Hamas was also democratically elected. The terrorist designation and unwillingness to deal with them is, as Italian foreign minister said in 2007 "not a good lesson in democracy". Hamas has a terrorist wing but also provides aid, runs hospitals and is a political party. Kind of like the IRA and Sinn Fein.
We also need to see through the ploy of submitting demands to enter into negotiations. In some rounds to start negotiations, the recognition of Israel was a requisite to start negotiations. We see in the second link (can't read the first as I reached my limit) that the recognition is a prerequisite for aid and is about Hamas' charter. Hamas consistently says Israel's status and recognition is subject to negotiation and should be part of it, so they will always reject what the PLO did : recognise the State of Israel before negotiations start. They will not recognise Israel's right to exist in their charter because of this. I do think people read too much into that because It's about territory and we know Israel doesn't recognise Palestine either and Likud's charter pretty much denies establishing Palestine too. It shouldn't be a barrier to negotiations either way.
No, I think you've misunderstood. This wasn't about starting another wave of negotiations, it was about continuation of aid to Palestine following the election of an organisation that had declared the destruction of Israel as one of its aims. I don't think there's anything too dark going on in the quartet: it seems perfectly reasonable to me not to provide funds to such a party, whether or not one is sympathetic to the origins of that party (as one might be sympathetic to the IRA but not want to enable it's violence).
I couldn't disagree more that failure to recognise the other side as a state is a barrier to the implementation of a two-state solution. You cannot have a successful two-state solution when one side will not recognise the other. It was a huge achievement to get Israel to recognise the PLO as the legitimate negotiator for a future state of Palestine: the Palestinian side was not a problem here until 2006 afaik.
Likewise you cannot work toward peace with an opponent who does not have peace as a goal.
Not only misinformation, but also simple ignorance.
Just take for example the Israeli nuclear deterrence or it's biological and chemical warfare capability (Israel hasn't ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, hasn't ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention). Yes, informed people know of existence of Israeli nuclear weapons, but I would argue that many actually do not. That Israel has nuclear weapons alongside other WMD capability puts into another light the reasons of WMD projects of it's neighbors: they have been an attempt to create a deterrence and a balance.
There are the populists, the religious zealots, but behind the bellicose threatening discourse there is logical thinking on both sides (if continuation of a conflict can be logical).
Quoting Benkei
Put it another way, there isn't an urgent need for the US to do anything in this issue and the fact is that far more important to American politicians are the domestic votes in elections and the support of AIPAC and Christian Evangelists than a solution in the Middle East.
For politicians to truly seek peace and to end an active conflict usually happens when the continuation of the conflict is simply unbearable and will likely lead to the downfall of the politicians. How many US politicians face imminent downfall if they continue the line of supporting Israel (and all the Judeo-Christian heritage etc.) and make the nominal peace proposals that benefit one side more than the other?
And not to just single out the US, what other entity cannot continue with the old normal that has basically been going on from 1948? A 73-year conflict means that the conflict is normality for the people. That is the unfortunate thing here.
When we know we agree on those things, we can go further with the topic...
How can it change for the better?
How will it change?
If Bibi is finally ousted and a new pro-peace Israeli government seeks to change course, can it? Is there a possibility of getting out of this rabbit hole?
Can other countries besides the US, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Russia, Turkey etc. play a supportive role towards peace in the Middle-East?
And if so, how can the Palestinians, be it the PA or Hamas or whoever, also approach this? Can they actually make and keep peace with Israel and then face the fact that there's Israel and they have all these problems...
The end result of Rabin and Arafat was not going to be a Palestinian State though.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Quoting Benkei
?
Do you practically, or nominally? It certainly was the intention that the 5 year interim period would be used for negotiations for a permanent government of Palestine. If you mean practically, yeah well... look where we are. :'(
Quoting Benkei
Okay, maybe _I_ misunderstand. I don't see the relevance of:
Quoting Benkei
to the quartet demands to continue funding, which is what I thought you were responding to there (although you didn't quote it).
From wiki (not my favourite source but since it confirms what I remembered from my studies I'll use it):
Now, if you look at the specific details the end result would never be called a Palestinian state due to no control of borders, air space or waters and, I believe, but I can't find a reference right now, no control of their economy.
The language is the interim period doesn't talk about the end result being a State either. More like an autonomous region. Like Kosovo I suppose.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v15/n20/edward-said/the-morning-after
I'm convinced that there is some sort of grassroots Palestinian movement in Gaza that's actually interested in peace and may in fact not want to live under fundamentalist Islamic rule (who'd have thought?) I would love to see an uprising in Gaza where the population comes together and overthrows Hamas, but Hamas has all the power so I don't see this happening anytime soon. Their deep-seated opposition to Israel's existence is made clear in their founding documents. I just don't think peace is possible with Hamas in power.
When you're dealing with the PA there's at least a glimmer of hope since they're secular, but peace with Israel is just never a popular move politically (by peace I mean renouncing further territorial claims as this is deeply unpopular). I know for a fact that the WB is doing better than Gaza and the people are a little freer. I don't know if the situation in the WB is in need of immediate international attention. Sure, WB isn't doing great but there's actually a lot of places that are doing worse.
Gaza is one strange concentration camp, so having an effect from there is limited.
First of all, the Palestinians would have to overcome the highly disruptive Hamas-Fatah conflict. The reconciliation process hasn't gone anywhere in over a decade. The 2014 unity government attempt wasn't successful and now you have the two opposing Palestinian governments. And, of course, both Israel and the US are opposed have effectively opposed reconciliation. This naturally is divide-et-impera tactics: never have your opponent be someone with one credible voice, if you can splinter it into different opposing groups.
The problem perhaps is that of the structure of the PLO itself:
How you a have a military organization having in itself a parliament and an executive representing the country, then all that still be lead by one leadership I find very difficult to fathom. Let's remember that Hamas came out from the dissatisfaction of Palestinians to the rule of the PLO and there the Fatah.
I would personally see as the crucial voice here the Palestinians that are called "Arab Israelis", because as still considered as Israeli citizens, they do have ways to influence the political landscape and also Western views. Still, getting even them to be unified is a problem.
How and what they can do, we will see, but the for the first time, Palestinians are going into the Israeli government:
Sorry for late reply, was tearing it up in London. Security Council Resolution 242 was the stated model of Oslo II (for the negotiation of further transfer of power to the interim government of Palestine to establish, within five years, a permanent arrangement), which included mutual respect and autonomous control of borders in the area.
You're probably right that this falls short of an unambiguous acknowledgement of a state of Palestine being the endgame for Israel. Nonetheless, given that the two-state solution was the reigning paradigm, it seems to me that Israel were at least satisfied to give that impression. And it does seem like Netanyahu had a change of heart, from gradual retreat from occupied Palestine to a reoccupation of those territories, and that this was unpopular with his own cabinet.
Hamas targets civilians but, of course, the U.S. nuked two cities in order to get their way- Humans are like the "lower" animals when they are in a fight
The history of the bombings in Japan are quite interesting, and horrifying. There maybe could be some kind of argument that could be made about using it in Hiroshima and it should still be considered a war crime, in my view.
But zero justification at all for Nagasaki. While the US is responsible for the use of the bombs, there should be no doubt at all about that - the Japanese fascist government played a massive part in the tragedy too. The leadership, minus a small dissident camp refused to give up when they knew they lost the war. There's also the factor of using the bomb as showing off vs. the USSR and other things, but that would be good material for another thread.
The idea w/ Israel is that, we'd like to think or at least aspire to the notion that we are being less savage than we used to be. Why bother then with all this rights of prisoners of war and non-killing civilians argument? So states know they have a minimum standard they should abide by, though they rarely do. But in 2021 to have a highly developed, industrial country bombing the crap out of an open air prison all the while starving its residents and then calling it "defense", is something that should not be acceptable.
The reason Israel is singled out, is that there is already a known solution, short term at least, for the conflict: go to resolution 242 and abide by that. The US is also directly responsible for Israel's actions and this can do something about this.
There are other horrors: Yemen, Kashmir, etc., etc. but these are much harder to do anything about.
But yes, you are right, in war, people are like animals, but worse.
Jews themselves were persecuted in WWII, but, as you say, they are taking it out on other people. Blacks in America are taking out their anger by riots, and white conservatives condemn it. Yet Israel has done much worse damage in revenge and Foxnews and company supports it. Trump himself said that, when asked about Putin's crimes, "there is blood on our hands too"
Yes. That's the evangelical dimension to Israel. Likely the most anti-Semitic people in the world are those who "support" Israel. Quite ironic.
And Trump should be commended for saying that, because it's true. There's blood on every states hands. It's just that the bigger the state (generally) the more blood they spill...
Yeah, sure, or maybe the anti-Semites are the ones who are actually attacking Jews worldwide over Israel's actions. Or the ones who are extremely critical of Israel while saying nothing of Hamas.
I mean, there's everything. There are anti-Semitic people who praise Israeli and those who do not. And there are those who criticize Israel with no idea of Judaism in mind at all.
Maybe the rest of the world is an exception, though based on what I've seen not really, in that hatred of Arabs and specifically Islam is often stated, by Presidents and Prime Ministers no less. No one in the "West" today would dream of saying 1/10'th of what they say about Arabs to Jews. It would be considered racist if done, and quite correctly.
There is no shortage of criticism of Hamas or radical Islam at all. Some of it has merits, sure. But a lot of it is just racism.
So it goes both ways.
In my experience very few anti-Semites are pro-Israel. Israel is such a perfect lightening rod that I don't see why anti-Semites would avoid that opportunity. It's just so easy.
What disparaging comments have western leaders and prime ministers said lately about Arabs? Could you mind citing a few examples? Anti-semitism is rampant across the muslim/arab world.
Quoting Manuel
A lot of criticism of Hamas is racism? Why would you say this about Hamas but not apply it to Israel and anti-Semitism? Radical muslims are universally despised even among other Muslims.
Well take the Evangelicals. Or parts of the far right, like that guy from Norway, Breijvik. The idea is we don't like these Jews, but we like these Arabs even less so let the Jews stay in Israel and take care of the Arabs.
But yes, you are also correct. There is bound to be anti-Semites who hate Israel.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You really need sources? I'll give a few. They're mixed in with Radical Islam to make it look less blatant...
Macron:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/2/macron-announces-new-plan-to-regulate-islam-in-france
Trump:
https://www.nilc.org/issues/litigation/trump-tweets-with-muslim-muslims/
Australian Senator:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/15/australian-senator-fraser-anning-criticised-blaming-new-zealand-attack-on-muslim-immigration
And etc.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The idea here is Hamas=Radical Islam, hence everything ugly Hamas does is because of Islam.
The anti-Semitism in the Arab world against Israel, is overwhelmingly due to Israel's history in the region. You know this: the wars with Lebanon and Egypt and Syria, the way Palestinians are treated, etc.
And to pre-empt a comment I know will be coming. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of radical Islam. it exists and is quite ugly, just look at Saudi Arabia.
But radical Christians started too wars just over 10 years ago, that have not ended in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And radical Jews (settlers) are the main reason as to why Israel is so vilified.
Every religion and group of people have radical parts.
I'll hear about criticism or prejudice towards Muslims, but I was asking about Arabs earlier. The difference is that Arab is an ethnicity and there are Arabs of all religious backgrounds who live all around the world.
Islam is open to legitimate criticism. Being an Arab is not.
Quoting Manuel
Well that's obviously wrong. I think there's just so much misinformation out there. Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organization but the people who primarily suffer due to that are the Palestinians living under them. Sure the Israelis face bombs and threats, but I'd much rather be fighting that than living under it.
Quoting Manuel
I firmly disagree with this. Jews have been living under Muslim leaders for around 1500 years in the Middle East, and over that time there has been a long history of subjugation and abuse including plenty of massacres & repression depending on the ruler. Anti-semitism in the Arab world did not only begin existing in 1948, there's a very long history there. Israel currently is also at peace with a number of its Arab neighbors including Egypt whom it gave back Sinai to in... 1988? It's been some time since these countries were actually at war.
There are Gallup polls that measure this type of thing that I'd be happy to show you if we wanted to pursue this further. These polls reflect deep-seated attitudes that extend far beyond Israel.
Quoting Manuel
Vilified by who? The Arabs? The western world? I don't deny that settlers in the WB can be provocative, but I don't see them as being the main reason that Israel is vilified. You also have to remember that there has been Jewish communities in the WB going back thousands of years.
The reason for mixing them up is the same reason why Israel is often mixed up with being Jewish, it's a way to criticize Arabs or Jews, without naming them directly, leading to plausible deniability. Needless to say not all Arabs are Muslim nor all Israeli Jews.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes. But the people living under Hamas don't have much of an option, in that other representatives in Gaza, whatever remains, can't even fight back. Yes Hamas is ugly, but they fight back and that counts for something, whatever else may be said about them aside.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And the peace brokered by Egypt and Jordan were done with the leaders of the country, often at odds with what the population wants. It's not that I don't think Israel shouldn't have peace, it's that it should be done representing in a democratic matter, not by leaders who don't represent the will of the people.
You're argument may have had much more force back in the 50's and 60's. Putting aside wishful thinking by some of Israel's victims, they know that Israel is here to stay. They would probably be much less hostile if Israel gave back the occupied territories and give Palestinians total autonomy within these areas.
That would lead to a much better view of Israel, no doubt about it.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I had in mind many countries in the world, not so much the Arab population. Statistics that go back thousands of years aren't worth much.
If this were an option it would be great, but states always need to deal with the leaders of other states whether they're authoritarian or democratic.
Quoting Manuel
The Palestinians already have total autonomy within Gaza. It's to the point where Hamas can hunt down gay people and those seeking peace with Israel and either arrest or execute them and Israel won't do anything. Hamas controls day to day life there, Israel just controls the borders. In the WB too it's autonomous rule in the Palestinian part of the region & even in the Israeli part Palestinians are governed by the PNA. There's more Israelis than Palestinians in some parts of the WB so I have no idea why that all needs to be ceded to the Palestinians. Before Israel took the area it belonged to Jordan.
Nonetheless, I'd still be down to ceding control of Gaza and the WB if it meant peace. But this just isn't the final aim of the Palestinians and to think it is portrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict.
:rofl:
Oh sorry, is Israel committing genocide towards its LGBTQ population?
But by all means none of this matters.
Israel withdrew from Gaza in '05 and they elected Hamas in '06.
But yes, if you elect a government bent on the genocide of Jews within Israel then you're going to get a response and it's not going to be a positive one.
Quoting Benkei
It is a problem of their own doing based on their governing body's inability to accept the existence of Israel.
This whole "victim blaming" charge when it comes to international affairs just doesn't mean anything to me. Aggressive, ruthless powers virtually always portray themselves as victims and this extends far outside the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hutus slaughtered Tutsis by the hundreds of thousands with machetes because they had been victimized by the Tutsis previously... so I guess blaming the Hutus here is also victim blaming? Who are we to condemn the victim? The Tutsi perpetrators were just getting their comeuppance, right?
And then continue to read the well-documented reports from B'Tselem, Amnesty and HRW.
Sure, I'll sign the petition so that weapons can be imported into Gaza which can then be used against Israeli citizens. /s
And this is the part where you say "not my problem."
What's the meaning of autonomy if they don't have running water, they have restrictions on caloric intake, they can't fish as they wish on there shore, etc? That's not "autonomy" in any sense of the word.
I think that if you have back WB and Gaza, things would get much better. I frankly don't understand what Palestinians would do to Israel without facing massive and severe repercussions. The Palestinians aren't getting an army so I don't think there is too much to worry about. But there will continue to be much to worry about if the occupation continues.
I'm sure if people were throwing rocks at your family you'd laugh it off too. Rocks can't hurt people lol.
The reason its only rocks is because of the blockade.
Small hands though.
:up: Starting with Muhammad. (EDIT: Well, at least since Muhammad, and probably before.)
Sure.
They do have running water. There's a ton of misinformation out there. They're free to build their own facilities but the money gets mismanaged by the governing authorities. Gazans are free to go fishing but I don't know every fishing regulation there is.
Quoting Manuel
Yes, I'm sure the Palestinians would be happy if Israel gave them all of the WB. But why would Israel do that without a concrete guarantee that the Palestinians have given up further territorial claims? Also it would mean kicking thousands of Jews off of land that they've lived in for hundreds if not thousands of years.
I get it, you want to believe that all the Palestinians want is a state of their own. That's a normal, healthy assumption that many outsiders to the conflict would make. Unfortunately it's just not true - it's not reflected in politics and it's not reflected in polls either. It's a nice belief and I wish it were true. In reality, there is a strong desire to see Israel gone. Vanquished.
"Few still support a two-state solution. Ironically, while some attribute Palestinian rejection of Trump’s plan to its new limits on the traditional two-state paradigm, most Palestinian respondents now reject that model as well. Asked to choose “the top Palestinian national priority during the coming five years,” two-thirds (66%) of West Bankers in this poll pick “regaining all of historical Palestine for the Palestinians”; a mere 14% choose “ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, to achieve a two-state solution.” Gazan respondents, surprisingly, are a bit more moderate: 56% want all of Palestine, while 31% opt for the two-state solution."
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/palestinian-majority-rejects-two-state-solution-backs-tactical-compromises
You know what - maybe this would change if Israel just withdrew from the WB. I doubt it. But it's unfair to ask Israel to make that such great concessions without a guarantee of peace. Palestinians gaining control of all of the WB just places more Israeli cities in range for Palestinian rockets. We already see what happens with border towns like Sderot where there's bomb shelters everywhere and the place has a massively high rate of trauma and PTSD. I've been there and it's not a place you'd ever want to be or grow up in. The playgrounds structures serve as bomb shelters which they have everywhere around the city.
Maybe the people at Oxfam are propagandists on Hamas' pay role. I'd have my doubts: https://www.oxfam.org/en/failing-gaza-undrinkable-water-no-access-toilets-and-little-hope-horizon
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Palestinians lost 78% of there state in 1948. Yes some Jews lived in communities there, but it wasn't a part of a larger claim for the existence of a state. That exploded due to WWII. Zionism used to have many branches, including anti-State varieties.
The settlers are taking land illegally, recognized by the whole world, except by Israel. I really don't think the whole world is anti-Semitic. 90,000 French settlers in Algeria had to leave because of the war in Algeria. I'm sure they had similar claims to land, or would have made some up even if they didn't have such a claim.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
One thing is what I'd like to be true another thing is what's likely to happen based on available evidence and reason. I'd like to live in a world without borders that guarantees everybody a generous UBI just for being a human being, under a single currency and a total ban on all guns. That's never going to happen. Likewise, Palestinians in overwhelmingly part because of the occupation hate Israel, yes. I'm sure most of them would love if Israel disappeared.
I get that. I also get it that Israeli's would be afraid of such views and If I were an Israeli, I would not want my state to disappear. In reality, Israel has one of the best military armies in the world, given massive support by the US and has one of the most developed infrastructures in all the Arab world. Palestinians will not be able to expel the Jews. They don't have the means. Nor will they get them.
That's the point. Israel will keep most of its land and will eventually stop being viewed so badly in the rest of the world. Compare Japan and Germany today to WWII, both are quite popular worldwide. Why would Israel be different in 30-40 years? So based on the realities of power, I don't see the massive risks you are concerned about.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Sure. But you reduce those threats by abiding to 242, what the world agrees to. How would Israel allow more missiles in the WB even if they gave up the territories? Then there'd be legitimate legal arguments for Israel to make for self defense as well as legal sanctions that could be made to other governments. Yes, every path has risks. You'll have to settle with the least bad option, the one which addresses the grievances of the Occupied in the territories.
Portraying Israel as a victim no longer convinces most of the world. There has to be a reason for that that is not reducible to anti-Semitism.
Pro-Israel bias, and yet ... but you can't handle the truth, can you?
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-apartheid
I'm not engaging you on this subject. After what you've said I'm done with you.
Zionism = Jewish liberation movement. I don't care what you think about it.
post-'67 zionism = apartheid, ethnic cleansing fascism. Your fanatical defense of the indefensible, BC, is shameful.
Read it. https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-apartheid
Not dealing with your bullshit feels so good. :cool:
I don't interact with racists, period.
An onanist like you? Sure you do, BC. We all do. But especially you.
You'd like us if we were dead, 180. You love dead Jews (or subjugated ones), they can't oppress anyone -- perfectly harmless, just like everyone should be! :nerd:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-apartheid
I actually misspoke here and I wanted to correct this.
You're not a racist, you're just a psycho. I thought you were a racist because you have no issues with Hamas murdering Israeli/Jewish families (gotta give it right back to the oppressor), but then when you said you'd more or less be fine with your own family being murdered if they were in the oppressor class I just decided to leave you alone.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-aparthei
Moral integrity? Moral integrity? You condone Hamas' terror attacks, you don't get to tell me about moral integrity.
I only question whether you really actually believe yourself. Is it cool with you when a suicide bomber walks into a night club in Tel Aviv and kills dozens of young people? Of course it is! Gotta fight Goliath!
Go punch an Israeli baby in the head - just fighting Goliath. I'm not even offended anymore, you just divide the entire world into good guys vs bad guys and sometimes the bad guys are children but who cares just kill them anyway; individuals don't matter only groups matter.
"Condone" disingenuously exaggerates my position; unlike your position stating you condone the terrorist state of Israel, and therefore haven't any moral integrity whatsoever.
( :fire: Hamas =/= US-backed IDF + Mossad :death: )
More proof: https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-aparthei
Then please clarify.
To be anti-zionist is to support the disappearance/vanishment of Israel which sounds like murder to most ears. Israel is already here; you can't question the existence or demand the non-existence of something that's already here.
I have no idea what you're talking about. What is your attitude towards intentional violence towards Israeli civilians? Do you condemn it? Yes or no.
This is all I need to hear. You're either on the side of humanity or you are on the side of evil.
I condemn Zionist violence, Islamist violence or any other expansionist nationalist violence. Violence of the oppressed ("David" ~ Gaza, WB) against the violent oppressor ("Goliath" ~ Israel), however, I support. :fire:
Very suave of you to avoid my last question.
Do Israeli teenagers out on a Saturday night count as "Israel" or "Goliath?" How about random Israelis in coffee shops?
"????? ???????? ???? ???????"
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-aparthei
Please stay on topic. We're talking about the murder of Israeli citizens. The fact that you're not giving me a straight answer speaks for itself.
I also don't read hebrew.
It does seem reasonable to question the rationality of a long oppressed people seeking a safe home in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods on Earth. This seems equivalent to me, a relatively well off old white man, choosing to move to a ghetto on the south side of Chicago because my ancestors lived there thousands of years ago. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
During one of the previous shootouts with Hamas I spent about a month in the comment section of the Jerusalem post, where I claimed that Israelis were choosing a particular piece of land over the safety of their children. That's the reality I see.
When I become President of the United States I will extend US citizenship to every Israeli and invite them to come live with us, where nobody is firing rockets at Jews. They would be such a great asset to the United States. This won't work of course, but the invitation should be made anyway.
Sure, we can question it in hindsight. We're in a pretty big mess in the Middle East, but Israel was created in 1948 and it's 2021. We can entertain theoretical discussions about whether Israel should have been created in the first place, but it's now a country of 9 million and there is no possibility of Israel just packing up and leaving. We need to ask ourselves how we best move forward from here in a way that's acceptable and fair to both sides.
Quoting Foghorn
I would need to hear that reasoning flushed out a bit more to comment on it.
Quoting Foghorn
I have no problem with this. I'm well aware that there's risk in Israel and rockets do hit places, but again neither side is going anywhere.
Ok, fair enough, not really arguing with that. But technically at least, I'm unaware of any substantial reasons why Israelis couldn't pack up and leave if they chose to do so. You're right, that won't happen, but the price tag for that choice could turn out to be high.
I get that Israelis want to have their own country, that's very understandable, especially given the history. The problem is, it's a very small country. A very smart country, but still very small, and surrounded by enemies. Israel has to win every single day. Israeli's enemies only need to win once.
I'm not making any moral case here. I'm just trying to do the survival math in a hopefully objective manner.
And, it doesn't really make sense that the Palestinians want their own country either, as it would most likely become just another corrupt Arab dictatorship.
I'm not engaging with you until I hear whether Israeli teenagers out on a Saturday night or random people in a coffee shop qualify as "Goliath" or "Israel" and are therefore valid targets.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/549969
I have no idea what "take a good long look at Gaza city means." Gaza city doesn't matter. I am asking you about murdering israelis. stay on topic.
I didn't bother to translate the second line because I don't speak hebrew and I don't see the need to introduce it unless you're just trying to sound fancy. if you want to translate it for me because it answers me question then go ahead.
Proves my / our point again. STFU & GFY.
Gaza city doesn't matter because I'm asking you about murdered Jews.
Just own up that you don't care about murdered Jews as long as they're Israeli/Zionist.
My own attitudes towards Gaza city matter zero. this isn't about me.
The new inheritor of the Israeli state apartheid apparatus takes his seat.
The BBC article is kind of amazing. It barely touches on Bennett's attitudes or policies toward Palestine despite it being the most obviously relevant world issue. Policies including straight up annexing most of the West Bank, and attitudes including pride at having killed 'lots of Arabs'. It does take pains to point out issues of gay rights and just how many women he has in parliament though! All while discussing the PM of an apartheid state. This is wokeness weaponized.
He's even further to the right than Netanyahu! He's nuts. Israel doesn't even really have a center anymore. I don't know how it can come back.
Pressure from the US could help somewhat, but this guys just barbaric.
It's on the path of being unanimously recognized as shameful. One important factor that may impede the situation is that Israel sells a bunch of technology to other countries, so a lot of money is involved. If that weren't the case, I think other countries could be more forceful, like China maybe or Russia.
But yes, change has to be brought to bear externally.
Your genuine concern here is a breath of fresh air in this thread. Thanks for the input.
Well, you know how it is, here, there, everywhere. Everyone wants to play the blame and shame game, and few are really that interested in the actual subject, whatever it might be.
I played the blame and shame game myself when I told readers of the Jerusalem Post that they were valuing land over their children. I still think that's true, but these days I'm less inclined to yell that which will accomplish nothing.
As you likely know, philosophy forums are primarily about male ego enhancement.
Hey 180, you're a man, right? What if an abused woman assaulted you because you reminded her of someone? I guess we just refuse to condemn her; how could anyone ever criticize such a victim? She's certainly faced oppression (if not genocide!) by men. Guess you're SOL here.
I wasn't even talking to you, Benkei, but in any case it's the same thing with you - the refusal to condemn the "victim."
This isn't about me at all by the way. I don't care if you think I'm a literal Nazi when this entire time all I've been trying to do (unsuccessfully) is to get 180 to condemn the intentional murder of Israeli civilians by Hamas & other groups.
At this point I've given up and approached it from a different angle.
Then you've quite clearly not paid attention.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/1623175593-2-former-israeli-ambassadors-to-south-africa-accuse-jewish-state-of-aparthei
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And I've answered already; but now this: the new regime in Tel Aviv will get more Israelis murdered if / when a standing "shoot to kill" order is implemented as promised...
Times of Israel:
[quote=Naftali Bennett, 2018 interview]Asked if he would also instruct the army to shoot and kill Palestinian children who breach the border fence, Bennett said, “They are not children — they are terrorists. We are fooling ourselves. I see the photos.”[/quote]
????? ???????? ???? ???????* (Lev. 24:20, Ex. 21:23-5 & Deut. 19:21) Logic of the situation – If Palestinian children (of "David") are valid targets, then Israeli children (of "Goliath") also must be valid targets. :fire:
lex talionis*
Yeah, this was all I needed to hear. As long as you believe this you're an enemy of the Jewish people and I'm not engaging with you. There's no way around this truth.
Even Jewish holocaust victims would not have been justified going after random Germans or murdering the children of Nazi war criminals. Do you know why? Because many of them recognized that they were bound by moral principles and responsibilities at all times and they knew that God was watching. God does not give victims blank checks to set the world on fire. You quote all this bullshit when you can't even follow very basics of the systems that you draw from.
But seriously I can't engage with you as long as you condone (and that's exactly what you're doing) the murder of my people. Bye.
If you feel like re-joining civilization or morality at some point let me know.
Quoting Benkei
Maybe I haven't; I'm not perfect. I just remember last time I tried to get you to condemn terrorist groups for intentionally targeting civilians you wouldn't (?) (or maybe there was just some hesitation?) I've never claimed to have a perfect memory and maybe you've moderated your positions over time. I'm happy to revisit this.
If you want to unequivocally condemn the intentional indiscriminate murder of civilians by terrorist groups then welcome back to the side of humanity. Welcome back to the discussion. Because if not you are getting what I wrote to 180 in the first few paragraphs of this post.
Don't tell me you wouldn't react in the same way if someone told you that Dutch children (including your own) were valid targets. It's not my fault you have zero empathy for Israeli civilians so no need to lash out.
a) The intentional murder of Palestinian children is not permitted morally and is not a practice of the Israeli government. 180 took one statement out of context.
b) Even if the intentional murder of palestinian children was condoned by the Israeli government (which would obviously make the Israeli government illegitimate and evil) even then the intentional murder of Israeli children would remain a deep moral crime.
I don't know why basic morality is so difficult for people to understand.
At no point where 5-year old children of Nazis "valid targets."
I'll criticize Israel on multiple occasions, it's you who refuses to strongly criticize any of the Palestinian movements.
But it quite clearly is. Every time the "right to self defence" is exercised by killing children as "collateral damage". Every time they reinforce "Palestinians children today are terrorists of tomorrow", when Jewish Israelis overwhelmingly buy into the racist idea they are superior to Arabs, when they try children in military courts, hold them in administrative detention, rob them of a future, expel them from their homes etc. they tell the world it's fine to kill Palestinian children.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
If your were to defend the former you would have to defend the latter. You now refuse to defend it but have been doing precisely that for 61 pages by pointing to countries that are worse than Israel or highlighting Hamas' crimes. This is self-evident to everyone except, apparently, you.
The moral equivalence holds, either it's both wrong, or it's both right.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Said the same guy defending killing Palestinian children as collateral damage.
Collateral damage is an inevitability of war/military conflict and not the same thing morally as intentional murder. Even when the allies targeted Nazi military bases children were killed because children live on military bases. There is literally no way to avoid civilian casualties, it's always just a matter of how many. Even though children end up dead in both cases, the is no moral equivalence.
Quoting Benkei
If collateral damage has moral equivalence to intentional murder then FDR and Churchill are basically Hitler. Virtually every government that has ever been at war for whatever reason is evil and illegitimate.
Tellingly, you only partially quote me, leaving out my reference to the Torah. Of course, fascists like you violently misappropriate your own heritage as you seek to colonize and steal the heritage of those in your way (i.e. lebensraum = settler occupation of so-called "Greater Israel").
You speak only for "my oppressor-regime right or wrong" Zion-Nazis – hell yeah, I'm their / your "enemy" – and clearly not for "the Jewish People". Unlike you, jackboot-licker, I'm no more an "enemy" of Jews (or Israel) than Antifascism Zionists such as Martin Buber, Abraham Heschel, Hannah Arendt, Elie Wiesel & Noam Chomsky who've informed and still inspire my opposition to your racist, reactionary, ideology. Get the fuck over your shitty self, BC.
Unlike you, I've never left. It's (US-backed) Israeli apartheid, ethnic cleasing, oppression which is, in theory & practice, barbarism that has slipped the leash of "civilization".
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, 'civilian killing prohibitions' obtain in "wars" between state-militaries but "the rules of war" have never obtained during insurgencies (i.e. armed liberation struggles on shared / disputed territory) of Occupied peoples against Occupier regimes and their constituents. IDF-Mossad terrorism produces (incentivizes) Hamas (Arab) terrorism; the latter have nothing to lose (but subjugated lives) and the former have everything to gain (from the US Treasury & Pentagon), and so the self-cannibalizing cycle grinds on. Israel's savage, terrorist, oppression justifies resistance of the oppressed Palestinian people "by any means necessary", including terrorism. :fire:
Absolutely sickening hypocrite. Truly deluded. Highlights the real difference here is not between Jews and non-Jews or even Palestinians and Israelis but hyper-partisan nutters and the rest of us.
I just couldn't help myself.
Hey 180 are you a man? Straight? Able-bodied? Neurotypical? Do you have savings? A place to live? Any speech problems? Why do you uphold and reinforce systems of oppression? Don't tell me you don't. Why do you viciously, savagely, brutally, repeatedly oppress others when you uphold and reinforce these systems? You want to see the evil oppressor? Look in the mirror. I hope someone rips your face off and as they're doing so they remind you it's because they're fighting oppression "by any means necessary." It would be perfectly justified and also hilarious. One more dead oppressor = less oppression, let that sink in.
Seems a good plan to me.
Palestine would most likely become just another ruthlessly corrupt Arab dictatorship.
And the outraged leftist moralists would likely have nothing to say about that. We've seen this movie before....
1) Before the American invasion of Iraq the outraged leftist moralists had nothing to say about Saddam's ruthless oppression of Iraqis.
2) During the American invasion the outraged leftist moralists whipped themselves up in to a hysterical frenzy of fantasy moral superiority.
3) After the American invasion the outraged leftist moralists went back to caring not a whit about
the Iraqi people.
That is, the outraged leftist moralists never cared about the Iraqi people, just as now they don't care about the Palestinians. If Israel were to surrender to Hamas, and all Jews left the Middle East, the outraged leftist moralists would fist bump celebrate for 48 hours. And then they would happily walk away and completely ignore whatever psychopathic crimes were inflicted on the Palestinians, just as they now contently ignore the crimes of all the other Arab dictatorships.
As problematic as some of the actions of Israel really have been, they don't begin to even vaguely compare to what's been happening next door in Syria. Let us observe how little the outraged leftist moralists have to say about that.
Where is the thread on this forum which goes on for weeks spewing venom at Assad, or his Russian allies who have spent years now deliberately bombing hospitals and the like? Where is the thread which condemns an Iranian regime which shoots it's own people down in the streets when ever they become inconvenient? The absence of such threads reveals the absence of reason on these topics.
The logic failure being displayed here is comparing Israel to some fantasy ideal which doesn't exist anywhere in the world. A better plan would be to compare Israel to all the other options available in the Middle East.
The irony here is that while Israelis are among the most intelligent and competent people anywhere in the world, with a sincere longstanding interest in moral questions, they've deliberately chosen to raise their children in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods on Earth.
And why is that? Because their ancestors lived on that land 2,000 years ago.
If one moves to the ghetto, and then drive by shootings become a routine part of daily life....
Well...
What did you expect?
Do Israelis truly care about protecting their innocent civilians, their children? If yes, get the hell out of there while there is still time. Or, stay, and stop whining to the rest of us about what tragic victims you are.
This seemed to merit a re-run. Not that doing so will matter.
It's always hilarious to me that bootlickers always assume everyone else is as enamoured of power and myth as they are.
yeah they're all basically the same everyone is hitler.
When I first saw this thread I immediately decided to have none of it, as I know from long experience how political threads typically go.
But then a day or two later I thought, it can't hurt to take a look.
And then I thought of some "insanely clever" remarks which would promote me as some kind of insightful person, at the expense of others I was thinking weren't so insightful.
And so it went, bit by bit, as I was sucked slowly but steadily in to the rhetorical violence unfolding here.
The point here is that violence, all flavors of it, seem to have a tangible appeal to many of us, and engaging in the combat can be quite addictive.
I wonder if the Middle East is a lot like threads like this? Once the pattern of calling each other fucking nitwits begins, it sucks us in, grabs a hold of our egos, and it can be hard to escape the grip.
Wait, hang on a second, I gotta reload my rhetorical rocket launcher.....
I would surely agree it's far more complicated in the real world. But I wonder to what degree enjoyment of conflict plays a role. But, just like here I suppose, if such enjoyment exists, no one is likely to admit it.
So what do folks make of this?
Is all modern warfare illegitimate?
What becomes of revolutionaries who justify violence to overturn supposedly oppressive regimes?
Is collective violence ever justified?
@StreetlightX @BitconnectCarlos @180 Proof
Some enjoy it because they think it bolsters their self esteem and prestige.
Some enjoy the competitive nature of debate,but still have the morality and mental clarity to keep things on point without descending into rabble and idiocy.
It's more the morality of supporting any cause where collateral damage is justified and ignored.
I'm really not trying to change the subject to forums. I'm wondering whether at least some of the conflict in the Middle East and beyond exists because there is part of us that enjoys conflict.
You've surely noticed how incredibly popular victim claims are, not just in the Middle East, but pretty much through out the human experience.
Imagine that the United States offered every Israeli and Palestinian U.S. citizenship and a billion dollars in moving expenses if they left the Middle East and came to America. That wouldn't solve the problem, right? Lots of people in both camps would choose to stay and continue the conflict, right?
Just as we are doing here. Voluntarily engaging in what can only be described as pointless conflict. Conflict for the sake of conflict.
Not me though. Cause I'm WAAAAAY better than all you little fucking nitwits! C'mon, c'mon, don't be a sissy, put'em up you wankers!!!!! :-)
The Israeli Palestine situation is primarily for land and prestige. And some sickos enjoy the conflict.
But those who live by the sword...
On the forum,I think some enjoy preaching moralising and trolling,some love branding people.
I love the competition,but I choose my battles.
Last comment of yours is lol!! Are you English?
I am deeply offended that you would attempt to label me as the citizen of a former colonial power. How dare you!!! This means WAR!!!
To answer your question...
No, I'm American. A proud citizen of a shining city on a hill built from genocide and slavery.
Why, why, why would I be English??? They can't even speak the language correctly. :-)
Ok, so Israel surrenders to Hamas, ends the state of Israel, and packs up and leaves the Middle East.
What do you imagine happens next?
What I imagine is an inevitable civil war between Hamas and the PLO, resulting in yet another repressive Arab dictatorship, which you will be happy to ignore.
This is a thread about whatever posters decide to discuss.
You don't. You are free to dodge and weave as you see fit. No argument there. Your posts are your posts.
What? What? WHAT? You're ending the confrontation??? That is so rude! Have you no compassion for the conflict addictions of your fellow members??? HELP! I've been made collateral damage of this person's common sense!!!!!
And FYI,we english have the best language in The world!
Its good to laugh!!!
What part of what I quoted do you think is false? If you think it's not false, why bother replying with an irrelevant smear?
Your stereotype of the "leftist moralist" doesn't represent at all the actual debate that happened prior, through and after the US invasion to Iraq.
1) Before the American invasion those leftist moralists cried about Saddam using chemical weapons against the Kurds and the US giving Iraq assistance (like satellite imaginary etc) in the war against Iran. And then after Operation Desert Shield they cried about Bush (senior) encouraging the Kurds and the Shias to rebel against the Iraqi regime and then leaving them on their own.
2) Before the invasion actually only few leftist moralists were against the invasion. Many of them ate all the US lies about the then non-existent WMD's. The time of "Freedom Fries", that lasted a long time even in this forum of people coming here and defending the decision of Bush to invade "because he had gotten bad intel".
3) The leftist moralists seldom critique a Democratic administration, especially one lead by Obama. Yet few did notice the authoritarianism of Nouri al Maliki, who is the real culprit of everything going downhill after the US left and why Al-Qaeda re-emerged after morphing into ISIS.
What you are right is that the American leftist moralist sees in ANY BAD EVENT that happens around the World the USA being somehow the prime culprit and the reason why bad things happen. This is of course not so surprising, because on the other hand the American right-wing moralist patriot sees in ANY GOOD EVENT that happens around the World happening because the USA is somehow the prime actor in the event.
Both share the extreme hubris that everything important that happens in the World, the US has to be at the center stage of it. An event where the US isn't involved simply is totally unimportant.
As stated above, I think your declared interest in the welfare of Palestinians is false, a forum pose, whose primary purpose is the enhancement of your relationship with yourself.
I could be wrong, and one way to demonstrate that would be to show us the threads you've started which express extensive outrage at the Assad regime, which has oppressed, tortured and killed innocent Arabs with far more unjust ferocity than anything Israel has done.
If you truly do care about the fate of innocents, and are truly logical, you will be directing most of your outrage at those who are doing the most killing of innocents, and the most deliberate killing of innocents. When I see you doing that, I'll begin to take you seriously. Until then, have fun with all the clever little quipy thingies.
Ah, so those are proper English words, such as in merry old England land? I didn't know. I thought they were nitwit wanker nerd words, which is why I selected them to be included in my very own posts.
Israel could lift the blockade of Gaza. But given that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, that would most likely lead to the further arming of Hamas, and further warfare, which would further endanger innocents on all sides.
Israel could surrender to Hamas and end the state of Israel. This would most likely lead to a civll war between Hamas and the PLO, and the establishment of yet another repressive Arab dictatorship, not really such a promising prospect for the innocents.
Israel could ignore the incoming rockets, thus removing any deterrence to future attacks, most likely resulting in more attacks and more innocent victims.
Israel could invade Gaza again and go door to door in search of Hamas fighters. Lots and lots of innocent victims here no matter how it is handled.
Nothing to add, I see, but an attempt at character assassination. Pathetic.
To stop evictions in Palestinian neighbourhoods.
To stop teargassing Islamic holy sites.
To stop practising apartheid on Arabs in Israeli controlled territory.
Little things like that.
Oh wait sorry that was all before the retaliatory rocket attacks from Israel's open air gulag.
Quoting Foghorn
Considering that Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Palestinian self-determination, it is not 'leading' to violence, it is practicing it, day in and day out, where innocents are not merely endangered, but actually killed and subject to inhumanity on a daily basis. So as a terrorist state, it ought to stop engaging in acts of terror. The US, in turn, should stop providing material assistance and ideological support to this Middle Eastern terrorist organisation.
The Assad regime is off-topic as are amateur psychology ad-hom rants. But seeing as it's politics, you can have one of the latter. If you want to talk about something other than the topic though, start a new one.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/YairWallach/status/1404842075905007621[/tweet]
[quote=zion-fascist parade chants at the Damascus Gate on June,15, 2021][i]DEATH TO ARABS!
DEATH TO ARABS![/i][/quote]
In solidarity with the Oppressed everywhere, especially in Gaza, the West Bank & East Jerusalem:
[b]DEATH TO OPPRESSORS!
DEATH TO OPPRESSORS![/b]
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/world/middleeast/israel-coalition-hamas.html
The point of that sidebar was to investigate the degree to which any of us are actually interested in the welfare of innocent Arab victims. If the evidence reveals we're not actually interested (as I suggest) then this thread can be seen as an exercise in the pursuit of conflict for the sake of conflict. If true, it's possible this psychological phenomena has some relevance to what's been unfolding in the Middle East. My guess is that the MidEast conflict is some mix of a sincere dispute over competing claims, and a feedback loop of conflict addiction, just as we typically see in political threads on any forum.
Imho, declaring the Assad regime off topic, while clearly being a right belonging to the mods, is really just an attempt to sweep under the rug the reality that we don't really care that much about innocent Arab victims. As I keep saying, this could be proven wrong with links to existing Syria threads which display outrage in proportion to the crimes unfolding there. Should such threads exist, that would be good news which I would welcome.
If my post was indeed just an inaccurate personal attack, then it should be easy to prove that by linking to your Syria threads. If such threads exist, then I'm wrong about my evaluation of your behavior here, and will be happy to say so.
So you're suggesting that Israel retain control over the West Bank and Gaza, but lighten up on that control? Do I understand that correctly, or have I misunderstood? Apartheid-lite?
My understanding is that the Palestinians want their own state. Do you support that goal? If yes, how do you imagine that working out?
Hamas wants Jews to leave the Middle East so that all of Palestine would then be
controlled by Arabs. Do you support that goal? If yes, how do you imagine that working out?
What I mean is, if Palestinians got exactly what they want, would they then be in a better situation than they are now? Or would they instead be trading one oppressor for another?
I don't claim to know, but my best guess, based on the readily available evidence from all over the Arab world is that a Palestinian state would be yet another repressive Arab dictatorship. If Palestinians are seeking that experience, it seems it is already readily available in a variety of near by countries, Syria for example.
Yes, I understand, the discussion has to be tightly controlled to prevent the inclusion of any analysis which is inconvenient to your position. Ok, I don't object, I'm not going to fight anyone for control of a thread as silly as this one.
I don't presume to know what an exact solution would look like, but I do know what it is not: an ethnocentric apartheid regime pretending to be a democracy while running a Middle Eastern Jim Crow administration. Either Israel will need to become a true democracy, or there will never be peace in the region.
Ok, what I'm asking us to explore, and I agree none of us can predict the future...
If the "reign of terror" were to end, what would replace it?
One Palestinian state? Two? Then what?
Or, if Israel made all those living in Gaza and the West Bank full citizens of Israel, does that really solve anything? Or would the conflict continue in some other form, perhaps including the kind of political violence now rearing it's head in the currently existing Israel?
I don't really have a point, I'm just wondering if any re-arrangement of the chairs will stop those determined to live in conflict from doing so.
Sigh. Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant. You complain about standards but aren't even capable of constructing an argument.
What part of the quoted UN report is false? Or do you agree with it? Why insist, three times in row, to bring up irrelevancies?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/danaelkurd/status/1404876525695082500[/tweet]
Quoting Foghorn
That much is clear. Nothing but efforts to muddy discussion by means of empty, cynical speculation.
It's irrelevant from a purely philosophical standpoint, but in the world of practical action something like this is very relevant. The problem with political issues like this is that they're not purely philosophical issues and cannot be with all of their complexity and real-world messiness, but since we're on a philosophy forum we typically try to stick to a philosophical framework which creates tension especially when the discussion at hand is by no means purely philosophical in nature.
Quoting ssu
The essential divide in this issue is between those who are out for blood and those who actually seek solutions. No one here is saying that Israel is an angel.
No, this is not true from purely a philosophical standpoint, this is simple logic. My personal background is irrelevant to the argument forwarded. It has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of the claims or the argument based on them.
This is basically what you're suggesting:
1. Benkei forwarded claims from the UN report
2. Benkei doesn't complain enough about Assad to my liking
3. Therefore he and, by association, the UN report must be ignored
It's mindnumbingly stupid.
Bankei, I'm agreeing with you. Read my post again.
The personality of the poster is Always a huge factor.
Anything else is the myth of value-free reason.
Carry on...
Quoting Benkei
It all depends on the framework that you approach the conflict with. If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo.
If your approach is to find a solution, then these other personal ideas do matter as they can be counterproductive to a solution.
There is no solution to be had if both sides don't agree on the facts. You need to be talking about the same thing. That's an important issue here too because both parties have different definitions of the West Bank for instance.
Also, this is quite telling. You assume my goal is to bash one side and think arguments and facts are "ammo". Seems a rather belligerent attitude. Arguments and facts are either true or false.
I'm in this because for as long as I remember almost every news outlet has only been concerned with the "security" problem of Israel as were attempts to solutions of it, without taking a closer look at the atrocities Israel commits. The context requires a lot more focus on Israeli crimes because most of them were never reported or aren't reported due to an overwhelming bias. This is slowly changing and it's no wonder that on a philosophy forum, where people on average are better educated, the position is evidently anti-Israel because it's by far worse, both in number of crimes and victims, than anything the Palestinians manage to do. The latter, including Hamas, is a consequence of what Israel has and continues to do, which means "it has made its bed and has to lie in it". Palestinian terrorism was a reaction to Israeli oppression and annexation not the other way around.
You're not going to get that -- welcome to the Middle East. You are never going to get your request here. To think that anyone can come from outside to set all the facts and all the history straight is white man savior syndrome. You would need to stamp out the Jewish narrative entirely. Are you ready to do that? And don't tell me this is only about the "Zionists" because the Jewish community is virtually all Zionist.
If we don't actually care that much about the innocents, that's irrelevant to an outrage based conservation about those innocents? If it's true that we don't really care, then wouldn't it add additional clarity to honestly brand this conversation as a form of casual entertainment? Isn't adding additional clarity kinda what philosophy is supposed to be about?
I agree that a claim that we don't care is debatable, which is why I keep asking for evidence to the contrary.
I've tried to explain the relevance. If we are locked in a repetitive pattern of addictive conflict behavior in political threads here on this forum, that at least raises the question of whether the same phenomena is at play in the MiddleEast. Here's why. We're human. So are they.
To the degree participants are fighting because they enjoy fighting, then any solution we might cook up is not likely to be very helpful. If true, it would add clarity to know that. If false, it would add clarity to know that too.
That's overwhelming obvious to everyone, except to you.
But it has everything to do with the credibility of the source. You want everyone to take your concern seriously, but you decline to provide evidence which would demonstrate that concern. You also decline to admit there is no such evidence, which increasingly seems likely. So, it's reasonable to conclude, you aren't concerned, nor are you honest. And so the question arises, why should we read and respond to propaganda posted by what appears to be an unreliable source?
Judaism is not a race nor are Arabs. It makes no sense to call Israel racist against Arabs. If Israel is apartheid why do Arab Christians do quite well in Israel?
Ha, ha, this is hilarious, and so true. I plead guilty to white man savior syndrome myself. However, I blame that all on the Jews. :-) It was you guys who invented the Catholicism that saturated my youth, thus imposing the white man savior meme on what was once, long ago, an innocent young mind.
And so, like any young punk anywhere, we white men Christian saviors are coming down off the cross to yell at our parents, the Jews, and "teach" you things that you already knew many many years before we were born. Yes, personally I'm an old white man, but culturally, I'm just a formerly Catholic young punk. I might have to dye my hair green to make this clear.
Well, Israel isn't apartheid in relation to Christians, but in relation to Palestinians.
Here's what I suggest. Release Gaza from the grip. Get out of the West Bank. Allow the Palestinian state to emerge. And it that state attacks Israel, go in with guns blazing and level the enemy. Just as Israel, or any nation, would do in response to any neighbor who attacks.
If Israel is judged too small to defend those borders, admit the mistake, pack up all the furniture, and move to America.
Well, I am Foghorn Leghorn after all, and I've been in the entertainment business for a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn
Here's a live video shot of me performing right now in this thread! As you can see, I'm a great teacher to the little ones.
The Palestinians in Gaza are not part of Israel, thus they can't be under "apartheid." They are part of their own separate region, and there are no Israeli settlements or soldiers in Gaza, it is run by Hamas. Israel does monitor imports to screen out weapons. Jews have also been in the West Bank for thousands of years and I don't think it's fair to ask us to leave.
Can you agree that there is a segment of the Israeli population (don't know percent) that has imperialist ambitions for land that has belonged to others for quite some time? Some of those folks (again don't know percent) appear to be religion based imperialists, which seems to make them largely immune to reason and compromise.
I do realize there are also Israeli people (don't know number) who are against this imperialism as much or more than the outside world.
Care to comment?
Yes, there are extremist Zionists who I regard as a problem. There are extremists on both sides and they both work off each other - one side says or does something inflammatory and the worst part of the other side responds. I'm all in favor of de-escalation, the only question is are the politicians?
Um, who controls incoming and outgoing traffic in Gaza? Israel and Egypt, right? Are Gazans free to come and go as they like? Is commerce free to go in and out as it pleases?
I honestly am pretty vague on this, education welcomed.
Ok, fair enough. But is residence the same as being the rulers? As example, the native people of North America were here at least 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. Should the continent be turned back over to their control due to that history? Where do such historical claims end?
I think this is the key factor. The politicians have vested interests in the continuing conflict.
The people on the ground need to make their own existential decisions on how to live a peaceful life.
Civilians are the peace process.
Yes, I hear you, that is how it works everywhere, the nutzos feed off each other.
We've got a lot of that going on here in America in recent years too. And yes, some politicians deliberately feed the fire, as does the media.
What's the media situation in Israel? Are there hard right and hard left channels feeding the fire for profit, as is the case here?
Don't forget the media. At least here in the States, a shining city on a hill built from genocide and slavery, the media is a big player in feeding the cultural divides.
It's all about money. Media lives on ad dollars. Ad dollars are based on audience size. Audience size is based on serving the lowest common denominator. Stimulation, stimulation, stimulation, keep us glued to the channel for as long as possible, by any means necessary. The competition is fierce for our attention, which drives most channels to ever further extremes.
Wait a second, are you saying I live in a nutshell???? Whoa, hang on, let me get my rocket launcher..
The govt and media loves to exaggerate dangers,as not only fear sells but fear is the method of control for all governments.
If they're going across a border then Israel and Egypt control it, otherwise internally it's Hamas. It is Hamas who is hunting down and executing gays, it is Hamas who is arresting grassroots peace activists in Gaza, it is Hamas who is subjugating women and allowing them no freedoms. There are definitely restrictions on imports and that does make life harder for the Gazans. It's not a good situation but I think both Israel and Egypt have serious security concerns over Hamas.
Quoting Mystic
:100:
Quoting Foghorn
When it comes to the West Bank Israel controls part of it and the palestinians control part of it. They have it organized so that Israel only governs Israelis and the Palestinians govern their own people. West Bank is definitely significantly better than Gaza. Jews have been living in the WB for centuries at least, continuously, and they want to be governed by other Jews.
Quoting Foghorn
I'm not entirely sure since I don't live in Israel but I do have family who does. I have spent time there but I wasn't watching the news.
Just recently I feel the younger generation of western Muslims are becoming much less political than the previous one,so that's good news.
Politics is a losing game for the ordinary folk.
I declare no confidence in all governments round the world.
Mr nutshell!!!
Ok, that's about what I thought.
I get that Hamas are bad guys, no argument there. But then, isn't that the norm across the Middle East?
I get that if the grip on Gaza was lifted Iran and others would probably fuel the fire by giving Hamas money and arms. But then all of Israel's neighbors have money and arms. And even ALL of them together have never been able to defeat Israel.
What I'm suggesting is undermining one of Hamas's key talking points by giving them their own state. Most of the world would accept this as a reasonable solution. And then, if they use that state to attack Israel, roll the tanks across the border, go house to house, string up all the Hamas leaders, like the WWII allies did to the Nazis. Then leave.
If the next government of Gaza attacks again, repeat the procedure. And keep doing that until they get the point.
The theory here is that so long as the Palestinians don't have their own state, the world will see Israel as the aggressor. This matters because Israel is a very small country.
However, if a Palestinian state attacks Israel, then Israel is reframed as the victim, who is just in defending itself from outside attack.
I'm sure there are counter arguments to this. Would be happy to hear them. I am definitely not a Middle East expert.
Ok, so what is the nature of the argument?
Palestinians want Jews out and full control of West Bank?
Jews vary in opinion from agreement, to moderate compromise, to full rejection?
If most Jews and most Palestinians could agree on anything, what might that be?
Via the UN Human Rights Watch:
These quotes barely scratch the surface.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution
I understand your idea here and it's crossed my mind as well. I'm also not claiming to be a Middle East expert by any means.
Quoting Foghorn
The issue here is that it's not just about armies - there's chemical and biological weapons as well.
Israel withdrawing from the WB -- apart from being a logistical headache and displacing hundreds of thousands would also pose a serious security threat to israel as missiles are now able to penetrate further into Israel and hit bigger population centers. Israel is significant less secure without the WB and even by your own admittance Israel just setting itself up to lash out against and reclaim more territory. I understand what you're saying though.
Quoting Foghorn
Many if not most Palestinians want Israel - as a Jewish governing body - gone entirely. The WB would just be a concession towards that goal. Many Palestinians I think would be fine with Jews being in the region as long as they're subordinate to Muslim governance which obviously makes Jews subjugated. The issue that many people don't realize is that Gaza and the WB are proxies - the main issue is and has always been the presence of a Jewish governing body that claims control of even one inch of Muslim land.
Yeah nothing to do with Israeli ethnic cleansing and state exercised terror.
No it is Israel's existence. But understanding this would involve taking on the perspective of another culture/religion which is clearly beyond your capabilities.
Also the idea that subjugating and devastating an entire population of people is some kind of Jewish cultural right is about as Antisemitic as I can imagine.
You also don't use it to understand conflicts as they are understood by those actually engaged in them.
Right, to excuse atrocity and inhumanity, which Israel is engaged in.
We're not talking about atrocity right now. We're talking about understanding.
Yes, which is why I've suggested leaving the Middle East. It seems to me that part of the world is a Biblical scale calamity just waiting to happen. Syria and Yemem come to mind of course, and that could be just the beginning.
Israel has proven it can overcome the strength of it's neighbors. But can it overcome their weaknesses? What if the entire Arab world becomes one big failed state?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Right, but sooner or later those missiles will be better targeted, and able to hit anywhere in Israel. It's just a matter of time. Doesn't controlling the West Bank just put off the inevitable?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ok, I hear you, leaving the WB doesn't really solve the conflict. So what do you picture? An eternal struggle? Does this end only when one of the parties is dead on the floor?
It would be helpful to the thread if you could more clearly articulate what you feel the appropriate alternative to the status quo should be.
Do you think the Palestinians should have their own state? If yes, are you persuaded that such an outcome would improve their situation?
Were the quotes correct or not? Is Israel guilty of collective punishment?
For Israel to not be an apartheid state would be one. For it to cease its land grabs and policy of population displacement would be another. For it to stop engaging in collective punishment by means of blockade - another war crime - would be yet another. In fact stopping Israeli war crimes altogether would be nice. Can we agree on this or is resistance to land grabbing, apartheid, and war crimes a step too far for your sensitive soul?
I really hope not. I guess I place my hope in grassroots movements; the two groups have to learn to live together, there is no other option. You might want to check out Rudy Rochman on youtube he has a bunch of interesting discussions on this topic which pushes more of a ground-up solution. He also opposes Israel on a range of topics. Regardless, if we continue to frame the conflict in certain ways (which we see examples of in this thread) there will simply never be peace.
Quoting Foghorn
Israel does not control all of the WB, they've already gave back some of it to the Palestinians... I believe in '95. Even before Israel captured it in '67 it was controlled by Jordan, not the Palestinians. And the Jordanians only took an interest in it as a way to attack Israel during the Independence War. I have no idea who rightfully controls it and the fact that complete outsiders have such strong opinions on this is bizarre. Jews have been living in the WB alongside Arabs for centuries.
Quoting Foghorn
Jewish culture has such deep roots in Israel (it's where Judaism was formed) that packing up and leaving out of fear is just cowardice. A people like that don't even deserve their own state.
You don't care. So why should I?
You've said all this already about a thousand times.
If Israel stops exercising any control over Palestinians, the result of that is a Palestinian state. This is why I keep asking you if that is what you wish to see happen. And, if yes, do you feel that this would improve the situation of Palestinians?
This is not a point. It's a question.
Well, there is another option. Victory for one side or another. The Palestinians need only end the Jewish state and they have their victory. To achieve victory and a real peace Israel would need to remove all the Arab nations, and Iran too. Short of that, eternal conflict seems the future, in one form or another.
I see a way out, but agree it won't be taken. Israelis seem determined to choose eternal conflict over real peace, and real security. It's their choice. I wish them luck. They're gonna need it.
Yeah, just by being there Israel is complicit. They have staked their claim. It is worth mentioning though that the Arab states themselves are in a complex network of alliances and are by no means united. There's long-standing bad blood between Sunnis and Shi'ites and some Arab countries have a shown a willingness to get a little closer with Israel if it means situating themselves a little better against a strong regional enemy like Iran. There are so many other issues out there for the Arabs besides Israel-Palestine.
No, they're ethnicities and racism is a social construct, which is why discrimination of ethnicities is called racism, just like blacks are an ethnicity and when those are discriminated against, we call it racism. A rather silly point to make but I'm happy to explain what's apparent to everybody else. The comment about Arab Christians is rather funny. You really have no idea about the facts on the ground do you? For instance, it's illegal for Christians to preach to Jews (but of course not the other way around). Several benefits are reserved to Jewish Israelis. School funding is limited for schools that aren't state schools or orthodox Jewish schools. Non - Jewish Israelis have their passports issued on different days than Jewish ones, which coincidentally is exactly the type of registration that made murdering Jews in WWII so effective in various European countries and why any modern democracy doesn't register it anymore.
Edit: I forgot, administrative detention of Palestinian Israelis.
Quoting Foghorn
Lots of projection there. So you're here arguing in bad faith. Good to know. Since you have no argument I guess we're done.
Oh tell me about the "facts on the ground" from your intensive, hands on experience in Israel. Show me when this has gone to court. Are Christians being sent to jail or fined for preaching to Jews?
When do Jews ever preach to Christians??? We don't even try to convert.
Lets just start with this one before moving onto the others. Please show me these brave Christian martyrs who have been persecuted by Israel.
Let's just start here.
Are we ever going to talk about Moroccans in the Netherlands? Why is institutional racism so prevalent there? Is Dutch society just rotten to the core? Why is everything so unequal? Let's talk about that next.
What exactly is false about my account?
I'll ignore the comment about the Netherlands as irrelevant as usual. Why don't you start a thread about it?
Rumbled.
You asked me a question, and I answered it.
Quoting Foghorn
I do, but I think it's the second best option. I do not think that a paranoid ethnostate like Israel is viable to short or long term regional stability. In an ideal world, Israel would become an actual democracy and allow self-determination for all people under its rule. Without an ethnic basis, a single state would simply be one like any other. Whichever solution comes about, it will not be one of design, but one of necessity. In any case, the self-determination of the Palestinian people is not up for someone else to decide, and never has been. Meeting the three goals I outlined does not dictate a clear path forward, nor do I think they ought to.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MuhammadSmiry/status/1405123047917490176[/tweet]
Why am I angry? It's not that I'm angry, but maybe a little perturbed. In a sentence, I'm perturbed at the inability or unwillingness of various posters to even try to entertain or empathize with the Jewish narrative on this issue for even one second. It is their insistence on taking their own perspective -- an outsider's perspective which clearly lacks cultural and religious understanding -- and unquestionably elevating it to the standard of absolute truth without regard for the perspectives and histories of the other parties involved.
You're right, the facts are out there, but maybe there's a little more to it than has been mentioned. Maybe things aren't as simple as you think, and maybe there are better and worse ways to frame criticisms.
EDIT: Gaza and the WB are not the fundamental issues at hand here and are not the fundamental issues to either party except clueless westerns who were born yesterday.
Show me please. Where is this street? Who enforces this policy? Or is this at a border checkpoint and they're trying to speed up the process?
Your ethnicity and country is not relevant to me.
Your current character and whether you know any people on the ground or anything about the middle Eastern culture is totally relevant. How could it not be?
Your posts smack of reading about a conflict solely from second hand media sources. A terrible way to gauge the actual conflict on the ground.
While we're at it, let's empathise with the Nazis. How terribly humiliated they were after WWI, their economy in shambles and then you explain to me how that's a mitigating circumstance for the Holocaust.
It's well documented. If 'speeding up the process' means the process of ethnic cleansing, then yes, it speeds up the process.
Yeah, because Israeli Jews are basically Nazis. Why did I waste my words there?
Ah, we've denigrated to the point where anecdotal evidence trumps research. Wonderful. I've linked to B'Tselem, HRW, Amnesty and UN reports instead of media reports. So far all you've added is aspersions about my character with no knowledge to go on and no facts about the subject matter at hand provided.
In what world is it only fair to only discuss the crimes of one side of a conflict?
According to your sources that is true. Not according to mine.
Which of course you would think that you have complete, unfettered access to. Yes, I know. You see and know all.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yes, let's discuss the crimes committed by resistance fighters against the Germans. That's really going to make the Nazi crimes much less worse.
Similarly, the crimes of the Palestinians are irrelevant to assess Israeli war crimes.
If you have been there and do talk to people,then the fact you ignore testimony renders both points moot,does it not.
In the case of the resistance fighters all that violence was carried out in response to blatant Nazi aggression, but what was the initial act of Israeli aggression that you condemn? I want to hear one specific cause that justifies all this violence. There was violence before 1967.
I don't recall too many instances of resistance fighters wantonly attacking Germans civilians however.
And Israel's aggression is not blatant because you're under the impression you didn't start it? So as long as I don't throw the first punch I'm in the clear? Are you 6? Because that's the exact argument I get from my daughter when she hurts her little brother "but he started it!"
"Attempted stabbing, ramming attack thwarted near Jerusalem The terrorist was shot and killed by IDF soldiers. One soldier was lightly injured and treated at the scene."
"A Palestinian woman who arrived at the scene attempted to run over soldiers who were securing engineering work and then exited her car and tried to stab the soldiers. The terrorist was shot and killed by the soldiers, and one soldier was lightly injured and treated at the scene."
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/attempted-stabbing-ramming-attack-near-jerusalem-no-injuries-reported-671156
-June 15, in a Palestinian neighbourhood in Jerusalem.
Compare this to Dave Hann's description of outright fascist+racist organisation the National Front in the UK:
The mode of operation is the same; only the march is also through conquered ground-turned-racially segregated neighbourhood. Note that such practices are explicitly called part of the culture of Zionism, according to one of the march's political advocates in the state of Israel, as the New York Times documents.
Yes. Zionists shouting racialised death threates while marching through a Palestinian dominant neighbourhood. Accompanied by the marching drums of incendiary bombs dropped on civilians in Gaza.
Perhaps it is Palestine who faces an existential threat instead?
I ask you to turn this post about - imagine it was a Jewish community standing on this precipice, what would you recommend? I think we already know - get the rifle, never again.
Yes. It's a complex chain of events.
Quoting Benkei
You're comparing Israel and Palestine to children right now. The level of arrogance is unbelievably. The term "be less white" has never made more sense to me than it does now.
Ethnic cleansing is not two children fighting.
Right. I'm not worried about a united Arab invasion of Israel. It's been proven that won't work.
On the contrary, if I lived in Israel I'd be worried about a collapse of Arab culture in to chaos. As example, how many psychopaths have been born in the Syrian civil war? There are so many Syrian kids who've never known anything but chaos.
It's not clear to me that Israel is tenable over the longer run, but who knows, I guess we'll find out.
Which would lead to a Palestinian state. To my understanding, the Palestinians don't wish to be citizens of Israel, even if they were full citizens like any other. They wish to have their own country, just like the Jews wish to have their own country.
To the degree I have an opinion, it would be that the interests of both Jews and Palestinians is probably not well served by either of them having their own state in that part of the world. Israelis are likely doomed to eternal conflict, and a Palestinian state is likely to become just another repressive Arab dictatorship. To me, just one view from far away, both parties seem to be clinging to a land that's not worth having.
Sounds like a good plan to me.
So many stories on NPR these days are of the type "Hey, look at this, this is so bad!" Ok, much of it is, agreed. But what do you want to do about it? That requires too much thinking, so it's on to the next story, which has the theme "Hey, look at this, this is so bad!"
And now I'm doing it too. Hey, look at this thread, this is so bad!!! :-)
Yes, it's sad that people drown in the Mediterranean trying to get to Europe. Yes, it is sad that they paid to get smuggled into southern Italy in a leaky boat. Yes, it is sad that they traveled a long way to get to Europe only to end up getting fished out of the sea and taken back to Libya--if they were lucky. But fleeing every bad place for the promised land won't be the solution. Can't be the solution.
But all one gets in these stories is the same weepy narrative.
The idea that either would simply pack and leave is so fantastical that it belongs in the same book as Harry Potter. Not worth entertaning except as fantasy fiction.
I'm not comparing Israel and Palestine to children, I'm comparing your moral thinking to that of a six year old.
I'd add those seeking a peaceful solution. There are many with "final solutions" in their mind there.
A huge percent of your posts are of this type, trying to inflate yourself by reducing someone else.
I've already said multiple times that I agree Israelis are not going to leave. If you'd actually read the thread, you'd see you are debunking claims of your own invention.
Very well said Mr. Crank, your post seemed to nail it pretty well.
I've been slowly coming to peace with the NPR narrative in this manner. Boomers are no longer the focus of American culture, because we are on our way out. This is a completely normal progression of affairs, not a conspiracy.
NPR is now aimed at a younger audience, which makes perfect sense from a business perspective. The younger audience is, well, younger. They find consciousness raising pieces meaningful because they haven't been listening to them since 1962. To them, this is all news.
But what I want to know, and NO ONE at NPR will answer this question....
Why don't they play Tommy Dorsey records on the radio anymore???? What the hell is going on????
Oh, and where are my glasses, does anyone know?
I know, you could move to the Middle East. You'd fit right in!
I cast my vote for this. The Mid East conflict is a lot like this thread, lots of yelling, not all that much thinking.
And, I suspect it's a lot like this thread in that there's a lot of conflict addiction going on. I think forum threads like this can provide some insight in to larger conflicts. We all know that exactly nothing will be solved by this thread. And before we read even the first post we knew this thread would be conflict based. And so we clicked on the link, and jumped right in!
As example, look at the cable news industry. Conflict, conflict, conflict, all day long. Extremely popular.
Once we humans get wrapped up in some victim pose, that can be so satisfying to our egos that it can become near impossible to let it go. And of course, if one is going to be a victim, one needs an enemy.
1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel
In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.
Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours
I agree with the establishment of a Palestinian state, as expressed already above.
As has been discussed already, this doesn't really solve the conflict, because a Palestinian state is seen by many (especially Hamas) as being just a stepping stone to the real goal, the end of the Jewish state.
So, I see this...
1) The establishment of a Palestinian state.
2) A civil war between Hamas and the PLO, with Hamas the likely winner.
3) The arming of the Palestinian state by outside powers, such as Iran.
4) Hamas continues to pursue it's long stated goal of ending the Jewish state, leading to ever more conflict and violence, and ever more victims.
It's also not been established that Palestinians would actually be better off in a Palestinian state. All the other Arab states seem to be some version of chaos, corruption, oppression, incompetence, etc. That doesn't prove anything about the future of a Palestinian state, but it's a large pile of evidence which shouldn't be ignored.
All that said, I agree, establish the Palestinian state. And if that state should attack Israel, roll the tanks across the border, go house to house to find the leaders, hang them all, and then leave.
As example, Syria has tried to invade Israel on multiple occasions. Every time they try that they get their butts kicked. So they've finally learned that lesson and don't try anymore.
If a Palestinian state were to attack Israel, Israel should avoid the usual tit for tat limited engagement which never leads to anything but a repeat of the exercise a few years later. If a Palestinian state were to attack Israel, find every Hamas leader, and kill them. Make it clear to one and all, fuck with us, and you die.
That's how the Middle East works. It's a knife fight in an alley. You either win, or you die.
Or, an even better solution for the Israelis, pack up your stuff and get out of the ghetto. I know, I know, not gonna happen, agree. But that would the rational choice.
This is false. Hamas rejects Israel because recognising it recognises the existence of territory belonging to that State. It believes the territory Israel claims is all illegal and therefore Israel can only be recognised as part of a negotiated settlement. Hamas will accept something along the 1967 borders and has put that in writing in 2017.
But honestly, it's pretty much impossible to accept you as a reliable source of information given how hopelessly partisan and self involved all of your posts on this subject are. I'm still convinced that your only real interest in this subject is to call people stupid from a position of imaginary moral superiority. Almost all of what you write here, all about Benkei, Benkei, Benkei, Benkei, Benkei.
No, I call people stupid from a position of being actually informed. If human rights activism is being self-involved. Guilty. I'm not going to apologise for it.