Resistance movements are simply a result of an occupation. — Tzeentch

I don't think it has to be that way. It is certainly cultural as much as anything. Why don't we see this type of violence currently in Tibet, for example?

Hell, even people in South America simply move when they are dissatisfied with the situation where they're from.. Most coming to the US, which of course causes its own problems. Many from Syria and other countries left due to conditions and are now residents, in countries like the Netherlands.

I am not trying to say, "Why don't the Palestinians move". That would be a strawman, just that cutting off heads and such isn't the only way to react. Clearly, this is chicken-or-egg phenomenon. Netanyahu essentially has co-opted the strongman approach of his Arab neighbors.. You stay in a region too long, you start becoming like the region a bit.

But almost like a college student who has posters of Che Guevera on the wall, it would be a simplistic oversimplication and perhaps even tacit consent, to merely handwave these kind of brutal reactions to one's perceived political enemy at the level of Hamas. That's my point.

Hamas suicide bombed the shit out of Israel and they voted in "strongmen". Who would have thought! If my house was bulldozed or if my grandfather was kicked out of territory, with my sense of morality as it stands now, I would damn sure NOT be cutting heads off people or supporting such causes.

Israel's refusal to enact and sabotage of UNSC resolutions towards a two-state solution started all the way back in 1967. — Tzeentch

3 No's

Not really. Hamas acts in the way resistance movements always act. Like the Viet Cong, the Taliban, etc. It's a given. Israel won't be the first nation to find that out that moral whinging won't change the facts on the ground. — Tzeentch

Yep, just a day in the park. Why doesn't Tibet do this? Hell, that's even their holy land... unlike Jerusalem which is a third-rate version.

Israel on the other hand has had, certainly since 1991, the world's most powerful nation on its side and could have solved this situation if it wanted to. It of course sabotaged the solutions, most notably it sabotaged the two-state solution which it was called upon to enact via UNSC resolutions. This sabotage is explicitly mentioned in the relevant UNSC resolutions. — Tzeentch

You are really showing your bias now.. Israel had several "dovish" leaders that made peace deals that Arafat and Abbas either rejected or made impossible to take (right of return).

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism. — Tzeentch

I'm going to. resist. urge. to copy. paste. whole. history of conflict. yet again to show how this is patently false, not even just spin.

So yes, Israel holds all the cards for a solution, but refuses to act, instead opting for hard liners like Netanyahu in the hopes that one day Palestinians will magically disappear. Remarkably foolish and worthy of the harshest criticism. — Tzeentch

Did history not exist before the last twenty years?

They're not doing what is necessary. They're digging themselves deeper into a hole with every bomb they drop on Gaza. — Tzeentch

If you think Hamas will leave Israel alone if it did X, Y, Z measures, you would be wrong. They are not cutting off heads to ensure a peaceable solution around the table for tea. And like the Viet Cong, they want ALL of it, if they can, and will make it hard for Israel to live REALLY, not just in isolated incidents. They want to GROW how bad they can make it, not stop it once they gained a bit. But keep defending their means and ends.

Yeah there’s nothing on there really countering anything. You said N was ill but affirmed life and somehow this proves something or other about his philosophy. Schop didn’t think many people were going to be ascetics or even have the one virtue he thought was truly moral, compassion. Art was more amenable, but not everyone was going to be an artistic genius either- only temporary observers, temporarily stopping the Will.

This is where we are fundamentally in disagreement.

Israel has most to lose. — Tzeentch

Yeah I know you think Hamas and Leftist supporters are super cool nihilists that are “gonna make Israel look bad” in an apocalyptic frenzy..as if leftists in Europe, and Iran didn’t already hate them? But do you see how outrageously costly Hamas’ strategy that is to care so little about the lives of THEIR OWN people, even if they win in the court of (leftist or Islamist) public opinion? You’ve already lost if you think of your own people as CANNON FODDER. To be used for what? Bad press for Israel and hatred that has and will always be there for Israel amongst those who don’t like Israel?

I’m no supporter of the right wing Netanyahu government, but if he’s in there, you can question why it is Israel wants the hostages back and no negotiations with terrorists, but the responsibility of Hamas is to their own people. In the game of nihilistic power, you have lost if you can’t protect your people. However, the insane part, is that is not anywhere in their calculus. Cause before their own people.

Hamas on the other hand, as is typical for resistance movements, just needs to survive until inevitably some day the tables turn. — Tzeentch

This is just your bias. Yes, I get you don’t see a problem with Hamas it seems, only Israel.

There seems to be a failure by “The West” and by extension Israel to understand Arabic culture and morality. — Punshhh

What’s the failure?

So decadent you go on resenting 'this abject life' which you apparently lack the courage to quit ... you're welcome to your fashionably shallow caricature of N — 180 Proof

Nothing about eternal return or the ubermensch rings true for me. What do you want me to say? You can give a case for his ideas instead of petty sniping, but doubt what you say isn’t something I haven’t considered and thought that Schop had a better take on.

Trump acts as if he's convinced he's above the law, and Trump supporters likewise view him as above the law, or as BEING the law. — Wayfarer

It’s gaslighting (it’s not that bad, nothing worse than X) and cult of personality behavior (how dare you prosecute the dear leader) behind the support, mixed with possibly religious ends justify the means notions for evangelicals. He’s the flawed orange messiah.

As I said @Tzeentch

So in this morality of the Thunderdome, where power is the language, and anything goes to get what one wants from the enemy, we can start talking about how the two power dynamics are to play out and how they operate. It could be seen instead of "two sides", as a system that is in a tightly wound knot. When they tug the knot gets tighter, not looser. So to untie the knot, there needs to be a set of actions by both sides in this particular round. The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win. Israel actually CARES about its OWN people, Hamas does not. Hamas cares about getting a token prize (prisoner exchange or ANYTHING that will allow it to not look like it lost with its tail between its legs). They care not one iota about suffering of their people, just about how the war is carried out.. Whether the media is portraying it their way, whether they get European and American Leftists on board, etc. But basically, they don't care about what is BEST (in terms of actual lives lost and suffering) of their people. The Israelis, DO care about its people to the extent that they don't really consider as much how badly the bombings will affect the Palestinians when they send rockets, because when the more targeted army rushes in, they will have less to deal with in terms of urban combat. They think about things in terms of PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. Hamas could go on indefinitely and lose millions of people. But they don't care. They DON'T CARE about their people. They care ONLY ABOUT THEIR CAUSE.

That makes a huge difference in how the knot is undone. Hamas would have to CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE by letting go of the hostages and even giving themselves in. Odd that they are suicidal, yet can't make the big boy decision that giving up would be best for their own people. They have to turn the key on their end to untie the knot.

BUT then here is another kicker. IF people on the sideline say, "Hamas should not have to give up", then they also don't care about the people that Hamas supposedly is there to represent and protect. Even if Israel supposedly doesn't care about the Palestinian casualties, Hamas and their supporters sure don't either. So who is left to care about the casualties? If Israel doesn't, but it still cares about its side. Hamas doesn't and that's the only one that represents its side (and the Leftist supporters of course). So apparently, all around everyone seems to care only about THEIR CAUSE and not SUFFERING, which negates cries against calling "foul", because they have the key, they just don't want it turned. — schopenhauer1

So again, it’s a system. Hamas has the ability to turn the key by giving up the hostages and giving up. They can CARE about THEIR citizens.

Remember, you and Benkei are the ones who threw out debates of morality when you decided that means don’t matter if the cause is something you think is just. But even without morality there is the ability to cut losses when there is too much damage incurred. And Israel considers any death a tragedy, not a martyrdom, and thus has a different calculation than Hamas.

So I know you don’t pay attention to all my posts, but way back I posted several articles from Friedman and a video with him and Robert Wright and said that that was my view more or less, so you can stop mischaracterizing my positions please.

As practical as a light rail network to every cul de sac in America would be to compress the suburbs into denser communities. Expropriate the properties, recycle the McMansions, tear up the excessive mileage of roads, and replace it with dense housing closer to the core. Return the once fertile suburban land to trees or turnip fields.

This draconian solution might be beyond even the Chinese Communist Party's enforcement apparatus, however. — BC

I don't drive an automobile, and wonder to what extent this means that I am a 'failure', or something else, especially in challenging the norms of driving, and environmental concerns. — Jack Cummins

Do you rely on public transit? Relatives? Don't leave your house?

He could write in one sentence what others penned in entire books. An example of his masterful work is "Human, All Too Human." Not a single word extra, straight to the heart of the matter! Thus, he mastered both word and script. — MorningStar

"I once saw Bill Brasky wrestle a grizzly bear with his bare hands, while simultaneously reciting Shakespearean sonnets in three different languages. Oh, and did I mention he did it on top of Mount Everest during a blizzard, wearing nothing but a swimsuit? That's just a regular Tuesday for Bill Brasky!"

So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:

'My Nietzsche' is primarily a cultural diagnotician-poet rather than a romantic individualist-decadent. Consider this old post, schop:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/684298

Lastly,
I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will). — 180 Proof

First off, indeed you would have to qualify as "My Nietzschean", because his writing is not amenable to a straightforward or unambiguous interpretation, hence why there are so many "My Nietzschean"s. Schopenhauer can be interpreted in multiple ways, but you are essentially going to be circling around the same core ideas, as his ideas were clearly explicated, whatever you might agree or disagree with in those explications.

Secondly, from what I gather from Nietzsche, the idea of someone embracing the pains of existence eternally, just seems like coked up mania. That is to say, there are truly horrible things about life that are not to be embraced, and that is not how humans tend to live life except in brief bursts of enthusiasm- those peak moments. You can write about it afterwards poetically, "OH look at how my life of suffering is a work of art!".

I stand by what I stated earlier and don't think your appeal to Nietzsche here has countered what I stated earlier:

Schopenhauer. Nietzsche tried to turn his one-time teacher on his head (Will-to-live becomes Will-to-power).. Compassion and asceticism become "Master morality over slave morality", and the like. A renouncing of life to a re-affirming of life with all its suffering for eternity.

I think just because a philosopher came later, doesn't mean they "perfected" or "corrected" a previous philosopher, simply because they came later. Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. No wonder he is praised all over this forum and in some other circles...The Randian businessman capitalist, the punk-bohemian, the travelling dilettante, and the dictator can all claim to be an ubermensch and draw from the same well. — schopenhauer1

And yes, because of his manic embrace for "Ceasing the day! and FATE!!!", it does lead to various forms of manic and/or self-aggrandized attitudes and mores- often faddish ones.

So going back to my main point, if one was to be indifferent or "that's what Israel gets" regarding this latest round of killings/barbarism, then especially when it comes to this war, we can no longer really discuss in terms of morality, but in terms of power. So you no longer have to couch your arguments in terms of "Well, it was as bad or they're worse! because at that point, it's just counting various nihilistic barbarisms against each other. At that point, it's purely about power and ends ALONE (no longer means). In that case, whatever the leaders of the Palestinians and Israel do become JUST about ends in themselves. If that sounds scary, well, that is where YOUR logic has gotten you. But, all is not lost, because, even if one ditches morality of the means, and only looks at morality of the ends, one can still talk it just changes the subject. It is the morality of the Thunderdome and no longer of the Enlightenment.

I mean, at the end of the day if you don't think means matter, Genghis Khan was just as right to brutally conquer and torture people as not. A generation later, you had a Pax Mongolia of sorts, that can be said to be relatively peaceful! Same with Cyrus the Great from Persia.. Not a terrible policy of tolerance from a conqueror, AFTER he conquered of course. As this discussion has brought up over and over, the Allies had to do some pretty grizzly stuff to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan, often to citizens of those countries, and now they enjoy some of the best economies in the world. Each of those countries thought they had a mandate of sorts to do what they did. They thought their ends were justified- at least the ones who supported their cause, and the ones who didn't, like today, were at the whims of the outcomes of their co-patriots' support.

So in this morality of the Thunderdome, where power is the language, and anything goes to get what one wants from the enemy, we can start talking about how the two power dynamics are to play out and how they operate. It could be seen instead of "two sides", as a system that is in a tightly wound knot. When they tug the knot gets tighter, not looser. So to untie the knot, there needs to be a set of actions by both sides in this particular round. The Israelis have to allow for an exit ramp on the other side. Hamas has to figure out if its armed struggle is more important than the lives of its people. And there's the kicker. This is where, whatever you think its failings are, Israel will always win. Israel actually CARES about its OWN people, Hamas does not. Hamas cares about getting a token prize (prisoner exchange or ANYTHING that will allow it to not look like it lost with its tail between its legs). They care not one iota about suffering of their people, just about how the war is carried out.. Whether the media is portraying it their way, whether they get European and American Leftists on board, etc. But basically, they don't care about what is BEST (in terms of actual lives lost and suffering) of their people. The Israelis, DO care about its people to the extent that they don't really consider as much how badly the bombings will affect the Palestinians when they send rockets, because when the more targeted army rushes in, they will have less to deal with in terms of urban combat. They think about things in terms of PROTECTING ITS CITIZENS. Hamas could go on indefinitely and lose millions of people. But they don't care. They DON'T CARE about their people. They care ONLY ABOUT THEIR CAUSE.

That makes a huge difference in how the knot is undone. Hamas would have to CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE by letting go of the hostages and even giving themselves in. Odd that they are suicidal, yet can't make the big boy decision that giving up would be best for their own people. They have to turn the key on their end to untie the knot.

BUT then here is another kicker. IF people on the sideline say, "Hamas should not have to give up", then they also don't care about the people that Hamas supposedly is there to represent and protect. Even if Israel supposedly doesn't care about the Palestinian casualties, Hamas and their supporters sure don't either. So who is left to care about the casualties? If Israel doesn't, but it still cares about its side. Hamas doesn't and that's the only one that represents its side (and the Leftist supporters of course). So apparently, all around everyone seems to care only about THEIR CAUSE and not SUFFERING, which negates cries against calling "foul", because they have the key, they just don't want it turned.

Why did they not drive downtown? Because there are scary unpleasant things downtown, like one way streets, parking meters, the dreaded cultural diversity, no enclosed shopping centers, parking lots charging money to enter, busses all over, too many stop lights... It's a nightmare! — BC

Then light rail for them! What you say here really just advocates for better lightrail. However, I see it as part of the problem too? Why? Because light rails are often built to allow for suburbanites to park their cars and go to something like a sporting event downtown and back. It's never made with the mind for REAL daily commuting. In other words, it doesn't have lines that go INTO the neighborhoods to allow for people to walk easily and not have to "park and ride", which I saw you discussed earlier.

@Ciceronianus@Echarmion @Tom Storm

Among the unpleasantries of human existence is the abashment we
suffer when we feel our lives to be destitute of meaning with respect to
who we are, what we do, and the general way
39
we believe things to be in the universe. If one doubts that felt meanings
are imperative to our developing or maintaining a state of good feeling,
just lay your eyes on the staggering number of books and therapies for a
market of individuals who suffer from a deficiency of meaning, either in
a limited and localized variant (“I am satisfied that my life has meaning
because I received an ‘A’ on my calculus exam”) or one that is
macrocosmic in scope (“I am satisfied that my life has meaning because
God loves me”). Few are the readers of Norman Vincent Peale’s The
Power of Positive Thinking (1952) who do not feel dissatisfied with who
they are, what they do, and the general way they believe things to be in
the universe. Millions of copies of Peale’s book and its imitations have
been sold; and they are not purchased by readers well satisfied with the
number or intensity of felt meanings in their lives and thus with their
place on the ladder of “subjective well being,” in the vernacular of
positive psychology, a movement that came into its own in the early
years of the twenty-first century with a spate of books about how almost
anyone could lead happily meaningful lives.6 Martin Seligman, the
architect of positive psychology, defines his brainchild as “the science of
what makes life worth living” and synopsized its principles in Authentic
Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your
Potential for Lasting Fulfillment (2002).
There is nothing new, of course, about people searching for a happily
meaningful life in a book. With the exception of sacred texts, possibly
the most successful self-help manual of all time is Emile Coué’s Self
Mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion (1922). Coué was an
advocate of self-hypnosis, and there is little doubt that he had an
authentically philanthropic desire to help others lead more salutary lives.
On his lecture tours, he was greeted by celebrities and dignitaries around
the world. Hordes turned out for his funeral in 1926.
40
Coué is best known for urging believers in his method to repeat the
following sentence: “Day by day, in every way, I am getting better and
better.” How could his readers not feel that their lives had meaning, or
were proceeding toward meaningfulness, by hypnotizing themselves
with these words day by day? While being alive is all right for the
world’s general population, some of us need to get it in writing that this
is so.
Every other creature in the world is insensate to meaning. But those of
us on the high ground of evolution are replete with this unnatural need
which any comprehensive encyclopedia of philosophy treats under the
heading LIFE, THE MEANING OF.In its quest for a sense of meaning,
humanity has given countless answers to questions that were never
posed to it. But though our appetite for meaning may be appeased for a
time, we are deceived if we think it is ever gone for good. Years may
pass during which we are unmolested by LIFE, THE MEANING OF.
Some days we wake up and innocently say, “It’s good to be alive.”
Broken down, this exclamation means that we are experiencing an acute
sense of well-being. If everyone were in such elevated spirits all the
time, the topic of LIFE, THE MEANING OF would never enter our
minds or our philosophical reference books. But an ungrounded
jubilation—or even a neutral reading on the monitor of our moods—
must lapse, either intermittently or for the rest of our natural lives. Our
consciousness, having snoozed awhile in the garden of incuriosity, is
pricked by some thorn or other, perhaps DEATH, THE MEANING OF,
or spontaneously modulates to a minor key due to the vagaries of our
brain chemistry, the weather, or for causes not confirmable.Then the
hunger returns for LIFE, THE MEANING OF, the emptiness must be
filled again, the pursuit resumed. (There is more on meaning in the
section Unpersons contained in the next chapter, “Who Goes There?”)
41
Perhaps we might gain some perspective on our earthly term if we
stopped thinking of ourselves as beings who enact a “life.” This word is
loaded with connotations to which it has no right. Instead, we should
substitute “existence” for “life” and forget about how well or badly we
enact it. None of us “has a life” in the narrative-biographical way we
think of these words. What we have are so many years of existence. It
would not occur to us to say that any man or woman is in the “prime of
existence.” Speaking of “existence” rather than “life” unclothes the latter
word of its mystique. Who would ever claim that “existence is all right,
especially when you consider the alternative”? — CATR- Ligotti

But I mean, would the X amount of work going into car industry go to mass transit?

It would be interesting. Has there ever been a time when whole swaths of industry has migrated to another? For example, if mass transit was developed, would all the engineering, construction, and operations go into that from car related industry?

There are smaller scale transit companies in small markets that seem very well run. Government subsidized but they are not the same as what you might expect in the big cities. Like county wide services in the outskirts. — Mark Nyquist

Care to elaborate? Would it be with any frequency for anyone to give up their cars for?

Of course that's resistance. It's hardly anything new in terms of what resistance movements have gotten up to historically. — Tzeentch

Ok, so back to nihilism. There is nothing then to be said about Israel's campaign as it is power vs. power and Mad Max Superdome. So fuck it.

Even if you truly believe that, UN votings clearly show opinion on Israel is shifting, and that it and the US are increasingly more isolated. That is not irrelevant. That is the writing on the wall. — Tzeentch

Not really. The "UN" is nothing. It's US, Britain (and Anglo-sphere), NATO, Russia, China. The rest don't mean much really except in relation to them. NATO also is pretty weak as they cannot even provide enough money to defend Ukraine against Russia, but we don't have to touch upon that. Certainly I don't see Netherlands (or individual European countries) taking up arms with Palestinians, their ole buddies any time soon. If they do, maybe you can have a point. The Middle Eastern countries that want stability just want this to end. The one's that don't never want this to end, so doesn't matter.

Nothing Israel is doing and has been doing is changing its strategic position. In fact, it's actually worsening its position in the region significantly. — Tzeentch

Again, Hamas et al. wants Mad Max. Israel is now part of it Mad Max Superdome. Hamas wanted some apocalyptic shit, and it's getting it.

What do you think will happen when the US retreats to its island and the Middle-East falls out of its control? We are rapidly approaching that point. — Tzeentch

Then Mad Max was always there and now it's coming to the surface. Either you want peace or you don't.

IF the kind of anti-social, dysfunctional, disorderly, and disruptive behavior that swept over transit during the pandemic occurred in a wealthy suburb's shopping area, there would have been an immediate crackdown on riff raff. On many transit systems, this crap continued for 3 years before transit authorities got serious about bad behavior on their systems. — BC

They're still not serious.. Just saying. Yes, mass transit has languished as a cesspool where drug users, predatory behavior, mentally disturbed are able to terrorize others trying to use it for commuting or getting around. This creates the chicken-and-egg. It is seen as unsafe and insecure, so people avoid it. People also don't want to wait 50 minutes or more for what could be done in 10 minutes (or less). This cuts costs. That cuts frequency which further erodes trust in public transit.

But that is very different from declaring personal vehicles evil, as if they have no (inherently obvious to essentially everyone) huge positive impact to humans. — LuckyR

Yes, individual cars and such allows for flexibility into rural areas. If I was to take a fully fictional scenario, I could propose that even farms can have trams and trains going to those areas with minimal need for cars and trucks..

More practically, sure, rural areas would still use automobiles, but by no means do cities, suburbs, exurbs, and even small towns need automobiles if there were interconnected series of rails, trams, light rails, and the rest.

Imagine instead of doing Ford (GM, Mercedes, Toyotas, Dodge, Chevy..etc.) bidding, we invested in public transportation right after WWII rather than expansion of highways, cars, and the like.. Perhaps growing the system such that one need only step onto a smaller tram right in front of their house that goes to larger avenues to their destinations.. Yes, it is completely sci-fi fantasy, I get that. And perhaps we couldn't have the technology or coordination during that time, but the ideas can come first, and the practicalities are worked out by engineers, planners, and the like. It's not impossible, but certainly it would take a huge political and cultural will which no one has and it would take a large national effort, let alone probably a global one to really make it work.

First, Hamas isn't going to stop its resistance — Tzeentch

Resistance to its own policies which had made Israel react to its terrorism after firing rockets? Funny how that works.

Until then, resistance is the only leverage Hamas has. — Tzeentch

I don’t want to play a sport with you, if raping, cutting heads off people and ransoming it back to relatives, praising children for butchering x nimber of Jews and burning people is resistance, I’ll pass on your idea of competition.

I’ll keep saying it cause it’s just my stance:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

Second, the US can't impose anything on Israel, let alone a decision so large as the two-state solution. Even if the US managed it politically, Israel would simply refuse to carry it out, just as Israel refused to carry out the long list of UNSC resolutions. — Tzeentch

Honestly, the UN can f_ck itself.. It has countries voting in there with horrible human rights records. And it's Europe's whining ground because they can't do anything unilaterally. The UN is irrelevant and is used as whatever X person's cudgel is against the US/Israel.

However, the US does have huge sway over Israel if it really wanted to. There is a lot that could happen. It just chooses not to at the moment as it doesn't want to pull that just yet. Also, I am showing you what I want, not necessarily what will happen. I'd want Hamas destroyed, the region de-radicalized over time, the PA reformed as well, and a peace where two people's can live side-by-side without revenge or violence being the only language.. otherwise Mad Max.

Bottomline, this isn't dealing with reality. This is a blueprint for never solving the conflict, which is exactly what Israel has foolishly done for the past 60-or-so years. — Tzeentch

You will just continually complain about everything. You are not living in reality because as I told your partner, Benkei:

As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified. — schopenhauer1

I believe Palestinian radicalism is created by Israel's behavior, much in the same line ↪Benkei argues. — Tzeentch

Ok, so you DO care about where it comes from and this is false:

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from. — Tzeentch

If you believe that Palestinians are inherently radical, what are you suggesting? That there is no burden on Israel to find a solution? That any amount of cruelty can be exacted on the Palestinians because, after all, "they are the problem"?

As I've pointed out, these roads lead to nowhere. Israel stands to lose the most, and that's a reality you seem unwilling to accept. — Tzeentch

As I stated here:

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't matter where you believe Palestinian radicalism comes from. — Tzeentch

You stated:

it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression. — Tzeentch

So clearly YOU do. I was responding to YOUR comment on precisely that.

Let me ask it simply:

You seem to believe Palestinians are somehow inherently radical.

So what? — Tzeentch

I am not sure what you are trying to say, so I can't answer unless you clarify.

If you mean, why do I not support terrorism, I think it goes without saying that Hamas, and people who don't mind their methods should not be rewarded. And so, as I stated, Israel not rewarding it, will simply become part of the system of co-option (to responding with power to over power their power) because this seems the only language of the political leadership of Palestinians in Gaza.

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression. — Tzeentch

That is not really true as I see it. The radicalism was there from the beginning.. Where is the starting point? In 1967 when Israel gained the West Bank and Gaza and tried to give it back for a lasting peace and were rebuffed by the "3 no's"? Or the 90s-2000s era suicide bombings? Rather, the radicalism was always there, and Israel moved rightward politically as they saw that the negotiating partner couldn't compromise to save their people's lives (literally).

Also, the two sides have already put the moral arguments aside. As I said, and I'll say it again now:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power... — schopenauer1

And its really more like this:

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things. — Benkei

That's exactly as I've been saying. Israel does have to allow for a two-state solution, but I sure as hell am going to say that the contingency is that Hamas and other radical elements (which are largely supported by the populous) have to be done away with. As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified. And hence, it's not even worth debating you unless you renounce such tactics. Again, and again, I'll state it again, because you didn't read my post carefully or chose to ignore it, or perhaps you just don't GET it but I said:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power... — schopenhauer1

And its really more like this:

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

Hamas and the PA don't need to deradicalise when terrorist bombings are a consequence of Israeli oppression. — Benkei

Yeah that's all I need to hear to ignore you as a one-sided terrorist-supporter.
And as I already stated pretty clearly:

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be. — schopenhauer1

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power. — ssu

Yeah, even the PA under Abbas has to tow the terrorist-populist line. In the PA's official budget, they give large sums of money or "social security" to the families of so-called "martyrs" who were suicide bombers or terrorist attackers who killed large groups of civilians. So yeah, even the PA would to a large extent have to be de-radicalized. But they cannot be completely sidelined, or at least, they have to be reconstructed. Hell, the people already would vote in Hamas anyways, so it's not like they are EVEN just barely hanging on in popularity, so it's a wash there too.

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back. — ssu

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more. The leaders get to hide out and travel to mansions if needed while the foot soldiers are basically a suicide cult. Many of their relatives see them as proud fighters. It's like muscle memory at this point to have one's hate be stronger than even one's life, so I don't know. But, at some point, the leaders will want to pretend like they got something from this round of conflict, so probably some prisoner exchange, as if this was all worth it for them. They can go on indefinitely until they get some token prize perhaps, or if or when they are all killed I guess.

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power...

And its really more like this:
.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

Absolutely. The tragedy is that practically our whole economy is built around this cost, pollution, physical and psychological damage, and negative outcomes. — BC

Being a philosophy forum, I did want to bring the moral and cultural aspects of this up. Humans are so extremely centered on this transportation technology- whole swaths of political and personal aspects wrapped up in it.. But it has forced us in a case of "too big to fail".

As Jesus said, "It is much more difficult for an advanced economy to devolve dependence on the automobile than it is for whale to live in a fish bowl." He said that. A camel getting through the eye of a needle business was a mistranslation. — BC

:lol: No doubt, Jesus would have driven a Geo...

Were we to make the truly Olympian decision to abandon individual transportation (whether gas driven or electric) it would require a Titanic change in the way 330,000,000 million people live--changes that are over the horizon and can only be guessed at. — BC

As much as I wish for great mass transit (especially as a transit dependent person), I don't see it as an economic or cultural possibility. — BC

I agree. I am not saying this mass transit transformation will happen any time soon, simply explaining the situation as it is now, and to present some alternatives that will not take place. Cars were the "engines" (pun intended) of much economic growth. And I stand by the idea that it didn't lead to the best outcomes. Poor planning, mixed with corporate interests bring us to where we are now.

There is another problem with mass transit. It must cope with very large volumes of people at only a few times of the day. Usually 2 times as people go to work and come home.

At other times mass transit must be available for the small volume of people who want to use it, and it must still be frequent enough to meet people's needs. This means that mass transit is underutilized but must still run to meet people's transport needs. So you get buses, trains, etc carrying only a few people. This is very inefficient. Cars don't have this problem. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yep, public transit has its logistical problems, but cars do too, as mentioned in the OP. Cars are extremely inefficient when it comes to cost, pollution, physical, and psychological damage/outcomes if everything is considered in relation to it.

I mean updated versions of course :D.

However, it is difficult to transport people from point A to point B efficiently for SOME combinations of A and B using mass transit. For example, from a location in the suburbs to another location in the suburbs. This could be 2 different suburbs, but could also be in the same suburb.

Even if stops for mass transit were never more than five minutes away, it is impossible and impractical to try to efficiently connect every combination of point A and point B. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, most of this is a pipedream, but imagine if people built interconnected cable cars rather than roads? It was a choice. It's not like roads aren't (mostly) publicly funded!

Indeed car manufacturers and all industrial consumer goods manufacturers are insatiable. I think the laughable part is that people think this is "just" the private consumer choosing this. However, government actually encourages this growth and perpetuation of car use. Industry and government are intertwined through various transportation and commerce departments/agencies. Who do you think funds all those roads and bridges?? And public transportation is called "public" if it is somehow "communal" like trains and busses, but the public is deeply involved in car infrastructure as well. It's state-subsidized preferences for cars. There is no incentive NOT to use them. I've barely seen large-scale schemes like giving free tickets to those who don't own a car, etc.

@Jamal here's another one from CityNerd channel:

A good YouTube channel that covers this stuff is NotJustBikes. — Jamal

Thanks for the resource! These videos are very relevant to this topic. I found another interesting one here:

(And talk about big government and liberty is really not relevant or helpful. It's worth noting that the car-centrism that began early to mid-twentieth century was partly the result of oversized influence from the borderline monopolistic car industry (partly also some misguided aspects of modernist architecture)) — Jamal

Yes, all true. My point to another poster was that "big government" (aka government), already subsidizes automobiles with roads, bridges, and anything relating to them that is paid for by taxes and handled by government officials (who usually contract to private companies to do the building).