Well I can't really make any claim in my own right. But it made sense to me as a reaction to trauma. — Echarmion

I think trauma is certainly part of the equation but that gets really complex.

Israel is not just another nation state. It's not just an anachronistic quasi colonial project. It's also a product of the Shoa. It's a promise that, the next time, the jews will not be helpless. — Echarmion

I think I agree with that characterization, and thus the idea of not being wiped out or losing ground plays a major role in defense. These are really broad strokes though and I don’t think everything can be reduced to sweeping sentiments. There are various historical forces that shape policy but there is also tremendous diversity in views and ideas on how to maintain a secure state in a relatively hostile region, be it labor party peace activists, religious sects, Likud, centrists, and various ideas and interests for how to conduct domestic and foreign policy.

A muscular, tanned figure, rifle in hand, tanks and fighter jets at their back. — Echarmion

Most of what you said seems to be a certain sentiment except the war imagery at the end. It was probably a mix of just wanting to feel secure and I would think most families would rather the image be collective farmers, fishermen, builders, engineers, etc just living life building the land. Being a citizen soldier is just a necessity not the driving force. If your existence is on the line though, surely fighting in the army is not a remote possibility but a necessity.

Curious, are you familiar with Max Tegmark’s ideas on Levels 1-4 multiverses? His general metaphysical theory is that the physical world (what we human animals perceive anyways) is basically mathematical structure all the way down. He argues further, that ours is a computable mathematical world though this gets thorny when considering Godel’s paradox.





He has ideas on consciousness too, and how it’s about bring a mathematical pattern similar to Tononi’s ideas of integrated information theory or “phi”, but that’s probably stepping further out of his specialty. Perhaps that’s needed though.

I am glad you asked that question.

Would you agree that neither the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Jews at that time had any agency in the creation of this conflict, but mainly puppets in the great powers who decided their fate? — FreeEmotion

I would say the whole colonial world was shaped by "greater powers". You are bringing this up as if I hadn't already addressed this, but perhaps you didn't read earlier posts. The Middle East and Africa (and most of Asia for that matter) are purely fictional entities essentially contrived by Britain, France (and other European powers to a lesser extent... Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Russia, etc.). So in that respect, of course the colonies developed from the 17th-20th centuries were shaped by "greater powers" (in Europe mainly).

But more proximately, Israel, the modern state, was an idea that came about in the 19th century and borne out of the nationalism that was prevalent of that time. But the same can be said of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and you name it. The reality of Israel came about through the realization that Jews in the Western world (and that includes populations in Arab centers which traditionally have been "treated" a bit better than Europe prior to Israel), because history has demonstrated a rampant hatred of this group through the generations and culminating with the holocaust (and is that some sort of "End of History" moment for humanity or the Jews in general, or can that happen yet again, and again and again.. hence the idea that perhaps a location related to the group's origins makes sense for there to be at least one place for the people not to be continually at the whims of whatever country they belong). And even then, the Israelis just didn't get a state, it happened through a series of pushes of various groups right after WW2, especially in regards to getting displaced persons in European concentration camps into Israel (as many places just wouldn't take them). So, then the UN resolution was passed. And thus the movements of Arabs hoping to return after Israel's utter defeat (the ever present Nakba). It didn't happen the way they had predicted, and here we are with two populations warring ever since regarding the right of this or that, and the other. What it means to lose a war, what it means to win a war. What is the proper place of the UN? Is it biased? Is it objective? Is a tool for whatever country needs it at the moment? Is it a tool of Europe against the US' hegemony after WW2? Is it a tool of the developing countries against the West, or the US? Who knows. Whatever interest needs it to be their cudgel will use it, as the third-party that is truly "objective" and has peered into the Writ of World Morality.

Care to trace the chain of cause and effect to its roots? — FreeEmotion

Actually, I thought

video was pretty apt in terms of real brief summary of missed opportunities for peace:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853565

This intrepid band of Culture Warriors are a vital component of the coalition supporting Trump but does not represent the animus of those willing to break the law. The "stand back but stand by" rhetoric is still alive in Trump's speaking of pardoning January 6 participants.

The rhetoric being used is a tug of war between two camps. The poo-pooing of alarmed Liberals as suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome is straight from the Fox News normalization of MAGA. But the language of being completely dominated by an ideological regime has that Confederate tang you want in an energy drink. — Paine

Yes good points. It is the frog being boiled slowly with ever higher temperature increases. It is the dog whistles and winking nods and the suggestive language. It is the tactic of lawyer tricks. It's all about getting away with technicalities so one can always hedge and say the audience is just misinterpreting or reading too much into it. The difference between a January 6th and something like the DNC headquarters being inundated with extremist pro-Palestine protestors is that Biden (clearly) isn't encouraging these behaviors. It's the same reason (among many others) for why that pathetic Churchill analogy wasn't adequate. Rather, it is intentionally using fascist language. He was reading it off a teleprompter. Whoever helped him write that knew the rhetoric. There is a reason he put "fascists" amidst the Marxists and communists. Plausible deniability. "How can I be promoting fascist language if I said I would root out the fascists". Who does that actually work on? Also, what kind of fascists is he referring to? Is he meaning, "Woke fascists"? If that's the case, then again, it can always be sidestepped as being overmined, misinterpreted, Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is political gaslighting at its finest.

I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage. — ssu

But then that swings both ways. The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side.

Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.

That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well.

And Hamas

Intentional, malicious leadership. — Hanover

Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency?

Haha. :rofl: you really have no sense of history at all, do you? — Benkei

Look at my whole comment. If you don’t agree with my first statement, you can’t easily deny the facts that followed.

So you are comparing Churchill’s behind the scene writings, who was born in 1874, and known for his notoriously anti-communism to the point of frothing fury, as that article points out, and who participated in the hate rhetoric at the time, right after a cataclysmic world war, where the Russians all pulled out of the Eastern front in 1918 under the Soviets, and which the article pointed out had an even more pointed hatred at “Leftist Jews” to Trumps modern day speech said to the public at a rally, fascist dictator style (like Hitler and Mussolini), and knowing with the knowledge of history that this style rhetoric lead to extreme fascism in both Italy and Germany in the 30s and 40s where political minorities and ethnic minorities were stripped of their rights and lives brutally imprisoned and killed?Get outta here.

But if you really think that supporting the enemy of your enemy is allways 'makes sense', I have to disagree.

These myriad tricks usually blown in the face of these politicians who think that they can juggle with live grenades. — ssu

Yes don’t trust any party that isn’t western, liberal democratic, and who are not generally trying to get along peacefully. Unfortunately, in that part of the world, this isn’t the world that is given. Saddam was a monster, but so is the Islamic regime next door. The shah wasn’t much better. It’s pretty dismal. You have murderous strongmen repressing murderous religious groups. Hamas turned out to be even more Jihadist than not and Netanyahu apparently thought it could be controlled. It turned out they rape, beheaded, burned and chopped up kids, women, old people sadistically, live streaming it. So yeah now Israel is going to get rid of as much of the the leadership and fighters on the ground as possible.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu

Exactly. The US rather have had the Northern Alliance or something not Taliban. It's not all black-and-white? Were the Soviets "good guys"? No one's hands were clean there, but Soviets were still trying to "colonize" them if you will, (at least imperially control them).

Which the US supported. — Tzeentch

I believe only in so far as they fought Iran in the 80s. That makes sense somewhat. However, they rather have not had the Baathists at all. That was who was there, and they were next to an even worse enemy (Iran hostage crisis, etc.).

A lot of countries in the Middle-East had undemocratic forms of government, but for a lot of those countries that's what worked. It kept those countries stable and gave them prosperity. Countries like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, even Somalia, used to be genuinely modern (or well on their way towards modernity). — Tzeentch

Again, Iraq fell to Baathists.. The US and Britain rather have had their monarchy there (I guess constitutional?). The coup against Mossadegh was concocted by the British under Churchill because they were nationalizing the longstanding British oil companies there. They pressed Eisenhower who eventually relented and had the CIA join their M16 operation. Afghanistan's history was largely shaped by Soviet interference, and then reaction to that to reactionary forces. It's hard to say the US was the "bad guy" there.

It's might not have been what they wanted, but that's what they got.

They were like children playing with fire, but it was someone else's house that burned down. — Tzeentch

Again, I'm not sure it is that simplistic, and feeds into "oppressor/oppressed" framework that I am questioning on these forums. Much of the politics in the oil countries early on revolved around oil. Britain actually shut the US out for example, and this caused various moves of alliances in places like Iran and Iraq early on. However, it can't be discounted that the Soviets were also trying their best to promote their people, as well as the simple fact that various internal coups inspired by European style ones, took place that didn't always involve America. It's more what the US did in reaction that caused problems. Afghanistan (fighting the Soviets), invading Iraq (various poorly conceived ends) and Iran (perceived communism alignment) were egregious examples of the US making it worse. However, out of all of those, it was Iran that actually was the worst of them because that could have been a democracy, even if not quite aligned with interests.

It's a known trope that many of the people the US put in power through regime change turned towards communism on their own initiative.

This of course convinced the US that the Soviets were everywhere and that they needed more regime change.

It's an incredibly cynical game the US played. The abuse of power and the toying with the fates of nations on a global scale. I don't think it has any precedent in history. — Tzeentch

Certainly America (and Britain and others) favored various policies before and during the Cold War, but I don't think the US would ever want Nasser or the Baath ideology to take charge. Generally speaking the British and then the US wanted to keep the more moderate stabilizing force of the original Hashemite and hereditary monarchs in power (Faisal, Abdullah, Hussein, Saud, etc.). This did not last for many of them. The ones that remained are still tenuously allies of the US (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, etc.).

Excuse me, who put Nasser in charge in Egypt? Who started the string of coups in Syria? Uncle Sam's greasy fingerprints are all over the Middle-East, and wherever it got involved things got worse. Much worse. They're closing in on a century of sowing chaos in the Middle-East, much of it directly tied to protecting Israel's position in the region. — Tzeentch

I'm not sure of the US putting Nasser in charge. In fact, he seemed pretty antagonistic overall to the US and West in general.

“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections, “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” - Trump, Vermin Speech

And do you have limits upon what rhetoric you will apologize for? Are you on board with Trump's call to root out his opponents like vermin as he expressed during his Veterans Day speech? — Paine

NOS, how would you not see this as unhinged, echoing well-trodden fascist rhetoric for political opponents? Trump is saying all the stuff upfront, political opponents are going to be “rooted out”. This is literally fascist dictator playbook 101. And references to vermin cannot be just coincidence to fascist rhetoric…insane.

That’s a bit reductionist. Nasserism and Baathism were internalized versions of Marxism that failed on its own. There’s only a few countries that came out of the British and French carving of Ottomons relatively better off, Turkey being maybe one of the only ones (though not as recently).

US screwed up trying to invade Iraq but it’s not like it took down a wonderful system. A better case can be made with CIA operation that took down the democratically elected socialist Mossadegh in Iran which led to all sorts of problems with the Shah that led to the Ayatollah.

This is a question worth exploring because public opinion does shape the conflict. Would Hamas really think baiting Israel into destroying its own infrastructure and people was a worthwhile strategy if world and Arab opinion would be on a par with how people respond to other similar conflicts in the region? Absolutely not. Their strategy is in part predicated on the special resonance of Israel, and so it shapes their decisions in what seem to be fundemental ways. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Really good post, especially this part :up:. I’ve been trying to make all the same points in various ways, but you coalesced them really well there.

failed state like Syria, or Iraq. — Punshhh

Just curious. What “made” them a state?

Anyway, other than the scientific and technological progression what is Western Civilisation compared to other parts of the world? — I like sushi

First off, that itself is huge… it implies testing, changing hypotheses, observation, mathematical modeling, applying to materials, mechanics, energy to make devices and structures etc. it’s bringing centuries of knowledge and research into systematic study and application, replicating it, and making it in grand scales repeatedly in products, medicine, and infrastructure. Anyways, yeah that’s huge.

Many “non-western” areas want those technological perks of western output but not the socio-political aspects that arose with that. You have for example, Islamist forces wanting a 600s CE religious governance with modern (western) technology or AT THE LEAST the war technology that leads to destruction and violence to live out the 600s lifestyle (a contradiction). But that technology didn’t come from a vacuum. It’s tacitly acknowledging the west has something to offer (technology) but not admitting that perhaps it comes out of a bigger framework that is also preferable even if it’s resisted as evil. That is to say it came out of the Renaissance/ Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment principles that coalesced around the 1600-1700s with notions of “rights” and balanced governments, and freedoms of speech and press. That culture and religion and tradition should be a choice not an imposition to these individual freedoms. That democracy isn’t illiberal, that you can’t vote out rights. Voting itself is not a measure of democracy but the structures that prevent government from encroaching on liberties as well as protecting minority political views.

And yes, the west is self critical. It imposed on itself that all men are created equal. This goes against the practice of slavery and discrimination laws. So you have abolition movements, civil rights movements, protests, and sometimes civil wars to ensure the ideals the west invented (discovered?) are held up. It’s why I believe Israel is given the burden of taking more care to save lives even if trying to rid itself of a deadly attack. It’s western in its governance. It’s why when Assad or Hamas, or Iran or the Taliban, or China or Pakistan, or many African countries consistently violate liberal principles (freedoms, rights, crimes against humanity) no one seems to care all that much. They have no western standards they are even living up to, so what’s the point. They are treated as if it’s just a matter of course that they do what they do. It’s ironic that once a country is fully westernized it has the hardest time fighting non-western enemies, as these enemies aren’t hampered by the same qualms. They will use the west’s conscience against itself to ensure maximum chaos and division.

@Merkwurdichliebe perhaps you’d like to add more.

Also don’t get me wrong, the west also invented fascism, nazism, communism (more specifically referring to the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist kind) etc. These have been massively destructive, and are generally violent. I have already mentioned that much of these western style governments that arise in the 19th century are what influenced non western leaders too. Baathist middle eastern regimes come out of fascist principles. “Liberation fronts” seem like communist era rhetoric. Islamist terrorism may have taken its worst methods of violence and governance from these and combined it with their form of strict religious political worldview. So when I say “west” I am really using it as a shorthand for a kind of liberal democracy that went hand-in hand with the ideas of the scientific revolution around the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and America.

This is why I call this theory "Big-Toe Theory". Once you have your big-toe in the West, the rest should go too. That's because we are the West whether we like it or not. You don't like your "failed state". It doesn't matter. That state is a state because of the West. The fact that there are even nation-states, are western (from colonialism and imperialism era). There is no going back. There is no way out, for good or bad. Mine as well embrace what makes the West work, as you are living in that framework.

I suppose their way of protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people is by embezzling billions in aid and infrastructure meant for civilians...or committing terrorist acts that provoke heavy military responses, and using their own civilians as human sheilds. — Merkwurdichliebe

Some want to conveniently overlook these points.

What we know for sure is that one side, or both sides, did not take the 'chance to compromise'. In an ideal world, no-one should mow the lawn, but in a world that is not ideal, the less people get killed the better, but there are those who do not share that opinion either. Its up in the air. — FreeEmotion

You took that out of context ti make an irrelevant point with it and clearly didn’t see my last post which actually goes more to your peace point. That is to say, massacring people and sending rockets isn’t excused, period.

Yet that there has been a PLO working outside from Israel doesn't erase somehow the fact that the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967.

Then that this civilian population fights an insurgency is again something that everybody understands here.

So what according to you, is here the wrong in describing the situation as occupier and occupied? — ssu

I said "oppressor/oppressed", there is a difference. This means a very specific cliched framework used in this conflict whereby the "underdog" is supposedly blameless for their plight, when you (should) know that isn't the full story (by a long shot). It would only be if one already knew which side they wanted to favor for that kind of distortion to proliferate. You are sometimes on the cusp of something, but then it seems you want knee-jerk resort to that hackneyed (over-represented in this forum but not by a long shot in other venues). The more violence used, the less compromise made, the less the "victim" is really the victim anymore. It turns into something else- a festering hatred. It is an identity defined by its grievance rather than its ideals. It's an identity of purely what has been lost or not gained, and not what one can do for a future stabilization.

That's hard, because Palestinians have been represented by those who have believed in the military solution. Bibi and the far right simply need the bloodshed, need the attacks. And the repression works for Hamas. As I've said, Bibi and the hardliners and Hamas simply embrace each other: both get strength from the violence and hate. And of course, Bibi and the hardliners have literally supported Hamas. — ssu

Yep. You couldn't do it. You couldn't talk about Palestinian failure without Bibi in there. I have seen you ONLY talk of Israeli failure without talking about Pals, but haven't seen the other way. I wonder why...

Sure, we can imagine an alternative reality, but the violence, bloodshed fear and hatred is there. That cannot be changed. A leader like MLK worked with a Civil Rights Movement, but that Civil Rights Movement wasn't looking for a separate country from the US. And the Black Panthers didn't commit such terrorist attacks against white people as PLO did (and later Hamas) against Israel. — ssu

I mean, but you did think of the Black Panthers as a counterpoint. Some people thought MLK was too soft. But he wasn't. Strength in peace and non-violence. That is harder, and therefore braver, more courageous. It's also more effective. The other divides, causes friction, causes bad blood. MLK was also proud, so you can't use that argument either. Being proud, doesn't mean being violent.

Jasser Arafat surely did errors and could have perhaps reached a better solution. The representative of the Palestinians was (is?) the PLO and Fatah's leader Jasser Arafat dominated that position. So it is a quite undemocratic organization. Fatah was formed in 1959 by the Palestinian diaspora and PLO in the 1960's.

And of course there were those on the Palestinian side who opposed the Oslo accords. And surely they did their part alongside Bibi in derailing the Oslo accords.

As I've stated, is see no peaceful resolution to this conflict. — ssu

Again, you almost did it. But not quite. You either find someone or you don't. Peace is not aggressive, it's transgressive. The ultimate kind :).

Naturally they want peace. But that peace isn't what Palestinians, or people in general, would accept as peace to this conflict. — ssu

I think this is absolutely the crux of the problem. Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure. The PA is to a large extent a failure as well in terms of trying for peace. Perhaps I am not reading it right and that it is just assumed the Palestinian leadership is a failure, but I am not sure. It certainly isn't Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. level leadership over there anywhere. SSU, it would be interesting to discuss Palestinian failures and missed opportunities in the same breath, but I fear that side won't be told. I am sure, in a response there will be some strafing at Israel once again for why this is the reason, but sometimes you surprise me.

Non-violence is the opposite of the PA and Hamas curriculum.

A normal human being will ask “Why did this happen?”, especially when a horrific event like October 7th is used to justify the killing of innocent people (aka, “collateral damage”). And the answer to that question isn’t as easy as “they terrorists we good guys.” It just isn’t. — Mikie

I think I addressed that earlier…political grievances don’t justify that kind of civilian grotesque killing, period. And as to response, in context of this argument, I mentioned the waiting for the media cycle for Hamas to take cover. They physically take cover under civilian structures. As I said:

But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, Hamas could do anything and it wouldn’t matter because…Israel oppressors. If they try to remove Hamas it’s just the oppressor oppressing. There is legitimate arguments by what tactics Israel should take, but certainly they had to take some action with a group who killed and took hostages. They aren’t just perpetrators. They technically are the government of Gaza, and stole billions on making themselves and their military wing enlarged so they can perpetrate such operations and provoke a response from a heavily armed combatant.

Hamas’s actions are grotesque. — Mikie

That’s all that the commentary was trying to convey is needed. If you saw the second video it was condemning the conflation with any Palestinian cause with Hamas.

I should add that my comments above are mainly aimed at responses from so should probably refer him to that if he wants to respond. I kind of unloaded on but just didn’t get the need for the comment mentioning the other thread I guess. I think the current round is exemplified the thinking in Maher’s commentary and not separate from it.

Some demonstrators accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing. This seems to have occurred at the time of Israel's founding when many Palestinians were displaced. What the settlers are doing on the West Bank is more 'ethnic encroachment' than ethnic cleansing. Israel ought (imho) to return the settlers' seized lands. I don't think that is going to happen, but it should happen. The Gaza war is definitely not ethnic cleansing: it's an effort aimed at regime change. (Those don't always work out very well either,).

I pretty much support Israel. I'm not very enthusiastic about the Arab block. Israel's birth could have been engineered more successfully, perhaps (don't ask me how). I'm not very enthusiastic about the increasing dominance of the ultra-conservative religious factions in Israel, but I don't know what we can do about it. I dislike the American religious ultra-conservatives too, and not much I can do about them, some of them are close relatives! — BC

This might be the most sensible characterization yet :up:

Looks like this discussion has shifted focus somewhat? There is a thread dedicated to whole debacle. — I like sushi

It’s part and parcel of the same thinking. The oppressed and oppressor is exactly the black and white thinking that Maher brings up. Looks at how even just the basic condemning of Hamas is almost completely avoided and shifted, and I said it best here:

You speak of strawmen but this is one. Your characterization is off. He was against the immediate cheering for Hamas after the attacks. If you can’t bracket that as a horrible thing in and of itself, whatever your view, you are morally corrupt. Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. It was Hamas who did the barbaric acts which is going to cause the military to respond by removing them. But see, people don’t know when to bracket. They have no shade of subtlety. They can’t seem to wrap their minds that a barbaric act of injustice doesn’t justify past political grievances. And this was right after the attacks so the response wasn’t even under way yet. But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started. — schopenhauer1

If you don’t want to add to the conversation here and deflect for your friend or whatnot than perhaps same deflection. seems to bring up a good point and keep people accountable for this characteristic Left view that has to see this framework that “Israel has of course been wanting this for years” in his words. It’s equivocating because no shit Israel would love Hamas to go away being that they have for years violently attack and hide under civilian targets provoking response. But the equivocation is the response to this recent attack was invited or something in some weird conspiracy, so it isn’t even that they were caught off guard now. The view is so warped the “oppressor” must have wanted it. Not only that his comment not so subtly hinted that the government wanted collateral damage, not just getting rid of Hamas. It’s all avoidance and redirection of blame. For them, Hamas can’t just be undeniably condemned as evil. It has to move to the “oppressor”. All black and white thinking. No bracketing. I shouldn’t even have to explain this much to an unhelpful deflecting comment from someone who contributed nothing except (see other thread) but here I am.

Relies heavily on strawmen, so he can then look cool tearing them down.

And that’s the level of this entire analysis, I think.

Maybe people have become more critical of their own country— but that’s a good thing. If they go too far with it, then we should object— fine. But notice the real reason for the claim: growing and vocal support for Palestinian people. That’s unacceptable to the old guard and their echoers like Bill Maher. So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack.

There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? The kids just not know their history! They must be communists! They must be cheering for Hamas and terrorism! They must hate America and the West and all things White! — Mikie

You speak of strawmen but this is one. Your characterization is off. He was against the immediate cheering for Hamas after the attacks. If you can’t bracket that as a horrible thing in and of itself, whatever your view, you are morally corrupt. Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. It was Hamas who did the barbaric acts which is going to cause the military to respond by removing them. But see, people don’t know when to bracket. They have no shade of subtlety. They can’t seem to wrap their minds that a barbaric act of injustice doesn’t justify past political grievances. And this was right after the attacks so the response wasn’t even under way yet. But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started.

It's always funny when people think to tell me about Dutch history as if I'm ignorant of the history of my own country. You're confusing states with nation states, which came a lot later than the Westphalian system.

Dutch tolerance is in fact a fairy tale that was romanticised thanks to the links to the pilgrim fathers and the dominance that the Netherlands got in the 17th century when the system of religious tolerance continued. But it was tolerant to the point that different people could live next to each other but it didn't accept exchange between the two to the point that they had their own church, schools, bakery, hairdresser etc. that was largely also a reflection of regional differences. Even in that period of "tolerance" (starting in 1543 with the 17 provinces) the Great Iconoclasm happened. It was pragmatism that brought them back together. Certainly, nothing as high minded as liberalism crossed these men's minds. In reality, this religious tolerance existed in other European countries as well at the time. Meanwhile all those Jews that were welcome were still pushed into ghettos and they had to bury their dead far away from the cities.

The pilgrim fathers moved to a country that was receptive of protestants (calvinisten) and the Dutch had just signed a treaty with the Spanish - it was close and relatively safe at a time that local rulers were quick to (pretend to) be calvinist or at least 'tolerant' to the point they kept their heads and power. The pilgrims still got into religious fights in Amsterdam after which they moved to Leiden, where they then were disgusted with the drinking and gambling going on.

Even so, all this, including the first colonies, predates liberalism as a political movement and any links to Dutch thinkers is tenuous at best. — Benkei

Ok, so I'll admit that one of the main reasons I brought up Dutch history was to show its connection with the US to some extent. That's why I put in some Dutch cultural traces with the name "Brooklyn", "Bronx", "Harlem" and the like. Presidents such as Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt have obviously Dutch names and lineage amongst a litany of Dutch-descended Americans.they were unsurprisingly from New York, undoubtedly descended from the early Dutch families. In a bit of counterfactual history, I wonder what New York would have turned out if it remained New Amsterdam, or if it retained much more of its Dutch roots and was liken to New Orleans' French Quarter retaining French/Spanish influence.

As far as any connection to liberalism, I never said it was tolerant as if taking on the present-day version of that, but it was leading the way towards a kind of religious tolerance. However, this might have been a Calvinist Protestant specific kind of tolerance that for a time, had a philo-semetic characteristic. Under Oliver Cromwell in England, the Jews were allowed to return to England after being kicked out in 1290 under Edward I Longshanks. So, there were various factors regarding tolerance. Besides this there was the fact that for a while, there was the Dutch Republic with a sort of democratic confederacy. Of course, it also ran an imperial and brutal colonial system just as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. But they did secure a for the burgeoning US in the Revolutionary War, though they waited until the defeat at Yorktown to provide that loan.

But certainly, despite some regressions to a monarchical form of government, there has been a strain of liberalism in the arts, religious tolerance, etc. up until WW2, where, as with other European countries people were forced into helping the Nazis, some having to collaborate with sending their Jews and others to the concentration and death camps far away. But like other countries such as France, they also had a resistance movement. Many Dutch sacrificed and died, the tyrannical rule and the hunger winter and forced factory labor. But there were numerous strikes. And let us not forget the Diary of Anne Frank, which is a ubiquitous text for most school children around the world in regards to WW2.

Certainly "Liberalism" as we know it being a term for having "rights" and "freedoms" and a sort of focus on individual liberty was more a product of specific philosophers and movements in the late 1600s and 1700s.. People like John Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, even Spinoza had some ideas that could start leading to freedom of religion, etc. Certainly Montesquieu, Voltaire, and in America Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.

But as far as nation-states many historians would indeed point to the origin of territory self-determined without outside influence as the Westphalian system. However, indeed it wasn’t until the romanticism of the 19th century that you get a cobbling of city states into a nation state in the examples of Italy and Germany.

I think it's pretty obvious that Israel doesn't treat the people that lived in the areas that it has conquered in the same way that US and the (western) allies treated people in the somewhat brief occupation of Germany and Japan.

In fact, the GIs felt so at home in Germany, that the US Army had to make a video to remind them that they were in enemy territory and that the Germans were up to no good and shouldn't be trusted. It's just fascinating how have to dehumanize the occupied, because otherwise the soldier might be too friendly with them: — ssu

First off, great video of the US military training for soldiers occupying Germany. The problem is the video highlights exactly why the situation is so different- Germany (on the surface appearances at least) seem similar enough to the (Western) US culture that it would make sense the the soldiers might put their guard down. They had to be reminded "Every German can be a source of trouble.. The German people are not our friends.." That was straight from the video.

In the case of Israel the fundamental problem is the whole idea of Israel being the place for the Jews. Bibi isn't creating a country for everybody (both Jews and Palestinians). So we have a problem. — ssu

I think using "Israel" is a bit of a huge misnomer there being that Israel and Palestine are supposed to be different states. Rather, if anything, Israel under Netanyahu did not advance peace talks with moderates. That can be bracketed from anything else we are discussing (like some weird implication thus terrorism is justified.. which if you are subtly suggesting that, then you might be morally suspect and I will say so without hesitation).

Nazis too had a problem with land. They bordered various nations that they thought were more German than not. Yet, they accepted their borders after WW2. They had to at first, but it became second nature after a while. When the US did nothing but send goodwill through economic aid to reconstruct Germany and Western Europe, this was one more sign of good will.

D) is crucial. There is no way to protect democracy from the voters. Hence that the voters are informed and reasonable is essential for the system to work. This happens when the system works for the voters. But if for some reason, the voters are treated like shit and they lose all confidence at the existing institutions, they will simply turn to radicals and "the fringe".

Because in a democracy the voters do get what they want. If a party that thinks red headed women are dangerous witches who have to be detained and gets a 2/3 majority in the elections here, guess what will happen to the few red-headed women in Finland? — ssu

Yes, education is key. The problem is when "Rights" are used as a tool to bludgeon the enemy, and not as a way to govern one's own population. Only others (foreign powers, the Great Satan, the hated enemy) can violate your rights. WE can't do that. WE represent your best interests. That might be at the root of most of these populist versions of illiberal democracy.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. The question then remains, what is the likelihood that Israel will treat the Palestinian terroritories the same as Germany or Japan, and why not? — FreeEmotion

I am not sure the likelihood of anything, but the point you and I were making I think was that Germany and Japan essentially went along with the program after defeat. Will Gazans take up that position as well? Will they hold West German or Japanese style Parliamentary liberal democracies at some point? Will Israel aid them in some sort of Marshall Plan?

It all comes down to the question is violent resistance permissible? I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. This is a philosophical position, pacifism I think it is called.

The heart of the problem is that many people, almost universally think that violent resistance is not only permissible, but right, for example the American war of Independence. If we accept that, then we have to judge which causes are right and which causes are wrong, which is a personal thing again.

One answer would be to take extreme care to avoid oppression, or overt, visible oppression, to take the cynical view. Buying powerful influence and keeping the populace poor is one peaceful method I would think, or perhaps bribing the population, or some sort of mind control. All sordid stuff. Or a dictatorship.
I believe a statesman wise and intelligent enough could achieve such a thing.

Yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has explicitly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israel’s military occupation, including through armed struggle. This right was affirmed in the context of the right to self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. Some of the most relevant UN resolutions on this matter include:

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236/

Wow. — FreeEmotion

Actually this is a great point. I am for Gandhi, not for (X shitty "freedom fighter"). Means do matter. And repeated use of those means makes the case weaker, not stronger. It's always bad, but using it as a tactic repeatedly, and trying to find sympathy just doesn't seem to make sense to me either. I don't buy "Oh it's out of desperation!" either. It's a shitty argument, for people with shitty morals. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is basic one would think.

The problem is you need to build up a culture of compromise and systems for this to take place. If you can't even agree on the systems, violence becomes the means for which people think is the way to solve it.

But hence my greater point in this current round of shit is that Netanyahu's failure to call for a permanent peaceful two state solution, does not justify X terrorist attack, and those who think so are fuckn morally corrupt and perhaps they can be exposed to living under said terrorist regime. Means do count. And nothing happens in a vacuum. If there were chances to compromise, and you didn't like the terms of the other side, this doesn't mean you get to mow down civilians and such because you are unhappy that you didn't get what you wanted.

Germany and Japan did not become occupied territory under blockade, with the allies refusing to acknowledge their elected governments. If that happened, they may have had a problem. Also, there was an outright surrender. — FreeEmotion

When you are recounting the points I made differently as if I wasn’t making those points, that’s a sort of a straw man. Because, similarly I stated:

Well after total war was waged on Germany, the US treats them pretty well once they dropped the Nazi thing. That took a while though. Granted, the difference is you didn't have Germans constantly taking up the Nazi cause once the leaders were dead or had given up. And another thing is, they eventually did give up. But once that happened, the US allowed Western Germany to vote in their democratic government (but with army bases nearby to deter Eastern Germany). They moved on after years of war. But the US helped with something like a trillion dollars in the Marshall Plan (massive amounts of US aide basically). Without a Marshall Plan, you would not see Western Europe flourish post-WW2 as much as it did. The same with Japan. The defeated Japan was still respected. The Emperor was still able to sit in power. — schopenhauer1

Then can I ask you if you think this is an act of revenge, collective punishment of a demonized enemy, or effective military strategy? What does it look like to you? And by the way I have no regard for terrorist acts, the country I was living in was subject to terrorist acts - where many civilians died, for years on end, so of course I was not likely to support terrorism, nor do I do so here. — FreeEmotion

I just asked recently if there are any people familiar with military strategy. See above. But yeah, I'm glad you are not a fan of terrorism. My point in the West Civ thread is people think in "black and white" "underdog and oppressor" and then end up supporting some grim, illiberal, and barbaric things as a result. That's not good either.