If this is the aim of your work, an excellent topic. You are onto something here... — kudos

:up:

This speculation is where a problem of logical extension is occurring. The essence of consciousness may or may not include other components than simple rationality and functional neural networks — kudos

The kind of consciousness I am talking about wouldn't necessitate "rationality" but some sort of "awareness" of the environment, something akin to a "point of view" or "something it is like to be something".

if a computer program could read it's own code, would it totally understand from that it's own place in the world as a computer program? — kudos

I guess it is always the debate between map and terrain here. A computer program can behave any number of ways, but it would only be conscious if it had some sort of "something it is likeness" that it "felt".

It has now become ideology and is no longer the scientific inquiry front that it was formerly impersonating. It works because you have made no scientific assumptions, but have included ontological ones instead, that do not affect the structure of the synthetic propositions outlined. — kudos

Not sure what you are accusing me of here. But here is an article discussing the scientific propositions (at a high level for a broad audience, but based on harder scientific studies):

The arthropod eye, on the other hand, has one of the best-studied examples of selective signal enhancement. It sharpens the signals related to visual edges and suppresses other visual signals, generating an outline sketch of the world. Selective enhancement therefore probably evolved sometime between hydras and arthropods—between about 700 and 600 million years ago, close to the beginning of complex, multicellular life. Selective signal enhancement is so primitive that it doesn’t even require a central brain. The eye, the network of touch sensors on the body, and the auditory system can each have their own local versions of attention focusing on a few select signals.


The next evolutionary advance was a centralized controller for attention that could coordinate among all senses. In many animals, that central controller is a brain area called the tectum. (Tectum means roof in Latin, and it often covers the top of the brain.) It coordinates something called overt attention—aiming the satellite dishes of the eyes, ears, and nose toward anything important.

All vertebrates—fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals—have a tectum. Even lampreys have one, and they appeared so early in evolution that they don’t even have a lower jaw. But as far as anyone knows, the tectum is absent from all invertebrates. The fact that vertebrates have it and invertebrates don’t allows us to bracket its evolution. According to fossil and genetic evidence, vertebrates evolved around 520 million years ago. The tectum and the central control of attention probably evolved around then, during the so-called Cambrian Explosion when vertebrates were tiny wriggling creatures competing with a vast range of invertebrates in the sea.

Even if you’ve turned your back on an object, your cortex can still focus its processing resources on it.
The tectum is a beautiful piece of engineering. To control the head and the eyes efficiently, it constructs something called an internal model, a feature well known to engineers. An internal model is a simulation that keeps track of whatever is being controlled and allows for predictions and planning. The tectum’s internal model is a set of information encoded in the complex pattern of activity of the neurons. That information simulates the current state of the eyes, head, and other major body parts, making predictions about how these body parts will move next and about the consequences of their movement. For example, if you move your eyes to the right, the visual world should shift across your retinas to the left in a predictable way. The tectum compares the predicted visual signals to the actual visual input, to make sure that your movements are going as planned. These computations are extraordinarily complex and yet well worth the extra energy for the benefit to movement control. In fish and amphibians, the tectum is the pinnacle of sophistication and the largest part of the brain. A frog has a pretty good simulation of itself. — A New Theory Explains How Consciousness Evolved A neuroscientist on how we came to be aware of ourselves By Michael Graziano

But here in this article we see an example of something I pointed out in a previous thread regarding the mixing of "mental" and "physical" such that there is a "hidden dualism". Notice in that last paragraph the following examples of this switching back and forth (without explanation of how one goes to the other):

An internal model is a simulation that keeps track of whatever is being controlled and allows for predictions and planning.

But what is the "simulation" here? What is that? (the HARD PROBLEM).

And here we see "internal model" is a "simulation" that "keeps track of whatever is being controlled, etc.". But wait, we skipped the good part. How is it the neurons are connected (in fact, the same as) the internal model/simulation?

The tectum’s internal model is a set of information encoded in the complex pattern of activity of the neurons. That information simulates the current state of the eyes, head, and other major body parts, making predictions about how these body parts will move next and about the consequences of their movement.

What is this "information encoded" "in the complex pattern of the neurons"? That seems like a nice little homunculus.

In a way, the idea about the origins of Israel is relevant and irrelevant. It is relevant in that it was the inability for the Arab nations/Palestinians to accept any Jewish political presence in the Levant. It's not relevant because it is the reality that there were several wars, Israel decisively won them, and Palestinians who are moderate have to accept some reality whereby they live within borders peaceably if they want their own country and peace.

But being a philosophy forum, we can bring in the broader philosophy of British/Western European ideas of nationalism, and how the malignant aspects of nationalism were also transferred to people's in non-European regions with dire consequences. The region was ruled, by the Ottoman Empire since 1516. Before that it was various empires like the Mamluks, the Crusaders, the Umayyads, etc. Many Palestinians also ended up working for Jewish business operations, which complicates the economic interdependency of the late 19th century and early 20th century. That is to say, here is a region marred with European notions of "statehood" and injected in a region bringing with it the hatreds that come with that notion. What is the substantive difference between the groups WITHIN Syria or Lebanon and Iraq versus the external borders? Was it that European powers like Britain and France, carved it up to benefit them? Why was Jordan "given" to the Hashemite dynasty? Could it be for helping them in various campaigns and allying with them against their enemies in various World Wars?

In the end, doesn't the sponge have just as much to do with consciousness and mentality? Of course the sponge can't have a point of view, if what you mean by that is a mental 'map' of its own conscious life. But I might suggest that the sponge still could be said to have concrete being 'for itself.' Even in terms of its atomic structure, if you want to dabble in the scientific, it is built in such a way as to cohere itself and have a unified being that is continually representing its essential qualities. I might go as far as saying that it might not be possible to talk about mind or spirituality without considering matter not purely in content but also as a whole. — kudos

So the big deal I see is that sponges have very basic neural networks that most scientists agree is behavioral but without a mental representation of the world. However, with animals like jellyfish, worms, and insects, the neural nets equates to a mental representation (however basic) of the world. My challenge is to understand what this fundamental difference between the two is. That right there is the essence of the origins of the hard problem of consciousness. However, this seems like an impossible question. It would seem on the surface, there shouldn't be any qualitative difference whereby on one side of the divide a certain number of neurons means no mental representation and on the other side, it does. What does that even mean?

Israel is not fighting WW2. It's conducting a counterinsurgency. The dynamics are totally different, and I don't see the point in this comparison. — Tzeentch

My point in the comparison is Hitler wanted a counterinsurgency, and in some sense, towards the end of the war, it can be characterized as such in the fact that, why fight when by all rational analysis you are going to be defeated?

And the major point was that this fight was NOT A JUST ONE, just because they were an underdog and were getting heavily bombed.. with many civilians dead, homes destroyed, and displacement of population. All of it terrible that any of it had to take place obviously.

For the rest of it, I'll get to.

You can't justify the actions of Israel's hardliners through Hamas. In fact, said hardliners have at various points in time supported Hamas to weaken the PLO and reduce support for a two-state solution. — Tzeentch

You mean nearly 20 years ago when the extent of how they operate as a para-governmental entity wasn't known yet and as you stated earlier were almost co-equal with Fatah in terrorist acts? (Obviously that has been far exceeded by this point). Who should have known better than think that Hamas was going to reform?

Also,

Do you mean the hardliners who selfishly oppose those committed to their utter destruction? That is, the touchy-feely, cuddly-friendly neighbors of Israel, who just recently, as it happens, in case you missed it, murdered - apparently just for the heck of it to show what fine and fun fellows they are - about 1400+ just plain folks, kidnapping another 200-plus. And of course what do you make of the US negotiating on behalf of Palestinians and in favour of a two-state solution? (Of course in the world of Tzeentch that never happened, nor happens.) And that the Egyptians and Jordanians - no fools they - who should be brothers to the Palestinians, want no part of them at all.

No, it seems the only pathetic groveler here is you. And it's unseemly; you should stop it. — tim wood

Absolutely, right on. Well-stated
. :fire: :up:

Mass bombing has never made a whole lot of sense. At the end of WW2 not a single German city was left standing, yet they fought on till the bitter end.

And this is also not WW2 - this is basically Israel conducting a counterinsurgency operation. Mass bombing during counterinsurgency operations has the opposite effect, since the huge amounts of civilian casualties ensure the extremist elements grow. — Tzeentch

Besides the fact that your first statement sort of contradicts your second statement (did they keep fighting or not?.. The answer is yes they kept going, but they were eventually defeated.), your analysis contra my analogy just seems wrong here.

When analyzing history, we have to make sure to understand what elements can be somewhat comparable and what elements are incompatible. Granted, there will be disagreement, I think there can be comparisons and contrasts that can be made to highlight how conflict is waged in general.

In some sense, even though Nazi Germany was extremely rigid and hierarchical (and in that sense predictable actors in war), by the end of the war, Hitler acted irrationally. Instead of giving up when it was known the defeat was all but inevitable, he encouraged the rigid compliant hierarchy to carry on to the bitter end. It was not until after he literally had to commit suicide, that the German leadership had to give up the ghost and finally declare unconditional surrender. In that sense there are some similarities of irrational actors waging war. Hitler wanted hand-to-hand street combat, all hands on deck, women and children fighting to the bitter end. He wanted nothing less than absolute maximum resistance to the end. Hamas being irrational actors, want the same thing. Death does not make a difference to them. Protecting their own people's lives makes no difference to them. The bombings in WW2 were for several reasons. The main one was to destroy weapons and manufacturing facilities. The other was to cause fear and break their will and to stop resisting. But you see, Nazi Germany wasn't representing a "just cause" JUST because they (by that point) were the underdog! I think most historians (minus very egregious examples like the fire bombing of Dresden) agree this war could only be won with full surrender of Germany. And by this point, the unbelievable amount of devastation that had taken place perpetrated by the Nazis just did not give the Allies any pause on this one.

This sounds like caveman logic to me.

If this were a feasible strategy I don't think the United States would have suffered a string of defeats at the hands of much smaller nations which it bombed completely into the ground. — Tzeentch

That's because (and justifiably), they did not have an unconditional surrender mentality as in WW2, as they knew those wars were not worth it in the end. The times there were actual hot wars during the Cold War did indeed have very spotty (if any) justification (such as the whole "Domino Theory" during Vietnam).

It's the United States' pathetic groveling that has encouraged Israel to stay on this ultimately self-defeating path. — Tzeentch

Simply not putting onus back where it belongs. Seems deflection to me. If you want to talk about the greater breakdown of strategic 2 state solutions, that makes sense. Moderate Pals need the backbone to do it. They need their Arab Allie’s ti encourage them to not stay on this ultimately self-defeating path. They also just need outright condemnation of Hamas.

I can’t imagine how the allies could have conducted the end of WW2 if at every bombing raid of Nazi Germany, even at the point when Nazi Germany was no longer a real threat to the other countries for all intents and purposes (circa 1945), they were condemned.

Granted ALL of that consideration, I do think Israel has to figure out how to conduct operations without mass bombings. My point with the Ww2 analogy is that, (and I’m by no means a military tactician) these type of bombings seem to be apart of ground operations as well to minimize the casualties on the side that is about to send in ground troops.

But I also realize in other cases I it has other objectives. For example if you have two rational actors (they both care about protecting human lives for their own people) the bigger country will force the smaller to stop the very first time the smaller one sees how much damage the bigger one is willing to inflict. That’s not the case with Hamas.

Edit: not to mention that the objective at the end of the war was fully accepted defeat by the Nazi opponents.

I don't think I've ever seen a US administration mismanage foreign policy this badly. Literally everything they touch turns into a trainwreck. — Tzeentch

Throwing more red meat to the forum bias masses I see.

Netanyahu is the prime minister he has to work with, that is independent of supporting Israel in theory and supporting a strategic ally specifically after being surprise attacked.

And Biden in his speech did tell them to not to fall into the trap that US did after being attacked and to abide by its liberal democratic principles.

You stated yourself the strategic difficulty of Israel. In this kind of incident, Biden isn’t going to jeopardize that in a hostage situation and the type of indiscriminate killing that started it.

So continued condemnation for a barbaric terrorist organization that keeps its own people hostage by perpetuating/provoking a war with its neighbor, funnels almost any money it can get from operating its country to its military/violent wing, has no conscience, treats Israelis and own people as expendable pawns, hides its supplies and reserves in hospitals and schools, only cares about death of its citizens when it can be used as propaganda, not actually protecting human life, right?

As if Hamas wasn’t capable of mass collateral damage of its own people and then trying to gain world sympathy from it. That’s literally their whole MO! And since it wasn’t as removed as an enemy combatant dropping bombs, they had to double down on the propaganda. The already primed Arab extremists and unreasoned supporters would take the bait of course. At that point the mobs of mainly young men are just waiting to be activated.

Yes, but you have pulled a switcheroo on the word 'value,' which is here supposed to mean 'applications to.' We're not talking about science as having any value beyond analytic and synthetic proposals that convey the essence of a thing. They are not going to be the key that unlocks reason, consciousness, the meaning of life, or any other glossy-eyed delusions. — kudos

I’m not sure how I pulled a switcheroo, application to is what I meant.

That being said, I proposed focusing on neurofauna in biology as to where the dividing line is between behavior and mental. What’s the fundamental difference between the non-present POV of a sponge and (perhaps) the present POV of a jellyfish or worm?

Everett’s Many worlds theory might get around the collapsing wavefunction problem. Not saying it’s the right theory, but it accounts for a sort of reason behind the becoming (each probability is really a separate world that did actually happen).

I don't disagree entirely but why do you say failed? Is your assumption that the average person like this should be interested in these matters? Do you draw a direct line from being able to think about 2500 years of intellectual debate and being a 'better citizen' or some analogue of that? — Tom Storm

It’s a matter of questioning what’s given. Bad faith and all that. Humans are the only animals with self-consciousness (replete with concepts and self-talk, a level with symbolic language and syntax let's say). The move away from questioning first principles on meaning, life, ethics, and metaphysics would represent a sort of bad faith for simply following a certain circumstance one is born into.

In a way, I guess I can link this to why I am averse to Wittgenstein-style philosophy. It is a move away from questioning first principles to drowning in technocracy (language games in later Wittgenstein, and language positivism in early Wittgenstein). This is why I mentioned the patent office and Einstein. Einstein's curiosity is of interest here, not the demands put on him by his patent office, which, if anything, was a distraction from pursuing his curiosity, though necessary to survive at that moment.

So it's the move to questioning everything, and being curious, and having no bounds that moves us away from the bad faith of simply following the given, to be simply a technocrat when one can be a free (in the truest sense) thinker, questioning first principles. The questions, and ones attempt to solve them are important, even if agreement can't be had, ultimately. In that aspect, philosophy (not the technocratic kind but in its free form) represents the most human of capacities.

Moderates in Palestine? Yes, I believe there are many. Most people are interested in living a peaceful existence. I visited the West Bank in 2019, and that at least was my impression. — Tzeentch

This would be the ONLY hope. And the willingness to clamp down on radicals.

Suicide bombings are an act of desperation. — Tzeentch

I think that is a fallacy of necessity argument. No, suicide bombings and barbaric attacks (like Hamas just did) is not at all a necessary action. This brings up a larger argument, but I think it is cultural and contingent, and not a determined part of human or political behavior/action.

And thus my point here was:

I don't think that's true. In the 2000's Israel was far from the underdog. In the '60s, '70s, yes, a case could be made for Israel being the underdog. In 2000, with Uncle Sam at the wheel? I don't think so. — Tzeentch

Yes, so in those scenarios where Israel was the underdog, they acted in a way to get peace, not the opposite. Actually let's go further back even. Israel was willing to take these deals, all of which were denied by the Arabs (and Palestinians):

Peel Commission 1937 (Israel/Jews were underdogs but accepted this):


1947 UN Partition (Israel/Jews were underdogs but accepted this):

Yes, Israel's security concerns should be, and should have been taken seriously. — Tzeentch

Which is why strict 1967 borders have been seen as a concern (beyond just the settlement issue).

Gaza we needn't even mention, but the situation in the West Bank is barely any better. It's a police state, where Palestinians are policed by the Israeli army and the Israelis are policed by the Israeli police (who are nowhere to be found). — Tzeentch

In as far as Israel should relinquish control to PA, sure. But PA will have to step into role of constant mediator for their own extremists. Do they have the will to do this? So how should Israel proceed. What happens many times is, Israel relinquishes control, then the extremists do some attack, and then Israel takes control again because it says that the PA can't do a good job containing their own extremists. I am not sure the answer to this. Israel is going to act out of security when this happens, but I guess some sort of commission should be had whereby the PA sees what failed and what can be given to them to improve their ability to police their territory?

Palestinians cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas of the West Bank, and if you look at this map of the West Bank, you will see how entire communities are cut off. — Tzeentch

Yep, I certainly support ousting Israel's right-wing and Netanyahu. This idea that peace is only had through dissolution is ruinous as I've stated earlier. You see, I am not for Likud/right-wing aims/conduct but the reason I don't emphasize that is because most people on this forum already agree with that, and if I mention it, that just gives excuses not to look at the disastrous policies that the Palestinians have followed for the last 35+ years or so. I am rooting out the clear bias. If it was the otherside where I would bring up Netanyahu not living up to Israel's own principles, thus negating it's moral authority. But see, then that will be seen (falsely) as the notion that it's okay that Palestinians have not been able to create a majority of democratically-minded compromisers who are willing to quash their own radicals.

I try to stay impartial and maintain some understanding for the Israeli position, but at the same time we cannot pretend this isn't happening. There is no semblance of an equal playing field. Every day of "peace" means more Palestinians are driven from their homes. This settlement policy is essentially a slow annexation and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank. How are Palestinians supposed to build up a prosperous existence amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

It's a matter of if the moderates are willing to clamp down on the radicals and ARE there enough moderates to do so? If so, then Israel should do all it's power to embolden the moderate Palestinian forces. The move should be away from tactical and onto strategic.

Arafat could have accepted a deal on the Israeli's terms. Would that have been better than no deal at all? I think nowadays many would say yes. But it's not reasonable to shove all blame into Arafat's shoes.

There's a lot to be said about the Oslo Accords, and you know full well that it wasn't as simple as what you're sketching here.

At the same time, I will agree with you that leadership on both sides failed. And it failed for reasons which were understandable. This conflict is far too severe to expect either side to act within the bounds of reason and indeed they are chronically incapable of it. — Tzeentch

I'd disagree here. Pride killed that deal for Arafat. But you do admit that it would have been better had he taken the deal at least in hindsight. Good leaders consider the long term, not their own popularity at the moment, granting that you still need practical wheeling-and-dealing to get the vision accomplished.

Considering the circumstances many Palestinians find themselves in, it's an miracle moderate Palestinians still exist. — Tzeentch

Should I recount the history again? This didn't happen in a vacuum. The underdog fallacy is that the underdog is always right because they have less military power. If you look at the actual history leading up to the 2000s, Israel was willing to take whatever deal was given them when they were the "underdog". The Arab nations/Palestinians refused every time. Then when Israel was concerned about security (remember all the suicide bombing of the 90s?), somehow its security concerns when negotiating doesn't matter. It's always them in the wrong. I don't think you see the bias there.

Given the today's circumstances and those of decades past, I think it's no longer reasonable to expect solutions coming from either side. Both sides are traumatized by decades of brutal conflict - 'mentally ill' is the metaphor I would use. — Tzeentch

There can be extremists on either side, but this doesn't discount the lack of moderate Palestinians to take a deal and start moving on living their lives, trading with Israel economically, and trying to make a prosperous country for themselves and their children rather than no compromising on what really matters, and creating a prosperous situation for themselves. I absolutely will not concede on this point because in this forum at least, that is where I see people's blindspot because it doesn't confirm their biases and narratives apparently.

The international community should have stepped in. — Tzeentch

They did. It was called the Oslo Accords. Arafat could have taken a deal and that last deal could have made him ironically from "fighter" to "founder".. But I doubt he ever really wanted more than the former image. We might have had 25 years of prosperity between two co-existing nations. But it wasn't. And all I can see is a lack of moderation from the majority on the Pals side- the ability to make compromise and give up all or nothing mentality.

As the United States attained hegemony, Israel felt that with its big brother at the wheel, it no longer had to look for a modus vivendi but could press home the advantage.

If I had to point at one party in particular to be responsible - as in, having reasonably the power to make a change for the better - it might have to be the United States. It used its near-total power to impose circumstances on nations far and wide, but somehow never in the regions that truly required an imposed solution. — Tzeentch

Yeah I think they should continually always want the moderates to go for peace talks, but find the Palestinian moderates. I will gladly recount the history one more time about why Israel shifted to the right in the 2000s.

Strawman as I've said again and again about Hezbollah, which isn't the Lebanese government. Your the one asking why "Lebanon cannot moderate". Well, that "Lebanon" is nearing to be a failed state if it isn't and doesn't have the ability to control it's territories. Yet for you it seems "Hezbollah = whole Lebanon". I don't think especially the Maronite Christians in Lebanon are actively engaged in the war in Israel. — ssu

My point was that it would require a civil war to gain control back from rogue actor Hezbollah de facto doing whatever it wants. They don't want that, as they've already seen a bunch of conflict and don't have the stomach for it again. Either way, this causes major instability and allows Iran to bolster these para-military, extra-governmental actors, who can act with impunity within Lebanese borders.

Well, that's basically one of the reasons the military took over the country. So bitch about them being not democratic. — ssu

Oh you can have an illiberal democracy, where a majority of people vote in people who take away others' rights, and want to see a theocratic-oriented state, etc. But generally when we use the term "democratic" we mean a state that recognizes rights and have free and fair elections, allow freedom of speech, press, ideas, etc. But add to that an illiberal democracy that calls for perpetual war and aides terrorist operations, then yeah, I'm glad the authoritarian forces put a lid on that. Would I rather them form a liberal democracy? Of course. But that doesn't seem the sentiment there.

If people vote in Nazis into power somewhere, I don't support it just because a majority voted them in. That represents not only an illiberal democracy, but an illiberal democracy that is voting out democratic principles.

Quite a strawman there again. What I have said that Hamas and Likud embrace each other. Netanyahu wants to annex Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Hamas just works for him giving him the evil city with the human animals. There's no other way for Israel than to go into Gaza, really, not even if the opposition would be in power. That's the natural response when you have an army like IDF. If a country would be weak and couldn't do anything about the terrorists strikes, then there wouldn't be anything else than plea help. But Israel has a strong military which can go into Gaza. And Hamas basically wants that. Those religious zealots think there's the next generations growing, so it's not so bad for them if they take a hit now. And for Likud it's the perfect events that just show how it's impossible to do any peace agreement, any compromise with the Palestinians. Everybody that has tried that has been wrong, because just look at what happened. — ssu

@Baden

So again, I provide you all my previous posts where I present the fact that Arab nations/Palestinians had the ability to take a deal but rejected it. Do you ever put any onus on the Palestinians, or is it always going to be Israel's fault no matter what? And I think you have shown the (broken record) answer to this. It is just a knee-jerk response for a contingent of people. I'm going to dub this the "underdog fallacy", not all groups that have less military power are in the right. Hamas represents a barbaric group that has shown in its suicide bombings and then these kind of barbaric attacks where they parade dead bodies, kill babies brutally, etc. are not people to negotiate with. And I present you exactly what I said in the last post:

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU, Benkei et al from philosophy forum, seated high in their academic bubble. Next you'll quote Mao and Lenin, and colonization and all the rest without nuance either. It's all part of a same package of an ideology gone off the rails. The "West" (post-WW2 reality) is "bad", and any group that is generally aligned against it, is good. What bullshit.

This just shows an odd "glitch" in this (your) thinking where it is recognized that various actors, countries and groups missed opportunities (the Arab countries with the Three No's when peace was offered for return of captured lands in 67, the second attempt to destroy Israel in 1973, the missed opportunity to take a deal in the Camp David Accords, etc.), but then goes back to the skipped record, and still redirects attention always to the bias against Israel. — schopenhauer1

What we learn from history is the suppression of groups of people, if it succeeds, will lead to a lasting peace. Human rights? The entire history of the world can be described as a litany of human rights abuses, from one era to another. This is how history is made. — FreeEmotion

I mean, this "it is what it is" seems like political nihilism writ large. Granted, the stories of country formations are almost all replete with bloodshed, my point with that quote that you referenced was that in this conflict, there were many missed opportunities by the Palestinian moderates to get almost all of what they wanted. I see on this forum that people DO recognize this, but IMMEDIATELY pivot to blaming Israel for these failures.

Man, you might be the most schizophrenic poster on this topic on here.

Well, I'm not sure do they have an working government. Lebanon is nearly a failed state. Hezbollah, which does have seats in the Lebanese Parliament, is basically in charge of Southern Lebanon. Hence the Lebanese Army doesn't enjoy monopoly in the country. And what was the Lebanese government left to do when Israel had it's war with Lebanon? Then prime minister Siniora made a declaration after the the casualties Lebanon suffered that Lebanon would be "the last Arab country to make peace with Israel". — ssu

1) As to Lebanon, sounds about right in terms of the government, except then you go on to blame Israel, the knee jerk reaction. As if there is a group that doesn't want to see Israel destroyed in there...

Yes, because the Egyptian voters voted "wrongly" and voted the Muslim Brotherhood to power, who weren't at all so eager to continue the warm relations with Egypt. — ssu

2) Yeah, I wonder why Israel wouldn't want to see the group that was the progenitor for Hamas, a group that would like nothing better than to wipe Israel off the face of the map, retain power..

Also, if an enemy combatant came into your country, killed your civilians in brutal ways, and then took 200 hostages, no one is going to question if the government should try to root out the perpetrators if they had the means to do so, unless you are SSU, Benkei et al from philosophy forum, seated high in their academic bubble. Next you'll quote Mao and Lenin, and colonization and all the rest without nuance either. It's all part of a same package of an ideology gone off the rails. The "West" (post-WW2 reality) is "bad", and any group that is generally aligned against it, is good. What bullshit.

This just shows an odd "glitch" in this (your) thinking where it is recognized that various actors, countries and groups missed opportunities (the Arab countries with the Three No's when peace was offered for return of captured lands in 67, the second attempt to destroy Israel in 1973, the missed opportunity to take a deal in the Camp David Accords, etc.), but then goes back to the skipped record, and still redirects attention always to the bias against Israel.

It's the brief time to go to Israel and show the support.

It's more awkward when the land operation begins and the Palestinians really start dying and then be there telling how you support Israel. After all, all those reservists need some refresher training before they can operate as a team in urban combat. — ssu

War is hell. Dresden, Berlin, etc. Were bombed pretty damn heavily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II#:~:text=The%20death%20toll%20amounted%20to,left%20homeless%20or%20%22dehoused%22.

I think it's more about weakness than strength, actually. Imagine what would happen to a Lebanese government, if it tried to make peace with Israel. Not only would be the Hezbollah against it. Just look at the riots now in Beirut near the US Embassy. — ssu

I mean, again, we can probably start talking culture here, but doesn't that support Israel's wariness of hostile neighbors? Why can't Lebanon moderate either? A bloody civil war is unwanted, but perhaps there is more tacit support than would be willing for that to happen in Lebanon. I don't know the full situation there other than Hezbollah has a large percentage of their "parliament".

The most powerful Arab nation did make it's peace with Israel. It could make this as it has actually shown it wasn't the total loser after the Six Day war, but did put up a limited operation against Israel during the Yom Kippur war. — ssu

I think once they gave up the "let's conquer our common enemy" and just focused on stability, they realized that was the best move. Of course, in order to do that, it needed to go back to the usual authoritarianism.

It seems that compromise, and moderation are not going to work when you have religious para-military style governments running a country like Lebanon.

I know what you are implying, but I am not sure if it's a cultural thing, but there needs to be a culture of compromise for any of it to work. I know this is crazy, but Israel in the past had been willing to compromise, but Arab neighbors and then Pals, tended to want all or nothing.

Where I would agree with you is that Netanyahu was/is ruinous and Israel needs to go to its roots in liberal compromise.

Even the moderate Palestinians have wanted for an independent country that, and what they might have accepted would be West Bank and the Gaza. But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted. — ssu

When was that in question by me?

But that independent Palestine in West Bank has been something that Israel has never accepted. — ssu

And yet, again, you make a weird juxtoposition (this time starting with how big bad Israel never wanted to accept an independent Palestine), and then go on to this admission:

In my view, there was a time when Isreal was willing to cut a deal. Perhaps then Arafat hesitated too much. Yet then that time passed. — ssu

And AGAIN, like a broken record, or reflex, you gloss over this huge part of the equation that led to so much conflict that came after, and the very thing that was supposed to be a capstone/end to the Oslo Accords and build inroads towards a final peace, without constant grievance, violence, and using the powerful tool of compromise.

And there is nothing that would push Israel to commit to this anymore. Israel under sanctions? No. Is it really threatened as earlier? Actually, no. It gets enough support that itäs — ssu

As long as you ignore that the moderate Pals failed, and this pushed Israeli sentiment towards the idea that if moderates can't make a deal, no deal can be had... Then you will miss the boat and just keep playing the broken record. You do realize your bias is very apparent. Not as bad as Benkei's who seems raving mad, and wouldn't mind a Hamas run Palestine, and ultimate death and destruction, as long as it means Palestinians "won". It's a little more moderated, but still quite blatant, the blind spot.

And I think that the time has passed. Either Hamas or Hezbollah, even both of them on the same time, don't make an existential threat to Israel. Israel has the capability to deal with them. Israel has total air superiority, an a far more capable modern combined arms army. Plus a nuclear deterrence. — ssu

Such a weird juxtaposition of the first sentence with the rest of the paragraph. In one fell swoop you admitted, the moderate Pals failed, and then instead of going into that phenomenon, you immediately pivoted to Israel, when the focus was on moderate Pals and their failure. As I said earlier, it is this lack of encouragement from insiders and the world community that doesn't help the already recalcitrant moderate leadership to make the compromise (a thing whereby you have to give up certain things to gain other things). That is a huge deal. Security, peace, and moving on with living everyday life was missed for perpetual grievance and war.

Why would they need to take any steps towards a real two state solution? Especially when there's already over 600 000 settlers in the West Bank and after the opening of the borders in Eastern Europe, the Jewish migration from there has made them to have a comfortable Jewish majority in Israel. — ssu

Indeed, but as that history showed, it didn't happen in a complete vacuum. Prior to the one I posted, there was also the various wars with Arab nations (not just Palestinians). It wasn't until the 90s that it became solely focused on dealing with Palestinians sans other countries (like traditional enemies like Egypt and Jordan, which had made peace agreements over time). So really, this conflict starts with Oslo Accords and the failure of those and the move to the right as a result.

The pacifist approach might have worked in a different situation, but especially on the Palestinian side it has been always the militant wing that has dominated the scene. And actually the origins of the Jewish state are similar armed groups.

First and foremost, the origins aren't in political instability inside a country, but in straight forward war as the British simply left their former Mandate. This has lead to the conflict being a continuation of a war, basically. And that's the difference with the Israeli side too: it isn't a police matter, it has always been a military matter fighting the PLO and the Palestinians. In Lebanon the civil war could be ended by the opposing factions going back to negotiations and trying to cooperate in an already existing state. With the Palestinians, the state of Israel is not part of them, but an entity that the opposing side of the conflict has created. Hence there is no Ghandi or MLK figure in Palestine. It would as if there weren't any Civil Rights Movement in the US, but just the Black Panthers. And that the Blacks weren't taken here as slaves, but had existed in the US just like the few Native-Americans now. — ssu

I mean this just seems like making excuses. There is no Hegelian-like definite pattern anyone must follow in X situation. It's not like, "In this situation non-violence can be used, and in this other it should not". And someone can come back and then say, "Fine, if non-violence is not an option because it is X situation, then Israel cannot be compared with apartheid because Palestine is seen not as part of Israel but as an opposing group run by terrorists, and therefore are taking protective measures".

All this is to say, it seems clear you have picked your side which "can never do wrong" and now everything they do is justified or must be Israel's fault.

When I joined the thread, I first engaged with @Baden but stopped when he admitted that if Hamas ran all of Israel (and thus it was effectively Palestine only), they would probably be horrific to every Jew under their control. And I am not even talking about "revenge" but just their MO.

Basically Hamas and Likud embrace and support each other. They feed on the emotions of hate, revenge and the belief of a military solution. The grim fact is that war weariness kicks in only after a lot more people have died than now. People like Barak are pushed to the sidelines. — ssu

Indeed but my point earlier is that there was a time when there was a chance to form the two state solution and the “moderates” blew it on the Pals side. In fact, it was the kind of encouragement on the anti Israeli side, every step of the way, from the participants and side liners, that encourage this hardened no compromise situation.

Also, while I agree Likud and Hamas feed off each other, as one side justifies the other, I don’t see them as the same beasts.

There’s a reason why Ghandi and MLK were effective. Sympathy doesn’t come from violence. It gets muddled from violence. The underdog loses the very thing that makes them sympathetic. Then it’s just pick your grievance.

You have to agree that the other side exists. You have to be able to live side by side with them. You have to be able to compromise and give up something.

I see y’all ignored my history lesson for your usual dialogue. The sideline banter is just as predictable in their camps.

I just want to couple my last comment with Netanyahu should be booted forthwith. Obviously wouldn’t happen until after the end of the this campaign and also ti make it seem organic. But no confident vote.

Also want to remind people how they got here from when the current history began (from Wikipedia):

As the violence increased with little hope for diplomacy, in July 2000 the Camp David 2000 Summit was held which was aimed at reaching a "final status" agreement. The summit collapsed after Yasser Arafat would not accept a proposal drafted by American and Israeli negotiators. Barak was prepared to offer the entire Gaza Strip, a Palestinian capital in a part of East Jerusalem, 73% of the West Bank (excluding eastern Jerusalem) raising to 90–94% after 10–25 years, and financial reparations for Palestinian refugees for peace. Arafat turned down the offer without making a counter-offer.[75]

2000–05: Second Intifada
See also: Second Intifada, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, and Israeli West Bank barrier

The approved West Bank barrier route as of May 2005

Israeli soldiers deployed in Nablus during Operation Defensive Shield, April 2002
After the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit, which was expected to reach a final agreement on the Israeli–Palestinian peace process in July 2000,[76] the Second Intifada, a major Palestinian uprising against Israel, erupted. The outbreaks of violence began in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, made a provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa compound on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[76]

After the collapse of Barak's government, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister on February 6, 2001. Sharon invited the Israeli Labor Party into the coalition to shore up support for the disengagement plan. Due to the deterioration of the political situation, he refused to continue negotiations with the Palestinian Authority at the Taba Summit, or under any aspect of the Oslo Accords.

At the Beirut Summit in 2002, the Arab League proposed an alternative political plan aimed at ending the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Later on the proposal was formulated as a political plan widely accepted by all Arab states as well as the Arab League. As part of this plan all Arab states would normalize their relations with Israel and bring to an end to the Arab–Israeli conflict in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and West Bank (including East Jerusalem). In addition, the plan required Israel to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and, what the plan describes as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Israel rejected the wording of the initiative, but official spokespersons expressed gladness about an Arab initiative for peace and Israel's normalization in the region.[citation needed]

Following a period of relative restraint on the part of Israel, after a lethal suicide attack in the Park Hotel in Netanya which happened on March 27, 2002, in which 30 Jews were murdered, Sharon ordered Operation Defensive Shield, a large-scale military operation carried out by the Israel Defense Forces between March 29 until May 10, 2002 in Palestinian cities in the West Bank. The operation contributed significantly to the reduction of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel.

As part of the efforts to fight Palestinian terrorism, in June 2002, Israel began construction of the West Bank barrier. After the barrier went up, Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks across Israel dropped by 90%.[77] However, this barrier became a major issue of contention between the two sides as 85% of the wall is within territory that is Palestinian according to the 1948 Green Line.[78]

Following the severe economic and security situation in Israel, the Likud Party headed by Ariel Sharon won the Israeli elections in January 2003 in an overwhelming victory. The elections led to a temporary truce between Israel and the Palestinians and to the Aquba summit in the May 2003 in which Sharon endorsed the Road map for peace put forth by the United States, European Union, and Russia, which opened a dialogue with Mahmoud Abbas, and announced his commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state in the future. Following the endorsing of the Road Map, the Quartet on the Middle East was established, consisting of representatives from the United States, Russia, EU and UN as an intermediary body of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

On March 19, 2003, Arafat appointed Mahmoud Abbas as the Prime Minister. The rest of Abbas's term as prime minister continued to be characterized by numerous conflicts between him and Arafat over the distribution of power between the two. The United States and Israel accused Arafat of constantly undermining Abbas and his government. Continuing violence and Israeli "target killings" of known terrorists[citation needed] forced Abbas to pledge a crackdown in order to uphold the Palestinian Authority's side of the Road map for peace. This led to a power struggle with Arafat over control of the Palestinian security services; Arafat refused to release control to Abbas, thus preventing him from using them in a crackdown on militants. Abbas resigned from the post of Prime Minister in October 2003, citing lack of support from Israel and the United States as well as "internal incitement" against his government.[79]

In the end of 2003, Sharon embarked on a course of unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, while maintaining control of its coastline and airspace. Sharon's plan has been welcomed by both the Palestinian Authority and Israel's left wing as a step towards a final peace settlement. However, it has been greeted with opposition from within his own Likud party and from other right-wing Israelis,[who?] on national security, military, and religious grounds. In January 2005, Sharon formed a national unity government that included representatives of Likud, Labor, and Meimad and Degel HaTorah as "out-of-government" supporters without any seats in the government (United Torah Judaism parties usually reject having ministerial offices as a policy). Between August 16 and 30, 2005, Sharon controversially expelled 9,480 Jewish settlers from 21 settlements in Gaza and four settlements in the northern West Bank. The disengagement plan was implemented in September 2005. Following the withdrawal, the Israeli town of Sderot and other Israeli communities near the Gaza strip became subject to constant shelling and mortar bomb attacks from Gaza with only minimal[clarification needed] Israeli response.

2005 to 2019

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, US President George Bush and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Annapolis Conference
Following the November 2004 death of long-time Fatah party PLO leader Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, Fatah member Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority in January 2005.

In 2006 Palestinian legislative elections Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, prompting the United States and many European countries to cut off all funds to the Hamas and the Palestinian Authority[80] insisting that the Hamas must recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous peace pacts.[81] Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, since Hamas never renounced its beliefs that Israel has no right to exist and that the entire State of Israel is an illegal occupation which must be wiped out. EU countries and the United States threatened an economic boycott if Hamas will not recognize Israel's existence, not renounce terrorism and shall support the peace agreements signed between the PLO and Israel in the past. Hamas officials have openly stated that the organization does not recognize Israel's right to exist, even though the organization expressed openness to hold a long-term truce. Hamas is considered by Israel and 12 other countries[82] to be a terrorist organization and therefore not entitled to participate in formal peace negotiations.

1:54
Footage of a rocket attack in Southern Israel, March 2009
In June 2006 during a well-planned operation, Hamas managed to cross the border from Gaza, attack an Israeli tank, kill two IDF soldiers and kidnap wounded Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit back into the Gaza Strip. Following the incident and in response to numerous rocket firings by Hamas from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel, fighting broke out between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip (see 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict).

In the summer of 2007 a Fatah–Hamas conflict broke out, which eventually led Hamas taking control of the Gaza strip, which in practice divided the Palestinian Authority into two. Various forces affiliated with Fatah engaged in combat with Hamas, in numerous gun battles. Most Fatah leaders escaped to Egypt and the West Bank, while some were captured and killed. Fatah remained in control of the West Bank, and President Abbas formed a new governing coalition, which some critics of Fatah said subverts the Palestinian Constitution and excludes the majority government of Hamas.


A Qassam rocket fired from a civilian area in Gaza towards southern Israel, January 2009
In November 2007, the Annapolis Conference was held. The conference marked the first time a two-state solution was articulated as the mutually agreed-upon outline for addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The conference ended with the issuing of a joint statement from all parties.

A fragile six-month truce between Hamas and Israel expired on December 19, 2008.[83] Hamas and Israel could not agree on conditions to extend the truce.[84] Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the Gaza Strip blockade, and for an Israeli raid on a purported tunnel, crossing the border into the Gaza Strip from Israel on November 4,[85] which it held constituted a serious breach of the truce.[86] Israel accuses Hamas of violating the truce citing the frequent rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli cities.[87]


An explosion caused by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza during the Gaza War
The Israeli operation began with an intense bombardment of the Gaza Strip,[88] targeting Hamas bases, police training camps,[89] police headquarters and offices.[90] Civilian infrastructure, including mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools, were also attacked. Israel has said many of these buildings were used by combatants, and as storage spaces for weapons and rockets.[91] Hamas intensified its rocket and mortar attacks against targets in Israel throughout the conflict, hitting previously untargeted cities such as Beersheba and Ashdod.[92] On January 3, 2009, the Israeli ground invasion began.[93][94] The operation resulted in the deaths of more than 1,300 Palestinians.[citation needed] The IDF released a report stating that the vast majority of the dead were Hamas militants.[95] The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported that 926 of the 1,417 dead had been civilians and non-combatants.[96]

From 2009 onwards, the Obama administration repeatedly pressured the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze the growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and reignite the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian people.[97] During President Obama's Cairo speech on June 4, 2009 in which Obama addressed the Muslim world Obama stated, among other things, that "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop." Following Obama's Cairo speech Netanyahu immediately called a special government meeting. On June 14, ten days after Obama's Cairo speech, Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed, for the first time, a "Demilitarized Palestinian State", after two months of refusing to commit to anything other than a self-ruling autonomy when coming into office. The speech was widely seen as a response to Obama's speech.[98] Netanyahu stated that he would accept a Palestinian state if Jerusalem were to remain the united capital of Israel, the Palestinians would have no army, and the Palestinians would give up their demand for a right of return. He also claimed the right for a "natural growth" in the existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank while their permanent status is up to further negotiation. In general, the address represented a complete turnaround for his previously hawkish positions against the Israeli–Palestinian peace process.[99] The overture was quickly rejected by Palestinian leaders such as Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, who called the speech "racist".[98]

On November 25, 2009, Israel imposed a 10-month construction freeze on all of its settlements in the West Bank. Israel's decision was widely seen as due to pressure from the Obama administration, which urged the sides to seize the opportunity to resume talks. In his announcement Netanyahu called the move "a painful step that will encourage the peace process" and urged the Palestinians to respond.[100] On September 2, United States launched direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Washington.

During September 2011 the Palestinian Authority led a diplomatic campaign aimed at getting recognition of the State of Palestine within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, by the Sixty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly.[101] On September 23 President Mahmoud Abbas submitted a request to recognize the State of Palestine as the 194th UN member to the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The Security Council has yet to vote on it. The decision was labeled by the Israeli government as a unilateral step.[102]


On November 29, 2012 the UN General Assembly approves a motion granting Palestine non-member observer state status. UN observer state status voting results were:
In favour Against Abstentions Absent Non-members
In 2012, the Palestinian Authority applied for admission as a United Nations non-member state, which requires only a majority vote by the United Nations General Assembly. Hamas also backed the motion.[103] The draft resolution was passed on November 29, 2012 by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.[104][105] Regardless of the UN recognition, as of this writing, no Palestinian state exists except on a symbolic level. Israel indicated that an actual, real-world Palestinian state can only come into existence if Palestinians succeed in negotiating peace with Israel.[106]

On November 14, 2012 Israel began Operation Pillar of Defense in the Gaza Strip with the stated aims being to halt the indiscriminate rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip[107][108] and to disrupt the capabilities of militant organizations.[109] The operation began with the targeted killing of Ahmed Jabari, chief of Hamas military wing. The IDF stated it targeted more than 1,500 military sites in Gaza Strip, including rocket launching pads, smuggling tunnels, command centers, weapons manufacturing, and storage buildings.[110] According to Palestinians sources civilian houses were hit and[111] Gaza Health officials state that 167 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict by November 23. The Palestinian militant groups fired over 1,456[112] Iranian Fajr-5, Russian Grad rockets, Qassams and mortars into Rishon LeZion, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and other population centers; Tel Aviv was hit for the first time since the 1991 Gulf War, and rockets were aimed at Jerusalem.[113] The rockets killed four Israeli civilians—three of them in a direct hit on a home in Kiryat Malachi—two Israeli soldiers, and a number of Palestinian civilians. By November 19, over 252 Israelis were physically injured in rocket attacks.[114] Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted about 421 rockets, another 142 rockets fell on Gaza itself, 875 rockets fell in open areas, and 58 rockets hit urban areas in Israel.[110][112][115] A bomb attack against a Tel Aviv bus that wounded over 20 civilians received the "blessing" of Hamas.[116] On November 21 a ceasefire was announced after days of negotiations between Hamas and Israel mediated by Egypt.


During 2011, as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange, 1,027 Palestinians and Arab-Israeli prisoners were released in exchange for the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
In October 2011, a deal was reached between Israel and Hamas, by which the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would be released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinians and Arab-Israeli prisoners, 280 of whom had been sentenced to life in prison for planning and perpetrating various terror attacks against Israeli targets.[117][118] The military Hamas leader Ahmed Jabari was quoted later as confirming that the prisoners released as part of the deal were collectively responsible for the killing of 569 Israeli civilians.[119][120]

In 2014, another war between Israel and Gaza occurred resulting in over 70 Israeli casualties and over 2000 Palestinians casualties.

2020s
Main articles: 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis, July 2023 Jenin incursion, and 2023 Israel–Hamas war
In 2021, yet another war between Israel and Gaza occurred resulting in over 250 casualties.[121] As the war went on, violent conflict was ignited within Israel as well.[122] Policy analysts believe that the war decreased the chances of Israeli-Palestinian bilateral talks.[123]

In November 2022, with the election of the 37th government of Israel, a coalition government led by Benjamin Netanyahu and notable for its inclusion of far-right politicians,[124] violence in the conflict has increased, with a rise in military actions such as the July 2023 Jenin incursion and Palestinian political violence producing the highest death toll in the conflict since 2005.[125]

On October 7, 2023 Hamas launched an large-scale offensive against Israel, during which Hamas initially fired at least 2,200 rockets at Israel from the Gaza Strip, while at the same time hundreds of Palestinian militants broke through the border and entered Israel by foot and with motor vehicles, as they engaged in gun battles with the Israeli security forces, murdered Israeli civilians, took over Israeli towns and military bases, as well as kidnapped Israeli civilians and soldiers.
END QUOTE

A series of missed opportunities and stubbornness. Pride can become an ethical problem. A series of missteps towards the beginning that moved each side to the right.

I can’t picture moderate Pals using force to suppress radicals. Also a compromise means you don’t just get 100% of what you want. It especially doesn’t mean that one doesn’t take a deal and live in squalor out of spite for not getting 100% of what you want.

But Israel should have somehow tried to find the moderates in Gaza and help them with a coup or whatnot instead of just containing and ignoring. Allowing various outbursts every year or so.

Which makes one question how moderate they are. — Manuel

Correct which seems to contradict

My impression is that, when people are cool and level headed, they get along perfectly fine. It's when the state gets involved in matters, removed from direct control by the people, that these problems tend to arise of get magnified. — Manuel

What if it’s turtles all the way down?

It’s the inability to compromise for moderates, and the inability to control the radicals. Almost all of it stems from that.

There's an old opinion piece in the NY Times that I often cite, concerning Habermas' dialogue with religion (as is well-known, he engaged in a number of dialogues with Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI). This was eventually published as the book An Awareness of What is Missing. Habermas is not endorsing any kind of wholesale return to religious faith, rather he says that while 'religion must accept the authority of secular reason as the fallible results of the sciences and the universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality, conversely, secular reason must not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith.' — Wayfarer

It goes deeper than that. Imagine the college-educated, yet mainly sports-watching, hard-drinking, workaday man whose very existence is subsumed by the debates and beliefs of the intellectual debates/pursuits/insights over the last 2,500 years or so, but does not care about any of it. That is to say, these insights are ignored by reflex or default. Something has failed. Philosophy is backing up to the most fundamental questions of "why do anything"? Pursuits of metaphysics may be pursuits of meaning. Humans are able to question the very framework of their existence. This puts us in an existential situation not faced by other biological beings.

Most people don't want to go there. Einstein grappled with interesting questions not because his patent office told him to, but because he was fascinated and curious.

From I get from it, especially this:

Despite the 'witness' metaphor, we see that this witness is beyond time, space and the triad of experiencer, experiencing and experienced. It's being, pure and simple. Radically pure and simple. Indeed, empty. The vanishing witness does not witness the world. It is the world. There is no witness. — plaque flag

You very much echo Schopenhauer's notion of Will. And if so, I don't see how this is "direct realism", especially if you think there is a "transcendental ego". The minute you indicate that there is some sort of "pure" version of ego (witness), you are indicating that there is a reality that is (truer) beyond what is directly observed. A variation of the Cave, but rather than Forms, it is "true perspective" or something like this.

From my POV you are just being stupid and/or lazy and/or petty. Any dunce can cry 'word salad.' Boring. — plaque flag

Well to be fair, I was echoing @Janus:wink:.

I like to build from simples (lazy and dunce-like) and go from there. But I enjoy your word salad. As I said, and Janus implied, it is poetic and sometimes poetry is the only way to get at something profound.

There is no experiencer. Not fundamentally. The one Eiffel tower appears in many beingstreams (worldstreams, interpenetrating becomingstreams...) My own body appears in many beingstreams. But what some of us want to say with 'first person consciousness' (hard problem stuff) is simply the streaming world itself --- but 'gathered around' this or that sentient flesh. Look around the room you are in. That's the world. Not dream but stream. Your face in the mirror. Your thoughts. My thoughts. All worldly entities. Nothing but world. But many streams of this same world . Each stream 'happens to' gather around a body which is itself an entity in the streams of course. — plaque flag

I'd have to agree with this:

To me this reads as a word salad comprised of assertions which don't actually assert anything coherent or an attempt at prose poetry. I guess you must have some sense of what you mean—if only you could explain it clearly. — Janus

From what I can gather from it is you are advocating for some kind of process philosophy. But I believe you would deny that.

So solipsism basically? There is no world outside an experiencer?

I believe you have not achieved what I have asked. If anything, that is more obfuscatory. In one sentence, summarize, in laymen's terms, your idea. If I do it for you, I will get it wrong I am sure.

If you were to summarize your position in one sentence that was comprehensible to almost anyone, and was not being cheeky, poetic, or obtuse, what would you put forth?

There's a clear difference between "Hamas can be made peace with" and "I think Hamas did the right thing". — Benkei

I think they’ve proven very thoroughly they can’t be, and odd that you’d want to reward it because “settlements”. One can be against settlements and not barbarism. In fact, if barbarism is justified, who cares- they’re all violent, right. It’s using people for causes. One can be so theoretical as to lose sight of the point of any of it. Perhaps Hamas can rule an empire of rubble and death. But it seems, you’d be satisfied with that. It’s either naïveté or blind hatred. A righteous cause gone sour. if you think Hamas gives a shit about its own people, you don’t seem to have paid attention to that side of the whole equation.

The "existential threat" card with the best trained and equipped army is nonsense, especially in light of the limited means the Palestinians have. Meanwhile, Israel continously commits humanitarian crimes against the Palestinians and illegally settles land. All this is well documented. — Benkei

It can be argued (and is) that Israel existing in the first place was the problem. If my history is correct, it started from Israel accepting the terms of the 1947 UN partition and Arabs rejecting it. This stated the subsequent wars that allows for the perpetual cycle of grievances.

You can put your lawyer coat on and spectacles and try to find the exact point at which you think that justice is defined, but you will always have prior grievances to fall back on to nullify that as too much compromise. You said yourself that the Oslo Accords were not just, but don’t worry YOU know the definition of the actual just position. Benkei! Benkei! Let us pull a page from the holy writ of the all just and knowing Benkei.

Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinian civilians. Name one thing Hamas has done to help children or civilians in the Gaza Strip since they took power 15 years ago. — GRWelsh

I just wanted to acknowledge this. Unlike Israel who at least gives a shit about its own population, I see no fucks about human life for Hamas.

This is the best I can translate from that incoherent nonsensical paragraph using ChatGPT:

"If all modern nations were not established through peaceful means, and we consider whether ancient nations were founded peacefully, it raises doubt about our deeply held belief in the possibility of peaceful nation-building. Shouldn't we question our most fundamental moral convictions, akin to questioning the existence of Santa Claus? Is it too extreme to start doubting our deeply ingrained and spectacular moral beliefs?"

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion. — Manuel

Absolutely.

Terrorist organizations can and do become responsible governing parties. The Israeli state itself emerged, in part, from terror organizations. You can see the same thing in many places. The problem isn't that Hamas can't make this change. Really, Hamas did sort of look more open to compromise before their violent take over of Gaza. And the West and Israel should have been more open to them, but the whole Post-9/11, "communists now ok, Jihadis bad," mindset stopped that.

But it's also not like Hamas ever moved particularly far in that direction. If anything, the past 8 years or so they have become more and more tied to Iran and their prerogatives, making them a less trustworthy partner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Native Americans thought the British were terrorist colonizers.

Well the British saw the Americans as terrorists in 1775. Tarred and feathered officers in Boston, the Boston Massacre, all that.

The Anglo-Saxons thought the Normans were colonizers perhaps. The Romano-Celts thought the Anglo-Saxons colonizers, and on and on.

But I am just seeing the whole suicide bombings and these kind of attacks as brutal reminders that they are not for peaceful negotiations.

And as far as Israel acted like terrorists in their founding, I absolutely think that was barbaric and unjustified as well. All of it.