You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification. — khaled

For the purposes of our discussion we can start with the premise that what Israel did in '48 was wrong. I'm fine with entertaining that idea. Or that Israel was wrong for launching rockets into Gaza. So what then?

Sorry, I just find it meaningless to just point at a state and be like "that's wrong." Ok, what are you going to do about it?

It's a state, it's not an individual. It's a complex network.

Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" — khaled

I've never said it was fine. Everybody can be wrong. So what then? What's the upshot?

You make a fair point and I'll try to stop doing that with you. It was nothing personal I was thinking about other posters, but we have our own dialogue and we can keep it civil if we like. I shouldn't have let that other poster affect my tone with you.

Hmm... Due process afforded after being charged with an actual crime according to local law. That's already a step up from the "administrative" detention of Israel where no charge is laid and Palestinians are in prison for months and sometimes even years. Try again... — Benkei

Well, glad to know it was all done by the books. Thanks for setting me straight there. If only the Israeli government could learn such professionalism! /s

I mean that's pretty clear, no? — fdrake

I would have thought so but others explicitly reject this "lets first and foremost help the Palestinians" approach. From an exchange yesterday:

What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.
— BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not the issue. The contributory negligence or guilt of other parties does not excuse Israeli war crimes. — Benkei

I was trying to frame the issue in a constructive, forward-looking way and Benkei, for whatever reason, refocuses the discussion exclusively on Israel. It's ridiculous to me because it implies that Hamas and the PA are either non-existent (or don't matter) or are Israeli puppets - neither of which are true. The PA and Hamas are the direct regional governments of the Palestinian people. They are quite relevant and play an active role in the daily lives of Palestinians.

As it stands the Palestinians are using whatever political means available to help themselves; yes, including terrible violence; it's up to Israel to increase the space of acceptable means. It has been for some time, but it doesn't happen. — fdrake

This is difficult to do as Hamas will arrest Palestinians who attempt to reach out to Israelis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-gaza-activists/hamas-releases-palestinian-peace-activists-arrested-after-zoom-call-with-israelis-idUSKBN27B2JU

These peace meetings are considered treason by Hamas.

The PA over in the West Bank hasn't had an election in around 10 years and the level of corruption and embezzlement is so widespread that its become just a fact of life, but they get no attention as they are not Hamas. Things have undoubtedly been better in the West Bank though.

"Lets help the Palestinians" is such a better, more constructive approach than "lets make Israel bleed." One of these focuses on an actual legitimate problem, the other is directly counter-productive and actually a big part of the reason that people like Netanyahu are in power.

"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now" — khaled

I never said massacres are okay. Massacres are always bad. Israel has sentenced some of the war criminals in those years, although not in a way that one would normally consider fair. Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers?

People from both sides are interviewed. If you look the whole clip, it explains interestingly also how many in the US, Middle-East experts and also Secretary of State George Marshall, were opposed to the idea of Israel and feared (correctly) that it would start a war, but Truman had his way.

I think many people can agree that the circumstances in which Israel became a state were far from ideal. I think you do a good job at digging up the history here, and I like that you cite Benny Morris. I've found Morris never shies away from Israeli atrocities and more or less believes in just putting it all out there.

In any case the approach that I go with is how do we best move forward from where we are now. I think we should be working to bring people from both sides of the fence together. I don't have much faith in Netanyahu, and I have zero in Hamas. I guess I would have to favor a grassroots solutions if that type of thing is at all possible.

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile.

Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe get a life? — Benkei

I just gotta respond to this.

This isn't me angry or bitter at the Romans. I am making a cultural observation here.

I did suspect you were posting disingenuously — fdrake

If we're going to frame the conflict as a zero-sum game, as other posters have, then I can play that game too. No, history does not begin in 1948 like the Europeans seem to believe. We're not going to solve much by looking back where each side can bring up endless grievances, we're going to do much better by looking forward.

Though I believe Benkei is actually attempting to engage you rationally here. I believe if you asked him principled questions like: "What is a war crime?" and "Why do you believe Israel is an apartheid state?" and other such things they would be able (but perhaps not willing at this point) to give you either detailed answers or resources. — fdrake

It wasn't those questions that you cited that offended me. It's a number of things that we could dive into if you like but otherwise I'd rather just move on.

What I didn't understand was which Carlos was displaying your actual intent. — fdrake

It all depends on the way the conflict is being framed. With most people it'll be civil and I'll try to distance myself from my identity as much as possible, but the minute one side appears more intent on simply demonizing the other rather than finding a solution I'm done.

You can of course criticize and ask questions but it's all about how you phrase it. You've asked me a ton of questions and I respond and there's never been an issue. I've been more than happy to admit that Israel is far from perfect.

It's all about the way you frame it. I approach the issue asking "what's the best way to help the Palestinians improve their position today" but others are simply more interested in demonizing one side. Israel is much more amenable to working with a Palestinian government that doesn't demand its immediate dissolution and refuses to recognize it.

As for Benkei, I realize that "tirades" was the wrong word. The issue here is phrasing and approach. And the fact that a white European is so, so convinced that the WB and Gaza, for whatever reason, absolutely belong to the Palestinians 100%.

What people don't understand about these discussions is that there's two Carlos'.

You, @ssu and @Ciceronianus the White are getting the reasonable, "objective" Carlos because your writing actually feels genuine to me. We're having an actual conversation about the subject and you seem to be approaching it from an honest standpoint. I am doing my best to distance myself from my identity to engage you productively.

I've been talking with Benkei for a while on this matter and I've never, ever got the sense he's attempting to be objective. I finally just threw up my hands today with him.

But yeah, this line is not something I'd ever argue with you or ssu because it's totally unproductive. I just had to get it off my chest with Benkei after his tirades.

I couldn't help myself, Benkei started playing the victim game and I had jump right on in there.

That's what being principled means, yes. — StreetlightX

Those principles are the luxury of the uninvolved outsider. It makes no difference to you if Israel collapses, and that's fine, it wouldn't matter to me if Australia was in some conflict or war and they got overrun. They were probably the oppressors anyway.

Alright so if the Arabs overran the Jews and made Jews into second class citizens, as Jews have always been under Arab rule, you'd be on the Jews side. Well that's great to hear, but I'm gonna have to say "no thanks" to your support.

Do you care about dead Jews in the 20th century? 19th century? When do you draw the line?

Ethnic cleansing is par for the course in the Middle East.

Neither are dead Jews. But apparently dead Jews are a game to you because you've laughed at the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Just admit you don't care about dead Jews, it'll make things so much easier.

This isn't my usual line, but if people want to play the victim game we can play the victim game. @Benkai started the victim game, I'm just finishing it.

ah so you admit you're a racist then. OK, that's solved then, you're no longer worth my time. Buh-bye! — Benkei

If you're unwilling to accept that ethnicity and religion play a role in this conflict then it's probably best we stop talking about this.

Why are you laughing at ethic cleansing? Are you a racist?

Nothing you said is a justification for how Palestinians are currently treated. — Benkei

Nothing you've said justifies the Assyrians destroying the Kingdom of Judea in 750 BCE and ethnically cleansing the Jews there.

You're the only one that thinks my skin-colour, religion or ethnicity has any relevance here... which is pretty racist I guess. — Benkei

Yeah, me and the entire Middle East...so the people involved in the conflict as opposed to enlightened Europeans who have zero personal or cultural connection to the affair, yet believe they're in perfect right to judge everything.

But in any case, nothing, absolutely nothing, that you have mentioned justifies Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. — Benkei

And nothing you've said justifies the Arab world's 2700 year history of murdering, ethnically cleansing, and subjugating Jews to second class citizens. Israel demands reparations now.

Let's have this discussion. Why do we only have to have the discussions that you want? We'll first do my discussion, then we'll do yours, how's that sound?

You want to play the victim game we can play the victim game and don't for a second even think about telling me that the oppression of my people isn't relevant to modern times.

I am speaking here as a Jew, not as an "objective" observer here. I don't think there is such a thing as a truly objective observer. Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that.

Part of the reason this conversation is muddled and confusing is depending on the time I'll either be speaking as a Jew or as an "objective" observer - whatever that may mean. With you I'm capable of being the latter, but the discussion gets more personal it's harder to adopt that lens -- especially when outsiders claim that the land rightfully belongs to the "Palestinians" who apparently only started existing in 1964.

If you're really a white European who believes that the issue began in 1947 or '48 then you're really just playing your own game. Everybody else is playing baseball and you're off playing handball with yourself in the corner. Sure, maybe if everything just magically begins in '47 then Israel is the "bad guy" who knows? Who cares? But that's your own viewing of the conflict and it's not one that the actual players in the game share.

Please explain to me e.g. why an Arab massacre perpetrated against the Jews in 1941 in Iraq doesn't matter in this. Is it because Israel wasn't a state? Tell that the Jews.

And the idea that the Israelis are magnanimous for returning land that they stole is the typical Orwellian turn that should be resisted. — Benkei

No, they stole our land. We're just being nice enough to give some our land to them. It is not their land. You're just insanely biased in favor of the Arabs for some reason. Are you white or are you an Arab, because if you're a white non-muslim I have no idea what causes you to read history this way. If you're an Arab muslim it makes sense.

In an imaginary world where all Palestinian factions decided 1967 borders were acceptable and right of return was stricken from the table, do you think Israelis would even vote for it? — schopenhauer1

Yes, and we've already been there with the 2000 Camp David Accords. The Israelis offered that and Arafat rejected. Israel has offered insane concessions in the past including returning all of Gaza and the WB + a good chunk of Jerusalem itself including the Old City. I specifically remember Israel offered 1/2 to 3/4 of the Old City which is very generous for a stronger power to offer. I can't speak for this current administration, but past Israeli administrations would have absolutely gone for it. Hamas has never offered this though.

Also, just wondering, besides "spoils of war" was there an initial reason for the settlements? I do know the ultra-orthodox tend to want control of that area because it aligns more with the ancient Judean kingdom/province, so has Biblical and historical significance. — schopenhauer1

It's not just spoils of war or security. There's been Jewish communities in that region for 3000 years, so when territory is won back that territory will often have Jewish communities who want to join up with Israel. The thing about the Middle East is that these strict boundaries or borders are a relatively new phenomenon. Arab and Jewish communities had been living side by side for thousands of years all mixed together and now when we draw these borders things can get awkward.

Are you more interested in helping the Palestinians or in making Israel pay? Pick a side.

The way you talk about your race is a problem, I won't play games about who is and who isn't allowed to speak, especially when it's based on ethnicity or religion. — Judaka

You're allowed to speak, of course, but should you if you don't have a sufficient grasp of the cultural/historical backdrop? As a parallel when writing a philosophy paper before you begin your argument you need to hash out your opponent's position in its entirety and pay it due respect. Same applies to ethno-cultural critiques. One's first task when engaging with a foreign culture is to take it in, to listen, not to judge.

I don't take you to be the spokesperson of a race. — Judaka

I'm no spokesperson of the Jewish people, but I know a hell of a lot more than a non-Jew who has never engaged Jewish culture. I'm also a Jew who has studied quite a bit of Jewish history on top of long-term direct engagement with multiple Jewish communities across the US.

I'm not perfect, but I should be treated as an authority on this subject. I try to be honest when a cultural question transcends my expertise. You're an authority in your own area, where ever that is.

French history should belong to the French nationality, not the "French ethnicities", do you not think that is the best way forward? — Judaka

I don't even know if there is a single French ethnicity. I think it's multiple ethnicities? In any case this is a French matter. I'm not in a position to say who rightfully "claims" their history.

I agree in principle that these issues need to be handled with patience and respect but diplomacy rarely factors into my posting online, I would handle things differently in different contexts. — Judaka

:up:

See, it's all in the framing. You only want to talk about Israel, but others take a broader view of the conflict and are actually interested in addressing all the ways in which the Palestinian people are being abused right now. Wouldn't it be easier to help them if we were to focus on several sources as opposed to just one?

Yes, you seem to vascillate between reasonableness and defending the indefensible. — Benkei

I haven't commented much on Andrew4Handel's statements. He has expressed a wide range of opinions some of which I would agree with and some of which I wouldn't.

The only reason you bring up Hamas is as a red herring in this thread. "But they do it too!" As if that makes everything ok.

If you want to discuss Hamas, start a thread on it and then every time you point out something they did I'll just say: "Yeah, but Israel did this therefore totally legit!". Or maybe I won't... I suspect you barely know anything about Hamas since you were obviously not aware they've already stated multiple times they'd accept the 1967 borders as a compromise. — Benkei

It's entirely how the issue is framed. The question of Hamas need not be a red herring, it's only a red herring if we're single-mindedly focused on Israel.

Here's how we should be framing it: What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.

Hamas accepts '67 borders + RoR. Not just '67 borders AFAIK.

The only person here entirely outside of the overton window is the only guy you seem to agree with. — Benkei

You're telling me @Andrew4Handlel is the only person in the discussion who is outside of the overton window and who I agree with?

... Except Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurds, Libya, Egypt and Islamism in general have all been discussed. It gets plenty of attention really but as Baden pointed out, more whataboutism. — Benkei

I almost never see Egypt or Jordan or how Hamas treats its own people discussed. If someone does introduce Hamas oppressing its own people it's always either me or Andrew. I cannot remember the last time I heard Egypt or Jordan or Qatar mentioned here. Afghanistan and Iraq are only relevant because of the west's involvement.

I don't particularly care who I'm 'siding with' because I'm not an idiot who thinks labels mean anything whatsoever. — StreetlightX

Ok, what's funny to me was that the Arabs supported the withdrawal as did the more moderate to left section of the Israeli population, so basically those who are interested in peace or at least going in that direction.

And on the other side we have the Israeli right many of whom do not care about peace and.... you who is against Israel "ethnically cleansing" its own population of Jews. :death:

Yes, obviously. — StreetlightX

You know that you're siding with the Israeli right on this one? I just like to let you know when you're further to the right than me.

I've already said I don't care if X is allowed to use some roads while Y is allowed to use others near checkpoints. No one is building roads in other countries without their permission and Gaza is not a country. It is not independent.

Ethnically cleanse as in murder? Or move? Was in ethnic cleansing when Israel forced Israelis to move out of Gaza in 2005?

I have no idea what you're talking about. We're talking about the use of separate roads, right? Near checkpoints? To speed up the process?

I said I wouldn't have a problem if in Arab countries they had some system like that near checkpoints. Gaza is simply not its own country.

Yes, Jews being ethnically cleansed from Arab lands and repeatedly subject to massacres in Palestine before the existence of Israel is utterly irrelevant to you. I wouldn't have expected anything different from you.

If you can't condemn roads being built that Jews would not be allowed to travel on but Arabs would, you're an anti-semite. Period. — Baden

I honestly wouldn't mind if it were in Egypt or something and it was near a border and they just let the Egyptian citizens speed through quicker. It would hasten the process.

I

Jews have lived in the region for thousands of years, continuously. Way, way before Israel. Jewish populations have been ethnically cleansed from Arab lands.

You're dropping the earlier discussion because you just don't know. You need to make an effort to learn the history of the demographics in that area before you jump to conclusions like that the Palestinians are just entitled to the entire WB for some reason.

As for the roads are these near security checkpoints? It might make sense to allow some cars through quicker, but I would think this is only around the border.

The West Bank is a Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. — Baden

Which sector of the WB are you talking about? Or are you talking about all of it? Why does all of the WB necessarily belong to the Palestinians? What about the Jewish communities there?