Wonder why :rofl: you make that sound like it was not relevant to be concerned about security. Take a deal and build on it. As Maher said, how’s the other way working? — schopenhauer1

It's dumb shit like this that's tiresome. It's not Israelis that regularly get massacred en masse. Palestinian security is just as relevant but has never been on the table in any proposal. To then subsequently accuse me of bias would be funny if idiots like you didn't make the world such a tragic place.

They were given large tracts of land but not 100%. It’s called compromise. — schopenhauer1

Why should an oppressed people give up land that Israel has no right to? There's a UN partition plan. There are even the borders of 1967 where Israel has stolen land, a crime of aggression that was punished with hanging at Nuremberg, that the Palestinians are willing to accept. Which is already a huge concession.

It is Israel, especially under Likud, that refuses to compromise and has been slowly strangling the Palestinians. Once they are done with Gaza - and they will be done when they fully occupy it and it basically doesn't exist anymore because all infrastructure is gone then they will turn to the West Bank and eat and eat away. But you know, keep writing dumb shit. It's entertaining at least.

As pointed out time and again, Israel as client state of the US, can do whatever it wants and has been doing exactly that and will continue to do that until people realise the Palestinians actually have rights. That some of those rights are actually inalienable and not subject to compromise, that having a fucking moral backbone requires you to not tell victims to give in to the demands of their aggressors. But sure, it's all the fault of the Palestinians that Israel is ruled by genocidal thugs. Jesus fucking christ, talk about blaming the victim. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's no wonder you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think anti-natalism makes sense because looking in the mirror must suck for you.

It would make sense if it was symmetrical but the point he was making isn't symmetrical. His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals, even when they lost over and over in armed conflict and were in a position where if they took it, they would have gotten much of what they wanted — schopenhauer1

This is simply a lie. I don't want to go into the full history how things actually went but basically every "peace" deal involved the Palestinians having no to little self-determination and was only concerned with Israeli security. It also meant making demands before negotiations even started, which isn't a negotiation but blackmail. And finally, Israel always wanted to carve up the land in such a way and control Palestinian movement that it would not result in a viable state for the Palestinians.

Then the PLO gave away self determination indefinitely - the closest we got to "peace" according to every dunce with a microphone - which a majority of Palestinians rejected at the time and why Hamas became popular. Peace where you subjugate yourself to your oppressor simply isn't peace.

But then, you actually should read the proposals ("insults" is a better term) instead of pursuing statements that fit your pre-conceived notions of what's going on.

The point Maher tried to make fails because the analogies he's using don't work. But as usual you're too dumb to unpackage the argument. Kind of like an anti-natalist thread: you never get anywhere because basic logic is beyond you.

Being left apparently nowadays means having principles.

A million Greeks were shoved out of Turkey in 1923,
2:05
a million Ghanaians out of Nigeria in 1983,
2:08
almost a million French out of Algeria in 1962,
2:12
nearly a million Syrian refugees moved to Germany
2:15
eight years ago. Was that a perfect fit? — schopenhauer1

As usual, telling you agree with idiots and claim "impartiality" and "objectivity" so you can ignore anything that doesn't comport with your view because they are by definition subjective in your tiny reptilian brain. Really, the red flag is when you agree with what tim wood says, because we already know for 3 years he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to this conflict.

The reason why all these comparisons fail is because unlike Nigeria, Algeria and Turkey, Israel has no rightful claim to all the land from the river Jordan to the sea. It never had so it is in fact invading land that isn't theirs and occupying it. That is the crime of aggression for which Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. A crime so egregious that the law criminalising it was written after it was committed just so they could sentence them.

And Syrian refugees chose to flee, there's no obligation for them to do so and they would have every right to stay where they are and demand safety and security.

:rofl: Yes, I'm sure that is. Not only can't you read but satire is lost on you as well.

The inability to read, the deluge of Trump worship. One minute we're defending Trump comparing illegal immigrants to poison, the next we're raising a strawman about nobody who said anything about the holocaust. Why am I such a Trump shill, and not even for the first time?

Hamas fires its weapons from schools and hospitals; Ukraine does not use such tactics. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they do: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

So much for NOS4A2's idea that the Democrats are an antidemocratic force.

I find the whole western values are superior skit also interesting. Of course in the paradigm of western values, you value western values and as beneficiaries of the benefits of that system it is regarded as positive. Until you are outside of it, then you are colonised, bombed and "educated" about your barbarity. And what these values are, is not even explicated. So indoctrinated are these people that it's all just assumptions.

Western values: how to exploit people and nature. How to reduce everything to monetary value. How to externalise costs. How to burn the world while munching on your packaged double-salted caramel popcorn you don't know how to make, doomscrolling through tiktok while hating on Johnny foreigner.

The dominant "Westen values" are shit. It's just tribalism.

quotes *liberal leftist newspaper filled with lies*. And the fools have a reason not to listen.

Well, as you made the argument about genocide earlier, I remember answering that the bodycount (or the ethnic cleansing) has to be a higher number. That was months ago.

Well, now the death toll is going in your way quite obviously. That people are starting to starve tells a lot also. — ssu

The genocide has been going on for decades. Where are all the Palestinian sea side villages and cities? Their life and culture are being strangled by the occupation with this very goal: to make an independent Palestinian state impossible.

Unfortunately, people underestimate Likud voters and members. They are quite frankly insane murderous idiots on par with Saddam and the like. They stand exactly for what Hamas stood for until 2017 but then for Jews and with the unfortunate circumstance they actually have political power and weapons. Even their tactics are the same. Terror.

Meanwhile some of the posters here keep insisting the Palestinians are like the Nazis and this is some kind of existential struggle. It is, of course, but not for Israel. It's been informative who here has kept defending this insanity. God save their souls.

Not anymore no. But there was a 6 year window where everybody did fuck all. But then even when 5,000+ kids are killed... So who am I kidding.

jesus, I've only pointed that out like 50 times here, which is why the change in the Hamas charter in 2017 is such an important change.

The best part of US politics is where politicians reach for legal means to remove an opponent instead, I don't know, have actual policies that improve the material conditions of your citizenry.

Seems fine to me. One's a prosecution, the other a common law claim, right? Liability can kick in because of contractual risk distributions that have nothing to do with intent or gross negligence.

Oh wait, I must looked it up and it's a criminal proceeding as well. This can be a difference in law systems. I'm pretty sure in the netherlands it's about the constellation of facts that you cannot be prosecuted twice for. In the past, prosecution wasn't even allowed to change the writ before the court session. So if you made a mistake you were screwed. This has been somewhat relaxed, in that you can change the charge as long as it is part of the same chapter (eg. related type of crime). This is why when you study, you're taught to charge suspects with all the crimes that you think applies. In practice, most prosecutors charge what they think will most likely result in a conviction. I never understood that since it's not a lot of work to add additional charges (a paragraph per charge suffices generally speaking).

@Tobias anything to add?

This seems to relate to the ne bis in idem principle, which means you cannot be prosecuted twice for the same fact. Is an impeachment a prosecution? I don't think so, so I don't see how it would result in immunity.

I'd like to see you set out a consistent and closed system of private ownership based on moral rules only.

The problem is that "contracts" aren't aimed at reaching morally just outcomes; they are generally not included at all. So the idea people have an extra-legal moral right to pre-tax income is fundamentally flawed.

It won't open for me.

There are no just transfers, only legal ones.

Roman law and Greek philosophy.

I've pointed out before in this thread this is just a heuristic with little value as an actual argument in specific cases.

Watching it now but without watching it I already now pharma is not to be trusted.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/573763

None of the vaccine makers have made any claims with respect to transmission, only the reduction in severity as I already pointed out 2 years ago when this first became a thing. Many people assumed it would because most vaccines also reduce transmission (and it did).

Or, we can't trust what Hamas says so their charter is irrelevant. Here is a Hamas leader saying they want to destroy Israel and we must trust what he says.

[ When Israel has an HRW report it's not relevant because the other side are animals because there are HRW reports saying so.

Yes, dumb Trump voters and the orangutan turn out to be a degenerative sub-species of homo erectus.

I think the problem is to think here that retaliation and retaliatory strikes is the answer. Going after the perpetrators to prevent further attacks isn't retaliation. But it is hard not to see the retaliatory nature of the mission with the talk of human animals, the evil city, Biblical references and other dehumanization of the Palestinians. And then, even with the ground troops inside the city, using still a lot of air power. Using bombing to level the city is so different from how for example the US fought against insurgents in Iraq. It comes to mind that the unannounced objective could to make Gaza unlivable and then try to push the 2,2 million or so to Sinai. Perhaps for a 'temporary time', so it wouldn't be an act of genocide / ethnic cleansing.

Comparing how the US dealt with insurgents in Iraqi cities is here valid. The US went to great lengths to avoid using air power and the ground troops understood it well. The ironic thing is that the US armed forces actually won the Sunni insurgency only to then withdraw, have the Shia lead government take over and mess up all the work the Americans had done and the end result was ISIS taking over.

Showing restraint isn't a sign of weakness, it's usually a sign of intelligence. But if one wants just to retaliate and thus give those who call for retaliation what they want, that's something else. — ssu

"Retaliation" implies "revenge", so already an interesting choice of words but not my words.

I reject analogies that liken countries to individuals. Countries are not individual moral agents that bear individual moral responsibility. One does not "get back" at this "person" by killing its civilians. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. Then Israel also has no right to self-defence. We "liken" countries to individuals all the time as we conceptualise that they have rights. And this makes perfect sense. If a person has a right then obviously a party who represents that person also has such right. So the State has rights because it is an agent of its citizens (ideally). And if actual people oppress another people, and the State as an agent supports such oppressions, its rights and duties are derived from the rights and duties of the individuals it represents. And since those illegal settlers and IDF soldiers are perpetrating a continuous war crime, they do not get to enjoy any protection.

A Jewish baby born in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv is an "illegal settler" according to Hamas (and unfortunately a significant portion of the Palestinian population). I recommend the Ami Horowitz interview where he interviews a Hamas leader and asks this question directly. — BitconnectCarlos

Except I never said that, I said in "occupied territories" which is well established under international law and since I'm not a Hamas spokesperson or affiliated with them, I don't see how whatever they say has anything to do with what I'm saying.

If you're suggesting Palestinians aren't allowed to kill illegal settlers in the occupied territories of the West Bank or to kill IDF soldiers who protect those illegal settlers, then really what you have is human shields to pursue immoral State sanctioned policies. In which case I think indiscrimate bombing of illegal settler villages and IDF posts, killing as much as possible and levelling it to the ground by the international community makes perfect sense, just to get to the adults. Because that's the calculus the Israeli government is making. We'll even be nice about it and warn them beforehand!

Or, maybe a weird idea, Israel stops pursuing the war crime of annexing land and reverses the crimes it has already commited (and we all know that in a negotiated peace they still get to retain what they have no right to) and then when an attack does happen, they can at least claim a moral right to do something against it and I'd be the first to support discriminate police action and, depending on circumstances, escalate to military action.

Does someone who commits assault have a right to retaliate when the victim strikes him, even when it's in his balls or a knife in his neck? It's the Palestinians retaliating not the other way around. Israel is not a victim but an aggressor.

I recognise an individual right for Israeli citizens to defend themselves against terrorist attacks, since I don't believe in guilt by association, but as far as I'm concerned every illegal settler, every idf soldier in the occupied territories is explicitly involved in the oppression and is therefore fair game. Shoot them all until the oppression stops. The state of Israel doesn't have a right to do anything until it stops committing crimes itself. Only once it has done that and if they are still confronted with an attack, then do they have any rights.

Edit: actually no rights is an exaggeration but you get the drift.

You're starting to improve your thinking on this issue when at least you're comparing Assad and Israel and your only complaint is that not everybody complains about Assad. :clap:

Goddammit man, use a smiley or something so we understand when you're getting cynical.

Ok, so what you're saying is "a very successful start if you ask Bibi"?

I think he's just overcompensating for the fact his name sounds like baby.

Edit: probably too soon but shitty jokes is how I cope.

So a very successful operation if you ask Bibi.

Here's some other views on the conflict instead of the myopic western bullshit being peddled in this thread.

South Africa

https://www.dirco.gov.za/south-africa-has-maintained-a-consistent-position-on-the-israel-palestine-question/

"unfinished decolonisation struggle"

India

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/palestine-israel-conflict-india-unsc-jerusalem-clashes-aqsa-7320652/

"Hours after Hamas' first attacks on Gaza on October 7, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on a post on X, expressed shock at the Palestinian offensive, and conveyed “solidarity with Israel”. He wrote, "“Deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks in Israel. Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour." However, five days later, in its first official statement on the Israel-Hamas war, New Delhi has sought to nuance this. Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi, in response to questions at the weekly briefing, said that there is a “universal obligation to observe international humanitarian law,” and there is also a global responsibility to fight the menace of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In addition, Bagchi further cleared that India advocates for "the resumption of direct negotations towards establishing the sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine living within secure and recognised border side by side with Israel."

China

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202311/1302191.shtml

China urged an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, expressed opposition to any forced displacement and relocation of Palestinian civilians and emphasized that any arrangement concerning the future and destiny of the Palestinian people must have their consent, Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi told visiting Arab and Islamic foreign ministers on Monday.

Brasil

https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2023/nov/14/brazils-lula-says-israel-committing-equivalent-of-terrorism-in-gaza-2632858.html

Lula: Israel is committing the "equivalent of terrorism" in Gaza by killing innocent women and children in its war on Hamas

& other south american countries

Have cancelled arms deals with US and other Israeli supporters for their unrepenting support of Israel.

None of these "non-Western" countries (except for Paraguay) designate Hamas as a terrorist organisation other than via the OAS, which is of course dominated by the northern American countries. That aside, no Asian country but Japan and no African country. In other words, the favoured position here is a minority position in the world. Posters would do well to acquaint themselves with other narratives instead of the implicitly racist assumptions in the Western narrative where the more people look like us the more support they get (Ukrainian refugees vs others, Israel vs Palestine etc.) or because of historic guilt trips for crimes committed by our grandfathers. My country doesn't owe Israel allegiance or support just because a bunch of Jews live there.

The difference is between night and day. — ssu

And between right and wrong.

To be honest, we are sidewalk superintendents, by-standers, kibitzers at a long distance from the war. For us, our caring and concern is low-cost. — BC

I disagree. Public awareness and opinion do shape policy in the countries we live in and this is far more important than we think. The Israeli governments, when run by Likud or other right wing nutjobs, will not improve the fate of Palestinians unless the international community forces them. As they did with South Africa. Today, the Palestinian cause is getting much more attention than before despite the one-sided media coverage of traditional media and politicians.

We can only hope that the "Western" narrative is quickly abandoned by a more pluralistic and therefore balanced view as expressed by many other countries. The cry of "anti-semitism" each time Israeli policy is critizised, is losing its potency, both for being false and due to the inexoriable shift of (economic) power to Asia and hopefully sooner than later: Africa.

The same reason Russian sanctions are only upheld by EU, US and direct allies like Canada, Australia, Japan are at play here as well. Not even Mexico, with an important dependence on the US, sanctioned Russia. Because these countries understand all too well the role international policy from those countries have contributed to creating the circumstances for war. The "Western" narrative with respect to Israel-Palestine is obviously not shared by former colonies, who see this conflict much clearer with their own history of being oppressed by the same powers that now unconditionally support Israel. Quite frankly, it's as if we're reliving the 1800s with how backward the EU and US positions are. Especially when we get the cultural superiority arguments from the closet white supremacists ("where would you rather live?" "How come these countries do not independently develop into liberal democracies?").

Except of course I actually know what I'm talking about: https://imeu.org/article/self-defense-or-provocation-israels-history-of-breaking-ceasefires

In the period 2013-2014 Israel violated the ceasefire 190+ times and Hamas about 75 times. So I'm significantly more likely to agree to something with Hamas than Likud/IDF.



But please continue

Stop wasting your time.

Crystal ball bullshit. Historically, IDF has broken more cease fires than Hamas. So if it's a matter of trust, I'd sooner deal with Hamas than Likud or the IDF. In that respect it's always fun to see the spectacle of media parrotting IDF narratives without confirmation of the facts through alternative sources.

Even so, what Israel should do is independent of what Hamas would do. Nobody is calling for it to be pacifist, but for it to stop taking land from Palestinians and undermining peaceful solutions. And yes, I think people who were expelled from the land that they lived and the houses they lived in, should have a right to return there. So weird!