people both committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, — tim wood

A fantastical depiction of Palestinian and Jews in one sentence. Well done.

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out. — tim wood

Maybe start with the detail that what you just wrote is inherently contradictory.

What question? The one where you display you're so emotionally stunted you cannot comprehend why other people care what happens to innocent people?

The fact you feel my post addressed you, says it all. I already pointed out your idiocy in an earlier post; which was hubris. You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something.

The presumed supremacy of Western civilisation and the logical next step it should be defended by any means necessary. But you're right. Forget it. Don't waste your time on it.

@180 Proof what do you make of the white supremacist movement rearing it's head through these unwitting jokers?

Oh, I definitely could. Maybe read up on the local history and understand how these monsters got into power instead of positing as if they are isolated facts of reality with no causes and you will find those liberal democracies you venerate at its core.

Yes don’t trust any party that isn’t western, liberal democratic, and who are not generally trying to get along peacefully. — schopenhauer1

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

:vomit:

certainly lowers the risk of contracting that form of insanity from the basket of deplorables that do attend these things.

the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times. — Punshhh

Any idea how many right wing settlers will have to move to make that a realistic option? Because currently it's simply not physically viable.

I think that part refers to the memo of the Defense Attache and not the Israeli memo - so it would be a peace keeping force.

Reported yesterday in the Dutch newspapers (Google translate) :

Israel uses “disproportionate force” in Gaza and deliberately attacks “civilian infrastructure” such as bridges, roads and residential complexes. This approach explains the “high number of deaths in Gaza” and, according to critics, “constitutes a violation of international treaties and the laws of war.”

This is stated in a confidential memo from the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv, which has been seen by NRC .

The memo was drawn up by the Defense Attaché at the embassy, ​​who is intensively monitoring the situation around Gaza with a military team. According to the report, the Israeli political and military leadership has no clear strategy and the Israeli desire to finally deal with Hamas is "a military goal that is virtually impossible to achieve."

The findings in the confidential report are in stark contrast to public statements by the Israeli army in recent weeks, which claims to be doing as much as possible to prevent Palestinian civilian deaths. More than 11,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began, according to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry. Just this weekend, Israel came under intense international criticism for air and ground strikes around Al-Shifa Hospital.

Outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) said last Wednesday after a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel "must show that what they do is also proportionate" and must act within the limits of international law. Rutte, unlike French President Macron , for example , does not want to call for a ceasefire.

The memo shows that the Netherlands knows that Israel consciously opts for a ruthless military approach that leads to large numbers of civilian casualties. Yet the Israeli actions are not publicly condemned by Rutte and outgoing Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot (CDA).

D66 party leader and outgoing Minister for Climate and Energy Rob Jetten said on Sunday in Buitenhof that he believes that Rutte should now call for a ceasefire, but D66 appears to be alone in this within the outgoing cabinet.

According to the official memo, the decisions of the Israeli war cabinet and army leadership are motivated by feelings of revenge. “The emotion and anger are echoed in IDF [Israeli army] briefings,” the message said. These emotions would play a role in expanding the instructions for use of force for the Israeli military and in the Israeli interpretation of the laws of war.

Dahiya-doctrine
The IDF, the embassy writes, tries to limit losses on its own side as much as possible during the ground offensive (" zero risk ") and therefore uses lethal force more quickly (" shoot to kill "). Moreover, the embassy sees that the IDF applies "elements" of the so-called Dahiya doctrine. This strategy, which was first used in the 2006 war in Lebanon, "intends to deliberately cause massive destruction to infrastructure and civilian centers" while taking large numbers of civilian casualties for granted. The deliberate destruction of civilian targets is contrary to the laws of war, the memo states.

The use of brute force should restore the deterrence of Israel, which appeared militarily vulnerable to the Hamas attack. According to the memo, Israel wants to "display credible military force with its offensive in Gaza to show Iran and its proxies [such as Hezbollah] that they will stop at nothing." This attitude increases rather than decreases the chance of regional escalation, the Defense Attaché fears.

Embassy does take reports about Israeli plans to move Palestinians to the Sinai desert seriously.
Because the Israelis feel little explicit support from allies other than the United States, this could lead "to more extreme actions and the possible targeting of the northern front [a preventive Israeli war against Hezbollah]. then to hoped-for peace negotiations.”

At the end of October, Rutte said in a parliamentary debate that Israel has the right to eliminate the terrorist threat: “Hamas' ability to carry out attacks must disappear.” However, according to the embassy, ​​"a clear military victory over Hamas" cannot be achieved. Moreover, there is no agreement on the Israeli side about the end goal of Operation Swords of Iron. “The current action is first and foremost motivated by the need to deliver a final blow to Hamas,” the memo states: “The prevailing feeling is that we will look further afterward.”

Even if Hamas is almost completely eliminated, the fundamentalist movement's ideology will live on, the memo said. “There is no military answer to this, this is a political issue.”

Saudi Arabia and Qatar
The Dutch Defense Attaché is also concerned about leaked Israeli plans to forcibly relocate the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza, temporarily or otherwise, to Egypt's Sinai desert. Israeli media recently wrote about a policy document mentioning this option, sparking fears among Palestinians of ethnic cleansing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the plan "hypothetical", but the Dutch embassy is taking it seriously. Under the heading ' Thinking the unthinkable ' it says that in Israel "several people – including parliamentarians, advisors and soldiers – do not dismiss this option as extreme, but as real."

The memo states that one of the scenarios for a Gaza without Hamas is that an international force will control the coastal strip. It could consist mainly of Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The memo states: “The question is what is left of Gaza after the military offensive and what this force will oversee.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not want to respond substantively to the memo, but emphasizes that it is only one of a "multiple of sources" that are used in drawing up policy advice to the minister. “The Netherlands is very concerned about the severity and scale of the conflict,” the ministry said: “Further civilian casualties on both sides must be prevented as much as possible.”

There's no evidence the British harboured particular sympathy to zionism. — Echarmion

Plenty of evidence they wanted to get rid of Jews, which is what Balfour intended.

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

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

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

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

And in a single breath you are blaming Palestinians. Interesting reflex. Nothing about Israeli behaviour that could change to bring safety and happiness closer? Nothing coming to mind? Are you that unimaginative or that dishonest with yourself?

As I said, tiptoeing around it. No colleague frames this in terms of religion but safety and happiness where it concerns their own children.

I'm not sure what you're question is. If Gaza citizens have to suffer for the crimes of Hamas then its corollary would be true as well: Israelis should suffer to.

Since I think it's a dumb argument to make I believe my position is that doesn't work.

I just wanted to highlight this as an example of how a narrative is being build around evil pro-Palestinian protesters that this poor woman apparently has fallen for but it's the same narrative that gets Israeli politicians to wear the star of David at the UN. It's fabricated and often a concerted approach. I've noticed Jewish colleagues tiptoeing around answering a simple question: "in an ideal world what do you wish the lives of Palestinian children looks like?" after we went in depth into what they would like for their own children. You hear the cognitive dissonance warring with loyalty.

Did they think they could oppress people for decades and not get attacked? — RogueAI

I fixed it for you.

Maybe stop it with the double standards. If Gaza civilians have to accept their fate because of the crimes of Hamas then certainly Israelis should suffer a hundredfold. It's a fucking dumb argument.

As I said hubris. I can't even be bothered to deconstruct all the implicit assumptions. Nation states? A dumb idea. Liberal democracy? Another dumb idea. Your lack of imagination and that of Fukuyama that this is some kind of end point is simply the sad state of political philosopy of the current era. I find Rawls conception of a just society much more compelling and that certainly doesn't result in a "liberal democracy" if fully embraced. And the optimum period of western European countries, which you presumably will claim are "Western" and "civilised" marked them as social democracies, which to a large extent they still are despite the attempts by liberals to dismantle it with deteroriating levels of well-being as a result, levels of exploitation in our supply chains that were unprecedented and the destruction of our environment to boot. And see how hard people in power - mostly as a result of accumulated wealth - struggle against the changes necessary to have a fairer, healthier more beautiful world.

No, let us hope liberal democracy is not and will not be the end of history or we're fucked.

The categorisation of the world in distinct "civilisations" and then also to pretend you can actually speak on behalf of it, is just so utterly devoid of any critical self-reflection that it's meaningless to engage with it.

I think the most likely outcome is permanent occupation by Israel of all or a substantial part of Gaza.

Aha, you mean a bigger massacre.

The only possibility is that Gaza gets to be a massacre, and then to improve their image Israel does something. — ssu

So you're saying it isn't already? 10,000 in the meantime right?

From your mouth to God's ears. Leave it to the Dems to fuck up a shoe in though...

If for Germans it's their Nazi past, for the US it's the racism of slavery and segregation. — ssu

Let's not pin that on the US alone. Almost all of Europe was in on it. We just like to wash our hands from it because on paper everybody is now equal.

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. It's just a repeat of everything Huntington got wrong (and thus philosophically boring as well).

Apparently there's nothing to get your base as excited as hatred for the other side. That's how Trump won the first time and now with bland 80-year Mr. Potato-face representing the Democrats there's not enough to hate for the Republicans to get sufficiently riled up.

But certainly politics couldn't be that dumb right? Right? :scream:

Yeah, that's a totally historically accurate description of what happened in south africa. :roll:

Cool, have fun ruling over your skulls and heads on pikes. Then YOU can be the Lord of the Flies. — schopenhauer1

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestments. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. But sure, you can go on pretending it's all too complicated and therefore argue in favour of the status quo and do fuck all when solutions are obvious.

This is just needlessly stoking flames to live on forever. — schopenhauer1

That's bullshit. What stokes the flames is that there are no consequences for these thieves so they continue to do it.

Right of return is the idea that Palestinians who previously lived on specific tracts of land that are now lived in by Israeli Jews have the right to those specific properties back (or their descendents have that right). It's not just about the general ability for them to freely move around the area.

Either Jews have to be moved out or Palestinians have to accept reparations, someone has to give something up either way. — flannel jesus

Interesting detail to be aware of is that those Arabs were mostly expelled and the remainder fled. And since we usually don't reward thieves, the Israelis will have to move out AND pay reparations. Since Israelis have such extensive experience in colonising areas, they should easily be able to move to another place within Israel.

Ok so that's unrealistic. — schopenhauer1

It's only unrealistic for as long the West thinks an inherently racist basis for a nation is worth supporting.

Costa Rica hasn't had an army since 1949

And it virtually overnight returned Afghanistan to the Middle Ages under the control of extremest religious zealots. — jgill

Errr... Which president invaded Afghanistan and which president handed it back to the Taliban?

Any outcome in the US is a bad outcome. Some are just worse than others.

So was this Israeli cabinet minister sacked just for what he said or rather for his extremist, Freudian slip – saying the quiet part out loud – nuking Gaza? — 180 Proof

That endlosung has been openly talked about on social media in Israel for decades. You know the type of hate speech that lands you in jail in any other "democracy". This poor man only lost his job. Oh... Wait... No, just suspended.

Read again instead of misquoting the definition and asking dumb questions as a result.

Why don't you look up the definition of genocide as agreed in the general assembly and get back to me so you can all eat crow?

Oh you know what, I'll save you the trouble:

On 11 December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that genocide was a crime under international law. This was approved and ratified as a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December 1948. The Convention defines genocide as:

‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• killing members of the group
• causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I emphasised the part that applies in this situation. So no, it's definitely not an exaggeration. It's like suggesting what the Chinese are doing to the Uighurs isn't genocide because they aren't killed. Just their way of life and identify.

And what did that get them? Slower genocide I suppose.

Welcome and interesting first post. I'm aware of the passages in the Bible but wasn't aware of the likely/possible relation to the political struggles in the area and the Romans you described.

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing? And why do most religions not have a word for anti(that religion)? There aren't actually that many Jewish people in the world on a whole. I don't know what threat some people see. — TiredThinker

Dumb religions. In this case Christianity because a Jew betrayed Jesus. So Christians thought all Jews were evil sons of bitches and were excluded from everything and pushed into ghettos, except the one thing Christians weren't allowed to: lend money!

So Jews got in the lending game and since they were the only ones they cornered the market and did rather well. The rulers of the country saw they were getting rich and started to tax them. So the Jews raised their rates, and the rulers raised their taxes. That went on until the borrowers started to default and the "evil greedy Jew" charicature was born because understandably they'd rather squeeze a borrower than lose their heads for not paying taxes. During these centuries every country thought they had a Jew problem so they were kicked around all the time.

The Balfour declaration was the UK's solution to their Jew problem. Hitler tried to kill them all. Eastern Europe had their pogroms in more or less the same time period.

That's in a nutshell the historic perspective. Of course, the insistence of Israel as the nation state for Jews and how Israel treats Palestinians is definitely giving rise to a new wave of anti-semitism.