I was replying to your reply to RogueAI (one above your Bibi quote) and think RogueAI's original question was silly.

Israel is the legitimate possessor of its land. — Hanover

Define "its" land.

I think the question in general is idiotic. We're dealing with a question of justice not what's more comfortable or easier.

Would you rather have been African or American in 1700 Or rather a native or a European? A colonist or a coloniser?

We all know being on the wrong side of history is generally easier.

The question for Palestinians is how to eliminate the threat of thousands of homes being indiscriminately destroyed, getting food on the table, having water and electricity, getting to work without harassment, followed by the raping of its women, butchering of its children, kidnapping of random citizens, and the murder of others. — Hanover

The security problem in the region goes both ways. And let's not pretend terrorism wasn't a reaction to the illegal occupation and not the other way around.

For me the core problem with the Israeli response is not too dissimilar from the problems with the Hamas attack. I don't see how it contributes to a long term solution, and it seems to be motivated by the need to be seen as strong as capable at least as much as by actual security concerns. — Echarmion

The long term solution for Likud is to ensure a two state solution is not viable. Bombing Palestinians to the stone age is effective.

Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), says he believes that Iran aims to create “a reality of war in order to exhaust Israeli society, in order to exhaust the Israel Defense Forces. — CNN

It would be very convenient for Israel to cast this as a war between two sovereign nations instead of between oppressor and oppressed (or at least a terrorist org. that apse I from that oppression). I have doubts about Iran or Hezvollah being involved in the original attacks (bad on info that's publicly available) but they might get involved now.

And then when they don't whatever happens to them is their own fault of course. "At least we gave warning" and "that's more than Hamas does" in order to pretend it's not a war crime.

Errr... Didn't the Romans have to continually expand to bankroll their government? The roman empire was one big expansionist war until it started to collapse but admittedly had a decent view on integration.

Well, I guess we should be happy we're fucking up the world to such an extent, in pursuit of shareholder value, that such municipal scale societies will be all that's left in 200 years or so.

Definitely true. It's just that changing everything to a nuanced form was more convoluted and less clear in clarifying the point.

I can see where you're coming from but I don't think the analogy works because in the wardrobe I'm not actively contributing to the situation why the murderer is in my house. For this analogy to work, it's not my house and I stole it from him and now he's back to kill me so he can get his house back. I might think about offering to give the house back instead of calling 911 but not doing anything will result in one of us dead eventually.

So this is interesting again: US envoy talks about attack against Jews

If I'd say Jews are oppressing Palestinians or say they're complicit in the murders of innocents then I'm an anti-semite (even though Israel defines itself as the nation-state for Jews but whatever). So critics have to constantly tiptoe around making sure they're nuanced.

But when I'd confuse a vicious attack on Israeli citizens with an attack on Jews I can drag in the holocaust and play the massive victim cum holocaust industry card and everything is fine and dandy. No nuance needed to approve whatever Jews do to Palestinians, but every nuance needed to criticise the crimes the state of Israel perpetrates against them.

It's another example of another disruption of a level playing field.

It's not an insight but I consider Netanyahu depraved enough to make such a calculus that I worry it might actually be true. And given that he thinks Palestinians are dogs, I'm sure at no time could he have imagined the attacks being so large and coordinated. He probably estimated "something big" to be much smaller as he'd underestimate the Palestinians and probably the Egyptians as well (because not Israeli) and might not even have trusted that rapport without corroboration from Mossad, which appears at this point to have been absent. The likelihood certainly is not 0 but I have no clue how depraved that warmonger actually is.

What is the likelihood Bibi ignored it on purpose considering all the flack he's gotten in the past year? And now score big by levelling Gaza. I think we'll see the worst slaughter of Palestinians in our lifetime the coming weeks.

You understand how hollow that sounds. Perhaps Hamas destroys the Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons deterrence totally and defeats militarily the IDF, then they could start negotiations about all of the borders, not just what about West Bank and Gaza based on the UN decisions done on the subject or the Oslo Accords. — ssu

It's not hollow but logically consistent. What rings hollow is your "might makes right" argument as a reason to ignore their position.

I think the kill-all-Isrealites-including-the-babies Hamas fighters have done their share to raise support for Likud. Both get strength from each other. — ssu

Given what I just quoted as their official position since 2017 this is simply a gross mischaracterization. Nobody actually wants to talk about a solution just have another popularity contest about who is worse.

But peace can be made with Hamas. There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that.

It will certainly not come from within Israel any time soon. We need a boycott, divestment and sanction program just like what we did with south africa.

Future risks are a reason to mitigate those risks and therefore do something, it's not an argument for doing nothing. Clearer?

It doesn't address Palestinian security either. You need to keep things open-ended, especially in light of the fact that both sides have their utterly shit extremist motherfuckers that will do everything to fuck up any progress you're trying to make. Acknowledging that also means you can consciously accept it and then think about how best to minimise that risk.

The problem is wanting to solve everything in one go before there's even a modicum of trust between the parties. That's simply not possible.

Palestinians are ostensibly aligned with Iran right now. The current situation is shit though. So that alignment in itself is meaningless. What exactly would the driver be for Palestinians to continue to align with Iran when they are safer and more secure when not being aligned with them? Die-hard ideologues yes but common people do not care - they want a roof and food on the table. The possibility of a better future is much more motivating but there is no such view in the situation they are now in. That's why it's paramount Israel stops committing crimes.

Also this is pertinent to this issues to:

This is a typical argument whereby Palestine is being penalized for what they hypothetically could do, (regardless of any actual objective) while the Israeli government is excused for what they actually do. — Maw

Finally, the nice thing about change, is that you can change again or even go back to what it was. If something doesn't work, you try something else. Future risks are not a good argument not to do anything now.

I do think it's possible but it requires a lot of good faith negotiations. To me it would look like something like this:

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
10. Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, Israel had to stop committing crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA/fatah
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours

Intent based on hearsay is not admissable so there should be actual actions and statements from Trump himself unless this is just a reformulation of proof of general intent. As I stated before:

"For general intent crimes juries will be instructed to infer intent from the proof of the act. The federal documents case mostly has general intent crimes I think, as they do not aim at a specific result that mens rea should be aimed at."

So I think it more likely this will be general intent proofs.

Even the political wing of Hamas is in favour of a two State solution but refuses to recognise the Israeli state as a fact in law. Recognising the state of Israel to them means recognising sovereignty over land that they believe ought to be subject of negotiations in its entirety.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. — Hamas

In my view Likud is the singlemost largest obstacle to peace. Their original party program:

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace. — Likud

The 1999 version:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” — Likud

Now for some reason I cannot access the knesset.gov.il website at all (I get 403 errors) to get the latest but the rejection of a two-state solution is still there.

Then there was Netanyahu saying this that was heralded as being open to a two-state solution by media:

I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan. — Netanyahu

But as David Horovitz wrote in The Times of Israel:

He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance. — Horovitz

No Palestinian State. Ever. Period. There's nothing to gain but more death as long as Israelis continue to vote in Likud.

I have to apologise to @Hanover in particular but I'm devastated by what's going on (both ways) and it's turned me totally cynical on the whole issue. I probably should just shut up on this subject for the foreseeable future.

That's to play a rhetorical game rather than engage philosophically though, isn't it? — Baden

Yes, I think we're beyond morality for some time already but it's taken me until this latest bullshit to realise it. That probably happened around the time when Rabin was murdered.

Yes, why should I justify it for one party if the other doesn't and gets all the moral support and best wishes and guns? That doesn't seem like a level playing field to me.

I'm merely using the same arguments as Israel does. Seems perfectly morally tenable to me.

I indeed didn't follow the link. In any case, a personal tragedy for those involved, and at the same time exactly what Israel has sowed. As I've stated before: every tragedy befalling Israel is of its own making, every tragedy visited on the Palestinians is caused by Israel (or more accurately, Likud and other right wing fanatics who control Israeli politics).

If only Israeli politicians and civilians would care as much about Palestinians as you're expecting us to care about Israeli civilians. Maybe I'll just care as much about Israeli casualties as Bibi does about Palestinians. Because that seems all the care we need.

Almost any method and any means are acceptable when Palestinians are the ones actually existentially threatened through 75+ years of landgrabs and oppression. If not, then moral equivalence would lead to the absurd conclusion that we should be suing former slaves and their descendants for reparations for killing their slave owners in revolt.

I'm not sure the Two-State solution will every come to pass, or if it does, that it will solve many problems. — BC

The two-states solution had been made de facto impossible already. It's a good distraction though as everybody can pretend they're still in favour of peace. Which they are but only after the West Bank and Gaza have been bled dry and there's no such thing as a Palestinian any more.

Unlike the morally upstanding Palestinians. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/09/middleeast/israel-hamas-music-festival-aftermath-intl-hnk/index.html — Hanover

Successfully striking against an oppressor seems a good reason to celebrate.

With the current lock down I don't think foreign backing is relevant.

I'm actually impressed how Hamas has managed to keep this operation hidden. I wouldn't be surprised some heads will roll in the Mossad and whoever is in charge of border control.

Sure, in that case I agree.

the same situation — Echarmion

Define situation.

Starving millions of people is not a good reply in any situation. — Manuel

A very good reply if you want to kill people. Leave morality at the door when figuring out Israeli calculus.

It would turn into an absolute bloodbath that would probably haunt them for the rest of their existence. — Tzeentch

Seems the most likely outcome when you mobilise this many troops. I don't see a lack of support as a problem. They don't care about a stern talking to from the EU. The US is making bank on Israeli military activity. I'm rather pessimistic this time.

I'll refer you to my dog analogy. We all know what happens to the dog that finally bites its abusive masters. Gaza will basically be razed to the ground. People will start starving in about two weeks.

Oh yes, this is exactly the excuse the right-wing Zionists need. It's like beating a dog repeatedly and then acting you're aghast when it bites you. "See, I told you it's a mean dog!"

I'll remind everyone not to discuss the wider problem with @tim wood who's just an Israeli apologist with zero knowledge of the history and politics of the region. See page 76 of this thread.

For the rest carry on.

:rofl: You're answer is too funny!

That's not even a logical argument. I get why you get confused if you think that passes for it. Here's the actual argument:

If you're black then you're 95% likely to be discriminated against at some point in your life based on your skin colour.
That person is black.
Therefore, he will most likely be discriminated against.

My solution: we need to talk about not discriminating against black people.
Your solution: we need to stop talking about black people.

One cannot determine who has or has not been subject to prejudice by perpetuating pseudoscience or noticing the color of someone’s epidermis, and one certainly cannot solve any of the material conditions by doing so. You’re being both useless and unjust, which is not a great combo. — NOS4A2

A statement weened from historical fact. The lives of blacks and minorities has improved in the past decades in western countries because they held people and institutions to account by talking about it. But I understand how a change in the status quo feels like an injustice to you because you're a racist little git but just don't realise it yet.

The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes. — ssu

Let's decentralize companies too then!

That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe

Fair warning; I'll be going off into a tangent here.

A higher standard of living for whom? At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. The US meanwhile is lagging in many metrics compared to other "capitalist" societies. I don't think capitalism is a good indicator - or in fact that this is really a question of economics. A lot of rich people and politicians like to pretend it is, because it keeps them rich but the result is people subservient to the economy and a certain class all the while extolling the virtues of capitalism and individualism. Classes are real (anyone denying this, please study some marketing which still uses the NRS social grade) and consistently cause problems as there are no people "all free and equal" but persons that are “responsible and cooperating members of their respective groups” (Rawls).

In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. It requires a learned legal profession to produce good lawyers, informed and interested citzenry to make political choices and educated politicians, leaders and visionairs to put into public discourse what we should be talking about. We need a vibrant society but what we have is egoism and decandency dressed up as philosophical liberalism. But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore (Randroids, tax-is-theft idiots and average US politicians).

When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to those restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission. (Hart, 1955: 185)

This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories.

Simmons believed in a debt of gratitude but fails to specify the content of the debt.

And of course there's consent to political obligation which is problematic as usually no such act is performed by citizens.

So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights).

Liberalism divorced from political obligation is just selfishness.

Yes, there's no biological basis to distinguish races. Yet people still do it on the basis of skin colour and cultural expression. Recognising the second is not pseudoscience.

No problem ever went away by ignoring it doesn't exist or changing how we speak about it. And that's really the only thing you bang on about, which doesn't solve the material conditions of people subject to prejudice in any shape, way or form. In other words: you're being useless.