Or is on the table.Even ethnic cleansing, genocide was on the table. — Punshhh
The obvious myth here is that somehow people that have lived ages ago somewhere before, have then more justification for the land while if people who have lived there, but haven't had a sovereign state, are somehow less justified. — ssu
And more over, because Zionism is a creation of the 19th Century, so actually your ideas are not so old either.
Jews migrated to Europe even during the Roman Empire, so they had been here for quite a while until Zionism came along (and Hitler, obviously too). — ssu
And overall if we generalize, this kind of thinking, that one people have more right to territory than others living there, then puts any kind of immigration and migrants to have less claim to the home they have, which at worst can be and is a form of racism. If Finns and the few thousand Sami people have lived on the same place since Antiquity, that surely doesn't mean the few people whose ancestors have migrated here later are somehow less justified to be here. Someone who has gotten citizenship should have equal rights, obviously. — ssu
These kinds of attitudes are so similar how (Putin's) Russia thinks and belittles Ukrainians and Ukraine itself. The state of Ukraine is "artificial" to them and quite in a similar way that Palestine and Palestinians "raise your eyebrows". — ssu
I think it's quite apt in this occasion. — ssu
A traumatized event leaves politicians to do something dramatic. It cannot be something of the ordinary or otherwise the leaders are seen as timid, indecisive or simply cold to the suffering of the people when the trauma hits the population. — ssu
I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. The US has here shows an example here with everybody that is born on US territory has the right to be an US citizen. My best friends sister's first born boy is an American, the father is an Austrian and she is a Finn now living in Vienna.It's a tricky issue who is justified to a piece of land. — BitconnectCarlos
Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians.IMHO as long as Hamas, a totalitarian regime, controls Gaza -- Gaza will be a prison for the palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos
And why on Earth you even seek a "protocol" for handling a terrorist attack? If there's a "protocol" I think it's quite obvious: raise security for it not to happen again, seek out the perpetrators. Then look at what the reason for the attack. If it isn't an estranged lunatic individual, for whom prison/mental asylum is the answer, but the attack is part of a political struggle, then seek a solution for the political problem.What is the protocol when 1200 are killed, 300 kidnapped, and many other raped? As an American, it is war. Anything else is out of the question. — BitconnectCarlos
See Amnesty International website(Feb 26th, 2024) One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today.
The scale and gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s relentless bombardment, destruction and suffocating siege puts more than two million Palestinians of Gaza at risk of irreparable harm.”
The supplies entering Gaza before the ICJ order have been a drop in the ocean compared to the needs for the last 16 years. Yet, in the three weeks following the ICJ order, the number of trucks entering Gaza decreased by about a third, from an average of 146 a day in the three weeks prior, to an average of 105 a day over the subsequent three weeks. Before 7 October, on average, about 500 trucks entered Gaza every day, carrying aid and commercial goods, including things like food, water, animal fodder, medical supplies and fuel. Even that quantity fell far short of meeting people’s needs. In the three weeks after the ICJ ruling, smaller quantities of fuel, which Israel tightly controls, made it into Gaza. The only crossings that Israel has allowed to open were also opened on fewer days, further demonstrating Israel’s disregard for the provisional measures. Aid workers reported multiple challenges, but said that Israel was refusing to take obvious steps to improve the situation.
Across the Gaza Strip, the engineered humanitarian disaster grows more horrifying each day. On 19 February, humanitarian agencies reported that acute malnutrition was surging in Gaza and threatening children’s lives, with 15.6% of children under two years acutely malnourished in northern Gaza and 5% of children under two years in Rafah in the south. The speed and severity of the decline in the population’s nutritional status within just three months was “unprecedented globally”.
I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. — ssu
The whole idea of seeking justification for this from some ancient history is wrong in my mind. It's the problem itself! — ssu
Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians. — ssu
At some point, it all just becomes this urge for reprisal, for retribution. Hell with anything else!!! — ssu
(And btw, how many of decapitated babies were there actually?) — ssu
Well, for them every dead Hamas fighter is a martyr. In fact every killed Palestinian is a martyr. For them, Israel has just shown it's real face. — ssu
Right wing Israeli settlers also seek to expand and these acts should be discouraged/condemned but 10/7 is in no way a justified response to settler aggression. — BitconnectCarlos
:100:10/7... Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.
Because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints....
I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off.
Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it.... Culture of life versus culture of death. — BitconnectCarlos
Winning a war is one thing, what to do then is another. Winning the peace is the fact that is missing here. — ssu
Perhaps you don't get my point: there has to be a peace that will prevail in the future. If the other side loses, then it loses and it is open to hear your terms. Yet if your terms are simply "drop dead" or there are no terms, then there is no reason to subject, but simply go on, plan how you can defeat the enemy occupier. Hence a war has been quite futile, if the peace will be broken in the future. — ssu
And what's the solution you have in mind? A final solution like Mr Hitler had in mind for the Jews? There's seven million Palestinians, so 'doing away' with seven million will get you into Guinness World of Records and topple Mr Hitler's previous Holocaust. That is neither possible or sustainable and quite deplorable. — ssu
How about Germany? — neomac
Actually with Germany this becomes even more clear when you think of the two Post German states! Which one experienced a revolt against it's occupier as early as the 1950's? Which had to build the Berlin wall to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the other Germany? And which Germany basically collapsed as a house of cards and end up in the dustbin of history after the unification of the two states? And finally, which Germany is still an ally of the US and is totally happy that the US has bases in it's territory? — ssu
Just having a war and winning the battles doesn't give you peace, especially if you don't think about what to do after a military victory. If you have only naive or delusional ideas that the people will thank you after you have bombed them or then just want retribution, the likelihood that peace will continue is doubtful. Didn't the Americans find out that after invading Iraq? Mission accomplished, as you remember
! Well, there the US is still stuck, have basically given the place to Iran with the Iraqi government asking the Americans to leave. — ssu
the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions. — neomac
Exactly. And that means you really have to take into consideration what the losing side WILL ACCEPT! True peace is what both sides can accept. But if you don't care shit about the enemy you have beaten or think of them as human animals who are incapable of handling themselves and are totally irresponsible, then you reap what you sow when the enemy comes back after a decade or two. Or continues simply continues the war with the limited resources it has. — ssu
Military build-up is an outcome of an agenda, it's not an agenda itself. NATO expansion was only one small reason, another was simply that there's only the narrative of Russia as an (threatened) empire. Russia simply cannot see itself as a nation state, because it isn't one made for just Russians. — ssu
Secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel today — neomac
I might have to disagree here, even if you make your point well. Religious zionism is far more intolerant at making compromises. At least the founding fathers assumed that in the future they ought to make peace with the Palestinians/Arabs. — ssu
In truth, the PLO/FATAH and the PA would have said again and again the pre-1967 borders would be enough for them. Even Hamas would have hinted at this (for example Benkei referred to this at the start of this thread). And there have been the Arab peace proposals, so you can look them up.
It's just one of the myths that the Arab/Palestinian side hasn't made any efforts at a negotiated peace themselves. — ssu
A bit off the topic, but this also is something not so obvious, was it the atomic bombs or was it actually the Russian attack on Japan? Or both? — ssu
If you ask for unconditional surrender and assume to get an unconditional surrender, then there has to be someone that SURRENDERS!Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes. — neomac
Oppression creates resistance. Yet if you after the peace leave the people alone or even go so far that help them to get on their feet, then actually you can look forward to a longstanding peace.To me the case of Germany suggests that the problem for a durable peace is not necessarily the amount of devastation, civilian deaths, unconditional surrender, and loss of territorial integrity. But how oppressive the victorious foreign power is perceived to be in peace settlements, AFTER the war is ACKNOWLEDGED as lost. — neomac
Well, this is of course self evident: If you wouldn't have had 75-year conflict but a peace then that had prevailed until today, naturally there wouldn't be the grievances of a 75-year conflict!I conceded as much: “it would have been easier to deal with secular zionism at the end of the British Mandate, then with non-secular zionism today, given the greater pragmatism of the former and a shorter list of historical grievances against Palestinians back the”. — neomac
And I was too.I was talking about Palestinians. — neomac
Arafat failed the test badly and set a precedent which obviously biased Israelis toward Palestinian terrorist organizations. — neomac
I think who ought to be congratulated are here the Americans in the way they handled both Germany and Japan after WW2. Because you can just compare at just how well the Treaty of Versailles served the French. Mr Hitler even got even the same railroad wagon for the French unconditional surrender.Japanese proved to be capable of that (and Hamas?) but evidently there were enough decision makers who rejected this logic (starting with the Emperor himself). — neomac
Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes.
For example, my understanding is that Netanyahu is going to destroy Hamas (and other militant groups’) military capacity and identified combatants in Gaza as thoroughly as possible and impose a West Bank regime in Gaza. Maybe complemented with some agreements with Egypt to accept and keep refugees in Sinai as long as needed.
:100: :up:As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Punshhh
As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Punshhh
Not sure what your point is:Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes. — neomac
If you ask for unconditional surrender and assume to get an unconditional surrender, then there has to be someone that SURRENDERS! — ssu
Hence history has shown, that you don't automatically get an unconditional surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of this. And if you think that the only way is then to take the Mongol Horde attitude to the strategy "make a desert and call it peace" of killing literally everybody, then go away only to come two weeks later to check that you really have killed off everyone, you still haven't create real peace for yourself: the Mongol Empire collapsed quite quickly to smaller parts. And isn't remembered so fondly afterwards. — ssu
Arafat failed the test badly and set a precedent which obviously biased Israelis toward Palestinian terrorist organizations. — neomac
And the Palestinian/Arab side can actually say the same things of Israel, which didn't accept the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 which was endorsed by the Arab League and immediately embraced by Jasser Arafat and later by Mahmoud Abbas. Polls have find that the Palestinians (then) were favourable towards it.
Yet The Israelis simply rejected it as a "non-starter". — ssu
.So why is it only the fault of the Arab side? — ssu
To me it's obvious. There's no real will for a negotiated peace or a two-state solution. The whole arena has been hijacked by religious extremists who have succeeded to burn every bridge towards peace. And those that accuse only one side about this aren't seeing the reality. — ssu
Japanese proved to be capable of that (and Hamas?) but evidently there were enough decision makers who rejected this logic (starting with the Emperor himself). — neomac
I think who ought to be congratulated are here the Americans in the way they handled both Germany and Japan after WW2. — ssu
But the order only succeeded when other nations went along with it, not by use of force and threat (as the Soviet Union did), but by cooperation. Places where the US has used old imperial ways aren't so happy with the Americans. — ssu
Somehow that idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation seems for many naive and wrong. — ssu
They weren’t born into a traumatised oppressed population as Palestinians are. If Hamas, surrenders now. The people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation. — Punshhh
This West Bank regime is the perniciously oppressive apartheid state I referred to. — Punshhh
I don’t see a solution here, a confederate state would be the same in all but name. — Punshhh
But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?
I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case.Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.
You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name.What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.
You might set your objective to that you fight a war to an unconditional surrender, but that doesn't mean that it happens automatically. Meaning that the defeated enemy can choose to surrender to you, hear your demands isn't something that automatically happens. Or simply doesn't appear to your surrender meeting. Hopefully you get it.Not sure what your point is: — neomac
Wrong. The Apartheid system started immediately after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza when the military occupation started. Far earlier than the first Intifada. See here.So the “Apartheid condition” you are talking about, is very much motivated by concerns over Palestinian terroristic attacks like those of Hamas. — neomac
Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Israeli citizens and enjoy the same rights and liberties as other Jewish Israelis. They also enjoy relative impunity for violence against Palestinians. Most of the West Bank’s Palestinian residents fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which operates under an expired presidential mandate and has no functioning legislature.
In the Apartheid system The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 made every Black South African, irrespective of actual residence, a citizen of one of the Bantustans, which were organized on the basis of ethnic and linguistic groupings defined by white ethnographers. Blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship and thereby excluded from the South African body politic.
But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?
↪neomac
Simply because the situation has worsened (the means and practice of the Israeli government and the IDF.)
This is self evident for these reasons;
The stand off between Israel and the leaders of Palestine has worsened and deepened over a long time, as each new conflict occurs. It only ever gets worse, not better.
There is clear evidence of Israeli leaders becoming militant, radicalised. This will only make the situation worse and make it more difficult for Israeli’s to trust Palestinians.
Their insensitivity to the plight as evidenced by their actions re’ Gaza and concerns of Palestinian people, suggests that they will remain insensitive in any subsequent Israeli controlled state. — Punshhh
What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.
You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name. — Punshhh
Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.
I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case. — Punshhh
Not sure what your point is: — neomac
You might set your objective to that you fight a war to an unconditional surrender, but that doesn't mean that it happens automatically. Meaning that the defeated enemy can choose to surrender to you, hear your demands isn't something that automatically happens. Or simply doesn't appear to your surrender meeting. Hopefully you get it. — ssu
So the “Apartheid condition” you are talking about, is very much motivated by concerns over Palestinian terroristic attacks like those of Hamas. — neomac
Wrong. The Apartheid system started immediately after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza when the military occupation started. Far earlier than the first Intifada. See here. — ssu
That Palestinians living in the occupied territories are under military law and aren't citizens of Israel while Israelis living in the West Bank are (and are under Israeli law), is the obvious sign of an Apartheid system.
And of course, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in Israeli elections as they aren't Israeli citizens. As there isn't an one state solution. Usually people living in a country are under the same laws and are considered citizens of the country. Not so in occupied territories that Israel holds.
That's one thing of the Apartheid system, — ssu
which started well before there was any Hamas formed. — ssu
In Israel:
Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Israeli citizens and enjoy the same rights and liberties as other Jewish Israelis. They also enjoy relative impunity for violence against Palestinians. Most of the West Bank’s Palestinian residents fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which operates under an expired presidential mandate and has no functioning legislature.
In Apartheid South Africa:
In the Apartheid system The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 made every Black South African, irrespective of actual residence, a citizen of one of the Bantustans, which were organized on the basis of ethnic and linguistic groupings defined by white ethnographers. Blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship and thereby excluded from the South African body politic.
Hopefully you do see the similarities and just why people can refer quite aptly the situation to Apartheid. — ssu
Dude, really? Is that the most you can do?
You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
The notion that an Israeli administration that would be introduced in Gaza would be an improvement on what was there before October 7th. Or that it would even come close to something acceptable to the Palestinian population is an extraordinary position
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. — Punshhh
You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
Perhaps we should try and agree what a state is first, or a human. — Punshhh
Some go with October 7th as the justification for "taking the gloves off" and everything else would be "appeasement" for them. — ssu
And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?
But I’m realising that you are not committing to a position on these questions. You’re just shooting down what people say. I ask for a counter argument and none is provided. You comment on some issue, but thats not making claims.You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.
looking at your discussion with SSU about what apartheid is I’ll give it a miss for now.Sure, if you suspect a disagreement between us over the notion of “state” or “human”. The point is that YOU feel compelled to call Israel an “Apartheid state” and want me to agree with you since you suspect a disagreement (and rightly so).
Sorry it’s something about the website that I haven’t got around to working out. Something to do with the quote feature I think.P.S. For some reason, I do not get notifications from you, even if you reference my nickname.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.