• neomac
    1.4k
    Why call it "so-called", if Trump helps Netanyahu's dream to be fulfilled? The next issue will be to argue that "ethnic cleansing" isn't genocide, because it isn't mentioned in the definition of a genocide (as is for example of forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, which Russia is doing in Ukraine). For the Netanyahu government, removal of Palestinians from the borders of Isreal (which include Gaza, West Bank, Golan Heights) seems to be a plausible long term solution. And obtainable.ssu

    There are POLITICAL reasons to call the overall Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza “a genocide” as much as there are POLITICAL reasons to call overall Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza “legitimate self-defence”.
    From a legal point of view, we can speculate that Israel committed a genocide or not (I would argue against), but what the ICC legally sentenced against “Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant” is that they committed war crimes and crimes against humanity not genocide, which people keep confusing to spin their propaganda. And talking about “war crimes” is hinting at the fact that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is dominated by a logic of war. The problem I see is that laws of war would make an armed conflict between 2 nations claiming statehood over the same “native” land impossible. By comparison, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is different in nature since they were universally and reciprocally acknowledged states. STILL there are allegations about war crimes (or genocides?) also there [1], so go figure what is likely to happen in a situation where 2 nations are warring over the same piece of land claimed as their “native” land.
    Before applying a ruling system over a piece of human domain, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to take into account under what conditions that human domain is amenable to be ruled by the referenced ruling system? It’s exactly their claims of “native” nation statehood over exactly the same piece of land that makes their violent conflicts to be perpetual until one of the two sides prevails or both extinguish. Calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing or appeal to laws of war are naive and myopic in that they overlook the inherent/conceptual conflict which deeply and widely inspires both communities. The way both communities FRAME their deepest political aspirations makes their aspirations inherently incompatible. So I find the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inherently much less amenable to elicit compliance to the laws of war than the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. And since I’m in a philosophy forum that is what I think it is worth stressing. Which is why I also find naive to take Netanyahou's psychology (or Trump's psychology) as bearing some fundamental explanatory power over dynamics that deeply concern their people's aspirations.


    [1] … but the Russians have been provoked and yada yada yada as the apologists of Russian war crimes and genocide against Ukrainians are claiming (see how easy it is to accuse somebody to be an apologist of genocide with miserable rhetoric tricks?)



    If the destabilization of especially Jordan (and Egypt) is the next issue on the agenda, then hardly anything else would be more effective that this. The last thing that the governments of these two countries want to be is willing participants and enablers of the ultra-nationalist zionists plans for moving all Palestinians out of Israel. As Jordan had to fight earlier the PLO earlier and the Egyptians are no backers of Hamas, the last thing for the two countries is to have huge refugee camps of Palestinians with Hamas.
    Also, the fact that the border between Jordan and Egypt have stayed peaceful is because both of the countries armed forces can ensure their side of the peace deal with Israel. That's what an actual peace means. Hamas in the refugee camps won't have none of that.
    ssu

    But if Palestinians (not Hamas, Palestinians) are destabilising for Jordan and Egypt despite being mostly all charitable arab-muslim brothers, then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that Palestinians ruled by Hamas can be destabilising for Israel, right?
  • ssu
    8.9k
    But if Palestinians (not Hamas, Palestinians) are destabilising for Jordan and Egypt despite being mostly all charitable arab-muslim brothers, then it shouldn’t be hard to understand that Palestinians ruled by Hamas can be destabilising for Israel, right?neomac
    Your enemy in a conflict is naturally destabilizing. How could it be something else, because it's your enemy?

    Yet you can see the obvious problem with let's say with the PLO and Jordan. Yes, King Hussein did give them sanctuary. But having a large independent armed force (or separate forces) in a little country isn't something very secure. The whole thing ended up with Black September, or what sometimes is called Jordanian Civil War. This event from history should be remembered, when people just assume that other Arab states should happily bare the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Worth watching, if one isn't familiar with Jordanian and Palestinian history:
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    I disagree. The PLO doesn't have it's roots in Islamism, as Hamas has.ssu

    Take a look at the PLO's draft constitution.

    Article 6

    Islam shall be the official religion of the state. The monotheistic religions shall be respected.

    Article 7

    The principles of the Islamic Shari`a are a primary source for legislation. The legislative branch shall determine personal status law under the authority of the monotheistic religions according to their denominations, in keeping with the provisions of the constitution and the preservation of unity, stability, and advancement of the Palestinian people.

    https://pcpsr.org/en/node/487

    It's not that the Palestinians don't have an identity. It's just that their identity is Islamic and tribal. And Islam is a religion that, since its inception, has been intent on spreading. There is no truly secular force in Palestinian society today. The Palestinians are simply on the front lines of the Islamic war on the West. Religions + ethnic customs are much deeper rooted than ideas about statehood in the near east. There was no need for "Palestinianism" under the Ottomans. It was only ever because Jews were in charge as a form of revanchism. We should all know the fruits of revanchism by now.

    And of course in the 1948 the neighboring Arab states weren't defending the Palestinians, but trying to carve up the former British Mandate.

    There was no Palestinian national identity at this point. We could also call Jews "Palestinians" in 1948.

    And here lies the absurdity of the situation: you are referring to PA and Palestinians under Hamas, but then again would they have then their independent statehood? No.ssu

    I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    I agree it's an undesirable situation. Unrestricted borders would be too big of a security risk for Israel.BitconnectCarlos
    Israel's basic paradox is that it would need a strong state capable of defending it's territory (as Egypt and Jordan) in order for there to be peace. These two countries can keep non-state actors out. Lebanon is a perfect example of a weak state incapable of controlling it's borders. Yet as there is no trust or faith in the other side, this won't happen. A Palestinian state capable of controlling it's borders would also present a threat to Israel. Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    Hence it looks like present administration Israel wants to go for some kind of a "final solution" option in the long term.ssu

    Frivolous wording. There is no "final solution" here. Exile is not genocide, and could improve the lives of the Palestinians considerably if they were wrenched from their culture.
  • Tzeentch
    3.9k
    There's a reason the mustachioed gentleman referred to the extermination of the Jews as the final solution. Earlier attempts at deportation had failed.

    Such a peculiar set of footsteps Israel's hardliners are choosing to follow into.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    Yet you can see the obvious problem with let's say with the PLO and Jordan. Yes, King Hussein did give them sanctuary. But having a large independent armed force (or separate forces) in a little country isn't something very secure. The whole thing ended up with Black September, or what sometimes is called Jordanian Civil War. This event from history should be remembered, when people just assume that other Arab states should happily bare the burden of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.ssu

    Sure I can get that, it's compelling what you say. But I would also highlight two points: 1) the Palestinian resistance needs political and financial support to turn into a real threat, back then it was mainly Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya, today it's mainly Iran, but will Iran still be able to support the Palestinian resistance in the near future, after its proxies have been wrecked and while still being under the threat of Israeli retaliation? Plus Trump? Plus Saudi Arabia fearing Iran? 2) External support aside, there is the threat of fragile borders as you warned, but here I see a security dilemma: are Palestinians more of a threat to Israel from Gaza or in exile? Spreading exiled Palestinians over more than one country, keeping them far from the borders and favoring programs for their assimilation among charitable arab-muslim borthers (instead of keeping them in refugee camps) could make them less of a threat not only for Israel but also for the hosting countries. Or at least, this would be more preferable to a "final solution" by all involved parties, I guess.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    Apart from the fact that the Nazis were ideologically pretty vocal about their genocidal intent, I can get why sending millions of Jews from Germany to Madagascar (a French colony) more than 8k km far away, during the Second World War wasn't as practical as exterminating them. But how about internationally agreeing on sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries (hundreds of km far away) with no World War around? I don't think it's matter of being that unpractical.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves. Forced removal of people where they have always lived is a vicious, hateful idea that shows how unethical or lacking moral character a person is. Refugees are given sanctuary with the idea of them being really refugees, people that go back from where they fled once there's peace. Migrants are tolerated, if they bring something to the economy. Forced transfer people aren't refugees or migrants, because they have not opted to do this in any way voluntary. It was a hideous thing for Stalin to do and would be a similar thing now for us to do or to accept. It seems that we are just racing to lower our ethical standards. No wonder values of the Enlightenment are under attack in the West.

    If you desperately want to instantiate and aide the religious extremists in Israel in their dream of creating an Israel only for the Jews, then do their dirty work and assist them by opening your home to those people forced out from their homeland. Be the willing henchman yourself. Do not imagine that the forced transfer wouldn't be wrong, or that someone else would happily assist in this. After all,

    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
    With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    That Egypt and Jordan are totally against these ideas is clearly understandable.



    Of course, the extremist Smotrich welcomes Trump's idea. Why not, Trump gives credence to their ideas of a "final solution" for the Palestinian question.

    (Alarabiya News/AFP)Far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Sunday welcomed US President Donald Trump’s idea to “clean out” Gaza by relocating Palestinian residents of the territory to Egypt and Jordan.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves.ssu

    Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, or from “I don't think it's matter of being that unpractical”, to “it’s practical”, or to “a great solution” so easily.


    Forced removal of people where they have always lived is a vicious, hateful idea that shows how unethical or lacking moral character a person is. Refugees are given sanctuary with the idea of them being really refugees, people that go back from where they fled once there's peace. Migrants are tolerated, if they bring something to the economy. Forced transfer people aren't refugees or migrants, because they have not opted to do this in any way voluntary. It was a hideous thing for Stalin to do and would be a similar thing now for us to do or to accept. It seems that we are just racing to lower our ethical standards. No wonder values of the Enlightenment are under attack in the West.

    If you desperately want to instantiate and aide the religious extremists in Israel in their dream of creating an Israel only for the Jews, then do their dirty work and assist them by opening your home to those people forced out from their homeland. Be the willing henchman yourself. Do not imagine that the forced transfer wouldn't be wrong, or that someone else would happily assist in this
    ssu

    I’m far from making an ethical point or suggesting (to whom?) a political solution though. I’m a nobody, don’t pretend to know everything that matters about everything and everybody on the topic, nor am I interested at all in political activism, at least in here. So I’m not going to take your remarks in personal terms, if that was your goal. I’m simply reasoning over the conditions amenable to one or the other solution. To me, the peculiar case of the Israel-Palestinian conflict stems from the conceptual impasse I was talking about. Appeal to national self-determination and national statehood historically emerged and worked better at time of empires. But neither Palestine nor Israel (however shaped as a colonialist project in modern times) are empires. That’s also why comparisons to Stalin’s Russia (which actually deported Crimean Tatars) or Putin’s Russia (which actually deported Ukrainians), both motivated by imperialist ambitions, aren’t as compelling as you think.
    Besides much depends on how the re-location of the Palestinians from Gaza is actually executed and perceived by the Palestinians. After all in a war like context re-location of civilians is done to preserve civilians life, e.g. through humanitarian corridors. But of course one can stay and risk their lives and freedom with no deportation by the hostile forces, still their lives will remain miserable. On the other side an international agreement over spreading exiled Palestinians (not all the Gazans) over more than one country, keeping them far from the borders and favoring programs for their assimilation among charitable arab-muslim brothers (instead of keeping them in refugee camps) could make them less of a threat not only for Israel but also for the hosting countries.
    I would additionally stress that also keeping the borders closed and/or Palestinians in refugee camps besides being ethically questionable from a humanitarian or Muslim point of view, it also contributes to perpetrate the conflict. If Palestinians do not have anywhere else to go to flee from the war (unlike millions of Syrians) and to make a decent living, they are forced to suffer the consequences of a foreign occupation and/or fight against Israel for having their own state.
    Are there more desirable outcomes? Of course, my challenge will remain the same: what are the circumstances more likely amenable to reach those outcomes to you, INDEPENDENTLY from whether you personally are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel? Do you see such circumstances available now or in the foreseeable future?
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    Anyone suggesting that forced removal of people from where they have always lived is practical, or a great solution, should then be ready to take those people themselves.ssu

    Just make the offer first. As long as the decision to move is seen as individual and not national, people will go. Gazans are tired of the fighting. Hamas btw is now killing Gazans on the street and hunting down around ~400 more for "stealing" humanitarian aid. A ticket out of Gaza now could be a lifeline.

    I think quite a few Gazans would choose to leave voluntarily if it were purely their own decision and they were promised stability elsewhere.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”,neomac
    Neomac, that is the issue here.

    When have Palestinian refugees that have fled had the ability to come back?

    Never.

    Not after 1948, not after 1967. Hence it is simply ridiculous to assume that "Simply move the people away while the place is refurbished". It's not a naive idea, it's an astoundingly stupid, ignorant idea. Besides, if this would really would be so "temporary", then have the Palestinian camp inside Israel, built in the Negev. There's vacant room there.


    Appeal to national self-determination and national statehood historically emerged and worked better at time of empires. But neither Palestine nor Israel (however shaped as a colonialist project in modern times) are empires. That’s also why comparisons to Stalin’s Russia (which actually deported Crimean Tatars) or Putin’s Russia (which actually deported Ukrainians), both motivated by imperialist ambitions, aren’t as compelling as you think.neomac
    Lol.

    Ruanda isn't an Empire. And Azerbaijan isn't an empire and neither is Burma. Yugoslavia wasn't an emprie, but killing people and cleansing the "unwanted people" away has happened in them. This isn't just done on imperial motives. So it's your argument that isn't at all compelling.

    If people are treated as second rate citizens with different laws than the ruling people and these want to have an independent state, then it's a fundamental problem for the society and it just doesn't go away easily. And anyway, Palestinians and Israelis aren't talking anymore or trying to find a peaceful solution. They only are able to have a periodic cease-fire.

    Are there more desirable outcomes?neomac
    If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.

    The so called "Oslo Peace process" was an oddity of a moment that won't come back. Those Israeli politicians that attempted a peace aren't getting back to power. Or then Bibi would have to fail again miserably. What we are seeing is moderate Israelis leaving the country and the previously secular Israel changing to a more religious country. And of course Israel's actions don't make it any easier for a Palestinian "moderate" to surface.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    The whole Israeli objective is to make living unbearable and basically impossible in Gaza. As long as Israel's trading partners don't be upset about it as long there is no media outrage. I think that's the way the final solution for the Palestinians is implemented.

    I think quite a few Gazans would choose to leave voluntarily if it were purely their own decision and they were promised stability elsewhere.BitconnectCarlos
    They likely would want to come to the US. Still you can "become" American, even if Trump is making a great effort to stop that idea and go with the more traditional nativity. Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    The whole Israeli objective is to make living unbearable and basically impossible in Gaza. As long as Israel's trading partners don't be upset about it as long there is no media outrage. I think that's the way the final solution for the Palestinians is implemented.ssu

    I suppose the Allies "final solutioned" Nazi Germany by making life unbearable for them. It's called losing a war that you started.

    Many of them would even go along with the idea that they would be now Americans and not anymore just Palestinians.ssu

    What do you know about Palestinians and their integration tendencies or are you just speculating? In any case, they're not coming to the US under Trump. Indonesia or Albania, maybe. Sometimes a people need to be scattered so the toxic elements can be removed and they can continue living in a healthier way.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    Let’s not shift from “sending hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in different neighbouring charitable and brotherly muslim-arab countries” to “forced removal of people”, — neomac

    Neomac, that is the issue here.

    When have Palestinian refugees that have fled had the ability to come back?

    Never.

    Not after 1948, not after 1967. Hence it is simply ridiculous to assume that "Simply move the people away while the place is refurbished". It's not a naive idea, it's an astoundingly stupid, ignorant idea. Besides, if this would really would be so "temporary", then have the Palestinian camp inside Israel, built in the Negev. There's vacant room there.
    ssu

    OK and when did Palestinians who remain in Gaza have the ability to impose their will on the Israelis instead of losing more territories, people, livelihood and freedom, exactly? How smart and long-sighted is that? Where did I assume that “simply move the people away while the place is refurbished”, exactly? That’s not what I argued. Remember it’s not your skin we are talking about but Palestinians and Israelis’ skin. So it’s up to Palestinians to choose between a cycle of massacre overwhelmingly in favour of Israel and having a life as a refugee especially if they can be assimilated instead of being ghettoed in refugees camps by allegedly charitable arab-muslim brothers.



    Ruanda isn't an Empire. And Azerbaijan isn't an empire and neither is Burma. Yugoslavia wasn't an emprie, but killing people and cleansing the "unwanted people" away has happened in them. This isn't just done on imperial motives. So it's your argument that isn't at all compelling.ssu

    You don’t seem to follow my reasoning. Indeed, what I meant to suggest is that the right comparison is not between Israel and Soviet Union or Russia as you previously did, but between the case of Israel and what happened in Rwanda, or Azerbajan or Yugoslavia as you now do. Exactly. And while we can invoke national self-determination and statehood to counter imperial ambitions (see Soviet Union and Russia), we can’t do the same when national self-determination and statehood can be achieved only at the expense of other people’s national self-determination and statehood like in Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yugoslavia. That’s the impasse I was talking about and the reason why the cycle of violence can easily re-emerge, escalate and get vicious.


    If both sides would want genuine peace, yes. But they don't. The Likud wants a victory over the Palestinians, Israel being from the river to the sea without any Palestinian entity between it. And they believe that they are succeeding in this. And why not. There seem to be no actual negative things for this as Bibi only needs Trump's ear. Europe doesn't matter at all and China isn't interested.
    The so called "Oslo Peace process" was an oddity of a moment that won't come back. Those Israeli politicians that attempted a peace aren't getting back to power. Or then Bibi would have to fail again miserably. What we are seeing is moderate Israelis leaving the country and the previously secular Israel changing to a more religious country. And of course Israel's actions don't make it any easier for a Palestinian "moderate" to surface.
    ssu

    So, in short, you are telling me that while things are getting worse for Palestinians after losing all they have lost so far, because Israelis are becoming more radical, it would be less naive stupid for "moderate" Palestinians to insist to remain in Gaza despite having the possibility to move somewhere else more welcoming because Allah knows if they will ever manage to come back and reclaim their land than doing otherwise?
  • ssu
    8.9k
    And while we can invoke national self-determination and statehood to counter imperial ambitions (see Soviet Union and Russia), we can’t do the same when national self-determination and statehood can be achieved only at the expense of other people’s national self-determination and statehood like in Rwanda, Azerbaijan, Yugoslavia. That’s the impasse I was talking about and the reason why the cycle of violence can easily re-emerge, escalate and get vicious.neomac
    I'm not following your reasoning here at all. It doesn't make any sense.

    First of all, any secessionist movement where one people get independence from another is a loss to the previous state, be it Imperial Russia, Yugoslavia or Sweden (with Norway). The former state loses territory and citizens to the new state, whatever kind of state it is. Yet states and countries have the ability to be in peace afterwards. The violent nationalism and jingoism can be put aside and relations be improved, even after a war. Norwegians and Swedes come along well, even if Sweden fought it's last war against Norway, which in turn got it's independence from Sweden with a popular vote. (Notice that Norway has been part of both Sweden and Denmark.)

    The obvious fact is that Palestinians already have accepted the loss of pre-1967 territories and hold on to the UN ruling about the conquered territories during the Six Day war. The Oslo peace process was about dividing this remaining part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, to form a Palestinian state. But now that is out of the question. So I don't understand at all your idea here.

    Or then you take granted the Israeli propaganda that there cannot be peace as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this.ssu

    I get it; you don't want to believe that this is the case. It would be too ugly. Many of the 10/7 victims living on those kibbutzim on the border felt the same. We can see the world how we want to, or how it is.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    I get it; you don't want to believe that this is the case. It would be too ugly. Many of the 10/7 victims living on those kibbutzim on the border felt the same. We can see the world how we want to, or how it is.BitconnectCarlos
    I guess that the reasoning of remember 10/7 will have the lifespan as 9/11 was the reason for intervening everywhere. About two decades at most.

    For you it's just the reasoning you need for your own stance. Next obvious question that you totally ignore is "how". The simply fact is that Hamas and PLO simply cannot destroy the IDF even theoretically, which just makes this argument nonsense. But just as the stance that there's nobody to negotiate with, that Palestinians just want to kill every Jew they can, will reassure your own justifications.

    I'm only holding the view that there isn't a possibility for a negotiated peace and the current Israeli government thinks that in the long term a military solution can be achieved and the price that Israel would have to pay will be minimal.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    First of all, any secessionist movement where one people get independence from another is a loss to the previous state, be it Imperial Russia, Yugoslavia or Sweden (with Norway). The former state loses territory and citizens to the new state, whatever kind of state it is.ssu

    That's a good point. However secession is not about land but about central-government. Different geographic parts of a land under the same sovereign central government claim independence from that central government and want to establish their own sovereign government.
    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization.


    Yet states and countries have the ability to be in peace afterwards. The violent nationalism and jingoism can be put aside and relations be improved, even after a war. Norwegians and Swedes come along well, even if Sweden fought it's last war against Norway, which in turn got it's independence from Sweden with a popular vote. (Notice that Norway has been part of both Sweden and Denmark.)ssu

    You are arguing for a possibility by finding historical examples non related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I can argue for the possibility of a perpetual conflict more pertinently based on Jewish history and their life-or-death fight against Amalec.
    However, I’m not arguing for random possibilities but about conditions amenable to a solution or another. And what’s funny is that, while musing over possible worlds, you seem to keep arguing that currently there are no such conditions, because Netanyahu and who backs him are animated by blood-lust, “moderate” Israelis are leaving Israel and more radical religious jews remain, “moderate” Palestinians can’t emerge after all devastation Israel brought to the Palestinians, even more so if they fear to be forcibly deported elsewhere or live as refugees else where, etc.
    And I may roughly agree on that part. But your historical, sociological and psychological considerations however plausible or correct are philosophically uninteresting to me because they aren’t about core conceptual frames. Here the philosophical issue I see is that these people have incompatible claims over the same “native” land. Nobody can fix that by invoking national self-determination and statehood. That’s my point. And as long as both people will frame this in terms of national self-determination and statehood over the same “native” land, there will always be pretexts for violence, war, war crimes, cleansing, genocide.

    The obvious fact is that Palestinians already have accepted the loss of pre-1967 territories and hold on to the UN ruling about the conquered territories during the Six Day war. The Oslo peace process was about dividing this remaining part of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, to form a Palestinian state. But now that is out of the question. So I don't understand at all your idea here.

    Or then you take granted the Israeli propaganda that there cannot be peace as Palestinians and Arabs will simply want to throw them into the sea and abolish the Israeli state. And any Palestinian state, how small or large, will continue this.
    ssu

    This claim “Palestinians already have accepted the loss of pre-1967 territories and hold on to the UN ruling about the conquered territories during the Six Day war” sounds roughly right but it’s quite generic and decontextualised. When Palestinian representatives like Arafat made those acknowledgements how representative or authoritative were they wrt their own people? The same goes with Rabin. If one or both sides aren’t in political conditions to ENFORCE what they have acknowledged or agreed upon, acknowledgements and agreements can’t be considered authoritative/representative.
    This contributed to build deep distrust between the two communities and relentless blame games which is part of the conditions non-amenable to find a peaceful solution. But that’s not all: there are security concerns like Russia has. If Russia the biggest country on earth which already acknowledged the Ukrainian territorial sovereignty and has already been acknowledged territorial sovereignty by Urkaine feels an existential threat (to its empire?) from Ukraine deciding for its own security and strategically allying with the West (which also acknowledges Russia’s territorial sovereignty) to the point of invading Ukraine, committing a genocide (right?), deporting Ukrainian people and annexing/colonizing Ukrainian territories (and notice it's all/mostly/primarily Ukrainians' fault according to pro-Russian "useful idiots" in this forum), even though Ukrainians have never ever attacked Russia proper, and keep making nuclear threats what should a small Israel pursuing just its own nation state but repeatedly aggressed by Palestinians and other Muslim-Arab neighbouring countries in its recent history, non-acknowledged by prominent Palestinian political representatives (Hamas has never acknowledged Israel territorial sovereignty) and with Palestinians strategically allied with Israel’s strategic archenemy, namely Iran (which doesn’t acknowledge Israel territorial sovereignty either) do?
    Now, let’s talk propaganda, sooooooooo… you are telling me along with the self-entitled nobodies in this thread with no skin in the game at all that BRANDING THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND THE PALESTINIANS’ BRAIN AND PEDAGOGY (BECAUSE THIS WILL GO IN TO SCHOOL HISTORY BOOKS, RIGHT?) WITH THE IDEA THAT ISRAEL IS A GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST STATE WHICH STOLE LANDS FROM PALESTINIANS is more amenable to a peaceful 2 state solution between Palestinians and Israelis, and bears no risks of Palestinian revanchism and war exploitable by foreign powers hostile to Israel? Are you fucking nuts?!

    Before commenting, maybe read more carefully what I write and also what you write. Because in your last comment you didn’t seem to have done either.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization.neomac
    It really isn't so different. It's just marketed as such.

    Do notice that Israel has expanded the jewish colonies in order to make more clear that the land is in doubt. If Stalin transferred native populations away from their homelands to Siberia, he also transferred Russians into these conquered territories. Hence the Russian minorities in the Baltic States haven't happened because of only voluntary work related migration. This can be seen from the fact that Finland was over a hundred years part of the Russian Empire, yet it has only a small minority of Russian Finns (about 1,7% of the whole population) as the Grand Dutchy didn't experience Russification. Hence this is a similar phenomenon happening here as obviously Israel's justification for territory would be dubious if no Jewish settlers would live there.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about conflicting claims over the same “native” land, re-location of people and colonization. — neomac

    It really isn't so different. It's just marketed as such.
    ssu

    Even if you wanna put it in these terms, still, it’s selling way more than marketing the idea that “It really isn't so different” from a secession case like between Norway and Sweden. So maybe that’s all what they want to hear?
    Unfortunately it’s very much different, Jews can hold Samaria, Judea and Jerusalem their “native” land given their culturale heritage. Palestinians can hold the same for their cultural heritage. So their aspirations of reaching national sovereignty over those same lands is incompatible, it doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, or who is responsible of this, or started it first. While Norway and Sweden were just fine to establish their sovereign states each on their side of the Scandinavia peninsula.

    Do notice that Israel has expanded the jewish colonies in order to make more clear that the land is in doubt.ssu

    That’s perfectly consistent with what I just said, and you are trying to downplay this fact not only in name of historical examples that have little to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (BTW in Norway how popular is the idea that Sweden was a colonialist apartheid genocidal state against Norwegians and stole Norwegian lands before peacefully gaining their nation state from Sweden back then and/or now ?) but also against your own assessment of the predicament Israelis and Palestinians are currently in.
  • ssu
    8.9k
    Unfortunately it’s very much different, Jews can hold Samaria, Judea and Jerusalem their “native” land given their culturale heritage.neomac
    All I'm saying that this is quite similar as many other reasons given for conflicts. I agree that it's totally unfruitful to ponder who is right and wrong. The fact is that Jews moved into Israel and established their state on a former British mandate that earlier was part of the Ottoman Empire. That there is no will (on both sides, I guess) to assimilate the population that lived there causes a problem.

    This conflict could have ended as the Cold War ended in a negotiated peace, but it didn't. And now it is extremely unlikely.

    That the US is an integral part of the conflict (as an ally of Israel) and Arab countries and later Iran has made the conflict a question for themselves doesn't help.
  • neomac
    1.4k
    All I'm saying that this is quite similar as many other reasons given for conflicts.ssu

    Similar in some ways different in others. I'm highlighting the latter: the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not like the hegemonic conflict between Russia and Ukraine, nor like a session conflict as in the American civil war. Precisely, because they are fighting to establish national sovereignty over the very same land.

    The fact is that Jews moved into Israel and established their state on a former British mandate that earlier was part of the Ottoman Empiressu

    Here are other similar facts: Europeans moved to North/South America and Australia and established their state (was that a genocide?). Arabs moved to Palestine and North Africa and established their state (was that a genocide?). Now what are we going to do about these facts?


    This conflict could have ended as the Cold War ended in a negotiated peace, but it didn't. And now it is extremely unlikely.

    That the US is an integral part of the conflict (as an ally of Israel) and Arab countries and later Iran has made the conflict a question for themselves doesn't help.
    ssu

    But apparently for the screaming monkeys in the West it's enough to scream louder to fix everything show off the wonders of their righteousness & critical minds.
  • Mikie
    6.8k
    Glad the ceasefire is holding and the Israeli terrorists haven’t continued their genocide. Still so many babies left to murder— must be so hard for them to resist.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    Anti-zionism = anti-semitism.
  • frank
    16.4k

    What about being apathetic about Zionism? Is that Judeo-apathy?
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k


    Judeo-apathy would be a good descriptor.
  • frank
    16.4k
    Judeo-apathy would be a good descriptor.BitconnectCarlos

    For what?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.