No, you're again not able to read English. Keep trying. Read the posts again and try to figure out where you went wrong. — Baden

No, not falling for the bait.. Now you're trying to have some caveat..things that I address (even if you have less weapons).. You brought up ideas of occupying force (maybe that to you allows for justification for something.. not violence though it seems but some sort of "fighting").. Otherwise, I don't get why you won't accept the conclusion I have made, because you seemed to have a strong condemnation by focusing mainly on this statement (the un-wishy-washy one) here:

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Don't worry, you'll get there. What is that a condemnation of, specifically?

Don't worry, you'll get there. What is that a condemnation of, specifically? — Baden

Yes, targeting civilians.. So as long as its military force its a-ok. Got it. So not violence in general, only towards military targets.. And I would guess if Israel acted (for parity) you would say the only legitimate action would be targeting Hamas fighters (assuming Israel is simply trying to get rid of the threat at hand and not solve the whole crisis which is a much bigger issue than the violence happening on the ground). But I put a lot in there, so you can parse away.

Yes, targeting civilians.. — schopenhauer1

Correct.

Now, is this conclusion, as it is phrased, general or specific in terms of the target of the violence?

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power). — schopenhauer1

It's hard to think of a group that Westerners care more about being killed than the Palestinians actually, aside from other Westerners in wealthy nations. It's a high profile conflict that has been given the weight of the Culture War.

The recent war in Armenia and the ongoing war in Ukraine is killing more people, and white people at that, and it isn't particularly interesting to Western audiences.

Now, is this conclusion, as it is phrased, general or specific in terms of the target of the violence? — Baden

What do you want me to agree with? Specific, and then I went a bit further.. Now are you reading the full posts?

Yes, targeting civilians.. So as long as its military force its a-ok. Got it. So not violence in general, only towards military targets.. And I would guess if Israel acted (for parity) you would say the only legitimate action would be targeting Hamas fighters (assuming Israel is simply trying to get rid of the threat at hand and not solve the whole crisis which is a much bigger issue than the violence happening on the ground). But I put a lot in there, so you can parse away. — schopenhauer1

This point was brought up and dealt with earlier in the thread.

It's hard to think of a group that Westerners care more about being killed than the Palestinians actually, aside from other Westerners in wealthy nations. It's a high profile conflict that has been given the weight of the Culture War.

The recent war in Armenia and the ongoing war in Ukraine is killing more people, and white people at that, and it isn't particularly interesting to Western audiences. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As an experiment, you should start a thread and see how many unenthusiastic responses you get for it. You'll get your answer. Or rather, just see how long that thread goes.. Harder to judge enthusiasm for a topic, but it's clear in the animus and emotion in the responses.

Specific, — schopenhauer1

Incorrect. The correct answer is "general", which is why it was wrong in a very obvious way. The specific stuff you wrote later.

Incorrect. The correct answer is "general", which is why it was wrong in a very obvious way. The specific stuff you wrote later. — Baden

I'm not getting your point. I used the term "violence".. You were more specific that you were against "targeting civilians" which is more specific. That's was I was thinking you were getting at.

I then came to the conclusion (maybe wrong, you tell me then) that you are okay with violence against military.

Another example:

That's how I was thinking you were getting at. — schopenhauer1

Do you mean

"That's what I was thinking you were getting at"?

Are you using your phone and getting auto-corrected or English is not your native language or what? Serious question.

"That's what I was thinking you were getting at"?

Are you using your phone and getting auto-corrected or English is not your native language or what? Serious question. — Baden

NO I just like to get my reply out without editing. I go back and edit later. As I did even before you pointed that out.

NO I just like to get my reply out without editing. I go back and edit later. — schopenhauer1

Brilliant. I get it now. I'll just go back to the start, seeing as you've edited everything now and my replies were to the unedited versions and so may not make sense any more, and we can begin again.

Edit: Having checked, it is indeed a hot mess. My sincere apologies to any poor soul who dared to read through that.

No, yes, no, sometimes, no. Good night. — Baden

I mean you can just say, "edit your responses to be more clear". Not sure if you are trying to say that in a clever way or something.

No, yes, no, sometimes, no. Good night.

By the way, how did my response get positioned before yours? Haha

The icing on the cake :lol:

(Those are my answers to your original edited post btw).

(Those are my answers to your original edited post btw). — Baden

Can you quote which particular questions you are answering in the "original edited post" (is that the first in the recent exchange)? I can't quite align it, unless you're trying to be cheeky or something and those aren't real answers to anything.

They're in order. You can click the reply link to your post and they should line up. Otherwise, I might flesh it out tomorrow. It's 1am here. Going to bed soon.

cheeky — schopenhauer1

Moi?

Trying to align it.. Correct me when you're rested.

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1

Baden: No

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

Baden: Yes

If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

Baden: No.. (though I guess kind of confusing but this question would have only been contingent if you said "No' to the previous question. If you did answer "yes" to the question above, then you already agreed that "other options than violence should be used". However, all of this confusion on my part can be due to the fact that I am not aligning this to the right question).

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence? — schopenhauer1

Baden: Sometimes

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends? — schopenhauer1

Baden: No..

This could all be misaligned, but if you have corrections, please let me know.

@BitconnectCarlos
In an imaginary world where all Palestinian factions decided 1967 borders were acceptable and right of return was stricken from the table, do you think Israelis would even vote for it?

Granted that's very imaginary as that right of return thing is always the kicker..

Also, just wondering, besides "spoils of war" was there an initial reason for the settlements? I do know the ultra-orthodox tend to want control of that area because it aligns more with the ancient Judean kingdom/province, so has Biblical and historical significance.

Edit; Nevermind.. I answered my own question.. In the name of security I'm guessing. But military outposts would have been more appropriate to actual security. Settlements seem to be gambling with people's lives on both fronts.

Trying to align it.. Correct me when you're rested.

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: No — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. I don't agree. The statement is too general.

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X".
— schopenhauer1

Baden: Yes — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. Yes, there are some situations where other options should be used but certain acts of violence are justified in certain situations.

If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

Baden: No. — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. There have to be limits to what's justified even in war.

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: Sometimes — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. It just depends on the specific scenario. For example, if the IDF invaded Gaza, Palestinian militants would be justified in resisting the invasion with force. Just as if Palestinian militants invaded Israel, the converse would be true. Sometimes one or the other may be more or less justified in using violence. The asymmetry is that Israel is the occupier. In that sense, their violence is constant.

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends?
— schopenhauer1

Baden: No.. — schopenhauer1

That's my answer. There is an asymmetry but I covered this in my very first answer. It doesn't justify attacks on civilians. But this is what happens, tit-for-tat punishment attacks against the innocent create a spiral of hatred that prolongs conflicts. It happened in N. Ireland and it continues to happen in Israel/Palestine. It doesn't seem like an accident either, but a deliberate strategy.

I still don't really know what you're getting at here.

In an imaginary world where all Palestinian factions decided 1967 borders were acceptable and right of return was stricken from the table, do you think Israelis would even vote for it? — schopenhauer1

Yes, and we've already been there with the 2000 Camp David Accords. The Israelis offered that and Arafat rejected. Israel has offered insane concessions in the past including returning all of Gaza and the WB + a good chunk of Jerusalem itself including the Old City. I specifically remember Israel offered 1/2 to 3/4 of the Old City which is very generous for a stronger power to offer. I can't speak for this current administration, but past Israeli administrations would have absolutely gone for it. Hamas has never offered this though.

Also, just wondering, besides "spoils of war" was there an initial reason for the settlements? I do know the ultra-orthodox tend to want control of that area because it aligns more with the ancient Judean kingdom/province, so has Biblical and historical significance. — schopenhauer1

It's not just spoils of war or security. There's been Jewish communities in that region for 3000 years, so when territory is won back that territory will often have Jewish communities who want to join up with Israel. The thing about the Middle East is that these strict boundaries or borders are a relatively new phenomenon. Arab and Jewish communities had been living side by side for thousands of years all mixed together and now when we draw these borders things can get awkward.

Yes, and we've already been there with the 2000 Camp David Accords. The Israelis offered that and Arafat rejected. — BitconnectCarlos

God, next to being uncritical you're also poorly informed.

You're referring to the Camp David Summit and Israel never offered the 1967 borders at all. Palestinians offered several concessions such as land for land to break the impasse. And the idea that the Israelis are magnanimous for returning land that they stole is the typical Orwellian turn that should be resisted. It is not courageous when you're doing things you're supposed to do. You don't get a fucking sticker for giving up the proceeds of a crime.

As Norman Finkelstein wrote: "Judged from the perspective of Palestinians' and Israelis' respective rights under international law, all the concessions at Camp David came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side."

And the idea that the Israelis are magnanimous for returning land that they stole is the typical Orwellian turn that should be resisted. — Benkei

No, they stole our land. We're just being nice enough to give some our land to them. It is not their land. You're just insanely biased in favor of the Arabs for some reason. Are you white or are you an Arab, because if you're a white non-muslim I have no idea what causes you to read history this way. If you're an Arab muslim it makes sense.

If you're really a white European who believes that the issue began in 1947 or '48 then you're really just playing your own game. Everybody else is playing baseball and you're off playing handball with yourself in the corner. Sure, maybe if everything just magically begins in '47 then Israel is the "bad guy" who knows? Who cares? But that's your own viewing of the conflict and it's not one that the actual players in the game share.

Please explain to me e.g. why an Arab massacre perpetrated against the Jews in 1941 in Iraq doesn't matter in this. Is it because Israel wasn't a state? Tell that the Jews.

Please explain to me e.g. why an Arab massacre perpetrated against the Jews in 1941 in Iraq doesn't matter in this. Is it because Israel wasn't a state? Tell that the Jews. — BitconnectCarlos

"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now"

Imagine if Israel started making concentration camps for Germans. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't mind that.

No, they stole our land. — BitconnectCarlos

Right. Like Sudan was stolen form Egypt since Egypt owned it 4000+ years ago so Sudan is actually rightfully Egyptian land and this justifies an invasion of Sudan and to confine Sudanese people to small portion of the country (that also happens to be split in 2).

No, they stole our land. — BitconnectCarlos

I'd hoped you'd abandoned that position, I confess. Really, it hasn't been Jewish land since (at the latest) the Romans, with that thoroughness and ruthlessness which was characteristic of them whenever the thought their imperium was threatened, crushed the revolt led by Simon Bar Kokhba in 136 C.E. Israel's existence is merely a fact, it isn't something which can be justified or explained as being the restoration of a "homeland" or the return of a gift of land by God, or as the return of stolen property to its rightful owner.

I am speaking here as a Jew, not as an "objective" observer here. I don't think there is such a thing as a truly objective observer. Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that.

Part of the reason this conversation is muddled and confusing is depending on the time I'll either be speaking as a Jew or as an "objective" observer - whatever that may mean. With you I'm capable of being the latter, but the discussion gets more personal it's harder to adopt that lens -- especially when outsiders claim that the land rightfully belongs to the "Palestinians" who apparently only started existing in 1964.