"of various parts of the country ... " presupposes that it was already theirs to begin with... which is not the case.

The land was in fact already theirs prior to 1967 and they acquired more as a result of the war. Clarify your point.

It's that the Palestinians want to kill their neighbors and take all the land. Sure, reasonable people can reasonably resolve their dispute. Our disagreement is that I think the Israelis are reasonable and the Palestinians aren't. — Hanover

The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. I think you know better than that. If you don't, you need to go back over the history of the attempts to find agreement and why they fell apart. Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists.

Anyhow, the other pillar of your argument seems to be that might is right; other countries have historically occupied others' lands and those others have not had an automatic right to get their land back; therefore, in this case it's hypocritical to expect Israel to give the Palestinians their land back.

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. And if they fought back by firing rockets into Palestine, we should dismiss them as terrorists and use that as another reason for not giving them their land back. I disagree with that view of international relations. We live in a more enlightened time than when, to take one of your examples, the English and the Spanish stole the land of the native Americans and got away with it. So, in the circumstances applying to Israel vs Palestine, the real and the hypothetical above, the invaded and occupied would deserve our protection.

There was a good editorial in the Guardian--I thought it was good, anyway--Why I am becoming a Jew and you should too by Nick Cohen.

As much as I admire the Jewish people (a disproportionate number of my top 10 favourite historical figures happen to be Jewish) I don't think it's possible to really imagine what it's like to be black or Jewish or Muslim or anything else you haven't grown up to be. The best we can do is try to be as objective in our arguments as possible. I do agree with the author that some criticism of Israel foreign policy is over the top, but no more over the top as far as I can see than criticism of US foreign policy. There are as many people who blame the Americans for every sin that Middle Eastern fanatics carry out as blame Israel. In both cases they're wrong, Palestinian suicide bombers are not martyrs in my eyes, they're murderers, as are all those who target or disregard the lives of innocent civilians, and those who carry out and support such crimes are the only ones who bear responsibility for them.

This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Jews are forward looking or Arabs are backward looking. That much is completely irrelevant. It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. The fact is that they are literally manifest destinying the fuck out of someone else's homeland. Who cares at all if anyone is forward looking here? Palestinians were forced into the position they are in. They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948.

What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City, Boston, the entire state of Delaware, or how about London or Manchester? How about give them Alaska or Texas or Wyoming? I mean, you already did what you're trying to do in Palestine in those other places, why continue the genocide? There's almost no one living in Wyoming anyways. Seriously, the hypocrisy is beyond comprehension here, which allows the conclusion that Israel as a state has nothing to do whatsoever with providing Jews with a homeland, but everything whatsoever with Westerners trying to assert their dominance in other people's lands.

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. — Baden

I'd say so, yeah. They can move back to Europe, or the West can graciously designate Leeds as the new sovereign Israel state. Then, if Jews wish to go live in Palestine, then they can apply for a work-permit.

The problem with this whole approach to Israel is that there are clear analogies that make the moral dilemma easier to resolve. Do you condemn Vietnamese people from shooting up their French colonial masters? Do you condemn Indian nationalists from assassinating English and Japanese colonials? You shouldn't, because they were justified in doing so. Western-backed Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and resources is the exact same scenario, just slipped under the guise of the Trojan horse of "Jewish freedom and emancipation." Remember, the group that constantly expels Jews from place to place most recently (and even back up to the Roman era) consisted mostly of European leadership. If you're feeling guilty that Jews have to move yet again, once again, I suggested a permanent homeland: Leeds, United Kingdom.

They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948. — discoii

Without moral rules or at least some ethical foundation, the debate descends into a shouting match. You shouldn't target innocent civilians or show disregard for their safety no matter what side you're on and no matter what the circumstances. That should be a bare minimum everyone can agree on.

Incidentally, you are showing as much blatant disregard for the Israelis as @Hanover has been showing for the Palestinians. Your positions are essentially the mirror image of each other. Hanover: Israelis = Good, Palestinians = Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Palestinians). You: Palestinians=Good, Israelis=Bad (therefore we don't have to care about the Israelis).

Unlike Hanover, I have history on my side, so the moral scale tips in my favor here, I think.

I think we should remember, just for context, that quite a few nations/empires have had their fingers in the Middle Eastern pie. To start with...

The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Anatolians, Egyptians, (who did I leave out?) were overlords for various parts and pieces at different times and places. They all left an imprint. The Kingdom of Israel was run over several times, just like a lot of other kingdoms were. it was SOP.

Then there were the Jews and the Christians.

Then there were the Moslems which pretty much overran (or tried to overrun) the Mediterranean Basin, and more besides, heading east to the Pacific.

Then Ghengis Kahn over ran much of Eurasia, including the Middle East.

Then there were European Crusades.

Then there was the Ottoman Empire.

Then there was the British and French Empires.

The British and French redrew the map of the Middle East to their liking before Israel was created. There was nothing particularly rational about it. Their drawing room map exercise is the root of a lot of contemporary problems.

Israel was created finally by Declaration and force, just like all of the previous arrangements were. Nothing was done with democratic votes, plebiscites, public opinion polls, or so much as a fare-thee-well consideration of the local wishes anywhere. The Zionist movement was formally started by Theodor Herzl in 1896. It's just the latest oar in the water.

The United States stuck its oar into the water later than the British and the French, and we haven't contributed a whole lot of good either -- not because we are Islamophobic, antisemitic, or anti Arab. We were doing what every nation does, pursuing national interests, or at least trying to pursue national interests. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were astonishingly stupid endeavors but lots of other people have tried similar stupid endeavors and failed.

So, here we are, 2016, blaming a lot of ancient history on the modern state of Israel and the US and some (Discoli) valorizing the Arabs -- well really, colored folk and may or may not be oppressed at the moment.

Does Palestine belong to the people who lived there before Israel was created? Sure -- just like merry old England belonged to Celts before the Romans took over and belonged to the Romans before they left and the Anglo Saxons took over next. Just like North and South America didn't belong to Spain, Portugal, and England before they arrived and took over. Just like nobody invited the Romans, Christians, Moslems, and Turks, to do what they did.

Jews have always lived in Palestine. After the Romans left ancient Israel in tatters the Jewish people remaining (who were not part of the diaspora) devolved into peasants, just like the predecessors of the present day Palestinians were.

That's history for you: One damned thing after another.

It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. — discoii

And so you've ignored the entire debate and just asserted that the Palestinians have the right to the land. I assert otherwise. So there you have it. Good debate.

Shouldn't the US return Manhattan to its original inhabitants?

The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. — Baden

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, especially after the Israelis have in the past been willing to meet 90% of their demands.

The Palestinians cannot physically remove the Israelis, and any direct war against them would be suicidal. Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them.

Apart from that, a people being unreasonable (not that I necessarily accept the Palestinians in general are) does not abrogate their right to self-determination. Also, demonizing an entire ethnic community in the way you are doing here is exactly what those of us who are against anti-Semitism, racism and Islamophobia should be trying to avoid in this debate. There are several million Palestinians living in the region. They are not all crazed terrorists. — Baden

Of course they're not all crazed terrorists, but their government is not in favor of Israel remaining where it is. I've also not made a generalized statement against Muslims or Arabs. I've only pointed out that the Palestinian sentiment is for the removal of Israel from its land and it does that through gaining international political support for its position and it also uses terrorism as a tactic. That's just what's happening.

We can talk about the unfairness of Israel in building new settlements and argue the subtleties of who has the right to possess lands, but I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable.

And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination.

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. — Baden

I've not argued that might makes right. It's quite the opposite. My argument would be that we should protect Israel because they are right to possess the land.

I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting. It's for the same reason that you don't particularly want to preserve the rights of those who want to oppress homosexuals and African Americans in the US. It's because their beliefs are stupid, destructive, and in opposition to what you hold to be right and just. You couldn't care any less about the history and deeply held beliefs of those racists. Why don't you argue for their right to self-determination?

What I'm saying is that I believe that Israel does have the right to the land, and to the extent we need to decide who to support where there's a dispute over the land, it'd be foolish to consider both claims as equal without regard to the character of those we're supporting.

Are you suggesting that the Palestinian government really is in favor of a two state solution? If they are, they've certainly not ever shown that, — Hanover

Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Also, from the Israeli news source, Haaretz:

How Many Times Must the Palestinians Recognize Israel?

(Full text of above)

One side, the Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized Israel up front. All other details aside, they have long since performed the sine qua non of a two-state agreement by recognizing Israel. The other side, Israel, has never recognized a Palestinian state or, in any formal, written, or legal sense, even the Palestinian right to a state. — Haaretz

I really don't think anyone (including me) would be wiling to accept an Israel that sent its citizens into Gaza with bombs strapped to themselves on public buses. The conduct of the respective parties is not comparable. — Hanover

Hamas and other Palestinian groups deliberately target civilians, which is reprehensible. Israel doesn't. In that sense I agree the conduct is not comparable. However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. And because of this something else that is not comparable is the number of Palestinian civilians killed compared to Israeli civilians killed in the conflict.

During the clashes of 2014, for example, 5 Israeli civilians were killed, and from 761 (Israeli estimate) to 1462 (UN estimate) Palestinian civilians including up to 578 children (UN estimate). In other words, the number of Palestinian children alone killed by Israeli forces was up to 100 times as many as the total number of Israeli civilians killed. These are not just statistics, they represent a reality on the ground. None of those Palestinian children or civilians deserved to die any more than the 5 Israelis did, and their deaths are not likely to make Israel any safer. Of course, you are likely to say, "It's their own fault, they started it" etc. Others would say Israel started that round. But whoever started the slaughter, in terms of innocent civilians, the Palestinians were - in terms of pure numbers, orders of magnitude - more the victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Palestinian

Their war against Israel is political, which includes in large part demonizing them. — Hanover

I have no problem at all declaring governments, cultures, or people as bad. That is to say, the reason I support only friendly nations having nuclear bombs, having international influence, possessing important pieces of land, having critical natural resources, etc. is because I want evil nations to be weak and good nations to be strong. I don't know why it's so hard to look at someone else's existence and simply declare it not worth protecting — Hanover

And, no, being unreasonable doesn't mean you lose the right to self-determination, but being a terrorist does. — Hanover

I find it hard to understand how you can be so obviously hypocritical. You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. I don't know if it's because you don't know that a majority of Palestinians live in the West Bank, which is controlled by Fatah* not Hamas; or you don't know that not all those in Gaza support Hamas; or you don't know the difference between Fatah and Hamas; or you don't know that large numbers of Palestinians are elderly infirm or children who are no threat to anyone; or you don't know that even those who support Hamas are not necessarily themselves terrorists. It's hard to tell. There are around 3 million Palestinians whose existence you have just dismissed as not worth protecting, as being essentially worthless because you think they are evil. This is exactly what the fanatics on the other side say about Jews. You and they are expressing views that are two sides of the same very ugly coin.

I'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination. — Hanover

I don't know if you are saying this because you are trying to refer to the conflict in Northern Ireland or because you just want to say something about Ireland because I'm Irish. But Northern Ireland is instructive. Sinn Fein, the political representatives of the (now disbanded) IRA, which was a designated terrorist organization, have and have always had the support of about half the Catholic population there. The reason they are no longer in the business of killing people is that the British government engaged with them and gave them a place in a power sharing executive. In other words, rather than continue to marginalize them and shout names at them they decided it would be better to bring them into the process of democracy. This worked to the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland both Catholic and Protestant. It's unlikely a one-state power sharing government would work in Israel because the two parties are too far apart politically and culturally, so the only viable solution in my view remains the two state one. As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders.

*"Fatah is no longer regarded as a terrorist organization by any government. Fatah used to be designated terrorist under Israeli law and was considered terrorist by the United States Department of State and United States Congress until it renounced terrorism in 1988." Link.

Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords — Baden

Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit.

However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. — Baden

Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage.

You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. — Baden

No I'm not dehumanizing them. The toll on their lives is horrible under any interpretation of the term. I realize they have dreams, ambitions, loves and everything else that I do. And so what are the Israelis to do other than sympathizing with them? Are they also to allow themselves to come under attack and not do anything about it?

And yes, I know the difference between Fatah and Hamas.

As far as I'm concerned, the first step to that would be a complete cessation of violence (and ugly rhetoric); the second, talks; the third, an agreement; and the final a process of reconciliation. It's worked elsewhere in the world but there has to be the will to do it. Otherwise, everyone loses. Both sides need to step up to the plate here by at least attempting to understand and deal constructively with the other. And so do their cheerleaders. — Baden

And so we're in absolute agreement here. The complete cessation of violence needs to stop. Are you suggesting that Israel would be dropping bombs if there were nothing to react to, as if they'd just get up one morning and decide today is a good day to drop bombs? Yes, there needs to be good faith talks. Those have been attempted but have failed, but, sure, keep at it, but I'm not terribly hopeful. The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Why-Abbas-thinks-Jewish-state-is-a-delusional-myth-345549

Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution — Hanover

You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above.

The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. — Hanover

They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all.

From the article:

There are a great many difficulties with the "Jewish state" demand, and Netanyahu's formulation "the nation-state of the Jewish people" in particular. This phrasing is full of highly problematic definite articles, and suggests a trans-historical claim to this land on behalf of an entire but undefined ethno-religious group the world over, not just the present Jewish Israeli majority. It harkens back to pre-state Zionism, defining Israel as if the state had not actually been created and several generations of Jewish and Arab Israelis had not been born there.

This framing also begs the question about the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who already face significant discrimination in many sectors because they are not Jewish. This is one of the reasons the PLO finds the demand so problematic: They will not agree to implicitly endorse the restrictions Palestinian citizens of Israel now face, or may face in the future.

Moreover, Israel itself cannot define what a "Jewish state" means, exactly. There were several attempts in the last Knesset to introduce legislation to clarify the term; all of them failed miserably because while there is a consensus among Jewish Israelis that their state is in some sense "Jewish," there is no consensus whatsoever as to what that entails. So, in effect, Palestinians are being asked to agree to something that even the Israelis cannot define with any degree of specificity. — Haaretz

Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers.

You said they had never shown themselves to be in favour of a two state solution. That is simply false, Hanover. Read the newspaper article I added above. — Baden

You can say they want there to be a two state solution, but when given that real opportunity, they balked. I mean there's saying it and meaning it. That this issue has been going on since Israel's independence makes me question whether they really want peace, especially in light of the concessions Israel was willing to allow in the past.

They have already accepted Israel's right to exist. You are now moving the goalposts and saying that because they don't accept Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", they don't accept their right to exist at all. — Baden

It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses?

Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers. — Baden

Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. See,
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2014/5/25/does-haaretzs-public-stance-on-occupation-reveal-anything-new-about-the-paper#.VvVsQu8UWUk=

It's your position that if Israel and Palestine come to terms with a two state solution that the Palestinians should retain control over what Israel calls itself? That is, if Israel declares itself a Jewish state, the Palestinians then have a right to bomb buses? — Hanover

I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call.

Aside from the fact that this is a very weak appeal to authority (some editor at a newspaper agrees with your position, so it must be correct), it's also not accurate to say that Haaretz is widely accepted as an unbiased newspaper. It's pretty well known that it is a very left leaning newspaper. It'd be like me citing to a FoxNews commentator and asserting he was well respected and generally accepted. — Hanover

I'm asking you to address the argument, not the source. You can merely acknowledge that. The only reason I mentioned the source was because you have suggested that critics of Israel are possibly antisemitic. You can't use that excuse here.


*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians.

Do you not see a difference between self-defense and an aggressive act? If the expected result of terrorism is collateral damage of your own citizens, then I'd blame the terrorists for that collateral damage. — Hanover

There are rules concerning self-defense, both legal and ethical, even in war. If there weren't, then you killing one of my civilians in a terrorist attack would justify me retaliating by killing 100 of yours in a bombing aimed at the perpetrators and everyone in their immediate vicinity. The general principle is one of proportionality. You don't get to unconditionally dismiss the deaths of civilians of a country from which a terrorist attacked you in your attempts to kill that terrorist. That would amount to what's known in international parlance as a war crime.

To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. That doesn't give me the right to bomb your house when you're in it while your kids are there too. And I wouldn't avoid responsibility by saying "Well that collateral damage* to your kids is your own fault because you killed my wife."

*Horrible military euphemism that this is.

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. Israel has more might than the neighboring states have--when you add in the United States as the guaranteeing power. Had several million unarmed, Quaker-type Jews arrived in Israel in 1948, Israel probably wouldn't exist now--in Palestine, or anywhere else.

They were not pacifistic--there was combat from the get go. There were various efforts to keep a lid on the inevitable conflict, which we are aware were not successful.

Gaza is only 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide. With almost 2 million Palestinians on 362 square kilometers, "Gaza ranks as the 6th most densely populated polity in the world." Wikipedia (The only difference between Manhattan and Gaza is that one is about a billion times richer than the other one.) Israel is bigger than New Jersey (not by much) and could be drowned in Lake Michigan. Taiwan and Sardinia are about the same size.

The Jewish population of Israel grew by 1.7% over the past year, and the Israeli-Arab population grew by 2.2%. There is a demographic problem, too.

Is it possible that "might" could shift at some point in the future, and a new "right" be established? Iran hopes so--at least I think the government there is at least somewhat serious about wanting to get rid of Israel. Should they obtain (or build) a few atomic weapons and a few reliable missiles, and should they be reckless enough to use them...

My guess is that more than 95% of Arab people have more than enough to worry about every day without becoming overly agitated about the existence of the State of Israel. If Arab leaders were doing their job, they would be taking better care of their own populations. Some of them are doing better than others, of course.

What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped; lots of the people on the West Bank are trapped. Bethlehem, for instance, is a city walled in from without. If they can't move freely, their economic and educational opportunities -- their futures -- are very limited.

Anybody know why a Palestinian State wasn't established on the West Bank when Israel's initial boundaries were established?

I'm pretty sure you know that's not my position. If you don't, read over my posts, particularly the parts where I've repeatedly and unequivocally condemned all violence against civilians*. Anyway, if you're not going to be intellectually honest or take this seriously, I'm not going to continue with the conversation. Your call. — Baden

Oh, don't get all upset. Be unflappable like me. You said that there was some critical distinction about Israel declaring itself a sovereign state and it declaring itself a sovereign Jewish state, with the Palestinians being justified in rejecting the latter declaration. You then reject all violence on the part of Palestine. I assume you accept my argument that the violence that comes from Israel is reactive, meaning that with no violence from Palestine, there'd be no violence at all. So where does that leave us? You're mad at Israel for insisting that it designate itself as it wishes without having to consider input from Palestine? That sort of anger should be fairly minimal in comparison to the anger you should feel toward Palestine for its terrorism that I suppose arises entirely from being asked to call Israel a Jewish state.

All of this is a heaping help of nonsense though. It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement. And, as my other post asked, if Israel gets a peace agreement and then hangs up a sign calling it a Jewish state, does Palestine get to go back to where it was pre-agreement (and I won't this time suggest that means it gets to go back to bombing folks on buses).

I think you're fence riding here, recognizing that Palestine's terroristic tactics are abhorrent, yet wanting to find a middle ground just to end the horrible meaningless deaths. I get the sentiment, and I think it explains why so many are trying to find a way to end the violence. I just don't think that can happen until the terrorism completely ends for which Israel should accept no responsibility for.

*To repeat again: There are no circumstances whatsoever, no matter what the Israeli army does in Palestine, no matter what the Israeli state declares itself to be, where it would be justified for Palestinians to bomb buses, fire rockets into Israeli neighbourhoods, or otherwise kill or maim innocent Israeli civilians. — Baden

I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective.

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. — Bitter Crank

I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time.

What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped — Bitter Crank

By Egypt as well.

The general principle is one of proportionality. — Baden

Sure, and if Iran attacked the US, there'd be no more Iran. That's how proportionality works. I just don't know why Israel has to fight wars with one hand tied behind its back.

To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. — Baden

Ahhhh! I hate this example. You know how much I love your wife, assuming you have one.

There's a difference between vigilante retaliation within an operational legal system and responding to outside threats threatening your existence.

I hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner.
— Bitter Crank

I don't agree with this. Stronger nations are wrong all the time. — Hanover

Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing.

These events were not taught to us in school as moral outrages, they were taught to us as our sacred and honorable history. How could that be? Because we won the wars and got to write the school history books. Not too many questioned all that stuff.

Same with slavery. It was presented as a mere fact in the beginning of the year -- ships went back and forth between Africa, the Caribbean, and New England carrying slaves. Also molasses from which rum was made. Later in the year we learned about the Civil War. Then we went on to corruption in government in the 1870s - 90s. Facts, not moral outrage.

I don't suppose that most people in the UK, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Italy and Russia feel inordinately guilty about their colonial/imperialistic history. It paid off pretty well, in most cases.

Israel has been in existence 68 years, long enough to establish the "rightness" of their imposition of a Jewish state on a province of the recently liquidated Ottoman empire (or an old province of the Roman Empire, if you want to go back that far). 68 years after the US managed to win the war of independence, it was 1849--time for the Gold Rush.

Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine?

I think we've made some progress.

We seem to both acknowledge that :

1) It is not accurate or fair to blanketly refer to Palestinians as "terrorists" or "evil"
2) The Palestinians as a people deserve some sympathy considering their plight
3) Attacks targeting civilians are wrong and should be unequivocally condemned
4) Ideally, there needs to be an immediate end to violence followed by talks and an agreement on a two-state solution
5) My non-existent wife is worthy of our mutual adoration

There are still a couple of issues to be untangled though including:

A) The Jewish state question
B) The question of what terrorism is

To take the first:

It's not that anyone really believes that if Israel agreed that it would never again refer to itself as a Jewish state that we'd be any closer to a meaningful peace agreement — Hanover

Yes, they do actually. The Palestinians are happy to recognize Israel - again, see the Oslo accords - but do not want to agree to recognize a status that could result in Arab Israelis being discriminated against. I mean would you be happy with America declaring itself to be a "white Christian state"? Earlier, you told me that Israel was, amongst other things, "very secular". How can you be "very secular" and at the same time define your country according to ethnicity and/or religion?* And by the way, this is not only a problem for the Palestinians, it's a problem for Israelis; the version of the "Jewish state" being pushed by Netanyahu has been highly controversial even within Israel.

This following is from CBS:
"Jewish state" bill fuels fire in divided Israel

You can see from the article that Netanyahu would ideally have the Palestinians accept a kind of state not even his own Justice Minister wanted to accept. As far as I'm concerned, Israel should be recognized as the ethnic homeland of the Jewish people, but if what is meant by "a Jewish State" goes beyond that, the Palestinians could essentially be being asked to agree to second class citizenship for Arab Israelis. And of course, they are not going to do that. All of this is to say that while we may not find absolute agreement here, at the very least it should be clear the issue is not as black and white as you have made it out to be.

B) On what terrorism is.

I think we need to sort out our definitions here. For me, terrorism is not a function of how big the bomb, how sophisticated the delivery process, how powerful the military apparatus behind it, or how nominally democratic the deliverers. Terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians or the disregard for their safety in military operations in order to further political, religious or ideological objectives. That definition does not exclude governments. From an ethical standpoint, it makes no difference whether the terrorist wears a uniform or not, whether he uses a suicide bomb or a missile, or whether he claims to represent democracy or Islamism. What matters in a terrorist act is the act itself. The act of violence against the innocent. (Incidentally, I'm not making any statement here as yet about whose acts might fall under this definition, I simply want to try to agree on principles first before we get into that more difficult question).

What's your definition?

I know this is your position, and I think it creates a problem for you. The problem it creates is that you can't offer such an unequivocal condemnation of Israel. — Hanover

I can unequivocally condemn some of what Israel does, and some of what the Palestinians do. I'm not going to blanketly condemn either Israel or the Palestinians. So, I don't see a problem. In fact, I see my position as very consistent. But we probably need to tease out the stuff in the last post to get to all that.

If you just think Israel is seizing land it shouldn't seize, that's hardly the stuff of international interest. If the Palestinians weren't terrorizing the Israelis, this issue would not even make your radar, which means that their terror campaign is effective. — Hanover

This makes no sense to me at all. Of course, if Israel wasn't being attacked, the issue would still be on the international radar, and mine, i.e. of course the seizure of land that shouldn't be seized is the stuff of international interest. We're not living in 19th century colonial times. The UN would still have tried to impose sanctions and so on. In fact, there would be even more justification for objections, which is yet another reason for the Palestinians to unilaterally stop the violence. They have no hope of winning militarily but they can win morally if they limit themselves to peaceful protest.

Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine? — Bitter Crank

No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine.

A pox on both their houses! I avoid Israeli goods as I see no reason to treat them any differently than I would any other apartheid state. But I look at Palestine and based on the "Arab spring" I see no possibility of liberation for the people: they would be destined to be either a failed state or a client state, or maybe some toxic combination of the two.

No, but the people of the Crimea did vote to join Russia. The vote might not be considered entirely free and fair but no-one's going to deny that the Crimean people in general are very pro-Russian, which makes this a very different situation to that in Palestine. — Baden

So it was a democratic militaristic takeover by Putin? Interesting analysis. I might have interpreted it as a Russian land grab to make certain that the Ukraine, a former Soviet bloc nation, didn't become an EU nation.

Of course nations are wrong all the time. But if they can make their evil, unjust, illegal, wrongful, and just plain rude decisions stick, eventually it becomes their honored history. Like the US and the Native Americans... We seized their land, drove them off of it, killed them systematically or haphazardly, starved them, and finally gave the remaining remnant some scraps of land, and found new ways to treat them badly. We seized a huge hunk of northern Mexico. It became our southwest instead of their northwest. All actions we would condemn somebody else doing. — Bitter Crank

The conclusion here isn't as you assert, which seems to be that an evil nation becomes good once enough time elapses and everyone accepts their authority. You base this upon the fact that the US (for example) improperly seized Native American lands and now it's fully accepted and largely overlooked.

The problem with this analysis is that Iran, the former Iraq, North Korea and all sorts of other well established nations are still not considered good actors even with the time lapse. The real conclusion that can be drawn is that some nations are better than others and how they obtained their land is just one factor in determining where the nation falls on the good/bad scale. I suppose you could say that the US would have been better had it obtained its land through a more peaceful means, but that hardly makes it worse than North Korea, even though you might find North Korea's claims to their land is more justifiable.

And this makes my point in some regard to Israel. That is, even if the Palestinians have a superior right to the land (and I don't concede this, but just hypothesize it), that hardly means the world would be a better and more just place if the Palestinians occupied it. It is often the case that the better use of the land (which includes how its people are treated) is in the hands of others. By example, the North Korean territory would be better served by someone else. It just seems like philosophical nonsense to say that the Western world should cede a Western democracy (Israel) to an antagonistic middle east nation (Palestine) just for the sake of maintaining some poorly thought out principle about how land should be rationed out.