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
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
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
It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. — discoii
The Palestinians do not all want to kill Israelis and take all their land. — Baden
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
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
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
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
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'm pretty sure Ireland (for example) doesn't permit its murderers the right to self-determination. — Hanover
Yes, I am. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords — Baden
However, Israel does show blatant disregard for civilian lives in many of its attacks. — Baden
You are not only demonizing the Palestinians, you seem to be actively attempting to dehumanize them. — Baden
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
Are you kidding me? Palestine never negotiated in good faith to bring about a 2 state solution — Hanover
The idea that Palestinians are really going to accept Israel's legitimate right to exist is never going to happen. — Hanover
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
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
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
Bear in mind the source here is Israel's oldest and one if its most respected newspapers. — 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? — Hanover
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
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
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
*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 hate saying this, but it seems like might makes right--later if not sooner. — Bitter Crank
What agitates people the most is being trapped. People in Gaza are certainly trapped — Bitter Crank
The general principle is one of proportionality. — Baden
To make it easier for you: Imagine you shoot my wife. — Baden
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
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
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
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
Does anyone at this point think that Russia will be forced to return Crimea to Ukraine? — Bitter Crank
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.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
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.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
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.