We've established it was a misunderstanding — BitconnectCarlos

"We've" established no such thing. I've established your reading and comprehension difficulties given the dogshit statement below:

you said you felt a tinge of self-disgust when other Jews were acting poorly. — BitconnectCarlos

"We've" established no such thing. I've established your reading and comprehension difficulties given the dogshit statement below: — Maw

Does it ever get lonely up there on your pedestal?

Palestinians can go to Jordan. — frank

I recall something like that resulting in Black September. Maybe I'm mistaken, though?



I fail to see how a commitment to a peace process established upon something like what people generally refer to as the "'67 borders" which would eventually facilitate the creation of an Israeli and Palestinian state, including obviously whatever other ethnic minorities there are there, with equal rights for all parties involved is just simply a concession. Though there is inherent pretense to their doing so, this has more or less, at least, a somewhat popular resolution to the crisis within certain circles in Israel, among certain factions of Fatah, and proposed by a sizable portion of the international community in the fight for the recognition of rights for Palestinians and the establishment of their state. Comparing every political situation that they find themselves in to the Six Day War only plays part and parcel to the near complete and total refusal on the part of the ruling order within the Israeli government to do anything other than claim that the Palestine Liberation Organization will shoot rockets into Israel, having been given an elevated ground, if they actually go through with an effective peace process, which is absurd, as it being effective would mean that the PLO had agreed not to do just that, which they will just have to accept on faith that they won't by offering them a set of circumstances that don't seem to justify that they would.



What can such a war of liberation entail other than the abolition of the state of Israel and the flight of Jews from there to either any number of countries in Europe or somewhere in the United States? I may not agree with that Israel should have been created as such, but I do acknowledge that it has.

The sad truth to the Palestinian situation is that almost no other government or organization in Western Asia has done anything to help their cause other than attempt to use them as a pawn.

Kinda hilarious how these people with nothing to say all end up turning to stupid little psychological quips. Like @Joshs 'concern' for my emotional health and @BitconnectCarlos's musing on your apparent 'misery'. These guys aren't people with arguments, they are walking, talking tropes void of substance.

They just don’t care about people being brutalized and killed, and it hurts their pride for being told that. So they bring every tangent into the discussion to avoid it.

Yeah, but to be fair, some of the Arab states have fallen behind the occupied territories on economic metrics, so they aren't particularly in strong positions to act as benefactors. That, and you have to question the leadership classes' commitment to human rights in general when they don't particularly treat their own minority communities any better than Israel. They might appeal to Muslim solidarity when it suits them, but they probably see kindred spirits in Israel.

However, they're populace at least has the excuse of being downtrodden and without political freedoms. The Israelis have all the benefits of a a developed state and continue to act as one of the worst authoritarian regimes.

At issue - and everyone but the most propagandized can recognize this - is the present-day reproduction of violence and opression by the Israeli state that has jack shit to to with its history and everything to do with the exercise of sheer, untrammeled power, visited upon a destitue population, immeserated and left with little other than a hollowed out political vocabulary of violence. This is not about 'history' or 'culture' or 'fledgling democracries'. This is a land grab and slow burn genocide, worked upon the planet's biggest open air concentration camp. The irrelevance of the 'complexities of history' could not be more clear or more stark. — StreetlightX

While I appreciate your evocative and concerted condemnation of the killing of civilians and what is an apartheid regime, though I have certain qualms with the comparison to South Africa which Boycott Divestment Sanctions, who, by the way, does not offer a resolution to the conflict, when it is the one-state solution, though there is a certain paradox in that the way there is the two-state solution, is so very likely to invoke, and speculative and daring foray within Critical Theory, that you tout their dead in emotive support of the Palestinian cause is somewhat arbitrary. It's not really your casket to carry in the streets.

"Economic metrics" doesn't really justify authoritarian rule to me. What I'm saying is that this narrative on the primary part of any number of ruling orders in Western Asia of Israel representing "the West" à la an appeal to some form of "anti-imperialism" is just kind of a way for them to let politics there revolve around it.

I can't remember what meeting in the general course of the peace process it was, but there's a take from a Sweedish, I think, mediator on them in that, when they drew the borders, the Palestinians had absolutely no say in which borders were drawn. The only borders that mattered were those created by the Israelis. I don't have any illusions of their commitment to human rights. I merely recognize that an effective resolution to the crisis entails that whatever set of Israelis there are that is willing to is willing to speak with whomever it is in Fatah that is willing to establish a Palestinian and Israeli state. I hope that they, particularly the Israelis, will have the foresight to understand that such a resolution can only be temporary, as the nation of Israel is directly in the middle of what is proposed for the state of Palestine, and that an eventual one-state solution, which is to say, as there is much confusion upon this matter generated by both parties, a state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, also including whoever else it is that lives there, of course, is set into motion.

I think it is important to distinguish between the Palestinian people on the one hand, and the surrounding Arab states on the other hand. Conflating the two in an effort to lay blame for inter-state warfare of the past on the indigenous people is like blaming this or that Native American tribe for the activities of France, England or Spain back in the day. Were some warriors lining up with this side or that? Yes, but remember who’s land it was in the first place.
There were people on that land before the Jews showed up. The Jews claim god gave them the land. BS. They took it.
Palestinians should be in Palestine. Go back to whatever was originally agreed upon after WWII. Conservatives love to let bygones be bygones and start over. Okay. But to make these people the problem of neighboring states, or make them responsible for the actions of neighboring states is BS.

I agree.

:up: :shade:

The infamous United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 , which an Iranian friend once described to me as having been created because of that "Winston Churchill whipped out his dick" and effectively created the nation of Israel, was what was to follow the Second World War. It set up the West Bank, Gaza Strip, part of Egypt, and more or less formally recognized nation of Israel that would later result in the various political crises of which nearly all of the world has become completely fixated upon today. Though more than understanding of the motivations for the creation of a Jewish state, any number of Western powers ought to, by then, have understood all too well as to just what predicaments "nation-building" posed in territories that did have indigenous populations. Though I do think that Israel's "right to exist", and it is quite plausible that I may be accused of "new antisemitism" for saying so, is debatable, I do acknowledge that it does. There's a certain absurdity within certain left-wing intellectual circles to that the proposed resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the Jews should just move to Germany, which, being German, myself, I would almost be willing to endorse, as, personally, I could do without a certain degree of historical guilt, but ought to considered by any person who is serious about brining a resolution to the conflict as completely absurd. Acknowledging that the nation of Israel does exist, it seems that some other measures would need to be brought so as to bring an end to the conflict.

I am not sure if you are conceding my point or affirming your own, but am willing to leave this at whatever, as, to my general experience with this political situation, people only ever seem to become more and more convinced of what they already think about it.

Israel is historically an occupying power. If you want to go back far enough, Joshua led Israel into the land of Canaan, the Promised Land, which had an incumbent population. A different incumbent population was there when the Zionist movement decided to re-establish Israel. Lots of different powers have occupied the small slice of land in dispute, really since at least 4,000 years ago.

From this POV, there is nothing novel about Israelis taking possession of a little more land. The area they wish to possess for the slightest enlargement of Israel is just not empty, free, and clear.

In the long run of history, one group of people obtaining more space almost always means some other group of people having less space. The Palestinians are, unhappily, on the "less space" side of the equation, and naturally they do not like it.

I suppose Zionists have a version of manifest destiny in mind, like 'everything on the west side of the Jordan River', at least. My guess is that they will eventually have it all, and will gain it by the use of force. Israel has never been hobbled by a "sickly unwillingness to use force". Unfortunately, other nations in the area have been as unhobbled as Israel; they use weren't quite as good at it,

Whether the various states in the region can tolerate Israel's expansion depends on the power of Israel. If Israel remains very powerful, the area's states will tolerate it, but with much resentment.

There's no secret handshake mate. You're just being an ass. Begin gets elected after the atrocities were committed. Obviously he was more "moderate" after that, the deed was already done. So your comment was either stupid or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. It says something about Israeli politics that they are fine to elect a fascist and war criminal and then decades later still have morons defending it. You'd think 70+ years would give some perspective but can't fight tribalism I suppose.

I think the main problem is that some people think there's a moral equivalence between the violence of Palestinians and Israel. That requires you to deny several of the following things :

1. Palestinians are oppressed, discriminated against and economically undermined by border control that basically functions like the worst sanctions we have in the world
2. A gross differential in military might and state power
3. A gross differential in political support from other countries and political representation
4. Israeli "security" trumps Palestinian "security" pace every draft of every deal where on average there's pages upon pages on the former and very little or nothing in the latter
5. Israeli deaths are a fraction of Palestinian deaths
6. The multitude of discriminatory laws in Israeli proper linked to religious affiliation
7. Palestine barely functions, Israel is a modern state claiming to be a democracy

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context.

Nothing in the past 20 years has given any indication Israel wants peace. If one side doesn't want peace and undermines it every time, what's the moral obligation of the other side? At what point does violence against the oppressor become a moral obligation?

Yes, I agree. They started imperial conquest several decades after the great European Imperial Powers. Had this been done, say, in the 1800's or so, there would likely by now be little dispute. Perhaps plenty of racism, xenophobia and the like, but there would not be anywhere nearly as hated as they are now, simply because so much time has passed.

It's just that now the whole world can see just how ugly imperialism is. The PR they use is frankly disgusting and is no longer working, save for fierce Israeli tribalists. What makes this stand out is that, contrary to popular opinion, Israel is not at the center of the problem, it's the US. Without massive US aid and diplomatic support, Israel could not be doing what it is. They would not have the resources to steal so much land and kill so many civilians.

Like you say, Israel is not a special imperial power in this respect. But it's 2021. This should no longer be acceptable in any form.

It was just reported that 67 people died in Gaza, including 17 minors. This is unacceptable.

Israel has accepted that it will be in perpetual war and that this isn't a too big burden for it. With the US fully embracing Israel, other Western countries basically accept this as de facto. Joe Biden won't move back the US Embassy to Tel Aviv.

And there's really nobody in power seriously wanting peace. Extremists are in power or at least have enough influence to dominate the political environment. In the Middle East, those politicians that sign peace agreements are assassinated by their own people and the assassins are viewed as heroes.

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context. — Benkei

Just to take out of context what you wrote will just entrench further some that they are right and you are wrong. I did read your points, but still, what is the difference between one or another human being killed?

Anyway, this is quite a unfruitful way to look at a conflict. Every civilian casualty is a tragedy. Every combatant casualty is also a tragedy as we are talking about human beings. Conflicts are either solved by military means or by diplomacy, not by moral righteousness. I think the better way would be to look at what to do here.

I think that problem in general are religious fanatics who cherish this conflict. They keep sanity away from decision making.

Chomsky at 92, knows Israeli history and politics inside out, here are his views on the topic:

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-without-us-aid-israel-wouldnt-be-killing-palestinians-en-masse/?utm_campaign=Truthout%20Share%20Buttons&fbclid=IwAR3VcAljPM-Mccv4PiCYOLuw-JgpZfd1tolITiKrCR5vfgfHpi6SRoj4R08

Also Israel is destroying high rise buildings in Gaza:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/13/israel-bombs-high-rise-buildings-as-gaza-marks-deadly-eid-live

Anyway, this is quite a unfruitful way to look at a conflict. Every civilian casualty is a tragedy. Every combatant casualty is also a tragedy as we are talking about human beings. Conflicts are either solved by military means or by diplomacy, not by moral righteousness. I think the better way would be to look at what to do here. — ssu

If you only look at the results and don't look at causes, both parties will look equally guilty. That's why people keep repeating "each civilian casualty is a tragedy" as a mantra because that reinforces equivalence. Intuitively it feels good, appears empathetic but really just glosses over the fact that not every tragedy is equally tragic. Just looking at the number of casualties on both sides makes this clear. The tragedy that befalls Israelis is of their own making, the tragedy that befalls Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis.

Turns out the US does support terrorism, so long as it's their terrorists. Shitty fucking country.

If you only look at the results and don't look at causes, both parties will look equally guilty. That's why people keep repeating "each civilian casualty is a tragedy" as a mantra because that reinforces equivalence. Intuitively it feels good, appears empathetic but really just glosses over the fact that not every tragedy is equally tragic. Just looking at the number of casualties on both sides makes this clear. The tragedy that befalls Israelis is of their own making, the tragedy that befalls Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei

There is, however, also a problem inherent in treating this as a conflict between "two sides", where we can somehow add up atrocities and murdered civilians and come out with a moral judgement of an entire population.

Saying that the tragedy that befalls the family of a killed Israeli civilian is "of their own making" is reductive to the point of being false. What is the purpose of such a statement? It doesn't hold up as a moral judgement of individuals, nor does it provide any insight into the conflict or it's solutions.

Evils don't cancel out. The Palestinians are certainly oppressed, and against some kinds of oppression, violence can be justified. But only if there is a plausible connection between said violence and the end of oppression. And that connection simply doesn't exist here. The Hamas has no military solution, and as such it cannot justify its military actions as fighting against oppression.

If you only look at the results and don't look at causes, both parties will look equally guilty. — Benkei

Equally guilty? How?

It's because the US has by far the strongest military in the world. And is still the largest economy too. So they can get away with a lot.

NATO is basically the US and some European countries simply pay a fee, so they don't have to worry about military costs much. It was planned this way after WWII.

Sure. The list of US terrorist allies is long. It's well documented by William Blum in his book Killing Hope.

But again, normal imperial behavior. Other states in the US's positions would likely do the same. But it is very ugly. Israel is a part of that system.

Palestinians can go to Jordan. — frank


I recall something like that resulting in Black September. Maybe I'm mistaken, though? — thewonder

Yea that was a disaster. My point was that they aren't compelled to fight. Many of them are Christian and their religion tells them not to.

Evils don't cancel out. The Palestinians are certainly oppressed, and against some kinds of oppression, violence can be justified. But only if there is a plausible connection between said violence and the end of oppression. And that connection simply doesn't exist here. The Hamas has no military solution, and as such it cannot justify its military actions as fighting against oppression. — Echarmion

Violence against oppression isn't evil. I'm not cancelling anything out. Sorry. And the conclusion that if there's no way out and they should just roll over and accept is ridiculously nihilistic. Evil should be resisted especially when success is unlikely.

And that connection simply doesn't exist here. The Hamas has no military solution, and as such it cannot justify its military actions as fighting against oppression. — Echarmion

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. "If you can't win against a force that is successfully exterminating you bit by bit, then you ought to roll over and die in silence".

Violence against oppression isn't evil. — Benkei

A couple days ago an elderly Israeli woman and her caregiver were killed when Hamas' rockets struck their homes in a residential area. Is this an example of resisting evil?

My point was that they aren't compelled to fight. Many of them are Christian and their religion tells them not to. — frank

Indeed. And who has ever heard of Christians being compelled to fight? It's never been necessary to force them to do what they've always been so willing to do.

Pacifists don't usually make the headlines (unless they're being jailed for sedition).

Anyway, it's Hamas that handles violence. Kind of like the IRA. Hamas started out as disenfranchised professionals, like doctors and lawyers, put out of work by the state.

Would you sign up for the resistance if that happened to you?