I think the world is just going to watch — frank

That and spend money on whichever side.

Unless the Saudis decide to attack Israel. — frank

I'm always confused about who's in bed with who, and when. But it does seem the common denominator is religion. I always root for the underdog.

I think the world is just going to watch. Unless the Saudis decide to attack Israel. — frank

The Saudis? I can't imagine they would. They'll just milk the conflict for their own gains. Oppressed Palestinians are useful to them, as it allows them to distract from their own oppression.

Saudi and Hamas are both Sunni and kind of fundamentalist. Iran is Shia. Iraq is both. Pakistan is both. Since Iran is theocratic, they foment sectarian violence just by existing.

Sectarian violence is just one funeral after another. The cause gets lost and it's just driven by grief and rage.

The Saudis? I can't imagine they would. They'll just milk the conflict for their own gains. Oppressed Palestinians are useful to them, as it allows them to distract from their own oppression. — Echarmion

Saudi Arabia is a strong nation, attempting to make progress on human rights.

I don't like the occupation but until the Palestinians renounce violence as a political tool I think the occupation is a necessary evil. — BitconnectCarlos

How about the Israelis renounce violence as a political tool? Clearly Israel is more powerful and less at risk. Just stop responding with violence.

Saudi Arabia is a strong nation, attempting to make progress on human rights. — frank

No-one needs to "attempt" to make progress on human rights. We already know what those are, you can just adopt them.

It's not black and white like Apartheid South Africa was not black and white.

Was the murder of a white South African civilian during apartheid a good thing? Of course not. Apartheid was still the main thing responsible for the violence.

So sure, innocent Israeli do get killed. That's bad. Many more Palestinians are killed in much worse conditions. Does that mean that Israeli lives are less than others? Of course not.

But if you steal land, regiment a population in regards to caloric intake, separate the West Bank into cantons, sabotage the Palestinian authority at every moment and the like, you must except bad consequences. Remember one country has one of the best armies in the world, the other population is literally in a prison.

Israel was safer prior to these last 15 years of incursion into Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank, not less safe. This is the result of such policies.

The point is death? For its own sake or what? — Echarmion

See "How does it feel" below.

Yeah, that's just straight up evil in my book. — Echarmion

If you'd like to avoid evil, then, I guess you won't support the activities that engender such feelings.

Who is "they" here? Are we treating all Israelis as some kind of faceless amalgam, where one part can stand in for the sins of another? — Echarmion

You said "I'm saying that what you're doing must have some practical chance of resulting in a situation that is "less bad". And I don't see such a chance here." The they is Hamas. Nothing they do will present a situation that is less bad. As to your second question, yes. The Israelis are a sovereign. As sovereign is an amalgam of the faceless. You suffer for the sins of your sovereign. That's why, as an American, I don't want my sovereign backing another sovereign that is making people feel like straight up evil is the only card they have to play in response to what they feel is straight up evil.

If morality goes out the window in difficult situation, why have it at all? — Echarmion

You said "justify, no." I said justice apparently has nothing to do with it. I you want morality to stay in the room, then get off the Palestinian's back.

My problem is with people sitting in front of a computer casually accepting or dismissing death and destruction. — Echarmion

Oh, okay. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. I feel the same way about people sitting thousands of miles away, allowing their sovereign to send money to prop up an oppressive, apartheid regime that makes people feel like straight up evil is the option in response to straight up evil. So yeah, I get what you're saying.

No-one needs to "attempt" to make progress on human rights. We already know what those are, you can just adopt them. — Echarmion

Oh thanks. And here's me thinking you have to work at it.

Bari Weiss, who was previously an op-ed editor at the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, and received the National Jewish Book Award in Contemporary Jewish Life and Practice for her 2019 book, How to Fight Anti-Semitism, recently wrote that while "it will never be fine to have children killed by terrorists whose explicit aim is to kill them," it is an "unavoidable burden of political power" to sacrifice Palestinian children to Moloch in order continue to build the reality of the "Zionists dream...of self-determination"

Saudi and Hamas are both Sunni and kind of fundamentalist. Iran is Shia. Iraq is both. Pakistan is both. Since Iran is theocratic, they foment sectarian violence just by existing. — frank

I once read an article by Scott Ritter about the sectarian issues in the Middle East. It got so deep, and so detailed that I felt like I was reading a physics chalk board with a complicated equation. It went WAY deeper than the sunni/shia divide. Way deeper. But when I step back, as your typical American simpleton, I can't figure why we aren't in bed with the Shia. The Sunni seem further from our leanings; though Saudi Oil fields seem to be a player. There is always those strategic concerns that we aren't clued in on.

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? — BitconnectCarlos

Let's weep for personal tragedy to obfuscate the slow genocide of an entire people. Sorry. Not playing. I can empathise with the personal tragedy but once I step back from the particulars and look at the bigger picture the moral position is clear. That Israeli woman had been sacrificed on a zionist altar.

it is an "unavoidable burden of political power" to sacrifice Palestinian children to Moloch in order continue to build the reality of the "Zionists dream...of self-determination" — Maw

Wow. That's some deeply targeted sarcasm.

I can't figure why we aren't in bed with the Shia. — James Riley

Mainly because they hate us.

Let's weep for personal tragedy to obfuscate the slow genocide of an entire people. Sorry. Not playing. I can empathise with the personal tragedy but once I step back from the particulars and look at the bigger picture the moral position is clear. That Israeli woman had been sacrificed on a zionist altar. — Benkei

It's not genocide and for you to use that term is absurd. If you think the Israelis are literally trying to genocide the Palestinians then there's no point in talking to you. It would put me in a position where I'd be defending Nazis. I can't go on in this conversation. Are you at all familiar with any of Hamas's genocidal language towards the Jews within their Constitution? But who cares about that - weak victims are always good, even if they're throwing gays off rooftops which happens frequently.

How about the Israelis renounce violence as a political tool? Clearly Israel is more powerful and less at risk. Just stop responding with violence. — Echarmion

I only support violence when it's for self-defense and if Hamas is going to launch rockets from inside Gaza then Israel, like any nation state, has a right to respond.

The extremes on both sides would want the banishment of the other completely. Muslims and Hindus had long standing prejudices and many deaths in 1947 as each did a population exchange. The difference here is that the exchange, though violent was a one time event (with lots of long standing tension on a state level since). Kashmir might be a flash point but not an existential threat to the whole nation for each. The problem is there was no one time event here. Palestinians will want 1948 back. Israelis in their efforts for more security probably won't accept anything either, even if moderate. When the goals are not even present or realistic, stalemate will ensue. However, when was the lsst time either side presented a moderate end goal?

Both try to wipe the others history out. In some interviews I've seen, many Pals on the street don't really know the significance of the Western Wall for example..yet they have been living right next door for years. When you don't even know your "enemy" thats frightening.

Mainly because they hate us. — frank

Meh, so do the Sunni. Nothing a little money can't buy.

Was the murder of a white South African civilian during apartheid a good thing? Of course not. Apartheid was still the main thing responsible for the violence. — Manuel

Maybe Apartheid was in some way responsible for the violence, but the existence of Apartheid does not justify/condone murder. No one is permitted to murder people even if they're the dominant group within a racist society. China and Japan can be quite racist towards minorities, especially blacks - can we murder them? The US has obvious racial problems, can blacks go around killing whites because they help uphold the system?

Any decent starting point to negotiations begins with the unequivocable condemnation of the intentional murder of innocents.

If you murder someone because they are the dominant racial/ethnic group even within a racist society then it'syou who is at fault. By the way Arabs are equal to Jews under the law in Israel, but of course Israel like other nations does have racial problems and I'm not going to deny that racism exists. Jews are severely discriminated against in Arab countries.

Israel was safer prior to these last 15 years of incursion into Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank, not less safe. This is the result of such policies. — Manuel

You may very well be right here and I'm happy to discuss this. We can discuss whether Israel has gone too far in the West Bank... what is not up for discussion is whether the murder of innocent Israelis is justified or whether Israel ought to cease to exist as a state. That would put the lives of millions of Jews at serious risk. Arabs have attempted to annihilate Israel on multiple occasions and Israel is a war torn, traumatized society.

As Jews we cannot rely on other ethnicities or races to protect us. And for that we need a state. We can negotiate the rest.

It's not genocide and for you to use that term is absurd. If you think the Israelis are literally trying to genocide the Palestinians then there's no point in talking to you. It would put me in a position where I'd be defending Nazis. I can't go on in this conversation. Are you at all familiar with any of Hamas's genocidal language towards the Jews within their Constitution? But who cares about that - weak victims are always good, even if they're throwing gays off rooftops which happens frequently. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not genocide because it's not going quickly enough to your liking, or what? How fast should the destruction of Palestinian society go exactly before it is genocide? The Israeli State is fascist and yes you're defending fascists. This was already recognised by Einstein and Arendt in 1948 and unfortunately very few Jews recognise they've learned more from the Nazis than they care to admit. Things haven't improved. I'm intimately familiar with the entire situation, having studied international law for years, by the way. I just don't have the patience anymore to guide people through all the steps why I see things this way

Hamas' language is no different than that of Israeli main political party. Zionism implies racism, discrimination and the slow killing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is denying the right to exist to Palestinians in their own country. That fits the bill.

Oh thanks. And here's me thinking you have to work at it. — frank

Saudi Arabia is ruled by a tiny minority of very rich and powerful men. Are you telling me they're trying?

See "How does it feel" below. — James Riley

Everyone has their feelings. If that's all you want to talk about, I see no point.

As to your second question, yes. The Israelis are a sovereign. As sovereign is an amalgam of the faceless. You suffer for the sins of your sovereign. That's why, as an American, I don't want my sovereign backing another sovereign that is making people feel like straight up evil is the only card they have to play in response to what they feel is straight up evil. — James Riley

I think this is a terrible moral philosophy. It turns persons into just replaceable cogs in a machine. Essentially giving whatever sovereign rules a country the right to dispose of their citizens lifes.

I you want morality to stay in the room, then get off the Palestinian's back. — James Riley

This is just ad-hominem. Do you suppose the Palestinians read this thread as a guideline as to what to do?

I only support violence when it's for self-defense and if Hamas is going to launch rockets from inside Gaza then Israel, like any nation state, has a right to respond. — BitconnectCarlos

That's sidestepping the question. I didn't ask whether you think Israel has some kind of "right to retaliate". I asked why they don't just stop doing it.

It would put me in a position where I'd be defending Nazis. I can't go on in this conversation. — BitconnectCarlos

This is telling. "I won't call it what it is, because if I do, I would have to recognize the situation for what it is, and that would be unbearable to me".

Examples of violence against Israelis can be brought up time and time again, as certain members, given a lack of a broader understanding of the issue or lacking an ethical concern for the oppressed, are wont to do, but this continues to exclude the fact that Israel, as the occupying force, owns the monopoly on colonial violence that takes place in the region. All other forms of violence occur within that sphere and cannot be decontextualized from that sphere. Given this, it's audacious to expect Palestinians to limit modes and mechanisms of emancipation by demanding that they act solely through nonviolent methods and peaceful resistance. Violent resistance has a historically successful track record of securing freedom and self-determination, and to demand that the oppressed struggle for emancipation through limited, pre-approved means presents itself as an implicit justification for the state of oppression.

If that's all you want to talk about, I see no point. — Echarmion

Don't ever create a situation where that is all there is. Simple, right?

I think this is a terrible moral philosophy. It turns persons into just replaceable cogs in a machine. Essentially giving whatever sovereign rules a country the right to dispose of their citizens lifes. — Echarmion

Yup. We agree. So, should the U.S. pull the pack our bags (of money) and go home? I'm hip. After all, as others opined on this thread, Jews can't count on anyone else to protect them. They have nukes, they are a self-sufficient island now, ala the "individualist" who doesn't need anybody any more.

This is just ad-hominem. Do you suppose the Palestinians read this thread as a guideline as to what to do? — Echarmion

First, it's not ad-hominem. It's fact. And second, the Palestinians don't need us to tell them they are getting fucked or how to stop it from happening. They are there. They aren't thousands of miles away second-guessing their own actions, like an armchair quarterback who would have them concede because, well, they are the underdog.

Israel, as the occupying force, owns the monopoly on colonial violence that takes place in the region. All other forms of violence occur within that sphere and cannot be decontextualized from that sphere. Given this, it's audacious to expect Palestinians to limit modes and mechanisms of emancipation by demanding that they act solely through nonviolent methods and peaceful resistance. — Maw

Once more for the genocide apologists in the back. Like @Echarmion, to name names.

I don't think anyone here would say that murdering innocent Israelis is not a problem. What's been the issue is that if a people have been oppressed for over 50 years and land theft continues, it would be strange for anyone to be surprised if such a people fight back against theft and discrimination. It doesn't make murder right in any case, but it makes it understandable given the context.

Settlers in the West Bank for example, cannot expect the people who's land they're taking not to fight back and possibly get killed.

But I think it's a mistake to take today's circumstance, which is what matters, and say that the two sides have problems. As if the problems on each side are in any way equal. One is clearly much more responsible than the other, given the available force and infrastructure they have.

Just switch Palestinians and Israelis. Make Israeli's the victims in the West Bank and Gaza and Palestine the occupying force. In such a case, the exact same arguments would go to Palestine and not to the Israeli victims.

Oh thanks. And here's me thinking you have to work at it. — frank


Saudi Arabia is ruled by a tiny minority of very rich and powerful men. Are you telling me they're trying? — Echarmion

So one thing you need to get straight is that lauding democracy is a neoliberal ploy. When you can't buy off religious leaders, you want democracy so you can subvert it and raid. They know that.

There's few Palestinians who would defend the methods of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Unlike some people in this thread, they have long since realized that such violence fuels only one agenda, and that is Israel's.

There's few Palestinians who would try to defend the methods of Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Unlike some people in this thread, they have long since realized that such violence fuels only one agenda, and that is Israel's. — Tzeentch

No doubt. There's probably no shortage of them feeding intel to Israel. Again, I liken it to the American West, where many an Indian rode against their own. Kind of like the Plutocracy sewing discord and pitting left against right. Age old tactic.

That's sidestepping the question. I didn't ask whether you think Israel has some kind of "right to retaliate". I asked why they don't just stop doing it. — Echarmion

Are you honestly asking me why Israel doesn't just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and not respond?

I don't know, maybe this is some kind of 500 IQ move that'll get them to stop and reduce violence in the long run but I honestly have no idea. If you're saying it's the best strategic move maybe I could entertain that purely on strategic grounds, not moral grounds though.

This is telling. "I won't call it what it is, because if I do, I would have to recognize the situation for what it is, and that would be unbearable to me". — StreetlightX

It's just a factual disagreement, nothing more. Never mind the fact that the Palestinian population has grown considerably over the past decade. To me it makes about as much sense as saying the US is trying to genocide black folks through police violence, but then again this may be something you believe so maybe it's not the best example for me to try to reach across the divide.

Given this, it's audacious to expect Palestinians to limit modes and mechanisms of emancipation by demanding that they act solely through nonviolent methods and peaceful resistance. Violent resistance has a historically successful track record of securing freedom and self-determination, and to demand that the oppressed struggle for emancipation through limited, pre-approved means presents itself as an implicit justification for the state of oppression. — Maw

All true. But this does not somehow make any consideration of tactics and the relation between ends and means superfluous. The results of an escalation are obvious - people will die, most of them Palestinians. And then it will provide further cover and justification for continuing and deepening the oppression.

And again I'm not imagining I'm somehow talking to Palestinians here. I just don't understand how anyone can see anything positive in stuff like rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

So, should the U.S. pull the pack our bags (of money) and go home? I'm hip. — James Riley

Yes. Or even better actively work against further escalation and expanding settlements.

They aren't thousands of miles away second-guessing their own actions, like an armchair quarterback who would have them concede because, well, they are the underdog. — James Riley

All of us here are armchair quarterbacks. Cheering them does them no good either.

So one thing you need to get straight is that lauding democracy is a neoliberal ploy. When you can't buy off religious leaders, you want democracy so you can subvert it and raid. They know that. — frank

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Are you honestly asking me why Israel doesn't just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and not respond? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes.

I don't know, maybe this is some kind of 500 IQ move that'll get them to stop and reduce violence in the long run but I honestly have no idea. If you're saying it's the best strategic move maybe I could entertain that purely on strategic grounds, not moral grounds though. — BitconnectCarlos

It's the reverse, I'm saying it's the best move on moral grounds. Nothing is gained from cycles of escalation (except of course power for Israeli politicians and Hamas' warlords).