do you want to start charity dick measuring? Or maybe, how much people can we influence? What's the point of your comment except for being a twat? I mean in the grand scheme of things blowing up a couple of Palestinians has no bearing on anything either so let's not talk about it, ok?

do you want to start charity dick measuring? Or maybe, how much people can we influence? What's the point of your comment except for being a twat? I mean in the grand scheme of things blowing up a couple of Palestinians has no bearing on anything either so let's not talk about it, ok? — Benkei

C'mon Benkei, you can do better. You want to be a beta dog your whole life? You've got to get in there and accuse me of genocide for suggesting that the most we can do is give to charities that are trying to help the victims.

Make weird combinations of profane words. Just basically rave like an unmedicated bipolar patient.

No, I'm just accusing you of committing fallacies. That last one is just another one. If all you can do is offer red herrings or poison the well, just get lost OK?

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 — Echarmion

Except this arbitration is still being directed towards those who are oppressed, not the oppressors, therefore falling for the liberal demand that the latter not only solve their own emancipation but that they are issued limitations for the "correct" way to do so.

Oh my:

10:25 P.M. Sources say rocket fire from Lebanon committed by small Palestinian group

Rocket fire from Lebanon toward Israel was the work of a small Palestinian group and occurred without Hezbollah's knowledge, according to Lebanese defense sources. (Jack Khoury)

Man, is Lebanon becomes involved, this is going to be very bad.

Except this arbitration is still being directed towards those who are oppressed, not the oppressors, therefore falling for the liberal demand that the latter not only solve their own emancipation but that they are issued limitations for the "correct" way to do so. — Maw

I don't really understand this line of argument. Are you saying that what the Hamas is doing is both moral and reasonable (from the perspective of instrumental reason) or are you saying that since Hamas represents oppressed people, I shoudn't talk about whether or not what they're doing is either moral or reasonable? Isn't the entire point of having a topic about this on the philosophy forum to talk about the "correct" way to do stuff, from either perspective?

No, I'm just accusing you of committing fallacies. That last one is just another one. If all you can do is offer red herrings or poison the well, just get lost OK? — Benkei

I never said you have no personality of your own. I don't know where you got that from.

BTW, I don't think you understand "poison the well."

Man, is Lebanon becomes involved, this is going to be very bad. — Manuel

I think Russia is going to handle it.

That went over my head. Putin's power is constrained despite what is reported in the US.

In either case if the US doesn't tell Israel to tone it down, war will break out.

They are compelled to engage in protest, but not to ascribe to a form of revolutionary fanaticism. Because the Western powers, primarily the United Kingdom and the United States had a vested interest in creating a Jewish state in Western Asia so as to promote a meta-narrative of their "promoting freedom and democracy", a great irony, considering the number of coup d'états that particularly the United States has been involved with there, the Palestinians have very little going for them when it comes to the global discourse and can be so inclined to endorse fairly fanatical ideas by that account. I, too, think that Israeli and Palestinian leaders, perhaps even those who would not be my natural allies, do need to come together and create an effective and lasting resolution to the crisis. What that means is the abandonment of certain forms of Zionism and certain forms of abolition in the creation of two states, which ought to eventually transform into one state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians.

There's a lot of troubled history within such a venture, though, as the Jewish diaspora was a partial raison dêtre for the creation of the nation of Israel, and, though I do think that their situation differs from those of people in the former apartheid South Africa, Palestinian rights activists are right to characterize the biopolitical stratagem undertaken against the Palestinians as an "apartheid regime".

As I am a mere Western spectator, I don't really feel like it is my place to offer a resolution to the crisis and merely hope that some human rights lawyer successfully will. People let this dispute become all-consuming when it is extraordinarily particular and wholly unrepresentative of geo-politics as a whole.

There's no Jewish Homeland defined except in the Torah which, as a religious text, has no legal standing. There's an area designated for Jews to settle, which area was called Palestine, with the understanding original inhabitants wouldn't be displaced. We all know what happened and who have been driven from their homes. I think it was Begin who said : there's not a Jewish village that isn't build on the rubble of a Palestinian. — Benkei

So what should determine who the rightful owners are? International law? What makes international law special? If there was a UN 500 years ago would you have followed it unquestionably? But now it's word is permanently binding, it's law - ok, got it. :brow:

"You all know what happened." I'm sure you do, just you know all history that happened 80 years impeccably. Have you read Benny Morris on the subject?

Begin may have said that but what were those Palestinian homes on the rubble of? Ottoman/Turkish homes? Byzantine homes? Roman homes? Babylonian homes? Jewish homes again before all that?

In either case if the US doesn't tell Israel to tone it down, war will break out. — Manuel

Russia wants to broker peace.

@BitconnectCarlos @Joshs @Encharmion @frank @Number2018 @tim wood

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for their means and methods of resistance, he must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. Until then, the logic of oppression entails that there cannot be "innocents" in the oppressor's camp, especially in so far as the oppressor tactically discounts them – his own noncombatant civilians – as potentially "acceptable losses", that is, the necessary cost of maintaining his strategem of oppression. In order to survive, the oppressed must resist – always have and always will – by any means necessary. (Foot's on his neck, certainly that's what the oppressor would do – what everyone's ancestors at some time or another have done!) So if any oppressor-state is serious about stopping "terrorism", that oppressor-state should begin by giving up its own policies of state-terrorism and military-economic support for client/proxy-terrorism.

the Palestinians have very little going for them when it comes to the global discourse — thewonder

They need a Gandhi.

Ah. I hope they can achieve it.

Looks quite difficult now, momentum is swinging towards full out war.

Looks quite difficult now, momentum is swinging towards full out war. — Manuel

I don't think Hamas can wage war (not against Israel).

Where did you get this from? It sounds vaguely familiar. What specific political writing does it plug into?

I agree. If Hezbollah gets involved, that would be awful for everybody.

I don't think so. But who knows how far this one will go?

Evasive non sequitur.

Do you get the sense that some of the more strident critics of Israel on this thread are using the Palestinians more as symbolic props than as real people? Kind of like Hollywood movies where the set-up involves an ‘other’ ( black, native american, fill in the blank) victimized and oppressed by the imperialist Western white man. This oppressed other can do no wrong since they are just empty symbols. The point is to display the heroism and moral purity of the Western rescuer who can pat themselves on the back for defying their own heritage and upbringing , and maybe flip
their own parents the bird for good measure (it’s been said that Chomsky has a Daddy complex).

Any moral ambiguity to this plot set-up cannot be permitted, lest it spoil the illusion of moral superiority on the part of the self-critical Western activist.

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for his means and methods of resistance, he/they must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. Until then, the logic of oppression entails that there must not be any "innocents" in the oppressor's camp, especially in so far as the oppressor tactically discounts them – his own noncombatant civilians – as potentially "acceptable losses" as the necessary cost of maintaining his strategem of oppression — 180 Proof

What's the "oppressor's camp"? Do it's inhabitants get any say in whether or not they are placed here, or do they become mere bargaining chips for "the oppressor" to spend and "the oppressed" to cash in?

It's one thing to say that Netanjahu or whoever else we consider an oppressor bears the blame for all Israeli causalities as well. It's another to just exclude those casualties from moral consideration entirely. Blame is not a zero-sum game. I can assign the full blame to the oppressor and also apply the full blame to whoever orders the deaths of civilians without even a military justification.

In order to survive, the oppressed must resist – always have and always will – by any means necessary. — 180 Proof

This seems backwards. In order to resist, you must first be alive and second in a position to impose costs on your oppressor. Otherwise what you're doing is not resistance but suicide.

And because I'll be accused of blaming the victim or demanding non-violent resistance: I'm not saying never use this or that method, I'm saying use something that works.

So if any oppressor-state is serious about stoping "terrorism", that oppressor-state should begin by giving up its own policies of state-terrorism and military-economic support for client/proxy-terrorism. — 180 Proof

I totally agree. It's first and foremost the Israeli state who should stop all violence, no matter how many rockets are allegedly fired.

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for his means and methods of resistance, he/they must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. — 180 Proof

What makes something qualify as being a "state-apparatus of oppression?" Who makes this determination?

Also, your statement would seem to excuse certain individuals of moral culpability.

You’re damn right I’m being evasive. I d rather poke needles into my eyes than be drawn into this ego-fueled bitch slapping contest. You philosophical posts are always thoughtful. I would think you’d appreciate that nothing constructive can come from throwing the political equivalent of bible quotes at each other. Just help me get a little perspective is all i’m asking.

I'd bet that it's as per their reading of Frantz Fannon, who became common to invoke in debates upon the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, probably beginning sometime in the late 1980s.

@180 Proof is correct to suggest that Hamas's capacity to wage an effective revolution against the nation Israel, of which they have absolutely none, is "evasive", as, what they were suggesting is that, if Israel wants to bring about an effective and lasting peace, then they must first begin to dismantle the apparatus created in order to carry out their biopolitical program.

The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, had agreed on the term and need for the State of Israel to end the "occupation" (i.e. occupiers, by definition, are oppressors).

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-27-fg-mideast27-story.html

I don't know. We've got one black guy, a Chinese Australian, and a NY Jew.

What they seem to have in common is that they're so leftist they aren't even on this planet anymore. They're somewhere left of Saturn.

I think they see themselves as caring for anyone who needs defense from state action. Do they understand Hamas? I don't think so.

Do they understand Israeli hardliners? Honestly, I don't understand them. Do you?

Vapid ad hominem. No surprise there. Pathetic evasion.

↪180 Proof You’re damn right I’m being evasive. — Joshs

Okay. Candor at least. :shade:

The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, agreed on the term and need for Israel' to end the "occupation".

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-27-fg-mideast27-story.html — 180 Proof

The current position of the Israeli government, at least as of 2011 is that Gaza and the West Bank are "disputed territories," not occupied territories.

I will say this. Israel has become a flashpoint for the left not just because of its subjugation of palestinians
but because its form of nationalistic democracy exemplifies the Enlightenment era liberal political self-identity that the West is trying to distance itself from via brutal self-critique. There is nothing quite so threatening to a person than witnessing a way of thinking in an other that they have themselves only recently struggled to free themselves from. This is a thread common to the intensity of. BLM, #Metoo and anti-Israel sentiment. Israel is us black , Chinese or white Westerners , the way we used to be, the way many of us still are ( Trump , Brexit supporters) .

If you can get past that he has left the implicatures of his discourse open so as to also be as if he were issuing an ultimatum, the substance of his argument is actually quite good.