Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe get a life? — Benkei

I just gotta respond to this.

This isn't me angry or bitter at the Romans. I am making a cultural observation here.

I am speaking here as a Jew, not as an "objective" observer here. I don't think there is such a thing as a truly objective observer. Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that. — BitconnectCarlos

Kind of hard to tell when you're speaking as a Jew in the same paragraph but you can transpose my comment to whoever thinks that ought to be part of a cultural identity.

Jews are still bitter at the Romans for that. — BitconnectCarlos

So I understand, and have been told before. The only people I know who got that kind of treatment from Rome were the Carthaginians.

That's my answer. It just depends on the specific scenario. For example, if the IDF invaded Gaza, Palestinian militants would be justified in resisting the invasion with force. Just as if Palestinian militants invaded Israel, the converse would be true. Sometimes one or the other may be more or less justified in using violence. The asymmetry is that Israel is the occupier. In that sense, their violence is constant. — Baden

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas.

But this is what happens, tit-for-tat punishment attacks against the innocent create a spiral of hatred that prolongs conflicts. — Baden

Yep, becomes reprisal tit-for-tat, revenge, etc. Israel can sort of try to claim "deterrence" too, but I don't see suicidal terrorists being deterred anyways. Once they used up most of their supply, they will stop more likely. I'm not sure what makes Hamas "stop" though.. It certainly isn't seeing their own innocents die anymore than Israel sending over missiles in response to intended violence towards them. Israel too should take into account that Hamas just doesn't give a fuck if a bunch of people die in response to their rockets. As long as they have a show of force, and show they are "really pissed", they are good with it, no matter the consequences towards their own people.

I still don't really know what you're getting at here. — Baden

It goes back to this:

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence? — schopenhauer1

Or more elaborated version whereby if "BitCarlos cannot say "We are justified to use violence because of X (security)", similarly you cannot say on Palestinian side, "We are justified to use violence because of X (occupying force)". I was looking to make sure there wasn't just blatant bias going on.

I also wanted to see the propensity one has for condoning violence against one side or how even-handed was it. In other words, if you perceive that you are occupied, how violent are you allowed to be and to whom? Conversely, if your civilians are being purposefully targeted (like in the case of Israel's citizens), what is the proper response if those very perpetrators hide back in the crowds? Hence my question here:

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas. — schopenhauer1

People from both sides are interviewed. If you look the whole clip, it explains interestingly also how many in the US, Middle-East experts and also Secretary of State George Marshall, were opposed to the idea of Israel and feared (correctly) that it would start a war, but Truman had his way.

I think many people can agree that the circumstances in which Israel became a state were far from ideal. I think you do a good job at digging up the history here, and I like that you cite Benny Morris. I've found Morris never shies away from Israeli atrocities and more or less believes in just putting it all out there.

In any case the approach that I go with is how do we best move forward from where we are now. I think we should be working to bring people from both sides of the fence together. I don't have much faith in Netanyahu, and I have zero in Hamas. I guess I would have to favor a grassroots solutions if that type of thing is at all possible.

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile.

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile. — BitconnectCarlos

Give up Right of Return. Give up big settlements in West Bank. Make sure things like assassinations (Rabin) and increasing suicide bombings (Hamas/Hezbollah or whatnot) doesn't occur during process. If this happens, the moderates crack down on their own extremes. Not sure how that looks.

"Their grandparents massacred us so it's ok for us to massacre them now" — khaled

I never said massacres are okay. Massacres are always bad. Israel has sentenced some of the war criminals in those years, although not in a way that one would normally consider fair. Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers?

It all depends on the way the conflict is being framed. With most people it'll be civil and I'll try to distance myself from my identity as much as possible, but the minute one side appears more intent on simply demonizing the other rather than finding a solution I'm done. — BitconnectCarlos

What specifically from the posts you saw with others made you feel like Israel was being demonised rather than being criticised strongly for human rights violations? Is there a line you draw or is it vibes based?

I approach the issue asking "what's the best way to help the Palestinians improve their position today" but others are simply more interested in demonizing one side. Israel is much more amenable to working with a Palestinian government that doesn't demand its immediate dissolution and refuses to recognize it. — BitconnectCarlos

I mean that's pretty clear, no? Lobbying the state of Israel and it accepting one of the documented compromises Palestine has proposed on territory and were refused or blocked by the state of Israel. Internal demonstration within the state of Israel, proportional violent resistance to military over-reach, supply chain disruptions, trade sanctions on the state etc.

As it stands the Palestinians are using whatever political means available to help themselves; yes, including terrible violence; it's up to Israel to increase the space of acceptable means. It has been for some time, but it doesn't happen.

If we're going to frame the conflict as a zero-sum game, as other posters have, then I can play that game too. No, history does not begin in 1948 like the Europeans seem to believe. We're not going to solve much by looking back where each side can bring up endless grievances, we're going to do much better by looking forward. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't read that into their framing at all! I've never gotten "gains for one are losses for the other" framing from @Benkei or @StreetlightX's discussion of it - except in the extremely literal sense that gains in Israel's territory are losses in Palestine's. I think Benkei and Street know more than well enough that collaborative games like politics don't need to be framed as zero sum and typically are not in reality.

From my perspective, your posts were actually the ones which had this framing - though presumably because you detected it (in my eyes a mis-detection) and responded in kind, though I can understand that you felt victimised through identifying with a group you felt were being demonised and have lots of tropes on your side for inferring that demonisation. Again, from my perspective, Israel was being harshly criticised for its numerous human rights violations and this is an emotive issue + being on the "receiving end" of someone's anger (regardless of its motivation) often feels like being stereotyped/demonised/victimised.

So I get it (I think), but I think you misclassified the intent.

I mean that's pretty clear, no? — fdrake

I would have thought so but others explicitly reject this "lets first and foremost help the Palestinians" approach. From an exchange yesterday:

What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.
— BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not the issue. The contributory negligence or guilt of other parties does not excuse Israeli war crimes. — Benkei

I was trying to frame the issue in a constructive, forward-looking way and Benkei, for whatever reason, refocuses the discussion exclusively on Israel. It's ridiculous to me because it implies that Hamas and the PA are either non-existent (or don't matter) or are Israeli puppets - neither of which are true. The PA and Hamas are the direct regional governments of the Palestinian people. They are quite relevant and play an active role in the daily lives of Palestinians.

As it stands the Palestinians are using whatever political means available to help themselves; yes, including terrible violence; it's up to Israel to increase the space of acceptable means. It has been for some time, but it doesn't happen. — fdrake

This is difficult to do as Hamas will arrest Palestinians who attempt to reach out to Israelis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-gaza-activists/hamas-releases-palestinian-peace-activists-arrested-after-zoom-call-with-israelis-idUSKBN27B2JU

These peace meetings are considered treason by Hamas.

The PA over in the West Bank hasn't had an election in around 10 years and the level of corruption and embezzlement is so widespread that its become just a fact of life, but they get no attention as they are not Hamas. Things have undoubtedly been better in the West Bank though.

"Lets help the Palestinians" is such a better, more constructive approach than "lets make Israel bleed." One of these focuses on an actual legitimate problem, the other is directly counter-productive and actually a big part of the reason that people like Netanyahu are in power.

Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security". — schopenhauer1

This is a tactical / operational modus operandi that Israel has.

It's basically a "Tit-for-tat" strategy added with a larger operation every once in a while when some Israeli leader decides a larger operation would look better. For the Palestinians they only have to survive and exist as a potential force and lob sometimes a few rockets to Israel, because otherwise people would forget that there's a conflict going on. And the "security hawks" like Bibi Netanyahu, one rocket is too much for their ego, because they have claimed that they can fight the insurgency and keep the Jewish people safe. Hence some incident happens, other side counters with either firing rockets (Palestinians) or bombing (Israelis). And when an incident is considered too large, then Israel launches a bigger operation.

Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with solving the conflict. On the contrary: the tactics used only keep the low intensity conflict alive and the conflict going on. Here the case is that one has to understand how insurgencies can be won: they need a political solution. How is this so difficult to understand?

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1

What is this obsession/fetish about wars and military actions being justified / unjustified?

As if "the justification" for war is the most important issue. Those who participate in voluntary wars, get themselves involved in others conflicts or start conflicts themselves far away from their own lands might be fixated on "the justification" question. Is it totally inconceivable to fathom that both sides in a conflict could have justified reasons for their action? Both sides would think that they are defending themselves and their people? Why think that for human conflicts there is a moral "righteous justified" reasoning that one side has and the other hasn't? That one side is clearly right and another clearly wrong?

In my view, what is unjustified is to sustain a perpetual conflict without any care or desire to solve it. And, for clarity, a "final solution" type genocide isn't a justified solution. Israel can keep this on as long as they want. Just look at their economic history:



And for that matter, so can the Palestinians. They won't capitulate either. They'll raise the next generation to carry the fight. What else do they have?

Enough people want this conflict to go on. Especially the religious fanatics. People can have this strange discussion of who is morally more justified than the other in a long conflict like this. A better discussion would be how the conflict could be ended. Without the virtue signaling.

Wrote this before I saw @ssu’s post. Anyway, along the same lines.

What do you do if the militants who are shooting into Israel disappear into civilian populations? I am not saying bomb indiscriminately, but just in terms of Israeli forces finding the perpetrators. I legitimately don't know as I am not very knowledgeable in terms of the range of military/police options/actions against perceived (or actual) terrorist threats in heavily disputed and populated areas. — schopenhauer1

Sometimes you need to accept that you can’t find the perpetrator or separate him/her from innocent parties and by killing the innocent along with the guilty, you simply create more perpetrators, and more fanatic ones. Sometime after Bloody Sunday where British Soldiers did open fire on and kill civilians in response to gunfire from IRA operatives in the vicinity, the British realised this and that they wouldn’t defeat the IRA this way. In fact they'd become their chief recruiting officers instead. But they actually did want a solution and eventually got one. Had they taken a more heavy handed approach, violence simply would have escalated, the IRA become stronger and more popular, and a peace process virtually impossible. Again, if you want peace you don’t use these tactics.

In any case the approach that I go with is how do we best move forward from where we are now. I think we should be working to bring people from both sides of the fence together. I don't have much faith in Netanyahu, and I have zero in Hamas. I guess I would have to favor a grassroots solutions if that type of thing is at all possible.

The history is what it is. On the Arab account maybe things only begin with the creation of Israel/the "nakba"/ "the great humiliation" - but for the Jews Israel is only the latest chapter in a 3000 year story - the culmination of centuries of struggle and exile. — BitconnectCarlos

Just ask yourself: How did (West) Europeans find this harmony to try something as crazy as the European Union? Even if it has it's faults, it's pretty different endeavour from the past. How did the militarism and jingoism die in Europe?

As I've said earlier, the answer was two world wars. Basically one way to find peace is when people truly are so sick and tired of war that they don't give a shit what the war-hawks, the religious zealots claim and want. There are simply too many that have died. Total disasters create change. Countries like West Germany truly had to think things over. That is one answer, but surely not the best answer.

A better way would be that you would have the truly courageous leaders that truly would want peace and would not care that the more easier way for a politician to succeed is to be a hawk. Those politicians who make peace agreements in the Middle East have been killed by their own. Not the hawks: they die of old age.

And those in the military (and the political leaders) have to understand that the British way to deal with insurgencies, as also wrote, is the hard long dreary road to some kind of peace. If you uphold things like the Common Law and treat the terrorists as criminals and put them through the legal system, yes, you do bind your military on how they can fight their opponent. You do restrain your fighting men from using "excessive force" and that does hinder their response. And likely that will mean that more of them will end up as casualties. They simply cannot call in an artillery strike or close air support which turns tables quite quickly in an ambush. Yet calling in that artillery strike or fighter bomber likely will create in the long run more insurgents than they kill. Let's not forget that even if it did go for a longer time, the British lost far more soldiers & policemen killed in Northern Ireland (Operation Banner) than in the Falklands war, in Iraq or in Afghanistan combined.

In fact, I think less Israeli soldiers have been killed fighting the Palestinians in the last 40 years than the British lost in Operation Banner.

Wow, you guys/gals have really kept this thing alive, I'm quite glad.

Pertinent to this discussion is the apparent fact that Netanyahu might finally lose power in Israel. If this amounts to anything practical on the ground is yet to be seen. Likely not. But, that will also depend on how firm the US is in dealing with Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/LIVE-lapid-aims-to-announce-new-government-with-bennett-at-the-helm-1.9866751

I was trying to frame the issue in a constructive, forward-looking way and Benkei, for whatever reason, refocuses the discussion exclusively on Israel. It's ridiculous to me because it implies that Hamas and the PA are either non-existent (or don't matter) or are Israeli puppets - neither of which are true. The PA and Hamas are the direct regional governments of the Palestinian people. They are quite relevant and play an active role in the daily lives of Palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

There's nothing constructive about trying to direct attention away from Israeli oppression, annexation and colonialism. Hamas' crimes against their own is a drop in the ocean of the violence perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians. Until you are capable of fully recognising the extent of Israeli crimes there is simply no use looking beyond it. And in light of your "trip around the world" of tu quoque earlier in this thread, I have no faith that's anything genuine about this.

As to constructive solutions. I have repeatedly said what such solution looks like. It's 1967 borders with right of return. Especially for those Palestinians effectively deported from their homes in East Jerusalem, which to this day cannot leave the country and return to their own homes. The deportation of Palestinians continues.

It's also funny how you point out the lack of objectivity in this situation and couldn't understand a white European could be "in favour" of Palestinians. You seem to continually fail to understand that the impartial, I have no horse in this race other than a respect for humanity, judgment is this - it's based on principles such as international law and human rights. I understand this is very far from the propaganda you've been spoon fed from birth, but there it is. And when you realise I have a no relation, I'm all of a sudden judgmental. Indeed I am. Who else has to render judgment but an outsider precisely because those with ties to the region can't be objective?

I'll notice that except for a few diaspora Jews nobody seems to have defended Israel here. And other than Khaled I think they're mostly white males from western countries.

This is difficult to do as Hamas will arrest Palestinians who attempt to reach out to Israelis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-gaza-activists/hamas-releases-palestinian-peace-activists-arrested-after-zoom-call-with-israelis-idUSKBN27B2JU

These peace meetings are considered treason by Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

.
Hmm... Due process afforded after being charged with an actual crime according to local law. That's already a step up from the "administrative" detention of Israel where no charge is laid and Palestinians are in prison for months and sometimes even years. Try again...

I'll notice that except for a few diaspora Jews nobody seems to have defended Israel here. And other than Khaled I think they're mostly white males from western countries. — Benkei

As a white male from a Western country, it's still a tough sell. I think I'd tend to take a stronger position on Palestinian violence than my lefty peers on this: violence is a perfectly acceptable last resort in the face of an existential threat, and the Palestinian crisis, caused and perpetuated by Israel, most certainly qualifies as an existential threat. As such, the prior discussions on "if Israel can't be violent surely Gammas can't be violent" are disingenuous in my eyes: Israel have, or at least had, the power to end this peacefully; the PLO did not, and a peaceful PLO would not have neutered the existential threat to the Palestinian people.

However... The Israel-Palestine conflict of today is not that of the more optimistic past. While most Jews and Palestinians support a peaceful, cooperative two-state solution, Hamas has consciously put itself at odds with peace as an ideal and the mutually agreed conditions of the two-state solution.

It's still impossible to defend Israel, since Hamas' MO is a beast of their own creation, but in fairness it's now difficult to negotiate a peace treaty with an entity that a) refuses to accept peace as a condition of a peace treaty and b) refuses to acknowledge the existence of the other state. Even for the now bipartisan PA, this still strikes me as the most immediate barrier to peace.

That said, given that Israel does not face any kind of existential threat from Palestine, meeting a lobbed, homemade explosive over a fence with multiple strikes to kill many civilians is still indefensible. It's incommensurate. The deterrent defense is untenable: they are killing and angering people who recognise Israel and support a peaceful two-state solution. That is not a deterrent, that's an inticement. I've never felt that Israel had any intention of working toward a peaceful two-state solution, rather their own MO has been to stall in times of peace and kill as many as they can get away with in times of conflict.

Hamas has consciously put itself at odds with peace as an ideal and the mutually agreed conditions of the two-state solution. — Kenosha Kid

an entity that a) refuses to accept peace as a condition of a peace treaty and b) refuses to acknowledge the existence of the other state. — Kenosha Kid

Let me add some to this because people forget a few aspects. Israel doesn't recognise a Palestinian State either and even when Rabin and Arafat got close, Palestine would not be a State but an "autonomous region". The refusal to recognise Israel mirrors Israel's refusal to recognise a Palestinian State. And from a negotiation perspective this also makes sense because by recognising a State the right to land is automatically recognised. And in the end territory is a very important aspect of the negotiations.

Hamas has explicitly stated, several times since 2008 in fact, that "[it] considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."

I'm confident if this is achieved that Hamas too, will recognise Israel as a State because then the borders, Palestinian rights and status of Jerusalem would be agreed so there's no risk in recognising the other party as sovereign. They've been clear that their resistance is not against Jews but against zionism even though the status of Jerusalem is also clearly a religious issue.

Hmm... Due process afforded after being charged with an actual crime according to local law. That's already a step up from the "administrative" detention of Israel where no charge is laid and Palestinians are in prison for months and sometimes even years. Try again... — Benkei

Well, glad to know it was all done by the books. Thanks for setting me straight there. If only the Israeli government could learn such professionalism! /s

I'm confident if this is achieved that Hamas too, will recognise Israel as a State because then the borders, Palestinian rights and status of Jerusalem would be agreed so there's no risk in recognising the other party as sovereign. — Benkei

But that is precisely what they've refused to agree to, along with, on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the government of that state ceasing hostilities against Israel.

Israel doesn't recognise a Palestinian State either and even when Rabin and Arafat got close, Palestine would not be a State but an "autonomous region". — Benkei

On the first point, true, but then Palestine isn't an autonomous region yet, Israel is and is globally recognised as such (with a few exceptions). In the failed Oslo agreement, both sides agreed to recognise the other as a sovereign state and cease hostilities once the autonomous state of Palestine was established. Hamas reversed that. I don't see this as a barrier to a two-state solution from Israel's point of view, but at the same time it would be extremely trusting, naive even, to think the conflict would end there when your opponent has actively reneged on a promise not to attack you if it gets what it says it wants.

Did the Arab governments arrest and sentence their murderers? — BitconnectCarlos

Why is this at the end of every comment? It's the same idea. Now it's "They didn't sentence their murderers so it's fine for us to leave some of ours too". You keep highlighting the intolerance and backwardness of many Arab countries but you can't go 2 sentences without comparing to them. What does that say about Israel?

You make a fair point and I'll try to stop doing that with you. It was nothing personal I was thinking about other posters, but we have our own dialogue and we can keep it civil if we like. I shouldn't have let that other poster affect my tone with you.

Why do you do it with anyone? And why would it be anything personal?

Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" while also demonizing said Arabs. The form itself is insane ("The Germans did the holocaust so it's fine for us to slaughter them back") but that you compare Israel to the Arab states you keep demonizing should tell you something about Israel.

You also seem to think that anyone who condemns Israeli atrocities is fine with Arab atrocities. People don't see it as a freaking "atrocity competition" like you seem to. Saying X did something wrong doesn't make Y a saint.

Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us so it's fine for us to do it to the Arabs" — khaled

I've never said it was fine. Everybody can be wrong. So what then? What's the upshot?

I've never said it was fine. — BitconnectCarlos

You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification.

So what then? What's the upshot? — BitconnectCarlos

Why must there be a "so what"? This thread is simply talking about a current atrocity. What do you think the upshot is? You think everyone here is secretly siding with Hamas and threatening poor defenseless Israel?

You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification. — khaled

For the purposes of our discussion we can start with the premise that what Israel did in '48 was wrong. I'm fine with entertaining that idea. Or that Israel was wrong for launching rockets into Gaza. So what then?

Sorry, I just find it meaningless to just point at a state and be like "that's wrong." Ok, what are you going to do about it?

It's a state, it's not an individual. It's a complex network.

But that is precisely what they've refused to agree to, along with, on the establishment of a Palestinian state, the government of that state ceasing hostilities against Israel. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure this is correct. When was this on the table during the Oslo Accords? As far as I know it has never been on the table to recognise a Palestinian State from the Israeli side. Please provide documentation if you think otherwise but I think you're confusing the recognition of Israel of the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people with a broader recognition.

Ah, might not have been Oslo actually. Can't check this on my phone, bear with...

I think you might be referring to the Camp David Summit of 2000, where the Palestinians forwarded a Palestinian State but since nothing really was put in writing and both camps blamed the other for a breakdown of the negotiations, I can't really tell what the end of that was and whether Israel was ok with Palestinian sovereignty. It didn't end up in the concluding trilateral statement, which says something.

Enough people want this conflict to go on. Especially the religious fanatics. People can have this strange discussion of who is morally more justified than the other in a long conflict like this. A better discussion would be how the conflict could be ended. Without the virtue signaling. — ssu

Absolutely agree. You’ve actually managed to sum up my points in my last few posts better than I so kudos. I was first seeing If the indignity went both ways, but the broader point I was getting at is pretty much what you stated in your last post.
I refer everyone to it as a summation of this thread
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/545926

I tell you about how Hamas arrests citizens for attempting to make peace through establishing connections in Israel, and your response is that it was 'all done by the books.' I can't imagine anyone who isn't a diehard Hamas supporter saying this. I just wonder how a white Dutchman becomes a diehard Hamas supporter.

I'm not a Hamas supporters, I'm anti your continuous attempts at distractions. Your whining about Hamas rings hollow in light of Israel's administrative detentions and torture.

Educate yourself : https://www.btselem.org/administrative_detention