Your inability to keep on topic is no one's problem but yours. Further posts to that effect will be deleted. — StreetlightX

Yes, I understand, the discussion has to be tightly controlled to prevent the inclusion of any analysis which is inconvenient to your position. Ok, I don't object, I'm not going to fight anyone for control of a thread as silly as this one.

I'm not an oracle. But the clear and present danger to life and safety is clearly the Israeli state, which has been running a regime of terror for decades now. And this conflation of Palestinian which some generic figure of 'Arabs' is a bunch of racist bullshit and needs to stop. Palestinians are who they are because of their belong to the land they have lived on for generations, while being displaced by genocidal regime, and are not interchangeable with any other 'Arab'.

I don't presume to know what an exact solution would look like, but I do know what it is not: an ethnocentric apartheid regime pretending to be a democracy while running a Middle Eastern Jim Crow administration. Either Israel will need to become a true democracy, or there will never be peace in the region.

But the clear and present danger to life and safety is clearly the Israeli state, which has been running a regime of terror for decades now. — StreetlightX

Ok, what I'm asking us to explore, and I agree none of us can predict the future...

If the "reign of terror" were to end, what would replace it?

One Palestinian state? Two? Then what?

Or, if Israel made all those living in Gaza and the West Bank full citizens of Israel, does that really solve anything? Or would the conflict continue in some other form, perhaps including the kind of political violence now rearing it's head in the currently existing Israel?

I don't really have a point, I'm just wondering if any re-arrangement of the chairs will stop those determined to live in conflict from doing so.

If my post was indeed just an inaccurate personal attack, then it should be easy to prove that by linking to your Syria threads. If such threads exist, then I'm wrong about my evaluation of your behavior here, and will be happy to say so. — Foghorn

Sigh. Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant. You complain about standards but aren't even capable of constructing an argument.

What part of the quoted UN report is false? Or do you agree with it? Why insist, three times in row, to bring up irrelevancies?

Israeli insecurity forces won't even let Palestinians clean up the mess left by Israeli murder cults outside of Damascus gate. Civic organization on the part of the opressed of any kind terrifies these colonialist goonbags.

I don't really have a point — Foghorn

That much is clear. Nothing but efforts to muddy discussion by means of empty, cynical speculation.

Sigh. Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant. — Benkei

It's irrelevant from a purely philosophical standpoint, but in the world of practical action something like this is very relevant. The problem with political issues like this is that they're not purely philosophical issues and cannot be with all of their complexity and real-world messiness, but since we're on a philosophy forum we typically try to stick to a philosophical framework which creates tension especially when the discussion at hand is by no means purely philosophical in nature.

Yes, obviously there hasn't been enough death there... — ssu

The essential divide in this issue is between those who are out for blood and those who actually seek solutions. No one here is saying that Israel is an angel.

It's irrelevant from a purely philosophical standpoint, but in the world of practical action something like this is very relevant. The problem with political issues like this is that they're not purely philosophical issues and cannot be with all of their complexity and real-world messiness, but since we're on a philosophy forum we typically try to stick to a philosophical framework which creates tension especially when the discussion at hand is by no means purely philosophical. — BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not true from purely a philosophical standpoint, this is simple logic. My personal background is irrelevant to the argument forwarded. It has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of the claims or the argument based on them.

This is basically what you're suggesting:

1. Benkei forwarded claims from the UN report
2. Benkei doesn't complain enough about Assad to my liking
3. Therefore he and, by association, the UN report must be ignored

It's mindnumbingly stupid.

Bankei, I'm agreeing with you. Read my post again.

My point is that it's always irrelevant not just because we're on a philosophy forum. That's like dismissing Putin's argument that a land-grab is illegal because of Crimea. He'd still be right and a hypocrite.

And that is right. One can be right and still a hypocrite.
The personality of the poster is Always a huge factor.
Anything else is the myth of value-free reason.
Carry on...

My point is that it's always irrelevant not just because we're on a philosophy forum. — Benkei

It all depends on the framework that you approach the conflict with. If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo.

If your approach is to find a solution, then these other personal ideas do matter as they can be counterproductive to a solution.

It all depends on the framework that you approach the conflict with. If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo.

If your approach is to find a solution, then these other personal ideas do matter as they can contribute to the conflict. — BitconnectCarlos

There is no solution to be had if both sides don't agree on the facts. You need to be talking about the same thing. That's an important issue here too because both parties have different definitions of the West Bank for instance.

If your entire goal is to bash one side, sure you'll take material or arguments or facts from anywhere -- doesn't matter. All ammo is good ammo. — BitconnectCarlos

Also, this is quite telling. You assume my goal is to bash one side and think arguments and facts are "ammo". Seems a rather belligerent attitude. Arguments and facts are either true or false.

I'm in this because for as long as I remember almost every news outlet has only been concerned with the "security" problem of Israel as were attempts to solutions of it, without taking a closer look at the atrocities Israel commits. The context requires a lot more focus on Israeli crimes because most of them were never reported or aren't reported due to an overwhelming bias. This is slowly changing and it's no wonder that on a philosophy forum, where people on average are better educated, the position is evidently anti-Israel because it's by far worse, both in number of crimes and victims, than anything the Palestinians manage to do. The latter, including Hamas, is a consequence of what Israel has and continues to do, which means "it has made its bed and has to lie in it". Palestinian terrorism was a reaction to Israeli oppression and annexation not the other way around.

There is no solution to be had if both sides don't agree on the facts. — Benkei

You're not going to get that -- welcome to the Middle East. You are never going to get your request here. To think that anyone can come from outside to set all the facts and all the history straight is white man savior syndrome. You would need to stamp out the Jewish narrative entirely. Are you ready to do that? And don't tell me this is only about the "Zionists" because the Jewish community is virtually all Zionist.

Of course we'll have that because our position is the correct one. As happened with South Africa. Once everyone agreed it was a racist, Apartheid state and was prepared to sanction it, South Africa had to change. The same thing will happen with Israel. One way or the other. It's a question of whether Israel will wake up on time to that fact or not and avoid sanctions.

Even if it was an accurate personal attack it is still irrelevant — Benkei

If we don't actually care that much about the innocents, that's irrelevant to an outrage based conservation about those innocents? If it's true that we don't really care, then wouldn't it add additional clarity to honestly brand this conversation as a form of casual entertainment? Isn't adding additional clarity kinda what philosophy is supposed to be about?

I agree that a claim that we don't care is debatable, which is why I keep asking for evidence to the contrary.

I've tried to explain the relevance. If we are locked in a repetitive pattern of addictive conflict behavior in political threads here on this forum, that at least raises the question of whether the same phenomena is at play in the MiddleEast. Here's why. We're human. So are they.

To the degree participants are fighting because they enjoy fighting, then any solution we might cook up is not likely to be very helpful. If true, it would add clarity to know that. If false, it would add clarity to know that too.

You assume my goal is to bash one side — Benkei

That's overwhelming obvious to everyone, except to you.

My personal background is irrelevant to the argument forwarded. — Benkei

But it has everything to do with the credibility of the source. You want everyone to take your concern seriously, but you decline to provide evidence which would demonstrate that concern. You also decline to admit there is no such evidence, which increasingly seems likely. So, it's reasonable to conclude, you aren't concerned, nor are you honest. And so the question arises, why should we read and respond to propaganda posted by what appears to be an unreliable source?

Judaism is not a race nor are Arabs. It makes no sense to call Israel racist against Arabs. If Israel is apartheid why do Arab Christians do quite well in Israel?

You're not going to get that -- welcome to the Middle East. You are never going to get your request here. To think that anyone can come from outside to set all the facts and all the history straight is white man savior syndrome. — BitconnectCarlos

Ha, ha, this is hilarious, and so true. I plead guilty to white man savior syndrome myself. However, I blame that all on the Jews. :-) It was you guys who invented the Catholicism that saturated my youth, thus imposing the white man savior meme on what was once, long ago, an innocent young mind.

And so, like any young punk anywhere, we white men Christian saviors are coming down off the cross to yell at our parents, the Jews, and "teach" you things that you already knew many many years before we were born. Yes, personally I'm an old white man, but culturally, I'm just a formerly Catholic young punk. I might have to dye my hair green to make this clear.

@Foghorn Lol! This is comedy gold!!!

If Israel is apartheid why do Arab Christians do quite well in Israel? — BitconnectCarlos

Well, Israel isn't apartheid in relation to Christians, but in relation to Palestinians.

Here's what I suggest. Release Gaza from the grip. Get out of the West Bank. Allow the Palestinian state to emerge. And it that state attacks Israel, go in with guns blazing and level the enemy. Just as Israel, or any nation, would do in response to any neighbor who attacks.

If Israel is judged too small to defend those borders, admit the mistake, pack up all the furniture, and move to America.

Lol! This is comedy gold!!! — Mystic

Well, I am Foghorn Leghorn after all, and I've been in the entertainment business for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn

Here's a live video shot of me performing right now in this thread! As you can see, I'm a great teacher to the little ones.

@Foghorn Lol! This is you in a nutshell!!!

Well, Israel isn't apartheid in relation to Christians, but in relation to Palestinians. — Foghorn

The Palestinians in Gaza are not part of Israel, thus they can't be under "apartheid." They are part of their own separate region, and there are no Israeli settlements or soldiers in Gaza, it is run by Hamas. Israel does monitor imports to screen out weapons. Jews have also been in the West Bank for thousands of years and I don't think it's fair to ask us to leave.

Well, to attempt fairness...

Can you agree that there is a segment of the Israeli population (don't know percent) that has imperialist ambitions for land that has belonged to others for quite some time? Some of those folks (again don't know percent) appear to be religion based imperialists, which seems to make them largely immune to reason and compromise.

I do realize there are also Israeli people (don't know number) who are against this imperialism as much or more than the outside world.

Care to comment?

Can you agree that there is a segment of the Israeli population (don't know percent) that has imperialist ambitions for land that has belonged to others for quite some time? — Foghorn

Yes, there are extremist Zionists who I regard as a problem. There are extremists on both sides and they both work off each other - one side says or does something inflammatory and the worst part of the other side responds. I'm all in favor of de-escalation, the only question is are the politicians?

The Palestinians in Gaza are not part of Israel, thus they can't be under "apartheid." — BitconnectCarlos

Um, who controls incoming and outgoing traffic in Gaza? Israel and Egypt, right? Are Gazans free to come and go as they like? Is commerce free to go in and out as it pleases?

I honestly am pretty vague on this, education welcomed.

Jews have also been in the West Bank for thousands of years and I don't think it's fair to ask us to leave. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, fair enough. But is residence the same as being the rulers? As example, the native people of North America were here at least 10,000 years before Europeans arrived. Should the continent be turned back over to their control due to that history? Where do such historical claims end?

@BitconnectCarlos

Yes, there are extremist Zionists who I regard as a problem. There are extremists on both sides and they both work off each other - one side says or does something inflammatory and the worst part of the other side responds. I'm all in favor of de-escalation, the only question is are the politicians?

I think this is the key factor. The politicians have vested interests in the continuing conflict.
The people on the ground need to make their own existential decisions on how to live a peaceful life.
Civilians are the peace process.