The bottom line question seems to be, would the establishment of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders lead to a real peace? Or just the next chapter of the conflict?

Best I can tell, Israel has concluded the later, and thus sees little reason to agree to a Palestinian state. — Foghorn

Yes, people do tend to whip out their crystal balls as an excuse not to work towards peace. Those are trust issues and it should be moved to where it belongs: negotiating.

But really, why should there be a prerequisite on the Palestinians to recognise Israel before entering into negotiations but not the same the other way around? I think any "pre-requisites" to peace negotiations ought to be dropped. The only one is and for both sides : no fucking killing while we're talking OK?

Mai Khalid Afana, a Palestinian doctor and lecturer was executed a few hours ago by Israel murderers after accidentally being on the "Jews Only" side of the road. — StreetlightX

Oooh, you edited it from "Jewish murderers" to "Israeli murderers" -- why did you do that?? Why revert back, I'm interested.

Why not phrase it like this: "Mai Khalid Afana, a Palestinian doctor and lecturer was executed a few hours ago by Jewish murderers during the ongoing Final Solution of the Palestinian people inside of an extermination camp."

says the guy who came in here and couldn't answer a simple question after 4 attempts — Benkei

You want us to take your questions seriously, but you don't take the topic seriously yourself. You've been asked multiple times to demonstrate that you actually care about innocent Arab victims, and you've never provided that evidence, because it doesn't exist. Your entire engagement in this thread is just a pose designed to serve your own emotional situation.

That's not a crime, but neither is it interesting.

Yes, people do tend to whip out their crystal balls as an excuse not to work towards peace. Those are trust issues and it should be moved to where it belongs: negotiating. — Benkei

It appears your false claim about Hamas has been dismissed, and so now you're back to the usual dodging and weaving.

You want us to take your questions seriously, but you don't take the topic seriously yourself. You've been asked multiple times to demonstrate that you actually care about innocent Arab victims, and you've never provided that evidence, because it doesn't exist. Your entire engagement in this thread is just a pose designed to serve your own emotional situation. — Foghorn

Because it's irrelevant and I won't be offering such evidence. Maybe my human rights activism is very extensive, that won't make my arguments suddenly true. Or the converse situation false. It's just a distraction. Maybe figure out what a fallacy is.

I see you have problems with reading their principles. It rejects the Zionist entity and it rejects various treaties, declarations etc. and then it says :

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas 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. — Hamas

The operative word there being "however".

Because it's irrelevant and I won't be offering such evidence — Benkei

Oh for crying out loud, cut the crap. You won't provide the evidence because there isn't any, and you're not honest enough to admit that. Here's the relevance. Why should we bother to respond to claims made by someone who is not actually interested in the topic???

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Hamas is honest, even if you are not. Now read this....

Hamas 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.

A formula of national consensus. That is, something Palestinians can agree on. Says nothing at all about accepting the existence of a Jewish state.

Hamas wants a Palestinian state. Which will then be funded and armed by Iran. And then Hamas will continue to attack Israel, from a stronger position than it has today. And then, because Hamas will be more of a threat, Israel will have to respond with even more firepower. And there will be even more innocent victims than is the case now.

The operative word there being "however". — Benkei

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity — Hamas

Your relentless ego needs have caused you to make a blatantly false claim, and now you are scrambling around trying to clean up the mess, because the one and only thing you care about here is social media victory. This has nothing to do with innocent Arabs being bombed etc. Nothing at all.

ah, you're not capable of reading. Got ya.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts.

Oh for crying out loud, cut the crap. You won't provide the evidence because there isn't any, and you're not honest enough to admit that. Here's the relevance. Why should we bother to respond to claims made by someone who is not actually interested in the topic??? — Foghorn

I'm not going to divulge my identity you twat. The reason to respond to my claims is because this is a public board, we have a subject, and I make testable claims that can be waylaid or accepted. So far you've done a lot to question me but rather little about the points I made.

EDIT: one can wonder why I would bother to engage in this thread for 68 pages for instance. If you assume that would be for self-aggrandizement that would be extremely telling.

... "as long as the occupation lasts", which ends upon the recognition of Israel which they'll do along the 1967 borders as written in the same paragraph.

You'll notice that Hamas has also accepted the Arab Peace Initiative, which pretty much says the same thing as I'm saying their declaration of principles says. Hamas balked at the inclusion of land swaps in that initiative. And this is consistent with their position; you can only propose land swaps if the land you're giving away is yours. Since Hamas denies Israel exists at this point, admitting beforehand to land swaps would implicitly admit Israel has legal claim to any land in the region.

The important difference between Fatah and Hamas is, is that Fatah is prepared to give away these sorts of points (recognising Israel, agreeing beforehand to landswaps) and this weakens their negotiation position before they even get started only to get Israel at the table.

I'm not going to divulge my identity you twat. — Benkei

Nobody asked you to.

If you were concerned about innocent muslim victims, you'd be able to show a series of posts on this forum where you express concern for the victims of the Assad regime, victims of the Taliban, oppression by the Saudis, the Iranian regime shooting it's own people down in the streets etc. Any of that would do.

If you were sincere, most of your outrage would be directed at those doing most of the harm to innocent muslim victims.

It appears you only care about innocent muslim victims when Israel is the cause. That suggests it's not innocent victims you care about, but Israel. Ok, no problem. If you hate Israel, or however you might put it, fine with me, just say that.

I'm helping you clarify what your real concern and interest is here. That's why they call it a philosophy forum, a community based search for clarity.

If you were concerned about innocent muslim victims, you'd be able to show a series of posts on this forum where you express concern for the victims of the Assad regime, victims of the Taliban, oppression by the Saudis, the Iranian regime shooting it's own people down in the streets etc. Any of that would do.

If you were sincere, most of your outrage would be directed at those doing most of the harm to innocent muslim victims. — Foghorn

Which is still irrelevant but you're welcome to use the search function and read my 4,500 posts. I'm not going to do it for you. I'll be here waiting for you to swallow your words.

Since Hamas denies Israel exists at this point, admitting beforehand to land swaps would implicitly admit Israel has legal claim to any land in the region. — Benkei

Right. Hamas denies Israel exists. They are clear minded, and honest about their position. Israel must die.

Which is still irrelevant but you're welcome to use the search function and read my 4,500 posts. I'm not going to do it for you. — Benkei

You want to imply the evidence is there, but you just don't have the time to provide it. To you, this seems a clever strategy. Except that we all know, it ain't there. And you just can't bring yourself to admit that.

I'm not implying anything. I'm telling you it's there. Go on, read them.

And now I'm doing it too. Hey, look at this thread, this is so bad!!! :-) — Foghorn

It's not surprising really, much of the debate comes down to convincing people there's a problem...

What does that mean? You don’t think there is a problem?

Plenty of people, including in this thread, don't see a fundamental problem with how the Palestinians are treated and will go to untold lengths defending it. Much like what we see in society.

Note that such practices are explicitly called part of the culture of Zionism, according to one of the march's political advocates in the state of Israel, as the New York Times documents. — fdrake

I must have not got the memo that Zionism includes provocative marches and threats. All Zionism is is a commitment to a Jewish homeland in the region.

I ask you to turn this post about - imagine it was a Jewish community standing on this precipice, what would you recommend? I think we already know - get the rifle, never again. — fdrake

Are you asking me what if Jews were in the place of the Palestinians? We would not be in this place because we would never refuse to recognize another group. We wouldn't refuse to establish diplomatic relations with them. That's the first step towards any political reconciliation. Nor would we teach our children that they must avenge their history by any means necessary. Jews have been kicked out of Judea several times.

Yes. Zionists shouting racialised death threates while marching through a Palestinian dominant neighbourhood. Accompanied by the marching drums of incendiary bombs dropped on civilians in Gaza. — fdrake

You'll see the same thing on the Arab side -- yes, without the march through Israel but they would if they could -- and this is not intended to serve as an excuse or justification, more of a "welcome to the shit." There's plenty of footage of Arab/Palestinian rallies where they burn Israeli flags or shout death to Israel or Jews and launch rockets. The march might have been in response to rock throwing. It's just an endless cycle. The news covers some events and not others and we never get the complete picture.

I am not currently aware of any Israeli plan or intention to annex Gaza, so when you mention existential threat that's more or less what I think of. It wouldn't even make sense for Israel to annex Gaza - what is it going to do with the Palestinians?

It's just an endless cycle. — BitconnectCarlos

If you haven't noticed, we've begun to discuss this endless cycle business more generically in another thread. Would welcome your participation should it interest you.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11211/conflict-addiction

A great deal of this thread seems fairly described as conflict for the sake of conflict. That is, conflict engaged because we find conflict somehow psychologically satisfying. I'm wondering the degree to which this phenomena helps fuel the endless cycle in the Middle East.

As I picture it, most people on both sides of the MidEast conflict are probably fairly reasonable. They have their positions, but they don't want to live in the endless cycle. A minority on both sides may have become addicted to the conflict more for personal reasons than substantive ones.

And then corporate media gets involved, and feeds a steady diet of conflict imagery in to the population, because conflict is engaging and keeps people glued to the channel, keeps the ratings up, and the ad dollars flowing etc. That's what's happening in the states anyway, not sure about the Middle East.

Here's a question. To what degree is the Middle East conflict endless conflict cycle fueled by the very same psychological needs and motivations etc that have fueled this thread?

A great deal of this thread seems fairly described as conflict for the sake of conflict. That is, conflict engaged because we find conflict somehow psychologically satisfying. I'm wondering the degree to which this phenomena helps fuel the endless cycle in the Middle East. — Foghorn

I'll admit that there has been that "conflict for the sake of conflict" element in this thread but I don't see my current discussion here with @fdrake as falling under that banner.

I don't know if "psychologically satisfying" is the word I would use. There's also a big difference between a written argument with anonymous strangers and actually going out on the street and doing this type of thing against another group.

. A minority on both sides may have become addicted to the conflict more for personal reasons than substantive ones. — Foghorn

This sounds right, and I just want to add that people change when they're exposed to high levels of stress or trauma over longer time frames. One's environment does change people. I say this as a veteran but not a combat veteran.

Here's a question. To what degree is the Middle East conflict endless conflict cycle fueled by the very same psychological needs and motivations etc that have fueled this thread? — Foghorn

I can just turn off conversations when I get bored or annoyed with a poster. I've already cut off one poster entirely because he was advocating for intentionally murdering civilians and using religious/moral language to justify it. I had the luxury of turning that off, but if I was exposed to that daily I would be a very different person and a lot less amenable to conversation. Repeated exposure to conflict and hate drags one down.

It takes an absolutely stunning degree of political maleducation to think that 'psychological needs' even ranks anywhere need the facts on the ground when it comes to explaining conflict: an apartheid regime which regularly treats Palestinian like animals, demolishes their homes, cuts down their means of living (olive groves), has control over their infrastructure, and so on. Psychological needs. What an absolute joke. Truly, some first world ivory tower bullshit. It's like, it's just all about their inability to self-actualize maaan. Jesus fucking Christ. Boomers really need to drop dead.

I'll admit that there has been that "conflict for the sake of conflict" element in this thread but I don't see my current discussion here with fdrake as falling under that banner. — BitconnectCarlos

Imho, you're the sanest and most serious person in the thread. You got sucked in to the shit storm a bit here and there, but overall you kept your cool and stuck to reasoning.

I don't know if "psychologically satisfying" is the word I would use. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, there could very well be a better word. I'm just not sure what it is yet, thus the other thread.

This sounds right, and I just want to add that people change when they're exposed to high levels of stress or trauma over longer time frames. One's environment does change people. — BitconnectCarlos

I hear you, yes, agreed. The endless cycle shit storm is kind of like a disease that spreads throughout the population, infecting the formerly reasonable. Imho, corporate media which fuels conflict for profit is a big part of that.

I know two people in my close life who have never been that in to politics or news. And then they started watching cable news during the Trump era. One on the right, one on the left. And now they argue all the time. Neither of them has a depth of knowledge of the issues, so they're both mostly chanting what the cable news shows push in their face. Neither of them really grasp that they're being manipulated by large corporations in search of profit.

Repeated exposure to conflict and hate drags one down. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, a sad fact of the human condition. In the other thread we're discussing why we so often seek out such experiences. Like I did in the case of this thread. Others can speak for themselves.

It take's an absolutely stunning degree of political maleducation — StreetlightX

Almost all of your posts on every topic make this same point. You are smart, they are stupid. The fact that you can't let go of this endlessly repetitive refrain is revealing more to us than you may care to share. Your slip is showing. Trying to do you a favor here, though I'm sure it won't be welcomed.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the fact of you ignoring the point. Kindly go back to jacking each other off about how nice you all are toward apartheid regimes.

Kindly go back to jacking each other off about how nice you all are toward apartheid regimes. — StreetlightX

Sorry to pop your bubble again, and I know it's foolish to try. But you don't actually care about repressive regimes. You don't. You sincerely think you do, agree there.

How many people has Israel killed in Gaza and the West Bank over the years. I don't claim to know, feel free to count them up and share the total with us.

Now read this:

Estimates of the total number of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, by opposition activist groups, vary between 494,438 and about 606,000 as of June 2021. On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war. — wikipedia.org

400,000. And that estimate is now five years old. And the killing in Syria continues, day by day by day.

Right next door. Just across the border. A day's drive away from Palestine. But too far away for you to see.

Excellent. Now start your thread on Syria and go play whataboutisms in your brand new thread.

And I'll say it once more: the fact that you think Palestinians are just interchangeable with any old generic 'Arab' is a bunch of racist bullshit, which is to be expected from someone who does his utmost to change the subject from Israeli crimes at every point.

Imho, you're the sanest and most serious person in the thread. You got sucked in to the shit storm a bit here and there, but overall you kept your cool and stuck to reasoning. — Foghorn

Yeah, I did get sucked into the shit storm a bit, and it's interesting to reflect and think back "why did this person have this affect on me?" Thinking about this question helped me define myself and my values a little better. Every once in a while you'll just come across someone who not just manages to push the right buttons, but to also push them in a certain way.

which is to be expected from someone who does his utmost to change the subject form Israeli crimes. — StreetlightX

Right. We understand. You wish to chant the same propaganda over and over and over again. Ok, go for it. Nobody can stop you. They're your posts to do with as you please.

e would not be in this place because we would never refuse to recognize another group. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel doesn't recognise the right to a Palestinian State. No Palestinian group denies the existence of "Israel" as an entity or group of people they have to deal with, some of them refuse to recognise the Israeli state though.

We wouldn't refuse to establish diplomatic relations with them.

This is a very confusing statement. Hamas has refused, but doesn't any more. Fatah never refused diplomatic relations but Israel has and continues to refuse to recognise the observer status of the Palestinian State in the UN. Hamas is also designated as a terrorist organisation by Israel so it only talks to Hamas via Egypt. The last fair and open election by the Palestinians resulted in an outcome not wanted by Israel, leading to boycotts by Israel and its supporters. Basically messaging that democracy is fine until you elect someone we don't like (eg. can't bribe to sell out their own people).

Nor would we teach our children that they must avenge their history by any means necessary.

Says the guy who dredges up conflicts from 400 BC and defending Zionism as a state entity. And if by "avenge" you mean, "resist oppression" than definitely, they should never acquiesce to crimes.

Jews have been kicked out of Judea several times.

So?

You know what's more repetitive than talking about Israel's crimes? Israel's crimes. But good to see you've got your priorities straight.