I think perhaps Rabin was close to being an idealist. Sadly he was assassinated for it.

I've argued before in this thread that Israel's position in the region is and has been precarious. Perhaps that's why it can't afford itself much idealism. — Tzeentch

Agree with all of this. Don't forget Ehud Barak. I think he came the closest! But unfortunately, it was the failure of that summit with Arafat that, as far as I am concerned, that is the biggest starting point to the most recent conflicts (e.g. Israel's move to the right, Hamas taking over Gaza rather than moderates of some sort, negligible leadership of the PLO).

On the other hand, it's hard to see how Israel's blatant disregard for humanitarian law is benefitting it in the long-term. One could argue it's the idealism of Israel's hardline leadership that causing its ruthless policies vis-á-vis the Palestinians. A realist perhaps would sooner see the necessity of finding a modus vivendi, to avoid becoming diplomatically isolated in the region. — Tzeentch

For sure.

For purposes of definition, I consider Idealists as ones who put universal rights above nation, and follows globalized institutions like the UN rather than national interests. No nation is fully idealist. The more a nation is under threat, the LESS likely they will go the Idealist route for getting out of its situation. Rather, it predictably tends to go to the right.

Also, it is dubious to think "idealist" is always best. Global institutions, specifically the UN is also biased. No one is objective. No one is truly for "global" interests. And no nation is going to put some pie in the sky ideals above protecting its own people. Perhaps the made up Gandhistan I mentioned earlier.

When I look at it, perhaps by "idealism" I mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism

versus this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)

This might be better:
https://world101.cfr.org/foreign-policy/approaches-foreign-policy/idealism-versus-realism

Either way, the question you should be asking is, "Is there responsible actors on the Palestinian side that would be for a moderated peace, and knows how to compromise". Israel has historically had more compromise in this regard. All or nothing mentality is what kills any moderate actors.

Rather, "justice" for Hamas is utterly destroying Israel and cancelling any peace process, making it impossible for moderate Pals (especially in the West Bank). And of course, they don't allow Pals to vote them out. Don't forget, the main (realpolitik) reason Hamas did this was to stall peace talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They want to derail that, as they wanted to derail Oslo Accords with suicide bombings, etc. — schopenhauer1

Based on what? Since 2017 they've explicitly changed their charter to allow for a two states solution along the 1967 borders.

You mean the same charter that says this?

“Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine should 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.”

I'd think you'd be unbiased enough to condemn an organization like Hamas :grimace:.

Also, with Baden, I asked a hypothetical scenario of what Palestine would be like under complete Hamas rule. It would resemble nothing protecting human rights. And you are unhinged, politically speaking, if you think they would.

For purposes of definition, I consider Idealists as ones who put universal rights above nation, and follows globalized institutions like the UN rather than national interests. No nation is fully idealist. The more a nation is under threat, the LESS likely they will go the Idealist route for getting out of its situation. — schopenhauer1

Yea, within IR that would be the proper definition.

I probably should have used a different term to describe the ideals of the Israeli hardliners to avoid confusion.

But it seems we are mostly in agreement. :up:

My guess is that everything is going according to Hamas' plan. They knew Israel would react with overwhelming force and hoped that would create a new humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Hamas doesn't care about the Palestinian civilians. Name one thing Hamas has done to help children or civilians in the Gaza Strip since they took power 15 years ago.

Who you rather have won WW2, the Allies or Axis? It's a really easy question to answer, is it not?
— RogueAI

I don't find it easy. I know roughly where we are, but I have little idea of where we would be if everything was different. — unenlightened

Really now. You actually have to think about whether America or Nazi Germany should have won?

Eliminate Hamas — 180 Proof

and then ...

Free Palestine
— 180 Proof

You mean free from Hamas and other terrorist organizations. — magritte

Yes, including free from the post-1967, settler-apartheid strategems of the State of Israel.

Evict Settlers.
— 180 Proof

Israel has actually evicted settlers. — ssu

Evict settlers from ALL of the internationally recognized Occupied Palestinian Territories.

https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/201007_by_hook_and_by_crook

https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-205221/

Really now. You actually have to think about whether America or Nazi Germany should have won? — RogueAI

Really now? You actually have to ask again the question I have just explained why I cannot answer as if you cannot understand plain English?

Yes, maybe continue reading instead of selectively quoting it.

Edit: actually, I think you should be the one to now quote the full paragraph you pulled that from to underline how disingenuous you're being.

Meanwhile eyes are on Hezbollah. They're continuing to respond in a tit for tat manner to Israeli attacks.

It's a powder keg. I don't know if they can keep off from entering a war if Israel goes in Gaza.

Any news on the liberation of any of the hostages? And would that give space for deescalation if those would be freed?

I was snarky. My apologies.

Not that I've heard. And there are also a lot of foreign nationals in Gaza who want to get out as well. Both hostages and foreigners are likely to cross into Egypt for an exchange, but no one is being let out.

It is very unclear what is happening at the border. It remains sealed. Egypt has variously said Hamas is blocking to border and that an Israeli strike is what has sealed the border and they can't repair it. The strike narrative seems less plausible as time goes on and there is more time to clear a path. Plus, Israel seems to want to opposite to happen, for the border to be opened, so this seems dubious.

According to an NPR correspondent, Hamas has sealed their side of the border.

According to some source from CNN, Egypt has laid concrete barriers across their side of the border and Hamas is not allowing people to leave anyhow.

According to Israel, Hamas is not allowing people to evacuate the south on pain of not being allowed back, which is dubious given the source, but could turn out to be true.

Egypt has pulled out the "if they leave now they will be dispossessed so they must stay," line after going back and forth.

It's totally unclear what is going on. Israel's allies seem to be advocating for the border to opened which makes me think Israel does want the border open. It's obvious though why Hamas would not want an evacuation, both on a tactical and strategic level, even if it is the height of cynicism to trap people there.



But then that's just the situation that exists today. All settlers were forced out of Gaza by the IDF. Hamas administers Gaza. The question of Gaza being an open air prison is entirely about how much and what type of traffic Egypt and Israel allow through their borders. And both have some justification for constricting traffic to and from a state with open support for terrorism in their borders.

But the problem has become much more complicated. After the decoupling of the Gaza economy migrants moved to Israel and took those jobs. There is no returning to 1990 where Gazans at least benefit from the prosperity across the border I
some way, because residents from Thailand and Eastern Europe have taken those jobs. And this takes away a major bonus of Gazans, if not Hamas, in normalization. It's moved peace further away because the dividends peace would pay out have been much reduced.

Thanks. I was snarky back, so apologies returned less 10% for provocation. :wink:

:smile:

Just a few more things I see:

2. Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. It is the land and the home of the Palestinian people. The expulsion and banishment of the Palestinian people from their land and the establishment of the Zionist entity therein do not annul the right of the Palestinian people to their entire land and do not entrench any rights therein for the usurping Zionist entity.

And right after that paragraph in question which is ambiguous at best and seems to be more about how they deal with the PLO/rivals:

Hamas affirms that the Oslo Accords and their addenda contravene the governing rules of international law in that they generate commitments that violate the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.Therefore, the Movement rejects these agreements and all that flows from them, such as the obligations that are detrimental to the interests of our people, especially security coordination (collaboration).

But the fact is, I shouldn't even have to give a shit about a terrorist organization changing a founding document. This isn't like we are quibbling over some random business contract. It's known explicitly and through the actions what the organization is about. How it is that you can be for human rights and equivocate on Hamas because you see Israel as X, Y, Z evil state, is beyond me.

If you are truly unbiased call a spade a spade, no matter who it is.

I'll do it for your then.

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 charter

So much for the "I'm so unbiased I can't even quote in the right context".

The paragraph titled 2 is no more and no less than Likud has in its charter but they never mitigate it with a clear proposal for a solution. Hamas clearly does above along the lines that international politics considers an acceptable solution. But there's the problem of all the illegal settlers, which problem Bibi only likes to make bigger because he and his party don't want a Palestinian state - tout court.

The rejection of the Oslo accords is really not that interesting. That you think those accords were wonderful just reflects your limited awareness how this was received. A majority of Palestinians rejected it at the time and Edward Said hated it too.

He despaired toward the end of his life of any change in the Palestinians’ disastrous position, whose leadership had signed away any gains made in the national struggle for self-determination with the Oslo Accords, which he called “an instrument of Palestinian surrender, a Palestinian Versailles.” — Foreign Policy

If you want to call something a spade, you better make sure you know what a spade is.

If you want to call something a spade, you better make sure you know what a spade is. — Benkei

Oh poor Benkei. You are too far gone in this one it seems. You plant ice, you are going to harvest wind, and all that.

For the record, you are supporting/justifying an organization such as Hamas. And I can see you are unbiased very biased on this one. I would just like to juxtapose this with @Baden's response which recognized and condemned such an organization.

Terrorist organizations can and do become responsible governing parties. The Israeli state itself emerged, in part, from terror organizations. You can see the same thing in many places. The problem isn't that Hamas can't make this change. Really, Hamas did sort of look more open to compromise before their violent take over of Gaza. And the West and Israel should have been more open to them, but the whole Post-9/11, "communists now ok, Jihadis bad," mindset stopped that.

But it's also not like Hamas ever moved particularly far in that direction. If anything, the past 8 years or so they have become more and more tied to Iran and their prerogatives, making them a less trustworthy partner.

Terrorist organizations can and do become responsible governing parties. The Israeli state itself emerged, in part, from terror organizations. You can see the same thing in many places. The problem isn't that Hamas can't make this change. Really, Hamas did sort of look more open to compromise before their violent take over of Gaza. And the West and Israel should have been more open to them, but the whole Post-9/11, "communists now ok, Jihadis bad," mindset stopped that.

But it's also not like Hamas ever moved particularly far in that direction. If anything, the past 8 years or so they have become more and more tied to Iran and their prerogatives, making them a less trustworthy partner. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The Native Americans thought the British were terrorist colonizers.

Well the British saw the Americans as terrorists in 1775. Tarred and feathered officers in Boston, the Boston Massacre, all that.

The Anglo-Saxons thought the Normans were colonizers perhaps. The Romano-Celts thought the Anglo-Saxons colonizers, and on and on.

But I am just seeing the whole suicide bombings and these kind of attacks as brutal reminders that they are not for peaceful negotiations.

And as far as Israel acted like terrorists in their founding, I absolutely think that was barbaric and unjustified as well. All of it.

To be fair to the Israelis - of which I am being highly critical of, much more than Hamas - what you say about "all of it", goes way beyond Israel.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion.

It really is total barbarism.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion. — Manuel

Absolutely.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a modern nation state that was founded by peaceful means. Most of them are due to violence, war, conquest, expulsion or coercion.

It really is total barbarism. — Manuel

But if all modern nations are not founded by peaceful means (are there ancient nations? were they founded peacefully?), and yet our most deepest and most beautifullest moral convictions make us believe a peaceful foundation of nations IS INDEED ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE (possible like Santa Claus?), shouldn't we maybe become a little tiny micro femto bit skeptical about our most profoundest and most amazingest moral convictions? Would it be so abso-fucking-lutely crazy, Waaahnsinn, to start doubting about our so most heartfeltest and most spectacularest moral convictions?

You could try to phrase an intelligible question.

I can't help you more than this.

This is the best I can translate from that incoherent nonsensical paragraph using ChatGPT:

"If all modern nations were not established through peaceful means, and we consider whether ancient nations were founded peacefully, it raises doubt about our deeply held belief in the possibility of peaceful nation-building. Shouldn't we question our most fundamental moral convictions, akin to questioning the existence of Santa Claus? Is it too extreme to start doubting our deeply ingrained and spectacular moral beliefs?"

I don't exactly see how this helps for this situation here. Even if a Palestinian state were to be established, it would've been done so after an enormous amount of suffering.

Should we question our deepest held moral convictions? I think so, on occasion it is good to do so. Maybe not always, otherwise we wouldn't act on moral intuitions.

But I think that's a conversation for a different topic.

I don't exactly see how this helps for this situation here. E — Manuel

Is there anything that has been said in this thread which would make you exclaim: "I exactly see how this helps for this situation here"?

Should we question our deepest held moral convictions? I think so, on occasion it is good to do so. — Manuel

Why aren't a war in Israel or in Ukraine a good occasion to do so?

Maybe not always, otherwise we wouldn't act on moral intuitions. — Manuel

For many, in this thread, "acting on moral intuitions" seems nothing more than broadcasting moral condemnations and blame attributions AS IF thinking that a peaceful foundation of nations is morally desirable, then it must absolutely be also possible. What if it is not possible as it seems it never ever happened?

Is there anything that has been said in this thread which would make you exclaim: "I exactly see how this helps for this situation here"? — neomac

Nope.

But there is the issue of relevance to the ongoing issue, talking about say, Hezbollah potentially getting involved or Israel proceeding with the ground invasion raises more relevant and immediate moral issues than taking about a better moral situation. At least, that's how I see the issue, others may not see it that way.

Why aren't a war in Israel or in Ukraine a good occasion to do so? — neomac

I believe each of us is sincerely attempting to deal with complex moral issues. Granted, we may be overlooking something and are almost certainly biased and have preferences and so on.

For many, in this thread, "acting on moral intuitions" seems nothing more than broadcasting moral condemnations and blame attributions AS IF thinking that a peaceful foundation of nations is morally desirable, then it must absolutely be also possible. What if it is not possible as it seems it never ever was? — neomac

Well, at least where I live, there is nothing I can do to help alleviate the situation - there aren't even protests here, we have other issues so the Gaza situation does not arise, outside of headlines.

It's a topic I've followed closely since college, so it is somewhat more impactful to me than another conflict, due to time investment. A lot of this is also venting frustration, which is not necessarily bad.

Well, I asked Baden and Frank about what could realistically be done here by the relevant actors if they choose to do so, I thought it relevant because it does not stray far from what's going on in the ground.

But, if you want to talk about this, why don't you start a thread specifically about that topic? It's not a bad one.

:up: