I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. Or maybe I misunderstood you because the grammar. I've just never heard of the idea that Israel ought to be 100% Jewish and I don't see it in the Likud platform.

As to Hamas supporting a two state solution on paper... recent events make this irrelvant.

It means exactly the same as Likud states should be entirely Jewish with the largest difference that even Hamas is in favour of a two state solution. — Benkei

That’s moral equivocating two unrelated things. You are essentially advocating that if you feel jaded over a historical land dispute, you are justified to in brutal, disgusting acts of violence. Man you are so gone…

Is it a cultural thing? I know the Netherlands was taken over by a hostile homicidal regime during WW2 and was unable to put up resistance until the Allies pushed into Nazi Germany bombing them and all…

Ah I see you interpreted my "enitrely" as such. Taking Likud together with the Basic Law, there cannot be room for a right of return and Jews are (and always will be) treated differently in Israel proper. With "entirely Jewish" I meant to say entirely Israeli and therefore a Jewish nation following the principles laid down in the Basic Law:

A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious, and historical right to self-determination.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

How about you go fuck yourself you with your irrelevant ad hominems?

How about you go fuck yourself you with your irrelevant ad hominems? — Benkei

How about you do that to your advocating for a homicidal group? Either you’re for peace or you’re not.

As to Israel supporting a two state solution on paper... the last 5 decades make this irrelevant. — BitconnectCarlos

I fixed it for you. If using violence makes statements irrelevant then what now?

I wonder if people's country of origin have a lot to shape the way they view these things, based especially on what their circumstances in WW2.

Finland felt it had to align with Nazi Germany to not fall under the influence of their old enemies, the Soviet Union/Russia. I can see reactions to aggression as being seen from the POV of strategic neutrality. If given a personality chart, it can be seen as true neutral.

Netherlands was overran by Nazi Germany in 1940 and was occupied until the end of the war, with pockets of resistance. I can see this also taking a neutral position, as it had to maneuver occupation, being bombed by allies alike, and could not afford to take a hardened military position, and never amassed a military big enough to do so.

Britain had a more complex role. They learned the hard lesson that you can't negotiate with leaders who have evil ends and means when Neville Chamberlain made his ploy for peace with Hitler and the Sudetenland. At the same time, they held control of many colonial territories gained from colonization (India, Ghana, Nigeria, etc.) or from WW1 (the Mandate of Palestine). So they were also mired in the middle of the conflict between the nationalism and ethnic divisions of the various populations under their mandate. They had to stay kind of neutral. Thus they have a more limited pro-Israel stance when it comes to being attacked.

The US learned that to defeat an evil enemy, you had to amass great military strength and not be afraid to use it to get unconditional surrender. They would be the most pro-response after being attacked by a terrorist group. Whether appreciated or even right about it, it sees its military as useful in destroying "evil actors" on the world stage. At the same time of course, its military industrial complex has issues of what counts as "evil" (Vietnam wasn't necessary, arguably you can't have a never-ending war on "terror" itself, overthrowing those not fully aligned leads to worse consequences like getting rid of Mossadegh in Iran etc.).

Similarly, Britain is most likely going to back US hegemony as US had their back in WW2, and it allowed them to give up the need for as much military spending and put that on the backs of the US. US will get the flack for fighting wars in their former colonies, not them. Western/Central Europe is mildly anti American hegemony, as they formed alliances after WW2 to create things like the EU and Euro. They tend to like coalitions versus lone actors. Also, the anti-colonialism tendencies of Communism and leftism in general are more influential in European countries, thus the tendency to sympathize with certain groups aligned against American hegemony or foreign policy that are perceived to be the underdog, whatever actions they might take as a means to their ends.

Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but beliefs aren't shaped in a vacuum. I can see people's responses being very heavily influenced by the overall lessons learned during that most significant conflict in modern world history.

I understand you get off by dehumanising people simply because they do things you abhor so you can feel all safe and cuddly by blowing up civilians because "necessary and proportionate" to "eradicate" Hamas (as if they're rats). The complexities of politics and actually reaching peace requires people to talk to each other via other means than through the barrel of a gun or cannon. No matter how much they hate each other. You misunderstand my insistence on the requirement to talk to the leadership in Gaza as advocating for terrorism.

So yes, go fuck yourself if you cannot talk to me without implying I have mental problems "you're so far gone" or pretending it's a cultural thing. Maybe just actually deal with the things I say and not whatever shit you make up to deal with the discomfort you apparently feel from the fact someone disagrees with you.

This situation keeps making me think of God ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites in the Bible: every man, woman and child, and even the animals.

I think that was a mistranslation. It's kill all the animals; every man, woman and child.

The complexities of politics and actually reaching peace requires people to talk to each other via other means than through the barrel of a gun or cannon. — Benkei

Or you beat the enemy so badly (e.g., Germany and Japan and the American South), they're so sick of war that they're ready for peace.

That video was ok. I liked the "what's their excuse?" for the West Bank killings when Hamas isn't there best I guess.

I understand you get off by dehumanising people simply because they do things you abhor so you can feel all safe and cuddly by blowing up civilians because "necessary and proportionate" to "eradicate" Hamas (as if they're rats). The complexities of politics and actually reaching peace requires people to talk to each other via other means than through the barrel of a gun or cannon. No matter how much they hate each other. You misunderstand my insistence on the requirement to talk to the leadership in Gaza as advocating for terrorism. — Benkei

You implied and explicitly said on many posts that Hamas has a legitimate form of how it conducts itself. You tried saying how it's charter is cuddly-wuddly for a two-state solution, you tried saying that it is justified because they live in X conditions, you tried justifying it because the Likud party exists. I am too lazy right now to go back and provide you your own quotes backing their hostility and butchery. But you can keep pointing at Israel all you want, and you will not make Hamas any more moral an actor, and not outright condemning them is moral equivocating.

I agree with you when you when you say that "peace requires people to talk to each other via other means through the barrel of a gun or cannon." If you JUST stick with that, instead of all the moral equivocating and hemming and hawing at a DEHUMANIZING group, I wouldn't say stuff like "you're so far gone".

Or you beat the enemy so badly (e.g., Germany and Japan and the American South), they're so sick of war that they're ready for peace. — RogueAI

Sounds like a lovely idea. So total war against Israel is justified then? Because while Hamas might have committed a war crime, certainly we are in agreement that the continuous oppression, indiscriminate killing of civilians, administrative detention, illegal settlements - all aimed against a people- is just blatant aggression, that great crime from which every action that is derived from it is a war crime in itself?

You keep comparing Hamas to Nazis and Israel to the Allies but Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein thought it was certain elements in Israel that learned the most from the Nazis.

"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine."

"Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model." — 1948 letter NYT

And who is the successor of Herut? It is Likud:

[Herut] had already been in coalition with the Liberals since 1965 as Gahal, with Herut as the senior partner. Herut remained the senior partner in the new grouping, which was given the name Likud, meaning "Consolidation", as it represented the consolidation of the Israeli right. It worked as a coalition under Herut's leadership until 1988, when the member parties merged into a single party under the Likud name. — wiki

EDIT: All that to say that I prefer my peace a bit less bloody, thank you.

You implied and explicitly said on many posts that Hamas has a legitimate form of how it conducts itself. You tried saying how it's charter is cuddly-wuddly for a two-state solution, — schopenhauer1

Again. You're not replying to the facts. You just don't like it that it's incontrovertibly true that Hamas has indicated a willingness to discuss a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. I linked to the text. If only Japan had taken the same position as you would when they had a nuclear bomb dropped on them! "We don't negotiate with war criminals and terrorists and because the US army dropped it, we will not speak with the US government!"

It's fucking dumb.

Also to help you with your dyslexia, I said quite clearly before:

I want the Palestinians to win their freedom and think violence is justified to that end but not how Hamas goes about it. — moi

Again. You're not replying to the facts. You just don't like it that it's incontrovertibly true that Hamas has indicated a willingness to discuss a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. — Benkei

A vague reference couched in absolutist terms of Jordan to Mediterranean all of a sudden means Hamas is for two states? Its actions say otherwise. And if you think that it is a legitimate form of "getting Israel to negotiate", and they are just playing some "game" then your means not only doesn't justify the ends, it cancels out whatever supposed "peaceful" ends that it supposedly is aiming for (and I don't believe it is intending that in any way).

If only Japan had taken the same position as you would when they had a nuclear bomb dropped on them! "We don't negotiate with war criminals and terrorists and because the US army dropped it, we will not speak with the US government!" — Benkei

I don't get what you are trying to point at here. If anything that would be pro-bombing Hamas to make them give up, because after two a-bombs, Japan did give up. I am not advocating that approach either, but it seems like you are oddly making that case here, which I know you don't mean to.

C. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people. — Benkei

Yes it is an ethnostate surrounded by Muslim nations. Just as the Muslims govern in a special way that promotes Islamic ideals, Israel perpetuates Jewish life and Jewish ideals. Israel absolutely values the lives of its own citizens above those of surrounding nations, but this hardly unique to Israel. We should keep in mind that Judaism is not a race. It is an ethnicity and a religion. You may not like the idea of a state with a religious/ethnic character but this is hardly unique to Israel.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation we call that ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

I think that is simplifying the history of the whole conflict. If Israel is not problematic, then every concession Israel made towards its founding would have been accepted as a reality by Palestine Arab states + Palestinians (Peel 1937, 1947 UN Partition in particular).

Doesn't warring itself breach human rights and all that? In a way, if that's where you start reasoning, haven't you already lost...?

Explainer: What war crimes laws apply to the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
^{— Stephanie van den Berg, Anthony Deutsch, Giles Elgood · Reuters · Oct 26, 2023}

What constitutes a war crime? (NBC · 4m:46s · Oct 26, 2023)

all is fair in love and war — @user-bx6we4od7d

If someone has the means and opportunity, then the decision is theirs, others can't decide not to. Anyone may argue about motive, which often enough ends up shrouded in rhetoric.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish ethno-religious state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation that is called ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. That has been the case since the beginning. We can criticize the scale, but not the tool.And yes I have never denied the existence of ultranationalist elements. Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements.

What do you expect from the Palestinians? Their land was literally given away without their say, and their plight was only acknowledged amidst much dragging of feet when the humanitarian situation became utterly unsustainable.

But as I've noted before, the situation has deteriorated too far over the years that we can no longer expect entirely rational behavior from neither Israel nor Palestine. For these nations to come to a solution together would require nothing short of a miracle.

In my opinion, that is where the international community should have stepped in. And it did. Many UN Security Council resolutions were in fact passed, and those are legally binding.

However, the United States, mostly guided by shady and fool-hardy internal politics, refused to hold Israel to its international obligations.

And that's where we are now - at the final stop of decades of failed US Middle-East policy. And security for Israel nowhere to be found.

For Israel to exist as a state it must use violence. — BitconnectCarlos

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is?

Wars where a people/nation are faced with annihilation tend to foster such elements. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine?

Some of those Palestinians in Israel have lived there their whole life, and some are vetted and given permits to work in Israel from the West Bank. It's fairly obvious why those two groups would be less of a risk than just immediately opening up the borders with Gaza. — flannel jesus

What do you think would happen?

This is not how modern states function, so evidently something must have gone terribly wrong down the line. What do you suppose that is? — Tzeentch

The moment Israel attained statehood it needed to defend itself in 1948. Without force there would be no state.

Do you agree that the same could apply to Palestine? — Tzeentch

Violence radicalizes, no doubt. But the Palestinians numbers have boomed. If Israel is trying to genocide them it has done a terrible job.

Just to note how utterly detached from reality this US admistration is, this is National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in an interview that aired October 8th, AFTER (double emphasis) the Hamas attack:

The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades. — Sullivan

[...] the amount of time that I have to spend on crisis and conflict in the Middle East today compared to any of my predecessors going back to 9/11 is significantly reduced. — Sullivan

If you look at the relationship among countries in the Middle East, you saw – with a lot of work by the United States – countries coming together, the region integrating, hostilities diminishing. — Blinken

What happened over the last 24 hours doesn’t go to state-to-state conflict, where Jake is exactly right – it’s diminished. This goes to a terrorist attack by a terrorist organization. — Blinken

It'd be pure comedy if it weren't for the fact these two clowns are basically in charge of half the world and their incompetence is causing untold suffering.

I think literally all of Hamas would try to do exactly what Hamas's stated goal is. Not all Palestinians want Hamas's stated goal, but *enough* of them do.

I get a sense that maybe you'll agree with my view that neither side can be expected to act in a completely rational manner here, after all the damage that has been done. Would you agree with that?

If so, what approach would you suggest going forward?

A vague reference couched in absolutist terms of Jordan to Mediterranean all of a sudden means Hamas is for two states? — schopenhauer1

It's only vague if you have reading comprehension problems.

I think literally all of Hamas would try to do exactly what Hamas's stated goal is. Not all Palestinians want Hamas's stated goal, but *enough* of them do. — flannel jesus

In other words: more terrorist attacks? I mean, what they're doing is fueling the Hamas of the future. Being friendly toward Gazan Palestinians would make things worse?