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. — BitconnectCarlos

If you combine this with the "no other State west of the river" when you know there's millions of Palestinians living there, you are deliberately creating a huge problem though. Marrying Likud's program to the Basic Law does precisely that. The greatest threat to Israeli security is Israeli policy not the Palestinians. But it's unfathomable for right-wing nutcases to have such reflection apparently; it has to be the "Other" not "Us".

Edit: just for clarity, I"m not calling you a right-wing nutcase but mostly anything Likud and the similarly depraved.

I just bid you read my last post on that argument. You’re also contradicting yourself about you supposedly not supporting Hamas. Also other posters on here I believe quoted more radical crazy stuff from their charter. Please reference those if you’re gonna try to argue sanity from a violent, suicidal, homicidal barbarically religious extremist groups document.

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? — Tzeentch

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to.

Your classification of what Hamas is, is neither here nor there. Their charter is not crazy. It's an easily understood document. Anyone who reads "Hamas wants to destroy Israel" in it, simply cannot read. So I'll post a link here so people can read it for themselves:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full

To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos

That's true. It just seems like a zombie walk. They can try to destroy Hamas, but they probably won't succeed.

Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos

It would be absurd except for the context of decades of oppression and crimes by Israel that preceded it, that you conveniently leave out so you can pretend it's an isolated incident and Israel is just reacting to it. Hamas' attack was wrong but so is any Israeli reaction to it. No collateral damage is acceptable given that we already have several decades of collateral damage, oppression and occupation. Because the Israeli cause isn't just, every action following it, is contaminated by that unjust cause. You cannot act ethically right in that case. In the case of the Palestinians, their cause is just but Hamas pursued it via unjust means. So their actions are also unjust but they could, if they had used other means - for instance only attacking Israeli soldiers involved in the occupation - they would've been fully in their rights.

Letting everyone from Gaza in indiscriminately would absolutely result in a terrible catastrophy.

I'm not saying this because I don't want all the innocent civilian Gazans to have freedom and prosperity, please realize that. Most Gazans are normal folks. Not all Gazans are normal folks, and enough Gazans have pretty much sworn their lives to destroying the Jews of Israel that there's really no rational way to justify opening the border any time soon.

And again, my main response to this ludicrous hemming and hawing in this justifying of Hamas is:

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). — schopenhauer1

And I can't see how you can look at that same document 18-26 or anything else in there without seeing it as hostile to a two-state solution. Ridiculous!

I pointed it out here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846101
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846212

Even SSU, already pointed it out here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846238

I don't know what a rational manner would be. Hamas killed 1400 Israelis in the worst massacre of Jews since WWII. Any state's primary purpose is security and that is what Israel is exercising right now in its effort to destroy Hamas. There must surely be some response. Is a ground invasion justified or better to stick to air strikes? I have no idea. What is the proportionate response to 1400 massacred? Not entirely sure outside of decimating Hamas and trying to minimize collateral damage. To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos

Rationally speaking, had the Israeli government practiced restraint there would have been no doubt at all within the international community who the villains were. It would have clearly been Hamas.

I think even after initial retaliatory strikes by Israel this view would have prevailed.

It is after the intensified siege, prolonged bombing, and questionable rhetoric by prominent Israeli leaders that opinion started to shift. (Provoking the occupying force into overreacting is a typical insurgent tactic, by the way.)

But what about practical results?

Does this type of operation actually hurt Hamas? I think it does the exact opposite.

Hamas lives in tunnel networks dug up to 80 meters underground, likely with stockpiles of food and ammunition. I think they're among the people who suffer the least from these Israeli reprisals.

The people who are hurt by these bombings are the people of Gaza.

Wishful thinking may have one believe that the people of Gaza would eventually turn on Hamas and blame them for the bombing, but this is, as stated, wishful thinking and has no real precedent in history.

Pretty much ubiquitously we find collective punishment strengthens the insurgency and doesn't undermine it.


Admittedly, I am on the sideline. It is easy for me to say these things when I don't have family members to mourn. Regardless, irrational behavior will further deteriorate the crisis.

Haven't we long been at a point where both parties need to be protected from themselves? That's why I am saying, can we really expect rational behavior from either of the actors involved in this conflict? And if not, what is the way forward?

Letting everyone from Gaza in indiscriminately would absolutely result in a terrible catastrophy. — flannel jesus

I think the whole area is going to dry up in the next century anyway. They can all move together to Norway or wherever.

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. — Tzeentch

What do I expect from Palestinians?

Not supporting terrorist groups that funnel money into violent barbaric means of getting what they want. They tried conventional warfare and lost. That doesn't mean "Ok, let's try some asymmetrical warfare". At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or be indifferent to it. Also, if they were going to use violence, use it against their own extremists! Fight the internal "enemy". Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s.

The UN is screwed in so many ways.
1) It can't act as a referee unless there is an enforcement arm. In a game, the referee is final, not ignored. If it is ignored, the game is forfeited. For the game to be a game, both parties agree to give authority to to the ref.

2) The referee has to be unbiased. No way does the UN represent an unbiased body. That will be said on both "sides" North and South (the Security Council and the General Assembly).

I think the whole area is going to dry up in the next century anyway. They can all move together to Norway or wherever. — frank

They won't be able to move to the Netherlands, though. That whole place is going to be under water.

Because the Israeli cause isn't just, every action following it, is contaminated by that unjust cause. You cannot act ethically right in that case. In the case of the Palestinians, their cause is just but Hamas pursued it via unjust means. — Benkei

By "Israeli cause" you mean Israel's existence as a state, period? Is "Palestine" really for the Palestinians? Are they the original inhabitants? And the Jews are colonizers? Whose land is it really, Benkei?

So their actions are also unjust but they could, if they had used other means - for instance only attacking Israeli soldiers involved in the occupation - they would've been fully in their rights. — Benkei

This would be a huge step up from what happened on 10/7.

At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or indifference to it. — schopenhauer1

Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s. — schopenhauer1

I think this could just as easily apply to Israel.

But honestly, I have no problem envisioning myself being in the shoes of a Palestinian or Israeli and making the exact same mistakes.

This is kind of my point.

1) It can't act as a referee unless there is an enforcement arm. In a game, the referee is final, not ignored. If it is ignored, the game is forfeited. For the game to be a game, both parties agree to give authority to to the ref. — schopenhauer1

Do you, for example, believe the US / the West during the unipolar moment should have acted as the enforcement arm of the UN and forced a two-state solution as was accepted by, among others, UN Security Council Resolution 2334?

2) The referee has to be unbiased. No way does the UN represent an unbiased body. That will be said on both "sides" North and South (the Security Council and the General Assembly). — schopenhauer1

If anything I would assume the nations currently holding permanent seats in the UNSC would be biased towards Israel, and not against it. Or am I missing your point?

I think this could just as easily apply to Israel. — Tzeentch

And which is why I said they should have voted Netanyahu's fascist ass out a long time ago.

But honestly, I have no problem envisioning myself being in the shoes of a Palestinian or Israeli and making the exact same mistakes. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, perhaps. But I do believe sane minds can resolve things peacefully. It's possible, just not easy. It's not easy to "bury the hatchet" on past wrongs. I think that was the point of the thread on vengeance, horror, and terror cycle. But you do need doves on both sides. I don't think everything works like Sadat and Begin, two "warriors" that came together. Rather, I think it calls for the doves coming together and agreeing that this has got to stop, Gandhi style. Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side.

Do you, for example, believe the US / the West during the unipolar moment should have acted as the enforcement arm of the UN and forced a two-state solution as was accepted by, among others, UN Security Council 2334. — Tzeentch

That would be just as bad if the UN was pro-Israel and condemning Palestinian actions and enforcing that. Because of problem 2, problem 1 cannot be resolved.

Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side. — schopenhauer1

Ideally, that also means that Palestine would be an Arab/Muslim-oriented government that respects the rights of its minority citizens (Christian, Jewish, Druze, Samarians, etc.), similar to what Israel has, or even on the style of something like Turkey (pre-Erdogan).

And which is why I said they should have voted Netanyahu's fascist ass out a long time ago. — schopenhauer1

:up:

Perhaps, perhaps. But I do believe sane minds can resolve things peacefully. It's possible, just not easy. It's not easy to "bury the hatchet" on past wrongs. I think that was the point of the thread on vengeance, horror, and terror cycle. But you do need doves on both sides. I don't think everything works like Sadat and Begin, two "warriors" that came together. Rather, I think it calls for the doves coming together and agreeing that this has got to stop, Gandhi style. Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side. — schopenhauer1

Agreed with this also.

That would be just as bad if the UN was pro-Israel and condemning Palestinian actions and enforcing that. Because of problem 2, problem 1 cannot be achieved. — schopenhauer1

Imperfect though it may be. if we agree that we can't expect the two battling sides to come to a rational solution, we will have to accept the intervention of a third party at some point.

Please let it be sooner rather than later, for everyone's sake.

Ideally, that also means that Palestine would be an Arab/Muslim-oriented government that respects its minority citizens (both Christian and Jewish), similar to what Israel has, or even on the style of something like Turkey (pre-Erdogan). — schopenhauer1

Certainly.

Imperfect though it may be. if we agree that we can't expect the two battling sides to come to a rational solution, we will have to accept the intervention of a third party at some point. — Tzeentch

I think if the Arab nations can muster enough courage and temper their "all-or-nothing" tendencies, MAYBE they can be part of a solution. It would be ironic because I don't believe they are not particularly fond of "liberal democratic" Arab countries. But, I think the ability to create a stable Israel/Palestine is immensely more in their interest than not.

It's beneficial for the Arab states; it's not beneficial to Iran. Likewise, any such move would likely be beneficial to Fatah, and, if it worked out, Palestinians writ large, but it would not be beneficial to Hamas. Right now the rule over a poor area, but they rule with impunity.

That's part of the problem. Hamas' funding and ability to keep control over the Strip isn't really conditioned on popular support or "getting results," but on continued financial and military assistance from Iran.

This is why Hamas is so beneficial to Likud. Hamas doesn't necessarily face incentives to do "the best thing possible for independence and economic development," quite the contrary in some sense. Their incentives shape their intransigence and their intransigence had (until now) been a boon to Likud.

That's part of the problem. Hamas' funding and ability to keep control over the Strip isn't really conditioned on popular support or "getting results," but on continued financial and military assistance from Iran.

This is why Hamas is so beneficial to Likud. Hamas doesn't necessarily face incentives to do "the best thing possible for independence and economic development," quite the contrary in some sense. Their incentives shape their intransigence and their intransigence had (until now) been a boon to Likud. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So what do you think is the solution?

At what point have I given the impression I don't think Israel can exist? Israeli's cause vis-a-vis its treatment of Palestinians; the oppression, the stealing of land, the administrative detentions etc. - these combined are simply an act of aggression against the Palestinian people. And there's no just cause to do so.

As I said. Learn to read. Under the Chapter: The position toward Occupation and political solutions (note the word "solutions", eh? It's a dead give away of the purpose of those paragraphs)

It starts out stating that the British gave away to the Jews what wasn't theirs, the UN gave away what wasn't theirs and all resolutions and measures thereafter are not recognised by them. And really, why should they accept a colonizer gives land away that wasn't theirs to begin with? Why should they accept the UN partitioning land that they believe was theirs because they lived there? So in their veiw all these methods of establishing the Israeli state should be rejected by the Palestinians. And in this view, there can be no legitimacy of the Israeli state. That's a perfectly sensible view on the matter. Both ethically and legally.

It then goes on to say that despite these facts, it would accept a two state solution along the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as it's capital.

Rejecting the Oslo Accords is totally sensible as well. It's ridiculous to write away rights of self-determination and self-governance indefinitely and have another State have far-reaching control on governance at the same time. That's not self-determination and by definition can never lead to an independent Palestinian State. That criticism is well established as well and not surprising. The Oslo-Accord has never been popular with a majority of the Palestinians.

It continues to set out that any settlement without a right to return will always be rejected.

Only then do we get a chapter on resistance. The only thing there to disagree with is their "by any means". But it's quite clear resistance and a complete free Palestine is only pursued if the political solution is not reached.

So if you don't want terrorist attacks you need a) a real Palestinian State and b) a right of return.

Isn't Hamas Sunni? Why is Iran supporting them?

But I do believe sane minds can resolve things peacefully. It's possible, just not easy. It's not easy to "bury the hatchet" on past wrongs. I think that was the point of the thread on vengeance, horror, and terror cycle. — schopenhauer1

:up: Yes it was,

So if you don't want terrorist attacks you need a) a real Palestinian State and b) a right of return. — Benkei

I'm sorry, whatever ends you're going for, that's evil on the face of it. It's sad you support it. I am bracketing the issue to this. You can justifiably be against violence by the Israeli military, but if you are not against Palestinian violence due to this particular issue, then you are too far gone. As I said earlier:

What do I expect from Palestinians?

Not supporting terrorist groups that funnel money into violent barbaric means of getting what they want. They tried conventional warfare and lost. That doesn't mean "Ok, let's try some asymmetrical warfare". At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or be indifferent to it. Also, if they were going to use violence, use it against their own extremists! Fight the internal "enemy". Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s. — schopenhauer1

And as to even giving a shit what a terrorist organization tweaked a section (so the sliver of gullible (already biased) people might think it more respectable, which apparently worked for that small percent) is:

I think they’ve proven very thoroughly they can’t be, and odd that you’d want to reward it because “settlements”. One can be against settlements and not barbarism. In fact, if barbarism is justified, who cares- they’re all violent, right. It’s using people for causes. One can be so theoretical as to lose sight of the point of any of it. Perhaps Hamas can rule an empire of rubble and death. But it seems, you’d be satisfied with that. It’s either naïveté or blind hatred. A righteous cause gone sour. if you think Hamas gives a shit about its own people, you don’t seem to have paid attention to that side of the whole equation. — schopenhauer1

and

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). — schopenhauer1

I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. — BitconnectCarlos

Some Christians might be OK in Israel, I guess. Assuming that they know their place...

I'm sorry, whatever ends you're going for, that's evil on the face of it. It's sad you support it. I am bracketing the issue to this. You can justifiably be against violence by the Israeli military, but if you are not against Palestinian violence due to this particular issue, then you are too far gone. As I said earlier: — schopenhauer1

What's evil about a Palestinian state and a right of return, exactly? Or do you have it in your head again this excludes an Israeli State?

And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too.

Christians have been traditionally well treated in Israel, but sadly there has been an uptick in anti-Christian activity lately. It seems to mostly come from the ultra-orthodox. Very sad, but many Jews are unlikely to be sympathetic due to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism. In any case maybe it'll work out for them.

“Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:11-12).

One day the president of Israel will be a Muslim and all the old people will be like, I thought this would never happen! — frank

Better yet, one day a secular Buddhist will be president of the whole area, and it'll be a genuine democracy with separation of religion and politics.

What's evil about a Palestinian state and a right of return, exactly? Or do you have it in your head again this excludes an Israeli State?

And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too. — Benkei

That's a red herring and strawman. I did not question a Palestinian state (right of return is trickier but in theory some compensation makes sense). Rather, the means for the ends is not justified.

And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too. — Benkei

Nothing that Israel has done regarding land justifies that barbarity to people, sorry. That's what you are supporting, and it's sad.

↪neomac I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — flannel jesus

The Arab world is deeply entrenched in a cultural environment that is alien to the Western culture as Westerners live it. It is instead dominated by tribalism, feud mentality and islam/ist sectarian preaching (which beheading and children indoctrination into jihadism are an expression). They have learnt to just ape Western language about human rights, international law, and the value of life NONE OF WHICH they are committed to, educated to and inspired by when implementing their institutions. But they use it as a rhetorical bludgeon IF AND ONLY IF it plays against the West (people and institutions), especially as a siren call for Western “useful idiots”. Indeed the Arab world does not make much use of these concepts when they have to deal issues at home or among them. Neither Hamas nor Palestinians give a shit about human rights in the middle east, they want their land from Israel and their blood revenge against Isreal. That’s all. Understandably so, but also who-gives-a-shit-ly so. And it should be evident also how Arabs themselves do not give a shit, nor gave a shit, nor will give a shit about zillions of bombed Palestinian kids in the apartheid prison of Gaza, other than from the fact that they are instrumental to push their geopolitical agenda. They also have learnt the “best” anti-Western arguments (like the Marxist criticism of Western capitalism and imperialism and neocolonialism) from the West itself, the Western “useful idiots”, including the Westernized middle-easterners (which are the most dangerous “useful idiots”).
Outside the West, the Palestinians would be treated as Putin treated the Chechens and now the Ukrainians, or the Chinese treat the Uyghurs, the Turks treat the Kurds. Bloody repression, genocide and concentration camps would be perfectly in order. Russians, Chinese, and Turks don’t give a shit about it.
Now they are using the Palestinians to divide the West, since the West is currently particularly rich in “useful idiots”. So I do not give a shit if Nathanyahu made mistakes for which he deserves not only to be deposed, but even to be literally killed, hanged, tortured to death, or decapitated, along with his closest family. But I would find rather weak from the Westerners to not support Israel in front of the Arab and the Rest of the world. Also a lost opportunity to show the Rest of the world how the Western “useful idiots” are indeed just an irrelevant bunch of “useless idiots”.
Only after Nathanyahu has wrecked to dust Gaza with as many Hamas fighters as possible (hopefully, including their closest families because that’s what is required by the feud logic they understand), it would make more sense to me to immediately have Nathanyahu politically removed along with his supporters (or even better, eliminated physically like in a Hamas operation helped by Mossad, or an entirely Mossad operation then blamed on Hamas) and political trends. Then relaunch another fucking round of peace talks. As far as I’ve understood Israel doesn’t need to allow a Palestinian state, nor Palestinian interlocutors, but it could declare its willingness to stop its territorial expansion or even withdraw in exchange for an international (or Arab-led? Indian, Chinese, Russian-led? Tzeench-Benkei-led?) mandate in the now occupied Palestinian regions and finance part of its reconstruction (starting with hospitals and schools) in a transparent and traceable way. Certainly it would make sense for Israel to be sincerely open to recognise the right of Palestinians to have their own state IF AND ONLY IF Russia recognises Chechens their own state, China recognises Uyghurs their own state, and Turkey recognises Kurds their own state.