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
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
To call for no military response is absurd and a standard that we would hold no other nation to. — BitconnectCarlos
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
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 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
Letting everyone from Gaza in indiscriminately would absolutely result in a terrible catastrophy. — flannel jesus
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
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
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
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
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
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
I think this could just as easily apply to Israel. — Tzeentch
But honestly, I have no problem envisioning myself being in the shoes of a Palestinian or Israeli and making the exact same mistakes. — Tzeentch
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
Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side. — schopenhauer1
And which is why I said they should have voted Netanyahu's fascist ass out a long time ago. — schopenhauer1
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
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
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
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
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
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
So if you don't want terrorist attacks you need a) a real Palestinian State and b) a right of return. — Benkei
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
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
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
Some Christians might be OK in Israel, I guess. Assuming that they know their place...I don't see where the Likud platform says that Israel must be entirely Jewish. — BitconnectCarlos
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. — Benkei
And yes, I think violence against an oppressor is justified. Slaves were justified to revolt too. — Benkei
↪neomac I have no idea what you're trying to say here. — flannel jesus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.