My understanding is that it is of vital interest for the West to be committed to a system of alliance between countries that share the same standards and treat each other by the same standards. Israel is a valid ally in that sense. — neomac

I think that @Benkei and actually many others, including Western states do have questions if really Israel's standards are the same as ours. Many countries in the West don't see themselves as "allies" of either party.

I question the "vitality" of being an ally here, just as if Iran would be an "existential" threat to the West either.

Switzerland isn't an ally of us. Either the EU or NATO have absolutely no commitments to come into their help on some occasion (which, surrounded by EU member states, would be incredible). If the Swiss would suffer a terrorist attack, many countries would send help if needed. But becoming an "ally" is different.

Because Benkei and I were discussing Judaism and Benkei made the claim that Jews/Judaism was "subverted" to being a nation-people as opposed to merely a religion, like Christianity (unattached to any land). I made the case that the Jews *are* a nation-people. I stand by my claim.

In other words, when we speak of "jews" or "judaism" we are speaking of a nation-people.

I somewhat agree.

However, I wouldn't say that gave them any more of a right to the land on Palestine back in the first half of the 20th century more than anybody else. Perhaps I was jumping the gun thinking that's what you were saying - do you think that gave them a valid claim there?

"Hamas carries out attacks with the sole goal of producing an Israeli response that kills civilians so that Gazan and international opinion shifts against Israel."

Come on, this is like the Likud propaganda caricature of Hamas. I'm willing to believe plenty of things about them, but not this level of cynicism.

That doesn't seem especially cynical to me. What do you think Hamas wanted out of the attack? I mean, what he described isn't any MORE cynical than what we already know Hamas actually factually did, it seems to me.

The Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) may or may not have relevance to the situation, but it looms much larger in the narratives about the existence of Israel. The narratives have been around far longer than the current crisis.

Zionism came out of specific conditions in Europe. This article provides a history of Zionism. One of the influences here is that in Russia there was an emphasis on ethnic identities. In the liberal west, ethnicity was dissolved in individualism. Vicious antisemitism was another strong influence.

In my view, it's quite close that this conflict will enlargen. Iran is using it's proxies. It's like a creeping start.

what I'm saying is, if someone came and said they had a right to your house, them pointing to a fictional book they wrote wouldn't make you feel any more inclined to let them take it, right?

Like it matters historically, it matters in the sense that it sheds light on their motivation, but it does absolutely 0 work, from my view, in justifying what happened in the region in the first half of the 1900s in the region. Contextualises? Yes. Justifies? No.

valid claim — flannel jesus

When it comes to claims of national property, it seems like occupation counts for a great deal, whether the previous occupants agreed to it or not. Look at the Western Hemisphere.

Establishing Israel was as legitimate as establishing any other regime in the world.

One of the influences here is that in Russia there was an emphasis on ethnic identities. — BC

When I visited Moscow during the second last year of the Soviet Union a lived with a Muscovite family, the father was Jewish and I remember his passport having as nationality Jewish. So that prevailed I think.

sure, which is why I think the claim that Jews had a right to it all in the 20s is patently absurd (not that you're making that claim), but the idea that the Jews have the right to remain there now seems, to me, obviously true.

But that second thing is true regardless of the Torah. The Torah doesn't play into it at all. Religious fantasies don't give them the right

Establishing Israel was as legitimate as establishing any other regime in the world. — BC

This doesn't square with the rest of your comment. If occupation counts for the most, and most of the occupants are Arab Muslims, then... establishing Israel was categorically less legitimate than establishing other regimes that had the consent of a majority of the occupants.

I don't know where you pulled that quote from, but it isn't mine so I'm not sure what your point is.

Religious fantasies don't give them the right — flannel jesus

Being successful in war doesn't give it either, but you do get the land.


But then, you have to get the recognition of that from other sovereign states and those that lost. That's the difficult part of "getting the right".

And as when the media is just talking about the two carrier groups to be positioned on the Mediterranean, one should note also this:

(Air & Space Forces Magazine Oct. 24, 2023) “What has happened in the last several days is efforts by Iran and Iran proxy forces to seek to escalate this conflict,” a senior defense official told reporters Oct. 23.

The addition of another multirole fighter squadron will “provide flexible options to coalition leaders directing air operations throughout the Middle East, including contingency response capabilities and deterrence mission,” according to a release from Air Forces Central (AFCENT). The exact location of the F-16s was not disclosed.

The F-16 Fighting Falcons are part of a broader package of forces that have deployed after Hamas’ attack on Israel. F-15Es from RAF Lakenheath, U.K., and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz., have already arrived in the region to bolster the U.S. Air Force presence.

AFCENT now operates three F-16 squadrons, two A-10 squadrons, and an F-15E squadron “alongside several strategic airlift, aerial refueling, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms,” according to the release. U.S. officials are considering deploying additional military forces to the region.

If the US or the IDF will go and strike the Yemeni Houthis, then we will have the truly macabre war of US & Israel against the "Humanitarian Disasters". Which just shows how one sided this war is and will be.

More fwiw.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kEjqeYYMTtw

Not a year has gone by in which the UN hasn't made a report about Israel's belligerent occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories.

Here's one of the more recent ones: Study of the legality of the Israeli occupation of the OPT including East Jerusalem

But I guess

The UN is an Israel-hating joke. — RogueAI

:nerd:

It is authoritative for Jews and Christians. — BitconnectCarlos

I would suppose it is, when it suits them at least, but am not certain that's the case as far as any claim of Jews to Palestine. I know the wackier Christians are great fans of Israel as they hope its existence indicates the Second Coming is nigh, and Jesus will soon return to send the great majority of us to eternal punishment, which they will delight in watching from Heaven. But I don't know that's a common view, and Christians haven't been especially keen on the idea that the country belongs to the Jews over the years.

It is not just the time spent ruling. The Torah, the meat and potatoes of Jewish religious canon, details the connection between the Hebrew people and the land of Israel. The events described in the Torah occur before this period. When the land changed hands away from the Israelites it was explained as loss of divine favor, often due to the Israelites own misbehavior. A common biblical motif. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite common, I know. How else explain why one's God-given homeland hasn't been home for thousands of years? But I assume you're aware that many people don't consider the Bible or the Torah to be determinative, especially when it comes to ownership of land.

I have just tried reading it. Maybe you should try reading it. It starts. "The General Assembly requested that the Committee recommend a programme of implementation to enable
the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination without external
interference, national independence and sovereignty; and to return to their homes and property
from which they had been displaced."

The name of the committee listed here - note the caveat, "This is an independent publication commissioned by the United Nations General Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The analysis and statements of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or the Committee."

And several problems right here, at least in respect of Gaza. 1) The US in its founding documents mentions "unalienable" rights: to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These themselves are not themselves laws; they're not in the US Constitution, but they are embodied elsewhere in US law in different language. And it is noted that in order to secure these, all the other rights are alienable (at need) in the US. That is, so-called inalienable rights are no simple matter. And I have never seen nor heard of any competent - or any at all - declaration of Palestinian "inalienable" rights.

2) Palestinians in Gaza in free elections in 2006 elected Hamas as their government. And I remember clearly being astonished that they had done so. That is, they did, have been. and are self-determining, presumably with no external interference other than what they choose to be interfered with by.

So what have they chosen to do? Allow me to sum it up this way: to repeatedly shoot themselves in their own feet, and then whine about being hurt and wounded - without for a moment neglecting their stated mission to murder, murder, murder, and destroy, destroy, destroy. Is it any wonder that such a "programme" would be self-injurious and self-defeating? This thread is a 112+ page circle-jerk of people who will not grasp a simple single fact: side A would like to live in peace. Side B, on the other hand, has the single goal of murdering side A, which they do regularly in various ways. From that all else flows, and there is no way out until that goal of murder is given up.

Quite common, I know. How else explain why one's God-given homeland hasn't been home for thousands of years? But I assume you're aware that many people don't consider the Bible or the Torah to be determinative, especially when it comes to ownership of land. — Ciceronianus

It's common as a mode of explanation throughout the Bible, even on a personal level. Why does King David's infant son die according to ancient biblical writers? Because of the Urijah debacle detailed in book of Samuel. Even kings are not above God and will be held to account. Misfortunate is very often attributed to one's bad deeds.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist.

Palestinians in Gaza in free elections in 2006 elected Hamas as their government. — tim wood

As someone once said, "elections have consequences." Also, lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it need justify its existence; I simply don't think it has any claim to exist because God wills it or because it's the homeland of the Jews.

I don't think it need justify its existence; I simply don't think it has any claim to exist because God wills it or because it's the homeland of the Jews. — Ciceronianus

I agree. America stole Native American lands fair and square and would no more tolerate an armed Cherokee uprising anymore than Israel tolerates Hamas.

"Fair and square"? Well, the U.S. certainly did it's best to hide its conquest, theft and fraud in the trappings of the law in some cases, though there was no contract (treaty) it was unwilling to breach or see breached as convenient.

"Fair and square"? Well, the U.S. certainly did it's best to hide its conquest, theft and fraud in the trappings of the law in some cases, though there was no contract (treaty) it was unwilling to breach or see breached as convenient. — Ciceronianus

Yes, the U.S. treated Native Americans horribly. Does that mean that Native American tribes would be justified killing civilians and/or American soldiers in an armed uprising? Suppose Cherokee Nation pulled off an attack similar to 9/11. What should the American response be?

I don't think it need justify its existence; I simply don't think it has any claim to exist because God wills it or because it's the homeland of the Jews. — Ciceronianus

One could make a case along the lines of national self-determination.

Yes, the U.S. treated Native Americans horribly. Does that mean that Native American tribes would be justified killing civilians and/or American soldiers in an armed uprising? Suppose Cherokee Nation pulled off an attack similar to 9/11. What should the American response be? — RogueAI

Thats a great point, but the situation is a bit different in that the people responsible with Israel and Palestine are still around. The conflict is so much more recent, living memory for many. That means there is a somewhat more tangible connection to retributive strikes imo.

Regarding ownership of land, I don't know whether Israel needs to justify its own existence anymore than any other state. It exists and continues to exist. — BitconnectCarlos


I don't think it need justify its existence — Ciceronianus

Yes. Israel as all other states is a fact not an opinion. Justification for facts is empty verbiage. The people of Israel are likewise a fact but they are plural and diverse, as are Jews many and diverse all over the world. Confounding these three and assigning widespread ills of the world, such as universal social or legislated or enforced oppression of the oppressed, to any or all of them indiscriminately is antisemitism, whether that be open or covert.

There are dozens if not hundreds of similar reports I could pick from and they will all say the same thing: Israel belligerently occupies the Palestinian territories.

But since you asked for it, here is UN Security Council Resolution 2334 from 2016.

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international
and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant
United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of
land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the
Israeli occupation that began in 1967; — UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Oh, and why don't we throw another one in for good measure?

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, — UN Security Council Resolution 2334

That's ethnic cleansing, by the way.

Note also that 'Occupied Palestinian Territories' is used so often they turned it into an acronym.

Stop spinning apologetics. Stop coping. Accept the facts. So should Shapiro.

I have just tried reading it. Maybe you should try reading it. — tim wood

You clown.

One of the great ironies of the 1948 war is that it was largely fought by the Israelis with Czech surplus Kar98k rifles donated by the Soviets, rifles which had been stamped with swastikas for their intended Nazi users (a dark premonition of the apartheid state perhaps?) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am glad you brought this up. Wars are always proxy wars, it seems, which technically constitutes interference in the affairs of other nations, probably violating the UN Charter.

Hell, they might be in a better place without US support because it could have forced them to make more concessions for peace. Alternatively, they might be a significantly more repressive and violent regime owing to increased existential anxieties. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I tend to agree. Everyone seems to forget that Israel at that time negotiated with terrorists - the PLO - and reached a peace agreement, the Oslo accords. Temporal discrimination is needed, the Israel of 2023 needs to be labelled as such (and I will do so in future posts).

While perceiving somatic stimuli from the external environment, the ability to accurately discriminate their spatial (i.e., spatial discrimination, SD) and temporal (i.e., temporal discrimination, TD) properties is essential for human behavior, but the underlying cerebral mechanisms remain unclear — Oxford Academic

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/32/7/1480/6356877

The big question is, what unfortunate turn of events followed the Oslo accords? A series of worldwide protests may have saved lives earlier, and the actions of governments may have done so also, provided they wanted to.

By the way, I value human life above causes.