Even a century after nations arose nobody spoke about Jews in that way. — Benkei

:lol: now you’re smoking your own shrooms. Arguably, for good or bad, the idea of “the people of Israel” and connection of a particular people with a particular land was practically invented by the Bible years before “nation-state” in the 1600s. You can argue a strain of philo-semitism in Europe from Protestantism and from the 1600s onward promoted this idea of Jews possibly “returning”, even stemming from a sort of secular millennialism. But for you politically, no such nuance can be had because…it can’t be. Otherwise you’d have to have a wider worldview, and can’t have that.

I'm sure the fantasy that a tribal society invented the nation-state well before it ever existed makes you feel smart because it gives you an excuse to disagree with me.

I'm sure the fantasy that a tribal society invented the nation-state well before it ever existed makes you feel smart because if it gives you an excuse to disagree with me. — Benkei

No, read the idea and put the connections and implications together. It contradicts your idea full stop.

Right, there is a great deal of discrimination within Israel proper. I just don't know if South Africa is the best analogy for that given the ways in which Arab Israelis are integrated into the economy, politics, and fabric of social life though. To my mind it seems more like Jim Crow, or even more so the less formalized, defacto Jim Crow or the northern US in the decades prior to the 1960s-70s (which was often none kinder for being less explicit).

Although, interestingly the wealth gap between households and educational achievement is not as large as gaps that exist in the US, with a good deal being explained by much lower employment rates for Arab women 28.3% vs Jewish women 61.6%. This is partly due to a cultural difference; the gap for men is much smaller, although still quite significant, showing the effects of job discrimination as well. This is not so much a defense of the noxious Israel system, as a signal of the scale of US issues.

The difference would lie in returns on wealthy, since the Black-White income gap is a bit smaller than the Arab-Jew gap in Israel, but then the wealth relationship flips, probably because of how much the US system is set up around the principle of "to those who have, even more shall be given" (all sorts of policies that inflate wealth so long as you scrape up to a certain level).

I'm unfortunately not familiar enough with Jim Crow details to tell the difference so will have to trust your judgment in that. It could be that the reason Amnesty and B'tselem refer to it as Apartheid is because the international community took action against Apartheid and that is what they believe is needed now.

Whatever you say sweety.

:up:

What Coates tells us on the other hand is his personal experience, how he did feel when being in the occupied territories etc. — ssu

And the appended links to videos (which you've ignored) do not corroborate Coates' "personal experience" of "the occupied territories"? :chin:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/850515

For example you rarely see the Per Capita of any nation plunge back fifty years. But in Yemen, you can! — ssu

I wondered what happened in 2010. Now I know

2011: Arab Spring Reaches Yemen

However, until there is a vociferous outcry not only of Israel's "get Hamas no matter what the cost" response to Hamas, but of Hamas and their actions itself, then nothing changes. Perhaps starting with using one’s own population’s lives as a pawn by putting caches of weapons and military command centers as a strategy is one place to start. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure outcry is going to change anything. At least not for the exaggerated numbers of civilians allegedly killed.

Where is Hamas supposed to put its weapons, in specially demarcated areas?

I don't see the point here, you are saying that everyone should follow the rules of war, or just Hamas?

Sometimes the reasoning is difficult to folllow.

Nasrallah's first speech since the attacks did not sound good for Hamas' hopes of a wider conflict.

"The October 7 operation was planned in total secrecy, even other Palestinian factions were not privy to it, let alone resistance movements abroad."

“The international community keeps bringing up Iran and its military plans, but the October 7 attack was a 100% Palestinian operation, planned and executed by Palestinians for the Palestinian cause, it has no relation at all to any international or regional issues.”

Hamas has already complained about the ineffectual response from Hezbollah, and that seems unlikely to change.

Despite some public moves in support of a cease fire, Hamas has yet to embrace that position with any consistency. Per the last interview with a politburo member:

"We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do it twice and three times. The al-Aqsa Deluge [the name Hamas gave its October 7 onslaught] is just the first time... Will we have to pay a price? Yes, and we are ready to pay it. We are called a nation of martyrs, and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.”

In the interview, Hamad says that Israel must be wiped off all “Palestinian lands,” i.e., must be completely annihilated, claiming that its existence is “illogical.”

But I wonder if this posture will change now that the response from allies has been about as unequivocal as you could expect it to be for public statements.

I imagine a cease fire would have to come with some sort of public statement about not carrying out additional October 7th style attacks whenever feasible. Not that Hamas will, or even should be bound by such statements, but because, if they want a ceasefire, they should realize that Israeli leaders need cover for one as well. Thus, there has to be some sort of shift in the language away from "such attacks will continue as soon as possible," and "total annihilation."

But, since both sides have face to lose in relenting first, I think we may be unlikely to see a move toward changing the rhetoric re "total destruction of Israel" and "total destruction of Hamas," until private negotiations bring about a mutual acknowledgement.

I still find it a bit strange though, because both militarily and in terms of protecting their people, a ceasefire would benefit Hamas, so I would think their messaging would follow the strategic imperatives. And if their goal is to win wider support, dropping the threats of continued attacks of the same nature (explicitly targeting civilians), while asking for the ceasefire seems like a no-brainer.

They did walk back the nature of the attacks, making an appeal to the targeting of civilians not being their goal, which is at least a move in the right direction. But it wasn't said very forcefully, and given the intent obviously was to massacre civilians, they probably need to expand on their view of future efforts. At least some acknowledgement of "mistakes were made," on the most heinous acts, not "everything was justified." You can claim the attack was justified and still say your soldiers might have "acted rashly," and blame it on the combat environment, etc. Diplomatically, claiming executing toddlers is "totally justified," is a non-starter.

It could be that the reason Amnesty and B'tselem refer to it as Apartheid is because the international community took action against Apartheid and that is what they believe is needed now.

Good point; I hadn't thought of that.

Where is Hamas supposed to put its weapons, in specially demarcated areas? — FreeEmotion

Both sides will cry foul here, but there are "human shield laws" if one cares about international law, which people seem to use pretty heavily against Israel, but not Hamas. These Laws state that it's illegal to use civilians as shields or cover:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_(law)

Hamas originally used this tactic thinking that it would prevent overwhelming force against them. Then when this failed, they kept doing it, and not that I can tell what their leadership says, it's pretty clear that it's then used to stoke the media news cycle about how Israel is disproportionate. Either way, whatever Israel's actions are (which is clear by now that it will be overwhelming force to get the baddies), Hamas knowing this still hides amongst civilians, thus knowingly putting their own people in danger.

Sometimes the reasoning is difficult to folllow. — FreeEmotion

If you are referring to my reasoning, then what I was basically saying was that Palestinians need to bolster their moderate voices. Though Netanyahu and his regime/Likud Party have been in power for a while (more to do with their complicated parliamentary system of forming coalition governments than overwhelming majority support), they have a plethora of "doves", "liberals", and "moderate" positions. That has not historically been, and continues not to be the case on the Palestinian side. Until BOTH sides have a sufficient amount of "moderates", it doesn't end. I gave some possible reasons for this, and also explained how Palestinian solidarity on the hardline anti-Israel sentiments make it seem that that side is right, as if have a less diversity of views regarding peace and compromise means one is somehow more "right". But that is certainly not the case. Rather, there has to develop a sentiment of compromise and willingness to move forward without violence. That starts with Palestinians condemning Hamas vociferously, rejecting their style and rhetoric. That also means recognizing when your so-called "leaders" are not even protecting your people by provoking a neighboring force that they know will strike back with overwhelming force. So until they start holding their own leader accountable, and not keep reforming various Jihadist groups, it doesn't end. Until the Palestinian leadership puts their own people's lives and welfare above their agendas, it doesn't end.

was basically saying was that Palestinians need to bolster their moderate voices — schopenhauer1

The best thing Palestinians could do, as a group, is stand up against Hamas - make it clear that the people aren't looking for the destruction of Israel ("from the river to the sea"), and want to negotiate for a 2 state solution, one where Israel can feel confident Palestinians won't allow another Hamas to come to power.

This would never happen, but if it could happen it would fast track Palestinians into having their own sovereign territory.

The best thing Palestinians could do, as a group, is stand up against Hamas - make it clear that the people aren't looking for the destruction of Israel ("from the river to the sea"), and want to negotiate for a 2 state solution, one where Israel can feel confident Palestinians won't allow another Hamas to come to power.

This would never happen, but if it could happen it would fast track Palestinians into having their own sovereign territory. — flannel jesus

:clap: :up:

This guy thinks most Palestinians would cheer the end of HAMAS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2BSDLFVT74

He's very biased, I think, given his history and circumstances, but I would love it if he were right

I don't think it's that far of a stretch. They haven't delivered on any of their promises. They haven't delivered on good governance or quality of life improvements. And now they have openly declared that all the people they rule over by force "want to be martyrs," following their unilateral decision to start a war.

Not only this, but they also kept their plans for the war secret while stockpiling supplies for themselves, preparing for their own saftey. They then started the war, and have since seemed more focused on protecting their strength and themselves than defending against the attack they provoked (the IDF has encircled Gaza City and begun to push into urban areas and losses do not suggest anything like a "heavy" resistance).

And now they seem unable to even keep meaningful support from allies in a time of crisis, making armed struggle, the very thing they are committed too, look even more hopeless. If Iran won't step in now, it never will. And Hamas will never be able to overwhelm Israel. Leaving a change in strategy as the only realistic option.

I wondered what happened in 2010. Now I know

2011: Arab Spring Reaches Yemen — FreeEmotion

Yes.

And perhaps that Saudi-Arabia and it's allies have put a blockade on the Houthi controlled part of Yemen. Plus bombed them for years.

The best thing Palestinians could do, as a group, is stand up against Hamas - make it clear that the people aren't looking for the destruction of Israel ("from the river to the sea"), and want to negotiate for a 2 state solution, one where Israel can feel confident Palestinians won't allow another Hamas to come to power. — flannel jesus

Ummm.... hasn't that the Palestine Authority already done that? :roll:

And oh yeah, now far less Palestinians are killed in West Bank than in Gaza.

Biden administration thinks Netanyahu may not last politically

More news articles are appearing about the relationship between Netanyahu and the Biden administration.

If the administration can put its foot down and pressure Netanyahu into resiging, that would be a big step in the right direction - probably enough to prevent an escalation of the conflict. Perhaps it would be enough to cause a shift in Israeli politics.

Netanyahu is politically finished anyway, and the question is whether he leaves now or after the conflict escalates and the massive war that would ensue.

A US administration pressuring what is essentially regime change in Israel is unheard of though (is it?), and the domestic pressure on the administration will be enormous. But we're living in unprecedented times so who knows?

I would like to formally retract anything that might be interpreted as a suggestion for Israel or Palestine towards a "solution".

Israel is, quite frankly, evil. Hamas is obviously evil. All the innocent that have died and will die are a travesty. I have no idea what a way forward would even look like.

Ummm.... hasn't that the Palestine Authority already done that? :roll: — ssu

Curious, why is Abbas’ four year term 16 years? Don’t get me wrong, consequentially, this is infinitely better, but your answer will reveal the contrary situation to what you imply in that response.

And what did that get them? Slower genocide I suppose.

I can't be the only one that thinks the word "genocide" is dramatic. Jews were genocided - the current count of Jews is STILL less than it was before ww2. The Palestinian population, in contrast, has grown faster than the Israeli Jewish population. Is "genocide" really the right description?

Is "genocide" really the right description? — flannel jesus

Great question. Terms apparently can be changed to whatever helps your cause. I’m sure you’ll get a BS answer where it has something to do with the “embargo” (because of Hamas occupation) and the “open air prison” (where money was funneled from Palestinians to Hamas weapon infrastructure).

It’s probably going to shift in the overwhelming force that Israel responds though. My guess is that one. So it will be mutable to various “bad” things. Settlements will also fall under this mutable category of “bad” equals genocide. Just call it all genocide I guess.

Or the fact that at various times Pal leadership rejected a state fir various uncompromising reasons. That failure also makes it a genocide apparently.

Or perhaps just Zionism being a thing from 1881 or 1947 or whatnot which Arab Muslims never agreed to. That’s genocide. Pick your start date.

I would like to formally retract anything that might be interpreted as a suggestion for Israel or Palestine towards a "solution". — flannel jesus

You can surely purpose a peaceful solution, but then I don't see that simply as being realistic.

I have no idea what a way forward would even look like. — flannel jesus

How about extrapolating the present history into the future?

Isreal will continue to "mow the lawn" once a decade, when a new generation of Palestinians make their own attempt of an intifada. And during the more peaceful times life is ordinary for Israelis, until that time to head to the bunker when the rockets fly comes every once in a while. And nothing will be done because there is no outside pressure the US is an ally of Israel and no Arab nation presents a real threat to it. And the far right in Israel can always say that any appeasement with the Palestinians have just made things worse.

Hence I think perpetual low-intensity conflict is what Israel thinks it has to do. And the religious zealots like Hamas and Hezbollah, they are just happy with this. They don't want normalization. Heck, people could get as unreligious as young Iranians are today. People who lose their loved ones can rejoice of having the honor of having lived with martyrs! Religious zealots prevail.

Curious, why is Abbas’ four year term 16 years? — schopenhauer1

They surely aren't a justice state, a democracy and rather corrupt, as people opted to vote in Gaza. But notice, that Hamas fought the PA and then took over Gaza. And yes,

Don’t get me wrong, consequentially, this is infinitely better, but your answer will reveal the contrary situation to what you imply in that response. — schopenhauer1

What do you think I imply as a response?

In my view there simply is not a peaceful, diplomatic, solution!

To think that there is now is a nice humane solution is living in a denial. Either side has no desire to appease the other side and make any solution, like going back to the pre-1967 borders.

Unlike European after WW1 (or WW2), people aren't fed up with the war.

And what did that get them? Slower genocide I suppose. — Benkei

I wouldn't call the Apartheid-system of control of the Israelis genocide, but clearly a state where every Palestinian understands that they don't have an own independent state. (No Russian soldiers checking my ID when drive to a different town from mine in Finland.)

In fact, many Palestinians might desire for the time there wasn't yet this "freedom" in the West Bank. Yes, there was a time when the Israeli officials were more lax about their Palestinians in their occupied territories.

Why don't you look up the definition of genocide as agreed in the general assembly and get back to me so you can all eat crow?

Oh you know what, I'll save you the trouble:

On 11 December 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that genocide was a crime under international law. This was approved and ratified as a Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on 9 December 1948. The Convention defines genocide as:

‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• killing members of the group
• causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

I emphasised the part that applies in this situation. So no, it's definitely not an exaggeration. It's like suggesting what the Chinese are doing to the Uighurs isn't genocide because they aren't killed. Just their way of life and identify.

Apparently Hamas is now using sniper rifles on palestinian women and children who were trying to move south to avoid the violence. not surprising as hamas reportedly set up roadblocks to stop people from going there. high numbers of civilian casualties certainly benefits their cause.

I don't see how the situation counts. Can you break it down for me?

'Ethnic cleansing' seems more apt than genocide. But ethnic cleansing may be a form of it. From
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/ethnic-cleansing.shtml:

Ethnic Cleansing
Background

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR).
UN Photo/John Isaac
Ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The term surfaced in the context of the 1990’s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to come from a literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression “etničko čišćenje”. However, the precise roots of the term or who started using it and why are still uncertain.

The expression “ethnic cleansing” has been used in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and has been acknowledged in judgments and indictments of the ICTY, although it did not constitute one of the counts for prosecution. A definition was never provided.

Definition
As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.” — United Nations

Here's an interesting interview about an US State Department official, who resigned after how weapons are now shoved to Israel without any previously used supervision etc. The contrast to Ukraine is quite huge. But it's that Judeo-Christian heritage you have to defend!!! Biden is sending everything and the bathroom sink to help Israel.


What is telling that he has gotten a lot of support, but naturally nobody dares to say anything similar as fearing that they'll lose their job.

But the example does tell us that when it's not Israel, the US does think carefully what the impact of its arms will have (and this can be seen from some other conflicts).

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. — ssu

I use the expression “having the same standards” as a conscious and convenient simplification to deal with a messy reality. After all I didn’t specify which standards I’m referring to, nor conditions for their assessment. So I’m perfectly aware that there is room to broadly question its application to the case of Israel. But that would be true for other Western allies (Turkey), Western countries (Hungary, Poland), and Western leaders (the US). For example if we are focusing on the respect of “human rights” as the core of Western foreign policy, it’s very much questionable that the US was/is respecting this standard in its past wars and supporting Israel now.
As far as I’m concerned, even if we take “humanitarian concerns” as a core Western standard (take also as a test case the illegal immigrants dying in the Mediterranean), I would still understand it in more “realist” terms: “human rights” are what states can more likely commit to enforce AT BEST within the territory they are effectively under their control. Beyond that, in the international arena, and most certainly in the case of contested lands, credibility&accountability of states’ commitments toward “human rights” remain the facto deeply constrained and disputable given the involvement of foreign authorities. A logic of alliance between sovereign powers is what replaces the logic of sovereignty in the international arena, whence the dilemma of the conflict between Israel and Hamas for the West.

Many countries in the West don't see themselves as "allies" of either party. — ssu

France and Germany had and may still have different views from the US on Ukraine, yet this didn’t prevent them from aligning with converging policies and/or narratives when needed.
For many Western countries the issue of the current conflict is also linked to the presence of an angry Arab/Muslim community which is much larger than the Jewish community (in many European countries at least, not in the US). So I’m not surprised to see public gestures meant to contain the risk of a political (given incoming elections) or social backlash. Propaganda serves also that purpose.

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

As far as I’m concerned, “existential” or “vital” have to do with the security dilemmas we are having in mind. If we agree that a system of alliance is part of the survival kit of any state in the international arena AND a larger  alliance is better than a smaller alliance to the extent economic, political and security policies and capacities can converge to maximise efficacy in reaching desired outcomes, then Israel on its side has lots of economic, technological, military, intelligence, geographic and political assets that it’s definitely worth preserving as an ally. Most certainly for the US, the leader of the Western alliance.
Besides, let’s not forget the historical role played by European powers in the genesis of Israel. History of the christian anti-Semitism is haunting Zionism as much as the history of Western colonialism is haunting anti-Western countries, and the two tend to overlap in the case of Israel for the Arab world. So even condemning Israel now wouldn’t still condone Western historical responsibilities. Again, it’s on Westerners, to see what tradeoff between division and unity is acceptable in the face of anti-Western challenges.



I’m not blind to the toxic nature of Netanyahu’s government (as many Israeli denounced). I’m not trying to defend the Zionist ideology (with its ethnic-based notion of state) or the abuses of the Israeli colonisation. I doubt that we can still comfortably assess the proportionality of the Israeli response, even if we assume that it is going to be effectively eradicating Hamas inside Gaza (and analysts doubt that too).
I simply find it myopic and easy to exploit to understand the current events exclusively in terms of dead civilians accounting/accountability and demand for peace. In the Israeli crisis as much as in the Ukrainian crisis. The weight of the historical legacy and the geopolitical stakes for sovereign states can not just be trumped by a popular wish for peace or humanitarian concerns.
Another remarkable example to support this, while the Western anti-Americans keep whining over the Vietnam war today, yet Vietnam has now become another precious American military ally in the Pacific.