That is to say, I think it rather fantastical as a solution. — schopenhauer1

I'll readily admit it is very idealistic. But it is not fantastical. History has known individiuals who were able to bridge large gaps between peoples.

But I think you know my views of what the realist/probable outcome is, which is why I believe the idealist option is worth investigating.

Cool, have fun ruling over your skulls and heads on pikes. Then YOU can be the Lord of the Flies. — schopenhauer1

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestments. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. But sure, you can go on pretending it's all too complicated and therefore argue in favour of the status quo and do fuck all when solutions are obvious.

We now call Iraq and Syria and Lebanon a real "entity" even though they are in no way native to the people's of that region. I am trying to broaden the view to some extent to how history works, and it is not in the moral justice way you seem to think. — schopenhauer1

Sure, I get that eventually borders that were once new become old, generations die and the new order becomes the old status quo, and attempting to put back borders the way they were hundreds, or thousands, of years ago is impractical. But the Israeli occupation of Palestine is live, now. The wound is fresh, the borders are fluid, moral justice can readily meaningfully apply.

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestments. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. But sure, you can go on pretending it's all too complicated and therefore argue in favour of the status quo and do fuck all when solutions are obvious. — Benkei

Your solution is heads on pikes because there is no compromise. Again, you can be right, on top of a pile of skulls all you want.

The wound is fresh, — bert1

I just disagree with this. It gets stickier and sticker with the circumstance of the 1948 war. One side accepted, the other outright didn't like the UN resolution. Interesting how if UN comes down on the side of Israel, they were wrong.. but not the opposite. Hmm.. It's almost as if the UN is whatever bias you want it to be.

I think wounds can be kept open much longer now. Record keeping is better. We have old maps. Victory is not as absolute as it used to be, perhaps. The dispossessed can go on social media and go on and on about it, the UN has guys in flak jackets and microphones interviewing them under the noses of the possessors, whereas hundreds of years ago they would have just been locked in the Tower of London and forgotten, or every last one of them massacred. Is that right? Or am I making shit up again?

I'll readily admit it is very idealistic. But it is not fantastical. History has known individiuals who were able to bridge large gaps between peoples.

But I think you know my views of what the realist/probable outcome is, which is why I believe the idealist option is worth investigating. — Tzeentch

It would be cool if they could have a confederation of sorts at least where social issues are their own polity but economics populations can freely flow between. It is indeed almost intractable because you would then have to maintain strict immigration requirements to maintain the polities religious/ethnic homogeneity or whatnot.

I think wounds can be kept open much longer now. Record keeping is better. We have old maps. Victory is not as absolute as it used to be, perhaps. The dispossessed can go on social media and go on and on about it, the UN has guys in flak jackets and microphones interviewing them under the noses of the possessors, whereas hundreds of years ago they would have just been locked in the Tower of London and forgotten, or every last one of them massacred. Is that right? Or am I making shit up again? — bert1

For sure. I think modern times has given us ways to be pissed off for a lot longer, history or otherwise. Then again, how many years did France fight England? Hundred years?

I should get a job writing history books.

Yeah, that's a totally historically accurate description of what happened in south africa. :roll:

I think his point was at which indignation does one choose focus on? — schopenhauer1

Partly. From a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view, we have to look at it like:

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. What will each group do if they get control of the land? Group A will create a society where Muslim men have all the power. Group B will create a much more inclusive democratic society. People will be better off if Group B owns the land. Therefore, group B should get the land. If Group A gets their act together, we can reevaluate their claims to the land.

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. — RogueAI

That's the critical assumption.

we — RogueAI

Yeah, that's the issue. Who is the deciding 'we'? The colonial West? It seems to me that the nearest entity with a valid claim to being 'we' is the United Nations. A world government with a proper court would be the best thing, first to establish rights of ownership, and if they are evaluated to be equal, then maybe the other considerations you raise might be considered. I have no real idea what the procvess and law would be. The UN and the ICJ is the next best thing we have, no? The UN have already expressed their view of the situation.

Partly. From a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view, we have to look at it like:

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. What will each group do if they get control of the land? Group A will create a society where Muslim men have all the power. Group B will create a much more inclusive society. People will be better off if Group B owns the land. Therefore, group B should get the land. If Group A gets their act together, we can reevaluate their claims to the land. — RogueAI

I'm not so consequentialist per se. I'm not sure what to call it, but I would say "big toe theory". That is to say, everything in the Middle East is basically a fiction in its relative origin. The fights now are created from a world order created during the last few hundred years in Europe (and the US). Israel is part of this (already present fiction, whether there is an Israel or not). If it's all FROM the West anyways, I advocate going FULL BLOWN West. In that regard, all made up "nation-states" should be so tolerant. Just having a democracy itself is taking partly from the West. Having a liberal democracy is preferable as it is just good to have the notion of rights, equality, and protections in a society. However, Israel is not just a country like the US in terms of it is based on a principle. It is also based on a religious/ethnic identity. It has to cut a fine line between maintaining its charter as a Jewish based polity and a liberal democracy. In that regard, contradictions will arise in regards to what if the majority wants to dissolve the Jewish character of the state? This is why Israel needs a functioning Palestine so they can have a roughly equivalent Arab liberal democracy where they can maintain their cultural polity but yet respect rights of the minority and human rights in general.

Well, in the rape of Nanjing the usual estimate given is 200 000 civilian deaths (100 000 - 300 000 range). The city had swollen to one million people from quarter of a million. Hence every fifth was killed (yet three quarters had fled the city, so you can count just how many survived of those who stayed).

The real dreadful thought is that if Bibi fucks this up, we actually could really have a two state solution: if the body count becomes too bad, the "international community" really gets upset, then Israel can perhaps make a change correction from the "perpetual limited war every once a decade" solution to the two state solution, because it starts hurting them as the present Apartheid system hurt them like White South Africa.

At some point where there's too many civilian casualties, that Judeo-Christian heritage and Israel's right to defend itself will start looking bad. Even for Americans.

But that's a little chance.

Moderates cannot fight extremists almost by definition, because moderates tend to be reasonable human beings who aren't willing to resort to any means necessary to get what they want. — Tzeentch

Nonsense.

Moderates can perfectly fight wars. It's the "bitter enders" that simply lose everything.

Finland was a democracy when fighting Stalin's Soviet Union and stayed as a democracy even after the war. The leaders were moderates: they understood when to accept peace and when to give a Dolchstoss to your former dictator-ally, who just had given us enough weapons to stop the Soviet offensive in it's tracks. And yes, I will call Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator an extremist.

the Israelis will have to move out AND pay reparations

They'll have to? Is this a prediction? You think this will be a reality? When?

Nonsense.

Moderates can perfectly fight wars. It's the "bitter enders" that simply lose everything. — ssu

Everybody loses.

The real dreadful thought is that if Bibi fucks this up, we actually could really have a two state solution: — ssu

Oh, have children both inside and outside of Israel been taught a Two State Solution is best?

Yeah, that's the issue. Who is the deciding 'we'? The colonial West? It seems to me that the nearest entity with a valid claim to being 'we' is the United Nations. — bert1

The UN would be the closest thing. I was making a point, though, that the moral thing to do (on some views of morality) is to continue to let Israel control the land.

Oh, have children both inside and outside of Israel been taught a Two State Solution is best? — jgill

You think one state solution is best? Ok, so you are for a) a continuation of the Apartheid system or b) integration of Palestinians / non-Jewish people with similar rights as Jews?

Or you just think this is the best solution: perpetual war that sparks up occasionally, that doesn't make life too unbearable for the Jewish people.

Everybody loses. — Tzeentch

Nah.

There are winners of conflicts and wars. Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose?

Perhaps jgill had in mind, something along the lines of the following:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/11/05/antisemitic-hatred-in-palestinian-schoolbooks/

:up:

Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose? — ssu

Our atavistic delusions of grandeur (à la the gambler's fallacy).

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. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Successive Israeli governments allowed Hamas to exist. It may have been in their interest to create a beast and then use it as an excuse for excessive force. If you do not care about lives, then it is all very rational.

I always wonder how high tech 2020s military intelligence allowed the vast number of weapons to be smuggled in, not bad for a blockade.

Paragliders? Technically, motorized paragliders.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/13/middleeast/hamas-weapons-invs/index.html

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: — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between what a warring party, or terrorists ought to do, and what they will. Hamas should not have killed civilians. But terrorists are by definition killers of civilians. What I meant is that Hamas has no rationale for following any laws, given that it is committed to terrorism.

It is a funny argument, terrorists should not engage in terrorist acts. Terrorists should not exist. Since they were allowed to exist, then it follows that they were propped up for a reason. Or maybe the could not be suppressed, but why is that? After 70 years or so rockets are flying into your country? What if Canada started firing rockets into the United States? What do you think would have happened?

The Cuban Missile crisis - that got solved didn't it?

The attacks are as talking points for generating public opinion for bombing Gaza. Don't you think it strange that a nation keeps talking about its worst intelligence and defense failure ever, as if to parade it in front of everyone, for what reason?

Notice how the military casualties are never never mentioned? Killing military personnel is OK, not an atrocity, but killing civilians is not OK? Why they never come out and say it? Over 200. And 200 'missing' what does that mean, they searched for them on their own territory and found nothing? Hostages? Is 400 hostages too much for the PR machine to bear?

Oh, have children both inside and outside of Israel been taught a Two State Solution is best? — jgill

You think one state solution is best? — ssu

I'm not advocating, only saying that IF a two-state solution is sought the journey starts with how children in the areas affected are taught. Young people have the energies to push hard for a cause.

Nothing has changed in the middle east. It is in a state and will remain so.

The effect social media has is something we should all be concerned about. Propaganda has reached a new height.

There are winners of conflicts and wars. Why otherwise would humans be so eager to fight wars if everybody would lose? — ssu

Profound ignorance, mostly.

I watched the entire Piers Morgan vs Israeli President Isaac Herzog interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_hoV-_SoT0

Despite his statement that he heard about the attacks over TV and that he never heard of the refugee camp attack, something that Israeli armed forces spokesperson confirmed, and other possible 'errors', the interview was very useful, thought difficult to listen to, useful as information: a different point of view.

He 'cares about Gaza children'. So he says.

I found something unexpected in this interview: I actually felt sorry for the guy. When he says that Israel has been under attack since the beginning, I realized what he said was true. 1948, 1977, 1973... Intifadas etc. Rocket attacks. I have always found that the Israeli people speak of living in fear, not knowing whether to plant an olive tree. President Herzog seems upset about the world opinion, ganging up on them.

Are they victims?

Let's see my reading on how this came about, you can agree or disagree, but there seems to be forces behind the Israeli and Palestinian camps, I sense it.

Here is what I think happened: (from memory)

In 19xx Lord Bafour suggested a land for the Jews. This was suggested in some part of Africa (which shows how serious they were about claim to the land) then Palestine was suggested. Jews migrated in, and it caused, predictably, problems for them. Then, an evil thing occurred - the persecution of the Jews in Europe, chiefly by the Nazis. The founder of Zionism 'preferred integration' but but because the dislike for the Jews was so great, he thought the second option of a land for the Jews was a good idea. No-one expected the Holocaust. That brought in millions of Jews into the land. Jewish militant groups attacked the British Army, which caused them to give up control of that territory.

I suggest that the creation of Israel was fueled by Jew- hatred, by anti-Semitism, by telling them to go back where they came from. Christian theologians, some of them, using the Biblical ties that Christians had to the land, started pushing Christian Zionism. Israel's cause of existence is what could be called the 'evil way in which many nations treated the Jews'. They had no right to cause it to exist, born of hate, racism.

The United Nations vote on Israel was also, if Wikipedia is to be believed, made under pressure, but from whom? Zionists? Not Orthodox Jews.

Zionists launched an intense White House lobby to have the UNSCOP plan endorsed, and the effects were not trivial.[81] The Democratic Party, a large part of whose contributions came from Jews,[82] informed Truman that failure to live up to promises to support the Jews in Palestine would constitute a danger to the party. The defection of Jewish votes in congressional elections in 1946 had contributed to electoral losses. Truman was, according to Roger Cohen, embittered by feelings of being a hostage to the lobby and its 'unwarranted interference', which he blamed for the contemporary impasse. When a formal American declaration in favour of partition was given on 11 October, a public relations authority declared to the Zionist Emergency Council in a closed meeting: 'under no circumstances should any of us believe or think we had won because of the devotion of the American Government to our cause. We had won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States'

Proponents of the Plan reportedly put pressure on nations to vote yes to the Partition Plan. A telegram signed by 26 US Senators with influence on foreign aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan.[85] The US Senate was considering a large aid package at the time, including 60 million dollars to China.[86][87] Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them:

United States (Vote: For): President Truman later noted, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."[88]
India (Vote: Against): Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, the Indian ambassador to the UN, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless "she voted right".[89] Pandit occasionally hinted that something might change in favour of the Zionists. But another Indian delegate, Kavallam Pannikar, said that India would vote for the Arab side, because of their large Muslim minority, although they knew that the Jews had a case.[90]
Liberia (Vote: For): Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries.[91] Harvey S. Firestone, Jr., President of Firestone Natural Rubber Company, with major holdings in the country, also pressured the Liberian government[77][85]
Philippines (Vote: For): In the days before the vote, Philippines representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated "We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility." After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines' vote changed.[85]
Haiti (Vote: For): The promise of a five million dollar loan may or may not have secured Haiti's vote for partition.[92]
France (Vote: For): Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as United States ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might block planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit. Previously, to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.[75]
Venezuela (Vote: For): Carlos Eduardo Stolk, Chairman of the Delegation of Venezuela, voted in favor of Resolution 181 .[93]
Cuba (Vote: Against): The Cuban delegation stated they would vote against partition "in spite of pressure being brought to bear against us" because they could not be party to coercing the majority in Palestine.[94]
Siam (Absent): The credentials of the Siamese delegations were cancelled after Siam voted against partition in committee on 25 November.[76][95]
There is also some evidence that Sam Zemurray put pressure on several "banana republics" to change their votes.[96]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

Now, these people have been placed in a lions den, given weapons and soothed will words such as "We Stand By Israel' Very convenient if you are out of rocket range. Benjamin Nettanyahu speaks at the US Congress and gets an ovation thirty-five-times. For what reason? Is he being played like a puppet?
Who is behind all of this?

I do not think there will be peace until either the wolves behind the puppeteering feel they have had enough or find another prey.

**** Do we all agree?***

Just so you know where I stand: I will welcome an Israeli. I will welcome a Jew. I will welcome a Palestinian. I will speak to a Hamas terrorist but he has to leave his weapons outside the door. If he did not live in Gaza - and where you live affects who you are - he would most probably not be a terrorist. His motor glider will not have the range.

I leave you with this.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/officer-dismissed-as-idf-blames-deadly-egypt-border-attack-on-easily-opened-gate/

What a haunting image of a young woman. 19 years of age.

People say God is in control. I think not I think Satan is in control of this entire situation now.

Ask me any questions you want.

Perhaps jgill had in mind, something along the lines of the following: — wonderer1

You think the Palestinians here decide the outcome? Hamas can make terrorist attacks

I'm not advocating, only saying that IF a two-state solution is sought the journey starts with how children in the areas affected are taught. Young people have the energies to push hard for a cause. — jgill

Right. So how they are treated (second class citizens, with different laws and limitations what they can do) is the minor issue here? I think that influences quite much how they are taught. Especially with the view that armed struggle is the only way out.

As I've said, politics have been hijacked by religious zealots. The PA was started as secular, while Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. And obviously Hamas wants to take the role as representing all Palestinians. In Israel once powerful Labor party, under whose rule the Oslo accords were done (just as the peace deal with Jordan) has only 4 seats and is quite marginalized.

Zealots dominate both sides. Hence I see no reason for a negotiated peace to become reality.

The only possibility is that Gaza gets to be a massacre, and then to improve their image Israel does something. But this is unlikely.