This is just crappy analysis, Tim. Being charitable, it ignores the lack of parity and the much more deadly violence of the Israeli government.

What Israel could have done is not turned Gaza into a concentration camp. The Palestinian women and children being slaughtered are victims— and you’re essentially blaming them for actions of Hamas. Again, if that’s truly the standard being used, then what Hamas did on October 7th was equally justified. Do we take that seriously?

Same question to you: what do the Israelis do? And Gaza a concentration camp? Whatever Gaza is, don't the Gazans bear some responsibility for that? And if the Palestinians and Hamas wanted to stop the bloodshed, are there not some steps they could take that likely would lead to a rapid de-escalation?

It's all on you, 180: what do you do? — tim wood

Asked and answered over two years ago ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/650650

What Israel could have done is not turned Gaza into a concentration camp. The Palestinian women and children being slaughtered are victims— and you’re essentially blaming them for actions of Hamas. Again, if that’s truly the standard being used, then what Hamas did on October 7th was equally justified. Do we take that seriously? — Mikie

Just curious if it's "parity" would the Israeli government be justified in raping, beheading, and mutilating Palestinians in the exact same numbers in an unprovoked event at a time of their choosing? That would assume what Israel's mission is the same as Hamas' mission. Israel is trying to destroy both Hamas as an entity and their infrastructure. They think not doing this simply allows Hamas to rebuild and try to do this again. They have the power to do this, whilst minimizing their own casualties, try to regain their hostages, so they are doing so.

Now, I am not necessarily for this approach, but I get the idea. I would say Hamas can to step down, give up the hostages, and Israel can let them leave to Qatar or some other neutral place for the time being. But would Hamas agree to this? Okay, let's say that will be "unacceptable" for Hamas. How about more of the Thomas Friedman approach? That is to say:

It’s time for the U.S. to tell Israel to put the following offer on the table to Hamas: total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, in return for all the Israeli hostages and a permanent cease-fire under international supervision, including U.S., NATO and Arab observers. And no exchange of Palestinians in Israeli jails. — It’s Time for the U.S. to Give Israel Some Tough Love- Thomas Friedman

I doubt Hamas would even agree to this. Anything that would mean that Hamas is accountable, and not independently running Gaza would be against their interest as chaos actor in the region on behest of themselves and other Islamist regimes. So you still have this pesky situation of a terrorist organization willing to bide their time to carry out as many attacks as they can to destroy Israel. Quite a predicament.

Same question to you: what do the Israelis do? — tim wood

Stop the occupation and create the two-state solution that’s always been possible. At the very least, a ceasefire.

Whatever Gaza is, don't the Gazans bear some responsibility for that? — tim wood

They bear some responsibility for Israel creating a concentration camp? No, I reject that analysis. The thousands of children killed do not bear responsibility.

And if the Palestinians and Hamas wanted to stop the bloodshed, are there not some steps they could take that likely would lead to a rapid de-escalation? — tim wood

Hamas could agree to a ceasefire. As can the Israeli government. I don’t blame the citizens of either country for barbaric acts of their “leaders.” If I did, then every Arab country should be bombing Israel, which has killed FAR more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis.

I did, then every Arab country should be bombing Israel, which has killed FAR more Palestinians than Hamas has killed Israelis. — Mikie

Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually.

Just curious if it's "parity" would the Israeli government be justified in raping, beheading, and mutilating Palestinians in the exact same numbers in an unprovoked event at a time of their choosing? — schopenhauer1

In the exact same numbers? That would be an eye for an eye — if one begins history on October 7th and views that event, absurdly, as “unprovoked.” But instead Israel beheads and mutilates Palestinians at something like 100:1 at this point. No, that’s not parity. Nor is the military power or resources.

This leaves out all the unprovoked “mowing the grass” exercises that happened well before October 7th. To most genocide apologists, those — like every other act of state terrorism — were defensive. So think of Hamas’ actions as defensive too, in that case.

They have the power to do this, whilst minimizing their own casualties, try to regain their hostages, so they are doing so. — schopenhauer1

From Bibi’s mouth to your brain. You’re like an average US citizen in 2003 supporting the invasion of Iraq. As this atrocity drags on, you’ll see how grotesque your position was — assuming you have some decency.

Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually. — schopenhauer1

Before or after they stole their land?

Perhaps unlike most folks, I read where you send me, and you did not answer my question at all. What would you do as Israeli head of government? Peace would be nice, but a safe peace: how do you move towards it? Maybe I should ask, do you understand the question?

Before or after they stole their land? — Mikie

Cool, I had too long a conversation with folks with more historical perspective and nuance to entertain this kind of generic, college campus argument.

*Sigh* Do you understand the nature of a crime? A crime is that which for your first priority is the crime itself, and not its antecedents whatever they may be. Worrying about that is a luxury affordable when peace is achieved, the criminals apprehended, and the prospects or further crime reduced or eliminated. That is, you are reduced to a police function.

And as to occupation,
"Israel “disengaged” from Gaza in 2005 when it completely withdrew its military and civilians from the area. With this withdrawal, Israel and the United States—as well as many international legal, military, and foreign policy experts—argue that Israel ceded the effective control needed under the legal definition of occupation, therefore ending the occupation."

Maybe if Israel had occupied Gaza, there would be no Hamas, maybe Gaza wouodl bemore-or-less peaceful, and maybe on the way to some sort of satisfactory rapprochement , maybe. Likely better than it is now.

Most of the arguments in this thread have been fueled by a sense of justice, although not always justice, but at the same time not realistic, sometimes not even in touch with reality, as above when one suggests a time machine.

Don’t forget that Arab countries did try to destroy Israel at one point..a few times actually.
— schopenhauer1

Before or after they stole their land? — Mikie

Some Jews began arriving in the late 19th century. At the time...

There was no Arab or Palestinian Arab nationalist movement. In the first two decades of Zionist immigration, most of the opposition came from the wealthy landowners and noblemen who feared they would have to fight the Jews for the land in the future.

As more Jewish people moved in, they pushed the Palestinians out and destroyed their villages. There was armed Palestinian / Arab resistance by the mid 30s which gradually intensified. The day after the British departed Palestine, Israel declared its statehood--5/14/48. The next day, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan invaded the nascent Jewish state, seizing the central highland area (Golan Heights), the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), East Jerusalem, and Gaza.

As you know there were subsequent wars which resulted in today's map of Israel.

There is no getting around the fact that Israel's creation was, of necessity, at the Palestinian people's expense. "Of necessity" because the land of the ancient Jewish state of Israel was now occupied by Palestinians. The Palestinians ended up in refugee camps in the nearby Arab areas (like Gaza, Beersheba, Haifa, Nazareth, Nablus, Jaffa and Bethlehem. There would be further displacements. Some left the country altogether, to Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt.

Israel wasn't the first instance of forced population displacement. The Western Hemisphere was the subject of large scale displacement. The English displaced the Aboriginal people as they established colonies along the Atlantic Seaboard, starting in 1607. European colonization cost millions of lives in North and South America (a genocide by consequence if not by policy).

The difference between the settler / colonial system that Made America Great and Israel's settling, is this: The English, French, and Spanish were empire building for profit. Israel was seeking to establish a refuge where they would not be subject to discrimination, pogroms, and extermination camps. The Jews were, after all, originally from Israel.

The Jews have achieved a relatively safe homeland, but at the cost of frequent military defensive campaigns.

In the real world, this is what history tends to look like. Humanitarian and human rights advocates deplore it all, and civilized people put as good a face on it as they can.

I guess you don't like my answer so you deny I've given it a few times already. How about this, tim: I would not have supported the jihadist Hamas party over PA-affiliated, secular parties in Gaza and not have promoted the violent settler land-grabs in the West Bank, etc in order for both policies to sabotage all prospects of a "Two-State Solution" as Bibi's governments have done since 2004; thus, no October 7th atrocities and retaliatory mass murdering by the IDF today. Asking me what I would do in Netanyahu's current, self-inflicted catastrophe is disingenous on your part, tim, because my anti-zionist/anti-Bibi position has been stated repeatedly on this and other threads for about four years (since I became active again on TPF). Anyway, asked and answered. You've got no response but apologetic zionist "talking points" now like you've always had, which are vapidly ahistorical and morally shameful. :shade:

What would you do as Israeli head of government? — tim wood

Cease fire, then apologise and turn myself in at the nearest cop shop as a war criminal

Cool. Keep up the good work rationalizing genocide as it unfolds before our eyes.

your first priority is the crime itself, and not its antecedents whatever they may be. — tim wood

How convenient.

But yes, even starting the clock on October 7th makes no difference: this is still genocide. Thousands of innocent bodies later — and growing — and you and others like you are still convinced it’s justified (or defensive, or accidental, etc).

I guess Hamas just needed better PR. Bombing refugee camps and murdering flag-waving hostages would then excused when they say “oops, our bad.”

Israel is the greater power, backed by the US for geopolitical reasons to the tune of billions of dollars. Gaza is a concentration camp whose people have been living with Israeli occupation and terrorism for decades. There is no parity here.

21,000 Palestinians killed so far. Including over 8,500 children and over 6,000 women.

What's ironic is if you peel back the layers of the clearly polemical aspects of the New Testament, you have a very Jewish Jesus of Nazareth who died at the hands of the Roman Imperial system. But as Pauline doctrine spread across the Mediterranean, you cannot have that connection anymore, and any good Greek scribe is going to make a passage that detaches Jesus from his own people, so as to make him sui generis. — schopenhauer1

At least the New Testament has the great insight that it has several Gospels, hence someone clearly understood that the written story of the life of Jesus would be extremely crucial to the whole religion, so better to have several accounts. But do Christians use the Gospels together and come to conclusions then to what really happened? Of course not! Not only would it be too confusing, but also Pontius Pilatus and his hand washing is of course center in the marketing effort in trying to convert Romans to Christianity. So pick that Gospel to teach how bad the Jews were to Christ.

And because this is a central part of the traumatic history of a Jews, Jewish satire comes into play: not only the largest religion on Earth has such anti-semitic passages in it's holy book, the second largest religion on Earth also has similar passages in it's holy book. In that case, as there's no uncertainty of Muhammad and his kingdom existing (we even still have the grave around untouched), you have case like the Jewish Banu Nabir tribe trying to assassinate Muhammad, Muhammad fighting against Jewish tribes. And of course, Muhammad trying to convert the Jews and the Jews not being so excited about this new prophet. And a lot of how bad the Jews are.

I think we have hit upon a foundational agreement between our views :). There is a certain arbitrariness to all of it, and thus any justification is simply that group's cudgel for their justification. But cudgel it is. — schopenhauer1

That's a nice way to put it: cudgeling for ones owns justifications. You first come up with your objectives, then look for some moral reasons why your objectives are also morally good. Typical actions in our World.

What of the day after the day after? What is really to rule this area and bring peace, and not just the status quo? I am hoping it is something akin to what you recommend- that a coalition of sorts, helps Palestine rebuild, and rebuild away from those who led them down the darkest nightmare path to death-cult, and to something like a developing country that has economic ties to its closest neighbor. There is literally, no other way. And yes, this takes an Israel that is open to this, one that must be radically transgressive in order to form peace with a former hostile neighbor. Something has to change in order for a long term peace. It cannot be seen as simply a hotbed for more death and destruction. If there is no end to grievance retribution, there is no end to any of it. Give up the fuckn ghost, might be the slogan then. — schopenhauer1

Only under pressure will both sides cave in and the zealots lose their support. Otherwise the grievance retribution circle will just go on.

The only way I see that pressure coming against Bibi's administration is that they really fuck up with Gaza and a lot more Palestinians would be killed. Perhaps 50 000 are killed. Or perhaps 100 000? Where do we put the number when the outrage becomes too bad? Because that number is out there. When that is reached, Biden will really get the "Genocide Joe" nickname for real. And that's when the US love for Israel would falter: there is already the notable change in the attitudes of the younger generations. Yet so insane aren't even the hardliners in the Israeli government. They might perhaps hope that Palestinians in the Gaza simply walk out to Egypt, but even these Zionist zealots aren't up to any 'final solution' solutions. They might talk so, but likely do understand the consequences and not act so.

The problem is that having over two million people starving without shelter can produce a true disaster of epic proportions. That's the real threat, because Bibi isn't insane. But as we have seen, he can fuck up.

If the Warsaw Uprising is comparable to Gaza now, let's just remember that it took for the Germans 63 days and then from a smaller population of Warsaw they had killed 150 000 to 200 000 civilian and 15 000 Polish resistance fighters. Now with Gaza the war has gone longer and 21 000 civilians have died and perhaps few thousand Hamas fighters are casualties. That is bad and I do say that we could have far less destruction if the IDF would fight like the US Army in Iraq, but we aren't dealing with six digit numbers.

Then on the Palestinian side: when would the losses be so traumatic, that there wouldn't be this firm belief that Israel can be overcome through decades of war? When is it so dark, that people would be just happy to have peace and really don't give a shit about who controls the holy places in Jerusalem? In this way, the history of Europe shows just how ugly the killing has to be that people genuinely want peace and are against jingoism and religious extremism.

Hence I'm really pessimistic at everything here, because the road to real peace might be extremely ugly.

So I'm not hopeful at all.

Not only are you in fantasy land, but you do not understand basic grammatical tense. Not, what would you have done or not done. Nor what might have happened or not happened. Not what should have been or should not have been. But instead what would you do? And it is a question no one seems to have an answer for, except create a two-state solution - my own a variation of that. But that idea waits a resolution of the current situation. And that's the question here. 7 Oct. requires a bespoke response; the Israelis are making such a response. You and some others don't like it - no one likes it. Ergo, what would you do. Nothing?

You're in the position of a man who finds his house on fire and insists that the contractor should have used less flammable building materials - while his house burns!

But yes, even starting the clock on October 7th makes no difference: this is still genocide. Thousands of innocent bodies later — and growing — and you and others like you are still convinced it’s justified (or defensive, or accidental, etc). — Mikie

Makes no difference? Do you understand a police function? Does Hamas still hold hostages? And no I do not defend it. Nor claim it is entirely justified. I do claim to have an understanding of it. I try to not claim knowledge or understanding that I do not have. Now I will answer my own question. I say to the UN that Israel is going to completely occupy and control Gaza, and that done, on instant, when and if the UN asks, will turn over entirely and completely control of Gaza to a blue-helmet force. For if nothing else, four generations of Gazans have shown they cannot govern themselves.

At least the New Testament has the great insight that it has several Gospels, hence someone clearly understood that the written story of the life of Jesus would be extremely crucial to the whole religion, so better to have several accounts. But do Christians use the Gospels together and come to conclusions then to what really happened? Of course not! Not only would it be too confusing, but also Pontius Pilatus and his hand washing is of course center in the marketing effort in trying to convert Romans to Christianity. So pick that Gospel to teach how bad the Jews were to Christ.

And because this is a central part of the traumatic history of a Jews, Jewish satire comes into play: not only the largest religion on Earth has such anti-semitic passages in it's holy book, the second largest religion on Earth also has similar passages in it's holy book. In that case, as there's no uncertainty of Muhammad and his kingdom existing (we even still have the grave around untouched), you have case like the Jewish Banu Nabir tribe trying to assassinate Muhammad, Muhammad fighting against Jewish tribes. And of course, Muhammad trying to convert the Jews and the Jews not being so excited about this new prophet. And a lot of how bad the Jews are. — ssu

Appropriate the myths and history from the people it came from, reconfigure it to your own culture's setting (Greco-Roman notions for Christianity and Arab culture for Islam), and then kill the originators of said belief system. Maybe there's an inherent tension when you lift wholesale ideas and histories from another people and then go around telling those people how they got their own myths wrong. Very peculiar this cultural appropriation practice. This is why I'm for the original paganism. Identify with your tribal religion, syncretize with other pagan religions, live and let live, or acknowledge the tribal traditions of others, but this whole "steal the original and then kill the makers" is peculiar on many levels. Of course, if you are a "believer" in these religions, there is no way it will look this way to you. Rather, you are "improving" and providing the "correct interpretation" of the originating people's culturo-religious practice.. But again, this just comes off as telling the originators how they got their own interpretation of their own writings and traditions wrong.

I mean, ideally, I am for just not being religious at all, if one can help it. I generally categorize ancient religions into two kinds- tribal/ethnic and universal. Most religions throughout history were tribal/ethnic based. I'd say even Hinduism falls under this, despite some of the Western notions during the 60s and the Hare Krishnas. At the end of the day it relies very much on a caste system, brahmins, castes, etc. I would also say most ancient pagan religions were also largely tribal based, though there was syncretism during the Greco-Roman empire and various pantheons of mixing and matching. Ancestral worship is another common form that is localized obviously to ones ancestors. There is animism and the like, which again, is very localized. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and a few others are "universal". They generally rose up in an age of more advanced civilizations. They tend to be more Iron Age rather than Bronze Age, let's say. These ones look to convert new people. However, Christianity and Islam are peculiar in that they rely on a substartum of the Jewish history and stories, which are largely tribal, and then need to retro-fit it as the more "correct" version of it that is universal, or at least, fits their own respective cultures when they were created. This also means that one has to be hostile to the group from which one pinched the stories from. So it's built on the fact of "replacing" the originators (supercessionism in Christianity, etc.).

That's a nice way to put it: cudgeling for ones owns justifications. You first come up with your objectives, then look for some moral reasons why your objectives are also morally good. Typical actions in our World. — ssu

Absolutely. Everyone's got their narrative, and many times, never the two shall meet, and all that.

Only under pressure will both sides cave in and the zealots lose their support. Otherwise the grievance retribution circle will just go on.

The only way I see that pressure coming against Bibi's administration is that they really fuck up with Gaza and a lot more Palestinians would be killed. Perhaps 50 000 are killed. Or perhaps 100 000? Where do we put the number when the outrage becomes too bad? Because that number is out there. When that is reached, Biden will really get the "Genocide Joe" nickname for real. And that's when the US love for Israel would falter: there is already the notable change in the attitudes of the younger generations. Yet so insane aren't even the hardliners in the Israeli government. They might perhaps hope that Palestinians in the Gaza simply walk out to Egypt, but even these Zionist zealots aren't up to any 'final solution' solutions. They might talk so, but likely do understand the consequences and not act so.

The problem is that having over two million people starving without shelter can produce a true disaster of epic proportions. That's the real threat, because Bibi isn't insane. But as we have seen, he can fuck up.

If the Warsaw Uprising is comparable to Gaza now, let's just remember that it took for the Germans 63 days and then from a smaller population of Warsaw they had killed 150 000 to 200 000 civilian and 15 000 Polish resistance fighters. Now with Gaza the war has gone longer and 21 000 civilians have died and perhaps few thousand Hamas fighters are casualties. That is bad and I do say that we could have far less destruction if the IDF would fight like the US Army in Iraq, but we aren't dealing with six digit numbers.

Then on the Palestinian side: when would the losses be so traumatic, that there wouldn't be this firm belief that Israel can be overcome through decades of war? When is it so dark, that people would be just happy to have peace and really don't give a shit about who controls the holy places in Jerusalem? In this way, the history of Europe shows just how ugly the killing has to be that people genuinely want peace and are against jingoism and religious extremism.

Hence I'm really pessimistic at everything here, because the road to real peace might be extremely ugly.

So I'm not hopeful at all. — ssu

Yep agreed. First step is getting Netanyahu out of office. At least that's a start for different leadership. Get labor party back in power. I'm not sure if that changes much on the ground, as generals also play a huge role. However, I know this isn't even a start. What is the real issue at play here is the hostages. Israel is extremely sensitive to their people being taken hostage.

Another thing to consider is, I wonder what it would take for the Gazans to hand over Hamas. Israel should provide incentives to do so perhaps. I don't know.

I think Friedman's solution makes the most sense right now to stop the fighting. Hamas hands over hostages, joins with international organization to run Gaza. Get other actors involved and keep a watchful eye.

What's sad is Hamas being so small simply angered the bear and the bear is now attacking. I'm not sure how else they thought Israel would respond, being that even just sending rockets provoked huge amounts of rockets being sent their way. If your goal is to provoke with no real end goal in mind other than "fuck you" to a powerful country next door who is not afraid to use that power, I don't know what to call that kind of reasoning. Certainly the people that they represent should rise up against them. I can see hating Israel, but their actions are totally predictable. Hamas led their people into this mess, yet their people are okay that they did this? None of this makes sense.

And no I do not defend it. Nor claim it is entirely justified. I do claim to have an understanding of it. — tim wood

So you have an “understanding” of genocide. Yeah, I do too. I understand how savage and immoral it is, and that it should be stopped immediately.

8000 children.

For if nothing else, four generations of Gazans have shown they cannot govern themselves. — tim wood

They haven’t had a chance to govern themselves. Hamas was never given a chance, the Palestinian people were never given a chance. They’ve been living in an “open air prison” for decades, and have now had thousands of their children killed.

I’m sure they really give a rat’s ass about what you think they’ve shown.

:roll: :shade: For decades Bibi has supplied matches & gasoline to Hamas and now firebombs Gaza in retaliation for Hamas setting one of Bibi's houses ablaze. You're an effin' war crimes apologist, tim wood.

:up:

You don't get it, do you. The Israelis have power - they'd better have or they'd be dead and gone. But the Palestinians through Fatah, Black September, the PLO, who knows what others and now Hamas, have control. Thousands of Palestinians dead after hundreds of Jews murdered because that is the calculus Hamas uses and is content to use.

And they never had a chance? They have every chance. But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year.

The question itself is simple and straightforward, the answer maybe not-so-simple but requiring some thought - which we all here acknowledge you're good at. But you won't touch it, even resorting to non-sequiturs. What is your problem? What is wrong with you?

My solution: imposed peace then Palestinian self-rule under blue-helmet authority, and that authority lifted when and if Palestinians ever get over and rid themselves of their poisonous ideological commitment to murdering Jews, that poison, imho, seeming to be the governing logic of that part of the world.

"The question itself is" simple minded (e.g. ahistorical). :brow:

Thousands of Palestinians dead after hundreds of Jews murdered because that is the calculus Hamas uses — tim wood

Ohh it’s really Hamas that’s murdering 8000 children, not Israel. Got it. Be sure to explain that to their parents.

But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year. — tim wood

Israel or Hamas? Since the IDF are far more effective terrorists, I’ll assume you mean them.

For decades Bibi has supplied matches & gasoline to Hamas and now firebombs Gaza in retaliation for Hamas setting one of Bibi's houses ablaze. — 180 Proof

Encouraging intruders is the best way to ensure who your enemy is. At this point there is no ambiguity about the motivations of the enemy, despite the fact that the front door was left open on purpose ... hamas played their hand, fuck 'em

My solution: imposed peace then Palestinian self-rule under blue-helmet authority, and that authority lifted when and if Palestinians ever get over and rid themselves of their poisonous ideological commitment to murdering Jews, that poison, imho, seeming to be the governing logic of that part of the world. — tim wood

:100:

Another dumb post. Genocide doesn't require you to actually kill people. All Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are oppressed, every Israeli village is build on an Arab ruin and there is no viability of a Palestinian state which is wilfully undermined through settler colonialism. That is the genocide. It's no less than what is being done to the Uighurs.


Your solution leaves out the security issue for Palestinians and is a common denial for people's right to self-determination. In other words it's dumb shit only a rabid pro-israeli with no idea of justice or fairness will come up with.

Don't bother replying. I'm pointing it out for others.

[H]amas played their hand, fuck 'em — Merkwurdichliebe

And Bibi's regime took the bait, so fuck 'em too.

But their choice is commitment to murder - not what I think but what they in every way make explicitly clear year after year after year after year.
— tim wood

Israel or Hamas? Since the IDF are far more effective terrorists, I’ll assume you mean them. — Mikie

:mask: :up:

"The question itself is" simple minded (e.g. ahistorical). — 180 Proof

Have you lost it? The question is real; the circumstance is real; it's happening right now!