I’m thinking more of anthropology rather than mysticism here. — Punshhh

By “mystification”, I simply meant referring to the intellectual obfuscation over core notions that are taken to be clear, obvious and shared. But maybe they aren’t.

A study of human nature and how humanity and civilisation come to terms with human nature.

These terms include the trauma of this realisation and the post traumatic psychological effects.

Regarding the Jewish people they have struggled with exile for at least 2,900 years. This trauma has been repeated and reinforced numerous times since.

In terms of civilisation ‘a people’ is associated with a homeland. A land where their identity and sense of belonging in a world of people’s is rooted. — Punshhh

I’m more into conceptual investigation than into psychological investigation, but I too think that there is a historical trauma that “has been repeated and reinforced numerous times” for millennia in the case of the Jews. Still I find also fascinating to notice how the Jewish culture processed this trauma and by this way influenced the West more than what we are ready to acknowledge. The Jewish world may have contributed, more evidently, to Western cultural universalism (Christianity is a branch of Judaism founded by a Jew under the Roman rule, Communism as founded and elaborated by 2 Jews like Marx and Trotsky) and, less evidently, to the Western notion of national identity (as linked to the notion of State-Nation, and later at the core of the Zionist project in Israel). So it’s not surprising that among the greatest critics of Zionism there are other Jews (like Chomsky).
But also the West has its own traumas (like 2 World Wars and a Cold War under the constant threat of a nuclear escalation). So our emotional reaction to what is happening in Israel may also depend on our traumas and their backlash (like Holocaust and colonialism, in the case of the US, colonialism is part of its state formation as much as it is for Israel).

He doesn't know shit about the subject but insists on posting crap.
Edit: check page 76.
— Benkei
↪tim wood That page is simply proof where you yourself admit you don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say I specifically spoke to you then now did I? Try again. — Benkei

I admit this would probably be better in a PM, but the problem is that Benkei is being disingenuous to the point of lying, and that worth making explicit. Here is what I wrote, from page 76:

I don't pretend to any special knowledge of these events. — tim wood

And this in defense of my objecting to someone else cherry-picking some statistics.

Now I might be mistaken as a matter of fact, but I suspect that no one here - except maybe ssu - has any special knowledge. And yet many here argue/rant from a position of claimed knowledge, which, again subject to correction, I think no one (else) here has. That is, almost everyone here has their built-in biases, prejudices, presuppositions, and that is their starting point. Now, I have been asking two simple questions that no one has answered - I've given my own answers and will repeat them. Two sentences sufficient to answer both, and nothing in response but evasion and calumny.

They are, 1) what exactly, near as you can tell, do the Palestinians want? And 2) what in your opinion should the Israelis do?

These with 7 October as a backdrop.

Near as I can tell, the Palestinians, along with most of the rest of the neighbors, want the annihilation/deaths/evaporation of all the Jews and for Israel not to exist. (Never mind the irony of wanting something to not exist, acknowledgment of the existence of which is always already denied.) And what the Israelis should do is simply enfranchise the Palestinians by declaring Israel a joint Israeli-Palestinian state - with no doubt a lot of details to be worked out.

These two questions, elementary as they may be, are forward looking. And to any unable or unwilling to assay any answer, being instead content to whine about what are, finally, their own tender feelings, it may be said that before anything else they might seek therapy.

People in such political threads, even mods, often forget that we are in a philosophy forum — neomac

Amen.

2) what should the Israelis do? — tim wood

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, end it's illegal occupation of the OPT and work towards a two-state solution, etc. as agreed upon in relevant resolutions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, and Israeli officials should probably also stop openly stating that they wish to commit these crimes against humanity in Gaza and the OPT.

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them.


I mean, this is obvious. Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it.

And what the Israelis should do is simply enfranchise the Palestinians by declaring Israel a joint Israeli-Palestinian state - with no doubt a lot of details to be worked out. — tim wood

Here's why the issue isn't just about details, it's far more worse.

First, there's zionism: Israel is the homeland of the Jews. And let's say this ideology doesn't go so well with modern ideas of a multicultural nation where everyone can be whoever or whatever and things are fine. Hence there really is no overarching identity of all being Israelis, where there is an identity of being British to the English, Scots and Welsh. And then there's the fact that the vast majority of Palestinians are Muslim. And Islam as a religion isn't just a personal issue of the individual, which one can hide away and which that nobody notices. Also in Islam there isn't the separation of the church and the state. After all, Mohammed was literally a king and not just one named to be one, hence the link that religion has with the state is very tight. It's also an issue why the neighboring states actually care so much about the Palestinians. It's not just Palestinians, it's the Ummah that's under attack.

Hence if all Palestinians would be Christians, I think the conflict wouldn't have been so severe and not so unsolvable. The Christian states wouldn't have come to the defense of Christian Palestine as, well, they don't in general come to the aid when a Christian state is attacked by a Muslim state. Think Armenia/ Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. We don't even think about that conflict on terms of the religious divide. Yet Muslims do. The idea of Christendom was something important in the Middle Ages, yet not today.

And this is why right from the start the UN went on to divide Mandate Palestine with no lofty ivory tower attempts of everybody singing Kumbayah and being citizens of the same nation, just with having different religions.

And needless to say, current events haven't brought the sides closer. What was fucked up, just is getting worse.

Thank you for the answer!

They should start with carrying out the dozens of (legally binding) UNSC resolutions calling them, among other things, to stop settling the West Bank, — Tzeentch

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel - or beyond that is by default Israel's and beyond that not a question with a simple answer. So exactly why should Israel "stop settling the West Bank"?

to stop creating unlivable living conditions on the West Bank and Gaza, — Tzeentch

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that? As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions.

They should probably also stop skirting the line of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, — Tzeentch

The war in Gaza - I hold it to be a war and not a genocide - was ignited by Hamas, and Hamas can act to end it. Are the hostages returned? In my opinion it is charitable to suppose Hamas is completely responsible and not others like at least some of the Palestinian people, with encouragement from the neighbors. But at least that means that Hamas being destroyed, the Israelis ought to stop their main military activities - leaving the other actors intact. And Hamas can surrender.

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing." In my opinion the Israelis are waging a terrible war, but
against the backdrop of 7 Oct., what do you say they should do/have done?

Maybe if the state of Israel stops its flagrant breaches of IHL and human rights, its neighbors would change their disposition towards them. — Tzeentch

Flagrant? On the basis of the actions of Palestinian Hamas on 7 Oct., I would say that any civil rights they had are suspended pending military resolution. And in this I find the inherent bias. The Israelis are wrong and the Palestinians including Hamas are right. And as a starting point, that just does not make sense.

Things get a lot more complicated if what you're actually asking is what Israel should do if it wants to continue everything listed above and suffer no consequences for it. — Tzeentch

I think my own answer is inevitable, if there is to be peace. I have in mind the examples of Japan and Germany. Destroyed in 1945, now prosperous, free, and powerful, though it has taken the work of three generations to this point. And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders. And for that end, I do not think the Israelis are the ones holding them back, but rather all those who have made a life and career out of Jew-hating, even at the cost of their own lives and the lives of those they're responsible for.

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions. — tim wood

"Creating unlivable conditions" is what you end up with just thinking about the safety of the settlers: more walls, CCTVs, separate roads, restrictions on movement, random checks and violation of privacy.

So think twice then what would be those "reverse actions" when there is no political solution.

It appears that ownership of the West Bank falls to Israel — tim wood

Israel is considered a belligerent occupier of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and the Golan Heights since 1967 under international law. A whole slew of UNSC resolutions have been adopted to that end, each of which has reaffirmed the occupied status of the relevant areas and the illegality of the occupation.

___________________________________

I hold it is at least debatable as to who is creating unlivable conditions in Gaza - maybe the Palestinians have something to do with that? — tim wood

Israel controls everything and everyone that goes in and out of Gaza. So no, the Palestinians aren't the ones turning Gaza into an open air prison.

Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.

[...]

This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory. — Human Rights Watch

_________________________________________

As to the West Bank, I agree. If the Israelis are creating unlivable conditions on the West Bank, then they should both stop and reverse those actions. — tim wood

That's not an "if".

West Bank Access Restrictions (June, 2020)

___________________________________________

Please make your case for "ethnic cleansing." — tim wood

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, — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

Flagrant? — tim wood

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

___________________________________________

And a joint Israeli-Palestinian state so that the Palestinians have a fast track to being equal stakeholders. — tim wood

Well, at least we are in agreement there. But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state?

This is why Israel's hard line political class has done everything in its power to avoid that from happening, and it has had to resort to apartheid.

Here's why the issue isn't just about details, it's far more worse. — ssu

I acknowledge. And if the infection is both terminal and inevitably fatal, then perhaps the right prophylaxis is simply the slaughtering of all of those infected, as with diseased population of birds, sheep, pigs, cows, & etc. But as I hold that in fact hope is always possible, and in principle always given and granted, then we must all hold on to hope. That is, any solution must satisfy the requirements that the solution itself imposes, or it be found to be no solution at all, but simply a middle-east treaty of Versailles - an armistice for a time. And I think time is a main ingredient, along with the eventual dying out of the haters. To facilitate an interim peace, however long it takes, I'd be in favor of a robust blue-helmet presence to protect the peace, well-being, safety, and rights of both sides.

But do you understand that if Palestinians were to be given equal rights, there would be more Palestinians living in Israel than Jews, and Israel would subsequently cease to be a Jewish state? — Tzeentch

Granting everything else in your post (although I am unaware of any language in what you cite that, including constraints, restrictions, or burdens on Israel, at the same time mandates protection of Israel for complying with any of those), how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions? If they and the Palestinians/neighbors would even agree to a quid pro quo of concessions for peace, then good! But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement.

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear. But imo a risk that must be accepted and taken.

But imo a risk that must be accepted and taken. — tim wood

This is astounding level of honesty - I often see an inability to note that these risks actually exist in many areas - so, refreshing.

[...] how do the Israelis protect themselves from anything and everything from rocket and terrorist attacks to invasions? — tim wood

The behavior that attracts the harshest criticism has nothing to do with Israel protecting itself. (occupation, apartheid, settlements, etc.)

Like any state, Israel must follow international law.

But the history suggests that not only will the Palestinians not agree, but will act to subvert any possible agreement. — tim wood

I don't think history suggests that at all.

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it.

As to population, if ultimately the Jews in Israel cannot sustain their own population, then indeed they will eventually disappear. — tim wood

I don't think Israeli Jews will disappear under a 'one-state solution' - it is not quite that grave.

However it would require certain political groups in Israel to relinquish the idea of Israel as a Jewish nation state, because when (more than) half its constituency is Muslim and is given equal rights, obviously Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.

This is anathema to a large portion of Israelis, and somewhat understandably so. However, the price of holding on to this Jewish nation state ideal is painfully clear.

To my way of thinking, in any contest there are the politics of the contestants. And with wars, the victor usually imposes, for better or for worse, and the WWI treaty of Versailles seems to have been much for the worse. There is also the "politics" of the solution, aka, the reality of the situation. It was recognized, for example, that notwithstanding the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan in 1945, and war crimes and crimes against humanity, that the peoples of those countries could not be denied, and thus over time they were rehabilitated. And neither could what that process required be denied - hindsight at best suggesting improvements for future implementations.

Or in short, I see and understand honesty as being a part of reality. As this reality is of the future, and thus not-yet, and honesty of the present, of the now, it would seem that honesty is the best approach to he future.

This is what Gideon Levy, a well-known Israeli journalist and author, has to say about it. — Tzeentch

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all. And all reasonable people should want that. But the oft and explicit statements of the Palestinians and the neighbors that their only goal is murder of the Jews and the annihilation/destruction of Israel, leads a reasonable person to question the efficacy of reasonable solutions.

Perhaps after Hamas is destroyed, which I believe is an Israeli military goal, and based on 7 Oct., an exactly correct military goal, they might say to the Palestinians something like this: "You can have peace and prosperity, rights and safety, or you can have war. We're better at war than you are; why don't we try peace?" But alas, I do not think the Palestinians are at the moment, and maybe for another generation, able to give a competent answer.

"You can have peace and prosperity, rights and safety, or you can have war. We're better at war than you are; why don't we try peace?" But alas, I do not think the Palestinians are at the moment, and maybe for another generation, able to give a competent answer. — tim wood

Competency, for the actual ethnic group 'Palestinian' in the face of such a suggestion would be
'Fuck off' - Just without violence this time.

Yes, I saw that. Two-state solutions over the years were shot down by the Palestinians. To my eyes, looking at the maps, they all seem absurd on their face. What Levy is about is one state with equal rights for all. — tim wood

He points towards the fact that every Israeli government since 1967 has supported the Israeli settlement policy and thereby intentionally sought to make a two-state solution impossible. This exact fact is also reiterated time and time again in the relevant UNSC resolutions, like the one I have already linked.

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967
lines,

[...]

Stressing that the status quo is not sustainable and that significant steps,
consistent with the transition contemplated by prior agreements, are urgently needed
in order to (i) stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground,
which are steadily eroding the two-State solution and entrenching a one-State
reality, and (ii) to create the conditions for successful final status negotiations and
for advancing the two-State solution through those negotiations and on the ground,

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace;

[...]

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential
for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken
immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the
two-State solution; — United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334

etc. etc.

This idea that the Palestinians are the ones to blame for the failure of the two-state solution is not really a serious one.

Yes, I agree about the achievements of Jewish people over the millennia and how the Diaspora has played an important formative role in modern civilisation. I welcome this and the continued contribution. It pains me that their exile has not yet ended as they don’t as yet have a secure homeland.
The Middle East has not been treated well by empire and before that the crusades and before that Rome etc. The Jewish Diaspora has been passed from pillar to post for millennia. Exile and persecution inevitably repeated over the centuries.
I fear that this rift, this trauma is deepening and when human frailty is taken into consideration (what I was saying about the trauma of the realisation of the human condition). The world and geopolitics of this time is not equipped to put this right through conventional diplomatic, or other means.

I agree with what Gershon Baskin said in an interview with Matt Frei yesterday (UK channel4 news at 7pm, 23/01/24). Unfortunately I was unable to link to the interview, here is a brief summary of what he said.

“ What is happening imposes a danger to regional and international security.
Time for UK, US, European nations to recognise the state of Palestine. Remove the veto on Palestinian statehood from Israel. International community needs to work with Israel, Palestine, and neighbours to work out regional architecture for security, stability and economic development.
“Israel will not have security if Palestinians don’t have freedom and dignity, and Palestinians won’t have freedom and dignity if Israel doesn’t have security.”

Basically a global effort (UN) to put Israel and Palestine into special measures until a solution can be found and worked towards. This would need to be maintained indefinitely, for generations until something concrete is established.

Our modern civilisation has a duty here, for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians.

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power...

And its really more like this:
.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

In a way, I view the conflict as a system. Hamas has to give back the prisoners. They have to think of the lives of their own citizens. If Israel is going to fully go after Hamas, no matter the cost to the Palestinian side, and they have the ability to do this... If Palestinian leadership cared about their citizens, they would give up the fight, give back the prisoners, to prevent further destruction of their people.

Then, the US, has to essentially give Israel an ultimatum (once Hamas leadership is defeated), that they must have an international coalition along with a reformed PA rule Gaza (with the understanding that indeed the Gazans will have to de-radicalize and stop the cycle), or aid is halted, as Israel cannot indefinitely rule Gaza without it contributing to the further dissolution of a two-state solution and continue the world outcry against the occupation.

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be.

So this being a system, they have to de-escalate by looking at it from the two sides.. Like when there are two people who have to turn a key to launch a nuke, the two sides have to play their part. Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn.

:o Has that been confirmed? (cans)

EDIT

Questionable according to Ryan Mcbeth (Jan 23, 2024).
Not that Gaza is safe for children.

Unusual age distribution ...

Children make up nearly half of Gaza's population. Here's what it means for the war
^{— Linah Mohammad · NPR · Oct 19, 2023}

According to estimates for 2023, the number of Palestinians in Gaza aged 0 to 4 was 278,511. That year, more than half of Gaza's estimated 2.06 million inhabitants were below 20 years old. — Statista · Nov 21, 2023

Thanks for the confirmation that it was a fake video.

Our modern civilisation has a duty here, for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians. — Punshhh

I’m quite skeptical about your last claim. Whom/what is “modern civilisation” referring to? Why does “modern civilisation” have a duty “for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians”?

As far as I'm concerned, my understanding is that the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has to do with state-nation formation over the same piece of land, by two competing nations historically bent on preserving their national identity and security at the expense of the rival nation. So either the feud continues forever or one succeeds in being genocidal against the other, i.e. it expels or exterminates the rival nation, or one nation dominates the other by assimilation or partial citizenship (Jews have historically experienced all these solutions on their skin). Other powerful states can intervene to impose a solution which is convenient to them (because the instability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is detrimental to their interests), but without hegemony or international cooperation (and today the US hegemony is weakening while the wished cooperation of the multipolar world hasn’t materialised yet) the possibility to internationally impose a solution on this conflict is compromised. UN and IHL tribunals will fail to be effective. The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.

And I think time is a main ingredient, along with the eventual dying out of the haters. To facilitate an interim peace, however long it takes, I'd be in favor of a robust blue-helmet presence to protect the peace, well-being, safety, and rights of both sides. — tim wood

Or to have war weariness.

At least how it's now going, this isn't peace for the Jewish people with security operations that don't bother normal life and go on in the background.

The idea of having basically a perpetual insurgency around with the occasional "mowing of the lawn" isn't working. Already the calling in of the reservists has disrupted civilian economy and thus Israel is now looking at getting back some of the reservists from the war.

Yet the military operation isn't over. If it can be over with an objective of erasing out Hamas.
Here's a map that is rather up to date, which shows that for the IDF there's more to go, Hamas just hasn't been overrun and destroyed:


Also it's not likely that things just "die down": you do have the South African case in the court.

Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism. — schopenhauer1

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power.

And this is where Bibi can really fuck up for the last time. There is the possibility that he indeed turn Americans from being enthusiastic supporters of Israel to being lukewarm. If that happens, it's quite nasty for Jewish Americans.

Hamas would first have to give a shit about their own people. That key is harder to turn. — schopenhauer1

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back.

A populist leader does what the people want to be done and milks the raw emotion of the crowd. He doesn't think what would be better in the long term even after he isn't in power. — ssu

Yeah, even the PA under Abbas has to tow the terrorist-populist line. In the PA's official budget, they give large sums of money or "social security" to the families of so-called "martyrs" who were suicide bombers or terrorist attackers who killed large groups of civilians. So yeah, even the PA would to a large extent have to be de-radicalized. But they cannot be completely sidelined, or at least, they have to be reconstructed. Hell, the people already would vote in Hamas anyways, so it's not like they are EVEN just barely hanging on in popularity, so it's a wash there too.

The question is: how many Palestinians killed is independence worth for them? I believe it's quite high. They won't just leave to the Egyptian desert as they know there's no coming back. — ssu

Oh, for Hamas? I have no doubt, the numbers of their own people they don't mind being used as fodder is hundreds of thousands or more. The leaders get to hide out and travel to mansions if needed while the foot soldiers are basically a suicide cult. Many of their relatives see them as proud fighters. It's like muscle memory at this point to have one's hate be stronger than even one's life, so I don't know. But, at some point, the leaders will want to pretend like they got something from this round of conflict, so probably some prisoner exchange, as if this was all worth it for them. They can go on indefinitely until they get some token prize perhaps, or if or when they are all killed I guess.

Now I might be mistaken as a matter of fact, but I suspect that no one here - except maybe ssu - has any special knowledge. — tim wood

Yes, don't let my masters in international law and 10 years of working for Amnesty stand in the way of assuming nobody here has any special knowledge. :lol:

They are, 1) what exactly, near as you can tell, do the Palestinians want? And 2) what in your opinion should the Israelis do? — tim wood

These questions have been answered by me regularly in this thread even in reply to you.

I think the main problem is that some people think there's a moral equivalence between the violence of Palestinians and Israel. That requires you to deny several of the following things:

1. Palestinians are oppressed, discriminated against and economically undermined by border control that basically functions like the worst sanctions we have in the world
2. A gross differential in military might and state power
3. A gross differential in political support from other countries and political representation
4. Israeli "security" trumps Palestinian "security" pace every draft of every deal where on average there's pages upon pages on the former and very little or nothing in the latter
5. Israeli deaths are a fraction of Palestinian deaths
6. The multitude of discriminatory laws in Israeli proper linked to religious affiliation
7. Palestine barely functions, Israel is a modern state claiming to be a democracy

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context.

Nothing in the past 20 years has given any indication Israel wants peace. If one side doesn't want peace and undermines it every time, what's the moral obligation of the other side? At what point does violence against the oppressor become a moral obligation? — Benkei

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

1. Israel to unilaterally recognise a right for the Palestinians to have a sovereign state where the 1967 borders will be the basis for the size of Palestine
2. stop all further settlements in WB and evictions in East-Jerusalem, recognise ownership rights in East Jerusalem
3. repeal all discriminatory laws in Israel proper
4. no more collective punishment of Palestinians
5. no more blockade of Gaza and its air space and sea
6. no more mass destruction in response to ineffectual missiles or balloons
7. tear down the wall
8. For the interim period, Gaza and WB remain occupied territories but they will be policed instead of military oppression
9. Palestinians to commit to an indefinite cease fire as long as Israel maintains the above 8 points
edit: 10. forgot: Palestinians to recognise Israel along the 1967 borders as the basis of the size of israel

In other words, stop the crimes. There's no excuse.

Enter into the transition period where Palestine should be set up:
1. include the political wing of Hamas in talks as well as PA
2. land-for-land exchanges to arrive at comparable land size
3. Israel to pay Palestine an amount equal to all the monies spent supporting illegal settlers so it has the means to settle the new lands it receives through the land-for-land exchange
4. Palestine to hire their own first and Israeli contractors second (which will lead to "reparations" flowing back to Israel and creating economic interdependence)
5. have religious leaders negotiate the Temple Mount
6. Jerusalem as independent city-state administered by Palestinians and Israelis alike
7. gradually transition policing activities in Palestine to Palestinians
8. Set up a special task force of like minded Israelis and Palestinians to investigate (terrorist) crimes committed by Israelis against Palestinians and vice versa, where jurisdiction will be with the state of the victim
9. retreat from WB and Gaza and set up border controls
10. Declare a Palestinian state
11. Party with your Israeli neighbours — Benkei

Once again, very one-sided nonsense about deradicalisation when it's Israel employing extremist's measures against an entire civilian population. Hamas and the PA don't need to deradicalise when terrorist bombings are a consequence of Israeli oppression. Nobody went around telling the IRA to "deradicalise" but when they're sufficiently different all of a sudden it's barbarism, which is a convenient label for the entire region for you but is basically just racist as fuck.

Hamas and the PA don't need to deradicalise when terrorist bombings are a consequence of Israeli oppression. — Benkei

Yeah that's all I need to hear to ignore you as a one-sided terrorist-supporter.
And as I already stated pretty clearly:

And for those who excuse Hamas' tactics because they are the "underdogs".. then it's a wash because then anything Israel does is just to over-power Hamas' brutality with their own power.. and so it's just simply power against power. It becomes nihilism all around and those with more power wins, whatever your conflation of the two sides might be. — schopenhauer1

Yeah that's all I need to hear to ignore you as a one-sided terrorist-supporter. — schopenhauer1

Except I'm not. As I've stated before I don't condone all their methods. But nuance is difficult. The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things.

So when a Palestinian cheers an Israeli death, it's not the same thing. If an Israeli is killed in this conflict, it's not the same thing. To interpret the violence between these two groups as morally equivalent is wilfully ignoring context. — Benkei

I've noticed that you repeatedly liken palestinians to dogs or children. Given this is the case, how can one believe that they're ready of self-rule? The international community ought to set them a proper bedtime.

But yeah, it's not the same thing when a dog kills a person versus when an adult willfully murders a child even if the child is throwing pebbles.

If that's what the palestinians are then you're right on the money. I was silly enough to assign them responsibility.

I've noticed that you repeatedly liken palestinians to dogs or children. Given this is the case, how can one believe that they're ready of self-rule? The international community ought to set them a proper bedtime. — BitconnectCarlos

Except I've done no such thing so the rest of your post is idiotic. Maybe figure out what an analogy is.

The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things. — Benkei

That's exactly as I've been saying. Israel does have to allow for a two-state solution, but I sure as hell am going to say that the contingency is that Hamas and other radical elements (which are largely supported by the populous) have to be done away with. As it's been pointed out over and over, Israel's move to the right has been due to repeated history of Palestinians or their Arab neighbors in the form of States, trying to wipe Israel out, or (in the very beginning) not let them even become a state, so yeah. Having Palestinian complete control over the hill-country of the West Bank IS a strategic concern, and having a 15 mile corridor between two (obviously hostile) regions IS a security concern. Besides just that Benkei thinks this is how it should work, how would Israel know that Palestine would simply cease all hostilities if Israel completely left the West Bank and Gaza? What if instead of what you suggest (that Palestine is now whole, so has no reason to fight), it keeps fighting, but now from a much more forward position?

The real issue is you don't mind the terrorism as you think it is justified. And hence, it's not even worth debating you unless you renounce such tactics. Again, and again, I'll state it again, because you didn't read my post carefully or chose to ignore it, or perhaps you just don't GET it but I said:

I just don't buy the idea that Hamas' actions or the support by Palestinians in large numbers, are the result of the conditions of Gaza / Palestinians, like they are beat animals that have no other choice. I just don't buy that beheading and raping civilians, keeping heads for ransom, etc. burning babies, parents praising children for their brutality as it's happening, and such are part-and-parcel of reaction of being mistreated. The Middle Eastern cultural practices when it comes to "justice", "land", and such are grizzly matters that makes their cause for X \ less sympathetic.

People think the situation is this:
The poor innocent Avatar people being colonized.. They are peaceful and want no harm but are being dominated by this imperial power... — schopenhauer1

And its really more like this:

.. A violent nihilistic leadership that begets more violence on behalf of its people. There is no "innocence" there or sympathy for this lack of innocence (in my opinion).

Netanyahu thinks that the only way to deal with barbarism is maximum destruction, and complete dismantling of the Hamas infrastructure. The problem is Hamas has put their infrastructure around the people, and put the people around the infrastructure. Netanyahu has little regard for this, as he becomes part of the Middle Eastern grizzly affairs. He represents fully being co-opted by the barbarism.

Except I'm not. As I've stated before I don't condone all their methods. But nuance is difficult. The point is, why don't you demand Israel to deradicalise their insane colonisation policy, apartheid regime and war crime tactics? No, in your mind, Hamas and PA need to take steps to become peace loving hippies while being ethnically cleansed by their neighbours. It's an idiotic ask. When Israel stops its crimes, then you can expect these things. — Benkei

It's become apparent to me that the palestinians could do anything -- any number of beheadings, rapes, murders, tortures, paying the families of those who kill Israelis -- and you'd say something like "I don't condone this" and that would be the end of it. I think it's because you view it in terms of group dynamics -- palestinians good, israel bad -- so anyone under the palestinian banner can only be so bad given they're on the right team/side. And you seemingly compare them to dogs biting an abusive master 2 pages back.

Moral arguments aside, it should be obvious that Israel is creating radicalism through its oppression.

Israel can argue for the moral high ground until the cows come home, but at the end of the day Israeli security will be fundamentally compromised unless and until they actually solve the Palestinian issue, and that is going to involve dealing with reality rather than fantasy.


Today, Israel is still in a position to pursue a solution that favors Israeli long-term interests. In ten or twenty years from now, that likely won't be the case anymore.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: there will be a time when Israel is no longer the dominant player in the Middle-East. This is simply inevitable.

How do you suppose Israel would fare in such a situation?