Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all. — ENOAH
Millions of Evangelical votes? Do you have any compelling evidence that millions of Evangelicals would vote for Biden, if only Biden let Netanyahu do whatever he wants in Gaza? — neomac
Naturally most of the vote for Trump, of course, but notice that the Israeli lobby is so powerful in both parties. And isn't Bibi just waiting for Trump to arrive?
And it's going to be even worse when Israel attacks Lebanon. — ssu
Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit. — ENOAH
I asked you 3 questions evidenced in bold, you didn’t answer any. What are your compelling reasons to take your “specifically referring to the more recent nation building exercise by the British in 1948” or the PERCEIVED injustice of ONE SIDE (the Palestinian) as the starting point for an explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
It’s a comment on the inhumanity of the British imperialists.Another counterfactual. Why are you sure? Jews fled from their land ALSO because of the Arab/Muslism colonization and oppression. Arab/Muslism still today massacre civilians belonging to other Christian and Arab/Muslim communities.
Again you didn’t address any of the points I brought up, you keep just repeating what you think it is the case, maybe inspired by a self-serving understanding Hamas’s own declarations
Well that may depend on your perspective. I’m amenable to the possibility that the timing of October 7th attacks was orchestrated in some way by regional geopolitical pressures. I know that Israel and Iran have been facing off against each other for a long time and that geopolitical moves by Israel along with it’s partner the U.S. prior to the attacks will have inflamed tensions in the region.I would even go so far as to say that the “increased tensions between Israel and Gaza and West Bank in the past two years” as the exclusive or far more relevant motivation of Hamas to conduct the massacre of October the 7th, is totally irrelevant wrt its international repercussions of the massacre and Israel’s threat perception.
So it’s a tutorial now is it? — Punshhh
Unless you are going to explain why the Nakba and subsequent Apartheid state is not the primary cause of the current conflict? So why should I answer that question? — Punshhh
Also are you arguing now that the people living on the land who were displaced during the Nakba should have, or had, no moral case for grievance now? — Punshhh
Another counterfactual. Why are you sure? Jews fled from their land ALSO because of the Arab/Muslism colonization and oppression. Arab/Muslism still today massacre civilians belonging to other Christian and Arab/Muslim communities.
It’s a comment on the inhumanity of the British imperialists. — Punshhh
My point was and is that the geopolitical players are playing a game of geopolitical chess alongside the conflict in Israel and Palestine. They are not playing a game of chess in amongst the conflict. — “Punshhh
There are backers of the two sides as you say, but they merely turn on, or off, the tap of arms/money supply, or turn the dial of urging restraint, or allowing unrestrained activity. — “Punshhh
And when someone will counter and argue saying that destroying Hamas is a clear strategy, well, so was fighting Al-Qaeda and the War On Terror a 'clear strategy' to many at the time. Just go to Afghanistan and destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban! What could have been more clear? — ssu
12000 children killed, and counting. Probably an underestimate. — Mikie
NO PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT,
I don’t think one can separate the moral case, or cause, from the legal case. I doubt that a Palestinian would seek to separate them. Without wanting to sound Woke, I would think there is a human rights issue here as well. There is an overwhelming case for grievance with the Palestinians. Something which many Israeli’s seem blind to.I’m not sure what you mean by “moral case”, if you want to argue for a moral right to land, go ahead, I’m all ears. I limited myself to question a LEGAL right of Palestinians/Israelis over such disputed lands prior to the end of the British mandate.
“Merely”
My humanitarian standards in this discussion may appear to be one sided. So is the level of aggression in the conflict and the regard to person and property.Fourth, your humanitarian standards seem also unfairly applied: why should Israel comply to your humanitarian standards, while Hamas shouldn’t? Is it because Israel looks much stronger so it has to apply greater restraint than Hamas? Would you think that independently from whatever the consequences are?
replete with bad actors and distrust on all sides. — jorndoe
Even if 50% or 70% isn't 84%, the idea that Hamas has built in more than 50% of housing a military positions is simply outrageously ludicrous. It simply isn't the case. — ssu
t's the same as the "death cult" statements we've seen attributed to Palestinians here because schopenhauer made an observation some time about the Quran. — Benkei
There are still people alive who were uprooted in the Nakba, many and their descendants still live in refugee camps. — Punshhh
.Anyway, I think you’re splitting hairs a bit here — Punshhh
I’m not sure what you mean by “moral case”, if you want to argue for a moral right to land, go ahead, I’m all ears. I limited myself to question a LEGAL right of Palestinians/Israelis over such disputed lands prior to the end of the British mandate.
I don’t think one can separate the moral case, or cause, from the legal case. — Punshhh
I doubt that a Palestinian would seek to separate them. — Punshhh
Without wanting to sound Woke, I would think there is a human rights issue here as well. There is an overwhelming case for grievance with the Palestinians. Something which many Israeli’s seem blind to. — Punshhh
.Merely in the sense that it is an on/off lever, with little more control than that — Punshhh
My humanitarian standards in this discussion may appear to be one sided. So is the level of aggression in the conflict and the regard to person and property. — Punshhh
you are hammering a nail with a geopolitical hammer. — Punshhh
I doubt that many among us have the background knowledge of the political situation in the wider region to do more than broad brush predictions and generalisations. — Punshhh
Nonsense, actually they can. And the US showed this during the Cold War. And just how?I’m not sure how clear strategies can be even conceived in a period of international uncertainties and power balance shifts. In the absence of a clearer strategy, maybe one can simply try to gain time and prepare for the worse. — neomac
I think the reason is that they formed a country called Israel and usually the citizens of that country are refered to being Israelis. The Jewish homeland and all that, remember?Why are Jews never referred to as Palestinians? — BitconnectCarlos
1 (a)The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the
Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was
established.
(b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish
People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious
and historical right to self-determination.
(c) The realization of the right to national self determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
Jewish People.
2. (a) The name of the State is "Israel"
On the contrary, that state of Palestine is a non-exist is quite true. There's Israel and it's occupied territories.But no, Palestinians are not Jews. They're indigenous to a magical, non-existent land known as "Palestine." None of it makes any sense. — BitconnectCarlos
What land have we gotten from Russia? I'm confused.Why doesn't the UN go tell Finland to return the land it won from Russia? — BitconnectCarlos
The US didn't go invading countries. When it got to wars (South Korea, South Vietnam), there was actually a country that had been attacked. And obviously it was then as uncertain as now, but this thinking that what would your actions make others respond was thought. This lead after the Cold War ended the US to form a coalition with multiple Arab states, even Syria, to oust Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and get the green light from the UK and from the Soviet Union.
And that then simply went to their head and diplomacy was forgotten.
Hence after 9/11 the "empathetic response" of 19 terrorists attacking the US, hence we have to invade a landlocked country on another continent because the financier of the 19 terrorists there, didn't have any kind of thinking of this kind behind it. — ssu
Same thing has now happened with Israel, because so many civilians were killed on October 7th. Anticipation of what could or would neighboring Arab countries (plus Iran or Turkey) doesn't matter. What the long term solution here and how does Israel get there doesn't matter. Destroy Hamas! Let's see what to do after that. — ssu
When Japan tried to wipe off and sink whole Pacific fleet of the US, invaded the Phillipines (then a colony of the US) and Guam and Aleutian Islands of Alaska are something totally different on scale to a terrorist strike perpetrated by a non-state actor as tiny as Al Qaeda was. So it's a bit strange to say that Roosevelt responded with oversized force. There's no doubt that the US was attacked with the objective of taking it's territory (the Phillipines). The stupidity of this action from the Japanese is really a good question.1. When the US got attacked by the Japs in WW2, the US nuked the Japs twice, as soon as nukes were ready. Is this an "empathetic response” or a first necessary step of a “clear strategic” path for Japs to democracy, peace and prosperity for Japan in the next half century which American politicians/diplomats conceived? — neomac
Yes. Assuming they make sense. Did the reason why the US had it's longest war in Afghanistan make sense? The reason given was that "If the US doesn't occupy Afghanistan, it might possibly become a terrorist safe haven." It was repeated over and over again, but in my view it's even far more crazier than the "Domino Theory" in South-East Asia.In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “empathic responses”: indeed, it’s the empathic element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world. — neomac
How about "War on Blitzkrieg"?2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed. — neomac
It is said that prior to invading Iraq, George Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. Pretty important to understand if and when you attack Iraq and think it's going to be a short, cheap war and the Iraqis will thank you. So maybe there indeed are better strategies. But when it's a unipolar moment, why listen or even think about others. Either they are with you or against you, right?Maybe one can think better strategies or better ways to implement them in the hindsight, yet politicians do not have the chance to test different long-term solutions before picking the best one. They are compelled to follow a certain path under lots of national and international pressure, and despite all the unknowns. — neomac
I think the reason is that they formed a country called Israel and usually the citizens of that country are refered to being Israelis. The Jewish homeland and all that, remember? — ssu
On the contrary, that state of Palestine is a non-exist is quite true. There's Israel and it's occupied territories. — ssu
What land have we gotten from Russia? I'm confused. — ssu
...and then continued the open air prison of Gaza by closing the land and sea borders and had the occasional bombing of the place. That just now has hit a new crescendo.Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. — BitconnectCarlos
The typical racism that jingoists use. Reminds me of the Serbs and their fixation with Kosovo Polje and how important for Putin is ancient Rus being the craddle of Russia, hence Ukraine and the Ukrainians are so artificial. It always starts from despising the other and questioning their overall existence and mythologization of one's own past.Where are the ancient Palestinian burial plots? Where is there anything that is ancient Palestinian? Jews are the indigenous — BitconnectCarlos
(CNN) The Israeli military has desecrated at least 16 cemeteries in its ground offensive in Gaza, a CNN investigation has found, leaving gravestones ruined, soil upturned, and, in some cases, bodies unearthed.
Now I'm even more confused. You do realize that we have been around as an independent state only from 1917, so I really don't know what you are talking about.IIRC you mentioned a historical instance where Finland won a war (against Russia?) and as a result won a bit of land from the aggressor. — BitconnectCarlos
Palestinians could surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel in exchange for peace?
How many children are YOU willing to sacrifice — neomac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.