You keep using this word "oppression" but oppression, from the Arab-Muslim perspective, is any Jewish self-determination on that land when it ought to be Muslim land. — BitconnectCarlos

Yet, the Israelis have had their state for nearly a century, and the Palestinians have been living under a brutal Israeli oppression since 1967.

A recurring pattern seems to be that you value your own constructs of what Palestinians are like over the very real atrocities that are being committed to by Israel as we speak. Have you ever spoken to a Palestinian?

According to the Arab/Palestinian narrative, the tragedy begins with the Nakba. The occupation, according to Hamas at least, begins then. Jerusalem & Tel Aviv are considered occupied Palestine.

From ChatGPT:

Approximately 58% of Palestinians in the West Bank and 62% in Gaza support the continuation of conflict with Israel until all of historic Palestine is regained, even if a two-state solution is achieved. This reflects a significant portion of the population desiring the reclamation of all territories historically identified as Palestine, indicating a preference for a one-state solution over a two-state solution among many Palestinians​ (The Washington Institute)​​ (The Times of Israel)

approximately the same in Israel.

When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not.

So, really what's your point? Two people are fighting and they both don't want to stop? So they should continue? That seems the wrong answer.

Right. Never spoken to a Palestinian, and yet here you are excusing crimes against humanity perpetrated against them.

It's a bit rich, don't you think?

When Gallup last asked Israelis the same question in 2017, 30% believed it would be possible, while the majority (57%) said it would not. — Benkei

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk.

The Palestinians reject a two state solution because they are opposed to Israel regardless of government style. Jewish self-rule is a slap in the face.

Even though the Palestinians don't have their own state their rule is basically autonomous. Hamas controls Gaza proper, Israel does not control Gaza proper. They manage their own internal affairs and they are not Israeli puppets.

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk. — BitconnectCarlos

Viable = too weak to get even the minimum of their requirements? Palestine cannot be any kind of threat to Israel with its vast arsenal and foreign backing. At its most outraged, it can only ever be a nuisance and an excuse for Israeli governments to keep their country in a state of perpetual war, in a state of existential crisis. At least until all the Palestinians are dead and there's no more challenge to their occupation of whatever lands they want. It worked in the OT.... until a big empire came and gobbled them all up.

Viable = too weak to get even the minimum of their requirements? — Vera Mont

It's not a matter of weakness.

If Gaza became a state Hamas would be able to import whatever it liked.

If Gaza became a state Hamas would be able to import whatever it liked. — BitconnectCarlos

What, like food, medicine, building material? Assuming they could afford it and somebody were willing to sell it to them.
And that's a pretty good reason for Bibi to keep Hamas in place, isn't it?

They're already able to import that. Palestinians receive billions in aid yearly. Much of it just goes to the Hamas leadership who are themselves billionaires. Gaza isn't destitute either; there were many luxury hotels and really nice cars there before 10/7.

Israel (and Egypt) monitors for dangerous materials but humanitarian aid is fine.

Well, then, it's all hunky-dory innit? Everybody getting what they need and want.

No, not at all. Hamas horribly oppresses their own and teaches them to hate.

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk. — BitconnectCarlos

That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same. They can point to Begin in 37 saying they'll remove inhabitants to build Israel and point to Herut and Likud and a straight line from his Zionist statements to today.

Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well. Especially given the fact Israeli set out to do exactly what the Zionists said they'd do through oppression and Apartheid for decades but in contrast Palestinian resistance has been largely ineffectual.

So you are afraid where Israel holds all the power because Israel is ruled by irrational fear. In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim.

So, really what's your point? Two people are fighting and they both don't want to stop? So they should continue? That seems the wrong answer. — Benkei

Why though? Why should the two people care about what seems wrong to you about their beef? Why do you take your humanitarian feelings as universal if the two people do not feel the way you feel about their conflict?

Unfortunately contended territories easily end up in genocidal or cleansing perceived practices. When one evokes self-determination aspirations against empires is one thing, another is when self-determination aspirations of some people irreparably clashes with the self-determination aspirations of other people. That's the dark side of self-determination.

I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.


The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.

Oh fun, let's pretend it's inevitable for two people to bash each other's head in. The reductio of that argument is that genocide is ok. So, yes, it's wrong. And I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg story and the Palestinians can say the same.

This is an interesting point that should be followed up on. My question would then be what % of Israelis in the public and in the Israeli government seek to annex Gaza and the WB into "greater Israel?" Gaza was not historically Israel.

There's no need to go back to the 30s and 40s but if we do the Grand Mufti was an extremely ugly figure. Good Israelis try to put this behind them. Different times now.

Given that, if you say Israel is a viable negotiation partner then obviously the other side is as well. — Benkei

You can't expect a country to negotiate with a group that wants to annex it and denies its right to exist. Hamas isn't asking for reform; it's asking for an end to Jewish self-rule.

In other words, Zionists are acting like a bunch of pussies and pretending to be a victim. — Benkei

You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics."

And in an era of WMDs large modern armies don't ensure survival.

I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments. — Vera Mont

Israel's targets are terrorists, the targets of terror are very often civilians. Their governments reward them for this. What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me.

The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII. — Vera Mont

We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. What shell we do with this piece of information now?

↪neomac
↪neomac
Oh fun, let's pretend it's inevitable for two people to bash each other's head in. — Benkei

I didn’t write it’s inevitable, nor implied it, nor suggested it, nor think it’s inevitable.

The reductio of that argument is that genocide is ok. So, yes, it's wrong. And I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result. — Benkei

If genocide is ok or not, that’s up to you to decide so I’m fine with you claiming “I don't care that they don't care but I (e.g. my country) shouldn't be picking a side as a result.”
However if you write “I don't care that…” to others, others can say the same to you. Still the burden of costs and risks for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is more on the Palestinians AND the Israelis, than on an avg Westerner (I assume it’s your case too). So since they have much more skin in that game than an avg Westerner, my guess is that their motivation to the conflict is much stronger and unifying than that of an avg Westerner about the same conflict. What I think Westerners should care about is how strong and unified the will of certain people, countries, governments is (by comparison with theirs), what they are ready to do, what sacrifice are willing to accept or impose to achieve their shared goals. As much as they should care about means and opportunities that powers hostile to the West can exploit in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As long as the “not picking side“ policy is contributing to stability or symmetry of the power balance, it’s impossible to not pick side. Not to mention that the “not picking side“ policy can be perceived as a sign of weakness and cowardice by others.

What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me. — BitconnectCarlos

Stop killing civilians. Stop settling territories that don't belong to them. Stop being recalcitrant and sabotaging negotiations. Stop barricading Gaza. Stop supporting Hamas. Then we'll see how things progress.

We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. — neomac

Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.

Hamas isn't asking for reform; it's asking for an end to Jewish self-rule. — BitconnectCarlos

This is patently false. Hamas has signalled being open for negotiations along the 1967 borders since 2017.

You never view them as people who suffer. Two intifadas and 10/7 mostly directed towards random civilians. Palestinian "resistance" has a habit of that. There is no excuse for those "tactics." — BitconnectCarlos

No, oppressors don't get sympathy.

This is patently false. Hamas has signalled being open for negotiations along the 1967 borders since 2017. — Benkei

I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me?

BTW I have several of your countrymen/ethnic group as hostages who I do unspeakable things to. Now cede your territory and we can begin negotiations.

No, oppressors don't get sympathy. — Benkei

Do you have any sympathy for Chinese victims of Muslim terror? How about 9/11 victims? Oppressors, right? Just chickens coming home to roost?

I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me? — BitconnectCarlos

Is that a quote from Ben-Gurion?

When oppressors rule, there are always victims - some willing, some random, some too slow to flee. You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block where an enemy leader might perhaps be staying or a weapon may perhaps be stored...
but only when the much stronger combatant commits that war crime.

You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block — Vera Mont

No. Modern civilized armies strive to avoid civilian casualties. But they still are inevitable in any war.

And their deaths are on the hands of the enemy who breached a border and murdered ~1000 of that country's civilians. And took hostages which are repeatedly subject to sexual abuse.

You have your sources of information and statistics, I imagine.
Therefore, war crimes are justified.
[end thread]

If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all.

Definitions of enemy may vary. Objects in mirror are more grotesque than they seem.

Anyone who takes hostages to place them in rape (and torture) dungeons qualifies as an enemy to me -- an enemy of humanity.

If Israel is committing war crimes so has everyone and maybe war just is war crimes; you do shoot at the enemy, after all. — BitconnectCarlos

I mean that seems to be a presupposition of this thread.

We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. — neomac

Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history. — Vera Mont

OK, if "The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism" is not the issue of "who settled where in pre-history" but an "issue of self-determination", how is the reference to colonialism help us understand better a predicament where two people (or relative political leaderships, if you prefer) ultimately pursue self-determination aspirations over exactly the same piece of land?