Which is understandable, because with the armed resistance comes the Israeli bombs. In "peace time" the authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but comparing that to be bombed all the time and have to move around and not be in your home, that is quite little. — ssu

OK so you do not question the evidence I brought up, on the contrary you find it understandable. Now I have some questions to you: if the Palestinians are more prone to support Hamas’ armed resistance in war time, and if in peace time Hamas’ authoritarian rule of Hamas among other issues can be a problem, but not as big as Israeli bombs, then how could Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? If you agree, do we have compelling evidence that Gazan Palestinians’ motivation to make Hamas accountable for their actions to the point of ousting them is greater than their motivation against Hamas authoritarian rule? And if so, do we have compelling evidence that Gaza Palestinians have more effective means to make Hamas accountable for its actions to the point of ousting them, than grumpily but passively living with Hamas political, military and economic rule, which would also enable Hamas to commit further aggressions triggering more Israeli bombs?

And we were actually talking about the American student protests and if they are such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and it's objectives... or not. — ssu

Again, I find it plausible that American student protests are mostly not such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. Still what I found debatable is the claim “those holding Palestinian flags aren't supporters of Hamas” which comes with no caveats, no nuance (while you seemed very much interested in American student protests’ nuanced views , right?). And I gave you my argument because your claim, however plausible, looks rather myopic to me.
But I’ll try to put it in more concrete and simple terms: if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. And I also find more plausible that they know this (however inconvenient to admit) than they genuinely ignore this. Do you agree?

I've already answered this pages ago and how current Israeli blood has been diluted to such an extent that their claims to other areas in the world would be significantly stronger than to Israel. But even if we would grant the existence of that right then certainly the rights of recently displaced is much stronger.

Edit: moreover I don't recall Jews being prohibited from settling in Palestine. — Benkei

If we were to implement this internationally it would result in mass chaos. Even just in Israel it would be mass chaos. Israel would be Islamicized by a hostile population. The West can toy with such ideas but Israel does not have such a luxury.

You should explain why people's rights cannot be exercised. — Benkei

Because it’s “self evident.” Get with the program.

“We can’t let people in — they’re vicious animals.”

“Some behave that way because they’ve been living in concentration camps.”

“Yes but we have no choice but to keep them there.”

“Why?”

“Because they’re vicious animals.”

And on and on we go.

:up:

Hey Mikie, what do you think of the idea of a mosque being built next to your house? They'll blast calls to prayer 5x daily including at like 3am (don't worry, the times will shift.) Excited? Great! Embrace diversity.

Also, hope you're not a dog owner. They don't have the best reputation in Islamic texts so be careful.

Hey Mikie, what do you think of the idea of a mosque being built next to your house? — BitconnectCarlos

Ohh cool, I love when people play Socrates!

I’d have no problem with a mosque next to my house! Muslims are kick-ass people, so far as my personal experiences go. And you are asking me, after all — so there you have it. You wouldn’t? Why?

They'll blast calls to prayer 5x daily including at like 3am (don't worry, the times will shift.) Excited? Great! Embrace diversity. — BitconnectCarlos

Being woken up at 3am would be annoying to me. I find Christian church bells irritating sometimes too, but they’re generally pleasant. 3am not so much.

Also, hope you're not a dog owner. — BitconnectCarlos

I am. But why do you ask? …

They don't have the best reputation in Islamic texts so be careful. — BitconnectCarlos

The Quran is anti-dog? Guess I should watch out for those Christians then too..some nasty stuff in that Bible.

Well that was fun. Now about that genocide…

Well that was fun. Now about that genocide… — Mikie

:smirk:

The Quran is anti-dog? — Mikie

A few of the hadiths cite dogs as a source of ritual impurity.

In any case, I can bring up the 3am adhan or attitudes towards dogs but the main thing issue is political power and representation. E.g. You can have your nice little community of communists, but if that community gets inundated by a different community with different values there can very well end up being strife as both groups vye for power and influence. Diversity is fine and individuals of another group may be fine people, but collectively a challenge is posed with mass migration.

Benkei and I were discussing the right of return - a scenario in which some ~6 million palestinians would come to Israel.

different community with different values there can very well end up being strife as both groups — BitconnectCarlos

Isn’t there strife now?

Sure, in every society there's people with different ideas. But inundating a community with another group with very different values is throwing gas on the fire and introduces magnitudes more strife and difference.

magnitudes more strife and difference. — BitconnectCarlos

I’d say the strife the last few decades has been pretty bad— so you better be sure. I don’t see it as a certainty. Maybe pockets of violence— maybe just issues at first but not in the long run, etc. Giving Likud and Hamas less power could be the ultimate result, which would be good.

You seem far too certain for such an important possibility.

Maybe pockets of violence— maybe just issues at first but not in the long run — Mikie

Having 6 million Palestinians come to Israel brings "Israel as a Jewish state" into question. Now it is quite possibly a muslim state. And quite possibly a muslim state following sharia law as many other muslim states do.

For a state to function these types of questions can't be up in the air.

Having 6 million Palestinians come to Israel brings "Israel as a Jewish state" into question. — BitconnectCarlos

As it should.

Would you rather see it a Muslim state? There are no millions of secularists pouring in to secularize the land. It is either Muslim or Jewish. But Israel is not governed by Jewish religious law. It is a secular Jewish state.

Would you rather see it a Muslim state? — BitconnectCarlos

Nope.

No it isn't. If being Jewish is based on religious law then insisting on a predominantly Jewish citizenry is religious.

I'm not entirely sure which post of mine you're referring to.

My point is simple: Allowing ~6 million Palestinians full Israeli citizenship calls the fundamental nature of Israel as a secular Jewish state into question. Israel may then very well end up being an Islamic state following Sharia law after the demographic change.

Yes, that's what you get if you steal. You have to give it back. It beggars belief you're arguing in favour of thieves keeping their spoils.

So the US goes back to the Natives then. And my own state of Texas would return to Mexico. But certainly there was an owner that predates Mexico. Not sure where we draw the line there but ok. :up:

But why do the Palestinians get it? Why not just return it to the Turks? Why do you suppose the Palestinians are the original inhabitants? It's in the name, isn't it? :chin:

I'm all in favour of letting natives settle and vote in the US. Oh wait. Already happening.

It's interesting to me that despite not believing in objective morality you clearly do believe in following certain "rights"/principles invented some ~50 years ago extremely resolutely even to the point where its application inevitably results in mass chaos and death.

And why can't the Turks come and re-settle it again?

Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? — neomac

How accountable are you yourself of your governments actions? You've voted, right? So you how much accountable are you again for everything they have ever done?

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago).

Again, I find it plausible that American student protests are mostly not such staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

Great, we agree on something.

if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

OK. But do protesters think this way?

Slogans are simple, they have to be. Protests typically oppose one thing or want one thing.

If you start with the details, there's going to be a myriad of views and opinions. A sovereign state should take into account these kinds of facts when deciding on it's Middle East policy, but it's a bit too much from a protest.

Is the Palestinian state problematic? You bet it is. The real paradox is that Israel needs a reasonably powerful neighboring state to sign and uphold a peace agreement, but it doesn't want Palestine to be "a reasonably powerful state". Then how could Palestine be a state like Jordan, capable of putting into line fringe groups that want to lob projectiles at Israel?

Maybe read the Talmud again and what it says about theft. These principles are as old as dirt.

It's progress, I suppose, you are comparing Israel to other colonizers with your examples. "Look at those guys! They got away with their crimes, so why shouldn't we?"

Palestinians from Gaza possibly make Hamas accountable for Hamas’ deliberate actions which triggered the Israeli bombs when peace time returns and has returned? Their motivation can’t plausibly come from Hamas’ authoritarian rule alone (which is a problem but tolerable wrt Israeli bombs, as you said), and as ordinary Gazan Palestinians they have no proper means to do it, since Hamas mostly runs politically, legally, militarily and economically Gaza, right? — neomac

How accountable are you yourself of your governments actions? You've voted, right? So you how much accountable are you again for everything they have ever done? — ssu

The aim of my argument wasn’t about attributing INDIVIDUAL responsibility for EVERY political CHOICE made by governments which I find rather problematic to determine (that’s why I can’t readily answer your question and notice, it’s definitely a topic worth investigating to me). What I find more relevant and less problematic to determine is to assess COLLECTIVE motivations and means to control their government’s POWER by comparison with other collectivities.
For example, in Wetsern-like democratic regimes people can pressure their governments in various degrees depending on their DISSATISFACTION with governments’ policies AND MEANS available to them more easily than in authoritarian regimes where concentration of military, legal, economic and political power is in the hands of few people.
So by "accountability" I was referring to the fact that depending on political performance governments and leaders can get a more or less support from their base.
Now, in the ongoing circumstances, if Palestinians have poor means to pressure Hamas even in case they were intolerably dissatisfied with Hamas, and if Palestinians’ dissatisfaction with Hamas ranges from tolerable in peacetime to active support in wartime [1], then how can Palestinians get rid of Hamas by their own initiative? I would expect you to agree with me on the fact that they likely can’t. And I would expect you to agree with me that Hamas likely profits more from war than from peace in terms of support from Palestinians. Do you agree?
If you agree with all that, then let’s assess how plausible it is that Hamas is ousted from foreign intervention: like from Israel or the rest of the international community. The international community from the “broader” West is divided between support of Israel and support of Palestinians, the rest of the world is mostly supporting Palestinians (if not Hamas, like Iran). And when we talk about support to Palestinian, this mostly means promoting/pursuing political and economic pressure on Israel but not Hamas, because this would damage Palestinians too (think also about the desire to reduce military support of Israel while Hamas can get military support from Iran, and even a more direct military meddling from Iran).
So if the international community doesn’t put enough political/economic pressure on Hamas out of fear of adding further suffering on Palestinians without eradicating Hamas, and Palestinians can’t put enough political/economic pressure on Hamas to oust Hamas. Who else is left with ACTUAL SKIN in the game beside the Palestinians, and with means to eradicate Hamas? The Israelis. And since Israelis can’t put enough political/economic pressure directly on Hamas to eradicate Hamas without help of the international community, they are left with siege and war as we are seeing. Do you agree?


[1] As a side note, I have some doubts about your interpretation of the evidence I brought up and you acknowledged as “understandable” in the previous post, but for now I’ll go with your interpretation.

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago). — ssu

No idea what you are compering here, and be careful with what you are comparing since your similarities can be rather misleading.

I think this is quite meaningless here, similar to the rhetoric when Israeli politicians were milking the anger of their voters by talking about the "Evil city" and how people of Gaza are responsible for the actions of Hamas because they voted (for them once many many years ago). — ssu

Slogans are simple, they have to be. Protests typically oppose one thing or want one thing.

If you start with the details, there's going to be a myriad of views and opinions. A sovereign state should take into account these kinds of facts when deciding on it's Middle East policy, but it's a bit too much from a protest. — "ssu

It looks rather ironic to me that you go on from denouncing Israeli leaders’ propaganda to a more detached analysis of the pro-Palestinian students’ propaganda. Indeed, your consideration about slogans is plausible but rather myopic. Talking about “Evil city" and the fact that Palestinians voted for Hamas (although once “many many” years ago) are good as the pro-Palestinian students’ slogans as far as their rhetoric nature. So also behind Israeli propaganda there can be “a myriad of views and opinions”.
But, most importantly, the point of political propaganda is precisely to make people with potentially “a myriad of views and opinions” converge into trusting an actual or potential political leadership’s ability to meet the sentiment of the people (hence the emotionally loaded slogans).
And it’s MOST CERTAINLY a political job to take into account the opinions of the masses if they want to remain in power because masses’ trust can be very much volatile, incoherent and their sentiment expresses more WISHES than support for ACTUAL political policies (which often still need to be implemented in light of the available means) or even EFFECTIVE political policies (due to inherent complexities and uncertainties of the political game at a national or international level). It’s rather the masses of self-entitled nobodies populating grass-root political activism that indulge in wishful thinking about politicians’ actual ability to offer ready and effective solutions to FIX world’s injustices.
Knowing that people have “a myriad of views and opinions” is a nightmare they have to struggle with as long as they are politicians, hence the irrepressible need for political propaganda no matter what part of the political spectrum one wants to be placed in. As much as the irrepressible need to exploit wishful thinking of self-entitled nobodies about politicians’ actual ability to offer ready and effective solutions to FIX world’s injustices, again no matter what part of the political spectrum one wants to be placed in.
That’s why, AS I ALREADY SAID, I take the political game (including political propaganda) for what it is. BUT now I’m in a philosophy forum so I do not indulge in spinning political propaganda (e.g. I don’t base my analysis and arguments on slogans and rhetoric tricks) nor tolerate others’ political propaganda, and have ZERO interest in flattening analysis in score counting between propaganda and counter-propaganda. I find it shallow, if not hypocritical, and arrogant.

if some pro-Palestinian American student protestor vocally advocates policies to increase humanitarian aid to Palestine and/or increase economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), while knowing or ignoring that Hamas can embezzle most of it to pursue its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis, and Hamas is more encouraged to perpetrate its most brutal hostile activities against Israelis if the likely result is more economic/political pressure on Israel (but not for Hamas!), then it’s hard to argue they are not MORE INSTRUMENTAL TO Hamas than to Israel, even if they are not staunch, devoted supporters of Hamas and its objectives. — neomac

OK. But do protesters think this way? — ssu

Right after the excerpt you quoted I wrote: “And I also find more plausible that they know this (however inconvenient to admit) than they genuinely ignore this. Do you agree?”
Still waiting for an unequivocal answer from you on this.

Is the Palestinian state problematic? You bet it is. The real paradox is that Israel needs a reasonably powerful neighboring state to sign and uphold a peace agreement, but it doesn't want Palestine to be "a reasonably powerful state". Then how could Palestine be a state like Jordan, capable of putting into line fringe groups that want to lob projectiles at Israel? — ssu

Not sure if this is what Israeli needs. Even less sure that a Palestinian state can hold this role in the foreseeable future. Besides history has proven that Israel has more or less been able to build and exploit strategic alliances with global powers (the US and Russia) and regional powers (Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia) with means to stabilise the situation in Middle-East.

Not sure if this is what Israeli needs. — neomac

Ok, just think about it for a while:

How many rocket attacks are fired from Egypt or from Jordan to Israel?

None. In fact, during the Iranian attack on Israel, Jordan shot down Iranian drones which entered it's airspace (see here), which shows the state is capable of defending it's own airspace. Jordan or Egypt aren't allies of Israel, but they aren't allies of Iran either.

But when you have a failed state like Lebanon, then look at the situation there. Nearly 100 000 Israelis have had to evacuate from the north because of the threat of Hezbollah rocket attacks. And Hezbollah, even if part of Lebanese politics, isn't a state actor, but financed by Iran.

So which one is a better neighbor? An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side of the border or a failed state that doesn't have the ability to control it's borders?

Yet the fact is that the current Israeli administration does not want a peace agreement. Likud and it's fellow parties have been quite consistent in this. They have in writing said this and one should believe their word on this. This is absolutely crucial to understand, and this comes out very clearly from Likud's party's original charter from 1977:

The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel)

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.

Can you write more clearly that no independent Palestine ever is their stated objective?

And if there's no independent Palestine, are the Palestinians then integrated to Israel? No, when you have different laws for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, that's not integration.

When Netanyahu came into power, that was the end of talks with Palestinian Authority (which the Palestinians understood right from the start). Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas). You don't have to negotiate with terrorists. And you can continue building settlements in the West Bank.

That's why I don't believe in peace emerging in this war. This conflict can easily continue our lifetime and the lifetime of the next generation.

Hamas is a preferable Palestinian entity for Bibi (as shown from the fact that prior to October 7th the administration supported financially Hamas — ssu

Can you provide evidence supporting your claim?

It's not simple theft. It's land gained during war. A war in which the enemy tried to wipe us out.

And the "Palestinians" are colonizers as well unless you're making the claim that they are indigenous.

The enemy? You mean all those non-combatants you displaced and then stole their houses and land?

It's theft plain and simple. If I attack you and you successfully defend yourself, you don't get to steal my wallet afterwards. The defence is justified the theft isn't.

@BitconnectCarlos The enemy? You mean all those non-combatants you displaced and then stole their houses and land?

It's theft plain and simple. If I attack you and you successfully defend yourself, you don't get to steal my wallet afterwards. The defence is justified the theft isn't. — Benkei

:100: :up: