But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. — Benkei

And when do you think this is going to actually happen? Do you have an approximative idea? You know the genocidal apartheid expansionist massacre of Palestinians hasn't stopped yet, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis. And after 60 years of failing to make Israel come to its senses, maybe you should advocate for a stronger solutions, don't you think? There are countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium allegedly stopping to ship weapons to Israel, but the massacre hasn't stopped, right? So how long should Palestinian children wait for Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and Belgium to arm Palestinian resistance or actually send troops to Israel or bomb Israel to stop the slaughter of tens of thousand of them, to you? What can you do for them to make this happen as soon as possible? Do you think that whining over this thread about the West stopping to ship weapons to Israel is the most effective or ETHICAL way for you to contribute to preventing the Israel nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist criminal state from massacring Palestinian children by tens of thousands and the Palestinian people for decades at every hour that you are wasting in this thread? Do you feel ethically accomplished by insulting people in this thread instead of going to support the Palestinian armed resistance with your own money?

Pay attention to these bogus beliefs:

That Israel only “defends” itself (it doesn’t).

That “wiping out Hamas” is even possible (it isn’t).

That some words in a charter are ultra-important (they aren’t).

That gaza isn’t a concentration camp (it is).

That Israel isn’t the overwhelming military power (they are).

Then you’ll have a better understanding of why these conversations go nowhere. The assumptions are so far apart it’s beyond rationality.

Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here.

↪neomac
Cool you are so obsessed with me you start imagining what I do when not posting here. — Benkei

Aaaaah you got me there, holy Bankei. I'm a big big big fan of yours. Besides you seem very much into mounting support against Israel's decade long butchery of Palestinians in here, aren't you? You are a human rights champion whom everybody in here should feel compelled to admire and look up to, aren't you? Fighting Israeli apologists in this thread as if this had any effect on reducing the ongoing butchery, especially of thousands of Palestinian children, by the genocidal apartheid colonialist Israeli Nazis doesn't seem enough though, does it? Would you go to a Palestinian family who lost all their children under IDF bombs to comfort them with "I'm insulting lots of anonymous people in a blog in the name of the pro-Palestinian cause, justice for your children is done, you can be proud of me"?

So my doubts remain:

1. If you are citizen of a country that supports a genocidal apartheid colonialist decade long butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children are dying like flies after being materially and psychologically tortured by Israeli Nazis, by sending them weapons. Aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to fight with arms your own country’s government?

2. Notice that, in this case, your country is also using tax revenues to support its military industry at the service of a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children. For several decades. So YOU TOO (if you paid taxes) are personally however indirectly but KNOWINGLY supporting a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them, so far. So aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled at the very least to fiscally boycott your own pro-Nazi apartheid genocidal colonialist butchers' government?

3. And if your own country, doesn’t pay to support the Palestinian armed resistance, on the contrary, it supports Israel, then aren’t you ETHICALLY compelled to pay your own money to support the Palestinian armed resistance to fight against a genocidal apartheid colonialist butchering of Palestinians for decades, especially Palestinian children, thousands of them?

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx

Good to know your moral compass makes you feel totally ok with being sarcastic about kids being bombed or growing up in a war zone. You'd think there would at least be common ground that such things aren't exactly a joke. But here we are. — Benkei

Dead kids won't give a shit about an anonymous nobody's sarcasm on this blog as you do, holy Benkei. That's why I'm so fascinated by the breadth of your moral compass.

As for picking up arms myself - I’ll stick to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change. Maybe not as flashy but it works: — Benkei

Why though? You think it's ETHICALLY more compelling to stick to the law than to support Palestinian armed resistance? You would still stick to it till the last Palestinian kid is murdered by the apartheid genocidal colonialist Israeli Nazis? What would it need to happen for you to advocate/support the Palestinian armed resistance than it hasn't happened already?! Don't you feel the urgency of supporting Palestinian armed resistance? While you are "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change", thousands of kids are dying, and yet you seem confident that... what? That "challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change" is more EFFECTIVE and ETHICALLY compelling than actually supporting/advocating the Palestinian armed resistance AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

Yes but not as a right to self defence but retaliation because Hamas breached ius in bello — Benkei

Is there any meaningful difference between the two? Israel's goals are twofold regardless: Rescue hostages, destroy Hamas.

and any settlers there are fair game. — Benkei

...and we are now permitting the murder of civilians I see. Some highly educated European lawyers rendered Jews stateless ~80 years ago which also made it not illegal to murder them. Perhaps they could have also been seen as occupiers.

Your highest source of authority is international lawyers. And if those lawyers tell you that the mass murder of civilians is permissible then so be it.

Through the act of colonisation they are aggressors, not civilians. My highest source of authority is any law since Hammurabi that condemns theft. You pretend this is just international law but it's longstanding legal principles that exist in every culture.

Is there any meaningful difference between the two? Israel's goals are twofold regardless: Rescue hostages, destroy Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, self defence presumes a just cause, which Israel doesn't have because it's the aggressor in this conflict.

More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do.

If Israel cannot find the culprits and instead sees as its only option to wage a bloody revenge campaign on a civilian population, the answer is obviously 'no'. — Tzeentch

Israel has actually killed and captured quite a few of the culprits, including some of the top Hamas leadership.

The IDF should have put its own house in order first by properly guarding the border. Instead of leaving the door wide open. — Tzeentch

I'm not blaming the victim here. Hamas had a force of around 6,000 and they clearly strategized. I know a force of ~6k would definitely breach the US border.

It reminds me of the Europeans whinging about 'the Russian threat' as they arm Ukraine to the teeth, shun all diplomacy and constantly talk about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. — Tzeentch

A weak Russia and a weak or defeated Putin is best for the world. End their 19th century imperial aspirations once and for all and let the country enter the 21st century.

Theft is wrong in all societies, but territorial boundaries change as a result of war all the time. Are you saying that all territorial changes as a result of war are illegitimate/need to be reversed?

...And that the country that lost the territory is justified in murdering the victor's civilians who reside in the lost territory.

And of course murder is condemned in virtually every legal code since Hammurabi and is pretty uniformly regarded as worse than theft. And even killing a thief can be criminal.

Theft is wrong in all societies, but territorial boundaries change as a result of war all the time. — BitconnectCarlos

Which has been considered illegal under customary law for more than a century as an extrapolation of theft but even more, aside from the border shift, which was historically done more often than not without displacement of the local population. That only started after the rise of nationalism.

And even killing a thief can be criminal. — BitconnectCarlos

Not in self defence of your own property especially when the theft is ongoing and accompanied by wanton destruction and murder. For decades.

Edit: more problematic is actually the whole tu quoque fallacy again. "Others did it too! So don't complain we're committing crimes."

Maybe not as flashy but it works:

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/The-Netherlands-has-to-stop-the-export-of-F-35-fighter-jet-parts-to-Israel.aspx — Benkei

It works? Really? To whom? Did Netanyahu stop/reduce his butchery? By this rate when approximatively do you estimate Israel, a nazi genocidal apartheid colonialist state, is going to stop to exterminate Palestinian children by the thousands ?

↪neomac
More all caps please. As much as I enjoy getting a rise out of you without even trying, I've got better things to do. — Benkei

Holy Benkei, I’m sure you have better things to do for the Palestinian cause than just insulting random nobodies on the internet and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows. So I keep wondering why you do not support/advocate for the Palestinian armed resistance publicly and vocally IN HERE as well as outside. After all, you wrote:

Oh you should play. The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys. — Benkei

So again, why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious .
And what your reaction to my sarcasm manifestly shows, is that that’s your ONLY way out from admitting your own moral hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice.

As a moderator of a philosophy forum you should be able to understand that if insulting political adversaries and thumb suck one another with your pro-Palestinian fellows are the better things you have to do in this thread to support the Palestinian cause, yet this is way too far from a honest and humble critical investigation of your own political views or whatever related moral point of principle (like human rights or the right to self-determination) you claim as obvious . — neomac

As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are.

It would be better “An Arab state which you have a peace agreement that is able to guard it's side”. But what is this assessment useful for in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? — neomac

That's the paradox. If we would assume a free independent Palestine that would be as trouble free as Jordan, then that Palestine should have an effective, capable military to guard it's borders and airspace. But that is not what Israel wants. And then we have to understand that the Likud party is de facto totally faithful to it's original party charter.

In the current circumstances Palestine is closer to be fully occupied and controlled by an Israeli state, than to remain a failed state neighbour. — neomac

It is a fully occupied and controlled by the state of Israel, not a failed state neighbor. But then you have to remember that Israel did for years occupy half of Lebanon. What was the result of that? Hezbollah was the outcome of that!!!

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) — neomac

That's a politician talking the talk... which the Americans want to hear. Actions, not words, ought to be what you look at. (Also with the Palestinians, btw)

What’s worse is that the current war is supported by ~2/3 of the Israelis and the support of a two state solution has sharply declined since 2013 and after October the 7th it reached ~10% — neomac

And that's why I say in past tense that this conflict ought to have been solved when the Cold War ended, but it wasn't and now it won't go away. October 7th is the rallying cry for Israel and the present war in Gaza will be the rallying cry for Palestinians. This conflict won't be solved. Both sides are just fine with the war going on... they are totally unable to "sit down and have a brokered peace".

Hamas is more instrumental to Netanyahu than Fatah (and such a view would probably be reciprocated by Hamas) to justify his refusal to negotiate a two state solution. — neomac

We agree on this. It's telling that two leaders that actually did huge efforts in brokering peace deals were killed by their countries extremists, both in Israel and in Egypt.

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar. — neomac

Would the US allow someone to finance Al Qaeda? Because it would be in their interests??? You will look silly if you try to defend Bibi's actions here.

Second, the Qatari donations are a non-negligible but partial portion of Hamas income coming from taxes, legitimate business, covert smuggling, and international charity/donors — neomac

But they are very crucial. Starting from the leadership living in Qatar. Remember, when the Gulf donators of the PLO got pissed off of Arafat supporting the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (because naturally Saddam positioned himself as a supporter of Palestinians), Arafat and the PLO had to go to the negotiation table with Israel. There's not much wealth to be extracted from the Palestinians in Gaza now living in tents.

Fifth, even if Israeli support for Netanyahu looks irrecoverably compromised, yet Netanyahu’s strategy has played in favour of his political goals. — neomac

Just like with Putin, war is great for Netanyahu. Bibi might have to face some domestic problems without a war going on and himself being a war leader.

So to be clear: Your view is that Israel is only rightfully/lawfully entitled to the land allocated under the 1947 Partition Plan? And that any Israelis living outside of those borders are legitimate targets?

Do you believe that the Arab countries ought to provide reparations to the millions of Jews who were expelled and had their property seized? And can you see how if, say, only one side were pressured relentlessly to make concessions how this could engender ill-will?

No, even the partition plan is invalid because this was never agreed with the people who actually lived there. That was an act of theft itself. My view is Israel must sit down with Palestinians to negotiate borders, who have repeatedly signalled that peace along the 1967 borders is possible. Anyone on the wrong side of those borders until a ceasefire is agreed before entering the larger negotiations is fair game (with the exception of anyone who settled there peacefully before the declaration of the Israeli state). And a ceasefire must necessarily include a stop to colonisation efforts since that's the very act of aggression that makes almost everything Israel does unethical and illegal.

Israel from then on is to manage the occupied territories in accordance with the Geneva Conventions it signed up to. Since Likud has actively undermined the two state solution by turning the West Bank into Swiss cheese, this needs to be resolved and the most likely solutions are land swaps or simply concluding those Jewish colonists now live in Palestine in combination with reparations for displaced Palestinians. Israel has no rights here so the basic position is all of it is returned but negotiations can be held to get to different results.

Then there's the right to return and again without negotiation the right will just persist so the only way for Palestinians to give up those rights is to offer something in return. What that something would be is an important subject for negotiations.

And can you see how if, say, only one side were pressured relentlessly to make concessions how this could engender ill-will? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, I can totally see why Palestinians hate Israel. The idea that in the pursuit of justice the loss of unjust benefits of the oppressor are "concessions" is of course ludicrous.

Do you believe that the Arab countries ought to provide reparations to the millions of Jews who were expelled and had their property seized? — BitconnectCarlos

It wasn't even a million and not all of those were expelled and expropriated but obviously when I'm arguing for a principle based approach, the answer is yes. However, it's unrelated because not caused by the Palestinians so should be dealt with separately.

Not similar. In the Warsaw uprising it was the resistance that led it, not the puppet authorities. — BitconnectCarlos

So from terrorist organization suddenly they change to "puppet authorities"?

Whose puppets? I think the Al Aqsa flood-operation was quite understandably the work of Hamas members in Gaza.

Oh yes, Germans called the Polish Home Army bandits. Israel hasn't called Hamas bandits, so they're not similar in that way.

* * *

BTW the pager explosions is quite humiliating for Hezbollah. Wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the Hezbollah member responsible for the acquisition of those 5000 pagers. Another case example how in general Israel is superior to it's foes.

As a moderator I know exactly the type of poster you are and you're not interested in an actual discussion, just ranting. Which is why I ignore most of what you write as the reactionary diatribes they are. — Benkei

Your claim looks more silly than it sounds. Indeed, all we are doing here is discussing, and recurrently ranting over colonialist, genocidal and apartheid Israel apologists is part of your actual discussion. Unless by what you call “actual discussion” you are conveniently referring to “discussion I actually approve of and can’t get enough of hearing”, of course.
But, more to the point, if we are unable to discuss our different views over conflicts which do not constitute existential threats to us personally, how can one even hope that things can go differently for those who are directly involved in the conflict? Besides being this a philosophy forum and not a pro-Palestinian private club may be you could make a greater effort into putting your emotional rants aside, and start letting others question basic “obvious” assumptions and/or consequences of your views to earn yourself the intellectual legitimacy to question opposing views. And notice that our exchange is accessible by other posters, so even if you doubt my intentions you can still profit from my challenging questions to provide compelling arguments to the community following this thread.

So here again my questions to you, for the third time:

Why you do not vocally and publicly advocate/support for Palestinian or Hamas’ armed resistance by providing weapons or demanding a more direct military intervention or even by financing them from your own pocket?
Why do you not vocally and publicly advocate/support fiscal boycotting, if not armed resistance against, Western governments who support Israel?
Why do you think it is more ETHICAL or EFFECTIVE compelling to ”to challenging governments, holding them accountable, and, you know, using law to make a change” than any of the above AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ? So you do not think that the West (only the West?) should act as soon as possible to prevent the Palestinian holocaust? You do not feel concerned by the fact that at this rate Israel is going to exterminate more thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza because you and people like you are abstaining from doing anything that it is possible to support the Palestinian armed resistance?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

Obviously, I challenge you as any pro-Palestinian poster in this thread, who is convinced that Israel is a colonialist, apartheid, genocidal State comparable to Nazi Germany murdering thousands of Palestinian people and kids as a collective punishment.

That's the paradox. If we would assume a free independent Palestine that would be as trouble free as Jordan, then that Palestine should have an effective, capable military to guard it's borders and airspace. But that is not what Israel wants. And then we have to understand that the Likud party is de facto totally faithful to it's original party charter. — ssu

I still don’t follow your reasoning. Your hypothetical scenario seems construed out of removing from the picture relevant historical circumstances. Israel is too small of a country to tolerate a Palestinian state which can legitimately aspire to a regular army and a military build up, once you add to that historical grievances (Israel is a colonialist apartheid genocidal state according to the pro-Palestinian front, which will likely echo for generations to come), ideologies inspired by Islamic martyrdom, a network of allies hostile to Israel, the risk of some revanchism within a consistent minority of Israeli arabs and the possibility to still resort to asymmetric warfare even after getting a Palestinian state.
Besides Israel more plausibly needs religious Israelis to maintain its demographic growth. Religious Israeli however are way more jealous of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, than the secular Jews, and more jealous of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, than Gaza.
Given their history and their present, security, religious, demographic, geopolitical concerns compel Israeli Jews to reject more than welcome a Palestinian state, with or without Netanyahu and Likud. Netanyahu and Likud stem from within the Israeli Jews’ society. So it would be misleading to think that Israeli Jews are simply manipulated by Netanyahu and Likud propaganda and machinations into rejecting a Palestinian state.

It is a fully occupied and controlled by the state of Israel, not a failed state neighbor. But then you have to remember that Israel did for years occupy half of Lebanon. What was the result of that? Hezbollah was the outcome of that!!! — ssu

Then you have to clarify what you mean by “failed state”. Indeed, referring to Palestine as a failed state isn’t far fetched at all to me if you consider that a Palestinian state is acknowledged by certain countries and what makes it a failed state is that, among others, it lacks centralisation, one side is ruled by a terrorist organization, and both are occupied by foreign forces. And such Palestinian failed state is neighbouring Israel.
I don’t think that the comparison with Lebanon is really helping, since Lebanon isn’t part of the geographic territory that Israelis or just the Likud party sees as belonging to Israel (and even if there are territorial disputes, they are not of the same breadth than the ones Israel has with Palestinians). Besides Hezbollah wasn’t just the result of the Israeli occupation (Sinai was occupied and yet this didn’t prevent Egypt from finding a way to peacefully coexist with Israel) but also of the Iranian long hand.

Notice however that even Netanyahu is able talk about the conditions for a two state solution (at least, starting with demilitarisation and recognition of Israel’s right to exist) — neomac

That's a politician talking the talk... which the Americans want to hear. Actions, not words, ought to be what you look at. (Also with the Palestinians, btw) — ssu

Or a plan B. I think even Netanyahu might have or have had a plan B if his maximalist goals weren’t achievable.

First, we are not talking about Israeli direct financing of Hamas but Qatari money for humanitarian aid, as agreed with the US and Qatar. — neomac

Would the US allow someone to finance Al Qaeda? Because it would be in their interests??? You will look silly if you try to defend Bibi's actions here. — ssu

You are grossly misreading my claims. First, Hamas is not just a terrorist organization (like Al-Qaeda) but it also has a political branch actually governing Gaza, so there are two distinct domain of activities (the ones directed at governing Gaza and the ones directed at fighting Israel), however not transparently separated (because people, goods and funds can flow from one domain of activities to the other) hence the security issue for Israel in providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians. The point is that if funds for humanitarian aid go from WHATEVER source (including Qatar, including UNRWA whose major donors are Western Countries) to Palestinian non-combatant people, this should be not only permissible but universally encouraged every time there is a humanitarian crisis (as the one Israeli was accused to provoke after the blockad of Gaza).
Second, the options for Israel were/are either ban humanitarian aid completely given the risk that Hamas can embezzle resources to support its fight against Israel, but then Israel will be accused of humanitarian organisations and states, including Western allies, of crimes against humanity. Alternatively, Israel could allow international organizations or Israel oversee the humanitarian aid supply through whatever official channel but then take responsibility for failures in effectively overseeing the distribution and recipients of such aids.
Third, it is not self-evident that Qatar could have not funded Hamas in other ways (as Iran does) than the ones agreed with Israel AND THE US. So whatever strategy Israel pursued we can’t exclude by default that Netanyahu calculations took into account this inconvenience too. But then, to my understanding, Netanyahu’s gambit was more likely something like this: “in the best scenario, by replacing Fatah’s funds with Qatar’s funds for humanitarian reasons, I will get Fatah out of Gaza and will buy quiet Hamas. In the worst scenario, I will only get Fatah out of Gaza, but then Hamas will hit Israel back at some point, the Israeli opposition will blame me for these attacks, especially if they are big, but I will have the opportunity to kick asses in Gaza as I’ve never done before to further make it impossible a two state solution. In any case, any of these 2 alternatives are better than just letting Qatar's money flow into Gaza through sneaky channels, while being accused of crimes against humanity, and/or strengthening the ties between Fatah and Gaza”.
Fourth, clarifying this reasoning is not defending Netanyahu (Israeli opposition could still legitimately blame Netanyahu for his failures or risky game), I’m simply trying to figure out what Netanyahu’s reasoning could look like given his goals and circumstancial options.

Ignored for the childish strawmen you expect me to defend and proving my previous point.

Ignored for the childish strawmen you expect me to defend and proving my previous point. — Benkei

Can you at least explain what strawmen I'm making? I understand a strawmen argument as a fallacious argument in that it targets claims or arguments by somebody that have not been actually made by her. If you are referring to my questions, they are questions not arguments, so I'm not sure why you call them a strawmen. And if you disagree with the framing, you can still explain why and argue against the framing. My questions seem pretty legitimate given your statements [1]. And I may also reformulate them more pertinently once you clarified how I misrepresented your views.
Just accusing me of committing a fallacy while providing no evidence of such a fallacy, that's intellectually dishonest and also coward because it doesn't allow me to better tune my questions.




[1]

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel. — Benkei

The Nazis in this story are the Israelis so Hamas should win. They have racist laws that treat Jews and non-Jews differently because Jews are their version of the ubermensch. They annex land, claiming it as their own just like the Nazis and thereby are effectively destroying the people and cultural of the Palestinians (name me one Arab sea port in Palestine!) if they aren't outright bombing them to smithereens while decrying "Amalek".

Hamas are like the Allies who occasionally commit a war crime but that's all good and excusable because they're fighting for the liberation of the Palestinian people and therefore are the good guys. — Benkei

So from terrorist organization suddenly they change to "puppet authorities"? — ssu

You misunderstand me. I was talking about power relations in the Nazi ghetto versus the Gaza "ghetto." The Nazis oversaw Jewish puppet authorities who could be executed on the spot; Hamas is no Israeli puppet. The ghetto governments were collaborators with Germany, not adversaries of Germany. The Warsaw uprising occurred because the Jews knew they faced immediate deportation and death, not because they saw an opportunity to murder as many left-wing Germans as possible.

In any case, the power dynamic between the two scenarios is not remotely similar.

BTW the pager explosions is quite humiliating for Hezbollah. Wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the Hezbollah member responsible for the acquisition of those 5000 pagers. Another case example how in general Israel is superior to it's foes. — ssu

It was really brilliant, and it mostly only wounded them so it puts a strain on their medical system while taking them out of the fight.

Maybe read and try to understand the context in which those Nazi comparisons were made. Hint: I didn't start WWII comparisons.

↪neomac
Maybe read and try to understand the context in which those Nazi comparisons were made. Hint: I didn't start WWII comparisons. — Benkei

Maybe if you were more articulated in your answers, I wouldn’t need to guess what you actually mean to make it easier for you to accuse me of strawmanning you.
So, you mean that your comparison between Israel and the Nazis was just a way to retort the argument against your recipient who brought that comparison up in the first place, but you do not actually believe that the comparison between Netanyahu’s government and the Nazis is appropriate in a relevant sense? If so, then can you clarify why it’s not, in what relevant sense the comparison is definitely inappropriate and not worth entertaining to deal with Israel?
Besides, my doubts remain, with or without the Nazi comparison. Indeed, if you believe that Israel is a genocidal and apartheid state, illegally occupying and devastating Palestinian territories, killing, starving, cleansing Palestinians and mostly innocent Palestinian people and kids by the thousands, and you have humanitarian concerns for this, then we have precedents of Western military interventions motivated by humanitarian concerns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
If not military intervention, then there is also a case for military aid as in the current war in Ukraine were the West is openly supporting Ukraine with motivations (like fighting against oppression, genocidal or war crimes, for self-determination, international legal orders, humanitarian crisis https://www.unhcr.org/emergencies/ukraine-emergency) very much in line with your humanitarian concerns, or am I misrepresenting your views again? After all you wrote, “it would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel.” [1] then why not advocating for arming Palestinians/Hamas or a Western military intervention in support of Palestinians?
Besides your pre-condition “if it turns out that doesn't work” is rather generic: what would constitute sufficient evidence for your strategy to work to you in relation to the humanitarian damages Israel is inflicting on Palestinians? what is the time frame you have in mind to asses if your chosen political strategy works? Notice also that the two precedents of military intervention/aid were relatively quick to be established, matter of months, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been lasting for decades despite all the diplomatic pressure. And if you think you can wait e.g. for another year, then the humanitarian crisis happening in Palestine is not so urgent to require a stronger political action from you at least for another year (how many thousands of innocent kids dying under a year Israeli bombs do you estimate will occur for another year of conflict?).

So, again (for the forth time):
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?!

Let me know if I’m strawmanning you again.

[1]

It would be more congruent with the espoused ideals of self-determination, UN SC and GA resolutions to arm Palestinians than Israel. But I suspect it would be sufficient to simply stop supporting Israel carte blanche and stopping arms deliveries to Israel by the "international" community (e.g. roughly global North), plus actual diplomatic pressure will force Israel to treat for peace with its enemies. If it turns out that doesn't work, then arming Palestinians is the more ethical choice than arming Israel. — Benkei

Basically, Pedro Sánchez said he promises the full recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state, and he also said that is enough of bloody massacres and this disaster. It is time to have a dialogue between Israel and Palestine with respect and trust between them.

Yes, I know, zero fucks given in the world about what Pedro said today. Abás, you are welcome to my country, but you are knocking on the wrong door, mate. We are not relevant in the Western world. You should ask the UK, Germany, and USA to stop the genocide of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

I am angry because Pedro was talking as if he were the President of the United States or something. Mate, we even owe money to NATO because we are not reaching the minimum percentage of military inversion in our budget. I think Abás came here to lose his time, sadly.

https://www.youtube.com/live/-4xHBR8U6Bc?feature=shared

Spain has good standing with other EU countries, so it's not a waste of time. Having relatively recently managed to free itself from fascism, political engagement and thinking in the Spanish population is both higher and more mature than the complacency seen in most other countries.

WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOU TO ADVOCATE/SUPPORT PALESTINIAN/HAMAS ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST A NAZI GENOCIDAL APARTHEID COLONIALIST ISRAEL THAN IT HASN’T HAPPENED ALREADY ?! — neomac

I wouldn't advocate violent support even though I recognise the Palestinian right to self-defence until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc. are much more logical steps than simply starting to arm the other side.

Having relatively recently managed to free itself from fascism, political engagement and thinking in the Spanish population is both higher and more mature than the complacency seen in most other countries. — Benkei

If only that would be helpful to reduce the unemployment ratio and increase our salaries...

But I get it, one thing is not tied to another. It is fine to support Gaza in everything we could do, but it is important to understand and be aware of our limitations. I just don't want Pedro to promise Abás (and Palestinian people) things and future scenarios that Spain will not probably be able to fulfill.

I wouldn't advocate violent support even though I recognise the Palestinian right to self-defence until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc. are much more logical steps than simply starting to arm the other side. — Benkei

On what grounds wouldn't you advocate violent support "until other methods are exhausted. Stopping support of Israel, diplomatic pressure on it etc."? You think it's more ETHICAL or more EFFECTIVE or both?
Iran is supporting the Palestinian armed resistance so are they more or less ETHICAL/EFFECTIVE in supporting the Palestinian cause than the West to you?
And what is the time frame you have in mind to assess if "other methods are exhausted"? Weeks? Months? Years? What evidence would be relevant for you to assess that other methods are successful? A cease-fire? An acknowledged of two state by Israel?

Besides you believe that Israel (maybe Netanyahu's government more specifically) is a genocidal and apartheid state, illegally occupying and devastating Palestinian territories, killing, starving, cleansing Palestinians and mostly innocent Palestinian people and kids BY THE THOUSANDS, and oppressing Palestinians FOR DECADES, and yet you believe they are NOT LIKE the Nazis in a relevant sense. Why?