Yes, the problems of an occupier. And yes, it is about how to wage a war. For many decades now. — ssu

I asked a while ago if there is someone who has actual military knowledge to analyze the tactics and strategy in Gaza and why various moves are made. I don't buy "it's all vengeance!". I think it is a sort of "all in approach", but not really because that would be completely ignoring humanitarian concerns which is not the case either. Again, I would like to know actual military tactics, not just people's reaction to various things based on their prior framework of the two sides.

We would be closer to a solution if the US would treat as a normal country, an ally, but still as it treats allies like the UK or Canada or Germany... — ssu

Well after total war was waged on Germany, the US treats them pretty well once they dropped the Nazi thing. That took a while though. Granted, the difference is you didn't have Germans constantly taking up the Nazi cause once the leaders were dead or had given up. And another thing is, they eventually did give up. But once that happened, the US allowed Western Germany to vote in their democratic government (but with army bases nearby to deter Eastern Germany). They moved on after years of war. But the US helped with something like a trillion dollars in the Marshall Plan (massive amounts of US aide basically). Without a Marshall Plan, you would not see Western Europe flourish post-WW2 as much as it did. The same with Japan. The defeated Japan was still respected. The Emperor was still able to sit in power.

If you are talking about how the US treats the UK, are you referring to Northern Ireland? I think there is a difference there because Northern Ireland was not trying to actually destroy Britain, but rather have Northern Ireland part of Ireland. A bit different situation.

Fair enough. Sorry if carried away Fukuyama and that he would have a point. — ssu

:up:

The question ought to be more specific as just referring to being a "democracy", what to do we mean? Is that there are elections every once a while? Usually we are OK with just that narrow definition.

One of the difficulties is that in English there seems not to be a term for what in Finnish is called oikeusvaltio or in German Rechtstaat. Simple translation is "justice state" and closest version in English would be a constitutional state. Here the "justice" isn't only that laws are followed, but the laws are also just. A justice state is nearly the opposite of a police state. Putin might demand that laws are followed and will hold the elections every now and then, but that doesn't Putin's Russia at all justice state. And many democracies usually have a constitution like Russia, so the constitutional state can be misleading. — ssu

Yes, that's why I like the term "liberal democracy" as opposed to "illiberal democracy". Just having elections is part of the equation. It is having the (good) trappings of the notion of rights, free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to exercise religion, the ability to have opposition parties, etc. The problem is, you have to have systems in place that don't allow an illiberal group to be voted in and then take away all those systems.

Yes, there's hardly a greater horror then torturing civilians, including children, to death by burying them in rubble or burning them with white phosphorous as per the IDF or butchering them directly as per Hamas. Rather than recognize this horror though, some see it as no more than an opportunity to engage in apologism and as long as the apologists dominate, it will keep happening. — Baden

It’s a weird intractable bear trap in some ways there. It’s clear that Netanyahu contributed to shitty and bad faith leadership, making moves that basically ignored the moderates rather than trying to work with them because he himself is not a moderate and doesn’t even know how that looks apparently.

HOWEVER, if we look at the situation on the ground, Hamas has festered into a it’s latest incarnation of death by barbarism (used to be suicide bombings, then rockets which seemed manageable for Netanyahu, but then the recent events of Isis style barbarism). There’s also the situation of active 240 people still hostage. According to the NYT article that wayfarer quoted, Hamas wanted to continue warfare in the region, similar to this so would repeat the attacks.

These two things are related (long term failure) but they ate not the exact same. It has two different components. The long term failures for attempts at peace are related but not the same as Hamas wanting death and causing immediate chaos. That just becomes about immediate security and regaining hostages if possible. Again, look at my Western Civilization thread. The binary good and bad, black and white, oppressors and oppressed is the fallacy that is continually made and needs to be examined. Israel’s failure with Netanyahu doesn’t negate Hamas having to be degraded and pushed from Gaza. Then the debate becomes about how to wage that war.

So wanting to be a "Western democracy" has to come from inside the country, not pushed through by outside powers. Especially with military force. That is the pinnacle of delusional hubris. And we have witnessed that. — ssu

So again, why are you ignoring my whole post above when I’m saying the exact same thing you are saying here? Here is the post again if you want to try again to read what I actually said instead of cherry picking and then debating a straw man.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851829

'we do no want revenge, we agonize over every decision the results in the loss of life. We love the children of Gaza. We have no choice, we are doing this to save lives.. save the lives of your children, our children, for our future, for our security...." — FreeEmotion

I have heard various versions of this actually, though granted much more can be said on how military tactics are decided. But maybe that’s a security consideration. There are articles you can read on how countries go about waging war in terms of how they advance, what they do before they advance into a conflict zone of a certain type.

You realize that anyone has the right to refuse any offer made to them — FreeEmotion

And then declare war on the people you refused the offer to?

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of a plan to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, and the City of Jerusalem.[29]

The General Assembly resolution on Partition was greeted with overwhelming joy in Jewish communities and widespread outrage in the Arab world. In Palestine, violence erupted almost immediately, feeding into a spiral of reprisals and counter-reprisals. The British refrained from intervening as tensions boiled over into a low-level conflict that quickly escalated into a full-scale civil war.[30][31][32][33][34][35]

From January onwards, operations became increasingly militarised, with the intervention of a number of Arab Liberation Army regiments inside Palestine, each active in a variety of distinct sectors around the different coastal towns. They consolidated their presence in Galilee and Samaria.[36] Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni came from Egypt with several hundred men of the Army of the Holy War. Having recruited a few thousand volunteers, al-Husayni organised the blockade of the 100,000 Jewish residents of Jerusalem.[37] To counter this, the Yishuv authorities tried to supply the city with convoys of up to 100 armoured vehicles, but the operation became more and more impractical as the number of casualties in the relief convoys surged. By March, Al-Hussayni's tactic had paid off. Almost all of Haganah's armoured vehicles had been destroyed, the blockade was in full operation, and hundreds of Haganah members who had tried to bring supplies into the city were killed.[38] The situation for those who dwelt in the Jewish settlements in the highly isolated Negev and north of Galilee was even more critical.

While the Jewish population had received strict orders requiring them to hold their ground everywhere at all costs,[39] the Arab population was more affected by the general conditions of insecurity to which the country was exposed. Up to 100,000 Arabs, from the urban upper and middle classes in Haifa, Jaffa and Jerusalem, or Jewish-dominated areas, evacuated abroad or to Arab centres eastwards.

Wasn't it Leibniz that said in his time that this is the most perfect of Worlds? At least quite aptly Voltaire ridiculed him with Professor Pangloss in Candide. And I guess something has improved since the time of Leibniz.

And, for (the same?) reason as Voltaire mocked Leibniz, nearly everybody (as it's a low hanging fruit) has criticized Fukuyama. And in the end, Fukuyama is really a simple, foolish man: he went all in with the neocons and then later had to refute joining them in a book.. as he somehow didn't understand what the neocons were up to from the start. And that's why he deserves to be called a fool. Because let's face it: the neocons were utterly insane! — ssu

So why didn't you quote one of the first things I wrote?

The 90s was a facade of exuberance. Fukuyama admitted he was wrong. That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. England’s history and Anglican Church (official religion of government) and roots in medieval early Anglo Saxon and Norman kingdoms that developed its unique culture aren’t obfuscated because it’s a liberal democracy that also has taken on enlightened principles. The Netherlands gets to still have a roughly Dutch culture even though it takes on Enlightened principles. Same with Japan and their culture, same with Israel and theirs. — schopenhauer1

I just outright said Fukuyama was wrong and said he admitted he was wrong too. This is a philosophy forum so I get more cred apparently if I throw around philosophers. There was one that came to mind. However this is a strawman you are saying I hold because I mentioned an association of the idea (I didn't endorse his actual ideas or anything resembling neocons, possibly my least favorite political philosophy of recent history):

When the topic here is "Western Civilization", we should discuss when that belief in Western ideas goes off the rocker. Actually Fukuyama and other neocons are a perfect example of this. These idiots really sold this idea that you could create democracies by gunpoint and transform cultures that didn't have the own desire or were not capable to transform after a military defeat (like Germany and Japan).

For the first time, because there was no Soviet Superpower whose reactions would have to be anticipated, since the US-Spanish war United States went to invade countries. And if the neocons would had it, there would have been immediately a lot more invasions. Which actually, many happened after the Arab Spring and the emergence of Al Qaeda part II, ISIS. — ssu

So no, don't try lumping me in there with Bush, Cheney et al because Fukuyama became associated with them.

Rather, my point was that liberal democracies (liberalism in general) is a good thing. I don't think it should be forced onto people at the point of a gun. Rather, I was pointing out that Europe did a lot of carving out of the rest of the world, and is basically drawn as to the territories it is because of them. Even the idea of a nation-state itself is a Western notion. They "let" them self-determine AFTER creating the divisions that they wanted. My point was:

"Well, if you are already Western in the fact that you exist in the entity you are (non-Western country), you mine as well try out liberal democracies too. It seems to be a good thing for humans.. And I mentioned the anglo-saxon-norman (celtic/Roman/Viking) history of England, and the Anglican Church, and the monarchy and all the other cultural trappings because England is an example of a country with a liberal democracy that also keeps its cultural characteristics and history intact. Just as France. Just as the Netherlands. Just as Finland. Just as Japan. Just as Korea. Just as Israel, etc. You don't need to forgo a bunch of your own cultural history or pride or whatnot because you are taking on "Western" political notions of free speech, equality, freedom of thought, freedom to demonstrate, etc. etc. You already use the technology, you like the medicine, the engineering of the Enlightenment of the 1700s and onwards. Well, probably good to embrace that."

Oh and the odd idea that the Soviet Union/Russia were "counterbalancing" American aggression as if they weren't ACTUALLY aggressively trying to convert countries to their point of view, is a bit beyond ironic. You should know that well knowing Finland and its history with Russia.

Where I live, this is exactly the strategy of right-wingers. — baker

Well, being that Trumpism might pretty much take down the worlds oldest surviving liberal democracy, they have their own strategies that look similar.

I think you should watch the video. Notice how Maher brings out the fact that the craziness cuts in both sides (most of those politicians from
Harvard are right wing even though his critique started out criticizing the left wing students and academics).

This kind of stemmed from the thread on Israel/Palestine/Gaza. There are people who don't differentiate between "Palestinians" and "Hamas". Some extremists (on the Left) will even be for Hamas (not just Palestine in general). That is to say they are for a homicidal Jihadist/Isalmist society that would certainly stand for everything that these (extreme leftwing) people would be against if a Western country was for this.

It stems from a weird inverse of morals whereby if a group is perceived to be an underdog they must be morally the right side. As long as they are "fighting" a "hegemon" and who are "occupiers" they are then "justified" is somehow the thinking. This is a tendency that the "Left" takes. It may stem from various Marxist "liberation" ideas (think Che Guevara starting revolutions in Africa against the Western allied regimes). Anyways, I will go further and give you more examples, including the term "Woke", but that is a different contingent of people. And these Hamas-supporters are not just American (you'd probably see less of that in America actually). They are all over. They quickly become muddled in the general protesters in general who might have more nuanced and moderate understanding of the situation.

It goes along with a segment he did the week before:

Nation states? A dumb idea. — Benkei

My point was not whether it was a good idea or not, but it's the reality of the world order post WW2, both for Europe and the former colonies (though being somewhat questioned by Russia at the moment.. pulling Europe back into "history" if you will). Russia represents a sort of "old school" sprawling multi-ethnic empire, run by a core region near Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Arguably the nation-state started with the 100 years war between England and France when the King-dom of Britain really became prominent over the various nobles and lords and their vassal armies. But really got going in the

Peace of Westphalia — Westphalia

in the 1600s, near your region, I believe.

Liberal democracy? Another dumb idea. — Benkei

Oh, now you are denying your own heritage! The Dutch did a lot to contribute to this and enjoy a very libertine society more-or-less (well, at least in Amsterdam). Don't forget, even old New York, used to be New Amsterdam. You can still see remnants of it here:




The Netherlands contributed greatly to the idea of liberal republics. Arguably they were the most tolerant of other religions due to their being dominated by Catholic foreign power under Philip II. Thus, they let in various Jewish groups from Spain and Portugal (hence Spinoza and early Enlightenment free-thinking), and other minorities (the Pilgrims were kicked out of England but taken into Netherlands around 1607-1619. They didn't like the urbanism of Leiden apparently and thus took the trip to Plymouth, Massachusetts to piss off the Natives there with their moralizing and ineptness at living in a harsh cold climate..


I'll respond the rest in a bit..

BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. It's just a repeat of everything Huntington got wrong (and thus philosophically boring as well). — Benkei

Surely this is more Fukuyama inspired End of History stuff. Israel Palestine are still in history. Russia has brought it back in Eastern Europe. The 90s was a facade of exuberance. Fukuyama admitted he was wrong. That doesn’t mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isn’t wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. England’s history and Anglican Church (official religion of government) and roots in medieval early Anglo Saxon and Norman kingdoms that developed its unique culture aren’t obfuscated because it’s a liberal democracy that also has taken on enlightened principles. The Netherlands gets to still have a roughly Dutch culture even though it takes on Enlightened principles. Same with Japan and their culture, same with Israel and theirs.

The Western part is the exported methods of liberal democracies, technology, and scientific method. Leftists want the historically Western nations to abide by Western ideals but then if cultures clash with notions of rights and liberal democracy to give that a pass because of cultural relativism. Therefore human rights to them matter less than respecting cultures. Yet they support the current idea itself of a self-determining NATION STATE. That idea itself, as outlined in the Atlantic Charter is, guess what? WESTERN. You can’t get out of it. Rather, it’s best to acknowledge the End of History is Western and adopt liberal democracy and rights wholesale.

The End of History and the Last Man is a 1992 book of political philosophy by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama which argues that with the ascendancy of Western liberal democracy—which occurred after the Cold War (1945–1991) and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991)—humanity has reached "not just ... the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: That is, the end-point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." — End of History

The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued on 14 August 1941 that set out American and British goals for the world after the end of World War II, months before the US entered the war. The joint statement, later dubbed the Atlantic Charter, outlined the aims of the United States and the United Kingdom for the postwar world as follows: no territorial aggrandizement, no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people (self-determination), restoration of self-government to those deprived of it, reduction of trade restrictions, global co-operation to secure better economic and social conditions for all, freedom from fear and want, freedom of the seas, abandonment of the use of force, and disarmament of aggressor nations. The charter's adherents signed the Declaration by United Nations on 1 January 1942, which was the basis for the modern United Nations. — Atlantic Charter

Isn't it so nice the Western countries allowed their colonies to live within their framework in such a fashion? :lol:. So much confusion around the notion of "self-determination".

Partly. From a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view, we have to look at it like:

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. What will each group do if they get control of the land? Group A will create a society where Muslim men have all the power. Group B will create a much more inclusive society. People will be better off if Group B owns the land. Therefore, group B should get the land. If Group A gets their act together, we can reevaluate their claims to the land. — RogueAI

I'm not so consequentialist per se. I'm not sure what to call it, but I would say "big toe theory". That is to say, everything in the Middle East is basically a fiction in its relative origin. The fights now are created from a world order created during the last few hundred years in Europe (and the US). Israel is part of this (already present fiction, whether there is an Israel or not). If it's all FROM the West anyways, I advocate going FULL BLOWN West. In that regard, all made up "nation-states" should be so tolerant. Just having a democracy itself is taking partly from the West. Having a liberal democracy is preferable as it is just good to have the notion of rights, equality, and protections in a society. However, Israel is not just a country like the US in terms of it is based on a principle. It is also based on a religious/ethnic identity. It has to cut a fine line between maintaining its charter as a Jewish based polity and a liberal democracy. In that regard, contradictions will arise in regards to what if the majority wants to dissolve the Jewish character of the state? This is why Israel needs a functioning Palestine so they can have a roughly equivalent Arab liberal democracy where they can maintain their cultural polity but yet respect rights of the minority and human rights in general.

I think wounds can be kept open much longer now. Record keeping is better. We have old maps. Victory is not as absolute as it used to be, perhaps. The dispossessed can go on social media and go on and on about it, the UN has guys in flak jackets and microphones interviewing them under the noses of the possessors, whereas hundreds of years ago they would have just been locked in the Tower of London and forgotten, or every last one of them massacred. Is that right? Or am I making shit up again? — bert1

For sure. I think modern times has given us ways to be pissed off for a lot longer, history or otherwise. Then again, how many years did France fight England? Hundred years?

I'll readily admit it is very idealistic. But it is not fantastical. History has known individiuals who were able to bridge large gaps between peoples.

But I think you know my views of what the realist/probable outcome is, which is why I believe the idealist option is worth investigating. — Tzeentch

It would be cool if they could have a confederation of sorts at least where social issues are their own polity but economics populations can freely flow between. It is indeed almost intractable because you would then have to maintain strict immigration requirements to maintain the polities religious/ethnic homogeneity or whatnot.

The wound is fresh, — bert1

I just disagree with this. It gets stickier and sticker with the circumstance of the 1948 war. One side accepted, the other outright didn't like the UN resolution. Interesting how if UN comes down on the side of Israel, they were wrong.. but not the opposite. Hmm.. It's almost as if the UN is whatever bias you want it to be.

It's called boycotts, sanctions and divestments. It's not the first time it brought down an apartheid regime. But sure, you can go on pretending it's all too complicated and therefore argue in favour of the status quo and do fuck all when solutions are obvious. — Benkei

Your solution is heads on pikes because there is no compromise. Again, you can be right, on top of a pile of skulls all you want.

Fuck the politics, I would be wanting my children safe from being buried alive or blown to pieces. — unenlightened

For sure. One would hope/think.

But the situation is hopelessly lop-sided. The Palestinians, or even Hamas, are not in a position to say 'Enough! Stop!' because Israel will just carry on colonising anyway. Colonising is an act of aggression, just as much as the rockets. It is the powerful side that must say 'Enough! We won't retaliate." Not doubt Hamas would continue with the rockets but only a Palestinian state can stop that. — bert1

We've already recounted the history numerous times here. First off, you would be against Israel in 1948 as you would in 1967, 1973, 1982, etc. So what would it matter. Just the existence of a state called "Israel" would be wrong so that then becomes a non-starter for any argument it seems.

However, assuming you are for a state called Israel, no doubt Netanyahu and Likud do not represent a fair policy. But let's say that is something I have always maintained (which I have), what is in question in this particular round of arguments is the "right of return". It is examples of these sticking points that make compromise neigh impossible. These are the things the sideliners have to encourage to perhaps "give up" (and grow up) so that people can move forward without the grievance game. As I said, in this case, possession of a "particular' piece of land becomes a fetish. A tool for more violence and no peace rather than a moral point of justice. History and justice obviously doesn't work that way. In some sense it is more Hegelian in that various wrongs become a reality. Was it wrong for Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and the rest to even exist and be carved out of the Ottoman Empire? Well, Britain and France won that war and the Ottomans' didn't put up enough stink against their dissolution. As far as those in charge in the Arab populations, they became various vassal-kings (Faisals and the like) that then were deposed for various Marxist-leaning Arab League guys, etc. etc. It's all a big batch of failures but it is the reality now of the hodgepodge of injustices and contingent happenings that are now the reality. We now call Iraq and Syria and Lebanon a real "entity" even though they are in no way native to the people's of that region. I am trying to broaden the view to some extent to how history works, and it is not in the moral justice way you seem to think.

Sure, but the rape and pillage hasn't stopped yet, it's not in the past. We stopped raping and pillaging the natives when they had nothing left to take. The Palestinians still have some rubble, a couple of sticks and a frying pan, and hope. We can't stop yet. — bert1

You're taking away a point I am not making. Rather, it's the grievance game that has to stop. You are encouraging it rather than thinking of solutions to it.

That's bullshit. What stokes the flames is that there are no consequences for these thieves so they continue to do it. — Benkei

Cool, have fun ruling over your skulls and heads on pikes. Then YOU can be the Lord of the Flies.

Got it now, thanks. We shouldn't give land that isn't our away to anyone, psychopathic colonists or gay-bashers alike. — bert1

Granted, I just think that the grievance game isn't going to help anything and stoking it as a matter of policy is as morally questionable. If a great grandpa Hatfield stole your great grandfather McCoy's olive groves, and then McCoy proceeded to launch generations of deadly gruesome attacks on the Hatfields, the person encourages the McCoys is no moral hero either, even if there was a righteous cause at some point in the past. Native Americans reforming into bandits that rape and pillage Americans because of aggrieved past doesn't start making sense because... grievance.

I fixed it right after. Did you not get the edited version?

The one thing we can all agree on here is we don't want them in our back yard. We're happy enough to tell Israel what they ought to do and not do, while shutting down immigration as fast as we can. — unenlightened

True enough, I mentioned the PLO in Jordan (ended with them being kicked out and the assassination of the Jordanian prime minister), and then a reformation in Lebanon. Seems both countries didn't fair well from various political groups that formed there. Someone mentioned the Palestinians were kicked out of Kuwait for encouraging Saddam's invasion. However, I doubt these types of agitation would happen in a non-middle eastern country...

So the first step towards a solution as I see it is to deal with the refugees that have been stuck in camps their whole lives, by welcoming them into Europe and The US and Canada, and anywhere else with decent civilised peace loving and wealthy populations. That would ease the pressure all round and show a tad of commitment to a peaceful solution. I'm all for finger wagging as a rule, but it just doesn't seem to be working in this case. — unenlightened

Are you aware of the politics surrounding this? Asking genuinely. Is it lack of wanting to move or lack of wanting the immigrants or both?

No, but their land is not ours to give them is it? It's theirs. — bert1

I think his point was at which indignation does one choose focus on?

In a secular state, the land would belong to all citizens, people would be free to move wherever, assuming there is housing available. — Tzeentch

I just don't think under the circumstances of the world order, how these two groups want to be governed (Jewish or Arab Muslim polities), this is feasible. This isn't the United States, they are countries with obvious ethnic/religious differences that would lead things that would start the cycle again but in a civil war fashion. Either way, the reality as it is now wouldn't even get to that solution. In other words, I just see it as a non-solution. If that's the case, let's redraw the whole middle east as a secular United States of the Middle East run in the manner that George Washington and James Madison intended for that region. It can't be any worse than the Sykes-Picot British and French (and European generally) version we have now.

The Israeli army would remain the Israeli army, but would be ran by both Israelis and Palestinians. So theoretically it would double the manpower pool from which the Israeli army can tap.

Further, I think the single greatest contribution to Israeli security would be solving the issue of millions of angry Palestinians that are sitting within its de facto borders. — Tzeentch

Although I think you have good intentions with this type of solution, I just don't see it being a reality unless people start smoking some serious shrooms and question what reality is in general let alone "Palestinian" and "Israeli", "grievance" "land", "right of return", "settlements" and any other conceptual framework that is trapping human beings in this made up social artifice. That is to say, I think it rather fantastical as a solution.

Right of return is the idea that Palestinians who previously lived on specific tracts of land that are now lived in by Israeli Jews have the right to those specific properties back. It's not just about the general ability for them to freely move around the area. — flannel jesus

Yeah I wasn't thinking otherwise, and that is precisely what has to be compromised. Intergenerational grievances have to be given up, just as loony settlers and backers in the Likud on the West Bank have to give up something, etc.

Interesting detail to be aware of is that those Arabs were mostly expelled and the remainder fled. And since we usually don't reward thieves, the Israelis will have to move out AND pay reparations. Since Israelis have such extensive experience in colonising areas, they should easily be able to move to another place within Israel. — Benkei

This is just needlessly stoking flames to live on forever. At some point, give up the grievance game. It's almost as if peace was made by giving up right of return, you would call for more violence which is scarier than anything I've seen thus far in terms of moral reasoning. All of history is a wrong in some way. But certainly continual hatred and death is not a great option if given choices for something else.

If we assume for a moment a new secular state is created, then no one would be forced to move. Everybody could live where they currently do, or move to other places within Israel voluntarily. Of course some sort of reconciliation would have to have taken place.

Are you suggesting paying Palestinians money to leave voluntarily, or letting them settle some new land? — Tzeentch

I'm talking a usual sticking point, the "right of return" from 1948 War. But also, let's say Israel deems that there are parts of the West Bank that are strategically very hard for Israel to maintain security and have to have some Israeli oversight, those kind of things as well. But that's getting to the nitty-gritty.

Yes. Israel was created with the idea of providing Jews with a safe haven. — Tzeentch

Apparently not:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851448

There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea, except for the fact that Britain and France chose to worst possible way to go about it and now we have to deal with the imperfect situation they created. — Tzeentch

Yes.

Lets also acknowledge that Israel is a far cry from the safe haven that it was supposed to be, and unless a different path is chosen this is unlikely to change. — Tzeentch

Certainly.

I'm assuming everybody in this thread agrees that:
1. Apartheid is unacceptable. That means equal rights for Jews and Muslims.
2. Ethnic cleansing / forced displacement is unacceptable.

That means that the demographics as they are now are basically what we have to work with. This means that Israel cannot be a Jewish nation state, since half its population is Muslim.


A two-state solution is, in my opinion, unworkable from literally every perspective. You'd simply end up with two extremely vulnerable states, likely with plenty of animosity and territorial disputes. I would predict within ten or twenty years there'd be a conflict that wipes one or both states off the map. Not to mention the settlers on the West Bank are never going to leave peacefully.


What other options are there? — Tzeentch

So this is where I keep railing against the idea of "I want my OLIVE GROVES". In other words, just as Israeli extremists who want to settle "Samaria and Judea" is wrong, so is this idea that every past event has to be relived and violently opposed by generations that follow. Palestinians have to want to live in peace and probably be okay with some sort of monetary compensation rather than land. Land is such an OVERRATED value. It's a fetish even. Israel needs some land, and Palestinians need some land. It doesn't need to be THAT land.

It's only unrealistic for as long the West thinks an inherently racist basis for a nation is worth supporting. — Benkei

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14754/western-civilization/p1

1. Renounce the idea of turning Israel into a Jewish nation state. — Tzeentch

Ok so that's unrealistic. Israel's whole existence is to have a place in the world where there can't be more pogroms and holocausts (which makes this of course all the more traumatic).

Immediately stop settling the West Bank. — Tzeentch

More reasonable for sure, but that was long term policy, not immediate. And arguably, Hamas doesn't care about this. But as you point out, it does tie in in regards to getting buy in from moderates, so is absolutely necessary for a long-term strategy. Who knows where we would be if there was not a Netanyahu. Agreed there.

3. Give Palestinians equal rights and stop mass human rights abuses in the occupied territories. — Tzeentch

Trickier in Gaza where there is an organization that wants to destroy you but for sure in the West Bank there should be some sort of brokerage with the PA to ensure the PA is trained, secure, and won't turn on the PA itself and become another Hamas. The embargo in Gaza is arguably to not allow weapons and munitions into Gaza (before this war, it did allow various water, food, and electrical supplies). Basically, the "idea" was to make it so that Hamas could not sustain military operations, and the long shot hope that the people would simply get sick of Hamas and put someone else in. That last part is unrealistic for sure though. Also, other countries don't want to take in Palestinians for various historical reasons. Jordan took in Palestinians and then in 1970 the PLO started a coup against the Jordanian government and assassinated the prime minister. They were kicked out and moved to Lebanon. They disrupted the political situation there and formed the Hezbollah and the ongoing wars in the 80s with Israel. So, this is more complicated than just Israel.

Garner help and support from the international community (including Arab states) to integrate Israel and Palestine into a state where Jews and Muslims can live together peacefully. — Tzeentch

Yes, and arguably Saudi Arabia also being included would help with this. Get the "moderate" Arab nations (aka more stable regimes) help out and moderate. Certainly getting Arab support is possible. You need consensus about end goals first. That is the harder part, and certainly a non Netanyahu would help with that as well.

If successful steps are taken towards these goals, start removal of the West Bank barrier and lift the siege/embargo on Gaza. — Tzeentch

Well, if Hamas is completely removed that makes sense. The West Bank wall might be a harder sell for Israelis. All they see is a 90% reduction in suicide bombings and terrorist attacks. Of course all of it takes good will and commitments on both sides.

But if we agree on the fact that these sense organs are not the final perception location in the process, then they have to be the medium passing the sensed contents into the final location i.e. the brain.  Therefore all perceptions are indirect. And we are not even talking about sense-datum at this point. — Corvus

:up: however people will rebut that it is the whole body and not just the brain so it’s direct in that this is how the human brain body processes the world, and you can’t get out of this as if from primary to secondary works of process integration. That’s just my guess.

We see this everywhere, even in 'civilized' countries: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, etc. — Tzeentch

How should they have handled 10-7 as prime minister? Your citizens were raped, you had babies burned, people shot in cars and their bodies paraded around and shot in real time, you had 250 people kidnapped, and you had hundreds (1400+ people) killed in a one day operation. Okay, well, we already know that you failed in terms of intelligence... What would you do? This group is also responsible for helping screw up the Oslo Accords in the 90s with suicide bombers, and has been sending rockets to Israel, trying to provoke war for years. Also, let's factor out prior politics. Let's just say this is the situation you are given. What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys?

What did it do in those 30 years? Did it seek to take away the root causes of extremism in the Middle-East? — Tzeentch

Well, around 1991 it started the Oslo Accords peace process, which failed...

No, to the contrary - the destabilization of the Middle-East runs like a red line through the American 'unipolar moment'.

In fact, the situation in the Middle-East has probably never been worse. — Tzeentch

Again, why does this always go back to the US' fault. Do you not think that Europe gladly wants the US to take on whatever it is, good or bad? Do you know why the Netherlands doesn't have to spend gross amounts of money on its military? The world we live in is US backed, but European created my friend.

Was that double post intentional? You just posted the same post again- the very post I said I did not understand what you were trying to say.

I’m also reminded of this:


Eerily looks like Dick Cheney way before he looked like that :lol:.

By the way, who is in control of your respective countries?

Is it you or some human/animal?

Curious. — FreeEmotion

I honestly can’t figure out what you are saying. I see you quoted me though and it had something to do with the Middle East being a mess from how European colonial powers arbitrarily divided the Middle East, created and propped up rather foreign notions of “nation-states” in a region that it didn’t come from. It being reiterated in Atlantic Charter/Breton-Woods and such, and then how after WW2, was content hiding behind the US and criticizing from the sidelines as if it wasn’t a MASSIVE colonial force that created the countries of the “third world” (and first world ones in non-European lands) in the first place out of shear imperialist ambitions.

You see, you are allowed "self-determination" to make a nation-state the way we have cookie-cutter transplanted it for you is what "self-determination" means. Don't question that, but "fight amongst yourselves for the glory of that which we constructed for you to fight over". That we accept.

And then the people "determining themselves" think they are actually doing so. Every avenue they take is a Western one though, even ones they think are their own. Ah how odd. As I stated in the other thread. Once you go West, you can't go back. It's better to go FULL BLOWN West. Do what the Japanese did, not the Taliban.

Here’s a whirlwind tour of you need it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/850939

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want"). — baker

Indeed. Self-righteousness becomes its own smug example of non-humility. If you are humble, you simply ARE humble, you don't have to say it. It is not a slogan, "WE are the humble ones". That already negates it. But I think you are speaking more about using it as a tool to make sure people are compliant, as in "Shut up and be humble!". It is commanding to be docile and therefore allows people to be controlled more easily. I think that is true, however, the value of humility is infinitely better to get along. For example, in the San Bushmen society, there is an element of downplaying one's kill in the hunt which got meat for the community. Why? Because that person might get a big head and then get ideas that he is better and there goes the social structure. Egalitarian societies die when certain people (families/coalitions) start thinking they deserve more.

My puzzlement goes on, however, partly because I don't recognize the leftists I know, here in the north of England, in the 'leftists' who are being generalized over in this thread.

I'm a Green, and the big 'leftist' issue for me is facing up to global warming, and how we transition to a sustainable economy.

Once you're into that as a major area of policy other problems follow, for an anti-authoritarian leftist of my kind: how to rein in financial capital, which monetizes everything and obscures human and environmental value; how income and wealth is distributed, given existing inequalities and the likelihood that worldwide 'growth' is probably near its end (as opposed to 'development', which is always a must); how people are democratically involved in the whole process.

Europe is largely composed of social democracies, which are moving 'right'wards in some respects at the moment, but from a strong consensual basis, with welfare states, socialised medicine and relatively high taxes, owing little to Marx, especially the Leninist flavour. There are issues on which there is obviously a gulf between 'us' and the USA, the most obvious of which is abortion: apart from Poland and Hungary (and pockets of countries like Northern Ireland in the UK), abortion rights are widely accepted in Europe, and the USA's insistence for many decades on tying international aid to reproductive rights has been a source of disagreement about what 'Western civilization' means.

So these are the leftie issues for me, which no-one in this thread has mentioned.

This word 'woke' has caught on only in quite rightwing circles over here, though maybe that'll change. It seems a rather vague insult, like 'reactionary' used to be among liberal lefties (or indeed 'Fascist', which in my youth was a horrible slur). In the UK for instance the rightwing government have trumpeted freedom of speech, but in the last few weeks have been retreatiing to obvious things like 'Freedom of speech has its limits'; alas the first university free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed, appointed by the Tories, is known for believing that free speech includes being able to speak up for Palestinians. (Also trans rights has been less of a left/right issue here, and so for example I'm a supporter of Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who has been no-platformed for her critique of transgender rights)

My last point: is 'race' a mostly unspoken part of this debate? Bill Maher in the opening monologue said 'White' startlingly often to my ear. Brits don't do that so much any more. In the UK of course the staunchest defenders of Empire, and opponents of immigration by black and brown people, have in the last decade been Conservative black and brown ministers of state, so our debate over here has a different feel, but we too have some sort of reckoning to make with slavery and Empire. But perhaps that is an example of how woke I am, that I think such a reckoning is needed! — mcdoodle

As far as your last question, Maher is uniquely politically "incorrect". He says stuff that is often "off the cuff". Where in polite society, we would never mix "white" with simply "European-descended culturally significant figures", well, he just did there. You must remember, he had a show called "Politically Incorrect". And ironically (though predictably), after 9-11, he made a remark about US policy that got him kicked off ABC (syndicated TV). He reformulated to be on a premium cable show, “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, so is able to have a "freer" platform to talk about controversial ideas. And I must say, the ideas that are debated on that show are infinitely more interesting than soundbites on cable tv shows (including everything from BBC, CNN, whatever).

But perhaps @BC can elucidate more on his type of humor? I would say his brand of incorrectness is just as "offputting" in most polite society, which kind of makes him standout as an outlier. But maybe BC has a different take. He certainly, milks the idea of "old school liberal" and "woke liberal" for all he can to show a division in interests of the left. He often takes the Democrats to task for indulging in "woke liberal" talk to appease a progressive wing, which alienates "meat and potato" folk in the Midwest US, who then find refuge in Trump, who for whatever possible reason, they find more sane.

They really liked to draw those maps, didn't they. And you are correct: they did have moustaches. Fine moustaches.

(Mr Sykes and Mr Picot) — ssu

:rofl:

Man is it easy to hide under the US, militarily, and historically, huh? Now you can sit back and be back seat drivers.. critics on the sidelines AS IF you had nothing to do with it.

...which is the delusional raving of lunatics, to put it mildly. But these kinds of delusions fit perfectly the minds of religious zealots like the muslim extremists. They live in their fantasy World where the true Caliphate of the Ummah is just around the corner and they are the glorious few of the vanguard of it. Or perhaps in the case of Hamas, they are just the glorious few martyrs who will cause the destruction of Israel. And Palestinians that now get killed can thank them for rising to martyrdom going straight to heaven.

But then there is reality. — ssu

Ok so we can all agree every side has a weird fetish with apocalypticism (or at least some fetish with ancient glories). Perhaps we can put extremist right wing Israelis (even Likud) under this, along with Evangelicals and the extremist Islam. Each one thinks something about that land and its importance regarding the end of the world. Others like Netanyahu are just straight up opportunists, using these notions for power.

The nitty-gritty is tactics, policy, etc. of a more liberal government (Labor Party or something like it?). What should their tactic be when opposing forces of Islamic Jihad (that is Hamas Hezbollah Iran, and the like)?

Let's remember that Sykes-Picot, just like nearly all of the imperialist border drawing competitions were drawn to please first and foremost the parties that drew the lines on the map. And some effort was also drawn with the old idea of divide et impera. It's similar to the Durand Line, which separates one people to be living in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has caused problems even to this day.

Under no circumstances have the Europeans thought of when drawing the borders that "lets make large nation states that unify people". The Kurds are a prime example of this. — ssu

Why does it seem like Britain, France, and Western Europe etc downplay their hand in this and colonialism in general and just are content putting the onus on the US and Israel for problems they generally caused in their imperialism? I don’t see much ownership here.

Where are the mustache men with their tea and maps?
For some reason, I'm reminded of this :lol:

Before I respond, how about the post before about Sykes-Picot, it’s goals, it’s failure, etc.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851248