History should inform our decisions, not put them in a straightjacket. — Echarmion

Again, this goes both ways.. The victors can make whatever positive narrative they want for themselves. Who is going to say otherwise? Multiculturalism to a Native Americans just means.. "Oh cool, I see you there.. but you're not getting your shit back". And of course, any animus to the point of war is long gone.. So yeah... It's easy to learn when you did the deed already. Study, analyze, do whatever you'd like.

I honestly don't give a shit. I was arguing that ethnic histories do matter. I think I made my point. Look I agree with you that inclusivity is the way to go, but I will not agree with you that this inclusivity is not based on a lot of getting rid of other cultures. So yeah, I'm with you to an extent. Let's move towards United Federation of Planets and Star Trek.

I don't want individuals to see history as an "us" and "them" thing based on race or ethnicity, it's a simple idea. I want countries and cultures to be ethnically and racially inclusive. Do you have any opposition to this idea which isn't just recounting how racism and tribalism have existed for centuries? — Judaka

When you wipe out all the enemies and let the remainders in under the idea of equality... sure makes all the sense in the world.

The timeframe of centuries is incorrect, the West has gone from the worst subscribers to ethnic and racial histories to being, at least, appalled by their racist and tribalistic history. — Judaka

Again, why not a tribal chieftain government ruling Australia.. at least half and half?

Can you phrase this in a way that isn't completely moronic? — Judaka

Why would that be moronic? It's truly being inclusive.

I said Australian culture is ethnically inclusive, Australian history can be identified with by Australians of any ethnicity and you started talking about our history as a colony. — Judaka

Being ethnically inclusive is not power sharing. Why not let the remaining tribal chiefs of Aborigine run the government? The ones that are left. And the government will run in a style amenable to Aboriginal protocol.. Not British-style parliament.

After all the butchering of WWI and WWII, and the nuclear threat of the Cold War (which, by the way, has only lessened; it did not disappear) the major economies of the globe have been intentional about keeping a lid on conflict. We should be grateful that a lid is being kept on the kettle, but it isn't because of the arc of justice that this is so. It's caution about unleashing highly disruptive wars. "They" have calculated that war, at this point, would probably not be worth it. (Talking big wars, not little ones.).

Ethnicity and culture are basic building blocks of community. We are not one big Heinz 57 multiculti puree. The impression that we are (a puree) is an elite creation to help suppress inconvenient friction. That will work until material shortages arise (not enough food, water, energy, etc.). Then "WE" will become much more important than "YOU" and business will proceed in the usual and customary warlike way. — Bitter Crank

All good points.. This stemmed out of Judaka claiming thus:

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

It's basically surrounding ethnic histories being "barely talked about" as if the West is neutered from ethnic history. I gave examples of exactly how colonization is such a history itself and then buttressed it with the idea that if it feels like Pax (fill in the blank), where minorities are allowed to participate in various nations who basically started in Europe, that didn't just get that way by accident.

Ethnicities are socially constructed though. It sounds like you're arguing some kind of "ethnic essentialism" where the world can only ever consist of ethnic identity groups "fighting". — Echarmion

Arguing that much of history is ethno-history and that the West is not separate from it.. Doesn't mean it can't change over time. But look how it does so, mainly (if it does). It's out of an idea of Pax (fill in the blank). How does that Pax happen though?

I'm against people like bitconnect saying that Jews today have a right to land because Jews inhabited the land thousands of years ago. I'm against talking about people talking about their ethnic group as an actor in history that they identify with. I'm against people talking about ethnic groups as "we" and others as "them". — Judaka

Cool, but that's not the world we live in.. whether it's Australia or Israel. I'm sorry, it's just not. The closest thing to what you're saying is a sort of Marxist remaking of everything.. But ya know that ends up with dictatorships which start telling people who they must identify as, etc. My contention is right now if the Aborigines somehow had some weird quasi war all of a sudden, you might be talking differently. Let's say reparations and integration wasn't what they wanted. rather they want the damn land back. But conveniently, that's not the case for Australia.. Phew. You can say Pax humanity.. but my point was Pax humanity is usually at the end of empires controlling everything and settling everyone down to go along with the arrangement... Integration to some point, but mainly just trade is good enough and not being a nuisance. Europe is fine with the arrangement for now too. They have the US backing the world military basically so that they can fund more social programs and historical sites, and rail against the US every once in a while when they blunder (which is often). But what makes Britain, Britain? No one is contending for it and so it's legit. What makes France France? No one is contending for it, so it's legit. At what point were these countries legitimate? After WWI? After WWII? When Woodrow Wilson proposed the League of Nations? The United Nations? Bretton-Woods? UN? 1600? When there was no conflict? Why shouldn't France be English and English be French? Ethnic history doesn't matter right? I mean Napoleon thought so. The English were "gentlemanly' only disrupted other regions outside of Europe for their expansion. If they fought France, it was usually in proxi-wars in colonies or the peoples originally in those colonies. Unlike France and Germany and to some extent Russia who actually took over major parts of Europe.

What is an "ethnic history"? — Judaka

This started from here:

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

So you brought it up first. You made it seem that the West is somehow separated from ethnic histories..

I'm assuming by ethnic we mean a common definition or similar:
From Google search on ethnicity: the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.
From Wikipedia: An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups such as a common set of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion or social treatment within their residing area.[1][2][3] Ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from, but related to the concept of races.

So the history of these various groups, how they migrated, built their cultures, interacted with other cultures, etc.

What "nasty" things did I do? Are you not referring to crimes inherited by my ethnicity? You talk in such ways often, it is clear you are not talking about my citizenship. — Judaka

Your way of life relies on it. You personally didn't. It's not even a matter of shedding the past. It's simply part of the history of how we got where we are.

If Australians are practising ethnic histories then we can't condemn others for doing it, when they stop they can't condemn others because it's just too "convenient". Knowing that every large nation has a history of using ethnic histories, are you just suggesting that nobody can condemn it? I really don't understand your angle, maybe there isn't one and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. — Judaka

Yes I'm saying it's a great "just so" story. It's comfortable and easy as the dirty stuff already happened. I'm not saying you're responsible, just that you can never disconnect from the "benefits" to the ongoing generations. I'm also saying that just because a society allows a multi-ethnic state, doesn't mean that it is not an ethnic history. Rome took over regions, and only late in the empire, let them become citizens.. But of course that was because most of those regions by this time were not considered enemies to keep subjegated.. They accepted the Romanization. By that time, it was a matter of course of Rome. It was still an ethnic group taking over everyone else. One can say the same thing about the Pax Mongolia of Ghengis Khan's descendants.

I've explicitly acknowledged it multiple times. — Judaka

Fair enough.

When does the West get to shed its skin of its past mistakes? — Judaka

I can argue that it's not even an answerable question. The ways of life are already long gone. It's not a matter of shedding skin.

Why do the people born today bear the sins of crimes committed long before they were born? — Judaka

The point was that ethnic conflict was part of Western history. I'm not taking the bait on these red herrings. I never said this is the case.

I claim that belief in ethnic histories helps to inspire hate, and here you are, holding ethnicities accountable for crimes based on group membership, justifying tribalistic and racist views. Make no mistake, it is possible to view the world through the lens of ethnicity and race, as has been done in the past, whether by the West or others. That's not the question here, it's about whether it's unethical to do it and whether it should go away, as you put it. — Judaka

What does "go away" mean though? Default to.. What? I mean I get it.. Universal Peoplehood of Earth. But what are you trying to say, that some Platonic form of what is universal peoplehood will bestow humanity? I mean, "progress" could just be one culturo-ethnic region dominating the point where nothing else remains.. That too is Universal Peoplehood of Earth. That seems to be your point. We are getting there.. End of History.. Francis Fukayama and all that.

I don't support embracing Australia's racist history and making it an important part of how we see ourselves going forward. — Judaka

Of course not.. It's easy to say when you're already in the green zone, buddy. How convenient. You can't go back in time, no.. But to proclaim "But we eximplify blah blah because NOW there is no conflict".. Not sure I buy it.

Should you choose to view contemporary Australians as just the latest line in a continuous white British-European history then you can spin this objective into something insidious. It is a ridiculous way of seeing things, unpragmatic and foolish, just like the practice of using ethnic and racial histories in general. — Judaka

Wait, are you denying that British-European empires in the course of history did basically take control of Australia?

I would also add: Israel, having the benefit of history, may be hoping that the Palestinians will eventually just "accept" the way things are. But the Palestinians likewise have the benefit of history and are probably hell-bent on making sure that doesn't happen. — James Riley

This I can agree with. Unfortunate situation.

Out where I'm at, Spanish, Mexican and Native American culture and blood are integrated into much of American culture and blood, just as western-European blood and culture is into them. — James Riley

Hell, people in Australia play digeridoos.. People in Rome also intermingled and took on other culture's gods.. Isis and Dionysus.. But you better not fuckn rebel and reclaim your land/power, gods help you!!

I heard one time that the Christmas Tree and some dates were just Rome bending to the locals up north, and here we are, thinking Jesus was born on December 25th. So it's not an either/or situation. — James Riley

True, December 25th itself was to replace the debaucherous holiday of Saturnalia, which actually lasted a week (and is a much better holiday).

Again, ethnicity is a relatively fluid thing. Similar to the Australia and Rome thing..it's more about a "backbone" that others can marry into, bring their own elements, etc. But the dominant ideas, cultural practices, and worldviews persist from that backbone.

The rest is just that Real Politick I was talking about, especially this:

after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are.
— schopenhauer1 — James Riley

Yes, but do you get the point of how the West is also part of ethnic history? Australia is no an exmplar of non-ethnic history, for example, as Judaka contends. And he will point to the idea that they let in various nationalities and such.. That doesn't exempt them from being ethnically based (on a British system and history/backbone) and even pushing out other ethnicities to do so (the Aborigines). Now, this isn't an Israeli/Palestinian point, but just more evidence that Western nations are ethnic identities fighting other ethnic identities. I further don't buy that British are a "nation" and not an "ethnicity".. It has a shared culture, history, (somewhat of) ancestry, etc. It is butting up against other ethnicities (other people in places they are sending their people to). And further, back to Rome.. yes they let in others, that doesn't make it not based on an original ethnic system that others can share in.

I had originally done just that, and just did it again. I don't have an argument with any or it, from you or Judaka. Had I an issue, I would have argued it. My only issue was point 3 and what I perceived to be my rephrasing of it, which you objected to. — James Riley

Then there's no issue. The main point was me trying to point out that "the West" is basically an ethnic history as well. There is no The West and "ethnic history". He used Australia as a bastion of universal humanity.. But it is first and foremost originally a colony of Britain and all the habits, behaviors, mores, and worldviews come from being this. I mean, yeah the Romans eventually also accepted peoples into their empires hundreds of years after they conquered them and people just "accepted" the way things are.

We must be talking past each other. I fail to see how the distinction between an ethnicity or nation with a state is a relevant difference from those without a state. Being a state, with or without a monolithic ethnicity or nation vs simply being a stateless nation or ethnicity makes not difference in my mind with respect to the analysis I provided. The ethical/moral implications of action or failure to act are the same. — James Riley

Yes we are talking past each other. First read the back and forth in the OP, and if you can, rephrase in your mind what you think the main contention is. Again, not really to do with violence in the Israeli/Palestinian thing.. In fact I should have stricken that third point because of this kind of confusion. However, I will keep it as I think it still informs the case and we are already discussing it.

My response goes to why that is not funny or odd. — James Riley

Right, nations with a state.. not nations being violent, that's all.

I'm not arguing with that. An ethnicity could be war-like, slave-owning, clitoris-cutting, pillaging, burning and raping. Or it could be all touchy-feely, lovey-dovey, kumbaya. I guess, outside of my response to what I mistakenly thought you were saying, what's the point here? — James Riley

That Western history is no different than other "ethnic" history. It IS "ethnic" history. And we can argue all day on ethnic vs. national, if you want. When one culture is definitely "different" than another we can talk about ethnic differences for sure.. We can rename it "national policy" if you want. Doing that would be very ethno-centric though :D.

If it wasn't you, I apologize. I must have conflated this thread with the Israel thread and other threads where some wag kept harping on the the idea I laid out, above. Something like "it was okay then, but now, all of a sudden, it's a no-go." I took my stated implication from that. Again, if it wasn't you, my bust. — James Riley

Right, this thread. Stick to it for now. Start another thread on that subject if you want to broaden it to that.

What I'm gleaning, though not said so openly and boldly, is this: "You, west, in your hypocrisy, and by your unclean hands and history, must now take a seat, and quit pretending to counsel up-and-comers like Israel, for doing exactly the same thing you did to become who you are today. You have no moral authority to any high ground; so stop with the self-righteous, sanctimonious 'human rights' shit. I don't want to hear it." — James Riley

NO, not really. Honestly, I don't have a horse in this race. I think creating new people is itself unethical to that new person who was created, and am used to being completely dismissed and criticized for that. I'll take a possibly unpopular side of an argument, cause I do think there is room for it.

My contention was with Judaka's idea that ethnic histories should not matter anymore. Not on whether Israel's violence is justified. It's a bit of a dick move to accuse me of that. For now, if you can, please get off the high horse. Rather, my point is simply that here is an example of an ethno-religion that indeed can be justified similarly to other ethno-bodies to have ties to real estate, and even have a pretty solid history to back it up. One of the oldest links in recorded history actually. In fact, their link to that land is older than Germanic peoples incursions into what is now Germany and the Franks moving into Celtic Gaul or the angles invaded Romano-Celtic Britain. In other words, they aren't blindly just plunking down on a map and selecting a random region. It does have significant historical ties to this ethno-cultural-religious group. This does not justify any killing of removal of other peoples.. So don't even go there with this. This came out of specifically a conversation with Judaka about ethnic groups in general, not on any particular justification for violence. So let's not steer the conversation into round 2 of the other thread where the goal posts kept moving from a specific incident to cyclical violence to everything related to the topic. Also, let's be clear, I would be more than happy if both sides hugged it out and became one nation with no particular ethnic group being the dominant, and having shared power. If that happens, the better. However, since that seems unlikely, I still think Israel is justified as an ethnically-characterized state with its own cultures and customs (similar to Britain, France, etc. having their own culture).

The sincere critic should come to the west and talk of reparations, contrition whatever. Work to heal the wrongs they have wrought. But one dishonors and disgraces the involuntary price that was paid by victims when telling the changed-heart it can no longer speak, or hold a position on the contemporary wrongs of another. That's not only BS, it's illogical. Two wrongs don't make a right. And a second wrong can be prevented or, at least, objected to, no matter the evils of the past. — James Riley

Okay, so one of my points was kind of nuanced, but what I was saying is that what is "The West" is also ethnocentric in many ways. Various nationalities vying for power, and exporting their culture and way of life. Taking the US as an example.. First it was an import from Europe, and then it was simply an import from East to West. If it wasn't ethno-centric, then how come the institutions of the Native Americans are pretty much reservation life? I mean, ethnicity is more than purely biology.. It's a culture, habits, behaviors, and a way of life.

I like the idea of Real Politick, but it has to be tempered with respect for human rights. So, the best avenue maybe an international (interethnic, intercultural) form of tribal ostracization. Cancel culture or consequences, if you will. Thus, we don't force anyone to stop anything or start anything. We just turn our back on and refuse to deal with anyone who is engaged in activities we find inimical to our sense of morality. They can keep it up, but not with our help. Why we even deal with Monarchs, like the House of Saud, or religious states, like Israel, or communists, like China, or strongmen like Putin, I don't know. It's that Real Politick thing, which is really just greed.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. I don't have much of a dog in this fight. — James Riley

So how did the "West' play out in Europe prior to WWII? Now let's look at the colonies.. How did the "West" play out in North/South America, Pacifica, Africa, and parts of Asia? I believe that was outright exportation of one's "ethnic" culture to other areas. English, concepts of property, of religion, or work, of ways of life, of law, etc. etc. etc.

Life in the Northeast culture area was already fraught with conflict—the Iroquoian groups tended to be rather aggressive and warlike, and bands and villages outside of their allied confederacies were never safe from their raids—and it grew more complicated when European colonizers arrived. Colonial wars repeatedly forced the region’s natives to take sides, pitting the Iroquois groups against their Algonquian neighbors. Meanwhile, as white settlement pressed westward, it eventually displaced both sets of Indigenous people from their lands. — History Channel Website

The only complexity I see for this topic is that certain cultures seem to rely on ethnic ties for their continued existence. If Aboriginal culture did not pass on to those of Aboriginal descent, I think its chances for survival, in the long run, would be significantly lower. However, to me, this just means that adaptation is needed, I don't think ethnic exclusive histories or cultures can be considered ethical. — Judaka

But I can say this is just the victory cry of the "winners". When your way of life won, and you did all the nasty things to get your way, you can start being "inclusive" and hand-wringing about your misdeeds after-the-fact. And then, in ultimate irony start being the social justice warriors on behalf of everyone else because you "learned your lesson". What you are failing to see is that perhaps the West IS an ethnic history of sorts. Since the 1400s, it can never NOT be tied to ethnic ties to their colonies. You could perhaps have had a point if the Enlightenment was self-contained in Europe and it became a melting pot of absolutely no ethno-nationalist history, but it didn't and just because WWII was so devastating, doesn't erase that it never really did. Europe and its colonies are not exempt from ethnic anything. They are not "above it" now like gods looking down on those poor ethnic people fighting each other because ya know WWII and all.

The West learned its lesson, ethnic histories are barely talked about, the culture is inclusive for all and while it's not perfect, it's getting better. The West is just exporting the way they criticise their own culture to others and I support that. How many more times do we need to see history repeat itself before we're allowed to tell others to stay away from this dangerous thinking? — Judaka

I largely agree with you but to take the devil's advocate, wouldn't it just be the height of colonial attitude to not only conquer and disintegrate other cultures, but to then deny they ever mattered? You mentioned Australia.. That history goes back to Britain, not France, and unfortunately, not the Aborigines. Rather, it is very much an arm from colonial British times. The language we are communicating now is in English. That is not by accident. That is not the "universal" lingua franca. French still speak French. Germans still speak German.. The fact that English is a preferred language of international communication is more about the history of colonialism and later the dominance of the US after WWII. It certainly isn't because it's just part of the universal "West".

Yes, no one can be glad to be born either. There was never a you that was not going to be born. There was never a you to opine not being born.

Those who consider themselves powerless victims are often the most vicious and the least inclined to accept responsibility. If you don't believe me consider look into the story of Chaim Rumkowski who led the Lodz ghetto, and there were other Jewish community leaders like that. — BitconnectCarlos

Isn't that Hannah Arendt's main argument? "Just doing my job" should not be an excuse. Of course, the people who end up in those kind of positions are selected (or rather "naturally selected) because of their ability to follow orders.

They create pressure, fear, anxiety, psychological consequences. — BitconnectCarlos

You're making @Andrew4Handel's case :lol:

You don’t explain how I’m doing it, so I’m gonna assume you just have no good response to my point. Dismissing out of hand doesn’t mean it’s not correct. You have moved the goalposts. Granted so do a bunch of others here.

Just repeating because you are doing again what I was noticing here:

The arguments keep switching about the conflict in general (reclaiming land for both sides) and this specific round killing. If it’s just this specific round of killing, then the argument should be “What SHOULD a country do in response to THIS SPECIFIC instance of rocket attacks”. Things like go to the UN, plea with the Palestinians to stop, wait for rockets to stop and do an investigation of the perpetrators after the fact. Are these feasible? Etc. but see people have it both ways waffling between this SPECIFIC incidence of response to rockets/violence and the broader conflict. — schopenhauer1

@Baden@fdrake@ManuelaGer@ssu
The arguments keep switching about the conflict in general (reclaiming land for both sides) and this specific round killing. If it’s just this specific round of killing, then the argument should be “What SHOULD a country do in response to THIS SPECIFIC instance of rocket attacks”. Things like go to the UN, plea with the Palestinians to stop, wait for rockets to stop and do an investigation of the perpetrators after the fact. Are these feasible? Etc. but see people have it both ways waffling between this SPECIFIC incidence of response to rockets/violence and the broader conflict.

But it’s the heart of the debate here. Is murderous killing wrong in the name of reclaiming land? No. Argument over.

So this threads OP already phrased it in a biased way to always make one side the unethical. If we are using parity here, then the OP should have said something like “Are both the Israelis and Palestinians killing innocent civilians wrong?” But it only mentions one side. This is saying implicitly that only one side should be held to a higher standard. This then goes back to weather any side should be doing these killings. The answer is no of course but it becomes about ending cyclical violence and not about one side being held to a different standard. Either murderous killing is wrong or it’s not. And if it’s not then the OP should have been phrased to note weather murder is ok in the name of reclaiming land.

And it wouldn't mitigate the atrocious moral wrong of this to examine how many children Israelis had. This is what makes you a nutter or a troll. — Baden

Is this topic just narrowly focusing on this particular incident or can the conflict throughout its many years and manifestations be brought to bear on the current situation? I think you at least have to give @Andrew4Handel leeway there as this conflict has been going on for practically a century, and the current form at least since 1967.

@ssu@BitconnectCarlos@Manuel
I agree about the West Bank, if the two state solution is the goal. I do remember a ton of bombings on Palestinian side and assassination of Rabin on the Israeli side the closer the two sides got to a real agreement. I remember this. Do you? It makes me think though, do agreements matter? You would have to admit that the Pals under the PLO would have to work either on their own or closely with the IDF to keep security. If they don’t, then Israel got nothing and no real progress happened. Essentially, when or if both sides get to a final phase (as has happened), they can’t keep demanding more and more. There has to be a point where you give up something to get something. That also means the leaders in good faith controlling their people or work to bring their own people to accountability. It also means the moderates can’t keep allowing tacit support for extremes during and after the process.

Actually I think I'm thinking of this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5xt-E5_wI&t=7631s

It really doesn't. Israel simply needs to fuck right back off into its own borders and rewrite its constitution so it stops being a Jewish supremacist state, incompatible with any minimally abiding democracy. Which would mean dismantling its apartheid apparatus too. None of which requires violence. The US could also stop sending $3b a year in terrorism support funding to Israel, which would go a long way too. — StreetlightX

The best conversations I have seen recently on this topic on the systemic problems are these conversations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6E9h_MVHc

How did Europeans stop being bellicose at each other? How doesn't Elsas-Lothringen be anymore the hot issue between France and Germany? Where did the nationalistic fervour go?

The answer is obvious: Because millions have died in two World Wars. After two World Wars enough Europeans have died and enough Europeans have thought that killing has to stop. In the Middle East, the death toll has been far lower. Palestinian deaths have not been genocidal. In the 1948 war the estimates are between 3 000 to 13 000 dead. In the first and second Intifada about 7 000 were killed and in later conflicts the numbers seem to be below 10 000. In 73 years Israel has lost in conflicts something like 23 000 soldiers and civilians dead. That is less that my country (which is roughly the same size in population to Israel) lost in 105 days when it fought the Winter War. With our Continuation War the death toll was far more deadly (over 60 000). In the Yugoslav Civil Wars the death toll was 130 000 to 140 000. Somehow nobody isn't wanting a rematch there, so I guess well over hundred thousand dying does silence the warmongers and those who demand "justice" and think they have the "moral right" for the land. In Palestine, this hasn't happened. Who controls the Temple Mount is extremely important for many. And it will be so in the future too. — ssu

Excellent question and good answers. I liked how you put this in historical perspective of what it took for people to stop fighting in previous circumstances. Why should this be different?

It is sad to think that it takes so much violence to get to a resolution for both sides.

Both sides haven’t been angels in this conflict. Either side is equally bad at compromising. Violence in the form of security. Violence in the form of freedom protection. Still violence. Both reject each other’s historical narratives in relation to the land.

@Manuel Metaphorically, this is Hamas and Netanyahu. Who made who? Who cares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1mo79ZBi4

Hamas could not shoot and just be humiliated by Israel as they steal more land and kill more innocent people. — Manuel

So now you're ignoring how Netanyahu got into power. It's the same thing on the other side.

Where I think you are mistaken is that you seem to think Gazans have a lot of options. They don't. — Manuel

Well all agreed, moderates have to take control rather than knee-jerk selecting the protector/agent of wrath as your preferred response. It is not the ONLY response. Agency.. It is not a rule that X causes Y. Also don't start saying "human nature". It takes imagination and courage on both sides. That's where this discussion should be headed. The victim/blame thing just leads to more cycles of violence and extremes. Violence begets more violence begets more violence begets more violence. Repeat.

In a certain sense this is correct. It's correct that Israel helped create Hamas to weaken the PLO, which by the time Hamas branched out into a political entity, the PLO was actually making real strides towards a two state solution, circa 2000 ish.

And of course Hamas won in part because they were speaking about taking action against Israel, after much humiliation and land theft. By now, for Israel, Hamas is a gift. — Manuel

Again, all collective, no agency.. Did you see my last part?

Short of Israel removing the blockade and settlements, Hamas will be around, because what else can they do? They have no autonomy in Gaza, despite Israel's rhetoric. — Manuel

I do remember in the 90s during Oslo and a little beyond for about a decade, all you saw was car bombings on the news. Before Sharon/Netanyahu, it seemed like Pals were never going to be satisfied with compromise. Netanyahu has changed the dynamics because now he is the one who goes on the offensive, but if you are going to be collectivist on the Hamas side, then you at least have to be consistently collective on the Israeli side, as far as "pushing" people to go aggressive. What puts Hamas in power, also puts Netanyahu in power. Hence they should love each other.

In the respect in which you are wrong is that, again, the people in Gaza don't really have an option. Well, they could just wave at the sky with peace symbols as they're bombed. — Manuel

They aren't bombed unless there are rocket attacks against Israel, so would you care to change that as peace symbols when not in (yet another) bombing cycle?

I just see you ignored the free agency vs. collectivist part of my last post. Think about it for a minute.

@Manuel@ssu@Benkei@BitconnectCarlos

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing.

It's a manipulation at the top, but a lack of imagination at the bottom as well.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). @Andrew4Handel was at least trying to bring this point up with the story of the Arab woman and the transplant. It gives her agency in her empathy.