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. — schopenhauer1

100%. We must reject this type of error/framing of the conflict.

The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. — Xtrix

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. Was FDR a war criminal for bombing Germany and Japan and killing innocents? Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, while Hamas indiscriminately fires at residential areas. How do you not see the difference here? Hamas will force people to stay in places that are going to bombed.

Israel takes 3 steps before it bombs a place:
1) Phone calls.
2) Drops leaflets
3) Will drop a fake bomb called a 'shaker' that makes noise.

I deny war crimes. They have footage of Israelis telling Palestinians that their place is going to be bombed and the Palestinians deciding (or being forced) to stay regardless. Any nation has the fundamental right to defend itself from attacks and to target those who have been targeting it.

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq. — Xtrix

Even if I were to agree with your view, it would imply that, e.g. the Nazi party and all of their crimes were the fault of the allies after WWI because the treaty of versailles was harsh and cruel towards Germany. This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. Even if you do this are Israel's actions initially uncaused? Look into how Israel gained control of Gaza and the WB.

Aggressors are those who usually take territories.

I don't put so much emphasis on the moral rectitude or the moral justifications for wars. Those typically are just propaganda. And many warmongers talk about justice and to correct the wrongs of the past. The debate about if "a nation is morally just to take military action" is just one question. What kind of military strategy and tactics it uses is another topic, and so is what it's end objectives with the action are. All those are three different questions and even if to opt for a military solution can be understandable/acceptable, the strategy and tactics or the objectives can be quite unacceptable.

In fact, when the Arab neighbors attack the young state of Israel, nobody of them was at all interested in creating an independent Palestine, but to take as much of the former British mandate for themselves as possible. This lead to the fact that they were highly uncoordinated. Jordan annexed the West Bank and even if the annexation was granted by the UK, USA and Iraq, the Arab League for example only accepted that Jordan could annex the territory "until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants." Then of course this was annexed later by Israel in the Six Day war. — ssu

If I were to take a step back and view Israel as just another state I could say that Israel is using Gaza and the WB as a bargaining chips. It has shown a willingness to make concessions: It has withdrawn from Gaza and about 40% of the WB and over the other 60% it claims to just govern Israelis and not Palestinians. It has not annexed either of these territories. It continues the blockade with Gaza along with Egypt because of the fear of allowing Hamas unrestricted access to weapons, but Israel doesn't have settlements or troops there. I have no idea who has a rightful claim over the WB though - Jordan? Boundaries shift so often in the middle east that it's hard to make these kind of strong claim over who deserves what. Arab and Jewish communities have been living together for thousands of years in the WB.

I don't understand why so many westerners care so much about Israel and seemingly hold it to the highest moral benchmark. The US took land from Spain and Mexico through warfare, how often do you hear calls to return that land? It's really difficult for me even as someone who grew up in this culture to say who rightfully owns what in the middle east just given its history.

Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire. — Xtrix

Agreed. I'm against any further aggression from here as long as Hamas stops as well.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too. — Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? If there's a democratic way to get Bibi out I'd be for it assuming we could replace him with someone a little more moderate.

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here. — Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. And the PA who line their pockets. The Arab world is responsible as well; in 1948 when 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries Israel allowed them in. None of the Arab countries have helped their fellow Arabs who fled or were expelled. What do you think happens to UN or humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian people? It goes to Hamas. Hamas embezzles these funds. What about infrastructure projects? Hamas has done plenty of those - underground tunnels which are used to store and transport weapons. Not much else.

If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. — Xtrix

I've turned pessimistic towards the current Israeli government at this point after further research. I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. I'm sure Israel could help - and it does help - it's just no easy task but I appreciate the optimism.

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes. — Benkei

First sentence - Yes, Israel is extremely important to the Jewish people and the country will defend itself to its last breath.

Second sentence - I agree as well and I don't deny Israeli crimes, although I think we may disagree on the scope of these crimes. Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who writes on this subject who has never shied away from the more brutal details of the wars. We can talk about war crimes on both sides, but rehashing this constantly isn't going to lead us anywhere good in the peace process. We should be forward-looking.

Third sentence - I deny that Israeli is an apartheid state. Israel in the past has definitely been a victim that has faced annihilation on several occasions and that continues to influence the Israeli mindset, as it should (seriously, if your people were almost annihilated on several occasions in the past 80 years would that not change you?) Additionally, Israeli citizens are frequently killed which is considered by Jews everywhere as Israel being attacked. So, Israeli citizen killed = Israel victimized. You are not in a position to tell the Israelis that their suffering is very small/negligible or that when a crazed Hamas killer runs through the streets stabbing people that it's "their fault" for "driving him to this." And then what's even more insane is that there are people who refuse to condemn that *cough 180proof* because how dare you criticize a victim! It is only David using his lowly slingshot to try to hit bloodthirsty Goliath.

I understand that this victim mindset can be counter-productive, but you can't exactly blame the Israeli Jews for it. You can try to work with it, and it's less present among the younger generation, but it's a cultural trauma that you can't just yell at the Jews or Israelis for having. And I 100% agree that Israel has committed atrocities in the past so I agree with you there that we should be condemning those who deny any Israeli war crimes and try to paint Israel as a perfect angel. We may disagree on the scope however.

Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).

Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.

German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then. — ssu

Yes, Russia was an aggressor in WWII - my example was only in regard to the Eastern front fighting against the Germans. I completely agree with your assessment of Russia here. I was only referring to Russia in terms of their Eastern front war against the Nazis. In that context I would not describe them as the aggressor even though they went on the offensive.

That is a great picture by the way, where do you find these? And colorized.

Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere. — ssu

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. I was always taught that these territories naturally fell under Israel's control as the war played out. It's also a difficult issue because, e.g. what's Jordan's "rightful" claim to the West Bank? Commentators never question this because implicitly the Arabs are just considered the rightful owners, but Jordan annexed it in 1950 in the aftermath of the '48 war over international disapproval? Since when has the West Bank been rightfully Jordans'? I don't even think Jordan had an interest in the territory until '47-'48 where it was used as a launching point for attacks on Israel.

1. The fact there is no peace, can be laid fully at the feet of the Israeli government as its even greedier than the land it already stole in 1967;
2. Israel has been in breach of international law since 1948, the same legal regime it bases its own rights on (you can't have your cake and eat it);
3. As long as right-wing political zionism is effectively in control of policy, it's a policy of de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people as their presence is slowly eroded through evictions in East Jerusalem and through settler colonisation (and let's not get started on the Apartheid rule in Israel proper itself, which is another atrocity);
4. Israel therefore deserves no help or respect from the international community until such time as it enters into good faith negotiations with the people its oppressing;
5. Considering Israel's obvious bad faith approach to any form of peace, I conclude that every Israeli tragedy is of its own making and every tragedy befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies.

I literally brought this topic up like 2 pages ago and he accused me of spreading lies and refused to condemn hamas.

just so you know you're talking with an actual genocide apologist who refuses to condemn the genocide of Palestinian LGBTQ by Hamas among other crimes & suppression of the Palestinian people.

In the asymmetrical distribution of power which Israel levearges at every point as an opressive, aggressor force, it is indeed entirely responsible for everything that happens to it. — StreetlightX

Even in the Warsaw ghetto the Judenrat would have been responsible had they turned on their own LGBTQ population. Being a victim doesn't absolve one of responsibility, and it never has.

It would not have been the Nazi's fault either in the theoretical event that the Nazis did nothing to encourage the practice.

You have a very strange view of blame. If your boss is mean to you at work and you go home and kick your dog is it your boss' fault? Even if he was really, really mean to you? Hamas created itself.

When you begin to understand self-responsibility and responsibility in general it'll all become so much clearer. Why can't I say that nothing Israel does is their fault because Hamas was pushing them to do it? It's like agency doesn't exist in your world or it only exists for Israel. Nobody else has it.

For everything that's happening? Including Hamas persecuting LGBTQ? That is Israel's fault? When Hamas executes its own civilians for gay sex that is Israel's doing? That is what you are telling me?

You're impressing me today: Just today you've both condemned the Soviet Union and you've condemned Hamas for their treatment of LGBTQ -- and done so strongly -- which was more than 180 was able to do. :party:

I'm on the same page with you here; the Hamas leadership deserves to rot in the ground and Israel's been working towards this goal.

I like your current position - that both sides suck - much more than your previous strategy of only criticizing one side through your writing. Presumably, you can now criticize both more evenly. Huge improvement.

See these are the conversations you don't want to have. You're shutting down conversation here. Now who's the quiet one? You call me the one who's ignoring suffering, I can turn it right back on you and it's super easy.

You're just annoyed because you think I'm being insincere when in reality my sincerity is completely irrelevant. Does the problem exist or not? That's all you gotta ask.

Speaking of genocide apology, since Hamas openly executes and persecutes LGBTQ wouldn't this qualify as genocide for you? And that by that I mean Hamas towards its own Palestinian LGBTQ population. There was an article from news week not too long ago about the hellish life of LGBTQ in Gaza.

Lets start having conversations that you don't want to have.

that was the conversation that ssu and I were having before you decided to jump in and criticize me for not talking about a different subject.

Streetlight, all we're talking about WW2 here. This is the scope of the conversation - nothing past it. That is all ssu and I were talking about - "who is the aggressor in X war?" It doesn't matter what happens in the years after.

On a sidenote it is somewhat reassuring to see you condemning the Soviet Union.

The military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression, because they withdrew and no Russian ever claimed east Germany was Russian.

The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression. — Benkei

The reason that the military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression was because the Germans were the ones who initiated aggression and the Soviets were responding to that. Even if the USSR claimed East Germany for itself it wouldn't have changed the fact that the Germans were the aggressors in WWII.

Israel doesn't claim Gaza or WB as being Israel proper even if they do maintain military superiority and preparedness.

I'm not asking about whether Soviet control of East Berlin was good; I'm asking whether we can conclude that the Soviets were the aggressors in WW2 because they came to control part of Berlin/Germany.... and that answer is no.

When you annex territory, you simply can't deny being an aggressor. — ssu

Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war?

Israel struck first because the Egyptians closed the strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping and then began mobilizing on the border after kicking out UNEF. I don't consider Israel the aggressor in this conflict, it was well known before that a closure of that strait would be an act of war and Egypt went ahead with it regardless and then began mobilizing.

The fact that a country acquired a land after a war is irrelevant as to whether they were the aggressors.

I assume you want the leaders of Hamas "out of office," as well? Or more specifically out of leadership roles? If you don't want Bibi "destroyed," surely you don't want Hamas' leaders destroyed either. Correct? — Xtrix

I'd actually like the leaders of Hamas dead, but out of office would be a victory as well. Ideally, Hamas as both an organization and a belief system would be no more - leaders dead, we can can spare the lesser members. If you are consciously and deliberately leading this movement I consider you an enemy of humanity.

There are all kinds of ways, that don't involved killing innocent people. With the resources that Israel has, it's kind of a joke to say this is their only recourse. — Xtrix

Israel uses many methods under normal circumstances to try to destroy and infiltrate Hamas - spies, intelligence, quick isolated raids against targets in the area; what you're seeing right now with the killing coming from Israeli is simply in response to Hamas escalating the situation earlier when they started firing the rockets after the Israelis raided al-Aqsa.

What if the roles were reversed, and Hamas made the same claims -- that bombing Israel was unavoidable because the leaders are "intertwined" with civilians? After all, political and military leaders don't simply live in government buildings. You accept this logic? — Xtrix

Hamas stores and fires weapons from schools, hospitals, office buildings, and other populated areas. Additionally they have a large network of tunnels under civilian infrastructure so how are you going to hit those? Israel does not do this. Israel has a separate military infrastucture that exists apart form residential areas... it's like it is in the United States if Canada were to declare war on us and bomb a border town and then claim something like "well there might have been a General or soldier living there who knows." It just doesn't fly.

You keep repeating this over and over again. No one is defending Hamas. No one. Least of all me. — Xtrix

I know. I was just questioning your reasoning earlier; you were upset that the kill count was so imbalanced and (and if I understood you correctly) due to that you were sympathetic to the Palestinians. If more Israelis died would you more sympathetic to Israel?

"Easy way"? How about sparing the lives of innocent people -- all the while making things harder for Israel by creating more sympathy for Hamas and creating more misery and desire for revenge to the Palestinians -- by using the enormous resources Israel has, militarily and otherwise, with US support, to deal with this problem? — Xtrix

So what is your suggestion? We're both on the same page here - we want to minimize casualties but do you just want to use a different type of ammunition? Give me concrete suggestion.

https://twitter.com/YosephHaddad/status/1394900465498869762

^A real illustration of the difficulty of the situation. You want to further decrease casualties on the Palestinian side? Good luck.

What the...

So an attack that which ends up with annexations of lands from Jordan, Syria and Egypt isn't aggression? — ssu

I don't believe the Gaza or WB are technically annexed; I've heard both referred to as 'self-governing' or 'disputed territories' but not part of Israel proper.

Regardless, if I was to ask you who was the aggressor on the Eastern front in WWII, you'd say Germany, right? But what about when the Soviets pushed them all the way back to Berlin and crossed Poland in the process? The Soviets crossed into Poland and ended up controlling part of Berlin, but were they aggressors in the war? No.

Before Operation Barbarossa the two sides has a truce and it was clearly Germany who was the aggressor. I've never heard any history or historians suggesting that the Soviets had aggressive intentions towards Germany during this period before the Germany attacked. Before the 6 day war the historical circumstances between Israel and the Arab world were extremely different.

This is just a semantic issue. Yes, Israel went on the offensive but I wouldn't call Israel the aggressor (therefore they didn't aggress.) If A starts attacking B and B manages to gain the upper hand and subdues A, B is not the aggressor. A was the aggressor even despite B managing to come out on top.

And if you cared about the Irsaeli people, you'd want Netanyahu's government destroyed. — Xtrix

I might want Netanyahu out of office, but I wouldn't say "destroyed." That's something completely different. I don't want the Israeli state destroyed.

The answer, however, is to deal with Hamas, not to kill innocent Palestinians. — Xtrix

Hamas builds their military infrastructure intertwined with civilian infrastructure. You tell me how to properly attack them with zero civilian casualties, General.

How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Hamas? That's reprehensible. How many innocent people -- including children -- have been killed by Israel? I'll wait for you to look up the numbers...now that's also reprehensible, but also far greater in magnitude. — Xtrix

Israel has a missile defense system which stops 90% of the rockets. Hamas would kill many more Israelis if they could, they're just attempting to and failing and you're holding that low casualty number against Israel. Also among the Palestinian victim count are Palestinians killed by Hamas rockets that misfire, which is actually around 20-25% of them. That's at least 700 rockets fired by Hamas that hit the Gaza area. Last I heard at least 8 children were killed this during one of these misfires.

If you cared about Israel and the citizens of Israel, you wouldn't be supporting this behavior. — Xtrix

If there was an easy way to go after Hamas without killing civilians I'd be all for it. But there's not. We can get Bibi out of office though if there was a legal procedure for that, I wouldn't be opposed to that.

If you truly cared about the suffering of the Palestinian people you'd want Hamas destroyed.

You could not care less about the genocide of LGBTQ Palestinians by Hamas. You only care, or pretend to care, about violence when it is interracial or across ethnic lines. You do not care about flesh and blood individuals and their actual sources of suffering, only about fomenting racial tension and intergroup conflict. I'll have to look out for others like you in the future. Thanks for the discussion.

1. Palestinians have a right to self-determination as well;
2. The Arabs were opposed to any type of partition in 1948 because they believed the rule "of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants", that included Jews and Arabs at the time;
3. In accordance with Bretton-Woods, acquisition of land through warfare is illegal because aggression is illegal;
4. You cannot acquire land through defensive war, because you cannot logically defend what wasn't yours to begin with;
5. Therefore the acquisition of land beyond the 1948 partition plan is predicated on the war crime from which all war crimes stem: the act of aggression;
6. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are therefore illegal;
7. All settlements not in accordance with the 1948 lines are therefore iilegal and should be removed;
8. The Palestinians have been more than generous several times over to agree to solutions close to the 1967 borders;
9. The reason why the Israeli haven't agreed is because the right-wing political zionism, which has been in power most of the time, especially for the last 24 years, is intent on establishing an Israel from the Jordan river to the sea; — Benkei

1. Sure and Israel has offered to give them a state in the past, but with Hamas in power Israel is absolutely under no obligation to go in that direction these days. Hamas is a terrorist group, not a legitimate government. Giving them independent statehood is a serious security concern for Israel.
2. "revert to its inhabitants" is just rhetoric. they just wanted to maintain the status quo with arabs in charge. It's always been fine if there's a state where Arabs are in charge with a Jewish minority.
3. Israelis did not aggress in '67.
4. But you can uproot the forces that were trying to destroy you. russia was still defending when it pressed into germany. were the allies "aggressing" by pressing into germany? sure you can say that they were going on the offensive, but to describe them as the "aggressors" in the conflict seems strange to me.
5. In 1948 the arabs declared war on Israel and sought to wipe it out. there was talk of a second holocaust at the time. Land taken and held in '48 was a necessary security measure and I'm not going to apologize for it. Israel was extremely vulnerable w/ 1947 boundaries.
8. Could you just expound a little further on this?
9. i'll agree with you that the israeli government is more recalcitrant that it was in the past and this is due to several factors, but then again so is hamas. neither side right now has a serious interest in peace.

You're making these demands of Israel but it's never going to be your family who bears the repercussions. It's easy to tell Israel to loosen their security or to let Hamas import anything completely unrestricted or to give back half their land when you're halfway around the world. If there was a homeless problem in your community would you be willing to let some live in your home? How would you feel about fundamentalists muslims as your neighbors? They need a place to live too, why not next to you? They can invite their friends over too.

You have absolutely zero respect or care for material reality. The truth on the ground. It's honestly amazing.

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan

I wonder what counts as a "plan" here. Do they mean formal documentation like the Nazis at the Wannsee conference? In what sense do the Israelis have this plan?

Is that it? Is that your response to what I wrote? God, why did I waste my time with you? Well, I've learned now. Later.

It quite obviously doesn't follow from the fact that Arabs didn't want a Jewish state that it would therefore not have come to pass. And since the politicians and warmongers didn't try Buber's way, we can't know what would've happened if Jewish Zionism had followed his Hasidic approach from the 20s onwards. — Benkei

Let me know if I'm misinterpreting Buber here, but AFAIK he really valued consensus but there was no way Israel as a Jewish state would ever come to exist if we relied on consensus from the Arabs. As far as I can tell, there would be no Jewish state if we demanded on meeting Buber's standards. It seems to me like had we followed Buber's consensus, Jews would remain in the minority in this theoretical binational state (because that's what the Arab consensus would be) and therefore the Jews would relinquish all bargaining power. When one cedes control they are no longer in a position to implement their vision, do you agree?

Especially in '47 the Arabs were not looking to make peace or compromise; they wanted the Jews gone. Tensions had already been rising for decades. Buber's ideas seem nice to me, I just don't know how we would have ever implemented them given the political realities of the day. The environment back then was very politically charged with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem a former ally of Hitler's and a vicious anti-Semite.

While Wiesel never condemned Israel, that was as consequence of his love for the country that was unconditional and that he thought he could not judge as a Diaspora Jew. On the other hand, in his later personal memoirs he has indicated he never did enough for the Palestinian plight. — Benkei

Yeah, even ardent Zionists aren't actually anti-Palestinian... maybe there are a few but I would just call those people evil. The struggle has always been between those who wish Israel harm and those who wish to protect it. Wiesel was unequivocal in his condemnation of Hamas and had he been alive today there's no doubt where he would stand on today's conflict.

Strawman, Bitcunt, again. "David" is the dispossssed and oppressed Palestinian people and not Hamas (which is merely the goddamn "sling"). Quit appropriating my species' humanoid form, you fuckin' reptile. :shade: — 180 Proof

You lean so heavily on this oppressor v. victim framing that it's led you to be oblivious to day-to-day realities. This is characteristic of philosophy and philosophers by the way - all theory, no fact.

Here are some facts: Israel has had no troops or settlements in Gaza since 2005. It's entirely self-governed except for the borders, with virtually all internal affairs dictated by Hamas. When humanitarian funds intended for the Palestinian people are embezzled by Hamas to build tunnels and buy weapons & Palestinians starve, that's not Israel's fault. When Hamas throws gay men off of rooftops because homosexuality violates the will of Allah, that's not the Zionists. If you are a sexual minority in Palestine, Hamas is 1000% the real enemy. If you are a reporter looking to free press, Hamas will arrest you. When Hamas makes a deliberate cultural effort to indoctrinate their children from an early age to hate the Zionist enemy and glorifies martyrdom & death, that is again not the Zionists. Peace is impossible with Hamas in power. Why won't you see Hamas as the true enemy of the Palestinian people? Hamas maintains a stranglehold on its population and kills more of them with its own rockets than it does the enemy.

Get a grip of the political and historical realities of the region before throwing this empty theory at me. Hamas could murder 50% of the Palestinian population and Israel would still be the enemy to you.

This is history - no crystal ball needed. Show me where I'm wrong then. Show me that the Arabs were open to a Jewish state in '48 and I will reevaluate my position.

I haven't read any Buber, but I gleaned some of his ideas about Zionism and while they seem nice I can't help but think they're a little too idealistic. Buber highly valued consensus with the Arabs, but there would be no state of Israel if we took that seriously as the Arabs categorically refused any Jewish state in 1947-48.

In actuality under Buber's view it would seem that there would just be no state of Israel and Jews would just be under Arab rule.

Yes, Wiesel would have obviously sided with Hamas. :nerd:

Since I can't believe you're actually this stupid, I'm just going to concluded that you're a propagandist with zero intellectual honesty or commitment to accurately representing thinkers.

Quit appropriating my peoples' serious thinkers for your woke bullshit. :roll:

Now that's cultural appropriation.

The self-reflection barb wasn't aimed at you. I had others in mind.

I'm not even following the situation in the West Bank because the current violence is occurring in Gaza where the Israeli army hasn't had a presence since 2005.

Regardless of how Hamas was created the organization exists for the singular purpose of destroying Israel and creating an Islamic state in its place. We have no reason to doubt their sincerity on this matter.

But if Hamas doesn't defend itself, it loses all dignity. — Manuel

:chin: Ya know, when your "dignity" is only "defended" via trying to intentionally murder random "enemy" civilians -- with most of the actual damage & killing going towards one's own people and property -- it might be time to take a step back and re-evaluate your approach, but that would require introspection which is virtually non-existent among terrorists, as well as leftists to whom everything is black and white -- good guys versus bad guys, bully vs victim and those poor victims can't do wrong.

As long as Hamas is in power there can be no peace.

Out of a sample of 850 rockets launched by Hamas, 200 ended up over Gaza. That's 23.5%, and that figure is from a few days ago. Currently, Hamas has launched at least 3000 rockets so given that same rate that's at least 700 of Hamas' own rockets raining down on Gaza.

Come to think of it, Hamas' rockets are almost certainly more likely to kill their own people than to kill Israelis. Israel has a defense system, Palestine has none. There is zero defense from this.

Some significant % of the dead Palestinians are directly Hamas' own doing.

That does not warrant you to equate Hamas with Palestinians. You know that. — frank

That was not my intended meaning and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Sometimes in conflict people refer to the opposing military forces just via their nationality (e.g. "the Japanese invaded Manchuria") and they don't mean the Japanese people. I'm doing something similar when I say "the Palestinians."

I was just asking if he objected to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. — frank

I've never heard of him doing this.

Israel is recognized by the UN. There's no need to be defensive about its existence or worried about its future. It's not going anywhere. — frank

I'm not really worried about Israel being destroyed anytime soon.

Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza. That's where the conflict is. Wiesel always supported Israel's to defend itself so unless you can dig up quotes of his that are critical to Israel your position doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Sure, it's technically possible but it's extremely unlikely in view of his previous statements.