Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list?

A carrot usually works better than a stick. — Agree-to-Disagree

Bullshit. The French revolution had much needed beheadings. Tone policing is just another form of censorship for people to adhere to the status quo. The effects of climate change are not exaggerated, in fact, they've been underestimated as is becoming painfully obvious if you would be paying attention.

Can we please steer away with a very wide birth from the "psyche" of a group of people? Smells too close to racism to me. Cultural and material conditions have caused both sides to have a majority of people that can drink the other sides blood. That is a consequence of a decades long (rather one sided) conflict but little to do with "psyche". After WWII my grandfather-in-law hated Germans for the rest of his life - that was only 5 years of conflict.

So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars?

I do think there's a humanitarian obligation on surrounding nations to accept refugees BUT not being stupid I would demand iron clad treaties with both Israel and the US on a right of return for all civilians before I'd do so. If we're going to insist on the application of humanitarian law, it should be universal.

So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land?

due to the lack of philosophical content in some threads we've opted to move them to the lounge to focus the front page more on philosophy.

I'm sure some leaders of countries would insist on that. On the other hand, maybe a 100 years from now, western Europe will be poor and they simply don't have to money to spend on it. That doesn't end the rights and responsibilities under the treaty. That's why the 2% spending is a guideline but the treaty obligation is different:

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. — Nato treaty

This doesn't say "spend money" and can be achieved in part through training instead of buying US produced weapons. I'd like to think treaty obligations like this are "for better or worse". If you don't want to meet your obligations, there's a mechanism to leave the treaty.

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Nederland-moet-de-uitvoer-van-F-35-onderdelen-naar-Israel-stoppen.aspx

Dutch higher court rules the Netherlands must stop weapons delivery to Israel due to the high likelihood they are used for crimes against humanity and such deliveries breach several international treaties. A win for Oxfam Novib and The Rights Forum.

As if the West Coast states are just going to roll over and accept an autocratic regime. I don't think it's at all likely; it will destroy the USA and sooner lead to civil war than Trump being supported to become a dictator. He doesn't have the military connections either to make this remotely likely and a bunch of lawyers arguing for unitary authority (which the GOP had been doing for some time) isn't going to change anything.

I think it's creating an unnecessary boogeyman to imagine Trump successfully becoming a dictator abolishing term limits.

Thank God for term limits whatever will be the end result. And these guys are old so if we're lucky whoever is elected dies on us before that limit is reached. And I won't shed a tear.

I think there's a resiliency to the American identity, with a particular hang up on democracy (as if they invented it), that you'd sooner have civil war than a full blown autocracy. Currently, the dissatisfaction with everything politics, probably stems from a dissonance between what democratic results should feel like to a politically disengaged population and what they're actually getting, without consciously being aware what it is that's failing them.

Nothing beats the Ultimate Uni-brow!

It extends even before that actually. From its inception Hamas has regularly offered the hudna, which is the Islamic equivalent of a treaty, effectively a time period in which they would cease all hostilities. Up to 30 years was offered; Israel dismissed all of them, claiming it was a tactical ploy to allow consolidation of their forces (which seems a confusion with a tahdi'ah).

The interesting thing was that they offered recognition of the state of Israel in return for:

1. withdrawal of troops from the West Bank and Gaza
2. evacuation of all illegal settlements from West Bank and Gaza
3. release of all Palestinian prisoners;
4. the recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians

Offered well into 2006 which I think also included the right of return when Rantissi offered it but it was rejected every time.

Now the hudna for centuries has been an instrument in achieving suhl or "resolution" and contrary to the tahdi'ah it is not aimed at recovering to start war again.

So, it's interesting. I think if we insist Hamas are a bunch of religious zealots then this is at the forefront of their thinking: "And be true to your bond with God whenever you bind yourselves by
a pledge, and do not break your oaths after having confirmed them and having called upon
God to be witness to your good faith” (Quran 16:91).

Either they're religious zealots and their word is binding or they're not religious zealots and therefore can be reasoned with. I think it's neither and it's simply more complex than we like to believe or can grasp with the limited information we receive from the other side of the conflict. But in the end I don't think it's a coincidence the IDF has breached more ceasefires than the other way around.

There's no obligation on spending 2% of GDP so strictly speaking no.

Does Trump think it's just a protection racket?

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac

The Oslo Accords were a joke. They were intended as an interim agreement but with no final state defined it was a recipe for failure. The open-ended nature of it meant PLO just wrote away indefinitely the Palestinians' right to self-determination. And while they tried to negotiate a permanent agreement, they failed several times. This interim process was in itself undermined by continued terrorist attacks and settler colonisation, finally culminating in Rabin's murder.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/10/dozens-killed-in-rafah-airstrikes-as-full-scale-israeli-ground-offensive-looms

It's started. The last place the Palestinians were relatively safe is being attacked.

Your argument reads like the following; someone is diagnosed with lung cancer and you point out that that cough can just be a cold. It doesn't work looking at every symptom separately and then conclude it doesn't amount to genocide. But every action taken together does. And it's important to realise this is the actual plan of the current administration and has been for decades. There is no exit strategy, no strategic conception towards peace. Even Hamas has set out terms along which they were prepared to accept peace. But not Likud and other Israeli right wing parties.

The colonisation movement, the refusal to accept a right of return, the continual destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and heritage - they all result in the above. Evictions of Palestinians, bulldozing and bombing of homes and agricultural land, outright theft of occupied territories, IDF support for colonist's violence to terrorise Palestinian civilians to make them leave. It's all aimed at "get out of our promised land". It's slow yes but it's real.

Hamas is not in control in West Bank, but is still used as an excuse to amp up the restrictions making life worse for Palestinians there (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/world/middleeast/west-bank-palestine-israel.html). Money to support colonists increased and was sped up even before 7 October. It's happening right under everybody's noses. (https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15337.doc.htm)

Even before the current bombing of Gaza, there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It wasn't referred to the largest open air prison for nothing.

It's all aimed at making their living conditions impossible. And their excuse is, it's not a genocide because they can leave. Or, well, there are more of them than before. Well no shit, if that's case, the Holocaust wasn't a genocide either because Jews could just leave to the US or should've had more kids!

I gave several examples so that's neither nonsense nor emotional.

Well I don't care about what you think if you don't back it up with an actual argument, so I guess we're done.

:brow:

https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15337.doc.htm

Why have sympathy with policies like this?

I think you are unfortunately playing the same weird equivalence game the 'other side' does here. That's not what the defence amounts to, whatsoever. It is a fact that a genocide isn't occurring when a culture has retained its status and grown in population. — AmadeusD

Except the culture had not retained its status. There is a community in Jerusalem slowly being evicted. A few more decades and there are no Palestinians in Jerusalem. There were coastal cities. Gone. Just in Gaza, most heritage sites have been destroyed or damaged. Like most of Palestine. When the Taliban blew up Buddhist statues everybody was shocked. Where's the outrage Israel just destroyed a harbour going back to 800 BC?

Jaffa, Acre and Nablus had close connections to other middle Eastern cities. Destroyed. The close connection with the land is being made impossible because the best land is stolen. Life is being made impossible in the long run. And it's strategic and always has been for the likes of Herut and Likud.

So yes, genocide, a slow one so everybody can pretend it isn't happening.

Is the US supreme court allowed to rule on the facts of a case or only on the interpretation of law?

For just about the twentieth time in this thread: you can destroy a people without actually killing them. There are still native Americans but they suffered a genocide as well, the Uighurs are being destroyed as well through internment and reeducation. The displacement and destruction of an entire regional culture or people is genocide. And as far as crimes go, the efficacy of the crime is not a measure for its unlawfulness. Your defence amounts to no more than that only because Israel is not killing them fast enough to keep up with the birth rate it's not genocide, which in itself is a cavalier attitude to the sanctity of life.

Oh wow, you really want me to post the definition for the third time? I think your stupidity in this thread is on display but now you're adding wilful stupidity to the mix as well.

What bothers me is that all of a sudden a lot of people are waking up to the current atrocities while not realising this is just part of the overarching strategy. People are ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people that has been going on for decades just because it wasn't acute but slow. The regular bulldozing of houses and farmland and eviction of Palestinians in the past 40 years is no different in effect than bombing them to smithereens.

I find the whole court case fucking dumb and would throw it out for being frivolous. It's longstanding legal fact in every constitutional democracy that in the exercise of discretionary powers, courts cannot review the exercise of such powers. But such powers are granted; so the court can always assess whether the discretionary power was actually granted or not. If the conclusion is no such power has been granted, then that behaviour is outside of any possible immunity. And we all know we do not grant Presidents the power to do something the law explicitly prohibits.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/met-het-wegkijken-van-de-massale-schendingen-van-het-oorlogsrecht-door-israel-ondermijnt-het-westen-nu-zelf-de-internationale-rechtsorde~b6522e2e/

Good opinion piece from Dutch historian Thomas von der Dunk.

Judgy much? :lol:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/swedish-prosecutor-plans-nord-stream-blast-decision-this-week

We'll know more about the Nordstream sabotage soon.

Did anyone ever wonder why they changed their brand from "global warming" to "climate change"? — Tzeentch

It will be global climate catastrophy in a couple of decades.

This shows just how difficult the two state solution is: it's not only an issue about dividing land, it's also how viable the Palestinian State would be. The Palestine Authority has, especially in the eyes of Palestinians, become a sidekick of the Israelis. The Palestinian conflict isn't as easy as making a peace treaty with a neighboring country. — ssu

This is entirely true and which is why a staggered approach is necessary. What's particularly troublesome is, is that neither party can be trusted (the IDF least of all) to adhere to any ceasefire. So the conditions for building trust while you negotiate all the various points aren't there and that way you'll never reach the end goal. This is why this problem cannot be resolved by mediating between the parties but a ceasefire needs to be enforced by the international community. Sanctions, blue helmets etc.

I am likely an outlier in this conversation. I see two groups of people who have been buffeted by historic forces outside their control who are struggling to survive. It is an ongoing tragedy for everyone that shows no signs of ever resolving. — EricH

This is totally true it just doesn't excuse certain behaviour on both sides. And while one side gets all the support, it's cover for the worst atrocities this century and that was entirely predictable unfortunately. It's quite a feat to actually be worse than a bunch of religious fanatic terrorists. The international community should be sanctioning both sides and start enforcing basic humanitarian laws and force them to get a negotiated settlement in place. BSD all the way.

Biden doesn't bring anything to the table except "not Trump". But yes, 84 is too fucking old. You call that age discrimination, the rest of us call it common sense. There's a lot of things that start deteriorating from our 30s onwards. Memory and recall being the most important one.

Pretty pathetic Biden is the best they can do.

They could settle anywhere but in the occupied territories and they know it. It's wilful with the aim to make living conditions for Palestinians impossible and actually stealing land and destroying property. They're thugs and criminals that do not deserve the protection we accord citizens.

Since when do we care what criminals think? Carte blanche to shoot them on sight.

Just curious. What if Israel completely withdrew to 67 borders said that Palestinians have a state now (whatever that entails), and the Palestinians in charge within a few weeks launch a campaign dividing Israel in half, launching missiles from the high ground in the West Bank, and starts to form a siege on all major Israeli cities. — schopenhauer1

Funny how curiousity is then followed by a straw man as if your interlocutors are this stupid. Nobody has suggested returning occupied territories apart from a negotiated peace.

I don't agree with your assessment that the two state solution is dead. Or at least, we should make sure it isn't because the alternative will only happen when hell freezes over. I think the two state solution is the only solution the Palestinians are willing to accept and the one-state certainly is also out of the question for the Zionists. There's also the issue of the right to return, which would immediately cause non-Jews to outnumber Jews. I think that would even give non-zionist Jews pause.

The two state solution can be implemented IF the international community demands extensive resettlement of illegal settlers out of the West Bank. It would be consistent with international law instead of rewarding this genocide by slow displacement.