|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United States42636 Posts
On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not.
I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed.
|
|
|
On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed.
I dunno man. You're being super vague. Do you support the third Reich or no? I can't tell. I guess we'll never know
|
On October 09 2023 10:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality? Nelson Mandela would very possibly have rotted in prison and never seen the end of Apartheid if the rest of the world, or at least eventually significant chunks of it hadn’t put pretty damn consistent pressure on the South African state. I guess it’s rare one can directly compare equivalent scenarios, there ends up being as many differences as the similarity one zones in on. But yes there is a rather more embedded, genuinely existential hatred amongst the Palestinian people, and indeed surrounding states for Israel that doesn’t have much direct parallel in other historic disputes around nationalism, or discriminatory regimes. I think the frustration many, or well at least I feel is there’s no guarantee that any course of action ultimately diffuses that, but if there’s one that would guarantee it doesn’t dissipate, it’s the course of action that Israel has pursued for decades with very little meaningful international pushback.
He is not completely wrong in saying that the Palestinian leadership has, well, never been very productive when it comes to finding a non violent compromise. That being said, the ball has been in the Israeli camp for 20 years and they have kept annexing territories, which makes that point kind of moot.
I had an israeli girlfriend, and she talked a lot about what happened when they built their wall. They just felt they were safe and stopped talking about palestinians, while their government kept pampering colons and extremists, and kept annexing territories.
I am sorry to say, but that war was coming, and it’s their effing fault.
|
|
|
Iran directly supporting this attack isn't as much of a bombshell as it's just what everyone expected. This won't turn into any kind of ww3, because it's just more of Iran doing what Iran has always done
|
|
|
United States42636 Posts
On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: Show nested quote +During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality?
Few different things here.
Mandela wasn’t super peaceful and progressive, that was the historical revisionist Mandela, just like MLK. Apartheid didn’t end because they were won over by just how peaceful and noble the ANC was, it ended because of international pressure. The Mandela myth came later. He was a great man for sure, but so was MLK. Doesn’t make the subsequent historical revisionism true.
Historically the Arab problem wasn’t with Jewish people, they always got along fine with those, it was with Zionism which hopefully you can recognize as a colonial movement. Whether or not they had some ancient deed that granted them ownership of Palestine, in practical terms we’re talking about a bunch of Europeans moving in and displacing the people living there. The root of the conflict a hundred years ago was Palestinians (including Palestinian Jews) against Zionists. And within the confines of that specific argument the Palestinians have a point, they’re being actively colonized by a bunch of Europeans and they don’t like it. Especially given the Zionist terrorism and attempts to start a race war.
Israel’s foundation is explicitly Zionist, it is the state created by and ruled by the Zionists colonizing Palestine. That is the necessary distinction, Jews <> Zionists. Basically saying the Palestinian movement from the beginning is about destroying Israel is like saying the Zimbabwe ZANU movement is about destroying Rhodesia. It can only be understood in terms of what Israel and Rhodesia were.
Israel is, in the beginning, a political and military expression of colonialism. The existence of Israel in 1948 is fundamentally not a neutral state of affairs for Palestinian Arabs. Destroying it is necessary for a return to the previous status quo. It must be understood in those terms, its existence was a knife in their country, they wanted the knife removed.
The problem is that it goes full on all or nothing race war, and neither side is blameless there. Zionists actively tried to start a race war and the Arabs played along because they thought they’d win it. And in case I’m not being clear on this one I’m not supporting either side in a race war. Race wars are bad, everyone in one in an asshole. We shouldn’t have them. The best outcome is that nobody wins and everyone goes home alive. Arabs trying to kill all the colonizers bad. Colonizers trying to kill the Arabs, also bad. That was more or less the plot of Pocahontas. Arabs lose the race war but decide to expel all the Jews that have lived peacefully in their land for centuries because it’s a race war and they’re being assholes. Zionists expand Israel because they’re also being assholes and it’s not like they’re not going to fight back.
The next problem is that that was all generations ago and now the people born today are blameless in it. Obviously it would be wholly unjust to evict the Israelis from their homes because someone’s grandfather wronged someone else’s. Those original Zionist assholes are dead so even if we agree that they’re in the wrong it changes nothing, we have to deal with the world as it is today.
It doesn’t matter today that I think the Zionists in the 40s were dicks and the Arabs in the 40s were also dicks. And it doesn’t matter that the foundation of Israel was a fundamentally colonial endeavor and that the opposition to it at the time was defensible. Israel now exists and the people born there have a right to live in peace, free of violence. And they have a right to defend their homes. Hamas haven’t gotten over that, they’re still fighting the war their great grandfathers lost, and they’re fighting it in just about the most abhorrent way possible.
I support Israel today because there’s no alternative. What is done is done, you can’t right a wrong with an even bigger wrong. But the historical context to the opposition to the political state of Israel is far from black and white. There is room for a nuanced discussion there without anyone calling for ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people.
TLDR: Israelis today have the right to exist and defend themselves. Fuck Hamas. The opposition to the creation of Israel is more complicated than a black and white good vs bad. The existence of Israel is not inherently neutral and framing it as such is oversimplifying things. But it’s too late now and Israel is better than any alternative.
|
On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 06:12 ChristianS wrote:
Kwark, I think you’re closer to right in this exchange and TLoA is absolutely doing the bait and switch “opposing Israel on anything means supporting a second Holocaust” trick that Israel defenders have always done. You've got a good history of posting in good faith, so I want to return that good faith even while heavily disagreeing. The complaint is not that Kwark is not 100% pro Israel. You'll find very little pushback if you say that the Israeli settlements are wrong even from pro-Israel people. In Kwark's response to this post + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2023 03:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2023 02:17 Excludos wrote:On October 07 2023 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The framing that they just want to be left alone while continuing to encroach on palestinerne territory is absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people are just willing to completely disregard context. That they are being attacked by rocket barrages and terrorism on the daily is seemingly unimportant. If Sweden did that to Norway, we'd be doing a lot more than Israel is in regards to counter-aggression. It's like if I keep punching you in the face, and you push me away, suddenly everyone around us goers "omfg how could you push?!". You answer with "I just want to be left alone!" and then people laugh and go "Shouldn't be pushing then!" If Palestine doesn't want Israel to keep pushing, then maybe they should seek peace? Or at the very least meet at the table. Israel doesn't want the occupied territories, and have numerous times claimed willingness to give them back He's talking about the illegal settlements, not the retaliatory attacks by Israel. But overall, I agree. While Israel is adding fuel to the fire by refusing to stop the illegal settlements, we can't overlook the context of this conflict. Namely, when the Arabs thought they had the upper hand, they tried to wipe Israel off the map on several occasions (the Palestinian Arabs were onboard). They chose violence over negotiated peace. On the other hand, once the situation shifted in favour of Israel, Israel was open to accepting several different peace proposals. Those were rejected by the Palestinians, who were unhappy with some of the terms. They were unwilling to accept that their negotiating position was getting progressively weaker, and they chose violence again. I think people siding with Palestine in this conflict are not holding Israel and Palestine to the same standard. If Israel acted the way the Arabs did, they would've wiped out the Palestinians a long time ago. @Drone I would hold off with such claims. The number of casualties on the Palestinian side come from the Palestinian officials, i.e. Hamas... He says On October 08 2023 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Wiping Israel off the map doesn’t necessarily mean killing every Israeli. The third Reich was wiped off of the map, for example. Israel is the state, not the people. They conflate the two deliberately. He's trying to defend "wipe Israel off the map" as merely "remove the country, but totally keep the people". It's bullshit and anyone who's been paying attention should know it. The Palestinians want an ethnic cleansing. The only thing preventing the ethnic cleansing is the power that the Israeli government has. If they ever lose a war or are otherwise dissolved, it will be an ethnic cleansing. The only question would be how many Israelis would escape versus how many would be part of the genocide. What country would take 7 million Jewish refugees because there is no way Palestinians would accept Jewish neighbors and allow them to live. Here's a spokesman for Hamas talking to Al Jazeera today: Osama Hamdan, senior spokesperson for Hamas, told Al Jazeera that the group was not attacking civilians even though the group’s own videos have shown its fighters taking elderly Israelis hostage during the fighting on Saturday.
Rights groups such as Amnesty International have also pointed out that Israeli civilians had been killed by Hamas.
But Hamdan insisted that the group was attacking only settlers living in illegal settlements, whom he described as legitimate targets.
“You have to differentiate between settlers and civilians. Settlers attacked Palestinians,” Hamdan said.
Asked whether civilians in southern Israel were also considered settlers, Hamdan said: “Everyone knows there are settlements there.”
“We are not targeting civilians on purpose. We have declared settlers are part of the occupation and part of the armed Israeli force. They are not civilians,” he added. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-groupHe's not saying that the elderly were unfortunate casualties of war or that mistakes were made. He says that the elderly are not "civilians", they are "settlers" and thus killing and kidnapping them is okay. This is a spokesman for the political leadership of Palestine. It also looks like a concert for peace is a legitimate target according to Palestinians. I've already posted the decline in numbers of Jewish People in every other Mideast country. Every last one experienced an ethnic cleansing. People don't just up and move for the fun of it. They were forced out. Or if you want a non-Jewish example, you can look at what's happening to Christians in Egypt for another example. Church bombings, kidnapped women forced to marry Muslims, and plenty of killings. Fanatical Muslims will not live peacefully side by side with anyone else and there are way too many fanatical Muslims in the middle east. Being anti Israel is indeed taking a pro-genocide stance. However, I'll admit that most western people don't realize that's what they're actually supporting by being anti Israel. Most people are ignorant. And no, that doesn't mean you need to endorse everything the Israeli government does in order to be anti-genocide. However, you do need to support the right of Israel to exist and be against anyone who denies that right. Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? I mean, I guess the underlying question I'm not clear on is whether we're asking "what Kwark means by 'wipe Israel off the map' " or "what this or that Arab leader and/or Palestians generally means/meant by 'wipe Israel off the map' ". You have a lot more confidence than I do in asserting "what Palestinians want." That might just be me being ill-informed, I dunno. But Kwark's specific post is pretty clear that he, at least, is clarifying that ending the current government of Israel does not inherently mean genocide/ethnic cleansing of Israelis. Maybe that's what Palestinians would want. I'm pretty sure that's what Hamas would want. But if, for instance, the international community decided "we're not going to allow an ethnostate to exist" and forced Israel to change their form of government away from one that explicitly, legally determines who is and isn't a Jew and differentiates legal rights accordingly, I don't think that wouldn't necessarily entail genociding Israelis. You could claim that all those policies are necessary to preventing a genocide that would otherwise be inevitable. If so, you could assert "no, you're wrong, it's not possible to imagine ending the current Israeli state without an accompanying genocide of Israelis." But I just don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. Anyway it's clear Kwark doesn't, which is the disputed issue here. I think your anger at Kwark (and maybe TLoA's anger at Kwark) is based on the idea that he's apologizing for/running interference for bloodthirsty Arab leaders that just want to kill every Jew. Which, I dunno, those people certainly exist. I don't *think* Kwark is trying to defend those people, although any time you argue even a nuanced pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel position you're at least giving those people some cover, right? I am too, whether I like it or not, any time I argue that Israel's moral position is compromised or that Palestinians' rights are being trampled on. Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. Otherwise, I just don't think his intention is to empower those people (although he probably disagrees with you about how prevalent that opinion is, either among Palestinians or in the Arab world generally).
I'll try to be more clear. I'm accusing people of being short-sighted more than malicious. I don't think any of the normal posters on this forum wants a genocide of the Jewish people. However, I am accusing people of not understanding the consequences of their preferred actions.
I liken the situation to a poisoned pawn in chess. You move your queen to take that unprotected pawn, then the next opponent's move is to fork/check you and put you a few moves away from mate.
In the real world, mate against Israel is the ethnic cleansing of the place. I'm trying to look more than one move ahead and see what would happen if Israel ended its version of apartheid. From my vantage point, that first move might look nice, but it will be devastating in the future. It would involve an influx of "Palestinians" that are actually radicals from all over the middle east. People willing to die in order to kill infidels. Then you get the terrorist attacks as people feel justified in killing anyone because they're "settlers" not civilians or whatever excuse they feel like that day. You'll get a break down of civil society and eventually pogroms. All you need to do is listen to the Palestinian leaders and you'll hear their desire for it. When someone says they're going to do something evil, don't just handwave it away.
Admittedly, it would be a repeat of the Zionism that created Israel, just in reverse and with nowhere adjacent for the Jewish people to flee to. The Jewish people would be stupid to be on the receiving end of it.
On October 09 2023 11:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality? TLDR: Israelis have the right to exist and defend themselves. Fuck Hamas. The opposition to the creation of Israel is more complicated than a black and white good vs bad. The existence of Israel is not inherently neutral and framing it as such is oversimplifying things. But it’s too late now and Israel is better than any alternative.
Yes. I completely agree with this TLDR.
|
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job.
Whenever I hear people defend this whole "fight the good fight" perspective regarding Palestine, it feels like they are totally incapable of separating themselves from the history/ethics of how Israel was formed, historic borders, and other similar concepts.
But as I've mentioned before with The Shaq Principle (all borders established after Shaq broke the rim are permanent), there is value in just calling the game and saying the winner wins and the loser loses. Just imagine a world where the middle east moves on from this whole Israel/Palestine thing. I'd feel very differently if Palestine was just some kinda underdog, rather than unbelievably, conclusively, enormously screwed.
|
On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed.
Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate.
On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job.
I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument.
|
United States42636 Posts
On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate.
There’s not as much “you’re only saying it’s complicated because you’re a secret Nazi” coming from the Palestinian side and so there’s less need to explain to Palestinians that you’re not actually a secret Nazi. I’ve expressed my frustration with this, and got called a secret Nazi for my trouble.
It ought to just be assumed that you’re not pro genocide unless you specifically state otherwise. I’m not pro genocide of Palestinians either but nobody was insisting I clarify that so it didn’t need saying.
|
On October 09 2023 11:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. There’s not as much “you’re only saying it’s complicated because you’re a secret Nazi” coming from the Palestinian side and so there’s less need to explain to Palestinians that you’re not actually a secret Nazi. I’ve expressed my frustration with this, and got called a secret Nazi for my trouble.
The greater point I'm making is that whole discussion and sentiment is framed around the value of Israeli lives as if to exclude Palestinian lives from the equation. We see this every time a Western media outlet invites a Pro-Palestinian to talk. Like, yes 90+% of people agree that civilian harm is bad, can we stop implying harm only matters when it happens to one side.
|
On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument.
I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic.
How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason.
I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes.
|
On October 09 2023 11:31 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 06:12 ChristianS wrote:
Kwark, I think you’re closer to right in this exchange and TLoA is absolutely doing the bait and switch “opposing Israel on anything means supporting a second Holocaust” trick that Israel defenders have always done. You've got a good history of posting in good faith, so I want to return that good faith even while heavily disagreeing. The complaint is not that Kwark is not 100% pro Israel. You'll find very little pushback if you say that the Israeli settlements are wrong even from pro-Israel people. In Kwark's response to this post + Show Spoiler +On October 08 2023 03:11 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2023 02:17 Excludos wrote:On October 07 2023 22:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The framing that they just want to be left alone while continuing to encroach on palestinerne territory is absolutely ridiculous. It's insane how people are just willing to completely disregard context. That they are being attacked by rocket barrages and terrorism on the daily is seemingly unimportant. If Sweden did that to Norway, we'd be doing a lot more than Israel is in regards to counter-aggression. It's like if I keep punching you in the face, and you push me away, suddenly everyone around us goers "omfg how could you push?!". You answer with "I just want to be left alone!" and then people laugh and go "Shouldn't be pushing then!" If Palestine doesn't want Israel to keep pushing, then maybe they should seek peace? Or at the very least meet at the table. Israel doesn't want the occupied territories, and have numerous times claimed willingness to give them back He's talking about the illegal settlements, not the retaliatory attacks by Israel. But overall, I agree. While Israel is adding fuel to the fire by refusing to stop the illegal settlements, we can't overlook the context of this conflict. Namely, when the Arabs thought they had the upper hand, they tried to wipe Israel off the map on several occasions (the Palestinian Arabs were onboard). They chose violence over negotiated peace. On the other hand, once the situation shifted in favour of Israel, Israel was open to accepting several different peace proposals. Those were rejected by the Palestinians, who were unhappy with some of the terms. They were unwilling to accept that their negotiating position was getting progressively weaker, and they chose violence again. I think people siding with Palestine in this conflict are not holding Israel and Palestine to the same standard. If Israel acted the way the Arabs did, they would've wiped out the Palestinians a long time ago. @Drone I would hold off with such claims. The number of casualties on the Palestinian side come from the Palestinian officials, i.e. Hamas... He says On October 08 2023 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Wiping Israel off the map doesn’t necessarily mean killing every Israeli. The third Reich was wiped off of the map, for example. Israel is the state, not the people. They conflate the two deliberately. He's trying to defend "wipe Israel off the map" as merely "remove the country, but totally keep the people". It's bullshit and anyone who's been paying attention should know it. The Palestinians want an ethnic cleansing. The only thing preventing the ethnic cleansing is the power that the Israeli government has. If they ever lose a war or are otherwise dissolved, it will be an ethnic cleansing. The only question would be how many Israelis would escape versus how many would be part of the genocide. What country would take 7 million Jewish refugees because there is no way Palestinians would accept Jewish neighbors and allow them to live. Here's a spokesman for Hamas talking to Al Jazeera today: Osama Hamdan, senior spokesperson for Hamas, told Al Jazeera that the group was not attacking civilians even though the group’s own videos have shown its fighters taking elderly Israelis hostage during the fighting on Saturday.
Rights groups such as Amnesty International have also pointed out that Israeli civilians had been killed by Hamas.
But Hamdan insisted that the group was attacking only settlers living in illegal settlements, whom he described as legitimate targets.
“You have to differentiate between settlers and civilians. Settlers attacked Palestinians,” Hamdan said.
Asked whether civilians in southern Israel were also considered settlers, Hamdan said: “Everyone knows there are settlements there.”
“We are not targeting civilians on purpose. We have declared settlers are part of the occupation and part of the armed Israeli force. They are not civilians,” he added. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/8/what-is-the-group-hamas-a-simple-guide-tothe-palestinian-groupHe's not saying that the elderly were unfortunate casualties of war or that mistakes were made. He says that the elderly are not "civilians", they are "settlers" and thus killing and kidnapping them is okay. This is a spokesman for the political leadership of Palestine. It also looks like a concert for peace is a legitimate target according to Palestinians. I've already posted the decline in numbers of Jewish People in every other Mideast country. Every last one experienced an ethnic cleansing. People don't just up and move for the fun of it. They were forced out. Or if you want a non-Jewish example, you can look at what's happening to Christians in Egypt for another example. Church bombings, kidnapped women forced to marry Muslims, and plenty of killings. Fanatical Muslims will not live peacefully side by side with anyone else and there are way too many fanatical Muslims in the middle east. Being anti Israel is indeed taking a pro-genocide stance. However, I'll admit that most western people don't realize that's what they're actually supporting by being anti Israel. Most people are ignorant. And no, that doesn't mean you need to endorse everything the Israeli government does in order to be anti-genocide. However, you do need to support the right of Israel to exist and be against anyone who denies that right. Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? I mean, I guess the underlying question I'm not clear on is whether we're asking "what Kwark means by 'wipe Israel off the map' " or "what this or that Arab leader and/or Palestians generally means/meant by 'wipe Israel off the map' ". You have a lot more confidence than I do in asserting "what Palestinians want." That might just be me being ill-informed, I dunno. But Kwark's specific post is pretty clear that he, at least, is clarifying that ending the current government of Israel does not inherently mean genocide/ethnic cleansing of Israelis. Maybe that's what Palestinians would want. I'm pretty sure that's what Hamas would want. But if, for instance, the international community decided "we're not going to allow an ethnostate to exist" and forced Israel to change their form of government away from one that explicitly, legally determines who is and isn't a Jew and differentiates legal rights accordingly, I don't think that wouldn't necessarily entail genociding Israelis. You could claim that all those policies are necessary to preventing a genocide that would otherwise be inevitable. If so, you could assert "no, you're wrong, it's not possible to imagine ending the current Israeli state without an accompanying genocide of Israelis." But I just don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. Anyway it's clear Kwark doesn't, which is the disputed issue here. I think your anger at Kwark (and maybe TLoA's anger at Kwark) is based on the idea that he's apologizing for/running interference for bloodthirsty Arab leaders that just want to kill every Jew. Which, I dunno, those people certainly exist. I don't *think* Kwark is trying to defend those people, although any time you argue even a nuanced pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel position you're at least giving those people some cover, right? I am too, whether I like it or not, any time I argue that Israel's moral position is compromised or that Palestinians' rights are being trampled on. Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. Otherwise, I just don't think his intention is to empower those people (although he probably disagrees with you about how prevalent that opinion is, either among Palestinians or in the Arab world generally). I'll try to be more clear. I'm accusing people of being short-sighted more than malicious. I don't think any of the normal posters on this forum wants a genocide of the Jewish people. However, I am accusing people of not understanding the consequences of their preferred actions. I liken the situation to a poisoned pawn in chess. You move your queen to take that unprotected pawn, then the next opponent's move is to fork/check you and put you a few moves away from mate. In the real world, mate against Israel is the ethnic cleansing of the place. I'm trying to look more than one move ahead and see what would happen if Israel ended its version of apartheid. From my vantage point, that first move might look nice, but it will be devastating in the future. It would involve an influx of "Palestinians" that are actually radicals from all over the middle east. People willing to die in order to kill infidels. Then you get the terrorist attacks as people feel justified in killing anyone because they're "settlers" not civilians or whatever excuse they feel like that day. You'll get a break down of civil society and eventually pogroms. All you need to do is listen to the Palestinian leaders and you'll hear their desire for it. When someone says they're going to do something evil, don't just handwave it away. Admittedly, it would be a repeat of the Zionism that created Israel, just in reverse and with nowhere adjacent for the Jewish people to flee to. The Jewish people would be stupid to be on the receiving end of it. Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:30 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 RenSC2 wrote:On October 09 2023 09:54 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 09:30 RenSC2 wrote:
Or if you think I'm wrong, let's try to answer a question, what is the scenario where the Israeli government is dissolved and we don't have an ethnic cleansing? Something akin to the end of apartheid rule in South Africa or power sharing agreements in NI. I'm not as familiar with NI as I'd like, so I'll go with South Africa as one which I know a little bit about. Do you see any differences between the South African situation and the Israel/Palestine situation that could result in extremely different results despite the same actions? Like, perhaps do you see a significant difference between Nelson Mandela and whoever the Palestinians have put in charge? Nelson Mandela, on trial where he would eventually be sentenced to life in prison, says this: During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. Nelson Mandela started out peacefully, did have a foray into more extreme methods and got prison time for it, and then came out promoting peace and reconciliation again. Even his more extreme methods involved "sabotage against property (designed to minimize risks of injury and death)". When and where did he say it was okay to kill the elderly whites because they were settlers, not civilians? I think I missed that part of his life. When did he refuse to recognize the rights of whites to exist in South Africa? When did he launch a war to wipe out the whites in South Africa? He as the leader, and the movement as a whole, was all about gaining equal rights. The Palestinian movement, from the very beginning, has been about annihilating Israel. The rhetoric during the founding of Israel says it and the rhetoric now says it. Who is the Palestinian comparable to Mandela? Who are the Palestinian people going to follow to peaceful equality? TLDR: Israelis have the right to exist and defend themselves. Fuck Hamas. The opposition to the creation of Israel is more complicated than a black and white good vs bad. The existence of Israel is not inherently neutral and framing it as such is oversimplifying things. But it’s too late now and Israel is better than any alternative. Yes. I completely agree with this TLDR.
Well this just got a lot more specific in a way that might be worth focusing on. If I’m not misunderstanding you, you believe that ending Israel’s version of apartheid would necessarily (or, at least, most likely) result in ethnic cleansing of Israelis. I don’t think that’s an opinion shared by a number of posters here, so it’s worth talking through the chain of events.
As I understand it, “Israel’s version of apartheid” refers to the fact that, since its creation, Israel has legally distinguished between Jews and non-Jews and discriminated in political rights based on the distinction. Most critically, the policy for a very long time (maybe still? I don’t know the exact history here) was that if you were a Jew, anywhere in the world, you could come to Israel and be given citizenship and land.
That’s an understandable idea if you’re trying to give a home to the world’s Jewish population that’s been ravaged during WW2, but where is all that land supposed to come from? Well, it’s a war-torn region; lots of people over the years have fled their homes fearing for their family’s safety. If those people are Jews, you respect their land claim when they come back. If they’re not, you don’t, and now there’s some land freed up to give to newly arrived Jews hoping to take advantage of the policy.
So I assume the thing you’re worried about is the so-called “right to return” that critics of Israel often call for. Basically, non-Jews whose families had land claims in the region should be allowed to come home, be given citizenship, and have their land back. And if I’m not mistaken, your fear is that a lot of those returning people are sufficiently radicalized against Israel they would just start committing random acts of terror against their neighbors?
This is the point where I’m least certain I’m interpreting you correctly, so maybe I should just stop there before trying to analyze the argument further until you’ve had a chance to say whether that’s really your position or not.
|
On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument.
"Weird" indeed. Meanwhile the notion that Palestinians shouldn't be ethnically cleansed is openly treated as unreasonable and utopian.
Makes me empathize with the feeling that the whole West should be thrown away.
|
On October 09 2023 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument. I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic. How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason. I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes.
Perhaps I misread what you meant, and I agree that a desire for justice doesn't necessitate change, but I disagree that it therefore demands capitulation.
Right now, Israel has no reason to come to the table in a serious way where Palestine is regarded as an equal because Israel has global backing. For any change to occur that needs to first be addressed. That doesn't mean abandoning Israel to Iran and Hamas attacking them at will, but it does mean for example the US reducing military aid, and it does mean performing a civic duty to recontextualize the narrative.
From a purely pragmatic sense it probably isn't the wisest course of action for Palestine or Hamas to wage a war they can never win, but I can't ignore that they are acting in a manner akin to every soverign nation that faces encoraching powers.
|
On October 09 2023 13:13 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument. I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic. How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason. I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes. Perhaps I misread what you meant, and I agree that a desire for justice doesn't necessitate change, but I disagree that it therefore demands capitulation. Right now, Israel has no reason to come to the table in a serious way where Palestine is regarded as an equal because Israel has global backing. For any change to occur that needs to first be addressed. That doesn't mean abandoning Israel to Iran and Hamas attacking them at will, but it does mean for example the US reducing military aid, and it does mean performing a civic duty to recontextualize the narrative. From a purely pragmatic sense it probably isn't the wisest course of action for Palestine or Hamas to wage a war they can never win, but I can't ignore that they are acting in a manner akin to every soverign nation that faces encoraching powers. Making future aid contingent on not continuing to unabashedly and forcibly steal land seems like a pretty moderate request from my perspective. How do I vote for that?
|
On October 09 2023 13:13 Cricketer12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument. I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic. How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason. I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes. Perhaps I misread what you meant, and I agree that a desire for justice doesn't necessitate change, but I disagree that it therefore demands capitulation. Right now, Israel has no reason to come to the table in a serious way where Palestine is regarded as an equal because Israel has global backing. For any change to occur that needs to first be addressed. That doesn't mean abandoning Israel to Iran and Hamas attacking them at will, but it does mean for example the US reducing military aid, and it does mean performing a civic duty to recontextualize the narrative. From a purely pragmatic sense it probably isn't the wisest course of action for Palestine or Hamas to wage a war they can never win, but I can't ignore that they are acting in a manner akin to every soverign nation that faces encoraching powers.
I think you're 100% right. All of those things are a part of the path to a mutually satisfactory co-existence.
Focusing on the historic/ethical reasons to support a Palestinian state is reasonable. There is a long list of reasons I don't want Palestinians to suffer. I would totally love for that outcome to be how things go, but it is hard to view the prospect as anything other than just running out the clock and hoping some wild event suddenly flips the situation upside down, like a meteor or something.
What is your honest gut feeling as to how likely this is to happen? Not even in the next 5 years, but 20? I think the only way for someone to say these things will happen is more of a "who knows" or "you never know" or "a lot of things can change". There is a non-zero cost of running out the clock. Its a really bad situation and a lot of people are dying. When the only path is waiting for a miracle, I don't think it is ethical to advocate for extending a situation that is leading to so much death.
|
On October 09 2023 13:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2023 13:13 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 12:05 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2023 11:53 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 09 2023 10:57 KwarK wrote:On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
Like, would it help if Kwark explicitly said "I don't think Israelis should be genocided or ethnically cleansed, and I don't think any Palestinian or Arab leaders advocating that are on defensible moral ground"? I bet he'd do it, although I'm not sure if you'd believe him or not. I don’t think Israelis should be genocided and anyone who does is obviously in the wrong. I’ve been super explicit on that point but I’ll say it again if needed. Weird how people need to go out of their way to clarify that Israelis don't deserve genocide and Israeli citizens should always be spared, but people never feel the need to clarify the same about the Palestinians who are killed on an exponentially larger rate. On October 09 2023 11:46 Mohdoo wrote:
My main reason for siding with Israel in this whole debacle is that they are winning by a mile and its just a matter of politics that they haven't finished the job. I also believe Might makes right. How is this an argument. I think that's a dishonest approximation of what I am saying. I am saying this ship has sailed to such an extreme that it is not reasonable to pretend more than 1 outcome is even slightly realistic. How about this: Maybe I'm just ignorant. Can you please give me a brief description of the path to a long-term solution that both sides are happy with? Doesn't need to be specific. Doesn't need to be rigidly based on evidence or whatever. I'm just asking what I am missing, because it seems legitimately beyond reason. I think its maybe a little naive/immature to cite justice and/or ethics as a reason for believing an outcome is possible. It is totally fair to cite ethics/justice as a reason something *ought* to happen. But there is no virtue in throwing lives away. Courage or principle or whatever people use to justify throwing Palestinians into this conflict for years on end is not a means to achieving the goal. It is a reason to WANT the outcome, but it is not evidence the outcome will happen. I'd say we have plennnty of history to look back on to show ethics and justice are not effective means of predicting outcomes. Perhaps I misread what you meant, and I agree that a desire for justice doesn't necessitate change, but I disagree that it therefore demands capitulation. Right now, Israel has no reason to come to the table in a serious way where Palestine is regarded as an equal because Israel has global backing. For any change to occur that needs to first be addressed. That doesn't mean abandoning Israel to Iran and Hamas attacking them at will, but it does mean for example the US reducing military aid, and it does mean performing a civic duty to recontextualize the narrative. From a purely pragmatic sense it probably isn't the wisest course of action for Palestine or Hamas to wage a war they can never win, but I can't ignore that they are acting in a manner akin to every soverign nation that faces encoraching powers. I think you're 100% right. All of those things are a part of the path to a mutually satisfactory co-existence. Focusing on the historic/ethical reasons to support a Palestinian state is reasonable. There is a long list of reasons I don't want Palestinians to suffer. I would totally love for that outcome to be how things go, but it is hard to view the prospect as anything other than just running out the clock and hoping some wild event suddenly flips the situation upside down, like a meteor or something. What is your honest gut feeling as to how likely this is to happen? Not even in the next 5 years, but 20? I think the only way for someone to say these things will happen is more of a "who knows" or "you never know" or "a lot of things can change". There is a non-zero cost of running out the clock. Its a really bad situation and a lot of people are dying. When the only path is waiting for a miracle, I don't think it is ethical to advocate for extending a situation that is leading to so much death.
I don't have answer for you, how could I, and to your credit, that's a fair point to make.
It's still bizarre for us to say hey this side is guilty of immoral behavior, but the onus is on you to accept that and let them win. If we claim to live in a democratic, educated world we should be able to do better.
You also have the problem of where the hell these people are supposed to go even if they agreed to leave? Because I assume you aren't suggesting they be allowed to become Israeli citizens, I may have missed that earlier. I'm not even necessarily 100% against that concept if Arabs were treated equally in Israel.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
