EPTOn October 10 2023 02:27 Mohdoo wrote:
My solution is to find a way to put them somewhere else. The fact that relocating 2 million people is a daunting task is irrelevant when the only other solution being discussed is even less probable.
When you compare:
Option 1: 0% possible
Option 2: 1% possible
Option 2 is a great option. My point isn’t that I have some superb elegant solution that we can bust out next week. No such thing exists. But sipping our chai in an ivory tower talking about old borders is no matter what a waste of time.
Show nested quote +
On October 10 2023 00:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
What is your solution again? Because how i am reading it, even failure leading to a continuation of the status quo seems better than what I've understood you to propose.
Excludos, thanks for the writeup, good post. Don't have much more of a comment than that.
On October 10 2023 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
No one should be ok with it. I agree. And we should do what we can to prevent all forms of suffering for all parties involved. And I am saying people let history cloud their judgment. Of all people I have discussed this topic with, not a single person thinks their preferred solution has any chance whatsoever of being a component of reality any time soon. So what’s the point? Is that not just some ivory tower thought experiment? If these lives are so important, why is it acceptable to let the death counter keep spinning while people review and compare previous borders?
We all agree a 2 state solution has no visible path and only gets less probable every day. Yet people can’t seem to force themselves to pursue other solutions because of some history book sitting on their shelf. So people continue to die day after day because of what is actually just ivory tower nonsense.
On October 10 2023 00:18 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, I’m as skeptical as you that Israel will seek a peaceful long-term resolution to the conflict. The last Israeli leader to try that got assassinated.
But that doesn’t mean I have to lie or make pretend about what’s happening, or how we got here, or what will continue to happen and why. Palestinians are people, they have rights, and Israel’s treatment of them is indefensible. Americans preaching “freedom” and “democracy” while sending money and weapons to help bomb Gaza reminds me of French revolutionaries preaching the Declaration of the Rights of Man while sending expeditions to re-enslave Haiti.
I strongly suspect that when the smoke clears, it will be clear that by this point in the timeline, Palestinian casualties had already well surpassed Israeli casualties since Friday. If not, just wait a few hours, we’ll get there. That’s not because Israel has been so rapid and effective at identifying and eliminating thousands of Hamas members; it’s because Israel effectively practices collective punishment, and if Israel wants to kill Palestinians there’s very little anyone can do about it (at least in the short term).
The way you talk about this it’s like you’re talking about the destruction of Carthage – regrettable, maybe, but what’s done is done and we may as well move on. “Genocide is the course of human history” as xDaunt would say. Thing is, it’s not ancient history, it’s happening today, and there’s millions of Palestinians currently alive that soon might not be. That’s not inevitable, and we don’t have to be okay with it. In fact, the international community not being okay with it is the biggest reason they *haven’t* just killed them all already, and it’s not a given that they wouldn’t if we all decided that what’s done is done.
On October 09 2023 23:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Wouldn’t it also work if we simply copied the planet twice, and gave 1 earth to Palestine and 1 earth to Israel?
We have no incentive to focus on a 2 state solution any more than we do a 2 planet solution. Both are equally likely in the next 50 years. I think it’s dishonest to cite this as some kind of actual possibility.
And just to be clear, I’m well aware of the 1967 borders etc and it truly is not actually relevant from a “what is the path to peace most likely to occur” perspective. These former borders existing in the past do not mean they are extra likely to happen again.
On October 09 2023 22:30 ChristianS wrote:
Huh, okay. So your worry is about current occupants of Gaza (and anyone who sneaks in to get included in the citizenship deal).
I mean, I don’t know what to say. That’s an enormous population, including a huge number of children, that are living in a legal limbo because Israel won’t give them legal status and Palestine isn’t a state. But they have to stay that way forever because we can never know for certain they won’t be violent? I guess that’s “One state solution” off the table for you.
What about “two state solution”? If we gave those people a government of their own, with territorial sovereignty and citizenship, and a right not to be bombed and occupied by the IDF all the time, that wouldn’t mean giving them the right to freely wander Israel. The “right to return” folks still won’t be happy, but would that look more like an acceptable outcome to you?
On October 09 2023 14:26 RenSC2 wrote:
I'm saying something much simpler than that. Right now, there is heavy restrictions of movement between Gaza and Israel. Israel is essentially walled in and trying to protect against any incursions. If Israel ends apartheid, the walls have to come down. The people of Gaza will have freedom to go wherever they want in Israel. Right now, for a shockingly large number of radicalized Palestinian people, that means going into Israel and committing acts of terror.
Then you have all the crazies from surrounding countries (including countries that don't immediately touch Israel like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). People who can sneak into Gaza or the West bank and then blend in with the poorly documented Palestinians. They have one goal and that's an intifada.
Get all those people into Israel and every day will look like yesterday.
On October 09 2023 12:12 ChristianS wrote:
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 11:31 RenSC2 wrote:
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.
Yes. I completely agree with this TLDR.
On October 09 2023 10:42 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
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).
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
I'm saying something much simpler than that. Right now, there is heavy restrictions of movement between Gaza and Israel. Israel is essentially walled in and trying to protect against any incursions. If Israel ends apartheid, the walls have to come down. The people of Gaza will have freedom to go wherever they want in Israel. Right now, for a shockingly large number of radicalized Palestinian people, that means going into Israel and committing acts of terror.
Then you have all the crazies from surrounding countries (including countries that don't immediately touch Israel like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc). People who can sneak into Gaza or the West bank and then blend in with the poorly documented Palestinians. They have one goal and that's an intifada.
Get all those people into Israel and every day will look like yesterday.
Huh, okay. So your worry is about current occupants of Gaza (and anyone who sneaks in to get included in the citizenship deal).
I mean, I don’t know what to say. That’s an enormous population, including a huge number of children, that are living in a legal limbo because Israel won’t give them legal status and Palestine isn’t a state. But they have to stay that way forever because we can never know for certain they won’t be violent? I guess that’s “One state solution” off the table for you.
What about “two state solution”? If we gave those people a government of their own, with territorial sovereignty and citizenship, and a right not to be bombed and occupied by the IDF all the time, that wouldn’t mean giving them the right to freely wander Israel. The “right to return” folks still won’t be happy, but would that look more like an acceptable outcome to you?
Wouldn’t it also work if we simply copied the planet twice, and gave 1 earth to Palestine and 1 earth to Israel?
We have no incentive to focus on a 2 state solution any more than we do a 2 planet solution. Both are equally likely in the next 50 years. I think it’s dishonest to cite this as some kind of actual possibility.
And just to be clear, I’m well aware of the 1967 borders etc and it truly is not actually relevant from a “what is the path to peace most likely to occur” perspective. These former borders existing in the past do not mean they are extra likely to happen again.
I mean, I’m as skeptical as you that Israel will seek a peaceful long-term resolution to the conflict. The last Israeli leader to try that got assassinated.
But that doesn’t mean I have to lie or make pretend about what’s happening, or how we got here, or what will continue to happen and why. Palestinians are people, they have rights, and Israel’s treatment of them is indefensible. Americans preaching “freedom” and “democracy” while sending money and weapons to help bomb Gaza reminds me of French revolutionaries preaching the Declaration of the Rights of Man while sending expeditions to re-enslave Haiti.
I strongly suspect that when the smoke clears, it will be clear that by this point in the timeline, Palestinian casualties had already well surpassed Israeli casualties since Friday. If not, just wait a few hours, we’ll get there. That’s not because Israel has been so rapid and effective at identifying and eliminating thousands of Hamas members; it’s because Israel effectively practices collective punishment, and if Israel wants to kill Palestinians there’s very little anyone can do about it (at least in the short term).
The way you talk about this it’s like you’re talking about the destruction of Carthage – regrettable, maybe, but what’s done is done and we may as well move on. “Genocide is the course of human history” as xDaunt would say. Thing is, it’s not ancient history, it’s happening today, and there’s millions of Palestinians currently alive that soon might not be. That’s not inevitable, and we don’t have to be okay with it. In fact, the international community not being okay with it is the biggest reason they *haven’t* just killed them all already, and it’s not a given that they wouldn’t if we all decided that what’s done is done.
No one should be ok with it. I agree. And we should do what we can to prevent all forms of suffering for all parties involved. And I am saying people let history cloud their judgment. Of all people I have discussed this topic with, not a single person thinks their preferred solution has any chance whatsoever of being a component of reality any time soon. So what’s the point? Is that not just some ivory tower thought experiment? If these lives are so important, why is it acceptable to let the death counter keep spinning while people review and compare previous borders?
We all agree a 2 state solution has no visible path and only gets less probable every day. Yet people can’t seem to force themselves to pursue other solutions because of some history book sitting on their shelf. So people continue to die day after day because of what is actually just ivory tower nonsense.
What is your solution again? Because how i am reading it, even failure leading to a continuation of the status quo seems better than what I've understood you to propose.
Excludos, thanks for the writeup, good post. Don't have much more of a comment than that.
My solution is to find a way to put them somewhere else. The fact that relocating 2 million people is a daunting task is irrelevant when the only other solution being discussed is even less probable.
When you compare:
Option 1: 0% possible
Option 2: 1% possible
Option 2 is a great option. My point isn’t that I have some superb elegant solution that we can bust out next week. No such thing exists. But sipping our chai in an ivory tower talking about old borders is no matter what a waste of time.
Attempting to sterilize a problematic scenario in the interest of making clean arguments couched in probabilities is itself an ivory tower exercise, so I’m not sure why you keep using that term in derogatory fashion. There are problems with essentially every single possible solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and no amount of problem narrowing rhetoric is gonna change that. And yes, that readily applies to “just relocate the Palestinians.” I have no idea why you think that’s even marginally more plausible than other solutions.
