|
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. |
Northern Ireland26499 Posts
On May 29 2024 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
I would have thought 'we' (the West) would have learned by now that forcing Democracy on others very rarely works out...
You’d have thought by now…
I don’t see a particular issue in recognising some form of Palestinian statehood, while sanctioning such a state if it’s controlled by someone like Hamas.
It’s perfectly possible to both consider a wider ethnocultural group to have a legitimate claim to statehood, but oppose particular forms a state may end up taking.
Scrolling up a bit and the predictable outrage from Israel over this ‘rewarding Hamas’, I mean it’s ridiculous. It’s not rewarding Hamas violence at all, this global impetus, as likely to be token symbolism as it stands is most predicated on Israeli perpetrated violence. There was (almost) universal revulsion to Hamas’ offensive.
|
On May 29 2024 04:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 04:09 Gorsameth wrote:
I would have thought 'we' (the West) would have learned by now that forcing Democracy on others very rarely works out... I don’t see a particular issue in recognising some form of Palestinian statehood, while sanctioning such a state if it’s controlled by someone like Hamas.
This is what I think is the right way to do things.
"Alright, so you're a state and we've got a few issues to bring up..."
I want to be clear that this isn't me expressing a moral perspective on why Hamas needs to be formally recognized as the government of Palestine. I am saying when we examine what it means for a group of people to have a shared identity, the supported leadership is a core component of what that identity is. You can't remove support of leadership from a group identity. It is a component of how that group is defined.
Edit1: Palestinians being granted some internationally recognized identity shouldn't be viewed through the lens of "but do we like this". It should be viewed as more of a physical description. Similar to how if you pick up a purple rock, you ought to label is a purple rock rather than a yellow rock. Whether you like purple rocks or yellow rocks shouldn't even really be a consideration when labeling something.
If we decide Palestine is a state, we are saying that state is composed of a certain group of people. If we label the leadership of Palestine as a leader other than the leader preferred by that group of people, we are no longer talking about that group of people. We are now talking about a different group. There isn't a real relationship to build in the absence of a properly defined group of people.
Edit2: I want to also be clear I think the perspective I am outlining above is strictly beneficial for both Palestinians and Israelis. I truly believe some people think they are helping Palestinians by trying to prevent Palestinians from being defined as supporting Hamas. These people likely worry that Hamas has too much negative baggage to allow Palestinians to be granted statehood. But I think they are wrong. I think the negative effects on Palestinians by trying to shove a puppet government on them is actually worse than their current situation. I think the internal turmoil would be strictly additive to the current relationship with Israel. No one is doing Palestinians any favors, even strictly selfishly speaking for Palestinians, by trying to label them as non-Hamas-affiliated.
|
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs
|
|
|
On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs
If we look globally at the conflicts that have been going on, then the commonality is that the more powerful of the two parties must be benevolent. That's the main factor that determines whether or not the conflict turns from cold to hot.
Israel becoming benevolent has a very high chance of ending the hot conflict permanently.
Palestine becoming benevolent would change absolutely nothing.
|
On May 29 2024 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs If we look globally at the conflicts that have been going on, then the commonality is that the more powerful of the two parties must be benevolent. That's the main factor that determines whether or not the conflict turns from cold to hot. Israel becoming benevolent has a very high chance of ending the hot conflict permanently. Palestine becoming benevolent would change absolutely nothing.
I imagine the pushback from US/ EU would be greater for Israel if Palestine were a country which is actively trying to avoid a war. Maybe that's just hopium though
|
On May 29 2024 19:55 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 18:50 Magic Powers wrote:On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs If we look globally at the conflicts that have been going on, then the commonality is that the more powerful of the two parties must be benevolent. That's the main factor that determines whether or not the conflict turns from cold to hot. Israel becoming benevolent has a very high chance of ending the hot conflict permanently. Palestine becoming benevolent would change absolutely nothing. I imagine the pushback from US/ EU would be greater for Israel if Palestine were a country which is actively trying to avoid a war. Maybe that's just hopium though
I think it could turn the war back a few years, i.e. to pre-October 7. That would be an accomplishment as it would prevent further mass casualties. Unfortunately it'd only be a reverseal to the time period that ultimately led to October 7, so just going back alone contains a great risk of yet another hot war. People have to find a way forward to create lasting peace and stability.
If we compare this to North vs South Korea, the war is still going on, but it has turned cold. A cold war is of course preferable, but if North Korea's military ever becomes powerful enough it will turn hot again. This shows that a cold war is a hot war in the waiting, only without mass casualties. A much more desirable scenario, but not the end of the conflict. North Korea also proves that it's not necessary for both sides to have a benevolent leadership, only the more powerful side (South Korea) needs to be benevolent. The conditions inside NK are very bad, but at least thousands of people aren't dying every month.
The Russia-Ukraine war also follows these principles. Only Russia needs to turn benevolent for the hot war to come to a conclusion. Ukraine doesn't need to add anything to it, it's entirely up to Russia. If - during a ceasefire - Ukraine were actually acting hostile towards Russia (hypothetically), that alone could not turn the war hot again, because Russia is too powerful for that.
In the long run both Palestine and Israel need to make amends towards each other to create lasting peace between them, but only Israel needs to stop acting hostile. Recognition of Palestine as a state has clearly made Israel more angry, so it has not resulted in any signs of an end to the hot war.
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas?
|
I've seen tweets from a decent amount of "influential" people who were usually supporting Israel that were critical of the recent bombing in Rafah, one of the larger examples being Piers Morgan. I have no illusion that these people are suddenly allies, but my best guess is that there's a connexion between the recent ICJ decisions and those reactions, so if nothing else that is one impact that they've had on the discourse.
|
People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad.
This is not exactly a hard concept.
In the long run both Palestine and Israel need to make amends towards each other to create lasting peace between them, but only Israel needs to stop acting hostile. Recognition of Palestine as a state has clearly made Israel more angry, so it has not resulted in any signs of an end to the hot war.
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas?
I'm counting the days until some (UN?)Peacetroops are deployed for a looooooong time in Gaza. Going back to "before 7th October" is asking Israel to be ok with just getting attacked by random rockets every few days and waiting for another October 7th... Letting an extremist group rule Gaza is also not gonna happen again.
A truely Independent Gaza has never been further away in the last 50 years.
|
On May 29 2024 23:37 Velr wrote:
People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad.
This is not exactly a hard concept.
I suppose you could feel very, very weakly about war crimes being bad and justify that position.
Its like saying "I don't support using chemical weapons on your own population but I support Assad."
|
On May 29 2024 23:37 Velr wrote:
People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad.
This is not exactly a hard concept.
It is not hard you're right, all they need is a very weak understanding of what Israel is about, which many people have, especially given how the media treats this conflict. That's why I would never blame someone I meet on the street for not having a very informed opinion. But someone who is influential and especially someone who has developed an influence specifically because of their political opinions or their show about politics, I can't give that same leeway to.
|
On May 29 2024 16:18 Harris1st wrote:
If Palestine becomes a state and Hamas is the governing body we will have the same thing that we have now only then there are officialy 2 countries at war instead of the one and a half that we have now.
You need a government that is less extreme or you will always have war. I'm not saying you need a western puppet government. Just some people who think with their head instead of their AKs
I'm sorry if I am doing a bad job at being clear/succinct, so I will try again.
Our external judgment of the government of a Palestinian state should come AFTER Palestinians decide who they prefer to serve as their government. We don't get to decide that. Telling Palestinians who they get to vote for is dehumanizing. Telling Palestinians who they get to vote for is also counterproductive for reasons we have seen many times with puppet governments.
After Palestinians decide who they want to govern them, the world can decide how to engage with Palestinians. But until we have an honest conversation with Palestinians, progress can't be made. When Palestinians are caught in this weird gray area of being a state while also not being a state, it prevents productive conversations to establish relations with other nations.
I think you are right in describing Hamas as extreme and fundamentally incompatible with the world as a whole. But we need to let Palestinians work through that decision making themselves. We need to allow the diplomatic process to happen in a more natural, truthful form. Maybe we end up being able to see eye to eye and maybe Palestinians support reforms or changes to Hamas to make it more compatible. Maybe they don't. But we aren't helping anyone by preventing the honest conversations between each group.
|
On May 29 2024 23:37 Velr wrote:People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad. This is not exactly a hard concept. Show nested quote +In the long run both Palestine and Israel need to make amends towards each other to create lasting peace between them, but only Israel needs to stop acting hostile. Recognition of Palestine as a state has clearly made Israel more angry, so it has not resulted in any signs of an end to the hot war.
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas? I'm counting the days until some (UN?)Peacetroops are deployed for a looooooong time in Gaza. Going back to "before 7th October" is asking Israel to be ok with just getting attacked by random rockets every few days and waiting for another October 7th... Letting an extremist group rule Gaza is also not gonna happen again. A truely Independent Gaza has never been further away in the last 50 years.
Fact of the matter is that Israel has many enemies. Iran just recently attacked them with missiles and drones. Fortunately it didn't pose a serious threat. Hamas has done the same over many years. Considering that, it'd be more than a miracle if Gaza could get a non-extremist leadership. Is it reasonable to expect Palestinians to vote for less extremist leaders than Iran? Iran isn't under occupation, while Palestinians have to deal with oppression every day, and yet Iran is equally hostile towards Israel.
Gaza isn't going to get a benevolent leadership under these circumstances. The only way to change that is to change the politics on both sides, not only that of Palestinians. While Palestinians need to reform their leadership, so does Israel, because the conflict is fueled by the constant hatred coming from the leadership of both sides. Netanyahu's administration is hardly less extreme than Hamas. He just happens to be allied with the US, and for that reason he can't commit the same crimes.
So how can the conflict be resolved if Palestinians aren't allowed to have a leadership that is as extremist as that of Israel? I don't understand the reasoning here. Israel only gets away with this because it's more powerful. Palestinans don't get away with it because they're less powerful. That's all there's to it.
|
On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2024 23:37 Velr wrote:People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad. This is not exactly a hard concept. In the long run both Palestine and Israel need to make amends towards each other to create lasting peace between them, but only Israel needs to stop acting hostile. Recognition of Palestine as a state has clearly made Israel more angry, so it has not resulted in any signs of an end to the hot war.
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas? I'm counting the days until some (UN?)Peacetroops are deployed for a looooooong time in Gaza. Going back to "before 7th October" is asking Israel to be ok with just getting attacked by random rockets every few days and waiting for another October 7th... Letting an extremist group rule Gaza is also not gonna happen again. A truely Independent Gaza has never been further away in the last 50 years. Fact of the matter is that Israel has many enemies. Iran just recently attacked them with missiles and drones. Fortunately it didn't pose a serious threat. Hamas has done the same over many years. Considering that, it'd be more than a miracle if Gaza could get a non-extremist leadership. Is it reasonable to expect Palestinians to vote for less extremist leaders than Iran? Iran isn't under occupation, while Palestinians have to deal with oppression every day, and yet Iran is equally hostile towards Israel. Gaza isn't going to get a benevolent leadership under these circumstances. The only way to change that is to change the politics on both sides, not only that of Palestinians. While Palestinians need to reform their leadership, so does Israel, because the conflict is fueled by the constant hatred coming from the leadership of both sides. Netanyahu's administration is hardly less extreme than Hamas. He just happens to be allied with the US, and for that reason he can't commit the same crimes. So how can the conflict be resolved if Palestinians aren't allowed to have a leadership that is as extremist as that of Israel? I don't understand the reasoning here. Israel only gets away with this because it's more powerful. Palestinans don't get away with it because they're less powerful. That's all there's to it.
Equating Hamas with Israel is not productive. Israel can be fundamentally unethical in how they treat Palestinians without being morally equivalent. They are not the same and this has been described to you enough times with enough detail.
I do agree with you regarding allowing Palestinians to be governed by Hamas. I think Palestinians being granted international recognition with Hamas as their government will make their situation much worse in the short term. But dealing with the situation as it truly is will eventually lead to progress.
I see value in asking neighboring Arab countries to work with the UN on some kind of election. Organize an election where they can choose which group they prefer. Palestinians have the right to define their identity. And they deserve to be able to be validated by the world with recognition of their identity.
|
On May 30 2024 03:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:On May 29 2024 23:37 Velr wrote:People can support Israel (or tendence to side with it in this conflict) while still not being a-ok with how they are playing this out or feel that war crimes/needless attacks on civilans are bad. This is not exactly a hard concept. In the long run both Palestine and Israel need to make amends towards each other to create lasting peace between them, but only Israel needs to stop acting hostile. Recognition of Palestine as a state has clearly made Israel more angry, so it has not resulted in any signs of an end to the hot war.
Perhaps the recognition of Palestine can lead to further steps that could then put more pressure on Israel to turn the war cold. I'm not sure if such steps can be taken. Any ideas? I'm counting the days until some (UN?)Peacetroops are deployed for a looooooong time in Gaza. Going back to "before 7th October" is asking Israel to be ok with just getting attacked by random rockets every few days and waiting for another October 7th... Letting an extremist group rule Gaza is also not gonna happen again. A truely Independent Gaza has never been further away in the last 50 years. Fact of the matter is that Israel has many enemies. Iran just recently attacked them with missiles and drones. Fortunately it didn't pose a serious threat. Hamas has done the same over many years. Considering that, it'd be more than a miracle if Gaza could get a non-extremist leadership. Is it reasonable to expect Palestinians to vote for less extremist leaders than Iran? Iran isn't under occupation, while Palestinians have to deal with oppression every day, and yet Iran is equally hostile towards Israel. Gaza isn't going to get a benevolent leadership under these circumstances. The only way to change that is to change the politics on both sides, not only that of Palestinians. While Palestinians need to reform their leadership, so does Israel, because the conflict is fueled by the constant hatred coming from the leadership of both sides. Netanyahu's administration is hardly less extreme than Hamas. He just happens to be allied with the US, and for that reason he can't commit the same crimes. So how can the conflict be resolved if Palestinians aren't allowed to have a leadership that is as extremist as that of Israel? I don't understand the reasoning here. Israel only gets away with this because it's more powerful. Palestinans don't get away with it because they're less powerful. That's all there's to it. Equating Hamas with Israel is not productive. Israel can be fundamentally unethical in how they treat Palestinians without being morally equivalent. They are not the same and this has been described to you enough times with enough detail. I do agree with you regarding allowing Palestinians to be governed by Hamas. I think Palestinians being granted international recognition with Hamas as their government will make their situation much worse in the short term. But dealing with the situation as it truly is will eventually lead to progress. I see value in asking neighboring Arab countries to work with the UN on some kind of election. Organize an election where they can choose which group they prefer. Palestinians have the right to define their identity. And they deserve to be able to be validated by the world with recognition of their identity.
I'm not equating Hamas with Israel, but with Netanyahu and his supporters. They've killed many thousands of civilians, used starvation as a weapon, displaced millions, destroyed all of Gaza's infrastructure, and all that after decades of oppression.
I don't understand why it's necessary to explain why they're so similar every few weeks. You can argue that they're not equal, but you can't deny the many similarities.
|
On May 30 2024 04:11 Magic Powers wrote:
I don't understand why it's necessary to explain why they're so similar every few weeks. You can argue that they're not equal, but you can't deny the many similarities.
Because you didn't say there are similarities. Your phrasing consistently indicated they are equivalent.
The government of Israel is deeply immoral and many different people on Netanyahu's team are particularly immoral. Despite how immoral Netanyahu and his team are, your phrasing is inaccurate and dishonest. They are not equivalent in the way you indicated below.
On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Netanyahu's administration is hardly less extreme than Hamas.
The way you use "hardly" here is generally used to mean "not", meaning they not less extreme.
On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:He just happens to be allied with the US, and for that reason he can't commit the same crimes.
"same crimes" is labeling their crimes as equivalent.
On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:
So how can the conflict be resolved if Palestinians aren't allowed to have a leadership that is as extremist as that of Israel?
You are indicating Palestinians should be allowed to have Hamas as leadership because they are "as extremist as that of Israel".
On May 30 2024 02:24 Magic Powers wrote:
Israel only gets away with this because it's more powerful. Palestinans don't get away with it because they're less powerful. That's all there's to it.
When you say "that's all there's to it", you are indicating the difference in power between Hamas and Israel's government is the only factor determining how well they gain international acceptance. By saying that's the only factor, you are saying there are not any moral differences between them.
|
How about we don't interpret other people's words the way we want to, but the way they do? Can we stop playing this game? I have absolutely no interest in that kind of argumentation.
I do not equate Netanyahu to Hamas, because there are obvious differences. As it pertains to how damaging they are to Israel-Palestine relations though they are effectively on the exact same level. Their actions are also very similar.
Take me at my word or leave it.
|
I think in many aspects colonialism is morally worse than terrorism. I don't really care about morality so that's not really a thought that I've entertained a lot, but it seems quite easy to defend.
|
Also, we do nit have to give Hamas the leadership they want. There are dozens of examples of countries not being allowed to use democracy as they would have wanted. A democracy does not work if you allow choices that would remove democracy. And democracy also does not work without a strong foundation. It's fine allowing palestina statehood without allowing a democracy leading to bloodshed. They can become a nation not dependent on Israel and get a decade of rebuilding, healing, education and most importantly, prosperity and then they can be turned over into a more free society.
|
On May 30 2024 07:07 Broetchenholer wrote:
Also, we do nit have to give Hamas the leadership they want. There are dozens of examples of countries not being allowed to use democracy as they would have wanted. A democracy does not work if you allow choices that would remove democracy.
Sure, we have a few key examples of this working well. But it has always involved complete and total surrender and subsequent domination by outside parties to make it work. No one is willing to do that with Palestinians.
I am saying you are wrong here because we have already asked everyone if they would be willing to do that. They have all said no. After everyone says no, it means it is time to move on from that idea.
That only leaves one option: Allow Palestinians to be led by who they overwhelmingly want to be led by. This isn't even me saying its the better option or anything. I am saying when you only have 1 choice, its not a hard decision. Everyone already declined what you are describing. Whether its the "correct" path or not, we only have 1 path left. We ought to do what we can to go down that path best we can. Allowing for all of this to be formalized rather than hang in limbo forever is the responsible and less harmful thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
