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.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
Yes, so Hamas sticks around to fight their war, then they lose easily because Israel has the much superior force, and then the risk of dying in the war stops, but the refugees aren't allowed back. Based on those facts, something additional is happening on top of "risk of dying in a war", and that additional thing is why the term "ethnic cleansing" is used. Seems straightforward enough.
It is not my position that it is good to stay in a place where people want to kill you and be killed there. It is however my position that the rest of the world shouldn't be supporting the group who wants to kill you for being in that place, especially not with weapons, that seems like step 1 to a humane international society. It is also my opinion that when all of these people are ethnically cleansed and have left, while their individual lives have improved for sure, the systemic problem won't be fixed: Israel will still decide it wants to settle more land elsewhere, for example in Lebanon, and then the same discussions can happen again, is it better for the Lebanese to stay in Lebanon or to be killed? Rince and repeat until Israel finally targets land that is inhabited by human beings.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
Yes, so Hamas sticks around to fight their war, then they lose easily because Israel has the much superior force, and then the risk of dying in the war stops, but the refugees aren't allowed back. Based on those facts, something additional is happening on top of "risk of dying in a war", and that additional thing is why the term "ethnic cleansing" is used. Seems straightforward enough.
It is not my position that it is good to stay in a place where people want to kill you and be killed there. It is however my position that the rest of the world shouldn't be supporting the group who wants to kill you for being in that place, especially not with weapons, that seems like step 1 to a humane international society. It is also my opinion that when all of these people are ethnically cleansed and have left, while their individual lives have improved for sure, the systemic problem won't be fixed: Israel will still decide it wants to settle more land elsewhere, for example in Lebanon, and then the same discussions can happen again, is it better for the Lebanese to stay in Lebanon or to be killed? Rince and repeat until Israel finally targets land that is inhabited by human beings.
That is a presumption not a fact.
The confirmed group that wants to kill people for who they are is Iran and its armies.
The slippery slope argument is not very compelling, when historically Israel has been willing to trade land for peace, even valuable land.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
Yes, so Hamas sticks around to fight their war, then they lose easily because Israel has the much superior force, and then the risk of dying in the war stops, but the refugees aren't allowed back. Based on those facts, something additional is happening on top of "risk of dying in a war", and that additional thing is why the term "ethnic cleansing" is used. Seems straightforward enough.
It is not my position that it is good to stay in a place where people want to kill you and be killed there. It is however my position that the rest of the world shouldn't be supporting the group who wants to kill you for being in that place, especially not with weapons, that seems like step 1 to a humane international society. It is also my opinion that when all of these people are ethnically cleansed and have left, while their individual lives have improved for sure, the systemic problem won't be fixed: Israel will still decide it wants to settle more land elsewhere, for example in Lebanon, and then the same discussions can happen again, is it better for the Lebanese to stay in Lebanon or to be killed? Rince and repeat until Israel finally targets land that is inhabited by human beings.
That is a presumption not a fact.
The confirmed group that wants to kill people for who they are is Iran and its armies.
The slippery slope argument is not very compelling, when historically Israel has been willing to trade land for peace, even valuable land.
I agree it's presumption, I don't agree that it's a slippery slope argument. You've stopped answering on the main point that we were debating, do you now accept that something more than "refugees from war" is going on here?
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
Yes, so Hamas sticks around to fight their war, then they lose easily because Israel has the much superior force, and then the risk of dying in the war stops, but the refugees aren't allowed back. Based on those facts, something additional is happening on top of "risk of dying in a war", and that additional thing is why the term "ethnic cleansing" is used. Seems straightforward enough.
It is not my position that it is good to stay in a place where people want to kill you and be killed there. It is however my position that the rest of the world shouldn't be supporting the group who wants to kill you for being in that place, especially not with weapons, that seems like step 1 to a humane international society. It is also my opinion that when all of these people are ethnically cleansed and have left, while their individual lives have improved for sure, the systemic problem won't be fixed: Israel will still decide it wants to settle more land elsewhere, for example in Lebanon, and then the same discussions can happen again, is it better for the Lebanese to stay in Lebanon or to be killed? Rince and repeat until Israel finally targets land that is inhabited by human beings.
That is a presumption not a fact.
The confirmed group that wants to kill people for who they are is Iran and its armies.
The slippery slope argument is not very compelling, when historically Israel has been willing to trade land for peace, even valuable land.
I agree it's presumption, I don't agree that it's a slippery slope argument. You've stopped answering on the main point that we were debating, do you now accept that something more than "refugees from war" is going on here?
It sounds like you are worried about a catastrophic Jewish take over at this point. Other than that I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe go back to the first post and write me a straightforward question based on what I wrote instead of series of attempted gotcha's and we would get somewhere.
On October 09 2024 04:32 KT_Elwood wrote: There are about half as many people in gaza than coming to germany from syria in 2015-2016.
Pretty sure there is a solution that involves making them a good offer to live somewhere else - despite being urged by iranian proxies to further play the human shield.
Interesting. So you are in favor of ethnic cleansing because it's "realistic"? Do you actually believe it is realistic or do you just wish it were realistic? And why do you wish for this rather than for Israel's allies to stop funding Israel?
Note: I am saying all this assuming Israel will continue to be powerful enough to make all these decisions themselves. I think Israel losing American support or otherwise crumbling is unlikely to the point that no one should use it as an assumption for any argument. And its certainly not reasonable to use it as some beacon of hope for Palestinians.
I don't think anyone is "in favor" of forced displacement. It is similar to no one being "in favor" of abortions, even if someone believes a woman has a right to decide if she aborts a pregnancy. When someone is terminally ill and suffering from extreme pain, assisted suicide or similar decisions are not celebrated but they are "favored" because the situation had no "hooray" options available. I think the specific detail you are touching on here is a common source of misunderstanding and results in people talking past each other.
Speaking personally, I advocate for "run away" rather than "stay and fight" for the same reason a doctor may advocate for letting someone terminally ill die rather than endure extreme suffering for a few days before still dying. The "run away" option has been chosen by victims of conflict all around the world, resulting in a UN estimate of ~43 million refugees today. If Hamas and the Arab world as a whole advocated for relocation, it would happen.
And just to reiterate, I view Palestinian relocation as a tragedy. But I view Palestinian "stay and fight" as significantly more tragic. Even though 2 state solutions and other such diplomatic situations are ideal and I'd love for them to happen, I think it is dishonest when people say they think they are even slightly possible.
How about Ukraine? Vietnam? Are / were those also cases where it would be / would've been preferable for people to just "relocate"?
I think these are good comparisons and. valid points. I apologize for being unclear. Since the point I was trying to make is supported by the situations in Vietnam and Ukraine, I will elaborate and try to clarify. In short, wars are generally just a measure of how much international support they manage to secure.
Vietnam: This was one of many "East vs West" proxy wars. USSR wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team and USA wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team. The natural revolution already taking place against France was a great opportunity for USSR to secure a new loyal ally by empowering their revolution against the West. Since USSR was highly motivated to secure Vietnam under their umbrella, they dumped a ton of resources into ensuring the revolutionaries succeeded in ejecting the west. USA was highly motivated to prevent USSR expansion and dumped a ton of resources into empowering the puppet government to prevent communism from spreading.
Since major world powers were highly motivated for their side of the proxy war to win, both South and North Vietnam had plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Ukraine: From a macroscopic perspective, mostly the same situation as Vietnam but with the roles reversed. Major world powers are fighting through Ukraine. Russia has plenty of reason to keep fighting because even if they fail to replace the western-aligned Ukrainian government, they can still bite off a chunk of Ukraine and its always possible western support will fade or fail to keep up. Similarly, Ukraine has plenty of reason to keep fighting because they are backed by a major world power. Even if Russia bites off a chunk of Ukraine, it currently appears extremely unlikely Ukraine's government will be replaced by a Russia-aligned government.
As was the case with Vietnam, each side of the conflict includes a major world power and they both have plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Palestine:Israel's formation kicked a bunch of Palestinians out Israel quickly crystallized into a new nation. Everyone in this thread has seen collections of maps highlighting Israeli expansion and Palestinian ejection. After various wars between "Team Israel" and "Team Palestine", Israel has grown in power to the extent that their long-term existence is not in question. Meanwhile, Palestinian suffering worsens every year. The past year has been among the worst ever for Palestinians. Social media has made it easy for the world to see all the carnage and suffering occurring in Gaza. And despite all the UN/ICJ stuff, Palestinians are mostly on their own other than Iran and their proxies. "Team Israel" is enormous and "Team Palestine" has no long-term viability. If anyone were to ever rush to the aid of Palestinians, it would have happened this past year. Arab nations have made their choice and its clear they don't care enough about Palestinians to put their necks out for them. Its just Iran. "Team Palestine" gets smaller and smaller while Israel continues to expand and squeeze out Palestinians.
If you are saying Palestinians ought to continue fighting because their *current* lives are better than fleeing as refugees, I can understand that. It appears likely the current situation will continue for a while at this pace so long as Iran continues to give their support. But I am advocating for Palestinians to flee as refugees because I am assuming their lives would be better as refugees. I think Palestinian suffering will worsen over time and never improve. Relating back to Ukraine and Vietnam, the muscle behind Israel is unbelievably huge compared to the muscle behind Palestine. Palestine is surviving, but deeply suffering. I just don't see value in sticking around when they are suffering to such an extreme with no hope of improvement.
Are you saying you think "Team Israel" will be weakened and "Team Palestine" will be strengthened? If so, that helps explain our disagreement. But I have not seen anyone explain how that could happen. "you never know" isn't reasonable when the odds are so wildly stacked against Palestinians. The current power structure is so crystallized and if anything Hezbollah's recent struggles highlight "Team Palestine" might be significantly weaker in the coming years.
So is it that you think the current Palestinian life in Gaza is better than being a refugee and building a new life elsewhere? Or is it that you think their lives will improve later?
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
I read Mohdoo's post as that it is better for the Palestinians to leave (especially their children) than die in the war. Which is what most governments say to their non soldiers. It is "unique" that Hamas wants them all to stay, sometimes at gun point. He also says it sucks.
I don't disagree with that point. I'm not sure where they would go as no one seems to want them and they are not as large as Ukraine so there is no where safe in Gaza for them to go.
There's something missing in this explanation. Once all of the population of Gaza leaves and Israel has won the war, the risk of dying that is connected to the war ends. But it is understood by everyone that at this point those people who fled wouldn't be coming back to Gaza, and they'd keep living under a refugee status indefinitely. So there must be something additional happening here on top of not dying in a war, and that's why Mohdoo or KT_Elwood are using the term ethnic cleansing. Contrast that with the people who left their homes in the north of Israel: as soon as the war ends, they will be allowed back into their homes, obviously, so you would never say that's Israel ethnically cleansing them.
I'm pretty sure Hamas would stick around to fight their war. But whether or not they can come back does not change that leaving is better than dying. It makes even more sense with your view that Israel is out to kill them all and has the power to do it. Is it your position that the people should Martyr themselves and their children?
If Hezbollah wins the war Israelis will all be killed so they won't be going home. Going home is contingent on Israel winning. I guess if Lebannon wins against Hezbollah and signs peace with Israel that could also have Israelis back. Is it your position that Hamas would not let the Palestinians come back if they won? I mean they are willing to shoot those that leave so I guess it is logical. If Ukraine wins the Ukrainians can go home, if Russia wins they cannot.
There is also almost triple as many Syrian refugees as total Palestinian's where are they going to go?
It is hard to discuss any of this too seriously when there is no where for the Palestinians to go, there is no one willing to take that number of people, especially when so many are radicalized.
Yes, so Hamas sticks around to fight their war, then they lose easily because Israel has the much superior force, and then the risk of dying in the war stops, but the refugees aren't allowed back. Based on those facts, something additional is happening on top of "risk of dying in a war", and that additional thing is why the term "ethnic cleansing" is used. Seems straightforward enough.
It is not my position that it is good to stay in a place where people want to kill you and be killed there. It is however my position that the rest of the world shouldn't be supporting the group who wants to kill you for being in that place, especially not with weapons, that seems like step 1 to a humane international society. It is also my opinion that when all of these people are ethnically cleansed and have left, while their individual lives have improved for sure, the systemic problem won't be fixed: Israel will still decide it wants to settle more land elsewhere, for example in Lebanon, and then the same discussions can happen again, is it better for the Lebanese to stay in Lebanon or to be killed? Rince and repeat until Israel finally targets land that is inhabited by human beings.
That is a presumption not a fact.
The confirmed group that wants to kill people for who they are is Iran and its armies.
The slippery slope argument is not very compelling, when historically Israel has been willing to trade land for peace, even valuable land.
Well, seeing as how Israel didn't and still won't let Palestinian refugees from previous wars back in, it is an assumption with a good amount of precedent that they won't let them back in this time either.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948.
Or this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
Except Zionists have explicitly stated and reaffirmed their intent for many generations. You're just choosing to remain oblivious.
The best proof, however, is Israel's actions. Take John Oliver's piece on the West bank which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is hell bent on stealing the West bank and giving it to Jewish people.
On October 09 2024 04:32 KT_Elwood wrote: There are about half as many people in gaza than coming to germany from syria in 2015-2016.
Pretty sure there is a solution that involves making them a good offer to live somewhere else - despite being urged by iranian proxies to further play the human shield.
Interesting. So you are in favor of ethnic cleansing because it's "realistic"? Do you actually believe it is realistic or do you just wish it were realistic? And why do you wish for this rather than for Israel's allies to stop funding Israel?
Note: I am saying all this assuming Israel will continue to be powerful enough to make all these decisions themselves. I think Israel losing American support or otherwise crumbling is unlikely to the point that no one should use it as an assumption for any argument. And its certainly not reasonable to use it as some beacon of hope for Palestinians.
I don't think anyone is "in favor" of forced displacement. It is similar to no one being "in favor" of abortions, even if someone believes a woman has a right to decide if she aborts a pregnancy. When someone is terminally ill and suffering from extreme pain, assisted suicide or similar decisions are not celebrated but they are "favored" because the situation had no "hooray" options available. I think the specific detail you are touching on here is a common source of misunderstanding and results in people talking past each other.
Speaking personally, I advocate for "run away" rather than "stay and fight" for the same reason a doctor may advocate for letting someone terminally ill die rather than endure extreme suffering for a few days before still dying. The "run away" option has been chosen by victims of conflict all around the world, resulting in a UN estimate of ~43 million refugees today. If Hamas and the Arab world as a whole advocated for relocation, it would happen.
And just to reiterate, I view Palestinian relocation as a tragedy. But I view Palestinian "stay and fight" as significantly more tragic. Even though 2 state solutions and other such diplomatic situations are ideal and I'd love for them to happen, I think it is dishonest when people say they think they are even slightly possible.
How about Ukraine? Vietnam? Are / were those also cases where it would be / would've been preferable for people to just "relocate"?
I think these are good comparisons and. valid points. I apologize for being unclear. Since the point I was trying to make is supported by the situations in Vietnam and Ukraine, I will elaborate and try to clarify. In short, wars are generally just a measure of how much international support they manage to secure.
Vietnam: This was one of many "East vs West" proxy wars. USSR wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team and USA wanted to secure Vietnam as a member of their team. The natural revolution already taking place against France was a great opportunity for USSR to secure a new loyal ally by empowering their revolution against the West. Since USSR was highly motivated to secure Vietnam under their umbrella, they dumped a ton of resources into ensuring the revolutionaries succeeded in ejecting the west. USA was highly motivated to prevent USSR expansion and dumped a ton of resources into empowering the puppet government to prevent communism from spreading.
Since major world powers were highly motivated for their side of the proxy war to win, both South and North Vietnam had plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Ukraine: From a macroscopic perspective, mostly the same situation as Vietnam but with the roles reversed. Major world powers are fighting through Ukraine. Russia has plenty of reason to keep fighting because even if they fail to replace the western-aligned Ukrainian government, they can still bite off a chunk of Ukraine and its always possible western support will fade or fail to keep up. Similarly, Ukraine has plenty of reason to keep fighting because they are backed by a major world power. Even if Russia bites off a chunk of Ukraine, it currently appears extremely unlikely Ukraine's government will be replaced by a Russia-aligned government.
As was the case with Vietnam, each side of the conflict includes a major world power and they both have plenty of reason to keep fighting.
Palestine:Israel's formation kicked a bunch of Palestinians out Israel quickly crystallized into a new nation. Everyone in this thread has seen collections of maps highlighting Israeli expansion and Palestinian ejection. After various wars between "Team Israel" and "Team Palestine", Israel has grown in power to the extent that their long-term existence is not in question. Meanwhile, Palestinian suffering worsens every year. The past year has been among the worst ever for Palestinians. Social media has made it easy for the world to see all the carnage and suffering occurring in Gaza. And despite all the UN/ICJ stuff, Palestinians are mostly on their own other than Iran and their proxies. "Team Israel" is enormous and "Team Palestine" has no long-term viability. If anyone were to ever rush to the aid of Palestinians, it would have happened this past year. Arab nations have made their choice and its clear they don't care enough about Palestinians to put their necks out for them. Its just Iran. "Team Palestine" gets smaller and smaller while Israel continues to expand and squeeze out Palestinians.
If you are saying Palestinians ought to continue fighting because their *current* lives are better than fleeing as refugees, I can understand that. It appears likely the current situation will continue for a while at this pace so long as Iran continues to give their support. But I am advocating for Palestinians to flee as refugees because I am assuming their lives would be better as refugees. I think Palestinian suffering will worsen over time and never improve. Relating back to Ukraine and Vietnam, the muscle behind Israel is unbelievably huge compared to the muscle behind Palestine. Palestine is surviving, but deeply suffering. I just don't see value in sticking around when they are suffering to such an extreme with no hope of improvement.
Are you saying you think "Team Israel" will be weakened and "Team Palestine" will be strengthened? If so, that helps explain our disagreement. But I have not seen anyone explain how that could happen. "you never know" isn't reasonable when the odds are so wildly stacked against Palestinians. The current power structure is so crystallized and if anything Hezbollah's recent struggles highlight "Team Palestine" might be significantly weaker in the coming years.
So is it that you think the current Palestinian life in Gaza is better than being a refugee and building a new life elsewhere? Or is it that you think their lives will improve later?
Just wanna clarify something first:
In Vietnam from 1964 onwards the US had its own troops actively fighting and causing the majority of death, also resulting in more than 58 000 dead US soldiers. Prior to 1964 the US had no troops actively participating. So from 1955 to 1964 it was a proxy war from the US perspective. From 1964 to 1975 it was a direct war, not a proxy war.
Ukraine can be classified as a proxy war all throughout (so far). Western countries and a few others are sending military aid and intel, and none of Ukraine's allies are actively participating in military operations. This war is practically entirely between Ukraine and Russia. Other countries are just sending various types of aid.
I'd also like to explain something that is unrelated to your argument:
The BMJ estimates that over three million (3,091,000) Vietnamese people were killed between 1955 and 1975. Between 1955 and 1964 it was 1,310,000 and from 1964 to 1975 it was 1,700,000. Evidently US participation didn't result in a minimization of casualties (communists caused millions of deaths in Cambodia and Vietnam post-war. That's not a big difference). Instead the US only created additional suffering through widespread destruction, wounding people, etc. As I always say, two wrongs don't make a right. In the fight against a violent oppressor, one cannot commit the same crime. It was a costly lesson, and I'm not convinced the US has truly learned it quite yet.
Alright, lets move on to your argumentation:
Your argument regarding Palestine appears to be that the people should flee. I would love to agree with that statement, as ideally everyone who wants to escape gets a chance to do so. But there are big problems with this ideal. In other conflicts only the women and children fled. Or many refugees died in the process. Refugees often have a very difficult time building a new life elsewhere. This means many of them ultimately want to return. And this means many of them don't want to flee to begin with. Many (mostly men) will stay and fight. In Gaza people are not allowed to flee as they're being blockaded (this is similar to the Vietnam war). But assuming they could flee, how many of them would choose that option? It could be hundreds of thousands in the best case, initially mostly women and children, and the rest would stay and maintain what's left of their society while Hamas keeps fighting. Later more men could join their family in the host countries. So even if they could flee, it would resemble at best Ukraine's situation, at worst Vietnam's. In Ukraine's case they're hoping to return after the war is over (look at how many fled, they're obviously not interested in staying out forever). In Vietnam's case only a small percentage of people fled, so that would more closely resemble Gaza's situation.
There are various other reasons why a voluntary mass migration is just not going to happen. Israel has two viable options. A) Depopulate Gaza through incredibly brutal means of force, or B) kill every last one of them. Or both. Either way, both of these options involve killing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people. Israel isn't going to open up Gaza to let out the refugees. They know this is not going to work. Palestinians are Israel's problem. They are fighting this war, it's on them to end it one way or another.
If people are confused why Jewish people were so eager to flee Germany and go to Israel, while Palestinians aren't eager to go anywhere: The answer lies in Nazism and Zionism. Jews were welcome in a Jewish state that Zionists created through conquest. Nazis were systematically killing Jewish people in concentration camps. This created a powerful incentive for all Jews to leave as quickly as possible. Palestinians on the other hand have no state, they'd feel completely abandoned. They're also not being put in concentration camps (yet). There just isn't enough incentive for them to abandon their vision of Palestine.
So you can perhaps see how reality is clashing with idealism. In reality, the ideal of mass migration isn't working so well.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
They have also made many statements of peace over the years and even recently. There are peace rallies, antiwar rallies to go along with the other side. Unlike the other countries in the area they are a democracy and have the whole spectrum of positions. And for those that keep bringing up the far right, yes they exist, yes they are the current government, but they are also the most "left" of all countries in the area and the far right does not dominate the voting.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948.
Or this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
They have also made many statements of peace over the years and even recently. There are peace rallies, antiwar rallies to go along with the other side. Unlike the other countries in the area they are a democracy and have the whole spectrum of positions. And for those that keep bringing up the far right, yes they exist, yes they are the current government, but they are also the most "left" of all countries in the area and the far right does not dominate the voting.
The 'they' I'm referring to are various members of Israel's government, including their PM, Netanyahu. Antiwar rallies are great, but I don't think the Palestinians that are getting shot, bombed, arrested, and starved care particularly much about that. The reality is, Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine for as long as it existed and it really makes no difference how much more 'left' they are than their neighbors or how great freedom of expression in there is or whatever other great things you want to say about them -- Palestinians are still being oppressed.
Like, if anything, the fact that Israel is a democracy makes their regular citizens more complicit in the atrocities their state is carrying out. It's really confusing to me when posters like you and several others keep bringing up just how much more progressive, liberal, moral, and overall 'good' Israel is than Palestine or Iran or something. That's great and all, but how do you make the leap from 'Israel is a progressive democracy' to 'Israel should be allowed to oppress Palestine.' As far as I can tell, there's really no way to connect these two statements.
Your argument regarding Palestine appears to be that the people should flee. I would love to agree with that statement, as ideally everyone who wants to escape gets a chance to do so. But there are big problems with this ideal. In other conflicts only the women and children fled. Or many refugees died in the process. Refugees often have a very difficult time building a new life elsewhere. This means many of them ultimately want to return. And this means many of them don't want to flee to begin with. Many (mostly men) will stay and fight.
Of course they want to return. Mexico did not strive to withdraw from their land during the Mexico-USA war. All across the world and all throughout history, a group withdrawing and losing a war is the situation they did not want. After they were totally screwed and had no chance, they gave up because it’s better than dying.
I am saying: do you think Palestinians are going to make a comeback? You are familiar with wars throughout history where someone loses despite it being a humanitarian tragedy. It’s not like wars only end in an ethical and idealistic way. I am not describing a utopia. I am describe “cut and run” because there is no mechanism for controlling Israel here. No one is going to rein them in. That’s the whole point here. This has gone on for 80 years because they have no one to help them.
You finished describing a long series of tragedies throughout history so you are of course aware the world doesn’t follow a “the good guys always win” doctrine. Palestinians have a choice between reducing the suffering by leaving or increasing suffering by staying. But everything I am saying is based on the idea that Palestinians have suffered more and more over the course of the last 80 years because they are helpless and the world won’t save them.
On October 10 2024 20:20 Magic Powers wrote:
If people are confused why Jewish people were so eager to flee Germany and go to Israel, while Palestinians aren't eager to go anywhere: The answer lies in Nazism and Zionism. Jews were welcome in a Jewish state that Zionists created through conquest. Nazis were systematically killing Jewish people in concentration camps. This created a powerful incentive for all Jews to leave as quickly as possible. Palestinians on the other hand have no state, they'd feel completely abandoned. They're also not being put in concentration camps (yet). There just isn't enough incentive for them to abandon their vision of Palestine.
Do you agree with their assessment? You’re saying you think staying and fighting is their better option? Or are you saying they don’t think they have enough incentive? This is why I have been asking about how they could ever make a comeback. Hezbollah getting chewed up recently only makes the situation more grim for them.
We can look at the enormous list of tragedies committed by the west during the Cold War and obviously tons of evils end up working out for the evildoers. We are discussing this because of how much Palestinians have suffered for 80 years. The situation itself proves we have no reason to assume Palestinian suffering will be reduced over time if they remain committed to their vision of Palestine.
Am I understanding the gist of your post correctly that all the suffering and death from mass fleeing and surrender would be worse than just staying and fighting? If that’s your position, I think all our disagreements come from there. My position is that despite all the suffering from fleeing, it’s still way less suffering than staying and fighting.
This is why I related this all to assisted suicide. No one is celebrating terminal cancer when they discuss assisted suicide. It is meant as a method of reducing suffering when no better options exist. I am saying Palestinians do not have better options. Israel won’t stop. No one will ever defend Palestinians. This is the best option they’ve got in my eyes.
But if you read all this and decide you still think they are better off staining and fighting, I think that’s reasonable too. I won’t pretend I am an oracle. I’m just indicating what assumptions my perspective is based on.
Your argument regarding Palestine appears to be that the people should flee. I would love to agree with that statement, as ideally everyone who wants to escape gets a chance to do so. But there are big problems with this ideal. In other conflicts only the women and children fled. Or many refugees died in the process. Refugees often have a very difficult time building a new life elsewhere. This means many of them ultimately want to return. And this means many of them don't want to flee to begin with. Many (mostly men) will stay and fight.
Of course they want to return. Mexico did not strive to withdraw from their land during the Mexico-USA war. All across the world and all throughout history, a group withdrawing and losing a war is the situation they did not want. After they were totally screwed and had no chance, they gave up because it’s better than dying.
I am saying: do you think Palestinians are going to make a comeback? You are familiar with wars throughout history where someone loses despite it being a humanitarian tragedy. It’s not like wars only end in an ethical and idealistic way. I am not describing a utopia. I am describe “cut and run” because there is no mechanism for controlling Israel here. No one is going to rein them in. That’s the whole point here. This has gone on for 80 years because they have no one to help them.
You finished describing a long series of tragedies throughout history so you are of course aware the world doesn’t follow a “the good guys always win” doctrine. Palestinians have a choice between reducing the suffering by leaving or increasing suffering by staying. But everything I am saying is based on the idea that Palestinians have suffered more and more over the course of the last 80 years because they are helpless and the world won’t save them.
If people are confused why Jewish people were so eager to flee Germany and go to Israel, while Palestinians aren't eager to go anywhere: The answer lies in Nazism and Zionism. Jews were welcome in a Jewish state that Zionists created through conquest. Nazis were systematically killing Jewish people in concentration camps. This created a powerful incentive for all Jews to leave as quickly as possible. Palestinians on the other hand have no state, they'd feel completely abandoned. They're also not being put in concentration camps (yet). There just isn't enough incentive for them to abandon their vision of Palestine.
Do you agree with their assessment? You’re saying you think staying and fighting is their better option? Or are you saying they don’t think they have enough incentive? This is why I have been asking about how they could ever make a comeback. Hezbollah getting chewed up recently only makes the situation more grim for them.
We can look at the enormous list of tragedies committed by the west during the Cold War and obviously tons of evils end up working out for the evildoers. We are discussing this because of how much Palestinians have suffered for 80 years. The situation itself proves we have no reason to assume Palestinian suffering will be reduced over time if they remain committed to their vision of Palestine.
Am I understanding the gist of your post correctly that all the suffering and death from mass fleeing and surrender would be worse than just staying and fighting? If that’s your position, I think all our disagreements come from there. My position is that despite all the suffering from fleeing, it’s still way less suffering than staying and fighting.
This is why I related this all to assisted suicide. No one is celebrating terminal cancer when they discuss assisted suicide. It is meant as a method of reducing suffering when no better options exist. I am saying Palestinians do not have better options. Israel won’t stop. No one will ever defend Palestinians. This is the best option they’ve got in my eyes.
But if you read all this and decide you still think they are better off staining and fighting, I think that’s reasonable too. I won’t pretend I am an oracle. I’m just indicating what assumptions my perspective is based on.
I want to respond mainly to the bolded part.
Palestinians don't have a choice. They can't mass migrate for the aforementioned reasons. Israel is massacring them, oppressing them, robbing them, all while knowing full well that Palestinians have no way out of their predicament. They can't escape it. This is what people don't understand who call for "realism". It is not realistic to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. It will continue to be a massacre until the war ends. They won't mass migrate because they don't have a place to migrate to. They won't mass migrate because they have too much worth fighting for. They won't mass migrate because they're not allowed to mass migrate. They won't mass migrate because they see no future elsewhere either. They won't mass migrate because too many of them would rather die. The exact same thing happened in plenty of other wars, and there aren't any good indicators that this war is somehow unique.
This is why I explained the reason behind Jewish people fleeing from Nazi Germany, mainly because they were being rounded up by the Nazis. I also explained (maybe in this thread, I'm not sure) a while back why black people didn't mass migrate from the US despite being oppressed as second class citizens. The level of oppression clearly wasn't severe enough for them to escape their circumstances. It proves that people are willing to endure a lot of hardship before most of them choose to flee. If people's lives are not immediately threatened, they often choose to stay. This is true even moreso if they have a cause worth fighting for.
Furthermore, Palestinians in Gaza clearly do have refugee status at the moment. Millions of them have been displaced inside Gaza. I'd argue a large portion of them would've fled long ago if they could. But they're not allowed to leave, they can only keep moving around inside Gaza hoping to escape the hot zones. So even the most obvious refugee scenario isn't playing out as you'd like to propose it. What makes you think a better scenario is any more realistic than the current situation?
I'm not arguing which scenario is better, I'm saying that your "realism" is not actually realistic because you're overlooking key factors in this conflict.
But if you do want me to tell you what I think is "better", and not what's "realistic". Here's what I think about that question. Historically, the winning side has shown to be neither the "good" or the "bad" side. That is disregarding that there is sometimes no good side, I'm just describing the outcome of wars. Both "good" and "bad" sides have frequently won wars. WW2 was won by the Allies, which I'd say was quite clearly the favorable outcome. If the Nazis had won, that would've been a huge injustice to many conquered countries and a constant threat to even more countries down the line. They had to be stopped at all cost because of the evil they were committing in the captured territories and in Germany, and because they posed a serious threat to other countries. And also because the Nazis were batshit insane, and you can't let batshit insane people grow into a superpower when the nuclear bomb was just around the corner. They would've become a batshit insane imperialist country hell bent on conquering the whole planet by use of the nuclear option. It would've been completely unthinkable, even the US would've had to be afraid of that monster.
So if we continue that logic, then the US, in supporting Israel, is supporting a fascist monster that is only about one or two steps removed from being exactly like Nazi Germany. They have imperialist ambitions in the Middle East, their words and actions prove it consistently, and they're willing to oppress and slaughter huge amounts of Untermenschen for their cause. Isn't that something. From opposing a fascist cause to supporting it. That's the arc the US underwent.
So what you're saying is that, because this alliance is too powerful, therefore we shouldn't oppose it? Might is going to make right, yes? If that is the case, why did the world fight against Nazi Germany? Remember, the UK and France were practically alone in this. The US sent military aid but no troops. Russia was a mostly passive observer until Operation Barbarossa. France lost the war, there weren't many willing and capable to fight against Nazi Germany. The UK was practically alone, and yet they kept going. They did not surrender. And, I guess, they were only able to do so because they're an island.
Would you argue that the UK should've surrendered to Nazi Germany? Or Russia, when they got invaded? Or France? Or Poland? Or Romania? Or Austria? At which point comes the moment where opposition is the right choice? Maybe our incompetent fascist Austrian leadership should've tried to stop them? I think that would've been preferable. Was France right to resist? Was the UK right to resist? Considering Germany's track record, they were well on their way to conquering all of Europe. Should all the countries have just laid down their weapons?
You're asking for the impossible. Israel is not going to be stopped until they're being stopped. They will always want more. The West bank is only the first step. Gaza is next. Lebanon is the latest piece of evidence. Let me assure you, they won't stop there.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948.
Or this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
They have also made many statements of peace over the years and even recently. There are peace rallies, antiwar rallies to go along with the other side. Unlike the other countries in the area they are a democracy and have the whole spectrum of positions. And for those that keep bringing up the far right, yes they exist, yes they are the current government, but they are also the most "left" of all countries in the area and the far right does not dominate the voting.
The 'they' I'm referring to are various members of Israel's government, including their PM, Netanyahu. Antiwar rallies are great, but I don't think the Palestinians that are getting shot, bombed, arrested, and starved care particularly much about that. The reality is, Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine for as long as it existed and it really makes no difference how much more 'left' they are than their neighbors or how great freedom of expression in there is or whatever other great things you want to say about them -- Palestinians are still being oppressed.
Like, if anything, the fact that Israel is a democracy makes their regular citizens more complicit in the atrocities their state is carrying out. It's really confusing to me when posters like you and several others keep bringing up just how much more progressive, liberal, moral, and overall 'good' Israel is than Palestine or Iran or something. That's great and all, but how do you make the leap from 'Israel is a progressive democracy' to 'Israel should be allowed to oppress Palestine.' As far as I can tell, there's really no way to connect these two statements.
I know where those statements come from, I'm pointing out the fact that they don't represent all the people.
The same thing could be said for basically everything. You are right that Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine, and the same is true in the other direction. It is also factual that Palestinians have been oppressed for way longer than Israel exists, maybe forever?
It makes a huge difference for the people living within the borders. I'm sure all the women, gays and so on from all races, creeds and religions really appreciate it.
You and me are almost as complicit as them, and are certainly as complicit for the terrible things our countries have done. Being better does not mean perfect, but it is still better that is just fact.
I have not made that leap, nor have most of the posters that have been accused of it. I think you have to ask yourself the question on why you think saying that Israel is more progressive than Iran means that a person would think oppressing someone else is OK.
As far as the evilness of the west supporting democracies. Didn't South Korea get a lot of support? Should have that not happened? Were no civilians killed? No one oppressed? Iran's ally North Korea feels differently.
Things are not black and white, morality is not simple.
On October 10 2024 05:28 Billyboy wrote: I think that if Israel wanted to do what Russia is doing than they would just do it, with way less resistance. I'm living under the assumption that Netanyahu is doing exactly what he wants.
So why aren't you telling this to KT_Elwood and Mohdoo? These guys are arguing that letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine is the best outcome, let them know that this isn't even what Israel wants to do.
Would love if Israel had to somehow make a truthful statement about what they saw as a long-term solution from their point of view. Can't be worse than "from the river to the sea", but could be pretty close if you ask me. But until we have that, both sides of this conflict are scum and I'm sorry so many resources go into this unsolvable dispute.
They've made plenty of statements. Things like this:
Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 1948.
Or this:
We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed.
They've also repeatedly stated that they have no plans for allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist, that they will continue to expand into and colonize West Bank, that they will reduce territory of Gaza as well.
They have also made many statements of peace over the years and even recently. There are peace rallies, antiwar rallies to go along with the other side. Unlike the other countries in the area they are a democracy and have the whole spectrum of positions. And for those that keep bringing up the far right, yes they exist, yes they are the current government, but they are also the most "left" of all countries in the area and the far right does not dominate the voting.
The 'they' I'm referring to are various members of Israel's government, including their PM, Netanyahu. Antiwar rallies are great, but I don't think the Palestinians that are getting shot, bombed, arrested, and starved care particularly much about that. The reality is, Israel has been oppressive and violent towards Palestine for as long as it existed and it really makes no difference how much more 'left' they are than their neighbors or how great freedom of expression in there is or whatever other great things you want to say about them -- Palestinians are still being oppressed.
Like, if anything, the fact that Israel is a democracy makes their regular citizens more complicit in the atrocities their state is carrying out. It's really confusing to me when posters like you and several others keep bringing up just how much more progressive, liberal, moral, and overall 'good' Israel is than Palestine or Iran or something. That's great and all, but how do you make the leap from 'Israel is a progressive democracy' to 'Israel should be allowed to oppress Palestine.' As far as I can tell, there's really no way to connect these two statements.
I have not made that leap, nor have most of the posters that have been accused of it. I think you have to ask yourself the question on why you think saying that Israel is more progressive than Iran means that a person would think oppressing someone else is OK.
That's because of the mechanics of conversation. If someone says that it's bad that Israel is oppressing Palestinians and in answer to this they receive the notion that Israel is more progressive than Iran, the logical assumption is that the person giving this answer thinks this is relevant to the topic of Israel oppressing Palestinians, otherwise they could have not mentioned it. If you agree that it isn't relevant to that topic, then my suggestion would be not to bring it up in response to that topic.
On October 10 2024 06:20 Nebuchad wrote: Well it wasn't really directed at you, you just got here. But the past two pages have been about whether letting Israel ethnically cleanse Palestine was the best outcome in this situation, so I would expect the people who don't believe Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Palestine to question the premise of this argument.
For the same reason I don't respond to the claim that there is a zionist quest for space, more lebensraum, for Jewish people. I have limited time and mental capacity to deal with nonsense. When the arguments are too ridiculous I skip over it entirely.
Except Zionists have explicitly stated and reaffirmed their intent for many generations. You're just choosing to remain oblivious.
The best proof, however, is Israel's actions. Take John Oliver's piece on the West bank which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel is hell bent on stealing the West bank and giving it to Jewish people.
You don't even know what zionism is. The goal of zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state of mandatory palestine. If you're in favour of a two state solution you're a zionist. John Oliver is an entertainer not a serious source.
The comparison to Lebensraum is incredibly distasteful. Lebensraum is a explicitly racist policy that served as the basis for Generalplan Ost. A plan for genocide, extermination, and ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe.
EPT
