Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[The Original]

I'm not saying it's an ok price to pay. What I am saying is that the high costs of war should be used as a justification to end the nonsense, not escalate it so that the Palestinians accept their wretched fate and leave the oppressors alone to continue their oppression.

There are no genuine military locations in Gaza I am aware of.

Israel, given it's history, shouldn't have to be compelled to do the right thing. And oppressed peoples shouldn't have to act right for the oppression to stop. It's why Mandela (shame he's been made into this hippy) never renounced violence by the ANC as a precondition for talks. It is an absolutely ridiculous demand to make, that oppressed people pursue their means through "the right channels".

That's the point. If you're a controlling government with an army and military facilities but no military locations, thereby blending in within the civilian population, this is in fact a violation of international humanitarian law.

Secondly, there is violence and there is terrorism. If you're picking up arms in a liberation struggle, that's fine! If you go around shooting and killing civilians, that is not! Now there isn't a moral obligation on oppressed peoples to act right, but there similarly is no obligation on oppressive people not to act defensively when the oppressed act out violently. Self-defense is never vitiated.

Worth noting, that the South African liberation was finally achieved through these "right channels" that you have so much disdain for, and not the violence of the ANC.

 

[Roane]

On the first bolded, I still don't see the relevance of this...what does this have to do with anything? All I see here is evidence for the theory that Hamas is indeed the stumbling block to peace. If far-right Israeli elements were funding hamas in order to oppose peace as a pretext for expansion, then taking out hamas and other similarly minded groups is step one to peace. Unless you have a separate point which you might be kind enough to clarify.

On the other two bolded, I would appreciate some sources that you think provide the best explanation. just so we are on the same page.

The relevance is the narrative " but Hamas". The problem is Israel's plans (from the off) and their methods. And yes even the creation of Hamas as an aid.

Off the top of my head Amnesty and UN fact checking reports circa 08-09 and 2014.

Israelis using children as shields etc can be found in reports in Haaretz, Jnicef report circa 2011 where I believe there were 14 cases over a specific time period bought forward.

The Israeli insistence on Hamas using civilians as shields is based mainly on the call to stand up to Israeli attacks with "open chests" which isn't quite the same as the implication of literally having civilians in front of you as you throw a rocket etc. That seems to be Israeli policy and there is confirmation in reports by amnesty and unicef etc

 

[Dumbstar]

Archeological reasons as far as I know.

Can you find out from your Israeli mates and enlighten us? There is literally nothing on the web about something so significant.

 

[Adisa]

I think it exposes the Palestinian cause once and for all.
If not why isn't every Muslim/ Leftie ever outside every Chinese Embassy ?

The feck are you on about?
Are you implying antisemitism is why people are clamouring for righta for the Palestinians?

 

[Dumbstar]

Why are they doing it? To somehow destroy it?

I know the exact reason. They know the exact reason. I've mentioned it in this thread somewhere. But I'd like to know their take, for impartiality like.

 

[Ramshock]

Please tell me there arent people in here defending Israels bullshit

 

[VorZakone]

Please tell me there arent people in here defending Israels bullshit

There are.

 

[hellhunter]

Please tell me there arent people in here defending Israels bullshit

Mainly one, vigorously on a brainwashed (or paid for) level

 

[Ramshock]

There are.

fecking unbelievable how shitty we are as a species

 

[adexkola]

I think most of us feel this way, but let's say that Israel lifted all restrictions, blockades, checkpoints and occupation(atlhough this will vary compared to who you ask) what would any completely unbiased observer think is going to happen?

I honestly have no idea. What do you think would happen? Do you think they would vote to go to war with Israel, or focus on building their economy and improving life for their citizens?

I imagine in a 2 state solution, checkpoints would become standard border control which is normal everywhere in the world.

 

[Halftrack]

The feck are you on about?
Are you implying antisemitism is why people are clamouring for righta for the Palestinians?

Anything but full-throated support for Israel and its policies is antisemitism to people like him. Intentional conflation of Israel and Judaism is an important tool in trying to silence critics.

 

[Roane]

That's the point. If you're a controlling government with an army and military facilities but no military locations, thereby blending in within the civilian population, this is in fact a violation of international humanitarian law.

Secondly, there is violence and there is terrorism. If you're picking up arms in a liberation struggle, that's fine! If you go around shooting and killing civilians, that is not! Now there isn't a moral obligation on oppressed peoples to act right, but there similarly is no obligation on oppressive people not to act defensively when the oppressed act out violently. Self-defense is never vitiated.

Worth noting, that the South African liberation was finally achieved through these "right channels" that you have so much disdain for, and not the violence of the ANC.

The addage one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is apt here.

With Africa Mandela was both depending on who you believed and became leader.

As a general point, for me anyway, the Ghandis and Martin Luther King's of the world helped and became the prominent figures of rights movements but I believe the other side to that is that they gave an "out" to the oppressors by being nonviolent.

No way do certain laws, eg housing in America, get done without the black Panthers. But a ruling govt can never say openly that's why they happened. As it opens doors to other groups getting violent to achieve their goals.

Basically "the right channels" were only pushed and perceived to be right. The real fight was won by other means.

 

[Gehrman]

I honestly have no idea. What do you think would happen? Do you think they would vote to go to war with Israel, or focus on building their economy and improving life for their citizens?

I imagine in a 2 state solution, checkpoints would become standard border control which is normal everywhere in the world.

I don't know, it's not always about goverment. I would imagine Hamas would see it as a divine victory and become emboldened to import military supplies from the outside. On the west bank I don't know. But even if goverment isn't involved it doesn't stop seperated individuals or terror cells from comitting attacks(from Israelis as well) which is why this whole thing seems so intractable. Essentially it's why this whole thing about building a barrier around Gaza and making it effectively an open air prison is so stupid because sooner or later it has to come down and the longer it's up it only breeds resentment.

 

[adexkola]

That's the point. If you're a controlling government with an army and military facilities but no military locations, thereby blending in within the civilian population, this is in fact a violation of international humanitarian law.

Secondly, there is violence and there is terrorism. If you're picking up arms in a liberation struggle, that's fine! If you go around shooting and killing civilians, that is not! Now there isn't a moral obligation on oppressed peoples to act right, but there similarly is no obligation on oppressive people not to act defensively when the oppressed act out violently. Self-defense is never vitiated.

Worth noting, that the South African liberation was finally achieved through these "right channels" that you have so much disdain for, and not the violence of the ANC.

There are no military facilities because Gaza is a dense populated area and Israel wouldn't allow the creation of a Palestinian military base . There is no option but to blend in. That still doesn't give IDF soldiers the right to kill indiscriminately.

With the bolded, everyone has a tendency to defend themselves, but that's why I have no problem with the Iron Dome system. I don't care that it's expensive and imperfect. That is the cost of apartheid. But purely defensive action I have no issues with. Proactive punitive attacks on Gaza, that is an offensive, not defensive move, especially when civilians as well as combatants are killed.

Regarding South Africa, wrong. The armed wing of the ANC never renounced violence. Talks between the Apartheid regime and the ANC went on while the townships and rural areas remained no-go areas for Afrikaner policing and military units. Apartheid in SA fell because the costs of maintaining a high defense/security budget (to keep tabs on a seething populace) became too high for the government to bear, and with the end of the Cold War, they could no longer claim status as a capitalist ally of the US and Britain surrounded by communist states in Southern Africa, losing support in those countries.

It's nice to believe you can kumbaya your way to freedom. It rarely ever happens that way. I have disdain for what is categorized as the "right channels" because such measures are mostly effective when backed by the threat/or implementation of resort to "wrong channels". One example... the US rushed to the table with MLK to end Jim Crow and segregation because they feared a status quo with the likes of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers on the other side of the table.

 

[adexkola]

I don't know, it's not always about goverment. I would imagine Hamas would see it as a divine victory and become emboldened to import military supplies from the outside. On the west bank I don't know. But even if goverment isn't involved it doesn't stop seperated individuals or terror cells from comitting attacks(from Israelis as well) which is why this whole thing seems so intractable. Essentially it's why this whole thing about building a barrier around Gaza and making it effectively an open air prison is so stupid because sooner or later it has to come down and the longer it's up it only breeds resentment.

If Hamas was emboldened, within the confines of a legitimate state, to wage war on Israel, openly or covertly, they and their hosts would deserve every measure of misery they would receive at the hands of the IDF and their allies.

 

[2cents]

@2cents you have been policing that word in this thread quite a lot, both long before and also after this post. Since you haven't responded to this one, I assume it is part of what you said below?

I see no value in responding to that poster about anything, and will not. However if you feel my ‘policing’ needs to demonstrate some balance to avoid the stench of hypocrisy and carry any legitimacy, this for example was my response to the current Israeli PM attempting to lay the blame for the Holocaust on the Palestinians.

In the bolded sentence, aren't you imposing your personal belief on what comparison (made by Jewish people) can be accepted in the wider discourse?

I don’t think there’s any contradiction, the two posts concern different things. The earlier one concerns the cynical use of the history, language/terminology, etc. of the Holocaust in order to make objective comparative statements about the nature of the current conflict in the Middle East. The Netanyahu example is a classic in this genre, but there’s a lot of it running through this thread. It’s all fair game for critique IMO, whoever it comes from.

The later post concerns the philosophical debate surrounding the meaning of the Holocaust for Jews as a people, and my strong aversion to non-Jews ‘policing’ that debate. I think the distinction is made quite nicely in the tweet you’ve linked to, which would fall into this latter category:

“This is not a claim of historical analogy or comparison; it's a claim of Jewish memory.”

E.g. it’s not for me to deny the legitimacy of his Jewish historical memory in response to the scenes of carnage, to categorize him as unworthy of the whatever status is due to those who embody the real lesson of the Holocaust (whatever that is). Nor is it for me to accept his Jewish memory as the only appropriate response to such scenes.

**FWIW - because of my background, the obvious comparison for the events within Israel was to Indian communal riots with famous examples being Mumbai in 1992-93 and Gujarat of 2002, but on a scale more similar to this. The events in Jerusalem as a mix of the Golden Temple in 1984, and Babri Masjid in 1989 and 92. And for the situation as a whole, Kashmir has many parallels.

There are many fruitful analogies off the top of my head. In terms of settler-colonialism - Northern Ireland, South Africa, French Algeria. Occupation and settlement - Cyprus, Western Sahara, Tibet. Ethnic/national territorial conflict - Turkey, Sri Lanka (some of these will overlap). Not sure where Kashmir fits in. Plenty more I’m sure. None a perfect fit, but all fair game.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Maybe your problem is with my phrasing of words. Let me try a different approach...If there was no Hamas, there would be peace or something close to it despite the intentions of the Israeli far-right (under any name). Would you agree?

I would not agree because everything ive seen over the last 25 years indicates the Israeli far right doesn't want peace. Just look at this recent series of actions becuase Netanyahu was in trouble. So for me,step 1 is pressure from international bodies on changing the Israeli far rights policies. Without that, Hamas or no Hamas there would be no peace

 

[Moby]

Self defense.

 

[ivaldo]

Maybe your problem is with my phrasing of words. Let me try a different approach...If there was no Hamas, there would be peace or something close to it despite the intentions of the Israeli far-right (under any name). Would you agree?

The illegal settlement of West Bank will continue whether it be Hamas or Fatah or anyone else in power.

 

[Mogget]

Basically what certain posters have been doing in this thread.

Incredible

If any of us had said this is what non-Israeli Jews are doing we'd be accused of anti-semitism

 

[Spoony]

Basically what certain posters have been doing in this thread.

Fearless got a good round of applause. She's electric...

 

[Moby]

 

[diarm]

That's the point. If you're a controlling government with an army and military facilities but no military locations, thereby blending in within the civilian population, this is in fact a violation of international humanitarian law.

This is as shameful a comment as anything @Fearless has said in this thread. I can't imagine what it must feel like to lack the integrity and conscience to think like this - let alone share such an opinion in public.

 

[owlo]

There's plenty of things that could be done to Israel in order to get it to cease.

Just like is done to China, India, Russia, and the USA? Israel is a modern wealthy nuclear power intertwined with the world economy. They can't even control North Korea or Turkey, both of whom, are far weaker and far worse actors.

Those that I've looked through before reek of confirmation bias — they take a true statement that "Russia is not as anti-semitic as it could've/should've been" and then use it as a factual confirmation that Putin has personal & political preference towards Jews & Israel, which is, well, stretching it to put it mildly.

I've scrolled through the upenn paper now. For some reason I can't properly copy all of the needed quotes from pdf, so look them up in full yourself if you want to — part of the text just doesn't seem to want to be copied, maybe there's some sort of copyright protection installed on the website. I've spoilered my detailed response as I don't think that it would be interesting to most of the thread viewers. For those who are interested, here's the article in question.

Spoiler: On the lack of general understanding of basic and crucial specifics of Russian culture and language

It's actually quite bad as it misunderstands a lot of subtleties about Russian culture. The statement below (on page 44) would be absurd to any Russian — Putin & his regime had appropriated the words such as "fascism/fascists" & "Nazis" (slightly less so) without any correlation to the Holocaust whatsoever. To be fair, the author makes sure to use the words like "suggests" and "seems to be", but it's still obvious that he fully believes his own conclusions that are far detached from reality.

You have to understand the historical meaning of the WW2 to Russia/Soviet Union and, specifically, its meaning to the current regime. The myth (I'm using this word not because it didn't happen, but because its meaning had been completely changed) of the WW2 (or, rather, The Great Patriotic War) has been reshaped into the myth of the creation of the Russian nation. In USSR it was the October Revolution, in USA it's the end of the Civil War, in France it's their Revolution as well. It may sound weird, but that's what it is — this regime doesn't want to make a choice between the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union as the entities that Russia originates from, as both have a very divided set of supporters that don't like each other. So the myth of the War, or rather, the myth of the Victory, is chosen as the point of today's country/nation/culture's "creation"/"emergence" — because it's so pure and it supersedes any political agenda.

While branding anyone who stands oppose this regime a "fascist" without any real correlation to the original term, has become the norm. Americans are fascists, Georgians are fascist, Baltic countries are fascist, Ukrainians are fascist etc. — whoever is convenient at the moment. In Russia (and especially in Russia's official propaganda), it's not a term that correlates to the Holocaust or to Jews in any way anymore. This is why Russian nationalism & its significant issues with racism (towards Asians, towards people from Caucasian republics, towards black people and towards jews — it's very much alive is well) paradoxically lives alongside the complete and utter distain to so-called fascists (whoever is called that at the moment).

Spoiler: On the confirmation bias and conclusions that lack actual evidence

As for the obvious confirmation bias. For example this is seen as a sign of a an official pro-Semitic policy by Putin...





While those are seen as "policies, consequential as they may be, are deviations from the pro-Semitic norm of the 21st-century Kremlin" without any actual evidence that one is more important than the other.

Thanks. Some very interesting thoughts. Certainly enough to challenge that the narrative that Putin is instinctively pro Jew/Israel is "fact." On the other hand, there's a lot of suggestion that he does, so I don't think it can be discounted.

Trying to second guess the motives of Putin though is a fools errand I guess...

He certainly seems less racist than navalny though.

@Fearless I've been around in this world long enough to call out distraction. I'd like to ask you one important question: why are you (your Israeli mates) digging, and continuing to dig, under Masjid Al Aqsa ? Would like your explanation because you won't be able to read about this in many mainstream places online.

The archeological whitewashing is a disgrace. There’s been a lot of “judification” there.(turning an ancient Muslim hall into a museum exhibit is not ok) If I recall correctly a right wing jewish group are behinf it. That said, the Palestinian side have also caused complete carnage and disregard for archeological treasures (For example excavating to the al Aqsa vault.)

If you’re actually interested in the archeology of Jerusalem I have a cool article somewhere on my pc.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

You can't see any parallels in behaviour and events?

Parallels with a government turning it's people against an 'other' to justify denying them basic human rights, appropriating their property and killing them with impunity, absolutely. Parallels specifically with the mechanised mass murder of 6m people in a matter of months? Not so much.

If people want to say that Israel is an apartheid state committing ethnic cleansing, and that a significant proportion of the population appear to be advocating for worse, I'd agree with them. But the Holocaust was a specific, exceptional event which has far less in common with what's happening in Palestine than many other events and the rush to make the comparison is odd and counterproductive.

 

[RedC]

I don’t think it’s up to us to determine what the moral lesson of the Holocaust should be for its victims, and then decide that some are unworthy or need asking “certain questions” on the basis that they have failed to live up to what our expectations might be. Many Jews will have concluded that the true lesson is that only with a state and the ability to defend themselves can they prevent it happening again. Many will have determined that murderous antisemitism is a simple fact of life in this world and there’s feck all they can do about it. Many will have drawn more general conclusions regarding the nature of racism, war, and genocide in the world (“never again”). Many may be suffering from too much multi-generational trauma to draw any clear conclusions at all. Jews can and do debate these questions among themselves, sometimes rather viciously. But it’s not something which should determine how the rest of us approach the moral questions raised by this conflict, whatever our personal beliefs. If Israeli Jews are committing crimes against the Palestinians, it is enough to recognize that fact without assigning them a special moral status based on their horrific history.

I think that is complete nonsense. If that is the case, then any current Jew shouldn't discuss the Holocaust or take anything from it in their lives. If the past shouldn't be considered a mechanism from which others can learn lessons from, then why even remember it? You are essentially saying that we can't expect anyone to learn from an event that is hugely integral spiritually to the lives of the majority of Jews to this present day, that makes no sense.

 

[Fearless]

This is as shameful a comment as anything @Fearless has said in this thread. I can't imagine what it must feel like to lack the integrity and conscience to think like this - let alone share such an opinion in public.

You mean like this...

 

[oates]

Parallels with a government turning it's people against an 'other' to justify denying them basic human rights, appropriating their property and killing them with impunity, absolutely. Parallels specifically with the mechanised mass murder of 6m people in a matter of months? Not so much.

If people want to say that Israel is an apartheid state committing ethnic cleansing, and that a significant proportion of the population appear to be advocating for worse, I'd agree with them. But the Holocaust was a specific, exceptional event which has far less in common with what's happening in Palestine than many other events and the rush to make the comparison is odd and counterproductive.

I think it is possible that the two are connected even if not the same, the reasons for current actions and beliefs embedded in the past. The aims never rest, any ceasefires or negotiated peace only results in settlers taking more, any protest including violence from Hamas, which let's be honest is a fraction of the response, sees the process repeat and around we go again. At some point Israel will run out of victims.

 

[2cents]

I think that is complete nonsense. If that is the case, then any current Jew shouldn't discuss the Holocaust or take anything from it in their lives. If the past shouldn't be considered a mechanism from which others can learn lessons from, then why even remember it? You are essentially saying that we can't expect anyone to learn from an event that is hugely integral spiritually to the lives of the majority of Jews to this present day, that makes no sense.

I’m really struggling to understand how you’ve taken this from my posts.

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[JPRouve]

I think it is possible that the two are connected even if not the same, the reasons for current actions and beliefs embedded in the past. The aims never rest, any ceasefires or negotiated peace only results in settlers taking more, any protest including violence from Hamas, which let's be honest is a fraction of the response, sees the process repeat and around we go again. At some point Israel will run out of victims.

That's the problem. In theory the solution is coerced peace by a third party who would be ready to smash both if they don't behave. Several generations of forced peace would probably fix a large part of the childish behaviour that we see because neither side has enjoyed enough peace to realize how precious it actually is.

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[Roane]

Just like is done to China, India, Russia, and the USA? Israel is a modern wealthy nuclear power intertwined with the world economy. They can't even control North Korea or Turkey, both of whom, are far weaker and far worse actors.



Thanks. Some very interesting thoughts. Certainly enough to challenge that the narrative that Putin is instinctively pro Jew/Israel is "fact." On the other hand, there's a lot of suggestion that he does, so I don't think it can be discounted.

Trying to second guess the motives of Putin though is a fools errand I guess...

He certainly seems less racist than navalny though.



The archeological whitewashing is a disgrace. There’s been a lot of “judification” there.(turning an ancient Muslim hall into a museum exhibit is not ok) If I recall correctly a right wing jewish group are behinf it. That said, the Palestinian side have also caused complete carnage and disregard for archeological treasures (For example excavating to the al Aqsa vault.)

If you’re actually interested in the archeology of Jerusalem I have a cool article somewhere on my pc.

The links to likes of China are weak at best and simple whataboutry at worst.

Let's be honest here the proverbial "leash" of Israel is currently firmly in the hands of America. America has potentially a lot of control over Israel not least because of the money it gives them, military aid, investments in weapon facilities (which contain American scientists) set up by and run by USA and then it buys the weapons etc from its own facilities with Israel the beneficiary two three times over.

America has no such control over the countries you mention or links. Friends of Israel is a real thing, can't even be elected if you don't become a part of it in many cases (UK also). No such impact is there for likes of China.

Apples and oranges springs to mind

 

[Fearless]

Really?

 

[rotherham_red]

Despicable

 

[Roane]

I think it is possible that the two are connected even if not the same, the reasons for current actions and beliefs embedded in the past. The aims never rest, any ceasefires or negotiated peace only results in settlers taking more, any protest including violence from Hamas, which let's be honest is a fraction of the response, sees the process repeat and around we go again. At some point Israel will run out of victims.

Hamas needs to go I believe that. But if anything of things continue as they are Palestinians would, rightly imo if situations like the current one persist, be potentially cornered into supporting someone extreme.

If likes of America don't reign in Israel, and I believe they have the power, this situation ends with either no Palestinians or an isis like organisation coming to the fore even if it's for a short while. Which would also mean no Palestinians ultimately

 

[Fearless]

Please tell me there arent people in here defending Israels bullshit

Please tell me there aren't people in here defending an openly antisemitic proscribed Jihadi terrorist group

 

[Roane]

Really?

Why doesn't Israel accept the ceasefire? After all they started this over land rights

 

[oates]

Hamas needs to go I believe that. But if anything of things continue as they are Palestinians would, rightly imo if situations like the current one persist, be potentially cornered into supporting someone extreme.

If likes of America don't reign in Israel, and I believe they have the power, this situation ends with either no Palestinians or an isis like organisation coming to the fore even if it's for a short while. Which would also mean no Palestinians ultimately

If only America and the West had a successful record on such policing actions.

 

[Roane]

Please tell me there aren't people in here defending an openly antisemitic proscribed Jihadi terrorist group

The Palestinians? Because I dont see defence of Hamas.

Also

In 2018 the UN general assembly rejected a US resolution condemning Hamas a terrorist organisation.

Has this changed?