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

Synco said:
Really, that's just projecting your own political agenda on Hamas. They have never confined themselves to such a role. Here are some relevant parts from their 2017 charter on their basic goals regarding Israel (although I'm quite sure the problem isn't that you don't know them):

There's simply no denying their fundamental goals are offensive in nature, they say it themselves (as do Iran and Hezbollah, over and over again). They're just unable to follow through practically due to Israel's current overwhelming dominance and their relative isolation. The final sentence of 20. captures Hamas's present political strategy as a reaction to that situation, explicitly not giving up on the long-term target. But we were talking about 1993-2000 anyway, long before that strategy, so the old Covenant applies.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you are tying their past tactic of suicide bombing with their ideological goals. That seems rather simplistic and certainly can't be verified. It could just as well be that they saw that as a way to inflict a fraction of the suffering on Israel as Israel had been inflicting on Palestinians for decades with its overwhelming military superiority.

I think it is instructive to listen to what knowledgeable Israelis say about Hamas (obviously not those just pushing the usual, official narrative). Here is former head of the Mossad, Ephraim Levy in 2008:

"The Hamas leadership has recognised that its ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future. They are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967. They know that the moment a Palestinian state is established with their cooperation, they will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original ideological goals."

Perhaps it could be worth negotiating that "temporary" peace after all?

It's also interesting that you don't seem to see the parallels between Hamas' goals and the zionist movement. Take the Likud for example. They categorically rule out sharing the land as well. That has always been the position of the Likud and their ideological forebears since the beginning of the zionist movement. Labor have been, with a couple of brief exceptions, basically just as bad. Basically the zionist movement has only differed on the best strategy to get rid of the Palestinians. If you go back to the Mandate period for example, Weizmann and Ben Gurion wanted the other zionists to just shut up about a Jewish state. That it would come eventually, but it was better if the Arabs thought their intentions were benign. Whereas Jabotinsky was a lot more honest about Zionist intentions.

I wonder if you think the Irgun and Lehi's "fundamental goals were offensive in nature"? I sometimes wonder if the rise of the leaders of those groups to prime minister of Israel inspired in any way Hamas' ideological goals.
 
RedTiger said:
That can't be right. The Israeli's hate when things are named after a terrorist.
Click to expand...
:lol: Quite. There are literally scores of streets, squares, even high schools and government buildings, throughout Israel which are named after Jewish terrorists.
 
Super Hans said:
If I understand you correctly, you are tying their past tactic of suicide bombing with their ideological goals. That seems rather simplistic and certainly can't be verified.
Click to expand...
I do, although I haven't addressed that in this particular post. But I don't think shooting or stabbing attacks make a difference in principle.

Super Hans said:
It could just as well be that they saw that as a way to inflict a fraction of the suffering on Israel as Israel had been inflicting on Palestinians for decades with its overwhelming military superiority.
Click to expand...
First of all, it's noticeable that your usual fervour for denouncing war crimes is completely absent here. It's anyone's guess why.

Otherwise, the major fallacy I see is the suggested dualism between maximalist goals and "understandable" revenge on civilians. There's no necessary contradiction between them – what if these two motives are simply linked? The way you put it, the motive of "just" revenge automatically excludes the intent to thoroughly destroy the enemy, which doesn't make sense to me. Especially since Hamas never had any problems combining both motives.

Super Hans said:
Perhaps it could be worth negotiating that "temporary" peace after all?
Click to expand...
It might be under certain circumstances, but there are also very good arguments against it.

As for the rest of your post, excuse me if I mistrust your depiction of the conflict's history and actors on the basis of what you otherwise write. Not necessarily concerning singular facts, but accuracy, context, and completeness. I also figure there'd be too much to disentangle regarding the various comparisons and deductions you make.

Super Hans said:
I wonder if you think the Irgun and Lehi's "fundamental goals were offensive in nature"? I sometimes wonder if the rise of the leaders of those groups to prime minister of Israel inspired in any way Hamas' ideological goals.
Click to expand...
They certainly were offensive in nature, no doubt. Concerning the last sentence, see my statement above on these kinds of assumptions.
 
Synco said:
I do, although I haven't addressed that in this particular post. But I don't think shooting or stabbing attacks make a difference in principle.
Click to expand...
By Hamas?
Synco said:
First of all, it's noticeable that your usual fervour for denouncing war crimes is completely absent here. It's anyone's guess why.

Otherwise, the major fallacy I see is the suggested dualism between maximalist goals and "understandable" revenge on civilians. There's no necessary contradiction between them – what if these two motives are simply linked? The way you put it, the motive of "just" revenge automatically excludes the intent to thoroughly destroy the enemy, which doesn't make sense to me. Especially since Hamas never had any problems combining both motives.
Click to expand...
Where have I suggested that suicide bombings were "understandable" or "just"? (Often, what may appear as justification on my part is simply a case of my pointing out hypocrisy in pro-Israel propaganda) Attacks against civilians are a crime by either side. I merely put forward another possible motivation for these attacks. And even then, the motivations for any single attack could vary considerably from the previous one.

That said, whereas criminal responsibility on the part of both Israel and Hamas for attacks on civilians is clear, there is a significant difference in moral blameworthiness. The Dugard Fact-Finding Committee report published in the wake of Cast Lead explained this very well. It held Palestinian factions (like the IDF) culpable for war crimes. It then entered the caveat:

"In assessing the responsibility of Hamas and individual Palestinian militants there are a number of factors that reduce their moral blameworthiness but not their criminal responsibility. Such factors include the fact Palestinians have been denied their right to self-determination by Israel and have long been subjected to a cruel siege by Israel"; "the scale of Israel's action" and "the great difference in both the weapons capability...and the use of their respective weaponry."
Synco said:
It might be under certain circumstances, but there are also very good arguments against it.

As for the rest of your post, excuse me if I mistrust your depiction of the conflict's history and actors on the basis of what you otherwise write. Not necessarily concerning singular facts, but accuracy, context, and completeness. I also figure there'd be too much to disentangle regarding the various comparisons and deductions you make.
Click to expand...

If you want an excellent and balanced history of the origins of the conflict up to the creation of Israel without needing to read like 60 books, I recommend the Martyrmade series of podcasts, Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem. Then you can come back and tell me whether my "depiction of the conflict's history" is inaccurate, incomplete or out of context.
 
Super Hans said:
If you want an excellent and balanced history of the origins of the conflict up to the creation of Israel without needing to read like 60 books, I recommend the Martyrmade series of podcasts, Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem. Then you can come back and tell me whether my "depiction of the conflict's history" is inaccurate, incomplete or out of context.
Click to expand...
Let me put it like this: Over the course of just a few posts you have described Hamas as comparable to the ANC, and Likud, and possibly inspired by Irgun/Lehi. That makes no sense at all, except that each of these contradictory references was useful to counter a specific criticism of Hamas at a particular point in the discussion. That's cherrypicking through history for me, and things like this (there are more) lead to the impression I mentioned.
 
Super Hans said:
If you want an excellent and balanced history of the origins of the conflict up to the creation of Israel without needing to read like 60 books, I recommend the Martyrmade series of podcasts, Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem. Then you can come back and tell me whether my "depiction of the conflict's history" is inaccurate, incomplete or out of context.
Click to expand...

Why you would trust a questionable nobody like Darryl Cooper, if the mixed reviews on Reddit are accurate, rather than reading history books?
 
Chairman Woodie said:
Why you would trust a questionable nobody like Darryl Cooper, if the mixed reviews on Reddit are accurate, rather than reading history books?
Click to expand...
Obviously it would be great if Synco and yourself read the history books. Based on my own extensive reading on the conflict, I think that for people that don’t have time to read scores of books to get the whole picture, in my opinion the Martyrmade podcast does the best job of distilling a collossal amount of information into a managable format without judging either side.

Have you actually listened to any of it in order to level some specific criticisms or are you going to restrict yourself to ad hominem attacks?
 
If you dismiss ad hominem criticism, you probably shouldn't make a thinly veiled authority argument about yourself in the same post.
 
Super Hans said:
Obviously it would be great if Synco and yourself read the history books.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming I don't history books?

Based on my own extensive reading on the conflict, I think that for people that don’t have time to read scores of books to get the whole picture, in my opinion the Martyrmade podcast does the best job of distilling a collossal amount of information into a managable format without judging either side.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Have you actually listened to any of it in order to level some specific criticisms or are you going to restrict yourself to ad hominem attacks?
Click to expand...

No. I've only just found out about him from your post.
 
Synco said:
Let me put it like this: Over the course of just a few posts you have described Hamas as comparable to the ANC, and Likud, and possibly inspired by Irgun/Lehi. That makes no sense at all, except that each of these contradictory references was useful to counter a specific criticism of Hamas at a particular point in the discussion. That's cherrypicking through history for me, and things like this (there are more) lead to the impression I mentioned.
Click to expand...
That's a mischaracterisation. I merely pointed out that the usual complaints about Hamas (refusal to renounce violence, maximalist goals) appear to hold Hamas to a different standard.
Synco said:
If you dismiss ad hominem criticism, you probably shouldn't make a thinly veiled authority argument about yourself in the same post.
Click to expand...
And here I am thinking I was just giving my opinion.
 
Super Hans said:
That's a mischaracterisation. I merely pointed out that the usual complaints about Hamas (refusal to renounce violence, maximalist goals) appear to hold Hamas to a different standard.
Click to expand...
But that's the issue, isn't it? @2cents has pointed out how the ANC's relationship to violence was a different one to Hamas's. @PedroMendez has pointed out why the ANC's aims didn't feature maximalist goals like the ones of Hamas or similar groups, but followed a nationalism based on equality and inclusiveness.

My point was you have to decide whether you want to compare Hamas's approach to violence to the ANC's (civil rights movement, partly using terrorist means) or Lehi's (ethno-nationalist terrorist group), and switching between both shows a rather selective approach to historic comparison.

So the basic argument here is it's not the standard that's different, but there's a substantial difference between Hamas and the ANC in ideology and fundamental goals (ignoring the general limits of historic analogies for now).

Super Hans said:
And here I am thinking I was just giving my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, and I thought recommending posters after disagreements on history to „read the history books“ while mentioning your „own extensive reading on the conflict“ is a bit obvious.

Same for the podcast: You cited it as a demonstration of how balanced your historic views are, but I don't see how it's relevant to discussions in this forum. People can only judge on what you write, not on outside sources you may prefer. You can use quotes or arguments from that podcast of course, but what matters in the end is your own content.

(That said, the podcast seems indeed interesting at first sight.)
 
Synco said:
But that's the issue, isn't it? @2cents has pointed out how the ANC's relationship to violence was a different one to Hamas's. @PedroMendez has pointed out why the ANC's aims didn't feature maximalist goals like the ones of Hamas or similar groups, but followed a nationalism based on equality and inclusiveness.

My point was you have to decide whether you want to compare Hamas's approach to violence to the ANC's (civil rights movement, partly using terrorist means) or Lehi's (ethno-nationalist terrorist group), and switching between both shows a rather selective approach to historic comparison.

So the basic argument here is it's not the standard that's different, but there's a substantial difference between Hamas and the ANC in ideology and fundamental goals (ignoring the general limits of historic analogies for now).
Click to expand...
I accept that there are differences in the ideologies between Hamas and the ANC. However, I think that the similarities between these two groups, struggling under the oppression of broadly similar oppressive regimes, are enough to warrant the example of the ANC refusal to renounce violence, more so since Hamas' position on an agreement on the 1967 lines has softened.

When I brought up the Likud/Lehi/Irgun, it was in the context of demonstrating that Hamas' direct opponents (and their forebears) also have maximalist goals without in any way claiming they are similar groups.

Synco said:
Well, and I thought recommending posters after disagreements on history to „read the history books“ while mentioning your „own extensive reading on the conflict“ is a bit obvious.

Same for the podcast: You cited it as a demonstration of how balanced your historic views are, but I don't see how it's relevant to discussions in this forum. People can only judge on what you write, not on outside sources you may prefer. You can use quotes or arguments from that podcast of course, but what matters in the end is your own content.

(That said, the podcast seems indeed interesting at first sight.)
Click to expand...
To be fair, you called into question my depiction of the conflict's history, so I made a suggestion of a relatively easy way to check it. I don't agree that I "cited it as a demonstration of how balanced" my "historic views are". I made clear that it was only my opinion that the podcast was balanced. I wouldn't presume to claim that my own views are balanced, although I know that they have become more so over time. I definitely have far more sympathy for Zionism and admiration for its achievements now than I did a couple of years ago.
 


Irish Examiner said:
It is equally legitimate to criticise Israel, when it deserves it, but it is not legitimate to institutionalise such criticism so that it operates selectively, exclusively, and obsessively.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Super Hans said:
I accept that there are differences in the ideologies between Hamas and the ANC. However, I think that the similarities between these two groups, struggling under the oppression of broadly similar oppressive regimes, are enough to warrant the example of the ANC refusal to renounce violence, more so since Hamas' position on an agreement on the 1967 lines has softened.

When I brought up the Likud/Lehi/Irgun, it was in the context of demonstrating that Hamas' direct opponents (and their forebears) also have maximalist goals without in any way claiming they are similar groups.
Click to expand...
Okay, we won't agree on that one as I think the factors of Islamism and antisemitism alone send Hamas and the likes beyond any comparability with the ANC, or civil rights struggles similar to theirs. Imo, that difference is also visible in the kinds of violence used by each party (not limited to Hamas or other Jihadist groups though, or only recent decades).

I also don't understand liberation being restricted to the national level, as I see supporters of the Palestinians mostly do - be it explicitly or implicitly. The way Hamas and Fatah treat the Palestinian population should be a major issue for everyone who claims to value the human rights of the Palestinians. But in my experience it practically never is, and usually being swept under the rug instead to make the anti-Israel narrative work seamlessly.

This is one of several reasons I'm generally assuming more and different motives at work there than the ones given.

Super Hans said:
To be fair, you called into question my depiction of the conflict's history, so I made a suggestion of a relatively easy way to check it. I don't agree that I "cited it as a demonstration of how balanced" my "historic views are". I made clear that it was only my opinion that the podcast was balanced. I wouldn't presume to claim that my own views are balanced, although I know that they have become more so over time. I definitely have far more sympathy for Zionism and admiration for its achievements now than I did a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...
You're right, it's better not to make too much of a personal issue out of this.

My point was that in the end one's background knowledge and preferences have to be reflected in the posts themselves, as this is the only content other posters can be expected to consider for making a judgement. But I get why you posted it, and as I said, the podcast's description sounds good, and I might give it a listen sometime.

I have certainly gained a better understanding of the Arab/Palestinian perspective as well in recent years, one reason actually being the Caf. I'm currently thinking about a longer post to reasonably contextualize all of this; if the result doesn't sound too stupid to me I'll post it at some point in the future.
 
Chairman Woodie said:


The clip features Maccabi Tel Aviv playing in Australia.

Edit: Times of Israel
Click to expand...



Ha ha ha. I bet Gorgeous George feels like a right twat for proving that in 1939:

....A. Ophir, J.Sidi, Avraham Reznik, B. Mesrubai, J. Lieberman, Zvi Fooks, Menahem Mirmovitch, S.S. Salemson, S. Alenluk, Avraham Beit ha Levi, Peri Neufeld, Gaul Machlis, S. Ginsburg, J. Greenburg, and A. Schneiderwiese.

.....were not Arab.
 
Dgs5eVaWkAAkInp
 


On the one hand I understand DP's point. On the other hand I feel sorry the people of Gaza. Hamas are the problem.
 
Chairman Woodie said:


On the one hand I understand DP's point. On the other hand I feel sorry the people of Gaza. Hamas are the problem.
Click to expand...

Which part is it you “understand”? That “Gazans” are “accessories” or that they should be denied electricity in order to achieve “#IsraelVictory”?
 
Hamas are fecking good at what they do, they are after all responsible for every single thing in this near century long ethnic cleansing project despite only being around since 1987.
 
Super Hans said:
Which part is it you “understand”? That “Gazans” are “accessories” or that they should be denied electricity in order to achieve “#IsraelVictory”?
Click to expand...

I understand the Israeli perspective that undertaking any major project for Gaza, however necessary, can feel like it's rewarding bad behaviour.

MJJ said:
The part where Palestinians shouldn't be treated as humans.
Click to expand...

Please don't presume to know what I understand.
 


A worthless sentiment that, wittingly or unwittingly, omits context.

Fianna Fail can help the Palestinian people by holding the PA and Hamas to account for failing in their duty as leaders.
 
MJJ said:
May be but it isnt so I will presume whatever I want.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that I can answer for myself:
Chairman Woodie said:
I understand the Israeli perspective that undertaking any major project for Gaza, however necessary, can feel like it's rewarding bad behaviour.
Click to expand...

A point you wilfully neglected to answer in your reply.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
I understand the Israeli perspective that undertaking any major project for Gaza, however necessary, can feel like it's rewarding bad behaviour.
Click to expand...
The humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip in general is due to the Israeli blockade, as any reputable human rights organisation or economist (as well as a multitude of other reports and fact-finding commissions) would attest. Significantly, over and above preventing weapons entering the strip, the "primary purpose" of the blockade has been to "bring about a situation in which the civilian population would find life so intolerable that they would leave (if that were possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as to collectively punish the civilian population." (Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict)

In addition, it was Israel that destroyed Gaza's only power plant in 2014, in keeping with its doctrine of causing massive damage to civilian infrastructure, so it would only seem right that Israel should make amends for that atrocity.

Anyway, it can't be "rewarding bad behaviour" (without bothering to get into the validity of that particular assertion) that is a concern for Israel. Off the top of my head, one only has to look at how quickly Israel connects illegal outposts to water and electricity or how the oppression and restrictions on Palestinians in Hebron increased after the Goldstein massacre to see how Israel views "bad behaviour".
 
Super Hans said:
The humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip in general is due to the Israeli blockade, as any reputable human rights organisation or economist (as well as a multitude of other reports and fact-finding commissions) would attest. Significantly, over and above preventing weapons entering the strip, the "primary purpose" of the blockade has been to "bring about a situation in which the civilian population would find life so intolerable that they would leave (if that were possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as to collectively punish the civilian population." (Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict)

In addition, it was Israel that destroyed Gaza's only power plant in 2014, in keeping with its doctrine of causing massive damage to civilian infrastructure, so it would only seem right that Israel should make amends for that atrocity.

Anyway, it can't be "rewarding bad behaviour" (without bothering to get into the validity of that particular assertion) that is a concern for Israel. Off the top of my head, one only has to look at how quickly Israel connects illegal outposts to water and electricity or how the oppression and restrictions on Palestinians in Hebron increased after the Goldstein massacre to see how Israel views "bad behaviour".
Click to expand...

One, you don't need to sell the solar field project to me. I support it. Just because I understand a viewpoint doesn't mean I agree with it.

Two, the Gaza Power Plant has since been operational. The Plant ceased in April 2017 because of a dispute between the PA and Hamas.

Three, I was merely noting that I understand the feeling among some Israelis. The feeling exists among Israel's supporters too.
 
Last edited:
Chairman Woodie said:
One, you don't need to sell the solar field project to me. I support it. Just because I understand a viewpoint doesn't mean I agree with it.

Two, the Gaza Power Plant has since been operational. The Plant ceased in April 2017 because of a dispute between the PA and Hamas.

Three, I was merely noting that I understand the feeling among some Israelis. The feeling exists among Israel's supporters too.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. When you said you understood the viewpoint, I inferred that you more or less agreed with it except for minor adjustments. It seems odd to say you understand a viewpoint that you don't agree with. For example, could you imagine saying that you understand the viewpoint that people in Nazi Germany had of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto? Obviously both viewpoints have been heavily influenced by state propaganda.
 
Super Hans said:
Oh, I see. When you said you understood the viewpoint, I inferred that you more or less agreed with it except for minor adjustments. It seems odd to say you understand a viewpoint that you don't agree with. For example, could you imagine saying that you understand the viewpoint that people in Nazi Germany had of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto? Obviously both viewpoints have been heavily influenced by state propaganda.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what I was talking about in our previous exchange: arbitrary use of historical comparisons. And it have to be the Nazis.

Here you again take an isolated historical extract and put it in a false context. It makes no sense factually, and the only purpose I can see is to feed the narrative of total evil vs total victimhood. Which, as has often been said here, never did justice to this conflict. But since exactly this is the desired result by so many Israel critics, facts and contexts get filtered and remodeled to fit in.

As for the question of ambiguities the Chairman sees here (as opposed to the Holocaust, and it's fecking mindboggling that this has to be explicated), he can probably best answer for himself.
 
Super Hans said:
Oh, I see. When you said you understood the viewpoint, I inferred that you more or less agreed with it except for minor adjustments. It seems odd to say you understand a viewpoint that you don't agree with. For example, could you imagine saying that you understand the viewpoint that people in Nazi Germany had of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto? Obviously both viewpoints have been heavily influenced by state propaganda.
Click to expand...
This isn't odd at all though is it? There's many viewpoints I understand just fine and disagree with all the same.
 
Both sides (palestinians and israelis) are wrong and right at the same time.

Add to that there is hatred of the other on both sides, means that there is no workable answer and they will just go on killing each other until one side is completley destroyed. At the moment that looks like the palestinians a because israel is so much stronger.

That doesnt make it right or something I would support, it just seems innevitable
 
KirkDuyt said:
This isn't odd at all though is it? There's many viewpoints I understand just fine and disagree with all the same.
Click to expand...
I think this is a subtlety of the English language. As I see it, if you are having a discussion or debate with someone and you say, "I understand your point of view...", you are usually conceding that you largely agree with what they are saying but you may object to one aspect of it (as I tried to explain in the first sentence).

If we interpret "understanding a viewpoint" as simply literally comprehending what the other person is saying, that seems to me to be another thing. I thought Chairman Woodie meant the first interpretation, otherwise it seemed strange that he would write that at all.

Then again, I'm no expert on these matters and it's splitting hairs and straying off topic anyway.
 
Super Hans said:
I think this is a subtlety of the English language. As I see it, if you are having a discussion or debate with someone and you say, "I understand your point of view...", you are usually conceding that you largely agree with what they are saying but you may object to one aspect of it (as I tried to explain in the first sentence).

If we interpret "understanding a viewpoint" as simply literally comprehending what the other person is saying, that seems to me to be another thing. I thought Chairman Woodie meant the first interpretation, otherwise it seemed strange that he would write that at all.

Then again, I'm no expert on these matters and it's splitting hairs and straying off topic anyway.
Click to expand...
What I meant is, for instance, that a billionaire views tax cuts as a good thing, as it means he will have more money. I personally still disagree with his point of view, but understand where he's coming from.

With respect to this debate, I completely understand why both these sides hate each other and why some of them are very extreme in their views. Prolonged conflict breeds these kind of views, I understand this, yet disagree with the views themselves.

Might be a bit nitpicky though I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.