Which Route Should Be Taken in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?

[Harel13]

I wonder what it's like to live in Kirias Joel, N.Y. Do you know?

I sometimes wonder this too, but in many ways, it's probably very similar to living in Ultra Orthodox-majority cities in Israel, such as Bnei Brak and Elad.

 

[LuisDantas]

Because it is usually invoked to dismiss the legitimacy of Palestinians' right to self-determination in a state of their own. The idea is that if there was never a state called Palestine, this makes it justified to have Israel become the only recognized state in the region and continue with its current policies as if Palestinian identity didn't matter or even exist.

I fear that I am quite ready to dismiss outright any claims of right to self-determination, including Palestine's and Israel's.

States are just too transparently political and fictional constructs to deserve that much attention. And sovereignity is all-out fiction, nothing more.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your logic is not so great either. "Palestine" at the time was not a free state but was a British WW I mandate. When the Arab side took an intransigent position at first they got their way with the White Paper of May 1, 1939. The "White Paper" was itself an abrogation of the Balfour Declaration and earlier policy pronouncement. Arab claims are not a one-way ratchet, which stops at the point where their position, through blackmail or otherwise, is temporarily ahead.

This sounds like a lot of waffle to justify genocide.

Look, I get it, you really wanted to genocide some people and steal their land. Just be open about it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I hadn't even heard of this place, so I looked it up: Kiryas Joel, New York - Wikipedia



It appears to be an economically-depressed area.

(Rats. I knew I spelled it wrong.) Oh, that is not good.

 

[rosends]

Likewise. Israel is currently engaged in an illegal annexation of Palestian territory, and is also involved in shelling those territories. This is true.

There is no "Palestinian territory."

Oh really? I would love to hear more about this?

You want to hear more about a state that didn't exist?
The Ironic History of Palestine | History News Network.

Are you seriously disputing that Palestinian territory has been shrinking over the last 100 years?

No, I'm disputing that there is anything called "Palestinian territory." There are a lot of different maps to consider when measuring territory.

Once again, you are misunderstanding how arguments work. It is not a specific claim you have made, it is the implication of your framing of the debate. When I bring up Israel's crimes, you demand nuance and context. When you bring up Palestine's crimes, you seem to do so absent of nuance or context. I am applying your own moral standard to your argument.

IOW you can't show me where I said what you claimed I said and now fall back on to "you seem to do so". Got it.

Nope. It is accurate. The state of Palestine is shrinking, the state of Israel is currently engaging in annexing territory illegally. It's invading.

Still inaccurate. But keep saying it if it makes you feel better.

I don't care. The point I am making is that pure numbers decreasing does not a genocide make. I have already explained what I am referring to as a "genocide". If you reject it, take it up with the UN.

Ah, so numbers don't matter and the numbers you claimed to have heard are immaterial but you cited them anyway. Got it.

They are systemically discriminated against, underrepresented politically, subject to greater travel restrictions, and legislation like the "Nation-State Law" explicitly singles out Jewish Isaraelis as having a unique right to self-determination.

You are mixing a whole bunch of things here. Israeli Arab citizens have the rights of citizens. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel . If there are other categories that you wish to discuss, please be clear about exactly who your subject is. As to the Basic Law, it isn't unique even as it applies to a concept of self-determination (Kontorovich (2020). "A Comparative Constitutional Perspective on Israel's Nation-State Law". Israel Studies. 25 (3): 137).

No, it is not. Even if the first volley were a result of Palestine aggression, it does justify the proportion of the response.

Because you believe that if someone kicks you, you are limited in response to a kick. Then, in your words "Palestinian shelling is - de facto - "more justified" because of the disproportionate violence committed by the Israeli state against them." And Israel, in resposne would be limited to random and untargeted rockets fired towards civilian centers. And here I thought you were all about the morality argument. Much to learn, I guess.

So, how do you solve that problem? Because shelling Palestine and continuing to kill Palestinians and steal their territory probably isn't going to make Hamas any more open non-genocidal solutions. Again, you are providing a pretext for wiping out an entire state of people and stealing their land over multiple generations. I get that antisemitism is bad. How is the cure for antisemitism to enact genocide?

I'll try to avoid the same inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric that you sprinkle through here. You ask how to solve the problem that Hamas espouses the position that Israel should not exist and Palestinian media, textbooks and leaders advocate and teach violence towards all Jews and the destruction of the entire state of Israel. There have been many avenues tried (and some continue to be tried) but the problem persists. The shelling is teh stop gap measure to try and either remove teh source of the threat or dissuade the rank and file from supporting the approach of attacking Israel. Sadly, this is not a new problem.

Again, displacement does not justify further displacement and genocide. And this weird argument about there being "no Palestine to invade" seems like a rhetorical sleight of hand.

A) I never said it did
B) No, it is historical fact which makes the earlier question asked illogical

So you are against the Israeli displacement of 300,000 Palestinian, then? Great!

And you are against the displacement of 750,000 Jews, and those uprooted from the Gaza Strip? Great!

It's a RESPONSE to your argument. I am tired of these rhetorical tactics that you're using to ignore the hard facts.

And I'm tired of your inventing "facts" and not having a firm grasp of the history of the conflict. We all have to deal with being tired, i guess.

I'm not stooping to this childish level. I have been very clear with my arguments.

So when asked to explain, you refuse. Great, thanks.

I'm also tired of this childish argument. You know what an argument from analogy is. If you can apply the logic you're using to justify or dismiss the actions of reprehensible political systems, find another strategy.

Yes, and there are plenty of analogies to draw. The invoking of Nazis is an interesting choice (considering that it was the Arabs who sided with Nazis in WWII).

I used your childish argument and put it in a different context. I will not let you use cheap tricks and dishonesty to insult me and my intelligence.

So you made a claim and now don't feel the need to explain it. Got it.

Then explain to me how your argument is no better than how I summarized it, because justifying bombing territory "because our bombs are more accurate and we give them warning whereas their bombs suck and tend to hurt their own people" is basically no different to saying "we should be allowed to kill them because we're better at it".

Except that I said neither of these things. You are asking me to explain improper inferences that you made. I can't explain your train of thought. You sumamrized my position as "they are better at using rockets than Palestine" and you earlier said "you argument here seems to be "Well, we're much better at killing them, so they should just let us do it"" But those were your words and not my argument. Your "seems" assumption is wrong and you have yet to show me how you came to that.

Then make better arguments, and don't make arguments that could just as easily be used to justify genocide.

Then read what I actually say and don't invent facts. My argument, bolstered by fact, is fairly clear. What you are getting has been, wholesale, invention on your part. I cannot be held responsible for your inability to stick to precisely what I wrote and need to reframe. If you have a difficulty understanding, you should ask clarifying questions and not presume to restate amidst your uncertainty.

No mention of displacement, criminal behaviour of the state, annexation, human rights abuses, the disproportionate killing of Palestinians?

I am specifically addressing items that you had on a list. i try to stay focused and not throw in anything else that I feel like.

These things could all be said of many countries. It doesn't justify them enacting genocide.

Good thing no one claimed that they justify anything and good thing that Israel doesn't have a policy of genocide.

 

[rosends]

(Rats. I knew I spelled it wrong.) Oh, that is not good.

that's actually a function of certain vagaries of statistics.

 

[Flankerl]

"Oh no, Israel isn't illegally occupying land. That land is "disputed". The fact that the land used to belong to one state and now is being occupied by another is purely coincidental. What's that? How did the land BECOME "disputed"? Oh, who knows? Must be Palestine's fault somehow."

So who was that?
Are you proposing a return of the Ottoman Empire?
The Mamluk Empire?

Now we are already in the Medieval era.
How far do I have to go back to arrive at the desired state?

 

[Harel13]

So who was that?
Are you proposing a return of the Ottoman Empire?
The Mamluk Empire?

Now we are already in the Medieval era.
How far do I have to go back to arrive at the desired state?

I vote Mongols. Mongols are cool.

 

[Flankerl]

Mongols are a good argument

- stoke up ancient fears in the Arab and Persian hearts
- religious pluralism
- fun stories of how Samarkand and Baghdad ceased to be
- dope music

 

[Debater Slayer]

- stoke up ancient fears in the Arab and Persian hearts

[...]

- fun stories of how Samarkand and Baghdad ceased to be

This is an unfortunate post, to put it simply. It's clear that it's resulting from deep animosity and little else.

 

[metis]

One should always remember that the boundaries in the Middle East were largely not drawn up in the Middle East but by Europeans, and they drew them for their own convenience.

Also, when one studies that region's early history, citing supposed previous boundaries is almost a joke much of the time.

 

[Harel13]

Mongols are a good argument

To emphasize to us the incredible potential the Mongol conquest of the Land of Israel had, one of my history professors said:

"If the Mongols had ended up defeating the Mamluks at the Battle of Ein Jalut (instead of losing), we would have all been speaking Chinese today!"​

 

[Flankerl]

This is an unfortunate post, to put it simply. It's clear that it's resulting from deep animosity and little else.

Yup for details look up the Allahdad, Farhud and Co.

It's really a bummer that I had detailed conversations with Mizrahi, Sephardi, Teimani Jews.
Kinda puts everything into perspective.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I can understand the strategic part but then the nasty religious part rears its head.

I don't think superstitions about Israel are healthy, no; but I don't think they are a dragon level problem. Its a neat thing that there is a country of Israel, now; and there is plenty of opportunity for it to become the miracle that people hope it is. There is opportunity but not guarantee.

In USA most people aren't superstitious about the country Israel but of those who are: Superstitions that people have about Israel are not the only reason that they care.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yup for details look up the Allahdad, Farhud and Co.

It's really a bummer that I had detailed conversations with Mizrahi, Sephardi, Teimani Jews.
Kinda puts everything into perspective.

Is your ire directed toward the people who justify or support such atrocities, or are you also expanding it to include Arabs in general?

 

[Flankerl]

I fail to see why I should care of the opinions of the minority in the middle east?
Antisemitism is widespread and common place in these countries.
When they ran out of Jews they went after Assyrians, Kurds and Chaldeans.
When they ran out of those they went after each other.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I fail to see why I should care of the opinions of the minority in the middle east?
Antisemitism is widespread and common place in these countries.
When they ran out of Jews they went after Assyrians, Kurds and Chaldeans.
When they ran out of those they went after each other.

It's more that I think no one should overgeneralize and lump minority voices with everyone else, and vice versa. Otherwise the anger becomes targeted based on ethnicity or nationality, not beliefs and politics. The former has always been dangerous—an example of which is, of course, antisemitism.

A lot of the same religious writings used by fundamenralists to justify antisemitism are also used to justify hatred and abuse targeting Arab atheists, LGBT people, and members of religious minorities.

 

[Flankerl]

There have been more than enough polls and studies to prove that Antisemitism is not some fringe ideology in the Arab/Muslim world.

This idea that 99% of all Jews in Arab/Muslim countries had to flee their homes because a small minority hated them is rather typical of people's urge to explain the uncomfortable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There have been more than enough polls and studies to prove that Antisemitism is not some fringe ideology in the Arab/Muslim world.

This idea that 99% of all Jews in Arab/Muslim countries had to flee their homes because a small minority hated them is rather typical of people's urge to explain the uncomfortable.

I wasn't saying antisemitism was a minority view; I was saying that even if strongly rejecting antisemitism was the view of a minority, said minority should not be lumped in with vocal antisemites. Minimizing or dismissing voices of reform does nothing useful.

 

[Flankerl]

What does that even mean.
Are we now throwing the insignificant liberal views in Arab/Muslim countries into the ring?
Granted those are more numerous than the Antisemites.
Mostly because quite a few of those with liberal views still hate Jews.