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

[ImmortalFlame]

When I said "these are terrorists" my obvious meaning was that the suicide artists and knifers were terrorists, who were sheltered and fostered by someone. Not all "Palestinians" are terrorists but if they, as a group, don't do something to control the terrorists they can become collateral damage.

I was talking explicitly about Israel's control of Palestinians in occupied territory. Not terrorists.

Palestinians also become collateral damage when Israel shells Gaza, but that doesn't seem to stop the Israeli government from doing it.

 

[rosends]

I was talking explicitly about Israel's control of Palestinians in occupied territory. Not terrorists.

Palestinians also become collateral damage when Israel shells Gaza, but that doesn't seem to stop the Israeli government from doing it.

I hope you understand that your two claims are both significantly more complex than you present. In the first, Israel does not occupy land. There is disputed land and there are zones under the control of Israel or the PA. There are Arab citizens of Israel and Arab non-citizens of Israel and there are a variety of steps in place to regulate the movement of non-citizens, and a need to exercise warrants against those who have been found by a judicial system to pose a threat to Israel's citizenry.

In the second, using the phrase "Israel shells Gaza" in a vacuum is disingenuous at best. Not only do Arabs shell Israel from Gaza, but
1. many of their rockets fall short, harming their own people
2. rockets are fired from civilian locations so Israel's response, designed to remove the rocket threat often requires shelling locations that the rocketeers are filling with human shields (this doesn't stop Arab groups from firing from there)
3. Israel has historically used computer aided, pin-point attacks and has given warning to try and reduce civilian casualties

I think it is telling that the "civilians" on one hand are people who are used by armed gunmen as shields but on the other side are just people going about their religious business. While one side chants "death of Jews" the other does not chant "death to Arabs." When there is violence in Israel, guards take up stations around synagogues around the world. When Gaza is shelled in response to an attack, no additional security is invoked at mosques world wide. Creating an equivalence is dangerous and misleading.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hope you understand that your two claims are both significantly more complex than you present. In the first, Israel does not occupy land. There is disputed land and there are zones under the control of Israel or the PA. There are Arab citizens of Israel and Arab non-citizens of Israel and there are a variety of steps in place to regulate the movement of non-citizens, and a need to exercise warrants against those who have been found by a judicial system to pose a threat to Israel's citizenry.

I didn't make two claims. I made one claim and one statement. I'm not even sure what point you think I made that you believe this paragraph is addressing, but what you're saying here is false. Israel does and is occupying land and, according to international law, they are doing so illegally.

In the second, using the phrase "Israel shells Gaza" in a vacuum is disingenuous at best. Not only do Arabs shell Israel from Gaza, but
1. many of their rockets fall short, harming their own people
2. rockets are fired from civilian locations so Israel's response, designed to remove the rocket threat often requires shelling locations that the rocketeers are filling with human shields (this doesn't stop Arab groups from firing from there)
3. Israel has historically used computer aided, pin-point attacks and has given warning to try and reduce civilian casualties

So, for me to point out that Israel shells Gaza without these inclusions is disingenuous, but for you to mention these things without also mentioning that
1) It's a war Israel started.
2) Israel is currently continuing to expand into Palestinian territory.
3) As far as many Palestinians are concerned, they are literally fighting for their lives against a genocidal force hell-bent on wiping them out with infinitely superior firepower.
Is not at all disingenuous?

I have never said that Palestine is blameless. Far from it. I think Hamas are a huge detriment to peace in the middle east and lot of Palestine's policies are inflaming the war. But I also think that it's hard to point that out to them when around 80% of the overall casualties in this war are Palestinian, and when we continue to see Israel growing beyond its borders and taking land illegally. From their perspective, they are an impoverished nation set upon by a significantly more powerful invading force. There is not a though given in your consideration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli occupation, or the disproportionate force used by Israel against Palestine. There is only justification for Israeli foreign policy.

I mean, seriously, you argument here seems to be "Well, we're much better at killing them, so they should just let us do it".

I think it is telling that the "civilians" on one hand are people who are used by armed gunmen as shields but on the other side are just people going about their religious business.

Once again, they are an impoverished group of people fighting for their existence against a vastly more powerful nation who seems to really, REALLY want to genocide them. When put in that position, it's not surprising that ruthless terrorist organisations tend to appear. The question isn't whether or not there are extremists in Palestine - there obviously is - the question is what is Israel trying to do to solve that situation is ISN'T just killing every Palestinian and continuing a war that can only lead to the total extinction of the Palestinian state? Because, right now, it looks like Israel isn't interested in a two-state solution with much, if any, reconciliation. They're interested in stealing land, and using the backlash to them stealing land as justification for further death and theft.

While one side chants "death of Jews" the other does not chant "death to Arabs."

Once again, you're putting rhetoric over reality. Whatever people are chanting, I don't think you can use it as a pretext to kill them en masse. This logic is literally "We have to bomb them, because if we don't, they will bomb us harder". This is not peaceful rhetoric. It's the same rhetoric genocidal regimes used to justify genocide, every time.

When there is violence in Israel, guards take up stations around synagogues around the world. When Gaza is shelled in response to an attack, no additional security is invoked at mosques world wide. Creating an equivalence is dangerous and misleading.

This is unbelievably disingenuous. There is substantially more violence committed against the people of Palestine - who are defending themselves against invasion and genocide - than is committed by Palestinians against Israel. So, in order to justify that, you abstract. "Oh, the harm isn't as bad because Israel sends out worldwide alerts. But Palestine doesn't."

 

[rosends]

I didn't make two claims. I made one claim and one statement. I'm not even sure what point you think I made that you believe this paragraph is addressing, but what you're saying here is false. Israel does and is occupying land and, according to international law, they are doing so illegally.

You made 2 affirmative claims:
1. Israel occupies
2. Israel shells

And, no, Israel does not occupy. The legal term is that there is disputed land. For there to be an occupation, there would have to be a sovereign power claiming rights to an area. Since there is none, the land is disputed. This is an element of international law.

So, for me to point out that Israel shells Gaza without these inclusions is disingenuous, but for you to mention these things without also mentioning that
1) It's a war Israel started.

really? how do you reckon? Is existence a provocation? Which "war" do you mean?

2) Israel is currently continuing to expand into Palestinian territory.

Can you show me what "Palestinian" territory is?

3) As far as many Palestinians are concerned, they are literally fighting for their lives against a genocidal force hell-bent on wiping them out with infinitely superior firepower.
Is not at all disingenuous?

Sure it is. When Israel left Gaza (the most recent time...it has happened before) the Gazans had the chance to live on their own. Google how quickly the rocket fire FROM Gaza began. There was no existential crisis for them and yet... And now you claim that Israel is a genocidal force (you should check on Arab population numbers...they are INCREASING. Worst. Genocide. Ever.) hell-bent on wiping out "Palestinians" which must explain all the attempts to give territory for the creation of another Arab state. Note that the Arab chant (and Hamas's logo) include the utter removal of the state of Israel completely. You have your sides mixed up when it comes to an urge to remove the 'other.'

I have never said that Palestine is blameless. Far from it. I think Hamas are a huge detriment to peace in the middle east and lot of Palestine's policies are inflaming the war. But I also think that it's hard to point that out to them when around 80% of the overall casualties in this war are Palestinian, and when we continue to see Israel growing beyond its borders and taking land illegally. From their perspective, they are an impoverished nation set upon by a significantly more powerful invading force. There is not a though given in your consideration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli occupation, or the disproportionate force used by Israel against Palestine. There is only justification for Israeli foreign policy.

Claims herein:
1. an intimation (not a claim, true) that I attributed a position to you vis-a-vis blamelessness. I didn't.
2. numbers of casualties, if not equal, are somehow telling of blame
3. Israel has borders that you are aware of as being binding and any movement beyond your opinion is illegal
4. I have not given thought to something and yet we have not met (have you given thought to the Israelis displaced? in 1948, the numbers were similar)
5. force must be proportionate in conflict
6. you have an insight, the only correct one, into Israeli foreign policy. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

I mean, seriously, you argument here seems to be "Well, we're much better at killing them, so they should just let us do it".

If that is what you get from my statements then there is no value in further discussion because you cannot glean from what I actually said anything resembling my position.

Once again, you're putting rhetoric over reality. Whatever people are chanting, I don't think you can use it as a pretext to kill them en masse. This logic is literally "We have to bomb them, because if we don't, they will bomb us harder". This is not peaceful rhetoric. It's the same rhetoric genocidal regimes used to justify genocide, every time.

There has been no attempt to kill anyone en masse. You are allowing your own inflamed rhetoric create a reality which simply doesn't exist.

This is unbelievably disingenuous. There is substantially more violence committed against the people of Palestine - who are defending themselves against invasion and genocide - than is committed by Palestinians against the state of Israel. So, in order to justify that, you abstract. "Oh, the harm isn't as bad because Israel sends out worldwide alerts. But Palestine doesn't."

Your blinders and filters seem to be working about as well as can be expected. Have a nice day.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didn't make two claims. I made one claim and one statement. I'm not even sure what point you think I made that you believe this paragraph is addressing, but what you're saying here is false. Israel does and is occupying land and, according to international law, they are doing so illegally.


So, for me to point out that Israel shells Gaza without these inclusions is disingenuous, but for you to mention these things without also mentioning that
1) It's a war Israel started.
2) Israel is currently continuing to expand into Palestinian territory.
3) As far as many Palestinians are concerned, they are literally fighting for their lives against a genocidal force hell-bent on wiping them out with infinitely superior firepower.
Is not at all disingenuous?

I have never said that Palestine is blameless. Far from it. I think Hamas are a huge detriment to peace in the middle east and lot of Palestine's policies are inflaming the war. But I also think that it's hard to point that out to them when around 80% of the overall casualties in this war are Palestinian, and when we continue to see Israel growing beyond its borders and taking land illegally. From their perspective, they are an impoverished nation set upon by a significantly more powerful invading force. There is not a though given in your consideration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by Israeli occupation, or the disproportionate force used by Israel against Palestine. There is only justification for Israeli foreign policy.

I mean, seriously, you argument here seems to be "Well, we're much better at killing them, so they should just let us do it".


Once again, they are an impoverished group of people fighting for their existence against a vastly more powerful nation who seems to really, REALLY want to genocide them. When put in that position, it's not surprising that ruthless terrorist organisations tend to appear. The question isn't whether or not there are extremists in Palestine - there obviously is - the question is what is Israel trying to do to solve that situation is ISN'T just killing every Palestinian and continuing a war that can only lead to the total extinction of the Palestinian state? Because, right now, it looks like Israel isn't interested in a two-state solution with much, if any, reconciliation. They're interested in stealing land, and using the backlash to them stealing land as justification for further death and theft.


Once again, you're putting rhetoric over reality. Whatever people are chanting, I don't think you can use it as a pretext to kill them en masse. This logic is literally "We have to bomb them, because if we don't, they will bomb us harder". This is not peaceful rhetoric. It's the same rhetoric genocidal regimes used to justify genocide, every time.


This is unbelievably disingenuous. There is substantially more violence committed against the people of Palestine - who are defending themselves against invasion and genocide - than is committed by Palestinians against the state of Israel. So, in order to justify that, you abstract. "Oh, the harm isn't as bad because Israel sends out worldwide alerts. But Palestine doesn't."

I don't agree with all of the wording of your post, but I really appreciate that you're countering religiously and politically extremist arguments with realism. It is harrowing that some people seem so willing to erase an entire nation's concerns and find ways to justify violence against them while also asking for consideration of their own nation's concerns and safety. Peace and coexistence are a two-way street.

Frankly, every time I read arguments influenced by Islamism or hard-line Zionism, I become more convinced that peace in the region may not happen within my lifetime.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You made 2 affirmative claims:
1. Israel occupies

They do.

2. Israel shells

They do.

And, no, Israel does not occupy. The legal term is that there is disputed land. For there to be an occupation, there would have to be a sovereign power claiming rights to an area. Since there is none, the land is disputed. This is an element of international law.

See, this is what I mean by justifying actions through abstraction.

"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."

Can you show me what "Palestinian" territory is?

Not right now. Their territory has been constantly shrinking since 1947.

Sure it is. When Israel left Gaza (the most recent time...it has happened before) the Gazans had the chance to live on their own. Google how quickly the rocket fire FROM Gaza began. There was no existential crisis for them and yet...

Once again, you show a disingenuous side. When talking about Israel, it's unfair to do so "in a void", but suddenly you're acting as if years of imperialist aggression should count for nothing when shelling occurs from the other side. This is nonsense, war-justifying rhetoric. I've never once justified any bombing, and have explicitly condemned Hamas, but if we really want to go on the "our bombings are justified while there's aren't" road, perhaps you seriously need to reconsider your perspective on this issue. NONE of these bombings happen "in a vacuum" and yet, when you take the totality of the history of this area into account, it is undeniable that Israel the far more aggressive, invading force in the conflict. Extremism exists on both sides, but the extremism of Israeli aggression clearly is having a far more deadly impact than the extremism of Palestinian antisemitism.

And now you claim that Israel is a genocidal force (you should check on Arab population numbers...they are INCREASING. Worst. Genocide. Ever.)

I have met Nazis who used increasing numbers of Jewish people in Europe throughout world war 2 to imply there was no holocaust. I don't go in for that argument. What I look at are actual treatment, displacement and rights. Right now, Israel treats Arab-Israelis as second-class citizens, has displaced hundreds of thousands of them, and is continuing to displace more through their illegal annexing of territory. This meets the UN definition of genocide.

hell-bent on wiping out "Palestinians" which must explain all the attempts to give territory for the creation of another Arab state. Note that the Arab chant (and Hamas's logo) include the utter removal of the state of Israel completely. You have your sides mixed up when it comes to an urge to remove the 'other.'

Again, you're using their rhetoric to justify stealing their territory and killing them.

Claims herein:
1. an intimation (not a claim, true) that I attributed a position to you vis-a-vis blamelessness. I didn't.

To be clear, I did not claim that you did. I was just clarifying my position. I'm not pro-Hamas, nor in favour of terrorism against - or the destruction of - the state of Israel, as this is often a conclusion people leap to in these kinds of debates. To be fair, you have yet to leap to that conclusion so far and I'm willing to believe you are debating in good faith.

2. numbers of casualties, if not equal, are somehow telling of blame

Not of blame per se, but of actual harm. If you're going to argue that shelling of Palestine is justified by their shelling of Israel, then Palestinian shelling is - de facto - "more justified" because of the disproportionate violence committed by the Israeli state against them. Going by pure numbers, the crimes of the state of Israel against Palestinians outweigh crimes committed by Palestine against Isareal, so talk of their genocidal intentions against Israel ring somewhat hollow. You may argue that, given a swap in positions, Hamas would be doing far worse things than it is now against Israelis, but it's hard to take that argument seriously when Israel is currently ENGAGED IN DOING THAT VERY SAME THING against Palestine. "They would genocide us, so we need to genocide them harder" is no a convincing argument that Israel is genuinely interested in a peaceful solution.

3. Israel has borders that you are aware of as being binding and any movement beyond your opinion is illegal

This is where things get bizarre. So, all borders are ephermeral, and you would make this exact same statement if Palestine invaded Israel and stole land from Israeli people and/or displaced hundreds of thousands of Israelis? I doubt it. You know what it means to annex territory.

4. I have not given thought to something and yet we have not met (have you given thought to the Israelis displaced? in 1948, the numbers were similar)

I have. I dislike displacement. Which is why Israel displacing 300,000 Palestinians is not justified by the displacement of any Israelis. How does this follow?

5. force must be proportionate in conflict

This is an odd intimation. I care about moral outcomes. If there were a country, say, committing genocide within its borders and a larger, more powerful country intervened militarily to stop it, I would not be against such an action. But if there's one country using disproportionate power to enact genocide and steal land from their neighbour, yes I am against it. It's not about the relative power. It's about what the states are doing.

6. you have an insight, the only correct one, into Israeli foreign policy. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

So, having an opinion on a thing means I must believe I am "the only correct one" on a particular subject and must think myself some kind of genius.

Come on. This is utterly bad faith logic you would never apply to any other position. "Oh, you think the Nazis were bad? Well you must have an insight, the only correct one, into Nazi foreign policy."

Get over it. I don't play those childish games and I believe you are capable of better than that.

If that is what you get from my statements then there is no value in further discussion because you cannot glean from what I actually said anything resembling my position.

If that is not your position then you need to amend your arguments, because that is a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from them. You literally justify Israeli foreign policy on the basis that they are better at using rockets than Palestine. You think killing and displacing Palestinian people is justified because, given the chance, they would kill and displace Israelis. These are no unreasonable conclusions to come to when looking at the justifications you are presenting.

There has been no attempt to kill anyone en masse. You are allowing your own inflamed rhetoric create a reality which simply doesn't exist.

Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of people, deny Palestinians in occupied territory aid, refuse to allow human rights groups to examine their practices, and continue to shell Palestinian territory. They are killing people en masse.

Your blinders and filters seem to be working about as well as can be expected. Have a nice day.

Ditto.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't agree with all of the wording of your post, but I really appreciate that you're countering religiously and politically extremist arguments with realism. It is harrowing that some people seem so willing to erase an entire nation's concerns and find ways to justify violence against them while also asking for consideration of their own nation's concerns and safety. Peace and coexistence are a two-way street.

Frankly, every time I read arguments influenced by Islamism or hard-line Zionism, I become more convinced that peace in the region may not happen within my lifetime.

To be clear, I think there's work on both sides to be done, I just happen to believe that the ball is more in Israel's court than Palestine's. I don't think it's as simple as Israel bearing full responsibility for any and all peace negotiations, but I doubt peace negotiations are even feasible as long as their are people coming at this with perspectives like @rosends , who try to find every nuance possible to deny the crimes of Israeli foreign policy while flatly refusing to apply the same nuance to the Palestinian position. It's not entirely their fault - for many years now, this has been a leading narrative in the region.

I'm with you. It's hard to see light at the end of the tunnel when one side is blind to all the harm they have done - and is convinced it is doing nothing wrong - while the other side, inflamed with historical injustice, has descended into inflammatory extremism. The change may only be possible if the extremists can somehow be convinced that peaceful cooperation can exist, but appeasement to that group is... problematic, to say the least.

 

[rosends]

They do.


They do.

Stamping your feet and repeating yourself doesn't change reality.

See, this is what I mean by justifying actions through abstraction.

"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."

The land used to belong to one state? Which one? There was never a state called "Palestine."

Not right now. There is territory has been constantly shrinking since 1947.

Then you need to study history better.

Once again, you show a disingenuous side. When talking about Israel, it's unfair to do so "in a void", but suddenly you're acting as if years of imperialist aggression should count for nothing when shelling occurs from the other side. This is nonsense, war-justifying rhetoric. I've never once justified any bombing, and have explicitly condemned Hamas, but if we really want to go on the "our bombings are justified while there's aren't" road, perhaps you seriously need to reconsider your perspective on this issue. NONE of these bombings happen "in a vacuum" and yet, when you take the totality of the history of this area into account, it is undeniable that Israel the far more aggressive, invading force in the conflict. Extremism exists on both sides, but the extremism of Israeli aggression clearly is having a far more deadly impact than the extremism of Palestinian antisemitism.

I never said that Arab aggression exists in a vacuum. If you believe I have, please show me where. As to how I am "acting" I'm not sure how you can deduce that. Calling Israel the "invading" force, though, is again, inventing a history which is inaccurate.

I have met Nazis who used increasing numbers of Jewish people in Europe throughout world war 2 to imply there was no holocaust.

Then you should recheck the numbers. They decreased. Shall I get the sources?

Right now, Israel treats Arab-Israelis as second-class citizens,

Arab Israeli citizens are second class? In what way? They are citizens. They vote, they ride the train, they serve in the supreme court and they have jobs in every available sector.

. If you're going to argue that shelling of Palestine is justified by their shelling of Israel, then Palestinian shelling is - de facto - "more justified" because of the disproportionate violence committed by the Israeli state against them.

Then that is an argument begging a "starting point." What moment did you have in mind?

"They would genocide us, so we need to genocide them harder" is no a convincing argument that Israel is genuinely interested in a peaceful solution.

Except that this isn't hypothetical. Hamas's stated position is that genocide. Israel's isn't. We aren't arguing theory but facts on the ground.

This is where things get bizarre. So, all borders are ephermeral, and you would make this exact same statement if Palestine invaded Israel and stole land from Israeli people and/or displaced hundreds of thousands of Israelis? I doubt it. You know what it means to annex territory.

I don't recall saying anything was ephemeral. Please show me where I have. How many Jews were displaced from Arab countries in 1948 (among other times)? There was no "Palestine" to invade anyone so that's a poor choice of phrase.

I have. I dislike displacement. Which is why Israel displacing 300,000 Palestinians does not justify the displacement of any Israelis. How does this follow?

I don't recall saying that it followed so I really can't answer your question.

This is an odd intimation. I care about moral outcomes. If there were a country, say, committing genocide within its borders and a larger, more powerful country intervened militarily to stop it, I would not be against such an action. But if there's one country using disproportionate power to enact genocide and steal land from their neighbour, yes I am against it. It's not abThatout the relative power. It's about what the states are doing.

If you didn't think that the numbers should be even then you wouldn't point out the numbers' being "disproportionate" as a problem. But since you tie it to the same canards of genocide and stealing land there isn't much more to say about it.

So, having an opinion on a thing means I must believe I am "the only correct one" on a particular subject and must think myself some kind of genius.

You then explain what you meant by "There is only justification for Israeli foreign policy." Thanks.

Come on. This is utterly bad faith logic you would never apply to any other position. "Oh, you think the Nazis were bad? Well you must have an insight, the only correct one, into Nazi foreign policy."

Invoking Nazis is generally bad form. You made a claim about Israeli foreign policy" as a monolithic concpet that you understand and can therefore judge. Are you now equivocating?

If that is not your position then you need to amend your arguments, because that is a reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from them.

No, it is not. It is your reading of it which is not reasonable from what i actually said.

You literally justify Israeli foreign policy on the basis that they are better at using rockets than Palestine.

No, I never said that. Any conclusion you draw based on imputing statements I never made will be flawed. And it is.

You think killing and displacing Palestinian people is justified because, given the chance, they would kill and displace Israelis.

Again, I never said that. Inventing these ideas and applying them to me does your argument disservice.

Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of people, deny Palestinians in occupied territory aid, refuse to allow human rights groups to examine their practices, and continue to shell Palestinian territory. They are killing people en masse.


Ditto.

Israel has provided to Arabs aid (money, goods and medical care), it has been examined repeatedly by organziations from within and without (even those with their own agendas and flaws) and it continues to defend its citizens of all religions and descents against violence against groups who have made it a stated platform to kill them en masse.

 

[jbg]

I was talking explicitly about Israel's control of Palestinians in occupied territory. Not terrorists.

Palestinians also become collateral damage when Israel shells Gaza, but that doesn't seem to stop the Israeli government from doing it.

Why should Israel play by Marquis of Queensbury rules of war when the "Palestinians" play be no rules at all? They are the ones using civilians as human shields, not us.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Israel is high tech and a center of learning and research. It has a dynamic political instrument with a secure tax base. It would be bad for USA were Israel's ties to bloom into a strategic advantage for groups opposed to us or to international peace -- or to what we perceive as a balance of global power. I think we call this "Global stability." It may actually be that we have overwhelming military superiority, but it never feels like we do. Israel is important strategically.

"Israel has increasingly become a country of strategic importance to the United States..."

Spoiler: US Military document link

Strategic Importance of Israel

If you like do an internet search in English using the phrase "Strategic important of Israel to the United States."

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

 

[Sand Dancer]

I had a friend who was a big believer in Bible prophecy, and he really did believe that the creation of the state of Israel was a fulfillment of that prophecy. He believed that America had a God-given duty to support Israel no matter what. He also pointed out the many times Israel fought back and won when the odds were against them, insinuating that the Israelis have had Help From Above in securing their homeland. Even though the Arabs vastly outnumbered the Israelis, they were seemingly thwarted every time. My friend would cite that as proof that God is on the Israelis' side, and not the Arabs' side.

Sadly, that is not uncommon in fundamentalist evangelical circles.

 

[jbg]

Can you show me what "Palestinian" territory is?

Not right now. Their territory has been constantly shrinking since 1947.

When "Palestine" made a decision to reject the U.N. Resolution of November 29, 1947 recognizing Israel (it recognized but did not create Israel), the "Palestinians" gambled and lost. No different than someone going to a Vegas craps table.

"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."See, this is what I mean by justifying actions through abstraction.

For there to be an occupation, there would have to be a sovereign power claiming rights to an area. Since there is none, the land is disputed. This is an element of international law.
And, no, Israel does not occupy. The legal term is that there is disputed land.
If "Palestine" kept attacking and kept losing, its rights necessarily diminish.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stamping your feet and repeating yourself doesn't change reality.

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

The land used to belong to one state? Which one? There was never a state called "Palestine."

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

Then you need to study history better.

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

I never said that Arab aggression exists in a vacuum. If you believe I have, please show me where.

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.

As to how I am "acting" I'm not sure how you can deduce that. Calling Israel the "invading" force, though, is again, inventing a history which is inaccurate.

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

Then you should recheck the numbers. They decreased. Shall I get the sources?

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.

Arab Israeli citizens are second class? In what way? They are citizens. They vote, they ride the train, they serve in the supreme court and they have jobs in every available sector.

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.

Then that is an argument begging a "starting point." What moment did you have in mind?

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

Except that this isn't hypothetical. Hamas's stated position is that genocide. Israel's isn't. We aren't arguing theory but facts on the ground.

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 don't recall saying anything was ephemeral. Please show me where I have. How many Jews were displaced from Arab countries in 1948 (among other times)? There was no "Palestine" to invade anyone so that's a poor choice of phrase.

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.

I don't recall saying that it followed so I really can't answer your question.

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

So, what should be done about it?

If you didn't think that the numbers should be even then you wouldn't point out the numbers' being "disproportionate" as a problem.

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

But since you tie it to the same canards of genocide and stealing land there isn't much more to say about it.

Israel displaced 300,000 Palestinians.

You then explain what you meant by "There is only justification for Israeli foreign policy." Thanks.

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

Invoking Nazis is generally bad form.

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.

You made a claim about Israeli foreign policy" as a monolithic concpet that you understand and can therefore judge. Are you now equivocating?

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.

No, it is not. It is your reading of it which is not reasonable from what i actually said.

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".

No, I never said that. Any conclusion you draw based on imputing statements I never made will be flawed. And it is.

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

Again, I never said that. Inventing these ideas and applying them to me does your argument disservice.

Then make better arguments.

Israel has provided to Arabs aid (money, goods and medical care), it has been examined repeatedly by organziations from within and without (even those with their own agendas and flaws) and it continues to defend its citizens of all religions and descents against violence against groups who have made it a stated platform to kill them en masse.

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

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

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When "Palestine" made a decision to reject the U.N. Resolution of November 29, 1947 recognizing Israel (it recognized but did not create Israel), the "Palestinians" gambled and lost. No different than someone going to a Vegas craps table.

Wow. Great logic. A free state rejecting a declaration that would diminish their national sovereignty means that the people living in that state - and their children, and their children's children - are justifiably subject to displacement and war crimes, all as the land they live on shrinks year by year by an unstoppably more powerful force for decades to come. Well, they were just ASKING for it!

 

[Sand Dancer]

Few people are aware that one of the earliest modern attempts at creating a Jewish autonomy was in the US.

Ararat, City of Refuge - Wikipedia
Dream of Jewish State Near Buffalo Is Recalled (Published 1975)

but it wasn't in North Dakota...

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

 

[LuisDantas]

Can anyone explain to me why there are such strong feelings about statements over whether there ever was a state called Palestine?

Unless it is part of some claim about who are the "true owners" of the territory, that is? Because those claims are of no interest to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why should Israel play by Marquis of Queensbury rules of war when the "Palestinians" play be no rules at all? They are the ones using civilians as human shields, not us.

So you should genocide them? Is that your solution? Erode their state, kill their citizens and diminish their sovereignty somehow equals... This problem fixing itself?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can anyone explain to me why there are such strong feelings about statements over whether there ever was a state called Palestine?

Unless it is part of some claim about who are the "true owners" of the territory, that is? Because those claims are of no interest to me.

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.

 

[jbg]

Wow. Great logic. A free state rejecting a declaration that would diminish their national sovereignty means that the people living in that state - and their children, and their children's children - are justifiably subject to displacement and war crimes, all as the land they live on shrinks year by year by an unstoppably more powerful force for decades to come. Well, they were just ASKING for it!

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.

 

[Stevicus]

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

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

According to 2008 census figures, the village has the highest poverty rate in the nation. More than two-thirds of the residents live below the federal poverty line, and 40% receive food stamps.[5] It is also the place in the United States with the highest percentage of people who reported Hungarian ancestry, as 18.9% of the population reported Hungarian descent in 2000.[6]

It appears to be an economically-depressed area.