Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc. — ssu

Again, I still am unsure what you're trying to say.

And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions — ssu

Yes we mine as well. The UN is a shill for whoever wants to have some pseudo-body to back up their claims. Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all?

Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.

Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel). — ssu

I have already reiterated ways the Israelis tried to work with the Pals to make it NOT the de facto situation and have a two state solution, for which they always balked, hedged, and then refused. If your idea of compromise is all or nothing, then bad faith partner to do business with. This puts the liberals at a loss for an answer and a shift to the right as the left loses legitimacy for thinking they can negotiate, etc. etc. I am not saying I think it should go to the right because at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, but in a population with two sides, the inability of the one starts making them look inept, especially when coupled with the failed attempts for two states, terrorism ensues and it feels like you can never deal with anyone on the Pals side because the moderates won't play nice.

As you point out, you have bad state actors stoking the flames. Iran, for example. You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. You have a bunch of neighbors coming around to basically getting the Palestinians to move on and form a state rather than hold onto smoldering grudges that lead to bloodshed and instability. Hamas is a chaos agent. They don't want stability for their people. People (Israelis or their own) are simply pawns to be used for various short and long term gains. The long term gain will be gaining the sympathy from the leftists. It's working. The short term gain is that they show they can inflict damage and pyrric victory of gaining something from hostage negotiations. Meanwhile, they couldn't give a shit if that means more of their own people die by provoking a much more heavily armed neighbor that is known to fiercely attack anyone who provokes them. In other words, Hamas isn't about "winning" in any conventional sense. It is "winning" in the media sense. It is helping the objectives mainly of Iran and Islamists, and uses the European (and American) Left to aid this cause, as we see play out here.

Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all? — schopenhauer1

Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War.

You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. — schopenhauer1

Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations.

And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories.

Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War. — ssu

Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. Now it's just a useful reference for people who need to have an "objective body" to refer to. It's way past that in terms of its being "objective" or "useful". It clearly was never seen as the referee from the start.

Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations. — ssu

Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. You could have just asked or mildly corrected that the UAE and Bahrain...Qatar obviously is on the mind because they are the ones who are handling negotiations.

And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories. — ssu

I think I did and asking to repeat good arguments is a fallacy of "ignoring the argument". Pretend it wasn't made and you make the person constant repeat himself. I'm not doing it.

at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, — schopenhauer1

Or perhaps the conclusion we should draw from the repeated failures is that the two states solution is not a good way to go about it.

It tends to focus the discussion on the "who gets what" and thus encourages the rehashing of old grievances and maximalist demands, rather than framing it in terms of the future cooperation of jews and muslims.

US warns that Israel risks ‘strategic defeat’ unless it protects civilians in Gaza (Financial Times, 2023)

As expected, Israel throwing all caution and humanity by the wayside in pursuit of a punitive campaign and possibly other, even less savory goals will likely come back to bite it.


What Israel needs to do to win is murder or displace two and a half million people. All Hamas needs to do to win is survive.

I've heard several analysts state they believe Israel has barely managed to scratch Hamas' foothold in Gaza.

It makes you wonder what the brigade of US and European stooges were thinking when they gave Israel carte blanche to go to town on the civilian population in Gaza. Fools in charge in Israel, fools in charge in the White House, fools in charge in Brussels - this is what you get.

The small bit of good news; Netanyahu is finished.

Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. — schopenhauer1

Well, forget then the UN. But a lot of countries do not simply kick out that 'rules based order', so forgive me if I, just as in the case of Ukraine,hold up this kind of "nonsense" of a rules based order. But for consistency, then one should never then refer to international laws or anything like that. Just picking up them when it's suits your position is inconsistent... or basically just propaganda. (Like, uh, some countries do...)

Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. — schopenhauer1

Just to correct a small mistake in order that the discussion gets things right. It's actually crucial to get the real picture. Even if Qatar is a tiny nation, it has a lot bigger role in the Middle East.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas. In 2012, Qatar hosted the Hamas party leadership when Hamas head Khaled Meshal relocated from Syria to Qatar. The current head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has resided in Doha since 2016. Qatar has been called Hamas' most important financial backer and foreign ally.

Hence Qatar isn't some 'whatever state' in the Gulf to this conflict. But notice as Qatar has a key US base, Al Udeid Air base, which also the Royal Air Force uses, this aid to Hamas hasn't been on the (natural?) target list of the US and made Qatar part of the 'axis-of-evil' or whatever.



That Qatari has an independent foreign policy that basically burns the candle at both ends seems to spreading. Perfect example was Pakistan. It acted as it was an ally in the War on Terror, yet then held Osama Bin Laden at a military city, then assisted the Taleban and lastly assisted the Taleban to take over Afghanistan. And there are no sanctions against Pakistan and it's not depicted as an "rogue nation". Great victory for Pakistan!



Same thing happening with Saudi-Arabia. The gradual loss of US leadership in the Middle East is happening as nobody fears China as they did fear the Soviet Union and Soviet influence.

The true reason why Israel could never be a real democracy is because say in 1948 it establishes itself, then the population already living there would have ruled through democratic majority. Their plan was to always exclude the Palestinians.

The true reason why Israel could never be a true democracy is because say in 1948 it establishes itself, then the population already living there would have ruled through democratic majority. — Vaskane

Indeed. Even if the inflow from Russia and Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended helped the Jewish demographics. That's why drawing the borders in an ethnic/religious style gerrymandering would be so important. If someone would really think the two-state solution is possible now or in the future.

Usually when countries annex territories with people of different ethnicity, they use the age old strategy of cultural assimilation (if genocide is out of the question), first to get rid of the previous language and previous culture. Cultural assimilation has happened quite a lot a smaller people or ethnic groups do have de facto disappeared. Even if people trace their ancestry back to these people, they will talk the language and have the customs

And that above just tells how this isn't at all an answer here: Palestinians are of different religion (being Muslim and Christian) and the Jewish don't do much missionary work. And when the whole idea of the state of Israel is a 'homeland for the Jews', then all that multicultural fluff goes out of the window anyway. And as for the Palestinians the option of being 'Israeli' is doubtful as they already live under separate laws from the Jewish people living in the West Bank, then all they have is the Nakba-centered identity of Palestine. "Moving on" would mean the death of being Palestinian. You can then be part of these people that are spread out around the world and basically won't have an own nation. Be then like the Circassians or the Rohingya.

I've already stated more than a few times on the thread what I think Israel must do to end the status quo of oppression: — 180 Proof

All right, let's see - your references:

Both are to blame for reciprocating atrocities but, between oppressor and oppressed, who can be responsible for the cessation of oppression? And, therefore, who is ultimately to blame for not fulfilling that responsibility? — 180 Proof

No doubt - no contest - some on both sides have done some bad things. But does that make them equal? Or if unequal, who is the categorical oppressor? Don't be confused here: my issue is with your characterizations and the faults I find therein. Turning this ground or clearing it won't itself lead to any solutions, but may seal off some of the rabbit holes and traps some fall into. The "elephant" - so to speak - is the unrelenting hostility of Israel's neighbors; just as similarly the US elephant is some 400 years of unrelenting racial discrimination. And I have discussed this subject with a several people of African descent, and they all come close to agreement on this assessment: To be African is a fine thing. To be of African descent is a fine thing. To be an America of African descent puts such a person at risk of a kind of disease, namely just that of being an American of African descent. I leave to you your assessment of this conclusion, but I buy the notion that the US will not be put right on race until - and unless - as Lincoln expressed,

"Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

Or so many children of mixed race born that no one cares anymore. Maybe another 5 - 10 generations? In any case, what I call the "bookkeeping" is itself truth, and debts to the truth are paid sooner or later, one way or another.

The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, had agreed on the term and need for the State of Israel to end the "occupation" (i.e. occupiers, by definition, are oppressors). — 180 Proof

I am under the impression that occupation did end, but that Arafat had zero interest in peace - am I wrong? And I do not agree that occupiers are by definition oppressors. Can be, obviously, but not necessarily.

and Palestinians nothing to lose by fighting apartheid repression and imperialist colonization by any means necessary. — 180 Proof

Well, they can die, and they seem not to like that so much, when it's their turn to do it.

"Peace" (i.e. win-win conflict resolution) is Israel's choice alone because it is the master; absent that, the Palestinians have no choice but that of the slave: death by war or death by subjugation. Who here denies that if s/he were a member of a Palestinian community & family subjugated under decades of Israelis Occupation you would choose war? — 180 Proof

Israel the master? Of what? And occupation by whom, exactly? Are you forgetting Hamas and its precursors? Oppression of Gaza would seem to be nothing less than Hamas et al claiming that Palestinians are oppressed because the Israelis try to protect themselves from being murdered in their beds, in their sleep, in their buses and restaurants, on their streets, in their schools, wherever, whenever found.

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for their means and methods of resistance, he must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. Until then, the logic of oppression entails that there cannot be "innocents" in the oppressor's camp, especially in so far as the oppressor tactically discounts them – his own noncombatant civilians – as potentially "acceptable losses", that is, the necessary cost of maintaining his stratagem of oppression. In order to survive, the oppressed must resist – always have and always will – by any means necessary. (Foot's on his neck, certainly that's what the oppressor would do – what everyone's ancestors at some time or another have done!) So if any oppressor-state is serious about stopping "terrorism", that oppressor-state should begin by giving up its own policies of state-terrorism and military-economic support for client/proxy-terrorism. — 180 Proof

To this, in sum, your bookkeeping is incomplete, skewed, wrong. And until you get it right, your comments are mere rant. If you like - Or if you don't - the Israelis at the moment are just exactly what their oppressors have made them! So you need to check your understanding of history to see who the oppressors are - and the meaning of the word itself.

tim wood, the crack'd bell fuckin' tolls for thee. Choose! "The banality" – silence / acquiescence / indifference – of "the good people" is, in fact, always the clear and present atrocity. Do you believe Gandhi, King, X, Mandela, Tutu, Wiesel, ... Ho Chi Mihn ... are wrong? :brow: — 180 Proof

Indeed it does (and I credit you with having read all of #17). To my way of thinking it summons truth, not to be confused with untruth, non-truth, partial truth, lies, propaganda. And that is what I call you to. My proposition being that the Palestinians, to use your terminology, are f***ed first by themselves, and then in order by those who "represent" them and then their "friends." And I suspect that their real friends, whom so far they and others insure that they cannot enjoy as friends, are just the Israelis themselves. And not the least reason being that the Israelis generally prefer to leave them alone except when due to extreme provocation, they cannot afford to, which turns out to be most of the time.

You make a few unwarranted assumptions about my rather conventional observations as well as me personally, tim, which reeks of special pleading and gassy ad hominems. :mask: — 180 Proof

Speaking of which....

And that's the bitch about accounting: either you start from the beginning and track all of the mistakes, or you write them off and start anew. The first can be mind-bending, and the second with problems of its own. Whichever, but unless done well, not worth doing at all. So what history do you want? Complete? Or blank slate?

If you reply, try to be both brief and substantive, else I cannot keep up with you.

I cannot keep up with you. — tim wood

No doubt.

Educate yourself.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

addendum:

Neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Israel, like (e.g.) R. Luxemburg, S. Freud, A. Einstein, E. Fromm, P. Levi Marek Edelman, I. Asimov, H. Arendt, I.F. Stone, N. Chomsky, H. Siegman, M. Lerner, R. Falk, T. Judt et al, I am also anti-zionist (i.e. anti-ethnonationalist).

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-ground-forces-operating-across-gaza-strip-offensive-builds-2023-12-04/

Intense Israeli air strikes hit the south of the Gaza Strip on Monday, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, including in areas where Israel had told people to seek shelter, residents and journalists on the ground said.

Well that's pretty fucking terrible.

Defense secretary James Austin nailing it:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YOU3S52V3y4

Of course the biggest threat, even if it's a remote possibility, is that even the 'nice' neighbors get upset with Israel. Turkey's Erdogan meeting with GCC members. NATO member Turkey (or is it Türkiye?) isn't a member of the GCC, but it is telling that the Muslim states in the region are now meeting on the issue.

Erdogan speaks about Gaza (and later Syria): "Netanyahu is gambling with the future of the whole region". Erdogan also says that "Israel must to be penalized for war crimes" 4:32-8:39:



And quite telling is this reaction in the Egyptian Parliament:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-voice-of-america-reverses-policy-against-calling-hamas-terrorists/

Good for VOA.

"The authoritarian and highly centralized presidential government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has set back Turkey’s human rights record by decades, targeting perceived government critics and political opponents, profoundly undermining the independence of the judiciary, and hollowing out democratic institutions."
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/turkey

Dickheads can still be right sometimes.

Don't forget that nasty human rights record that Egypt has too!

Yet that doesn't change the fact that actually both Turkey and Egypt, and Saudi-Arabia (the home of the majority of the 9/11 terrorists) are allies to the US. Which just shows how messy the Middle East is.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hamas-rape-israeli-women-oct-7-rcna128221

Hamas are a bunch of animals and the people who voted them into power aren't much better.

[ When Israel has an HRW report it's not relevant because the other side are animals because there are HRW reports saying so.

Or, we can't trust what Hamas says so their charter is irrelevant. Here is a Hamas leader saying they want to destroy Israel and we must trust what he says.