Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Aggressors are those who usually take territories.

I don't put so much emphasis on the moral rectitude or the moral justifications for wars. Those typically are just propaganda. And many warmongers talk about justice and to correct the wrongs of the past. The debate about if "a nation is morally just to take military action" is just one question. What kind of military strategy and tactics it uses is another topic, and so is what it's end objectives with the action are. All those are three different questions and even if to opt for a military solution can be understandable/acceptable, the strategy and tactics or the objectives can be quite unacceptable.

In fact, when the Arab neighbors attack the young state of Israel, nobody of them was at all interested in creating an independent Palestine, but to take as much of the former British mandate for themselves as possible. This lead to the fact that they were highly uncoordinated. Jordan annexed the West Bank and even if the annexation was granted by the UK, USA and Iraq, the Arab League for example only accepted that Jordan could annex the territory "until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants." Then of course this was annexed later by Israel in the Six Day war.

Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire. — Xtrix

Agreed. I'm against any further aggression from here as long as Hamas stops as well.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too. — Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? If there's a democratic way to get Bibi out I'd be for it assuming we could replace him with someone a little more moderate.

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here. — Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. And the PA who line their pockets. The Arab world is responsible as well; in 1948 when 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries Israel allowed them in. None of the Arab countries have helped their fellow Arabs who fled or were expelled. What do you think happens to UN or humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian people? It goes to Hamas. Hamas embezzles these funds. What about infrastructure projects? Hamas has done plenty of those - underground tunnels which are used to store and transport weapons. Not much else.

If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. — Xtrix

I've turned pessimistic towards the current Israeli government at this point after further research. I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. I'm sure Israel could help - and it does help - it's just no easy task but I appreciate the optimism.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too.
— Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? — BitconnectCarlos

You were the one saying you'd like Hamas leaders dead, not me. So you've completely missed the point. The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. Although they are by no means equal -- Bibi has killed far more. (Saying "that's because Israel has a better military" -- as you so often do -- is exactly the point: they have far more power.)

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here.
— Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq.

Again, I'll repeat: there is no parity here. If Israel truly cared about protecting itself, and about peace, then it would stop creating conditions in which groups like Hamas gain power, and stop contributing to terrorism itself.

Same is true of the US -- blaming everything on ISIS. Yes, ISIS is awful -- but how did they arise? After years of US terrorism. If you overlook that, you're not really serious about stopping terrorism.

But it's very difficult for people to see that when it's their own "team," no matter what country. Tribalism and propaganda almost always prevail. Israel is no different. Nor are you, as a defender and equivocator for Israel.

I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, especially the people who have much more privilege and power; namely, the Israeli citizens.

The first step, of course, is recognizing that your government is engaging in war crimes. So, again, you're a good example of why things don't change -- despite your claims of wanting Bibi out.

Many Americans wanted Bush out of office too, without acknowledging that he was a war criminal.

Wall Street Journal editorial:

Meanwhile Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran saw that Democratic support for Israel in the U.S. has declined. We credited President Biden this week with not trying to dictate Israel’s security decisions, but he soon bent rhetorically to his party’s left, saying Wednesday he “expected a significant deescalation today.”

Yes -- that weak statement is a step too far for the editorial board.

We're simply living in different realities at this point.

They're going to be the last ones to change.

But when they do they'll claim moral indignation at the world's indifference, bla bla. Nothing new.

Hope this cease fire holds.

of course it won't hold. IDF tends to break them about 3 times as often as Hamas.

The kidney of a Jewish man who was killed by an Arab lynch mob who hurled rocks at him during an anti-Israel riot has been donated to an Arab woman.
"
Yigal Yehoshua, 56, died in hospital in the Israeli town of Be'er Ya'akov on May 17 just days after he was hit in the head with rocks which were thrown at his car by rioters as he drove to his home in Lod last week. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9602701/Family-Jewish-father-two-56-lynched-anti-Israeli-riot-city-Lod-donate-organs.html

"The Arab Christian woman, who is now making a successful recovery in hospital, later spoke to Mr Yehoshua's wife Irena and said: 'We are like family now'.

The mother-of-five told Fox News: 'I never believed I would take the kidney of a person who was killed in such a way, in such a criminal way.

'I hurt for the family. I feel that I am taking a kidney of a person who is like family to me. Now I have a family, a different family, a Jewish family.'"

'There is no such thing as Arabs and Jews. Rather, we're just people, and we need to live together.'

Aggressors are those who usually take territories.

I don't put so much emphasis on the moral rectitude or the moral justifications for wars. Those typically are just propaganda. And many warmongers talk about justice and to correct the wrongs of the past. The debate about if "a nation is morally just to take military action" is just one question. What kind of military strategy and tactics it uses is another topic, and so is what it's end objectives with the action are. All those are three different questions and even if to opt for a military solution can be understandable/acceptable, the strategy and tactics or the objectives can be quite unacceptable.

In fact, when the Arab neighbors attack the young state of Israel, nobody of them was at all interested in creating an independent Palestine, but to take as much of the former British mandate for themselves as possible. This lead to the fact that they were highly uncoordinated. Jordan annexed the West Bank and even if the annexation was granted by the UK, USA and Iraq, the Arab League for example only accepted that Jordan could annex the territory "until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants." Then of course this was annexed later by Israel in the Six Day war. — ssu

If I were to take a step back and view Israel as just another state I could say that Israel is using Gaza and the WB as a bargaining chips. It has shown a willingness to make concessions: It has withdrawn from Gaza and about 40% of the WB and over the other 60% it claims to just govern Israelis and not Palestinians. It has not annexed either of these territories. It continues the blockade with Gaza along with Egypt because of the fear of allowing Hamas unrestricted access to weapons, but Israel doesn't have settlements or troops there. I have no idea who has a rightful claim over the WB though - Jordan? Boundaries shift so often in the middle east that it's hard to make these kind of strong claim over who deserves what. Arab and Jewish communities have been living together for thousands of years in the WB.

I don't understand why so many westerners care so much about Israel and seemingly hold it to the highest moral benchmark. The US took land from Spain and Mexico through warfare, how often do you hear calls to return that land? It's really difficult for me even as someone who grew up in this culture to say who rightfully owns what in the middle east just given its history.

The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. — Xtrix

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. Was FDR a war criminal for bombing Germany and Japan and killing innocents? Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, while Hamas indiscriminately fires at residential areas. How do you not see the difference here? Hamas will force people to stay in places that are going to bombed.

Israel takes 3 steps before it bombs a place:
1) Phone calls.
2) Drops leaflets
3) Will drop a fake bomb called a 'shaker' that makes noise.

I deny war crimes. They have footage of Israelis telling Palestinians that their place is going to be bombed and the Palestinians deciding (or being forced) to stay regardless. Any nation has the fundamental right to defend itself from attacks and to target those who have been targeting it.

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq. — Xtrix

Even if I were to agree with your view, it would imply that, e.g. the Nazi party and all of their crimes were the fault of the allies after WWI because the treaty of versailles was harsh and cruel towards Germany. This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. Even if you do this are Israel's actions initially uncaused? Look into how Israel gained control of Gaza and the WB.

Probably true here again. I hope not.

I was hearing about a certain faction in Iraq wanting to get involved if this fighting continued. If this cease fire breaks, they could get involved.

Enough bloodshed already...

If I were to take a step back and view Israel as just another state I could say that Israel is using Gaza and the WB as a bargaining chips. — BitconnectCarlos

Has Israel proclaimed exactly where it's borders are? I'm not so sure it has.

One basic problem is that Palestinians (and for that matter Lebanon) are so weak it's not sure they can uphold peace like the Jordanian and Egyptian army for the time being. Some one can of course argue that this is the intent of Israel.

I don't understand why so many westerners care so much about Israel and seemingly hold it to the highest moral benchmark. — BitconnectCarlos

Because it says to be a modern democratic country and hence should be treated with the same bar as other ones as let's say as the UK?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/21/jubilation-in-gaza-as-ceasefire-takes-effect-palestine-israel-live

Things are still very tense in Jerusalem...

@Manuel@ssu@Benkei@BitconnectCarlos

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing.

It's a manipulation at the top, but a lack of imagination at the bottom as well.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). @Andrew4Handel was at least trying to bring this point up with the story of the Arab woman and the transplant. It gives her agency in her empathy.

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing. — schopenhauer1

In a certain sense this is correct. It's correct that Israel helped create Hamas to weaken the PLO, which by the time Hamas branched out into a political entity, the PLO was actually making real strides towards a two state solution, circa 2000 ish.

And of course Hamas won in part because they were speaking about taking action against Israel, after much humiliation and land theft. By now, for Israel, Hamas is a gift. A bit like ISIS for the West: we have to defeat them, etc. But you can't defeat them by killing them: they morph into something more ugly at best. Short of Israel removing the blockade and settlements, Hamas will be around, because what else can they do? They have no autonomy in Gaza, despite Israel's rhetoric.

In the respect in which you are wrong is that, again, the people in Gaza don't really have an option. Well, they could just wave at the sky with peace symbols as they're bombed. Or they can try to fight the most sophisticated army in the Middle East and one of the strongest in the world. Israel is keeping Hamas in power, but Hamas doesn't change the situation in Israel much.

For that to change US policy towards Israel has to change. Then we might see real change in the area. But the power disparity between the Occupied Territories and Israel is so vast and massive, that speaking of "two sides keeping each other in power" is a massive exaggeration.

In a certain sense this is correct. It's correct that Israel helped create Hamas to weaken the PLO, which by the time Hamas branched out into a political entity, the PLO was actually making real strides towards a two state solution, circa 2000 ish.

And of course Hamas won in part because they were speaking about taking action against Israel, after much humiliation and land theft. By now, for Israel, Hamas is a gift. — Manuel

Again, all collective, no agency.. Did you see my last part?

Short of Israel removing the blockade and settlements, Hamas will be around, because what else can they do? They have no autonomy in Gaza, despite Israel's rhetoric. — Manuel

I do remember in the 90s during Oslo and a little beyond for about a decade, all you saw was car bombings on the news. Before Sharon/Netanyahu, it seemed like Pals were never going to be satisfied with compromise. Netanyahu has changed the dynamics because now he is the one who goes on the offensive, but if you are going to be collectivist on the Hamas side, then you at least have to be consistently collective on the Israeli side, as far as "pushing" people to go aggressive. What puts Hamas in power, also puts Netanyahu in power. Hence they should love each other.

In the respect in which you are wrong is that, again, the people in Gaza don't really have an option. Well, they could just wave at the sky with peace symbols as they're bombed. — Manuel

They aren't bombed unless there are rocket attacks against Israel, so would you care to change that as peace symbols when not in (yet another) bombing cycle?

I just see you ignored the free agency vs. collectivist part of my last post. Think about it for a minute.

I see it, but I guess I'm not really understanding the point. Like you said it's subtle. If by free agency you mean the each member in Israel and the Occupied Territories can do different things, as in not get engaged in politics or not identify with any of the ruling political parties or anything else, sure. That happens in virtually all conflict, there's simply too much variety in human beings.

Having said that, what we're speaking here is of the most salient and organized groups of each side. In this case it would be Hamas, the Israeli government and the PLO in the West Bank. We don't mention at the moment other political groups in the Territories nor other political parties in Israel, because for this massacre just now, they're not the main actors. But all people have a range of options available given whatever constraints they have placed on them given life circumstances.

Hamas could not shoot and just be humiliated by Israel as they steal more land and kill more innocent people. It's not as if the Israeli government needs Hamas to kill Palestinians, they do it quite frequently, but it doesn't make the news. Heck they did it before Hamas with the PLO too, also called terrorists.

Where I think you are mistaken is that you seem to think Gazans have a lot of options. They don't.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. — schopenhauer1

100%. We must reject this type of error/framing of the conflict.

Hamas could not shoot and just be humiliated by Israel as they steal more land and kill more innocent people. — Manuel

So now you're ignoring how Netanyahu got into power. It's the same thing on the other side.

Where I think you are mistaken is that you seem to think Gazans have a lot of options. They don't. — Manuel

Well all agreed, moderates have to take control rather than knee-jerk selecting the protector/agent of wrath as your preferred response. It is not the ONLY response. Agency.. It is not a rule that X causes Y. Also don't start saying "human nature". It takes imagination and courage on both sides. That's where this discussion should be headed. The victim/blame thing just leads to more cycles of violence and extremes. Violence begets more violence begets more violence begets more violence. Repeat.

@Manuel Metaphorically, this is Hamas and Netanyahu. Who made who? Who cares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea1mo79ZBi4

I haven't typed the words "human nature" until just now. I don't know why it should be a problem, because humans have a nature, being that we are natural creatures like everything else in biology. But it is very complex: everything that humans can do, are part of that nature. But that's for another thread.

I think there are real victims in history: Native Americans all throughout the continent, Jews in WWII, the black population in South Africa during apartheid, etc., etc. And I don't think this should be controversial in the least.

Does this mean that there aren't other factors that could be included in these events? No. You can find almost anything in any group: Blacks in South Africa collaborating with the racist government, Palestinians working with the IDF and so on down the line.

It doesn't change the fact that there are victims, even if these victims circumstances are also caused by victims themselves, as is the case with Jews in WWII.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Both sides haven’t been angels in this conflict. Either side is equally bad at compromising. Violence in the form of security. Violence in the form of freedom protection. Still violence. Both reject each other’s historical narratives in relation to the land.

It doesn't change the fact that there are victims, even if these victims circumstances are also caused by victims themselves, as is the case with Jews in WWII. — Manuel

Yes, there are real victims on both sides. What do you mean "even if these victims' circumstances were also caused by the victims themselves?" I agree that there were Jewish leaders who acted atrociously and as collaborators so I'm fine attributing blame to some individual Jews in leadership positions. I don't think I'd go much further than that however.

The victim/blame thing just leads to more cycles of violence and extremes. — schopenhauer1

Absolutely, and when people frame the conflict in this way it just perpetuates the violence. Additionally, throughout history perpetrators very frequently if not always brand themselves as victims.

Yes, there are real victims on both sides. What do you mean "even if these victims' circumstances were also caused by the victims themselves?" I agree that there were Jewish leaders who acted atrociously and as collaborators so I'm fine attributing blame to some individual Jews in leadership positions. I don't think I'd go much further than that however. — BitconnectCarlos

Sorry. I worded it badly, All I meant to say that even if the victims situation (the Palestinians expulsion) was caused by victims too (Jews in WWII).

I don't mean to take it further than that.

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing. — schopenhauer1

Bibi can thank Hamas for getting a boost in the upcoming elections. And religious extremists hold hostage the whole conflict on both sides. Of course we can ask why it is so, but we will not like the answers.

Let's look at this from a different perspective: How do people calm down and genuinely put things past and want peace?

How did Europeans stop being bellicose at each other? How doesn't Elsas-Lothringen be anymore the hot issue between France and Germany? Where did the nationalistic fervour go?

The answer is obvious: Because millions have died in two World Wars. After two World Wars enough Europeans have died and enough Europeans have thought that killing has to stop. In the Middle East, the death toll has been far lower. Palestinian deaths have not been genocidal. In the 1948 war the estimates are between 3 000 to 13 000 dead. In the first and second Intifada about 7 000 were killed and in later conflicts the numbers seem to be below 10 000. In 73 years Israel has lost in conflicts something like 23 000 soldiers and civilians dead. That is less that my country (which is roughly the same size in population to Israel) lost in 105 days when it fought the Winter War. With our Continuation War the death toll was far more deadly (over 60 000). In the Yugoslav Civil Wars the death toll was 130 000 to 140 000. Somehow nobody isn't wanting a rematch there, so I guess well over hundred thousand dying does silence the warmongers and those who demand "justice" and think they have the "moral right" for the land. In Palestine, this hasn't happened. Who controls the Temple Mount is extremely important for many. And it will be so in the future too.

How did Europeans stop being bellicose at each other? How doesn't Elsas-Lothringen be anymore the hot issue between France and Germany? Where did the nationalistic fervour go?

The answer is obvious: Because millions have died in two World Wars. After two World Wars enough Europeans have died and enough Europeans have thought that killing has to stop. In the Middle East, the death toll has been far lower. Palestinian deaths have not been genocidal. In the 1948 war the estimates are between 3 000 to 13 000 dead. In the first and second Intifada about 7 000 were killed and in later conflicts the numbers seem to be below 10 000. In 73 years Israel has lost in conflicts something like 23 000 soldiers and civilians dead. That is less that my country (which is roughly the same size in population to Israel) lost in 105 days when it fought the Winter War. With our Continuation War the death toll was far more deadly (over 60 000). In the Yugoslav Civil Wars the death toll was 130 000 to 140 000. Somehow nobody isn't wanting a rematch there, so I guess well over hundred thousand dying does silence the warmongers and those who demand "justice" and think they have the "moral right" for the land. In Palestine, this hasn't happened. Who controls the Temple Mount is extremely important for many. And it will be so in the future too. — ssu

Excellent question and good answers. I liked how you put this in historical perspective of what it took for people to stop fighting in previous circumstances. Why should this be different?

It is sad to think that it takes so much violence to get to a resolution for both sides.

It is sad to think that it takes so much violence to get to a resolution for both sides. — schopenhauer1

It really doesn't. Israel simply needs to fuck right back off into its own borders and rewrite its constitution so it stops being a Jewish supremacist state, incompatible with any minimally abiding democracy. Which would mean dismantling its apartheid apparatus too. None of which requires violence. The US could also stop sending $3b a year in terrorism support funding to Israel, which would go a long way too.

It really doesn't. Israel simply needs to fuck right back off into its own borders and rewrite its constitution so it stops being a Jewish supremacist state, incompatible with any minimally abiding democracy. Which would mean dismantling its apartheid apparatus too. None of which requires violence. The US could also stop sending $3b a year in terrorism support funding to Israel, which would go a long way too. — StreetlightX

The best conversations I have seen recently on this topic on the systemic problems are these conversations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD6E9h_MVHc

Actually I think I'm thinking of this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5xt-E5_wI&t=7631s

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. — BitconnectCarlos

On the contrary. You might not want to face it, but it’s extremely pertinent.

Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, — BitconnectCarlos

Like media and residential buildings. Israel says it, so it must be true.

I deny war crimes. — BitconnectCarlos

Like most apologists for state terrorism. Swallow the propaganda whole, because it happens to be your team. Basic tribalism; basic propaganda.

You’re simply deluded.

This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. — BitconnectCarlos

Give me a break.

I didn’t blame Israel for what Hamas does any more than I blame the US for everything ISIS does. But both were created by Israel and the US policy, respectively.

I’m talking about the present. In the PRESENT, Palestinians in Gaza are living in a hellhole. It just so happens they’ve also been living that way for decades, thanks to Israel.

Israel is a terrorist state, as is the US. Your delusions are your own.

I think you are all overlooking how much this is just a feeback loop of the extremes. Hamas and Netanyahu should thank each other, they hold everyone else hostage.. They keep each other in power. But yet the general populations are complicit as well, because they too can't get out of the "security/revenge" cycle and so vote the extremes back in because of the very thing they started and perpetuated. Go deeper than the usual blame/victim performance you are all doing. — schopenhauer1

If you think Hamas isn't genuinely interested in peace then you are simply clueless about the politics. Just because everybody calls Hamas a terrorist organisation doesn't make it so. So this is sadly just a really superficial regurgitation of shallow media analyses that we see everywhere.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. I know most of you probably can't see it because it's subtle, but it's there. In a way, it is it's own odd brand of bigotry (the bigotry of thinking of some people as collective driven as if only by knee-jerk instinct while others... are seen individually with free agency). — schopenhauer1

How about you fuck right off with your "subtle" language analysis and analyse the facts on the ground instead? Those facts that in very real terms mean that Palestinians are robbed of their agency by an oppressor that is intent on controlling every strata of Palestinian society because of its "existential" security issue - which is just a reflection of collective paranoia and institutionalised racism.