Respect to the human rights or justice. Call it as you like. — David Mo

And how many countries started without respecting human rights in some way and continue to do so? Should they be dismantled as countries? China doesn't respect certain rights of privacy, speech, religion, and so on. Should that country be dissolved? Russia has a fake democracy. English and French kings and lords violated human rights all the time with torturing and quartering enemies and prisoners. Germany enacted a Holocaust as late as the 20th century and precipitated the immediate need for Jews to have a place that can be considered their own. America expanded into what some would say was sovereign territory by the Native Americans and enslaved peoples from Africa. Native American tribes often killed men and women, and kidnapped small children to raise them in their own tribe. Are all these nations less worthy of land they own?

But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.

Then came an intractable problem. From the 70s onwards, there were bombings and terror acts against Israeli civilians by suicide bombers. You have to have "reasonable" negotiating partners in order to make a deal. Suicide bombing does not engender reasonableness. It was a bad strategy if you wanted to negotiate in good faith and not simply want the other side obliterated or driven out. This cycle continues to this day. Suicide attacks will cause the population to not trust "liberals" who will not protect the citizens, and drive the peace process further backwards. Both sides want a stalemate because they don't see a way out.

Either way, I don't see it as a human rights thing as much as an inability to negotiate. Nothing is one-sided.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past. — BitconnectCarlos

You cannot justify a current injustice on the basis of a hypothetical injustice. In any case, the solution to that injustice cannot be to kill the future offender. Are we at Minority Report? Do we play politics fiction?

The real fact is that the only justification for Israel's crimes is the fear of Palestinian rebellion.
First of all: there would be no rebellion without a previous occupation.
Second: the fear of rebellion by the natives leads the settlers to live in a state of permanent war. This state of war is incompatible with any kind of true democracy. Justice cannot exist when a dominant fears and hates the dominated. We have recently seen that in the slave states of the United States and in apartheid South Africa. I know that some of the early Zionists have a (naive) feeling of benevolence towards the Palestinians. After decades of fear and hatred, these good settlers have vanished and only Netanyahu, Lieberman and the armed settlers remain.

The problem was the occupation. The solution will be difficult. Especially since the neo-colonial powers are not interested in it.

But I know the counter argument that two wrongs don't make a right. I agree. But, let's look at the facts on the ground. The West Bank and Gaza did not want to form into a state between 1948-1967. Or at least, Jordan and Egypt didn't want to encourage this. They wanted the whole thing or nothing at all. Israel got the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai, after being threatened from imminent attack in 1967 and again in 1973.

Then came an intractable problem — schopenhauer1

Let's not start with counterfactual scenarios. Neither you nor anyone else knows what would have happened if the Palestinians had formed their own state or integrated into an Arab state. The first thing that should have been done at the time is to ask their opinion. This is a necessary condition for any process of decolonization.

But it was not done, and they were delivered in hands of an anti-Arab political movement that foresaw at least their expulsion if not worse. We are discussing a real fact. Not political fiction. Politics fiction cannot justify massacres and ethnic cleansing.

Let's not start with counterfactual scenarios. — David Mo

Yet, that is exactly how history can be analyzed. Anyways, I don't see anything you said as countering the fact that this is about an issue of the inability to negotiate.

Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not saying that at all. Read again.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past. — BitconnectCarlos

In such a scenario, do you think it would help if Israel had a century of antagonizing Arabs under its belt? I think that only sparks more hate, making retaliation more likely, rather than co-existence.

"I can be mean to them because they would be mean to me" is a mindset that will never create a better future. It will only repeat the mistakes of the past.

Yet, that is exactly how history can be analyzed. — schopenhauer1

Not the story they taught me.
The best-seller books of history maybe.

I don't see anything you said as countering the fact that this is about an issue of the inability to negotiate. — schopenhauer1

Do you blame the Jews for not knowing how to negotiate with Hitler?

I'm not saying that at all. Read again.

You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.

could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?

edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.

You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas. — BitconnectCarlos

The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.

could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state? — BitconnectCarlos

A state in which minorities are treated with respect and dignity. State practice and law should reflect their presence is legitimate, and not undesirable. Their rights should be the same as any other citizen. I consider such things to be the basis of any proper state.

edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.

If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.

We had this exchange earlier:

If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
— BitconnectCarlos

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

...So in other words you'd be against the ethno-state if it included minorities.

The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.

It would seem to be one of the basic laws according to wikipedia.

In any case make no mistake about it; Israel is a fundamentally Jewish state and that has always been the intention since its founding.

The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. — David Mo

It's a fascinating part of history. Here's a good starting point.

If these perverse foundations of law became widespread — David Mo

I'll loop around one more time here. You seem be implicitly acknowledging in this sentence that there are (or should be) some rules to govern who should own the land.

As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.

Again - I am not criticizing your positions. My desire is to see a peaceful resolution of the situation - but I acknowledge that this is highly unlikely. I would gladly be wrong, but I see nothing ahead but continued violence.

I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is. . . .

Not the story they taught me.
The best-seller books of history maybe. — David Mo

I don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome. I don't know what you're trying to get at. In this case, instead of working on a plan for a Palestinian state, the Arab countries along with the Palestinians decided that this was not the route they wanted to go. Rather, full annihilation was more important. As I judge it, that was a poor decision during the years when that was possible to create some sort of independent state.

Do you blame the Jews for not knowing how to negotiate with Hitler? — David Mo

This is a ridiculous statement. This analogy is extremely bad, and in poor taste. It's actually beyond poor taste. When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler? Palestinian leadership has had plenty of chances to negotiate with Israel. The problem is the negotiation tactics have been "Israel should be driven to the sea", and "suicide bombers will do the negotiating for us through terror and scare tactics". Again, this is another poor tactic, similar to the decision not to make a state when they could have. Why is this a poor decision? In a land the size of New Jersey, when you feel your very life is threatened on any bus or cafe or public area, and that it is happening frequently and at any time, you will vote for a strongman who will prevent things from happening and use maximum force if threatened, take maximum security check measures, and less likely to give in to demands.

Essentially this is what happened during the 90s and 2000's. A bunch of suicide bombings created an atmosphere of distrust of left-wing politicians to protect them. Certainly, on the Israel side, it was terrible that Rabin was assassinated as he was trying for a path (even if he was working with a less than willing partner). Certainly it was terrible that Arafat could not negotiate with Ehud Barak over something like a very miniscule amount of land. But unfortunately, on top of those relatively unstable attempts at peace, the main "negotiating" tactic on the Palestinian side has been terror. Again, a bad decision for them as instead of terrifying the Israeli population into leaving or giving into any demand, it just made them vote for more conservative strongmen. Memories are pretty long in that part of the world. I don't know Israeli politics that closely, but my guess is that the fear of any letting up on security measures or strongmen tactics would precipitate more terror attacks and thus continue the cycle.

What can be done on the Palestinian side? Moderation with the genuine desire to curb terror activity. What can be done on the Israeli side? Vote in someone willing to go back to the negotiating table. However, what will probably happen is once someone more left-leaning gets voted in, the rockets and suicide bombers will see an opening, the Israeli public will get fearful again and vote in another conservative strongman.

the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens. — BitconnectCarlos

How on Earth did you read my words and come to the conclusion I must find it acceptable for Israel (or any other country for that matter) "to kick its minorities out"? There is no such implication. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've been arguing.

If this is the level at which this discussion continues I'm out.

As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership. — EricH

Apply the Kantian categorical imperative: What would happen in the world if Israeli policy became the universal norm? Total instability of international borders. The law of the strongest without restrictions. The Hobbesian state of nature. Or universal war.

You can say that some of that we have now. True, but with a certain modesty and limitations. If it were to become the norm it would be chaos.

I am also pessimistic about the solution of the Palestinian problem.

When did Jews in Europe ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Hitler? — schopenhauer1

When did Palestinians ever have a chance to "negotiate" with Israelis?

Your narrative is a summary of Israeli-American mythology about the negotiations. I'll discuss it when I have time. For now, I will make my own summary: the so-called negotiations have been an attempt to forcing the Palestinians to swallow the conditions that made a Palestinian state nonviable and that implied the recognition of Israel not as a state - that Arafat did - but as a Jewish ethnic state. The history of these "negotiations" was one of successive Palestinian concessions that produced subsequent hardening of the Israeli position. I suggest you read what one of the few Israelis with a willingness to make peace wrote: Uri Avnery. Unfortunately there are no longer any like him.

(I continue).

Two main obstacles to peace are often considered to be terrorism and occupation. In the Western media, Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa. This is a (non-)curious bias.
In any case, it is clear that occupation is a cause of Palestinian terrorism.

Some Palestinian efforts have been made to prevent terrorism in collaboration with the Israeli authorities. They can be considered insufficient. But Israel has made no attempt to reduce state terrorism. Neither sufficient nor insufficient.

The occupation is the (main) cause of Palestinian terrorism. Successive Israeli governments continue to increase the occupation without interruption.

Who is to blame for the persistence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? How do we share the responsibility?

As for the attitude of successive Israeli governments, one more thing could be said: it is fully consistent with the Zionist project, as it was devised by its main actors before the creation of the State of Israel. That the Palestinian resistance surprised them and forced Zionism to act in an unforeseen way in the long term is another matter. They probably foresaw a calmer situation in the manner of the "pacification" of the Native Americans. Reality has overtaken them in some sense.

don't know what you really meant by counterfactual history. What I meant was that a major part of history is analyzing the decisions that were made and how that negatively or positively affected a later outcome — schopenhauer1

A counterfactual explanation is one that makes hypotheses about the consequences of an event that did not really happen. In history it's a fallacy. You can predict in exceptional cases what it would have happened in the short term if some exceptional event (not) had taken place. It is history fiction to predict what Europe would look like today if Napoleon had won at Waterloo or if Mark Antony and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian. Frivolities.

Palestinian terrorism would justify Israel's state terrorism, but not vice versa. — David Mo

Not quite the same. A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population. Terrorists who act from remote countries, well this will look different when the terrorists are right next door or in your midst. In a country the size of New Jersey with the terrorist actors literally in the same land areas, this is going to look the way it does. Now, there are extremists on the Jewish side that can sound and act pretty crazily too. I mentioned one that killed Rabin. But, unlike the Palestinian side which seems to use it as a weapons, get praise, and is seen as a "win" for their side, I suspect if the Israeli government got ahold of a plot from the extreme right on their side, it would be tried, and they would be punished accordingly. This is something I've never heard the Palestinian side do. Instead, many people in government on the Pals side are behind it I suspect. This is particularly the case with Hamas, etc.

Again, it is a miscalculation on the Pals side to use terrorism as a weapon. One of the reasons is their goals are unreasonable. Many in leadership still don't want to give up and make concessions. That is what negotiating is. You have to give something up. Everyone will not walk away with what they want. That is THE key in resolving this. Some of the stated goals are to literally push Israel into the sea. You can't work with that. I will say, in order for this to work, moderates have to step up to the plate on both sides. I agree with that much. Otherwise, it is a permanent stalemate, with each side doing what it knows how to do best.

A state will do what is in its power to stop terrorism or threat to its population. — schopenhauer1

The end does not justify the means. Terrorism is not about ends but means. Terrorism is the use of terrible force against non-combatants to force them to accept some end. This is independent of the goodness or evil of the ends. In fact all terrorists claim ends that are respectable: The Palestinian terrorist argues resistance against a brutal occupation and Israeli state terrorism is justified for the protection of the civilian population.

Apart from the fact that violence against the civilian population is repugnant in itself, the use of terrorism degrades the good cause that is used as justification. The moral degradation of people and the preeminence of fanatical leaders are the normal consequences of a society that normalizes terrorism. At the end of the process the real ends are no longer those that are preached. We are seeing this in the respective sides of the Palestinian conflict.

That, not to mention the general hypocrisy that affects other countries. Because the conflict in Palestine is not - and never has been - a mere local conflict.