Hamas' language is no different than that of Israeli main political party. Zionism implies racism, discrimination and the slow killing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is denying the right to exist to Palestinians in their own country. That fits the bill. — Benkei

It's not their country. It's the Jewish homeland.

What amazes me is why you care so much. Are you an Arab? Just tell me you're an Arab and this'll all make sense. For a white Dutchman to have such a strong belief that this is Arab land and ought to be controlled by the Arabs and in turn Jews be subjugated is bizarre, to say the least.

But this does not somehow make any consideration of tactics and the relation between ends and means superfluous. — Echarmion

Presumably you're the kind of person who'd tell a rape victim to sit there and take it if the rapist is stronger.

It's just a factual disagreement, nothing more. Never mind the fact that the Palestinian population has grown considerably over the past decade. — BitconnectCarlos

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. — Raphael Lemkin

Lemkin being the Jewish legal scholar who coined the term, of course.

What is happening in Gaza and the West Bank for decades has been nothing less than genocide, committed by the state of Israel, being accelerated as we speak. That makes you a genocide apologist.

So one thing you need to get straight is that lauding democracy is a neoliberal ploy. When you can't buy off religious leaders, you want democracy so you can subvert it and raid. They know that. — frank


I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. — Echarmion

Leaning toward the left is like becoming a mystic, you start saying things you know sound crazy, but they're true.

Not that Saudi is likely to consider democracy. Their government is working fine. They ally with the US because the US threatened to destroy them in the 1970s. True story.

Presumably you're the kind of person who'd tell a rape victim to sit there are take it if the rapist is stronger. — StreetlightX

Presumably, you're the kind of person who'd disembowel a village chief in front of his wife and children because he accepted rice from the imperialists.

Leaning toward the left is like becoming a mystic, you start saying things you know sound crazy, but they're true. — frank

Not that Saudi is likely to consider democracy. Their government is working fine. They ally with the US because the US threatened to destroy them in the 1970s. True story. — frank

It's working fine for the richest 1%.

It's working fine for the richest 1%. — Echarmion

It's working well by and large. Progress for women is a work in progress there.

It's the reverse, I'm saying it's the best move on moral grounds. Nothing is gained from cycles of escalation (except of course power for Israeli politicians and Hamas' warlords). — Echarmion

I'd be willing to entertain what you're saying with the note that I do believe that proportional self-defense is always a valid option. Both options - response or non-response - would be morally acceptable but I'm not an expert in these kind of issues so I need to reserve judgment for this.

It would need to be strategically justified for me to consider it. If we stopped responding to them and they just keep launching rockets then it's no-go for me. It may embolden them or it may appease them; I have no idea.

It's working well by and large. Progress for women is a work in progress there. — frank

Are they allowed to leave their house without a male guardian yet? I'm sure in another 50 years, they'll have worked hard enough to outlaw marital rape. We all know marital rape is important to prevent the US from invading your country.

I'd be willing to entertain what you're saying with the note that I do believe that proportional self-defense is always a valid option. Both options - response or non-response - would be morally acceptable but I'm not an expert in these kind of issues so I need to reserve judgment for this.

It would need to be strategically justified for me to consider it. If we stopped responding to them and they just keep launching rockets then it's no-go for me. It may embolden them or it may appease them; I have no idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Basically, I see two ways this conflict ends - some new coalition gets to power in Israel (or else the international community forces their hand), unilaterally stops all escalation and provides material support to Palestine, thereby depriving would-be extremists of people willing to risk their lives.

Or Apartheit and oppression continue indefinetly, with thousands more deaths and many more displaced people, until the Palestinians are eventually ground down so much they're no longer recognisable as a people.

It's not hard for me to decide which of these I want to happen.

I'll take that as a yes then.

I'll take that as a yes then. — StreetlightX

Likewise.

Are they allowed to leave their house without a male guardian yet? — Echarmion

That's the Taliban, not Saudi Arabia. But they all look the same to you, huh?

See how it is? You become leftist and you're like WAPOW! I'm holier than thou.

That's the Taliban, not Saudi Arabia. But they all look the same to you, huh? — frank

The Taliban can at least argue that they've been invaded by superpowers twice, so they didn't have much time to consider reforming their ways.

This is getting very off-topic though.

I don't think anyone here would say that murdering innocent Israelis is not a problem. — Manuel

Oh you'd be surprised, there have been quite a few posters here that have refused to explicitly condemn it.

It doesn't make murder right in any case, but it makes it understandable given the context. — Manuel

I understand what you're saying here and I agree. I understand the anger when Israel comes and bulldozes houses of the families of suicide bombers. I understand that the occupation makes life tough. However I also believe that one is always fundamentally responsible for one's actions and that one's own problems or difficulties are not an excuse for wanton murder.

As if the problems on each side are in any way equal. One is clearly much more responsible than the other, given the available force and infrastructure they have. — Manuel

I'm happy to discuss ways in which we could make things easier for Palestinians. I certainly don't hate the Palestinians, but then again I'm not an Israeli who has had a relative killed or lived through several wars where my country faced total annihilation. It's just a very different culture over there. Trust me I've been there.

I think most Israelis want peace, but ssu made a good point earlier where he cited that more conservative groups like the ultra-Orthodox and the Mizrahi are growing demographically so maybe their conservative influence will be felt more.

As long as you're ok with the existence of Israel and believe that the murder of innocents is wrong, your view has a place at the negotiation table. We can discuss about removing settlements and Israel has removed settlements in the past. I'd be more than happy to remove settlements if it meant peace. Unfortunately for the time being it seems both groups don't have much of an interest in peace from a political perspective. Israel is also facing a number of internal issues like COVID and a rapidly growing and non-productive ultra-Orthodox population which lives off the state among other problems. Life isn't easy over there.

The Taliban can at least argue that they've been invaded by superpowers twice, so they didn't have much time to consider reforming their ways. — Echarmion

That's not true. But

This is getting very off-topic though. — Echarmion

point taken

Oh you'd be surprised, there have been quite a few posters here that have refused to explicitly condemn it. — BitconnectCarlos

Then I'd disagree with them. Moral judgments about the value of life are universal or they're not serious.

I understand what you're saying here and I agree. I understand the anger when Israel comes and bulldozes houses of the families of suicide bombers. I understand that the occupation makes life tough. However I also believe that one is always fundamentally responsible for one's actions and that one's own problems or difficulties are not an excuse for wanton murder. — BitconnectCarlos

It's easy to talk for me, I don't live in Israel nor the Occupied Territories. I'll just say, if someone bulldozes my home and kills my brother or father, I can't say I wouldn't kill someone back. We've crossed a line here.

On the other hand If I were a settler, I'd think I'd recognize that me being murdered is a possible outcome. It a risk I'd have to know about and be willing to accept.

If I'm an ordinary Israeli, not currently in the military, just living my life and someone kills a family member, I would likely want blood in exchange. The only important difference here, is that I'd know that an occupation is the main cause of the murder. I can try and vote for the left, talk to my friends about the issue, do whatever I'm willing to do to diffuse the situation.

But I'd like to think that I'd still hold my beliefs that what my government is doing is horrific and monstruos. To be clear, the US as an international actor is way worse than Israel. So as a citizen of the US, I'm aware of the consequences that could come my way in terms of payback should be expected.

But never wanted.

I'd be more than happy to remove settlements if it meant peace. Unfortunately for the time being it seems both groups don't have much of an interest in peace from a political perspective. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't doubt that. But exactly as is the case with the US, the way the media in Israel to presents the situation to Israelis is quite different from what happens. And the effects of that propagada are just enormous. Not only in the US or Israel, but just about every state: the more power that state has, the stronger the PR. Look at China, Russia, etc.

That's just how states work.

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. — Raphael Lemkin

I wonder whether there's a case to be made that the US is genociding black people under this definition. While the black population has grown, an argument could be made that black culture is being usurped and black social institutions destroyed. I think we can both agree that plenty of social and political policies implemented by the US government have hurt the black population.... but is there any actual plan to destroy them? Has there ever been one?

Genocide is different from mere subjugation, we gotta remember that. What do you think about this point? Are blacks subject to genocide by the US Government?

Is this like how you asked about Japan previously? It's like you're incapable of actually talking about Israel. Which sideshow will you track discussion down to next? Can I place a bet?

I think we both know by now that we're not going to have productive conversations with each other, so can our conversations then at least be entertaining? You probably believe all kinds of fun stuff; I have no idea what the boundaries of your belief system are so why not try to find them?

Incapable it is.

Begin gets elected after the atrocities were committed. Obviously he was more "moderate" after that, the deed was already done. So your comment was either stupid or a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. It says something about Israeli politics that they are fine to elect a fascist and war criminal and then decades later still have morons defending it. You'd think 70+ years would give some perspective but can't fight tribalism I suppose. — Benkei

When you engage in a discussion with someone you have never met , have no background context on , and especially when the topic is something as complex and personal as politics , you might want to examine what it is that makes you inclined to use worlds like ‘moron’ , ‘stupid’ , ‘deliberate obfuscation’. I understand my sarcasm irritated you, but it was intended
as a gentle prodding for you to explore more than just what initially seems to you to be the obvious and correct interpretation of my comments. Especially since the reality is I could care less about Israeli politics , I just jotted off my comments in an offhand way, and I am not wedded to any of the assertions I made. Apparently my sarcasm had the opposite effect, making you feel threatened and causing you to double down on your initial
construal of my post.

I’ll tell you what I am wedded to, and that’s a way of understanding human behavior and belief systems that rejects the concept of ‘evil’, which I’ve noticed you like to use. To me , ‘evil’ is what we accuse other people of when we fail to make sense of their thinking from their own perspective. The paradox is that it is this well intended accusation of evil or immorality leveled at individuals or groups that is the root of the sorts of violence and conflict that our concepts or morality are supposed to attach themselves to.

For me your response to my comment is a textbook case of a well intentioned attempt to defend a righteous moral view. But what it shows at a deeper level is that righteous moralism , and along with it the use of terms like ‘stupid’ and ‘moron’ , is a failure of insight, an inability to recognize that we all view the world from
within what in many cases are profoundly different perspectives, all of which can righteously justify themselves in equal measure.

I care strongly because I care about fairness, justice and human rights. I'm originally a human rights lawyer after all.

It's not their country. It's the Jewish homeland. — BitconnectCarlos

There's no Jewish Homeland defined except in the Torah which, as a religious text, has no legal standing. There's an area designated for Jews to settle, which area was called Palestine, with the understanding original inhabitants wouldn't be displaced. We all know what happened and who have been driven from their homes. I think it was Begin who said : there's not a Jewish village that isn't build on the rubble of a Palestinian.

Here's some more material for you : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/100000/mde150332004en.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj1ptPlr8fwAhUREhQKHXWcACYQFjAFegQIDBAC&usg=AOvVaw3SBqsmtye-7u37B9kbhC8f

A nice reminder that, despite the propaganda, plenty of people can still recognize the depravity of Israeli actions - even in the imperial heartland.

When you engage in a discussion with someone you have never met , have no background context on , and especially when the topic is something as complex and personal as politics , you might want to examine what it is that makes you inclined to use worlds like ‘moron’ , ‘stupid’ , ‘deliberate obfuscation’. I understand my sarcasm irritated you, but it was intended
as a gentle prodding for you to explore more than just what initially seems to you to be the obvious and correct interpretation of my comments. Especially since the reality is I could care less about Israeli politics , I just jotted off my comments in an offhand way, and I am not wedded to any of the assertions I made. Apparently my sarcasm had the opposite effect, making you feel threaded and causing you to double down on your initial
construal of my post.

I’ll tell you what I am wedded to, and that’s a way of understanding human behavior and belief systems that rejects the concept of ‘evil’, which I’ve noticed you like to use. To me , ‘evil’ is what we accuse other people of when we fail to make sense of their thinking from their own perspective. The paradox is that it is this well intended accusation of evil or immorality leveled at individuals or groups that is the root of the sorts of violence and conflict that our concepts or morality are supposed to attach themselves to.

For me your response to my comment is a textbook case of a well intentioned attempt to defend a righteous moral view. But what it shows at a deeper level is that righteous moralism , and along with it the use of terms like ‘stupid’ and ‘moron’ , is a failure of insight, an inability to recognize that we all view the world from
within what in many cases are profoundly different perspectives, all of which can righteously justify themselves in equal measure. — Joshs

One, I didn't call you stupid, I said your comment was unless it was made in bad faith. Second, I also never called you a moron but since you identify as a defender of fascists you believe it applies to you. Thank you for clearing that up for all of us. Saves me a lot of time.

Oh and one more because people like Echarmion still exist to provide cover for apartheid and genocide:

The tragedy that befalls Israelis is of their own making, the tragedy that befalls Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei

:100:

How many leftists are giving cash to the Red Cross? Or do you just bitch and walk away?

It's not their country. It's the Jewish homeland. — BitconnectCarlos

Is this God raising his (no doubt enormous) head, bellowing "homeland", and ordering Israel to destroy men, women, children and livestock as he used to do?

How much bearing does that have on the veracity of positions and arguments? But nice poisoning of the well!

How much bearing does that have on the veracity of positions and arguments? But nice poisoning of the well! — Benkei

Just a reminder that your position will have no bearing whatsoever on events.

Giving to the Red Cross most definitely would.