If the Belgians started launching missiles at the Netherlands & killing the Dutch are you not allowed to respond? It's a question of how one responds, not whether response is permissible (which it obviously is.) — BitconnectCarlos

This is getting tiresome. First, I reject Israel has a right to defend itself as long as it occupies, oppresses and annexes land. Currently, the Netherlands is not doing any of these things to Belgians. Second, even if I accept it has such a defence, I can defend but I'm not allowed to collectively punish people.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

If our tribes were at war and I was launching missiles from my home or a school don't you think that puts you in kind of a tough spot when it comes to a retalitatory strike? What I'd be doing, by the way, I believe is a war crime.

The framing that Israel is 'responding' to anything is rubbish from the get-go. Israel is an settler-occupier state which has been steadily stealing land from a native population which it is subjecting to inhumane conditions. To the degree that Israel ought to 'respond' to anything, it is to cease its own land-grabbing and genocidal policies which condition from top to bottom the violence which it instigates as an agent of aggression.

Israel does not 'retaliate' - it hunts down resistance to its settler schemes with no thought given to who gets hurt in the process: in fact the more hurt the better, so as the break the will of its already devastated victims. This is the only way to explain the cruelty according to which it acts at every point. It is a predator state which cries victim any time its subject population dares show any sign of resistance, all the better to continue the cycles of misery which it deliberately propagates.

... I'm just going to leave you alone with your delusions. Every analogy you offer up just decontextualise what is happening on the ground in Israel. If I then explain why yours is wrong and offer a specific analogy to highlight why its wrong, which is not intended as an analogy for the entire conflict, you just don't reply to it, you come up with a new one that is again totally missing the point.

Israel is not a victim here. It's an Apartheid state and commits war crimes more or less continuously. It has exactly zero moral standing to claim self-defence vis-a-vis the people on the receiving end of those laws and crimes. That Hamas does something that is wrong, is exactly zero justification for Israel to do something wrong as well especially when everything it does is originally contaminated by the original crime of oppression and annexation.

And the worst part of this, is that every year this continues the bigger the danger to the Israeli State in the long run. Sentiment will turn and when sentiment turns with stupid people in power it will turn into anti-semitism and precisely realise the risks Jews wished to avoid with their own state. I don't think you realise exactly how dangerous it will be if international political support for Israel dissappears. The Irish declaration is a big thing. This is all the more reason brokering a peace now is in the interest of all Jews.

Hamas asked for '67 borders + right of return. '67 borders by themselves are a reasonable request, but any mention of right of return is not. RoR = end of Israel plus a logistical nightmare.

The majority of Palestinians are not simply satisfied with '67 borders if there's no RoR. — BitconnectCarlos

Also, you do realise the right of return is a human right? So you want to deny Palestinians human rights because it would be a logistical nightmare? I really don't give a shit that the consequences of crimes are inconvenient to the perpetrator.

Yep. And the fact that everyone now recognizes the depravity of Israeli settler-apartheid policy can only have one possible outcome for a population as paranoid and unstable as Israel's: a doubling down and a ratcheting up of oppression, justified by the fact 'everyone's out to get it'. A predator increasingly backed into a corner is among the most dangerous of all.

As an analogy, if I kill your daughter or attempt to, you get to kill me without any problem. What you're not allowed is bomb my family and neighbours. — Benkei

Alright, I'll respond to this analogy. I ignored it at first because it's a little vague so I'll attempt to clarify.

If we were both US citizens I would absolutely not be entitled to kill you if you killed my daughter. You would just be charged with a crime.

But if it's a conflict between two groups then, yes, ideally we only target the murderer/attacker but in reality this is simply not possible. Even if we struck a legitimate military target such as base, there are still plenty of civilians living and working there. There is simply no way to avoid civilian casualties in war and that's a universal fact about war/conflict.

Also, you do realise the right of return is a human right? So you want to deny Palestinians human rights because it would be a logistical nightmare? I really don't give a shit that the consequences of crimes are inconvenient to the perpetrator. — Benkei

If RoR is a human right then Israel has a right to Gaza and the West Bank because that's what the original Hebrew kingdom encompassed before they were kicked out.

In any case if we're going to go with this we can begin discussions when the Arab nations agree to compensate the 600-800,000 Jews that were expelled and dispossessed of their property between '48-'72 as well as all of their descendants. Do they get their homes back? How about their property? Is England or Spain going to compensate us and give Jews their land back when they were expelled centuries ago? Why should Israel fall on the sword and destroy itself when virtually no other nation has done this? Make no mistake about it, full RoR means chaos and destruction of Israel. It means over 5 million moving back a country of 9 million. Arabs are now the majority and can shape the country as they want, and if that means killing or subjugating Jews so be it. Maybe at that point you'd be sympathetic to the Jews and the Jews become the "oppressed minority" but as a Jew I'd rather not take that path even if it is truly "righteous" or whatever.

It's like if you and your neighbor got into a fight and both of you were at fault and you appeared before a judge and the judge only ordered one side to compensate, but not the other and said: "this discussion is only about your wrongs, stop trying to change the subject."

What sort of discrimination and who is it coming from? — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, where do we start?

How about the systemic discrimination based upon legislation:

The definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, as enshrined in law, allows inequalities to persist and enables state-sanctioned discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. Increasingly, since the election of the right-wing Netanyahu-led government in 2009, coalition members have also introduced a raft of discriminatory legislation. Much of this legislation focuses on “loyalty oaths” to Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state; the criminalization of speech that challenges the Jewish and/or Zionist nature of the state; the imposition of more restrictions on political participation and even citizenship rights for “breach of loyalty” to the state. Over the last three years, several new laws have been enacted that discriminate against Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, including legislation in the field of economic, social and cultural rights:

• The Israel Land Administration Law (2009): This law institutes broad land privatization (much of the land owned by the Palestinian refugees and internally displaced persons would be subject to privatization under the law.

• Amendment (2010) to The Land (Acquisition for Public Purposes) Ordinance (1943): This Mandate-era law authorizes the Finance Minster to confiscate land for “public purposes”. The amendment confirms state ownership of a massive amount of Palestinian land confiscated under this law, even where it has not been used to serve the original purpose of its confiscation.

• Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law (1994) Amendment No. 7: Benefits for Discharged Soldiers (2008): Allows the use of military/national service as a criterion for the allocation of benefits in higher education. The vast majority of Palestinian citizens of Israel are exempted from military service and do not serve in the Israeli army for political and historical reasons.

• The Economic Efficiency Law (Legislative Amendments for Implementing the Economic Plan for 2009-2010) (2009).
a. A section of this law concerns “National Priority Areas” (NPAs). It grants the government sweeping discretion to classify towns, villages and areas as NPAs and to allocate enormous state resources without criteria, in contradiction to the Israeli Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in HCJ 2773/98 and HCJ 11163/03, The High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel v. Prime Minister of Israel.

b. A further section of this law concerns the distribution of “child allowances.” Under the new law, children who do not receive the vaccinations mandated by the Health Ministry will no longer be provided with financial support. This provision mainly affects Arab Bedouin children living in the Naqab (Negev).

Then of course the downgrade of Arabic being an official language to only have "special status". (Something that would cause a total outrage in a bi-lingual country as mine)

Then there are things like education:

According to a 2001 report by Human Rights Watch, Israel's school systems for Arab and Jewish children are separate and have unequal conditions to the disadvantage of the Arab children who make up one quarter of all students. - Government-run Arab schools are a world apart from government-run Jewish schools. In virtually every respect, Palestinian Arab children get an education inferior to that of Jewish children, and their relatively poor performance in school reflects this.

Then there is the political reality of Arab Israeli political organizations in Israel:

While Israel has several political parties that have historically represented Arab citizens’ interests, none have ever been asked to join a governing coalition.

And then there are the feelings toward Palestinians by the Jewish population:

ACRI poll: "Over two-thirds Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together ... The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes."

Various polls, including the Israel Democracy Institute's poll, revealed that 62 percent of the Jewish public expects the State to take action to encourage Arab migration from Israel, at the same time, over 90 percent expect the State to encourage Jewish immigration.

And the list continues...on and on.

Perhaps people who discuss institutional racism in the US ought to compare things to Israel. And we are not even talking about the people that lived on the land that Israel annexed later...the "Palestinians", as if these Palestinians were not Palestinians, but just Arabs living in Israel. The idea is simply crazy: the idea that the same people only subjugated in two different wars that were separated only by 19 years creates different people. It's only divide et impera-move and an attempt to apply smoke and mirrors.

Let me briefly synopsize what apologists for state terrorism have hitherto asserted:


- Israel has a right to defend itself against the people they're oppressing and the land they're occupying.

- Israeli terrorism is more humane.

- The disproportionate death rates is due to Israel being a more powerful military force.

- There is no way to to fight Hamas without killing civilians, because they're intertwined with civilian infrastructure.

- Anyone who cares about Palestinians is virtue-signaling.


Have I missed anything?

There is literal segregation on roads, in schools, in legal systems, housing, access to finance, and so on - if there were no colonial territories - if Palestinian land didn't exist and there was no settler colonialism speak of - Israel would still be among the most racist states on the face of the Earth.

They had no choice. Poor Israel. Fascist shithole.

Well what grounds the justification for other types of states, e.g. non-religious ones? I guess I would say, ultimately, security.

In the case of Israel I've always felt the real reason for the state was security - to protect the Jewish people against various enemies. The religious claim may or may not be true, who knows. Others will have their religious claims too. — BitconnectCarlos

I think justification of the circumstances isn't possible. The situation is as it is now; Israel is there, this is what is happening, what's proper or improper at this time and how is future conflict to be avoided.

If we don't make the assumption that God gave the land to the Jews, or that the Jews are otherwise entitled to it somehow, I think we have to conclude that Israel exists because of political decisions made in the first half of the 20th century which virtually assured conflict and war would result. I think it's clear that Jews have been the victims of bigotry and oppression for thousands of years, and that Christians or those who called themselves Christians were largely responsible for their plight. Certainly the Holocaust was a peculiarly European phenomenon. It happens that Europeans or descendants of Europeans were also largely responsible for the creation of Israel and its location in an area ruled at the time by Christians or nominal Christians, but inhabited by people who were for the most part not Christian and not inclined to live in or with a Jewish nation. So it may be that certain Christians or Christian nations assuaged their guilt by arranging the installation of a Jewish state in non-Christian territory, thereby making violence and continued conflict a virtual certainty. Not a good start. And, arguably at least, a terrible decision.

So, we have, literally, a bloody mess, the resolution of which is unlikely until people tire of the conflict or are compelled to have "peace." But it's one in which Israel's conduct can't be sanctioned by religion or entitlement apart from the fact that it now exists. I think such clarity is needed in assessing what's taking place.

Israeli terrorism is more humane. — Xtrix

Yeah, let's root for more humane terrorism. :cheer:

Please try and stay on point. Look at the argument:

(1) A people displaced from their historic home ought to be able to return there.
(2) The people of Israel were displaced from their historic home.
(3) The people of Israel have ought to be able to return there.

Valid argument. One you've made.

(1) A people displaced from their historic home ought to be able to return there.
(2) The people of Palestine were displaced from their historic home.
(3) The people of Palestine have a ought to be able to return there.

Just a substitution.

It can be strengthened:

(1) A people ought not do that which deprives others of their historic home.
(2) The people of Israel were deprived of their historic home.
(3) People ought not have deprived them.

A valid argument, same substitution works:

(1) A people ought not do that which deprives others of their historic home.
(2) The people of Palestine were deprived of their historic home.
(3) People ought not have deprived them.

Who deprived the Palestinians there? The state of Israel, so they ought not have...What about the sense of historic?

What I was trying to demonstrate with my example was that you can't really draw a proper cut off year for when a claim stops being valid. — BitconnectCarlos

You are also relying on it being vague and expansive. The people who lived in historic Palestine who have been ousted by Israel's actions would be covered by the time thresh-hold.

Shaky, shaky ground.

You are also relying on it being vague and expansive. — fdrake

I think the counterargument to anything here is:

"Israel has the right to defend itself and Hamas wishes to destroy Israel."

And that basically covers everything. Nothing else needed.

And that basically covers everything. Nothing else needed. — ssu

I mean there are plenty of thought terminating cliches that would do it.

which already includes plenty of land stolen through conquest. — Benkei

Hmm. It seems to me that proprietorship over land is acquired through conquest. It only becomes stolen when the divested acquire - steal - it back.

If I understand the land in question, that was anted by the "neighbors" in their poker-game of annihilation against Israel. They lost, and given the game, that's an end of it. If the aggressor wins, well, then maybe there is a case, but that simply takes us back to the first paragraph.

Ever heard the term “Sheikh Jarrah?” That’s the name of the neighborhood at the center of the recent Israel-Palestine flare up. It is a neighborhood in East Jerusalem inhabited by mostly Palestinians who became refugees when they were expelled from a West Jerusalem neighborhood (Talbiya) after Israel captured West Jerusalem following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Conversely, Jewish families were also expelled from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and resettled in West Jerusalem neighborhood of Talbiya. Most Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah have lived there since the 1948 war (nearly 70 years), and likewise for Jewish families in Talbiya.

After the 1967 6-day war, Israel expanded their occupation to East Jerusalem. Following the occupation of East Jerusalem, court battles have ensued over the Sheikh Jarrah properties, by groups of Jewish people claiming to have owned the property before 1948. Using right of return laws, attempts are being made to expel the current Palestinian residents and replace them with Jewish residents. The problem is, the same right of return is not being extended to these Palestinian families regarding the homes they were evicted from in West Jerusalem in 1948. In fact, right of return laws *only* apply to Jewish people in Israel, so Palestinians who have been expelled and displaced for various reasons over the years have no right to reclaim their previously owned property.

Courts have thus far ruled in favor of the Jewish families claim to the land in Sheikh Jarrah, ordering that they are allowed to charge rent to the current Palestinian families living there. Obviously, the Palestinian families do not believe they should have to pay said rent and have tried to fight it. They're losing that fight, and barring the Israeli Supreme Court stepping in, it's likely that many Palestinian families will be expelled from their homes by the Israeli government in the near future.

Ever wondered why the conflict flared up recently? It wasn't random acts of terrorism, rather, it was in response to these court battles. It was in response to demonstrable ethnic oppression.

This is one example among many of why it is being argued that Israel is an apartheid state. Obviously, it was wrong for both Jews and Palestinians to be expelled from their homes in West and East Jerusalem, respectively, in 1948. But both groups were compensated with comparable homes in their respective new areas in Jerusalem. Fast forward to today, and Jewish families are using ethnically discriminatory right of return laws to expel Palestinians from their homes. And what’s worse, this is taking place in East Jerusalem, an area where Jewish right of return should not apply and Israeli courts should have no jurisdiction anyway!

Folks call this a “dispute” and say it’s complex, but, imo, that’s far too charitable. This is a land grab. It’s part of the ongoing settlement expansion that enflames tensions in the region. If you’ve managed to make it this far, thanks for reading. This is why I'm so outspoken about how this conflict is far different than the caricatures you’ll find among many biased, ignorant Israel supporters. A fair and objective look at this circumstance shows this is yet another case of war crimes, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing by the Israeli government. — JW

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute (Wikipedia)

In FP of all places, albeit from Stephen Walt, who has always been clear about Israel's pernicious relationship with the US:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/27/its-time-to-end-the-special-relationship-with-israel/

"Decades of brutal Israeli control have demolished the moral case for unconditional U.S. support. Israeli governments of all stripes have expanded settlements, denied Palestinians legitimate political rights, treated them as second-class citizens within Israel itself, and used Israel’s superior military power to kill and terrorize residents of Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon with near impunity...

A more normal relationship—one where U.S. support was conditional rather than automatic—would force Israelis to reconsider their present course and do more to achieve a genuine and lasting peace. In particular, they would have to rethink the belief that Palestinians will simply disappear and begin to consider solutions that would secure the political rights of Jews and Arabs alike... Most important of all, Israel would have to begin dismantling the system of apartheid it has created over the past several decades because even the United States will find it increasingly difficult to sustain a normal relationship if that system remains intact."

Not that any of this will happen under Biden, who is and has been as Israeli bootlicker from day 1.

Not that any of this will happen under Biden, who is and has been as Israeli bootlicker from day 1. — StreetlightX

He's been surprising on several fronts. He might be here too. Depends also on his advisors and possibly the VP, I think.

and possibly the VP, I think. — Benkei

Kamala Harris? No.

She's not going to do anything to shake the status quo.

Does that necessarily apply to what she would say behind closed doors?

He's been surprising on several fronts — Benkei

He approved $700m+ in arms sales to Israel right as it was committing its most publicly visible and remarked upon war crimes. He has not been surprising on this front. An enabler for genocide, nothing more.

This is how apartheid begins to end.

Rehumanization. It's a start. :pray:

This is how apartheid begins to end. — StreetlightX

Nice that you can be an optimist.

I remember a same kind of front made by Time magazine about those killed in the US by firearms:



And what happened to the gun laws?

Well America is an incomparably worse nation than Israel so one step at a time.

Most people buy their land... — Tobias

Who did America buy it's Land from? Who did Australia Buy it's land from? Who did Britain buy it's land from etc.

The problem here is that lots of people want the same land for purely ideological reasons. It is an ideological conflict supported by ideologues

Humans have overpopulated the world (child abuse/environmental abuse) having a child makes an unwarranted claim on resources and puts you in competition with everyone else.

We could just return to the the prism of survival of the fittest where nature will decide who survives and is strongest. Humans create fictional narratives to justify the claims they make such as nationality claims and ownership claims.

This conflict will not be resolved through ethical fictions rather it is either a war of attrition that will be resolved when people have had enough or the strongest will survive.