I think you should name names here — Benkei

They can't name names because the charge is bullshit. No-one here called for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East or anything remotely like it.

The only person here entirely outside of the overton window is the only guy you seem to agree with. — Benkei

You're telling me @Andrew4Handlel is the only person in the discussion who is outside of the overton window and who I agree with?

... Except Iraq, Afghanistan, Kurds, Libya, Egypt and Islamism in general have all been discussed. It gets plenty of attention really but as Baden pointed out, more whataboutism. — Benkei

I almost never see Egypt or Jordan or how Hamas treats its own people discussed. If someone does introduce Hamas oppressing its own people it's always either me or Andrew. I cannot remember the last time I heard Egypt or Jordan or Qatar mentioned here. Afghanistan and Iraq are only relevant because of the west's involvement.

You're telling me Andrew4Handlel is the only person in the discussion who is outside of the overton window and who I agree with? — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, you seem to vascillate between reasonableness and defending the indefensible.

I almost never see Egypt or Jordan or how Hamas treats its own people discussed. If someone does introduce Hamas oppressing its own people it's always either me or Andrew. I cannot remember the last time I heard Egypt or Jordan or Qatar mentioned here. Afghanistan and Iraq are only relevant because of the west's involvement. — BitconnectCarlos

The only reason you bring up Hamas is as a red herring in this thread. "But they do it too!" As if that makes everything ok.

If you want to discuss Hamas, start a thread on it and then every time you point out something they did I'll just say: "Yeah, but Israel did this therefore totally legit!". Or maybe I won't... I suspect you barely know anything about Hamas since you were obviously not aware they've already stated multiple times they'd accept the 1967 borders as a compromise.

The Jewsih historian Illan Pappe has a whole book documenting the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which has not stopped to this day. And likely-Prime Minister elect Bennett is on record saying that he wants to annex 60% of the West Bank. So there's that. — StreetlightX

Pappe has gotten some criticism, but I think the main argument that the exodus was planned by the Yishev holds. But then again, parts of Galilee did have a considerable amount of Palestinians. I think Benny Morris has a point when he says:

"In retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone."

And there is much debate about Plan Dalet, which Pappe finds crucial here.

Yes, you seem to vascillate between reasonableness and defending the indefensible. — Benkei

I haven't commented much on Andrew4Handel's statements. He has expressed a wide range of opinions some of which I would agree with and some of which I wouldn't.

The only reason you bring up Hamas is as a red herring in this thread. "But they do it too!" As if that makes everything ok.

If you want to discuss Hamas, start a thread on it and then every time you point out something they did I'll just say: "Yeah, but Israel did this therefore totally legit!". Or maybe I won't... I suspect you barely know anything about Hamas since you were obviously not aware they've already stated multiple times they'd accept the 1967 borders as a compromise. — Benkei

It's entirely how the issue is framed. The question of Hamas need not be a red herring, it's only a red herring if we're single-mindedly focused on Israel.

Here's how we should be framing it: What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation.

Hamas accepts '67 borders + RoR. Not just '67 borders AFAIK.

What is the current source of the oppression of the Palestinians? The answer to that would be Israel and Hamas and the PA, but also the Arab countries which are complicit in not helping their fellow Arabs. To only focus on one of these sources skews the conversation. — BitconnectCarlos

No, this is not the issue. The contributory negligence or guilt of other parties does not excuse Israeli war crimes.

See, it's all in the framing. You only want to talk about Israel, but others take a broader view of the conflict and are actually interested in addressing all the ways in which the Palestinian people are being abused right now. Wouldn't it be easier to help them if we were to focus on several sources as opposed to just one?

It's not about framing. Nothing about framing changes the moral responsibility of Israel, and it chooses to oppress, settle and annex. Nothing about the "framing" introduces a justification for such criminal acts. It's just misdirection under the guise of pretending the problem is complex. It's not. The morality is crystal clear.

No sane person would argue an act justified because of something that happened over 2 millenia, yet here we are.

Are you more interested in helping the Palestinians or in making Israel pay? Pick a side.

yawn. You can keep trying to move the goal posts but in the end you basically don't have an argument why what Israel is doing is justified.

It's not an either or issue. Holding Israel accountable yes, withdrawing aid that's undeserved, boycotts etc. are all instruments the international community should employ to force Israel to give up its Apartheid regime, end the occupation, negotiate a two state solution in good faith etc. Everything necessary to save the Palestinians and create a safe and stable Palestine next to to Israel. I find it rather disingenuous for you to pretend I'm not the one interested in peace where you're the one who's continually defending atrocities, eg. perfectly happy with things continuing the way they are because your see no real problem.

@StreetlightX@Benkei@BitconnectCarlos@ssu@Baden

Just curious. And I think this is completely valid in this particular thread as everyone has been ALL over the place on this one, moving it away from this specific incident to the conflict in general, to everything else.

Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified?

I only ask this to see if there is parity between the two sides or if this is more of a pile on. Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". If this is the case, are you of the mind that Hamas/Palestinians are justified (the means) to do whatever it takes to get their ends (suicide bombing, sending missiles to civilian territories, stabbings, shootings, or whatever it is)?

I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants.

Edit: I would like people to also understand I know that Israel is the more "powerful" country in terms of weapons.. That is factored into this. The questions still remain:

IF Israel is unjustified using violence.
IS Palestine unjustified using violence?

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends?

Covered that already. Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel). But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides, usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts.

I'm just curious the thought process and reasoning here as I think it would reveal a lot of the beginning positions of the participants. — schopenhauer1

Maybe just read more of the thread.

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. — Baden

Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years?

JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie.

JFC, at least read the post that replied to you. You have the attention span of a fucking budgie. — Baden

I'd rather see non-violent resistance in any conflict, not because I have any sympathy for occupying military forces but because civilians, including children, on both sides usually bear the brunt of these kinds of conflicts. — Baden

Yes I saw that. But the key word was "rather see" which is REALLY hard to nail down there. Sounds like you are okay with it cause rather not is not much of a condemnation, but a kind of "meh, not great but it's acceptable" at least how I interpret it.

Make that a goldfish. This is the part that answers your question re me not justifying "exactly" what Hamas has done.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas)... — Baden

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Ok, well you had a varying views there, so you can see why it's confusing.. Again, kind of wishy washy. So just to circle back to the OP's phrasing for parity:

Just as BitconnectCarlos cannot use the defense "But this is justified for X" (in this case security), — schopenhauer1

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

Would you agree with those statements, the way they are phrased? Yes or no? If no, why?

Also keep in mind I acknowledged this:

If Palestine is justified because they don't have as many weapons or whatnot. Is it always the case then that,

IF a country has less weapons than another country, they are allowed to use whatever means to get their ends? — schopenhauer1

You seemed to answer NO on that, so I simply need the first question answered yes or no.

Me: Nobody, including Hamas, is justified in targeting civilians
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas targeting civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas targeting civilians.

Again, kind of wishy washy. — schopenhauer1

No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day.

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel).. — Baden

Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation.

are you willing to say that the Palestinians should use other options than violence or would you similarly use the defense "But this is justified for X". — schopenhauer1

I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario.

Me: Nobody including Hamas is justified in targeting civilians
Small distracted fish: So, you are justifying Hamas killing civilians
Me: Read what I wrote.
Small distracted fish: Sounds like you are OK with Hamas killing civilians. — Baden

Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. It's not a strong condemnation, so it counters (a bit) the other claims as you seem to have some hesitation.

No, it's as clear and unequivocal as day. — Baden

That's what I'm trying to understand, whether you think the morality is unequivocal.. your language not so clear..

Look, if you don't understand English, you don't belong in this conversation. — Baden

I don't care if you're condescending. Doesn't change it was kind of wishy washy.

Oh I was going to say you were on the YES camp on this, but then you wrote:

I'm going to answer this. This time, please listen. A) The labels do not matter. Whatever I say applies equally to any party in a similar context. B) Violence is sometimes justified and sometimes not justified C) Options other than violence should always be considered first. D) If you want to know whether in a certain scenario, I think violence would be justified, give me the precise scenario. — Baden

So, now I can start being condescending and ask if you understand English, because clearly I said:

Ok, that's what I wanted to know. So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1

So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years.

Yes, "Rather not" in any use in the English language is pretty damn wishy washy. — schopenhauer1

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) — Baden

Show me the "rather" in that sentence. The one I keep repeating to you. The other sentence is a different sentence refering to something different. The sentence above refers to Hamas targeting civilians. The other sentence refers to violence as a response to occupation in general. The two sentences are distinct. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one.

So what part is justified, exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years? — schopenhauer1

What are you trying to say? If you are trying to say:

"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts, i.e., no.

So the precise scenario is the actions of Hamas/Palestinian fighters over the last 30 years. — schopenhauer1

That's not precise.

Show me the "rather" in that sentence. — Baden

You said:

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden

Sorry not rather not, but just "rather" same thing based on the context of that sentence with the use of "justified in fighting"... which is also similarly wishy washy.. Yes you brought up that at the end of the day "think of the children" but again, it seemed to be hemming and hawing about it.

The two sentences are different. The first sentence clearly refutes the idea that I support "exactly" what Hamas has been doing for the past 30 years, seeing as that, by definition, includes targeting civilians. The other sentence as it came after the first one is contextualized by the first one. — Baden

Okay, I'm going to try to lower the tension on this point because based on this stronger condemnation and emphasis I will now put you in the YES camp. Cool with me then.

"What part of what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the past 30 years is justified?" then you need to rephrase your question. The way it's phrased currently means "Is exactly what we are seeing from Hamas/fighters over the last 30 years justified?". The former (which you didn't ask) is an information question and the latter (which you did ask) a yes/no question, the answer to which, as I mentioned, can directly be inferred from my previous posts. — Baden

Yes, is the violence and actions over the last 30 years justified from Hamas, even though they have less weapons? (If I was to combine both of my ideas). You have much more apparently sided with the YES camp to this question (which I am okay with as at least its parity in terms of starting bias):

Let's say this is the case:
Israel is unjustified to use the bombings they have been in pursuing "security".

Would you all agree that with this then?
Hamas/Palestinian fighters who use violent means to get their ends are unjustified? — schopenhauer1

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power).

Nobody is justified in targeting civilians, either overtly (Hamas) or covertly (Israel). — Baden

I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above.

Let's start with that and slowly make progress.

Let's start with that and slowly make progress. — Baden

Are you not okay with the conclusions I have made?

I said show me the "rather" in that sentence. See that one, the one I just quoted above. — Baden

No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation.. It was this one that I saw hemming and hawing:

But any nation that's occupied is justified in fighting against said occupation. I'd rather see non-violent resistance — Baden

No, I don't see a "rather" in that sentence. That alone is a strong condemnation — schopenhauer1

Correct.

Cool, so my conclusion is correct then here:

Yes, Baden thinks Hamas/Palestinians are equally unjustified (even if they have fewer weapons/power). — schopenhauer1

And we can leave it at that. I have no problem if that is your view.

Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections.

Go on, try again.

Honestly, you are probably the least able of anyone I've ever debated here to understand basic English or logical connections. — Baden

What's the point of saying this? If it's because you are trying to say, "How can you not have interpreted me as being UNEQUIVOCALLY against Hamas' actions in the last 30 years?!!", then I don't care. I got your conclusion and said I'm cool with it. I had some reason based on a couple statements I pointed out that you might have been wishy washy on it, but you seem clearly against it so again, we can leave it as you condemn it and find it EQUALLY as unjustified, and I am ok with that.

No, you're again not able to read English. Keep trying. Read the posts again and try to figure out where you went wrong.