I made no assertion of it being helpful.
So you would say that if either or got the magic button they would genocide the other side? They would both kill every man, woman and child on the other side?

That's not what I'm saying at all. But to read the question is to imagine the genocide of two people as part of the four options on the table. I really have no idea because it's not a situation that can arise. I find the imagining of something impossible not very useful or informative.

Edit: I assume the question has a purpose though. Maybe you can go into that?

Just a thought experiment, to each their own if you do not enjoy them.
The purpose of the question was to get a sense of peoples opinion on what extreme action they think one side or the other would take if they could.

Homeland doesn't mean state in some, nor from the west bank to the sea in others. — Benkei

It is 2021, Zionism has already been realized. It does not matter if other thinkers had other ideas because a state has been established. Borders change and neither side needs to stop building.

I've condemned it but maintain that every atrocity happening to Israelis is of their own making and every atrocity befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by Israel. — Benkei

How about the atrocity of how gays are treated in Gaza? Or the atrocity of how they treat their women? I guess the Jews really do control everything. I'm sure when Palestinian men beat their wives it is also Israel's fault.

— Benkei

Israel is asking for it by treating Palestinians as animals and as such has no moral standing to be outraged by a bunch of ineffectual rocket attacks — Benkei

You know Israel is full of Israelis, right? Do individual Israelis have a right to be upset when their neighbors are killed? Is that okay with you? Let's talk about the people now.

It is 2021, Zionism has already been realized. It does not matter if other thinkers had other ideas because a state has been established. Borders change and neither side needs to stop building. — BitconnectCarlos

OK, I disagree, but let's assume it is. So the illegal settler thing is the de facto view is every Jew as something that should happen? You really want to go there? Because then this

You know Israel is full of Israelis, right? Do individual Israelis have a right to be upset when their neighbors are killed? Is that okay with you? Let's talk about the people now. — BitconnectCarlos

You don't get to complain about Hamas in the midst of committing and supporting ethnic cleansing and annexing land, which according to BitconnectCarlos is the interpretation of Zionism that's the only correct one and every Jew holds.

How about the atrocity of how gays are treated in Gaza? Or the atrocity of how they treat their women? I guess the Jews really do control everything. I'm sure when Palestinian men beat their wives it is also Israel's fault. — BitconnectCarlos

Probably. We don't know what sort of society would've developed if the people weren't being oppressed. A lot of problems like this are a consequence of poverty.

Probably. We don't know what sort of society would've developed if the people weren't being oppressed. A lot of problems like this are a consequence of poverty. — Benkei

So are WWII & the Holocaust essentially the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty? The Versailles treaty treated the Germans terribly and threw the German economy into chaos making leaders like Hitler more viable. Is every bit of Nazi racism the fault of the Allies who punished Germany too harshly while simultaneously leaving Germany intact as a state? Why give Germany free will? They were punished, they were abused after WWI. Poor little victims abused by the Western powers.

Additionally, is everything that happened in the ghettos in WWII the responsibility of the Nazis? When Jewish leaders collaborating with the Nazis arrested members of resistance movements are those Jewish leaders blameless because they were helpless victims controlled by the Nazis despite taking pro-active steps of their own volition to destroy those resistance groups? How about Jewish who stole food & embezzled funds intended for the general Jewish population? Innocent Nazi victims?

You have a unique view on responsibility here but I don't quite know if I buy it. It seems to be something along the lines of "If a stronger power does something which greatly impacts/hurts a society then every problem that comes from that society is the fault of that stronger power."

You don't get to complain about Hamas in the midst of committing and supporting ethnic cleansing and annexing land — Benkei

It's reasonable to complain about Hamas because if they were to achieve their goals they would most likely dominate all of Palestine in the same way Assad dominates Syria, religious psychopaths dominate Iran, and so on throughout pretty much every country in the region. It's not at all clear that this would be an improvement of conditions for the Palestinians. The evidence suggests otherwise.

The fact that the Israeli government does things I don't agree with (and many Israelis don't as well) doesn't automatically equal Hamas not being a subject of concern.

We have to be realistic about the logical outcome of Israel ending all it's current practices. A Palestinian state, funded and armed by Iran. That's not a recipe for peace, but for a larger conflict, with more victims.

It's not clear to me how many Palestinians would consider the establishment of a Palestinian state to be an acceptable resolution of the conflict. And that probably doesn't matter, because majority opinion doesn't matter in the Arab world. What's clear beyond any doubt is that Iran would not consider the establishment of a Palestinian state to be a resolution of the conflict, and so they will fund whoever will continue the conflict.

If the PLO tries to accept a peaceful resolution, Iran will fund Hamas instead, and with that support they will likely defeat the PLO. And then the conflict will continue. The fighting will continue. The pile of victims will grow ever larger. Nothing will be accomplished. Yassar Arafat knew all this. He knew that to agree to peace was to sign his own death warrant, because powers greater than himself do not want peace.

This whole moralism approach is misguided. It leads to nothing but more conflict. The moralism approach is in service to the moralizers, not the victims.

If there is to be any resolution of the conflict it would come in the form of persuading Israelis that it's not in their interest to remain the Middle East. No amount of guilt tripping will accomplish this. I agree Israelis will not be persuaded of this reality by reason alone. Sadly, it's going to take something much bigger.

The Israelis have nuclear weapons. Nobody is going to guilt trip them out of doing what they perceive to be in their own self interest. The constructive road is to try to change their understanding of that interest.

I personally have a strong bond with a piece of land, so I can get that. If that land were to be lost, that would indeed be a blow to me.

But that land is not the only thing I care about. I care about my wife. I care more about my wife than I do the land. So if both the land and my wife were at risk, if I had to choose one, I would choose my wife, she's my priority.

That's how this gets resolved, if it ever does.

Valuing people over land.

If the youngsters among us wish to learn how to truly challenge Israeli society, and the governments it keeps electing, here's how kids....

Ask Israelis why they are putting their children in harm's way over a piece of land. Ask them why they are valuing a piece of land over their children. And when they point the finger at somebody else, remind them that putting their children in harm's way is their choice.

This entire rambling warble can be summed up by you saying that Israel should not stop being an apartheid state which continues to ethnic cleanse Palestinians because it would otherwise end up with a Palestinian state, and that Arabs are very scary so that can't happen. Then, having ruled out that Israel can actually do anything about its 40 year genocide of Palestinians other than to keep going, you propose that the only way forward is the fantasy idea that they should pack up and leave, even while you acknowledge the utter stupidity of this solution. Or boiled down further: so long as Israel remains where it is, it gets a free pass for ethnic cleansing from you, unless Israelis decide to vacate the premises, in which case hunky dory, even though the latter is never, ever going to happen. Does that about sum it up?

We have to be realistic about the logical outcome of Israel ending all it's current practices. A Palestinian state, funded and armed by Iran. That's not a recipe for peace, but for a larger conflict, with more victims. — Foghorn

Crystal ball thinking. The logical outcome is that it removes all justified reasons for Palestinians to commit acts of aggression. If they would try it then 1. Israel is still much stronger militarily speaking and 2. doesn't lose any allies by doing so and will gain more of them. The idea that Iran can somehow successfully fund a proxy war and Palestinians even being interested in it when they have the peace they want for decades now is pretty laughable and only fueled by paranoia.

So are WWII & the Holocaust essentially the fault of the Allies because of the Versailles treaty? The Versailles treaty treated the Germans terribly and threw the German economy into chaos making leaders like Hitler more viable. Is every bit of Nazi racism the fault of the Allies who punished Germany too harshly while simultaneously leaving Germany intact as a state? Why give Germany free will? They were punished, they were abused after WWI. Poor little victims abused by the Western powers. — BitconnectCarlos

It's very likely Hitler wouldn't have come to power if Germany wasn't being bled dry and had land stolen from it after WWI. One of the big reasons why land grabs have become internationally illegal. Which is also why the settler colonialism of Israel is such an egregious crime.

The difference of course is that Germany had a lot of agency despite the crime that was Versailles. As such it couldn't be considered oppressed as opposed to Palestinians who are firmly kept under the heel of Israel precisely to avoid it getting agency. My judgment would be entirely different if Palestinians had agency and weren't oppressed, in which case we could place terrorism squarely at their feet. In this case, the root cause is Israeli crimes.

This entire rambling warble can be summed up by you saying that Israel should not stop being an apartheid state — StreetlightX

To sum up my own comments, I'm saying that you shoving your finger in Israelis eyes and yelling that they are warmongers from a position of fantasy moral superiority will accomplish nothing other than your own self inflation. Your tactics have zero chance of accomplishing your own stated goals in regards to Palestine. And given that you are an intelligent person who could see this yourself if you wished to, is what has caused me to question what your goals actually are.

I agree that my plan is very unlikely to work as well. We agree on that. It's just a better plan than yours, that's my only claim.

What may work is that sooner or later somebody figures out how to smuggle a WMD in to Israel. It's tragic that it has to come to that, but that could be the game changer. At that point, my plan may work.

If none of that happens, then it's entirely possible the entire Arab world collapses in to one huge failed state, and disease, migration and social chaos defeats Israel in a manner no Arab army ever could. Like I keep saying, the whole region is an unstable ghetto, and it would be wise to exit while there's still time.

What may work is that sooner or later somebody figures out how to smuggle a WMD in to Israel. It's tragic that it has to come to that, but that could be the game changer. At that point, my plan may work. — Foghorn

What the fuck is wrong with you.

The logical outcome is that it removes all justified reasons for Palestinians to commit acts of aggression. — Benkei

Who cares about justified? Who cares about majority opinion? You have no understanding of the Middle East. Many or most Palestinians may very well accept a peaceful resolution, as most are decent human beings like anywhere else. That doesn't matter. DOES NOT MATTER. Reasonable Palestinians don't hold the power, just as is the case in all Arab countries. The issue will be decided by whoever has the most guns, as it is in all Arab countries. You're confusing the Middle East with Belgium or whatever nice little neighborhood you live it.

Surely you are aware of what the Saudis did in their embassy in Turkey. That's the Middle East. Israelis get this. You don't. You're some nice little boy from some safe place who thinks you are a geo-political strategist. Your enthusiasm is admired, your wisdom is not.

What the fuck is wrong with you. — StreetlightX

Yes, good question, why do I keep reading your lazy quips. Honestly, no kidding, what is wrong with me? I don't have a good answer for you. Whatever the problem is, it seems we both suffer from it, so we can be brothers in that.

Yeah because apparently it's easier for you to imagine someone detonating a nuke in Israel as a solution to its settler colonialism than for Israel to simply stop committing genocide. That's you being pragmatic. Fucking joke.

Yeah because apparently it's easier to detonate a nuke in Israel as a solution to it's settler colonialism than for Israel to simply stop committing genocide. — StreetlightX

As has been explained now multiple times, the logical outcome of your plan is a Palestinian state funded and armed by outside psychopaths which will escalate the violence and harm to innocents.

Here's some homework for you. Count up all the Palestinians killed by Israel, and then count up all the Arabs killed by Assad. And then ask yourself why you are laser focused on the smaller number. I will offer no theory on that, it's your homework, and your analysis.

The difference of course is that Germany had a lot of agency despite the crime that was Versailles. — Benkei

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. When did the Germans suddenly stop being victims and gain agency? Which year? How? What would it mean for the Palestinians to gain "agency?"

the logical outcome of your plan — Foghorn

Is for Israel to stop committing genocide.

For which you will excuse with imagined threats and speculative 'solutions' like 'Israelis leaving' and 'nuking Israel'. Utter batshit insanity.

Is for Israel to stop committing genocide. — StreetlightX

What happens after that in your view?

Whatever does, it cannot excuse or justify present Israeli crimes, so is irrelevant to the point.

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims — BitconnectCarlos

How so? They started WWI, and paid a big price. And then they started WWII, and paid an even bigger price. They voted Hitler in to office. The made a choice, and suffered the consequences.

Not EVERY German of course. But the society as a whole. Lots of support for Hitler so long as he was winning.

Whatever does, it cannot excuse Israeli crimes, so is irrelevant to the point. — StreetlightX

That's what I've been saying all along Street. You don't care what happens next. Nor are you obligated to. Just dents your credibility on the topic, that's all.

You don't care what happens next. — Foghorn

Yeah, I'm not the one justifying actually existing genocide with speculative futures.

I'm just granting him this point that after WWI the treaty of versailles was unjust and unfairly penalized Germany. There are obviously different sides to this debate and I'm not going to dig too much into the weeds but historical consensus is that the treaty of versailles was very harsh and those conditions were considered a catalyst for hitler.

I'm just granting him this point that after WWI the treaty of versailles was unjust and unfairly penalized Germany. There are obviously different sides to this debate and I'm not going to dig too much into the weeds but historical consensus is that the treaty of versailles was very harsh and those conditions were considered a catalyst for hitler. — BitconnectCarlos

Ok, I see your point. My understanding is that Hitler was on his way out, Germany was coming back and losing interest in radicals, until the 1929 crash revived Hitler's fortunes. Wall Street game players. Dangerous folks indeed.

Yeah, I'm not the one justifying actually existing genocide with speculative futures. — StreetlightX

Ok, I will leave you to quip in peace. No offense meant, none taken. Have a good one.

No worries. I'll leave you to your fantasies while Israel continues to murder Palestinians and steal their land.

We both agree that the Germans were oppressed, i.e. were victims, which to my understanding means that they are cannot be blamed for just trying to get even according to a certain logic. — BitconnectCarlos

Go back to my previous post and read it more slowly is it's too difficult to grasp what the difference is you can ask me questions so I can explain it. But no, we're not in agreement Germans we're oppressed.

You called Versailles a crime, so that would make Germany a victim of that crime.