So sure, I'm in favor of the Garden of Eden you envision. It's unfortunately a myth. — Hanover

Great. I hope you have similar ideas about the myth of Democracy as well.

I am not sure that opposing a concept because it seems impossible is valid, but yes, it seems all very pie in the sky at the moment.

We can talk about what is possible, what is probable even, but all of these are equally disastrous to civilians. I suppose it has to be, then?

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time. — Punshhh

Peaceful coexistence is fine, there is no need to go the whole hog and 'mesh with western values' not sure what they are. After all, the Abraham accords were all about peace.

:vomit:

- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Israel is always in the world spotlight.

You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.

What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.

Syrian civil war

Total killed
503,064–613,407+[3][4]
Civilans killed
306,887+[5]
Displaced
6.7 million internally
6.6 million externally (refugees) (March 2021)[6] — Wikipedia

What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?

Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.

I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.

Again, don't forget the little guys, the regional players, and insist everything happens because of the US. — ssu

There is some role for regional players, but their influence compared to that of the great powers or their intelligence agencies is negligible.

I think people underestimate just how powerful the US and the CIA are/were. And this trend in large part countinues to this day. Just look at the gigantic propaganda campaigns surrounding Ukraine and Gaza.

- Given these military actions have generally involved significantly looser rules of engagement than Israel (e.g., both Syria and Egypt have hosed down large crowds of protestors with belt fed heavy machine guns in the past decades), and significantly higher death tolls (e.g. the Siege of Mosul involved 40,000 civilian fatalities despite being in a significantly smaller city against a significantly smaller occupying force);
-Why is Israel such a lightening rod for criticism? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Israel is always in the world spotlight.

You mentioned Mosul. There are currently several ongoing wars, for example, the Syrian civil war has resulted in 0ver 500,000 deaths. This is perfectly awful.

What has changed is that this is all in the public eye now, and it remains to be seen if the responsible civil society will now protest against all wars and demand ceasefires everywhere. Why not, at least it is consistent.

Syrian civil war

Total killed
503,064–613,407+[3][4]
Civilans killed
306,887+[5]
Displaced
6.7 million internally
6.6 million externally (refugees) (March 2021)[6] — Wikipedia

What the hell is going on? Is this business as usual? Is this Democratic?

Maybe God intended this conflict to shock people into re-thinking their indifference and tacit approval of wars all over the world. Speaking for myself, I will never look at wars the same way again, and I also have now come to see more and more the internal conflicts (in Maoist China for example) that have resulted in millions of deaths. Surely there were children among them? Surely there were newborns and mothers? There were cancer patients, disabled people, the list goes no.

I am only sorry that I did not realize the horror of war earlier, and my religion and schools have done a nice job of glossing over it entirely.

But if you really think that supporting the enemy of your enemy is allways 'makes sense', I have to disagree.

These myriad tricks usually blown in the face of these politicians who think that they can juggle with live grenades. — ssu

Yes don’t trust any party that isn’t western, liberal democratic, and who are not generally trying to get along peacefully. Unfortunately, in that part of the world, this isn’t the world that is given. Saddam was a monster, but so is the Islamic regime next door. The shah wasn’t much better. It’s pretty dismal. You have murderous strongmen repressing murderous religious groups. Hamas turned out to be even more Jihadist than not and Netanyahu apparently thought it could be controlled. It turned out they rape, beheaded, burned and chopped up kids, women, old people sadistically, live streaming it. So yeah now Israel is going to get rid of as much of the the leadership and fighters on the ground as possible.

Yes don’t trust any party that isn’t western, liberal democratic, and who are not generally trying to get along peacefully. — schopenhauer1

Haha. :rofl: you really have no sense of history at all, do you?

Haha. :rofl: you really have no sense of history at all, do you? — Benkei

Look at my whole comment. If you don’t agree with my first statement, you can’t easily deny the facts that followed.

Peaceful coexistence is fine, there is no need to go the whole hog and 'mesh with western values' not sure what they are. After all, the Abraham accords were all about peace.

Yes that would be great. For a while after WW2 it looked as though it could have gone that way.

By mesh with western values I mean they didn’t conform with political, cultural and social norms. This isn’t a criticism of the Arabic way of life, they are just different to the established western world order. The blame for the failure to live peacefully alongside following the WW2 falls fairly and squarely on the U.S./U.K. coalition.

The decent into McCarthyism in the U.S. following WW2 and the pathological paranoia about communism is the root of the failure.

Short & sweet from a Rabbi to a fool: — Nicholas

I was quite touched to see the Rabbi says he regrets the loss of life, all children or precious.
The more I see these Israelis the more I like them: they are nice people pushed beyond their ability to endure. How did this happen?

Oh, I definitely could. Maybe read up on the local history and understand how these monsters got into power instead of positing as if they are isolated facts of reality with no causes and you will find those liberal democracies you venerate at its core.

It is a tragedy that the Arab world has failed to mesh with western values, for whatever reasons. I’m not blaming them, the blame stands more with the duelling between the US and the Soviets.
Even the rich Arab states, who were spared due to their oil, are living on borrowed time. — Punshhh

I agree. And the rich Gulf states with their tiny citizenry have their own milder version of Apartheid namely in the form of permanent migrant workers, whose legal rights can be dubious (at least by Western standards). At least usually the migrant workers can go home.

In a larger persepective, this was the curse of decolonization: how could you even think of 'capitalism' that your colonizer had, as surely the part of being a colony wasn't so great? Socialism seemed a perfectly viable answer back then. How would Palestinians think about "American democracy" after having lived under occupation that the US supports? Hence the "back to original roots" -movement with islamism is now the 'viable' option. Unfortunately.

a larger persepective, this was the curse of decolonization: how could you even think of 'capitalism' that your colonizer had, as surely the part of being a colony wasn't so great? Socialism seemed a perfectly viable answer back then. How would Palestinians think about "American democracy" after having lived under occupation that the US supports? Hence the "back to original roots" -movement with islamism is now the 'viable' option. Unfortunately. — ssu

And how can you expect the Israelis to support a two state solution given their experience with the Palestinians?

How can we explain the US alliance with Germany and Japan given their WW2 experience?

How can we explain the US alliance with the UK given the history of colonization and indentured servitude.

Why do Muslims live in the US peaceably, but not in their ancestral homelands?

My point here is that if we want to widen our scope to figure our why people act as they do, the variables are limitless, and are not simply explained by focusing on the select events that satisfy a narrative that evil is explainable as being reactionary.

Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.

That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well.

And Hamas

Intentional, malicious leadership.

Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.

That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well.

And Hamas

Intentional, malicious leadership. — Hanover

Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency?

Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency? — schopenhauer1

Well, that actually was my point. I was ultimately placing blame on actual bad actors, not on prior histories that might lead people to bad, but understandable decisions. For example, we can all recite the difficult economic and social situation Germany was in prior to the rise of Hitler, and that certainly had much to do with his emergence, but that doesn't absolve the Nazi regime of the horrors it caused.

It's the distinction between explanations and excuses. The fact that I can find an explanation for why a murderer murders doesn't mean that serves as an excuse for his murdering.

And how can you expect the Israelis to support a two state solution given their experience with the Palestinians? — Hanover

And what would be the reason for Israel to support a two state solution in the first place?

How would anybody expect Israel to do anything that would be inconvenient for the country as it has the staunch backing from the US? Some protests in the West don't matter much if at all. The vast majority of nations don't care much about the regional problems in the Middle East.

How can we explain the US alliance with Germany and Japan given their WW2 experience? — Hanover

Quite well: In the end in both countries, there was no support for the previous aggressive expansionism as the utter defeat was totally evident to everybody. How bad previous national socialism and Imperial militarism had been simply couldn't be denied. And then, both countries happily accepted the position they were given: being an ally of the US was quite different from being an "ally" of the Soviet Union.

How can we explain the US alliance with the UK given the history of colonization and indentured servitude. — Hanover

Well, the US military still had Operational Plans for a war against Canada and the UK even after WW1 (Warplan Red), so it wasn't so easy I guess.

Why do Muslims live in the US peaceably, but not in their ancestral homelands? — Hanover

Well, if you don't understand that, wonder what gives. Yes, why do the Palestinians oppose Israel??? :roll:

My point here is that if we want to widen our scope to figure our why people act as they do, the variables are limitless, and are not simply explained by focusing on the select events that satisfy a narrative that evil is explainable as being reactionary. — Hanover

Yet it's you who talk of evil. And the variables are many, but not limitless. There are important and then not so important issues. Which are the most important reasons is the interesting discussion here.

Another possibility is that bad people assumed power and imposed their will on what might otherwise have been a better society.

That comes to mind as the cause in China, N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, maybe even Putin's as well. — Hanover

Even if what is right and wrong is important, I still would not base issues here on a moral judgement of good and evil. Or just bad people get into power than good ones. There was a reason that people did vote for mr Hitler in Germany, just as they voted into power mr Trump. Or mr Biden. Or anybody.

Surely if Germany would have won WW1, an Austro-Hungarian -borne corporal and a failed painter likely wouldn't have been elected and likely the whole national socialism wouldn't have prevailed in Germany. Perhaps then in France or the UK? If there would have been a Communist Revolution in either France or the UK after a lost war, wouldn't that seem so inevitable to us now? France had this history of revolutions, starting from the revolution that bears the country's name. Or UK as a monarchy would seem to have been so ripe for the inevitable fall. After all, then Marx would have been totally correct in his views of the place where the Proletariat starts it's violent struggle against Capitalism.

It's the distinction between explanations and excuses. The fact that I can find an explanation for why a murderer murders doesn't mean that serves as an excuse for his murdering. — Hanover

I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage.

I've said that in the Middle East when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict / Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you can find both sides being the victim and the perpetrator. That's what happens when extremists take the center stage. — ssu

But then that swings both ways. The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side.

By mesh with western values I mean they didn’t conform with political, cultural and social norms. This isn’t a criticism of the Arabic way of life, they are just different to the established western world order. The blame for the failure to live peacefully alongside following the WW2 falls fairly and squarely on the U.S./U.K. coalition.

The decent into McCarthyism in the U.S. following WW2 and the pathological paranoia about communism is the root of the failure. — Punshhh

I am so glad you said this. History shows that almost every nation on earth has had its wars and internal conflicts that have got millions killed. History taught in schools does not cover this. There is hope, however, that people are somewhat tired of wars. People are tired of wars, but not all, some want war, it seems. Why? Money? Lack of the draft for over 65? Religious nationalism?

The following lectures were both useful and revealing. Apparently United States did have plans to invade Canada at that time, thinking has changed.

14:57 people do not look favorably on war as they did in the past and the great defection refers to the fact that the average person doesn't want to having to do with war in a way that they didn't past okay so let me say a little bit — Dr. Cheyney Ryan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyXhRKTb-mk

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyMUBGpQ6FA

I am absolutely sickened by war, but much of what I have learned, sadly, or as a part of design, is the glorification of war that has been so much a part of the social environment I live it. Peace has no heroes. We are taught of Alexander the Great: there is book called "Alexander the Killer of men" which seems to be a better title. Granted, not everyone will turn into a Gandhi, but give everyone a proper education of history (including in Gaza and Israel) and the possibilities of diplomatic resolutions, plus the murderous history of some of these people in power.

Why is it you suppose that people cannot give them agency? — schopenhauer1

I am glad you asked that question.

Would you agree that neither the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Jews at that time had any agency in the creation of this conflict, but mainly puppets in the great powers who decided their fate?

But then that swings both ways. The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

Care to trace the chain of cause and effect to its roots?

"[People] are increasingly separated by economic and political power, inevitably heightening social tensions and increasing the risk of societal breakdown," the report says.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/01/20/264241052/oxfam-worlds-richest-1-percent-control-half-of-global-wealth

What does wealth have to do with agency?

If the current conflict is a trolley problem, then one option would be a no-fly zone, impractical and dangerous, but objectively fair. I am suggesting this on behalf of the innocent civilians in Gaza, as I feel compelled to do:

Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, the Security Council this evening imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace — a no-fly zone — and tightened sanctions on the Qadhafi regime and its supporters.


Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures. — UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011)

https://press.un.org/en/2011/sc10200.doc.htm

Suggested before, but not now?

Arab League calls for no-fly zone over Gaza
Reuters
April 10, 2011 11:58 PM GMT+5

Updated 13 years ago

CAIRO (Reuters) - The Arab League called on the United Nations on Sunday to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza and lift an Israeli siege of the territory after a flare-up of violence that is stoking fears of a wider escalation.

The death toll since Israel launched retaliation for an attack on a school bus that critically wounded a teenager on Thursday has climbed to 19 Palestinian militants and civilians. — Arab League calls for no-fly zone over Gaza Reuters April 10, 2011 11:58 PM GMT+5

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-israel-arabs-idUSTRE73923020110410/

I am glad you asked that question.

Would you agree that neither the Palestinians or the Israelis or the Jews at that time had any agency in the creation of this conflict, but mainly puppets in the great powers who decided their fate? — FreeEmotion

I would say the whole colonial world was shaped by "greater powers". You are bringing this up as if I hadn't already addressed this, but perhaps you didn't read earlier posts. The Middle East and Africa (and most of Asia for that matter) are purely fictional entities essentially contrived by Britain, France (and other European powers to a lesser extent... Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Russia, etc.). So in that respect, of course the colonies developed from the 17th-20th centuries were shaped by "greater powers" (in Europe mainly).

But more proximately, Israel, the modern state, was an idea that came about in the 19th century and borne out of the nationalism that was prevalent of that time. But the same can be said of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and you name it. The reality of Israel came about through the realization that Jews in the Western world (and that includes populations in Arab centers which traditionally have been "treated" a bit better than Europe prior to Israel), because history has demonstrated a rampant hatred of this group through the generations and culminating with the holocaust (and is that some sort of "End of History" moment for humanity or the Jews in general, or can that happen yet again, and again and again.. hence the idea that perhaps a location related to the group's origins makes sense for there to be at least one place for the people not to be continually at the whims of whatever country they belong). And even then, the Israelis just didn't get a state, it happened through a series of pushes of various groups right after WW2, especially in regards to getting displaced persons in European concentration camps into Israel (as many places just wouldn't take them). So, then the UN resolution was passed. And thus the movements of Arabs hoping to return after Israel's utter defeat (the ever present Nakba). It didn't happen the way they had predicted, and here we are with two populations warring ever since regarding the right of this or that, and the other. What it means to lose a war, what it means to win a war. What is the proper place of the UN? Is it biased? Is it objective? Is a tool for whatever country needs it at the moment? Is it a tool of Europe against the US' hegemony after WW2? Is it a tool of the developing countries against the West, or the US? Who knows. Whatever interest needs it to be their cudgel will use it, as the third-party that is truly "objective" and has peered into the Writ of World Morality.

Care to trace the chain of cause and effect to its roots? — FreeEmotion

Actually, I thought

video was pretty apt in terms of real brief summary of missed opportunities for peace:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/853565

But more proximately, Israel, the modern state, was an idea that came about in the 19th century and borne out of the nationalism that was prevalent of that time. But the same can be said of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and you name it. The reality of Israel came about through the realization that Jews in the Western world (and that includes populations in Arab centers which traditionally have been "treated" a bit better than Europe prior to Israel), because history has demonstrated a rampant hatred of this group through the generations and culminating with the holocaust (and is that some sort of "End of History" moment for humanity or the Jews in general, or can that happen yet again, and again and again.. hence the idea that perhaps a location related to the group's origins makes sense for there to be at least one place for the people not to be continually at the whims of whatever country they belong). — schopenhauer1

Naomi Klein has pointed out in her recent book, which touches on the middle east, that Zionism used to be simply one part of a wide discussion. Before it turned into a byword for the Holocaust, "the jewish question" was avidly discussed by jews with various views represented.

But the Holocaust destroyed this discussion, both by physically destroying it's participants as well as discrediting the idea that jews could integrate. Zionism ended up the only plausible answer.

Klein argues that Israel offers jews a kind of new identity. A kind of repudiation of the old European stereotypes of jews (intellectuals, merchants, poor peasant communities in eastern Europe). A muscular, tanned figure, rifle in hand, tanks and fighter jets at their back.

A muscular, tanned figure, rifle in hand, tanks and fighter jets at their back. — Echarmion

Most of what you said seems to be a certain sentiment except the war imagery at the end. It was probably a mix of just wanting to feel secure and I would think most families would rather the image be collective farmers, fishermen, builders, engineers, etc just living life building the land. Being a citizen soldier is just a necessity not the driving force. If your existence is on the line though, surely fighting in the army is not a remote possibility but a necessity.

Most of what you said seems to be a certain sentiment except the war imagery at the end. It was probably a mix of just wanting to feel secure and I would think most families would rather the image be collective farmers, fishermen, builders, engineers, etc just living life building the land. Being a citizen soldier is just a necessity not the driving force. If your existence is on the line though, surely fighting in the army is not a remote possibility but a necessity. — schopenhauer1

Well I can't really make any claim in my own right. But it made sense to me as a reaction to trauma.

Israel is not just another nation state. It's not just an anachronistic quasi colonial project. It's also a product of the Shoa. It's a promise that, the next time, the jews will not be helpless.

And if that is so it would certainly have a bearing on the Israel Palestine conflict. It would especially have a hearing on the reaction to a terror attack.

Well I can't really make any claim in my own right. But it made sense to me as a reaction to trauma. — Echarmion

I think trauma is certainly part of the equation but that gets really complex.

Israel is not just another nation state. It's not just an anachronistic quasi colonial project. It's also a product of the Shoa. It's a promise that, the next time, the jews will not be helpless. — Echarmion

I think I agree with that characterization, and thus the idea of not being wiped out or losing ground plays a major role in defense. These are really broad strokes though and I don’t think everything can be reduced to sweeping sentiments. There are various historical forces that shape policy but there is also tremendous diversity in views and ideas on how to maintain a secure state in a relatively hostile region, be it labor party peace activists, religious sects, Likud, centrists, and various ideas and interests for how to conduct domestic and foreign policy.

The reasons for a hardliner like Netanyahu got to power was because of previous events that pushed it that way on the Pals side. — schopenhauer1

Or because Netanyahu had himself a role to play in the derailment of the peace-process, as Bibi himself has bragged about:

“I know what America is,” asserted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.”

This quote from the hard-line right-wing Israeli leader is well-known. What is much less known are the more egregious comments he made at the same time.

A 2001 tape of Netanyahu speaking in private to a group in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank was leaked in 2010. In the video, Netanyahu’s extreme views are made clear.

The only way to deal with the Palestinians is to “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable,” Netanyahu insisted in the video.

He claimed “that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack,” Tablet Magazine reported.

Netanyahu also “boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery,” Tablet added.

“I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords,” the then-former prime minister bragged.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=740416829986542

And the widows of former prime minister (shot by an Jewish extremist) blamed quite openly Likud and Bibi for creating the hostile environment.

(LA Times)Appearing angry but composed, Yitzhak Rabin’s widow, Leah, bluntly criticized her husband’s political opponents Tuesday, claiming that they created and even encouraged the hateful climate that inspired his assassination.

Just a day after the funeral, still gracefully accepting the condolences of friends, Rabin’s strong and articulate wife of 47 years recalled the many personal verbal attacks that hurt her husband but never dissuaded him from his single-minded pursuit--”like a bulldozer,” she said--of peace.

So upset was she with the moderate rightist members of the Knesset, the nation’s Parliament--who she claimed stood by while extremists harassed Rabin--that she admitted snubbing Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party, at the funeral by being “as cold as I could be.”

“Surely I blame them,” Leah Rabin said of the Likud members, her husband’s most vocal critics in the Knesset. “If you ever heard their speeches, you would understand what I mean. They were very, very violent in their expressions: ‘We are selling the country down the drain.’ ‘There will be no Israel after this peace agreement.’ I mean, this was wild.”

And if you want to hear it, yes, also there were those terrorist attacks on Israelis. As I've said, the extremists dominate the scene.

And if you want to hear it, yes, also there were those terrorist attacks on Israelis. As I've said, the extremists dominate the scene. — ssu

So my point was that almost all of us on this forum have disagreed with Bibi's handling of the two-state solution, and his basically stopping it. But my point with that last post referencing @Nicholas video was to show how it is that Netanyahu started to become favored over the ones willing to go for peaceful two-state solution (even AMIDST Hamas' suicide bombing campaigns). It doesn't turn that way overnight. It gets that way over a series of failed efforts of the moderate Pals to form something strong enough to keep the process going. Netanyahu is influential, but he's not god. He can't mess up everything on his own. It takes two to tango, and prior to Bibi's omnipresence, the Pals could not figure it out. Would not meet at any compromise that wasn't absolutely perfectly what they wanted.

But ok, so Bibi comes to power now. He and Likud clearly don't like the idea of giving up the West Bank. We start talking past each other with Hamas. He thought Hamas could be controlled, but what would you have done about Hamas? How Bibi shot himself in the foot is even if he ranted and raved against Hamas, or went to the UN railing against Iran backing Hamas, the West Bank policies just made him look like a warmonger.

However, something Bibi can't really control as much is the hatred of a kind whereby the Hamas terrorists rape dead bodies, cut people's heads off and burn babies, and then even call their parents to celebrate how many Jews they killed with their barehands, and the parents are overcome with joy for their child. So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality.

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control?

But my point with that last post referencing Nicholas video was to show how it is that Netanyahu started to become favored over the ones willing to go for peaceful two-state solution (even AMIDST Hamas' suicide bombing campaigns). It doesn't turn that way overnight. — schopenhauer1

If I say extremists take over, what I mean is that they do take over because they are popular. And because "appeasement" of trying to form a peace deal, a two nation solution, isn't. So I'm not against you here, Bibi is basically the most successful Israeli politican ever. Yet I think that the politicians themselves have a lot do with this. It's not like a tide has swept them even if they would have wanted a peace deal.

Let's take an example: Israel occupied the southern part of Lebanon in Operation Peace for Galilee to root out the PLO in 1982. It retreated from Southern Lebanon in 1985, yet stayed in the southern bordelands of Lebanon and occupied what was called the South Lebanon Security Zone until 2000.

And PLO indeed left during the initial operation. But what happened then?

A low intensity conflict presumed in which a religious shiite militant group opposed Israel's occupation called Hezbollah was borne. And this organization sponsored by Iran and earlier Syria (when it could) is now basically the unconventional deterrent for Iran that Israel won't attack itself. It's been so successfull, that it has brother organizations for example in Iraq.

But how was this portrayed in Israeli politics? Well, the Ehud Barak, one of the most highly decorated Israeli soldiers and Labor government prime minister withdrew unilateraly from South Lebanon (which by then had caused over 200 Israeli soldiers being killed about over 1000 Hezbollah fighters being killed). Hezbollah then followed them to the border basically as the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel.

Bibi and others then reason that it's been the withdrawal that caused then the bombing of Israeli settlements and everywhere where Israel has tried to "negotiate", only failure has followed. Not that going off an occupying other countries will create insurgencies and escalate the conflict.

And why wouldn't many Jewish Israelis choose Bibi's version of events? Israel has the nuclear bomb, Arabs don't. Israel has military superiority over it's neighbors. Israel has an staunch ally in the US that will accept basically everything that Israel does.

If I knew Palestinian politics better, I would assume that the fate of those who tried aggressively to get a two state solution by negotiating with the Israelis are as unpopular as the Labor party is now in Israel. Religious fanatics rule.

Bibi and others then reason that it's been the withdrawal that caused then the bombing of Israeli settlements and everywhere where Israel has tried to "negotiate", only failure has followed. Not that going off an occupying other countries will create insurgencies and escalate the conflict. — ssu

This seems to be pretty tenuous argument as it is basically generalizing the end of a conflict that had determining factors for why Israel was battling the PLO in Lebanon. It's not as easy as Israel just wanted to go in there for funsies. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you mean by "occupying other countries". As you are simply stating the consequence not the reason. But then tying it to Gaza also seems tenuous as Gaza is not quite a state the same way Lebanon is. It is a territory that would perhaps become a future state if the moderates agreed that Israel should exist peaceably and that Israelis should not be arbitrarily killed, etc.

Also here:

Hezbollah then followed them to the border basically as the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel. — ssu

I'm confused why you would say Hezbollah was the "proxy arm of the IDF". You are making them sound like Israel's ally. That doesn't sound right. The consequence for the withdrawal is the South Lebanese Army was taken over by Hezbollah guerillas. I think you meant the South Lebanese Army was Israel's proxy (though even that is a bit tenuous)?

If I knew Palestinian politics better, I would assume that the fate of those who tried aggressively to get a two state solution by negotiating with the Israelis are as unpopular as the Labor party is now in Israel. Religious fanatics rule. — ssu

You make it sound like the Palestinian disagreement means that they are having high noon tea hashing out a well-planned peace deal over crumpets and honey or some shit. Not negotiating looks like the barbaric kind of shit that they did.

Basically, you didn't answer my questioned and hedged. I'll ask it again:

So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality.

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control? — schopenhauer1

This seems to be pretty tenuous argument as it is basically generalizing the end of a conflict that had determining factors for why Israel was battling the PLO in Lebanon. It's not as easy as Israel just wanted to go in there for funsies. — schopenhauer1

Israel wanted to erase PLO from operating from Lebanon. That was the "funsies" you asked about. PLO is no not firing rockets or terrorist attacks from Lebanon. Hezbollah is for that there now. And do you wonder why?

Well, somehow being 18 years as an occupation force in Lebanon did make this. Israel's own proxy force, the South Lebanese Army, collapsed immediately when Israel withdrew. You might try to fight an insurgency like the British did in Northern Ireland, or then can fight it like Israelis did in Lebanon: in order to defend from ambushes like when the road is next to trees and orchards, fire blindly your machine guns into the orchard. If a small girl is accidentally killed by this, then tell that a terrorist has been killed in operations.

I'm confused why you would say Hezbollah was the "proxy arm of the IDF". — schopenhauer1

the proxy arm of the IDF, the South Lebanese Army, immediately collapsed with it's members seeking refuge from Israel. — ssu

Would have been better to end the sentence 'Hezbollah then followed them to the border.'

I think you meant the South Lebanese Army was Israel's proxy (though even that is a bit tenuous)? — schopenhauer1

Yes, you got it. SLA was the Israeli proxy, not Hezbollah.

So, you can try to use the talking points about Netanyahu, but I would certainly call you out on overmining the shibboleth for any and every ill of Palestinian society and mentality. — schopenhauer1

Now I'm the one confused. Please try refrain the question because I don't understand what your point is.

What's the shibboleth overmined here? That I talk about occupied territories and not about Judea and Samara? Or what?

Or should we just talk about the Israeli civilians who have died in terrorist attacks? If you look at this century, then those killed basically doubled in October 7th. But we are reaching new heights now with Palestinian deaths too. (But that's the shibboleth of mentioning them or what?)

Now I'm the one confused. Please try refrain the question because I don't understand what your point is. — ssu

The shibboleth is Netanyahu.

What don’t you get about these questions?

So how does one counteract that kind of deranged barbarism?
How do the moderate Pals form a state with these kind of players to control?

That is basically asking how moderate pals plan to control violent deranged elements like Hamas antagonizing Israel rather than living peacefully? Is there enough will on the Pals side to do this?