frail old men like Biden or Trump. — ssu

If you saw the abysmal debate of Newsom and DeSantis, perhaps not. Though bizarrely moderated by Sean Hannity.

That’s like holding a fair moderated debate in this forum on Israel / Palestine :razz:

No! I won't see it!

Let me be in my echo-chamber where American politicians seem actually to be quite rational, intelligent and well aware of realities in the World. :wink:

Ok. have to watch that...

It’s so imbalanced in this forum these aspects of Palestinian responsibility have to be discussed and not seen only on one dimension of “occupied/occupier”. If you went to a forum that had completely the other side, you may feel the same… — schopenhauer1

I guess noone here expects that the Palestinians have much capacity to change, given their situation. Though one might also argue that this attitude is dehumanising in a way.

It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism.

Certainly, the Likud has all had this strategy where a two state solution would be a capitulation to the enemies of Israel. — ssu

But see the deflection to the other side you did there.. That's what I am talking about... You are doubling down on a point I already acknowledged.

You simply cannot deny that the occupied/occupier issue does matter here. It is imbalanced, because one being the occupier and the other side being the occupied with very limited resources is imbalanced! — ssu

But c'mon ssu, this is exactly the framework the whole time I have been questioning and trying to get others to question. It is this exact way of framing the issue that is being questioned as to if it is proper to even speak in those terms. It is a narrative that exists. I get that. It is a narrative you might hold. I get that. But it might not be THE narrative, if you know what I mean. We have went over the history. Wars fought to wipe out Israel and that failed. The Oslo process and how that failed. The Israeli shift to the right as a RESULT of those attempts and failures. Then we have both agreed Hamas is no good all around. We even agree that Netanyahu and Likud is no good. But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! That would go for any prime minister, Netanyahu or otherwise! Even the most liberal peacenik would want that. Because afterall, what even IS statehood? It means nothing. You can call Palestine a state right now if you want. It's about recognizing borders, autonomy, etc. That takes peaceful overtures from both leadership and population. The population has to hold leadership accountable and vice versa. But see, these are all issues beyond the reductionist and biased "occupied/occupier".

Trying to push your own Islamic revolution in muslim countries and that's why pick a fight with Israel? This is the classic case where a revolution had to go to desperate lengths to get that enemy they can then show they are so good to everybody else. In reality many young Iranians are totally OK with America, so pretty urgent to make your own "axis-of-evil" with US-Israel. — ssu

Agreed there! Iran is ripe for being a more secularized de-radicalized state. It had the will to put the Ayatollah and Islamist regime in power... It has the power to do otherwise perhaps? Look at the protest over the head coverings and the girl that was killed.

It seems much easier to ask Israel to create the conditions that would allow the Palestinians to emancipate themselves from radical islamism. — Echarmion

I think my answer is same as above:

But c'mon ssu, this is exactly the framework the whole time I have been questioning and trying to get others to question. It is this exact way of framing the issue that is being questioned as to if it is proper to even speak in those terms. It is a narrative that exists. I get that. It is a narrative you might hold. I get that. But it might not be THE narrative, if you know what I mean. We have went over the history. Wars fought to wipe out Israel and that failed. The Oslo process and how that failed. The Israeli shift to the right as a RESULT of those attempts and failures. Then we have both agreed Hamas is no good all around. We even agree that Netanyahu and Likud is no good. But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! That would go for any prime minister, Netanyahu or otherwise! Even the most liberal peacenik would want that. Because afterall, what even IS statehood? It means nothing. You can call Palestine a state right now if you want. It's about recognizing borders, autonomy, etc. That takes peaceful overtures from both leadership and population. The population has to hold leadership accountable and vice versa. But see, these are all issues beyond the reductionist and biased "occupied/occupier". — schopenhauer1

I guess I could reject the framing of occupier and occupied and instead take the position that really Gaza has been given considerable autonomy as well as outside help, and it really should have been on Gazans to use these opportunities.

Yet this would seem to change little about my assessment that the position of the Israeli government seems destructive and unlikely to lead to any kind of peace apart from peace by displacement.

I can also adopt the position that Hamas has no claim to any legitimate resistance and is nothing more than a brutal crime syndicate. But this would not necessarily lead me to the conclusion that ordinary Gazans are particularly likely to actively fight them to achieve peace with Israel.

I do actually reject the position that morality can be reduced to some kind of oppression Olympics where the victim is right and the oppressor is wrong.

But from a purely practical perspective, wealth and security seem to be the most likely avenues out of the kind of extremism rife among Palestinians. I have always held to the position that the best advertisement for "western values" is to demonstrate that they work to your benefit.

But this whole "occupied/occupier" is ridiculous. — schopenhauer1

Why?

What is ridiculous about it?

Annexation of territory is the whole issue.

Of course Israel at this point would not want a fully weaponized and armed Palestine UNLESS it was a peaceful neighbor! — schopenhauer1

Egypt is fully weaponized and fully armed. And so actually is Jordan, even if it has a far smaller armed forces.

But are somehow for you the Palestinians totally incapable or unfit of doing what Jordanians and Egyptians have been able to do?

Either it's a two state solution or a one state solution. And if/when it's a one state solution, you think the Palestinians will be OK being under a separate law than the Jewish and being second rate citizens in a state that is primary a home for the Jews?

Annexation of territory is the whole issue. — ssu

No, living peaceably with the neighbor in that annexed territory is the issue.

But are somehow for you the Palestinians totally uncapable or unfit of doing what Jordanians and Egyptians have been able to do? — ssu

As of right now, are you kidding? That is self-evidently the case (Hamas.. Abbas steps down...).

No, leaving peaceably with the neighbor in that annexed territory is the issue. — schopenhauer1

Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.

As I've said, I see no peaceful resolution to this.

Well, I guess if your country annexed and occupied Finland, I bet we would be as bothersome as the Palestinians and would all the time crying about that Finland is for Finns. Especially if you wouldn't do anything to integrate the Finns into their new country they belong to.

As I've said, I see no peaceful resolution to this. — ssu

Gaza had its chance. It went to shit. West Bank and Gaza had its chance, it wasn't taken. If Finland had its chance when Russians left and then they started bombing Russia... Yeah. If Finland had a deal which gave it nearly all it wanted and they said no thanks, we rather be in perpetual war than take that, then yeah.

Gaza had its chance. — schopenhauer1

What chance did the open air prison have?

Oh right, they could be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the West Bank, I guess.

Well, Bibi supported Hamas to show that peace cannot be made with the Palestinians, so he was very successful with that.

What chance did the open air prison have?

Oh right, they could be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the West Bank, I guess. — ssu

Nope different situation as the west bank. There were no more settlers there and to conflate the two is kinda bad faith arguing. The "open air prison" slogan is nice marketing but they were getting tons of aid and did nothing with it. You know, another strategy would have been for them to actually work with the Israelis. Oh right, they did pretend to do that with overtures for more work visas before murdering people.

You know, another strategy would have been for them to actually work with the Israelis. — schopenhauer1

That is the strategy possible for every people that have ever been occupied and their territory annexed by another country. Be this invader either a colonizer or simply the country neighboring you. Yet it's very common for people to resent the foreigners and not surrender.

You haven't answered just why is it ridiculous to talk about Gaza and the West Bank being occupied territories and of occupiers and the occupied.

I think this is the crux here is that somehow, for you unlike all other conflicts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is something totally different than everything else. As if for some reason, Israel just has these "unruly neighbors" that present a threat to them! Be it the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, the Azeri-Armenian conflict, the Russo-Georgian conflict, the Moroccan West Saharan conflict or any of the multitude of wars where one country has seized territory in war and then annexed this territory. And especially when their isn't a solution given to occupied people of autonomy, economic freedom or cultural assimilation (that takes hundreds of years), then you will have a conflict.

That there didn't exist a state of Palestine doesn't make this different. When the Spanish pulled out of Western Sahara or when the Portuguese pulled out of East-Timor, both Morocco and Indonesia annexed the 'empty' territory and faced an insurgency and basically both used very rough measures. The conflict in East-Timor finally ended when Indonesia withdrew and Timor-Leste gained it's independence, but the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara hasn't.

(The Moroccan military wall in Western Sahara. It even looks a bit similar to the Gaza border from the air.)

If Finland had a deal which gave it nearly all it wanted and they said no thanks, we rather be in perpetual war than take that, then yeah. — schopenhauer1

But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens.

Actually Arafat didn't say 'no thanks' as rejecting it, but simply not taking the offer and made further demands. Actually let's look at the deal here:

The Parameters offered the Palestinians substantially more than the proposals made at Camp David, seemingly providing everything most observers thought would satisfy the Palestinians:[1]

- Creation of an independent Palestinian state with contiguity on 94-96% of the West Bank with additional compensation from a land swap with Israel of 1-3%, resulting in close to an equivalent 100% of the West Bank, and 100% of Gaza. The plan also called for a dedicated link between the West Bank and Gaza.
- Jerusalem divided under the principle that existing Arab areas would be Palestinian and Jewish ones Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well, which would thus be divided.
-Regarding the Temple Mount/Haram, the Parameters acknowledged that there were a number of formulations already discussed and Clinton suggested two more. The Parameters envisioned some form of control or sovereignty of the Temple Mount by the Palestinians, the Western Wall by Israel, and a shared arrangement under the Mount. The Parameters acknowledged that some of the formulations were more about the wording and less about day-to-day control.
-Palestine would be a non-militarized state, with certain security guarantees for Israel.
-On the issue of refugees and “Right of Return” the Palestinian refugees would not be able to “return” to locations inside Israel without Israeli approval, instead, they could return to the new State of Palestine. This formulation would be “consistent with the two-state approach…the State of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian People and the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.” Clinton referred to refugees returning to “historic Palestine,” but only to the portion comprising the new Palestinian state, to satisfy that the “Right of Return” had been met.
-End of conflict agreement that would end to all claims and satisfy all relevant U.N. resolutions.

Clinton asked each side for a yes or no response by December 27th. It was made clear that a “yes” meant agreement within the Parameters and that a non-response, a maybe, or acceptance outside the Parameters would all be considered rejections. Clinton presented the Parameters as take-it-or-leave it, and if not accepted, they would all be off the table once Clinton left office on January 20, 2001.

But notice one thing again, @schopenhauer1, this isn't either on the table with Bibi as the negotiations were held by Ehud Barak and the Labor party, which now isn't in power and is a very small party in the Knesset. Also after Clinton, there hasn't been this kind of intense activity by the US either. Then happened 9/11.

Hence that time has passed. And that window of opportunity passed. And it could have simply fallen later apart simply by the building of new settlements no matter what piece of paper was signed in America.

And now nearly a quarter of a century later, there are far more settlements in the West Bank.

But notice that Finland still has sovereign territory, even if the border is now just a few kilometers from my countryplace (which it wasn't for my grandparents before 1944). And all those Finns that lived in the annexed territories were relocated to other places in Finland. The conflict would totally different if there would have been a huge number of Finns that would have become Soviet citizens. — ssu

Not sure what you mean here.

this isn't either on the table with Bibi as the negotiations were held by Ehud Barak and the Labor party, which now isn't in power and is a very small party in the Knesset — ssu

Ah right, always goes back to Israel failing. I’ve already understood and addressed the shape of and pattern of your arguments.

Oh, and don’t forget Olmerts attempt in 2008 with Abbas!

https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-never-said-no-to-2008-peace-deal-says-former-pm-olmert/amp/

Not sure what you mean here. — schopenhauer1

Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc.

Ah right, always goes back to Israel failing. I’ve already understood and addressed the shape of and pattern of your arguments. — schopenhauer1

Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.

Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel).

And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions like:

UN Resolution 194

refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242)

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

UN Resolution 2253 (E-V)

Deeply concerned at the situation prevailing in Jerusalem as a result of the measures taken by Israel to change the status of the City,

1. Considers that these measures are invalid;

2. Calls upon Israel to rescind all measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking action which would alter the status of Jerusalem;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly and the Security Council on the situation and on the implementation of the present resolution not later than one week from its adoption.

UN Resolution 3414

Recognizing that peace is indivisible and that a just and lasting settlement of the question of the Middle East must be based on a comprehensive solution under the auspices of the United Nations, which takes into consideration all aspects of the Middle East conflict, including, in particular, the enjoyment by the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights, as well as the total withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967,

1. Reaffirms that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible and therefore all territories thus occupied must be returned;

2. Condemns Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories in violation of the Charter of the United nations, the principles of international law and repeated United Nations resolutions;

3. Requests all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people

...and there's more, but you get the drift.

Hence, when you have those above, Arafat or Abbas can also drag their feet. Above all, they have to consider what the response of their people will be. Actually both Sadat and Rabin assassinations (or the killing of Folke Bernadotte) show that peacemaking in the Middle East is far more lethal than being a hawk.

Meaning that the loss of territory isn't such a traumatic experience when you don't loose the people also. And you don't have families separated etc. — ssu

Again, I still am unsure what you're trying to say.

And one shouldn't forget c) there are a whole variety of UN Resolutions — ssu

Yes we mine as well. The UN is a shill for whoever wants to have some pseudo-body to back up their claims. Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all?

Well, I haven't understood why for you it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation. You haven't made that clear for me and answered that question.

Besides, just as it's easy for Israel to go with the de-facto situation, it's also easy for the Palestinian not to accept compromises. After all, there's a) Iran and b) Saudi-Arabia and other states, that basically still tow the line of the Arab league's 1967 decision from the Khartoum summit of the three no's (No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel). — ssu

I have already reiterated ways the Israelis tried to work with the Pals to make it NOT the de facto situation and have a two state solution, for which they always balked, hedged, and then refused. If your idea of compromise is all or nothing, then bad faith partner to do business with. This puts the liberals at a loss for an answer and a shift to the right as the left loses legitimacy for thinking they can negotiate, etc. etc. I am not saying I think it should go to the right because at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, but in a population with two sides, the inability of the one starts making them look inept, especially when coupled with the failed attempts for two states, terrorism ensues and it feels like you can never deal with anyone on the Pals side because the moderates won't play nice.

As you point out, you have bad state actors stoking the flames. Iran, for example. You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. You have a bunch of neighbors coming around to basically getting the Palestinians to move on and form a state rather than hold onto smoldering grudges that lead to bloodshed and instability. Hamas is a chaos agent. They don't want stability for their people. People (Israelis or their own) are simply pawns to be used for various short and long term gains. The long term gain will be gaining the sympathy from the leftists. It's working. The short term gain is that they show they can inflict damage and pyrric victory of gaining something from hostage negotiations. Meanwhile, they couldn't give a shit if that means more of their own people die by provoking a much more heavily armed neighbor that is known to fiercely attack anyone who provokes them. In other words, Hamas isn't about "winning" in any conventional sense. It is "winning" in the media sense. It is helping the objectives mainly of Iran and Islamists, and uses the European (and American) Left to aid this cause, as we see play out here.

Why don't you have UN Resolution 181 listed, the start of it all? — schopenhauer1

Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War.

You have actors like Qatar, Bahrain, etc. who have normalized relations with Israel. — schopenhauer1

Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations.

And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories.

Because afterwards there was a ceasefire line, which actually now even the Palestinians have in the negotiations accepted to be the starting point (not including Hamas, of course). And do note that the resolutions start with the borders prior to the Six Day War. — ssu

Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. Now it's just a useful reference for people who need to have an "objective body" to refer to. It's way past that in terms of its being "objective" or "useful". It clearly was never seen as the referee from the start.

Qatar hasn't normalized relations with Israel, it actually cut diplomatic and financial relations with Israel in 2009 (thanks to another war in Gaza). That's why Qatar is active in the negotiations. — ssu

Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. You could have just asked or mildly corrected that the UAE and Bahrain...Qatar obviously is on the mind because they are the ones who are handling negotiations.

And you haven't answered why it's ridiculous to talk about an occupation and occupied territories. — ssu

I think I did and asking to repeat good arguments is a fallacy of "ignoring the argument". Pretend it wasn't made and you make the person constant repeat himself. I'm not doing it.

at the end of the day, two states is the way to go, — schopenhauer1

Or perhaps the conclusion we should draw from the repeated failures is that the two states solution is not a good way to go about it.

It tends to focus the discussion on the "who gets what" and thus encourages the rehashing of old grievances and maximalist demands, rather than framing it in terms of the future cooperation of jews and muslims.

US warns that Israel risks ‘strategic defeat’ unless it protects civilians in Gaza (Financial Times, 2023)

As expected, Israel throwing all caution and humanity by the wayside in pursuit of a punitive campaign and possibly other, even less savory goals will likely come back to bite it.


What Israel needs to do to win is murder or displace two and a half million people. All Hamas needs to do to win is survive.

I've heard several analysts state they believe Israel has barely managed to scratch Hamas' foothold in Gaza.

It makes you wonder what the brigade of US and European stooges were thinking when they gave Israel carte blanche to go to town on the civilian population in Gaza. Fools in charge in Israel, fools in charge in the White House, fools in charge in Brussels - this is what you get.

The small bit of good news; Netanyahu is finished.

Again, the UN lost the thread of the narrative after the Arab nations (how many was it?) attacked and lost to destroying the notion of an independent "Zionist" (Jewish) state. So I'm sorry, but anything else after that is just token gestures as the game played on without them. — schopenhauer1

Well, forget then the UN. But a lot of countries do not simply kick out that 'rules based order', so forgive me if I, just as in the case of Ukraine,hold up this kind of "nonsense" of a rules based order. But for consistency, then one should never then refer to international laws or anything like that. Just picking up them when it's suits your position is inconsistent... or basically just propaganda. (Like, uh, some countries do...)

Oh god, sorry, the nations involved in the Abraham Accords. Don't use an inconsequential error (mentioned wrong normalized Arab country) for an error in the argument. C'mon man.. — schopenhauer1

Just to correct a small mistake in order that the discussion gets things right. It's actually crucial to get the real picture. Even if Qatar is a tiny nation, it has a lot bigger role in the Middle East.

Qatar is a key financial backer and ally of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas. Qatar has transferred more than $1.8 billion to Hamas. In 2012, Qatar hosted the Hamas party leadership when Hamas head Khaled Meshal relocated from Syria to Qatar. The current head of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, has resided in Doha since 2016. Qatar has been called Hamas' most important financial backer and foreign ally.

Hence Qatar isn't some 'whatever state' in the Gulf to this conflict. But notice as Qatar has a key US base, Al Udeid Air base, which also the Royal Air Force uses, this aid to Hamas hasn't been on the (natural?) target list of the US and made Qatar part of the 'axis-of-evil' or whatever.



That Qatari has an independent foreign policy that basically burns the candle at both ends seems to spreading. Perfect example was Pakistan. It acted as it was an ally in the War on Terror, yet then held Osama Bin Laden at a military city, then assisted the Taleban and lastly assisted the Taleban to take over Afghanistan. And there are no sanctions against Pakistan and it's not depicted as an "rogue nation". Great victory for Pakistan!



Same thing happening with Saudi-Arabia. The gradual loss of US leadership in the Middle East is happening as nobody fears China as they did fear the Soviet Union and Soviet influence.

The true reason why Israel could never be a true democracy is because say in 1948 it establishes itself, then the population already living there would have ruled through democratic majority. — Vaskane

Indeed. Even if the inflow from Russia and Eastern Europe after the Cold War ended helped the Jewish demographics. That's why drawing the borders in an ethnic/religious style gerrymandering would be so important. If someone would really think the two-state solution is possible now or in the future.

Usually when countries annex territories with people of different ethnicity, they use the age old strategy of cultural assimilation (if genocide is out of the question), first to get rid of the previous language and previous culture. Cultural assimilation has happened quite a lot a smaller people or ethnic groups do have de facto disappeared. Even if people trace their ancestry back to these people, they will talk the language and have the customs

And that above just tells how this isn't at all an answer here: Palestinians are of different religion (being Muslim and Christian) and the Jewish don't do much missionary work. And when the whole idea of the state of Israel is a 'homeland for the Jews', then all that multicultural fluff goes out of the window anyway. And as for the Palestinians the option of being 'Israeli' is doubtful as they already live under separate laws from the Jewish people living in the West Bank, then all they have is the Nakba-centered identity of Palestine. "Moving on" would mean the death of being Palestinian. You can then be part of these people that are spread out around the world and basically won't have an own nation. Be then like the Circassians or the Rohingya.

I've already stated more than a few times on the thread what I think Israel must do to end the status quo of oppression: — 180 Proof

All right, let's see - your references:

Both are to blame for reciprocating atrocities but, between oppressor and oppressed, who can be responsible for the cessation of oppression? And, therefore, who is ultimately to blame for not fulfilling that responsibility? — 180 Proof

No doubt - no contest - some on both sides have done some bad things. But does that make them equal? Or if unequal, who is the categorical oppressor? Don't be confused here: my issue is with your characterizations and the faults I find therein. Turning this ground or clearing it won't itself lead to any solutions, but may seal off some of the rabbit holes and traps some fall into. The "elephant" - so to speak - is the unrelenting hostility of Israel's neighbors; just as similarly the US elephant is some 400 years of unrelenting racial discrimination. And I have discussed this subject with a several people of African descent, and they all come close to agreement on this assessment: To be African is a fine thing. To be of African descent is a fine thing. To be an America of African descent puts such a person at risk of a kind of disease, namely just that of being an American of African descent. I leave to you your assessment of this conclusion, but I buy the notion that the US will not be put right on race until - and unless - as Lincoln expressed,

"Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

Or so many children of mixed race born that no one cares anymore. Maybe another 5 - 10 generations? In any case, what I call the "bookkeeping" is itself truth, and debts to the truth are paid sooner or later, one way or another.

The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, had agreed on the term and need for the State of Israel to end the "occupation" (i.e. occupiers, by definition, are oppressors). — 180 Proof

I am under the impression that occupation did end, but that Arafat had zero interest in peace - am I wrong? And I do not agree that occupiers are by definition oppressors. Can be, obviously, but not necessarily.

and Palestinians nothing to lose by fighting apartheid repression and imperialist colonization by any means necessary. — 180 Proof

Well, they can die, and they seem not to like that so much, when it's their turn to do it.

"Peace" (i.e. win-win conflict resolution) is Israel's choice alone because it is the master; absent that, the Palestinians have no choice but that of the slave: death by war or death by subjugation. Who here denies that if s/he were a member of a Palestinian community & family subjugated under decades of Israelis Occupation you would choose war? — 180 Proof

Israel the master? Of what? And occupation by whom, exactly? Are you forgetting Hamas and its precursors? Oppression of Gaza would seem to be nothing less than Hamas et al claiming that Palestinians are oppressed because the Israelis try to protect themselves from being murdered in their beds, in their sleep, in their buses and restaurants, on their streets, in their schools, wherever, whenever found.

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for their means and methods of resistance, he must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. Until then, the logic of oppression entails that there cannot be "innocents" in the oppressor's camp, especially in so far as the oppressor tactically discounts them – his own noncombatant civilians – as potentially "acceptable losses", that is, the necessary cost of maintaining his stratagem of oppression. In order to survive, the oppressed must resist – always have and always will – by any means necessary. (Foot's on his neck, certainly that's what the oppressor would do – what everyone's ancestors at some time or another have done!) So if any oppressor-state is serious about stopping "terrorism", that oppressor-state should begin by giving up its own policies of state-terrorism and military-economic support for client/proxy-terrorism. — 180 Proof

To this, in sum, your bookkeeping is incomplete, skewed, wrong. And until you get it right, your comments are mere rant. If you like - Or if you don't - the Israelis at the moment are just exactly what their oppressors have made them! So you need to check your understanding of history to see who the oppressors are - and the meaning of the word itself.

tim wood, the crack'd bell fuckin' tolls for thee. Choose! "The banality" – silence / acquiescence / indifference – of "the good people" is, in fact, always the clear and present atrocity. Do you believe Gandhi, King, X, Mandela, Tutu, Wiesel, ... Ho Chi Mihn ... are wrong? :brow: — 180 Proof

Indeed it does (and I credit you with having read all of #17). To my way of thinking it summons truth, not to be confused with untruth, non-truth, partial truth, lies, propaganda. And that is what I call you to. My proposition being that the Palestinians, to use your terminology, are f***ed first by themselves, and then in order by those who "represent" them and then their "friends." And I suspect that their real friends, whom so far they and others insure that they cannot enjoy as friends, are just the Israelis themselves. And not the least reason being that the Israelis generally prefer to leave them alone except when due to extreme provocation, they cannot afford to, which turns out to be most of the time.

You make a few unwarranted assumptions about my rather conventional observations as well as me personally, tim, which reeks of special pleading and gassy ad hominems. :mask: — 180 Proof

Speaking of which....

And that's the bitch about accounting: either you start from the beginning and track all of the mistakes, or you write them off and start anew. The first can be mind-bending, and the second with problems of its own. Whichever, but unless done well, not worth doing at all. So what history do you want? Complete? Or blank slate?

If you reply, try to be both brief and substantive, else I cannot keep up with you.

I cannot keep up with you. — tim wood

No doubt.

Educate yourself.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/856307

addendum:

Neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Israel, like (e.g.) R. Luxemburg, S. Freud, A. Einstein, E. Fromm, P. Levi Marek Edelman, I. Asimov, H. Arendt, I.F. Stone, N. Chomsky, H. Siegman, M. Lerner, R. Falk, T. Judt et al, I am also anti-zionist (i.e. anti-ethnonationalist).

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-ground-forces-operating-across-gaza-strip-offensive-builds-2023-12-04/

Intense Israeli air strikes hit the south of the Gaza Strip on Monday, killing and wounding dozens of Palestinians, including in areas where Israel had told people to seek shelter, residents and journalists on the ground said.

Well that's pretty fucking terrible.

Defense secretary James Austin nailing it:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YOU3S52V3y4

Of course the biggest threat, even if it's a remote possibility, is that even the 'nice' neighbors get upset with Israel. Turkey's Erdogan meeting with GCC members. NATO member Turkey (or is it Türkiye?) isn't a member of the GCC, but it is telling that the Muslim states in the region are now meeting on the issue.

Erdogan speaks about Gaza (and later Syria): "Netanyahu is gambling with the future of the whole region". Erdogan also says that "Israel must to be penalized for war crimes" 4:32-8:39:



And quite telling is this reaction in the Egyptian Parliament:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/exclusive-voice-of-america-reverses-policy-against-calling-hamas-terrorists/

Good for VOA.

"The authoritarian and highly centralized presidential government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has set back Turkey’s human rights record by decades, targeting perceived government critics and political opponents, profoundly undermining the independence of the judiciary, and hollowing out democratic institutions."
https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/turkey

Dickheads can still be right sometimes.