dehumanises the victims and is actively hostile to their human dignity — Punshhh

Hasn't this been the MO of colonialism, historically? It sort of gives hte space to behave in colonial ways. But, you're right that its at least a somewhat shallow call to make.

This is clearly ethnic cleansing and is open to the charge of genocide. — Punshhh

In my, pale, but above-popular legal opinion, it would very, very, VERY hard to collate enough anecdote and journalism to confirm details that would rise to a Genocide charge at hte current moment. But, as i noted, I'm not across all the data and whatnot it just seems obviously wrong for a judicial body to take what seems to constitute evidence among the masses as evidence for a case.

https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Nederland-moet-de-uitvoer-van-F-35-onderdelen-naar-Israel-stoppen.aspx

Dutch higher court rules the Netherlands must stop weapons delivery to Israel due to the high likelihood they are used for crimes against humanity and such deliveries breach several international treaties. A win for Oxfam Novib and The Rights Forum.

he reason why I focused on the Palestinians is just because you seemed to question my views and suggest that Palestinians would opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck. — neomac

I think the misunderstandings are mutual: my point is that ordinary people would opt for peace, stability and prosperity if that chance would exist. It doesn’t. — ssu

If your point is just about making a generic optimistic claim based on a counterfactual (indeed, THEY HAD THE CHANCE, unless by “if that chance would exist” you refer to “no prior historical grievances” and “no prior ethnic violent clashes” which are counterfactuals), I may sympathise but I don’t find it particularly enlightening.

It is a fact that historical grievances on the Arab/Palestinian part prevailed against the UN resolution which Israel accepted. — neomac

It is a fact that Israel doesn't accept a huge number of UN resolutions, even Security Council resolutions, so what is your point? — ssu

My point is that, up until now, the BEST CHANCE for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be resolved in the best interest of both and on their own initiative was at the end of the British mandate, because, later on, the historical grievances THEY BOTH had at the end of the British mandate just kept badly growing on BOTH SIDES.

Question: is there are reason why this thread nor the thread about Ukraine do not seem to appear in https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions ? Is it happening only to me?

It’s not just you. I couldn’t find the climate change thread earlier. I went via my comments.

due to the lack of philosophical content in some threads we've opted to move them to the lounge to focus the front page more on philosophy.

My point is that, up until now, the BEST CHANCE for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be resolved in the best interest of both and on their own initiative was at the end of the British mandate, because, later on, the historical grievances THEY BOTH had at the end of the British mandate just kept badly growing on BOTH SIDES. — neomac

Well, then indeed you paint a very bleak picture...if that chance then was the best.

And as I said, during that time it wasn't only the Palestinians (the non-Jews living in Mandate Palestine, if for some Palestinians don't exist). Don't forget all the neighbors who wanted a piece of the land for themselves too.

Does that mean that I’m a lounge lizard?

Don't forget all the neighbors who wanted a piece of the land for themselves too. — ssu

Nor that Arab neighbors fear Hamas hiding among Palestinians (who cares about the Ummah!):
https://allarab.news/egyptian-president-el-sisi-evacuation-of-palestinians-to-sinai-means-dragging-egypt-into-war-against-israel/
Welcoming 1.5M desperate brother Palestinian refugees is WORSE than going to war with Israel, go figure!

Welcoming 1.5M desperate brother Palestinian refugees is WORSE than going to war with Israel, go figure! — neomac

With refugees, like the millions of Ukrainians in Europe, there's still this idea that they return back once the war or crisis is over. That's the whole reason why Poles and others accepted Ukrainian refugee...especially when the men of warfighting age stayed in Ukraine. But here there would not be any return. Actually Egypt taking them would be seen quite clearly as helping the Netanyahu government in it's ethnic cleansing... sorry, "voluntary moving". Not only the Egyptians know this, also the Palestinians themselves understand this. In 1948 they didn't and the idea was to come back once the war is over.

I think the Egyptian president makes it quite clear in the article:

El-Sisi said Egypt was concerned about Hamas elements launching attacks on Israel from the Sinai.

“We do not want Sinai to become a base for launching terrorist attacks against Israel,” he stated.

“The uprooting of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt will lead to the uprooting of Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan,” el-Sisi claimed. “We reject the uprooting of Palestinians from their land. What is happening now in Gaza is an attempt to push civilians to seek refuge and emigrate to Egypt.”

They sound compelling reasons from an Egyptian perspective, yet they do not add up with the Ummah or humanitarian concerns (even Zionists claim Israel to be home to all persecuted Jews, then why isn't the Arab Ummah home to all persecuted Muslism arabs in Gaza? Why isn't Russia home to all persecuted ethnic-Russians in Donbas/Crimea? They both have LOTS of land they can use to host refugees) and confirm Israel's views on Hamas hiding among Palestinians as a major security threat hard to eradicate from the Gaza community itself and challenging also Arab regimes, not only Israel.

Even if Hamas declared that it isn't interested in politics of other nations, naturally an organization that has very close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood isn't viewed friendly by a President that came to power in a coup deposing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt. Even if Sisi won democratic elections just short time ago, I think this reality hasn't been forgotten.

And even if the Arab States have the Arab league and other international Muslim organizations where the Muslim countries cooperate, the Arab countries are far from being an effective group as the EU is. The EU even with Orban's Hungary. Case example is Libya and how "allies" somehow ended up backing different sides. Or then the rift between Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, which nearly went to war yet still being on the same Gulf Cooperation Council, which fought alongside the US and allies to liberate Kuwait. When you don't have democracy grounded in institutions, then military coups, self-coups or physical violence is not only something theoretical.

Hence the instability isn't just due to the Palestinian (and the Kurdish) issue.

And this is fine with Israel. The last thing they would want is to deal with neighbors speaking with one voice. In fact I guess that Netanyahu wouldn't mind if all were failed states and in civil war like Syria.

Jordan's king in the White House yesterday:



According to some news agency, some Egyptian forces have been deployed to the Sinai. 40 tanks means a tank battalion reinforced with mechanized troops.

(REUTERS) Egypt has sent about 40 tanks and armoured personnel carriers to north-eastern Sinai within the past two weeks as part of a series of measures to bolster security on its border with Gaza, two Egyptian security sources said, Reuters reports.

The deployment took place ahead of the expansion of Israeli military operations around Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, where much of its population has sought safety, sharpening Egyptian fears that Palestinians could be forced en masse out of the enclave.

a President that came to power in a coup deposing the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt. — ssu

And this is fine with Israel. The last thing they would want is to deal with neighbors speaking with one voice. — ssu

Tell me more about Panarabist and Muslim Brotherhood's grievances, I too miss caliphates, jihadism, and sharia so badly, bro.

the instability isn't just due to the Palestinian — ssu

Reason why I never made such a claim. I take the clusterfuck of international relations in general and the middle east in particular for what it is. And part of this clusterfuck is that the fate of Hamas and Palestinians (at least from Gaza) looks as tightly joint as repellent EVEN to other Muslim Arab leaders.

So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land?

I do think there's a humanitarian obligation on surrounding nations to accept refugees BUT not being stupid I would demand iron clad treaties with both Israel and the US on a right of return for all civilians before I'd do so. If we're going to insist on the application of humanitarian law, it should be universal.

Tell me more about Panarabist and Muslim Brotherhood's grievances, I too miss caliphates, jihadism, and sharia so badly, bro. — neomac

Muslim Brotherhood's lowest point came when their assassin tried to shoot Nasser from a short range, emptied his pistol and MISSED! Nasser just stood and continued his speech. So there's the start of the grievances between the brotherhood and the Egyptian military. At the start the Muslim Brotherhood had supported Nasser. Some say this was a conspiracy, but likely it was real (hence not a good assassin). And of course the islamists were more successful with the successor President, general Anwar Sadat, who made peace with Israel and thus was killed in a military parade. That terrorist group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, actually merged with Al-Qaeda. It just shows how deadly is peacemaking to Middle Eastern politicians.



Yet you should start with the history of Pan-Arabism, if you aren't familiar with it. Especially when Syria and Egypt became one country. Unfortunately Nasser fucked it up pretty quickly, even if there was genuine grass roots support for "United Arab Republic". Didn't take long that the Syrians revolted and the Egyptians to be forced out of Syria. Yet it does remind that Pan-Arabism was a quite serious movement. It's very interesting part of history.

Nasser in Damascus in front of an enthusiastic crowd:

In fact, the failure of secular Pan-Arabism, especially after the Six Day War, is a result why the turning to islamism in the long run in the area. Also 1967 is very crucial to the US-Israeli relations.

↪neomac
So your argument is what exactly? Israel gets to commit war crimes with the intent to steal the land while there's a humanitarian obligation on Egypt to take in Palestinian refugees to allow Israel to steal the land? — Benkei

My argument is that "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" are framing notions more relevant to your understanding of the problem than to Israel, Egypt, Palestinians' understanding of the problem. Reason why, I suspect, "commit war crimes", "steal the land", "humanitarian obligation" haven't helped much fix this tragedy on their own initiative.

So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars?

I think, from spending time in both Muslim and devout Christian communities, I think 'righteousness' is a more apt motivator.

So you believe concepts of justice do not motivate these people? You think there's no Islamic theory for just wars? — Benkei

I do believe that Palestinians can sincerely be motivated by their understanding of justice and just war. But I doubt that, deep down, international law, war crimes, humanitarian concerns play a significant role in shaping such motivations. That is true also for Israel.
Roughly speaking, I think one could get closer to their understanding of their predicament, by comparison to nation state formations in Europe, which looked pretty bloody and genocidal. For many Western countries, such wars belong to a remote past, so they can more confidently talk about international order in terms of a “society of states” which can decide policies even based on things such as “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. For Israel and Palestine the situation isn’t exactly the same since these state-formation wars still belong very much to their present and possibly to their future.
Besides, one may be tempted to see this conflict as an updated version of the historical conflicts between Jews and Arabs from Biblical/Koranic times through a more modern notion of “nation state”. But I think there are some nuances we shouldn’t discount: indeed, while in the case of Israel the diaspora of the Jews in the West has managed to absorb a good amount of secularism and to learn how to effectively play the Western system from within (reason why the Israelis could afford to play the villain role until now), in the case of Palestine, Hamas is just a form of backsliding to Islamism and pan-Arabism (so Western antagonists) where political models are mainly caliphates with their sharia or pre-Islamic tribalism (which still coexist with Islami). So, one should keep in mind that a good part of the Palestinian cultural habitat are things like retaliation in kind (like blood revenge, or Qisas), kin/collective punishments (see the massacres against Christians and takfiris still very trendy), jihadism, dhimmification, etc. way more than “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”. That’s why the notions of justice and just wars that resonate in Palestinians’ hearts may more likely sound something like this:
“Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam”
“It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror.”
“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Now, one may feel tempted to think that even if Palestinians and Israelis haven’t developed the necessary political mindset (based on “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights”) to fix their beef on their own from the inside peacefully, then the external international order of the Masters of the Universe can enforce a solution according to such political mindset. Unfortunately, as far as I understand it, even the outside international order of the Masters of the Universe doesn’t reason in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” deep down. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind. To conclude, I’m less sure about who will win between Israel and Hamas, than that “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” political mindset could likely lose anyways. And I’d welcome anybody at any moment who would prove me wrong.

I would demand iron clad treaties with both Israel and the US on a right of return for all civilians before I'd do so.

It’s gone beyond that now. Israel has become a pariah state. They can’t be trusted to adhere to treaties.

Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind.

Yes there is a mystification, it’s not intentional though. It’s a cultural clash, between Western values and Arabic values. The power brokers in the region, on the one hand and the U.S. (taking Israel out of this equation) on the other, do understand each other, can negotiate and reach agreement which is honoured by both sides.

The fly in the ointment is Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians. Egypt and Jordan have an understanding with the U.S. and the power brokers in the region. They are not involved in this.

If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s. Blame can’t be put on the Palestinians, they are an occupied, oppressed population, of which Hamas is a symptom. If we are going to find a solution to this it is going to be in the minds of the Israeli people and the diaspora which lives in the West and holds Western values.

Israel is an adolescent outpost of the west in and surrounded by the Middle East.

I understand it, even the outside international order of the Masters of the Universe doesn’t reason in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” deep down. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of “humanitarian concerns”, “international laws”, “war crimes”, “equal rights” to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind. — neomac

Yes, why should we care about international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns? All meaningless mystification! Why would we care about these issues when it comes to be the war in Ukraine or in Gaza? Silly nonsense, noble mystification.

Ahhh...the argument of it's all realpolitik, baby.

If there's real mystification, it's the idea of "Israel being the Holy Land", "Judeo-Christian heritage", or Israel being some kind of bulwark of Western values and defender of the West. As I've repeated over and over again, for Evangelists the support of Israel is a matter of faith. Isn't that mystification? The Muslims surely have similar bullshit mystification too. And even more mystification is all the crap importance that three religions put to Jerusalem. It makes the beautiful old city actually repulsive as the people that give it special importance to it (or who in history have wanted to build a new one) are repulsive themselves.

Man, this asinine, devilish, death spectacle is interminable, and Netanyahu wants it so, that he may stay in power.

But at this specific point, I would guess - without evidence, which can be dismissed without evidence - that there won't be a wider fight with Hezbollah.

I think it would have happened by now. But who knows? And Biden is still not phoning Netanyahu to tell him this is over. Gross.

that there won't be a wider fight with Hezbollah. — Manuel

Has it been peaceful in Southern Lebanon? I don't think so.



I still hold that they will go to war with Hezbollah. Because it has started already in slow burner. Perhaps after the Rafah operation.

The enlargement of this war seems to be like how the media and the politicians treat an economic depression. First there's the denial the everything is OK. Then it's just a temporary hickup.
And finally when the politicians admit that it's a economic depression, well, they don't have to admit it because everybody knows it and it has been on for years. They'll start to talk about it as old news.

No of course not. It's been far from peaceful, but it's also been (relatively) contained for a long time.

The issue then is, can the Israeli economy, and the Israeli's themselves (the citizens) be able to sustain an in-depth fight with Hezbollah?

Last time it did not go Israel's way, despite the heavy losses for Lebanon.

If they can't beat Hamas - which they can't. How can they beat Hezbollah?

Of course, they could start the full scale war in a week or whenever, that can happen for sure. But it will hurt them, and war fatigue is a thing, especially for a small country like them. This Gaza situation is much, much longer than what they usually take for "wars" (this is no war, it's a total massacre).

It is horrific and for citizens in the West, very disconcerting. Because our so called just, compassionate, fair nations are complicit, or have their hands tied and we just have to all sit and watch while a pariah state runs amuck with extremists at the helm.

If we distill the issue down to its root cause, we find there is a problem in the psyche of the Israeli’s. — Punshhh

Do you seriously mean that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has just ONE “root cause”?
And why isn’t the “root cause” in the psyche of the Arabs and the Muslims?
Notice that the persecution/oppression in the West by Christians and in the Middle-east by Arabs and Muslims (the prophet Mohammad) lasted for centuries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
Jews have been forcefully expelled or fled from the Middle East (not only from the West):
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/the-expulsion-of-jews-from-arab-countries-and-iran--an-untold-history
Half Israel is claimed to be constituted by Jews who were expelled or fled from the Middle East:
https://www.oneforisrael.org/holidays/special-days-in-israel/half-israels-jews-came-muslim-countries/

Blame can’t be put on the Palestinians, they are an occupied, oppressed population, of which Hamas is a symptom. — Punshhh

Are you suggesting that blame should be put on the Israelis because they are the oppressor? But if there is a collective blame, shouldn’t there be also collective punishment? And if you can blame the Israelis as the oppressor, why can’t the Israelis blame the Muslims/Arabs (including the Palestinians) as the oppressors which they are defending themselves from?
Hamas can be a symptom of oppressed Palestinians as much as a symptom of oppressive Islam.
Even nazism can be an expression of oppressed Germans or oppressed Ukrainians.
And what about Netanyahu being expression of oppressed Jews in the West and in the Middle East for centuries?
What’s the point of questioning people’s copying/survival mechanism against traumas when the reasons of the traumas are still there and keep being brutally threatening them? How can the West address Israel’s security concerns when it fails to address its own security concerns or it disengages from policing the World theatre?
Talking of collective blame is a political burden and it’s a source of mystifications on its own (e.g. even if there is NOTHING intrinsically antisemite in criticising Netanyahu’s measures in Gaza, yet BOTH antisemite and non antisemite can make the same accusations, even if there is NOTHING intrinsically anti-zionist in having a Palestinian nation-state, yet BOTH anti-zionist and supporters of the Israeli Nation-State can support a Palestinian nation-state).
I have no problems to understand that the current horror show in Gaza has been decided by the democratically elected most right wing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. And that this has to stop for all those who prioritize humanitarian concerns over whatever REASONS AND CONSEQUENCES. Still, my doubts rest on the conditions and reasons internal to Israel and external to Israel that enabled this horror show to happen and the consequences that may ensue once this horror show is over, especially if they are going to affect us in the West.

If we are going to find a solution to this it is going to be in the minds of the Israeli people and the diaspora which lives in the West and holds Western values. — Punshhh

Then it’s not really “we” who are finding a solution but the Jews who hold Western values. And why not in the Arabs who hold Western values or must embrace Western values?

Israel is an adolescent outpost of the west. — Punshhh

Which may be more scared and senile than wise. Besides, I wouldn't forget that the US, the promising broker of peace in the Middle East, is a country born through colonisation of foreign lands plus genocide/ethnic cleansing of the native American people, and that enough of them got rich also by practicing slavery over African people. Besides the US reached its current political status after a war of independence, civil war, involvement in world wars, including very controversial proxy wars and wars on terror in the Middle East. Not least, the US is also the main historical supporter of Israel, so it is supposed to share responsibilities for the historical oppression of the Palestinians. Now, are you really 100% sure that by brokering peace and given Hamas its nation-state the middle-eastern narrative of the American imperialism will stop? That they are going to wake up next day as "civilised" Western people devoted to prosperity, stability and peace? And all past “mistakes” will be forgotten, if not forgiven? What do you think the implications for other major players in the region, like the Saudis and Iran, would be? What will the Americans allies (like Taiwan under the threat of China) think of it? Will the Western enemies of Western imperialism stop whining about Western imperialism or will they continue anyways?

Yes, why should we care about international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns? All meaningless mystification! Why would we care about these issues when it comes to be the war in Ukraine or in Gaza? Silly nonsense, noble mystification.

Ahhh...the argument of it's all realpolitik, baby. — ssu

What I literally wrote is: “framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ to obfuscate the above considerations is kind of a noble mystification, to be kind”.
In other words, people have a history and historical grievances which may matter very much to them and shape their political identities. The Westerners may have forgotten their colonialist pasts, the ex-colonies didn’t forget it though. As much as Eastern European countries didn’t forget Russian imperialism. And Israelis didn’t forget the persecution and the oppression they have suffered for centuries in the West and in the Middle-East.
My realistic (more than realpolitik?) assumption is that literally nobody can uproot oneself from historical legacies and power struggles in the making of human history: so if there is room for ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’, there is a compelling reason to believe this will eventually happen ALSO or EVEN MAINLY through blood and coercion more likely than through exclusively diplomacy or economic sanctions, as a peaceful Europe (= a Europe which gave up on security-driven hegemonic ambitions) was made through War religions, colonialism and 2 WWs, a Cold wars’ proxy wars and the dominance/acceptance of the American hegemony (which means American military presence in Europe, economic dependency from the US, persecution/banning/suppression of past undesirable political elites and movements, and re-education of the entire population over generations). But what’s worse is that we are in a backsliding phase where the “peaceful” West is losing grip over its conditions of survival under the pressure of a growing anti-Western forces from the outside and democratic crisis from within (the two trends can reinforce one another). So the power balance is dangerously tilting against the West. In this case, the issue is that far from spreading the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns the West is risking to lose support in the West too or make itself vulnerable to hostile forces which reject the culture of international law, war crimes, equal rights and humanitarian concerns. Anyways, in this very uncertain and dangerous predicament we have to pick a side on our choosing if we don’t want others to choose it for us.

If there's real mystification, it's the idea of "Israel being the Holy Land", "Judeo-Christian heritage", or Israel being some kind of bulwark of Western values and defender of the West. As I've repeated over and over again, for Evangelists the support of Israel is a matter of faith. Isn't that mystification? The Muslims surely have similar bullshit mystification too. And even more mystification is all the crap importance that three religions put to Jerusalem. It makes the beautiful old city actually repulsive as the people that give it special importance to it (or who in history have wanted to build a new one) are repulsive themselves. — ssu

Still world population’s beliefs, feelings, experiences seem shaped by other faiths way more deeply and reciprocally than by the faith in ‘humanitarian concerns', ‘international laws’, ‘war crimes’, ‘equal rights’ which concerns more a privileged minority of the world population which is less and less influential. Don’t they?