If the 17th century African's rebelled; escaped in large numbers from a plantation, and massacred the white civilians occupying their and nearby plantations, would we call that Terrorist today? — ENOAH

It depends. Suppose you have plantation slaves that revolt and massacre the plantation family, kids and all. After all, the kids will surely run to the next plantation and sound the alarm. I think the slaves would be morally justified in doing that.

Now suppose the slaves have made good their escape and travelled to an island and set up a local community. In this community, women are forced to wear burqas. They have to be escorted by men everywhere they go. They are horrifically abused by their husbands and often acid is thrown in their faces. Their marriages are arranged. They're de facto slaves of the men.

Now, I'm thinking, "You killed that plantation family for this??? You men are as bad as the slave owners! The women would have been justified in killing the plantation family AND you male slaves."

And that's how I view the Mideast countries. A bunch of misogynistic theocratic assholes. Israel should roll through the entire region and clear out the whole rat's nest.

Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all.

Ok. Not the point I was trying to make. I'll accept responsibility for my failure in communication. But yours is well understood. No need for peaceful resolution, you say. Just kill them all. — ENOAH

Not at all. We didn't kill all Germans in WW2. We didn't kill all Japanese. We killed enough to accomplish our goals. Likewise, Israel doesn't have to kill all Palestinians.

Ok, great. You're not advocating for genocide. Which countries in the middle east force women to wear burqas, force them to be escorted by men and are abused by their husbands, by the way? I mean, if that, as you cited, is a good reason for Israel to clear out the rat's nest. Do the North African countries do that? Does Syria, Lebanon, does Occupied Palestine? Jordan? Iraq? Are burqas legally required in these countries? Is abusing wives condoned in these countries? Are there laws in these countries requiring women to be escorted by men? I mean, excluding the gulf states, which, besides Iran, also do not legally enforce burqas/hijabs, these are the countries that make up the Middle East. Maybe you've indirectly advanced the point I was trying to make. Careful use of Language is a constructive path to resolution. Careless language is either ignorantly unhelpful, or simply a deliberate weapon for further destruction.

"Despite some reforms, authorities continue to implement a male guardianship system requiring women to obtain male guardian permission to get married, leave prison, or obtain some forms of sexual and reproductive healthcare. Husbands reportedly can withhold consent if a woman seeks higher education abroad.

In March, Saudi lawmakers passed the country’s first codified personal status law. However, despite Saudi authorities’ promises for a “comprehensive” and “progressive” personal status law, the law entrenches discriminatory provisions on women in marriage, divorce, inheritance, and decisions relating to children. Rather than dismantling it, the law instead codifies male guardianship and sets out provisions that can facilitate and excuse domestic violence including sexual abuse in marriage.

Women are required to have their male guardian’s permission in order to marry. Once married, women are required to then obey their husbands in a “reasonable manner.” Articles 42 and 55 together state a husband’s financial support is specifically made contingent on a wife’s “obedience” to the husband, and she can lose her right to such support if she refuses without a “legitimate excuse” to have sex with him, move to or live in the marital home, or travel with him. Article 42(3) states that neither spouse may abstain from sexual relations or cohabitation with the other without the other spouse’s consent, implying a marital right to intercourse.

Article 9 declares the legal age of marriage as 18 but allows courts to authorize the marriage of a child under 18 if they have reached puberty and if it can be proved that the marriage provides an “established benefit” to the child.

While men can unilaterally divorce women, women can only petition a court to dissolve their marriage contract on limited grounds and must “establish harm” as a prerequisite. The law does not specify what constitutes “harm” or what evidence can be submitted to support a case, leaving room for judges’ discretion in interpretation and enforcement.

Elements of the male guardianship system that remain in practice can prevent a divorced woman from financial independence. For example, a man can funnel post-divorce financial support payments to his ex-wife through her male relative if she lives with her family post-divorce, denying her direct access to the payments.

Under the Saudi Personal Status Law, fathers are the default guardians of their children. Even if the authorities order the children to live with their mothers, women have limited authority over their children’s lives and cannot act as guardians of children unless a court appoints them. The 2016 and 2019 legal amendments allowing mothers with primary custody of their children to apply for passports, provide travel permission, and obtain important documents for their children without a male guardian are seemingly inconsistently applied."
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/saudi-arabia

I would have no problem with Israel enforcing regime change on a country like that and turning it into a democracy that respects women and LGBTQ.

Ok. I don't wish to argue that all of the middle east shares our western values. But you have provided info on Saudi Arabia. A state by the way, both the west and Israel are eager to make friends with. That does not tell us that the entire middle east is the same. Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit.

But truly, I get your perspective, even respect and share your contempt for sexism etc.

I'm just saying. . .

Millions of Evangelical votes? Do you have any compelling evidence that millions of Evangelicals would vote for Biden, if only Biden let Netanyahu do whatever he wants in Gaza? — neomac

Naturally most of the vote for Trump, of course, but notice that the Israeli lobby is so powerful in both parties. And isn't Bibi just waiting for Trump to arrive?

And it's going to be even worse when Israel attacks Lebanon. — ssu

I never discounted the pro-Israeli lobby. The point however is that the opposition to the pro-Israeli lobby (roughly, Evangelicals + Jewish lobby) is growing in potential votes and donations [1], and it could grow even further if Israel attacks Lebanon. So the power of, at least, the pro-democratic Jewish lobby over Biden, may not suffice to motivate Biden to support Israel unconditionally. On the other side, Iranian proxies in the middle-east and Russia in Ukraine keep challenging the US so the US needs to contain them without overstretching. That's why I think Biden's attitude toward Israel in its current predicament may very much be conditional on his understanding of how Israel can serve the American strategic interests in the middle east, before and after the elections.


[1]
Progressive Democrats break fundraising records in election fight against pro-Israel PACs
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/progressive-democrats-break-fundraising-records-in-election-fight-against-pro-israel-pacs

Why Many Blacks Turn on Biden Over Palestine - International Viewpoint
https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article8392

Half of US adults say Israel has gone too far in war in Gaza, AP-NORC poll shows
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/24/americans-believe-israel-committing-genocide-poll

Nor that Palestinians, if given self determination would follow suit. — ENOAH

And yet
Islamism in the Gaza Strip
Islamism in the Gaza Strip involves efforts to promote and impose Islamic laws and traditions in the Gaza Strip. The influence of Islamic groups in the Gaza Strip has grown since the 1980s. Following Hamas' victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections and a conflict with supporters of the rival Fatah party, Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip,[1][2][3] and declared the "end of secularism and heresy in the Gaza Strip".[4] For the first time since the Sudanese coup of 1989 that brought Omar al-Bashir to power, a Muslim Brotherhood group rules a significant geographic territory.[5] Gaza human-rights groups accuse Hamas of restricting many freedoms.[2]

Ismael Haniyeh officially denied[when?] accusations that Hamas intended to establish an Islamic emirate.[5] However, Jonathan Schanzer wrote that in two years following the 2007 coup, the Gaza Strip had exhibited the characteristics of Talibanization,[5] a process whereby the Hamas government had imposed strict rules on women, discouraged activities commonly associated with Western culture, oppressed non-Muslim minorities, imposed sharia law, and deployed religious police to enforce these laws.[5]

According to a Human Rights Watch researcher, the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza stepped up its efforts to "Islamize" Gaza in 2010, efforts that included the "repression" of civil society and "severe violations of personal freedom".[6] Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh wrote in 2009 that "Hamas is gradually turning the Gaza Strip into a Taliban-style Islamic entity".[7] According to Mkhaimar Abusada, a political-science professor at Gaza's Al-Azhar University, "Ruling by itself, Hamas can stamp its ideas on everyone (...) Islamizing society has always been part of Hamas strategy."[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism_in_the_Gaza_Strip

I hear you. In actuality, obviously Israel is not going to run roughshod over the Mideast. It would be a bloodbath. I would support a strong UN that would put extreme pressure on countries to grant universal basic rights to women, LGBTQ and religious minorities. Misogynistic cultures make my blood boil.

Regarding Israel and Palestine, Israel has a right to self-defense and to ensure another Oct 7th never happens again. I don't think they've crossed any lines yet. I'm curious what their endgame is.

I think there might be a change happening in the US, but these things take time. Views for example here show well that there is a large support for US-Israeli relationship, even if it can spark a heated discussion.

Yet what is obviously happening in the region is the hardening of attitudes and religious fanatics gaining more power. Peace processes have followed conflicts, but perhaps not this time. Tony Klug made the fitting comment here: both sides don't know what they are doing, they don't have clear strategies.

And when someone will counter and argue saying that destroying Hamas is a clear strategy, well, so was fighting Al-Qaeda and the War On Terror a 'clear strategy' to many at the time. Just go to Afghanistan and destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban! What could have been more clear?

We know what that lead to.

Yes. Worrisome and likely true. Again, not saying I support Hamas. Nor am I saying I oppose Israel's right to defend. I was too careless in the comment you quoted. My point was and remains: care should be taken, especially in matters of intense conflict, with the Language we use. Obviously, that goes for me too.

So it’s a tutorial now is it?

I asked you 3 questions evidenced in bold, you didn’t answer any. What are your compelling reasons to take your “specifically referring to the more recent nation building exercise by the British in 1948” or the PERCEIVED injustice of ONE SIDE (the Palestinian) as the starting point for an explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

I don’t have a compelling reason, or perceive an injustice on one side. These are established facts and opinions. Unless you are going to explain why the Nakba and subsequent Apartheid state is not the primary cause of the current conflict? So why should I answer that question?

Also are you arguing now that the people living on the land who were displaced during the Nakba should have, or had, no moral case for grievance now?

Another counterfactual. Why are you sure? Jews fled from their land ALSO because of the Arab/Muslism colonization and oppression. Arab/Muslism still today massacre civilians belonging to other Christian and Arab/Muslim communities.

It’s a comment on the inhumanity of the British imperialists.

Again you didn’t address any of the points I brought up, you keep just repeating what you think it is the case, maybe inspired by a self-serving understanding Hamas’s own declarations

My point was and is that the geopolitical players are playing a game of geopolitical chess alongside the conflict in Israel and Palestine. They are not playing a game of chess in amongst the conflict. There are backers of the two sides as you say, but they merely turn on, or off, the tap of arms/money supply, or turn the dial of urging restraint, or allowing unrestrained activity. The strategy on the Israeli side is determined by the Israeli government and the strategy of Hamas presumably is gorilla tactics from their hiding place, with some hostages as a bargaining tool.

I would even go so far as to say that the “increased tensions between Israel and Gaza and West Bank in the past two years” as the exclusive or far more relevant motivation of Hamas to conduct the massacre of October the 7th, is totally irrelevant wrt its international repercussions of the massacre and Israel’s threat perception.

Well that may depend on your perspective. I’m amenable to the possibility that the timing of October 7th attacks was orchestrated in some way by regional geopolitical pressures. I know that Israel and Iran have been facing off against each other for a long time and that geopolitical moves by Israel along with it’s partner the U.S. prior to the attacks will have inflamed tensions in the region.

So it’s a tutorial now is it? — Punshhh

That’s how I enjoy engaging in discussions in this philosophy forum.
Others can ignore me, if not interested or bothered.

Unless you are going to explain why the Nakba and subsequent Apartheid state is not the primary cause of the current conflict? So why should I answer that question? — Punshhh

First, soliciting me now to provide an explanation to you before you feel compelled to answer my questions sounds pretty unfair since I was the one to solicit you first.
Second, the questions you didn’t answer were very much meant to undermine the idea of “a primary cause” of the current conflict. Besides, as anticipated, I find also causal language at risk of conceptual confusion.

To answer your question, as far as I’m concerned, “Nakba” is a historical trauma at the core of Palestinian nationalism, as much as “the Holocaust” is at the core of Zionism. Both parties can push narratives grounded on such events to boost identitarian social cohesion and guide/justify political action. So both narratives can explain to some extant the actual choices of both communities. But they are only part of the picture of the political tensions we see in the middle east and, even, within of each community. In other words, there is NO PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT, but reasons for political choices of palestinians/israelis’ decision makers, and related popular support to engage in a conflict, and for other players to get involved in such conflict. The meaning of such conflict doesn’t depend exclusively on a single reason of one player, but on all pertinent reasons of all players plus all circumstances that enable players’ actions and struggles.

Also are you arguing now that the people living on the land who were displaced during the Nakba should have, or had, no moral case for grievance now? — Punshhh

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral case”, if you want to argue for a moral right to land, go ahead, I’m all ears. I limited myself to question a LEGAL right of Palestinians/Israelis over such disputed lands prior to the end of the British mandate. As far as I’m concerned, Palestinians may have reasons for grievance which I can empathise with and which may be worth to struggle for. The same I would say about the Israelis. How good are such reasons, though? That’s open for debate and if things can’t be fixed diplomatically between Palestinians and Israelis, then both Palestinians and Israelis may resort to violence to work it out. I may not like it or even want it to be over for whatever reason but that’s not necessarily a more legitimate reason than theirs to fight their war as brutally as they deem necessary.

Another counterfactual. Why are you sure? Jews fled from their land ALSO because of the Arab/Muslism colonization and oppression. Arab/Muslism still today massacre civilians belonging to other Christian and Arab/Muslim communities.

It’s a comment on the inhumanity of the British imperialists. — Punshhh

I’m more interested to understand the reasons of the war in the middle east for main involved players. Since you didn’t offer compelling reasons to expect British imperial rulers to be enough more humane than the Ottoman, the Muslim, the Byzantine, the Roman empires wrt your humanitarian standards, the fact that the British imperialists were inhumane toward the Palestinians sounds as arbitrary in terms of explanatory power as claiming that the British imperialists didn’t act in muslim manners toward the Palestinians.
More in general, I find the task of judging actions and responsibilities based on a priori universal humanitarian principles more myopic than enlightening, and more intellectually dishonest than emotionally sincere.

My point was and is that the geopolitical players are playing a game of geopolitical chess alongside the conflict in Israel and Palestine. They are not playing a game of chess in amongst the conflict. — “Punshhh

Not sure what point you are trying to make with these different prepositions. My point is that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict there are other players (not bystanders) indirectly involved, which both Israelis and Palestinians very much have to take into account for their strategic decisions. So the aggression of October 7th can NOT be best understood as an emotional reaction by Hamas for something that Israel previously did INDEPENDENTLY FROM reliance on foreign sponsors’ support or considering international repercussions. So the game that is being played alongside the conflict influences very much the game that is played in amongst the conflict.

There are backers of the two sides as you say, but they merely turn on, or off, the tap of arms/money supply, or turn the dial of urging restraint, or allowing unrestrained activity. — “Punshhh

Why “merely” ? “ Tap of arms/money supply” (along with planning and preparation) are enabler so “necessary conditions” of the aggression of October 7th to be the way it is. Besides, as I argued, it is rather implausible that Hamas doesn’t strategise by taking into account foreign sponsors’ reaction (if not even advise or instruction) and international repercussions. Or that international repercussions and incentives do not shape Israel’s security concerns in general and military response to this massacre in particular. So, as I concluded, the massacre of October 7th can’t be best understood in isolation from the wider geopolitical context: indeed, it’s in the geopolitical context that one can find many relevant reasons and conditions for this massacre to happen the way it did.
“Merely” in your quote sounds appropriate only if one wants to look at the massacre of October 7th MERELY as a function of Hamas’s perception of Israeli abuses in the past two years while abstracting from other factors. Why would one want to do that?

Even if you wish to claim that Hamas was ONLY or MAINLY motivated to punish ILLEGITIMATE provocations by Israel in the past two years, independently from other geopolitical considerations, and that’s enough for you to blame Israel for the massacre of October 7th, sill I find such claim problematic:
First, it clouds one’s understanding of the conflict as it is dealt with by people who put their skin in it (and without such an understanding we can hardly claim to know if or how this conflict can be fixed). Indeed, what is the standard for legitimacy here? Hamas’s standards or your humanitarian standards? If it’s Hamas who is reacting to Israeli perceived abuses, then it’s Hamas’s standards not your humanitarian standards that would explain its reaction.
Second, Hamas’s motivations for October 7th can NOT be reduced to a retaliation after 2 years of perceived abuses. For two reasons: 1. Hamas’s moves are MAINLY IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN, they want to put the entire Palestine under Islamic rule (secular nationalism may survive in Palestinians and support Hamas, yet Hamas doesn't seem unequivocally bound to the nation-state cause of the Palestinians), so the massacre of October 7th is not a mere punitive reaction to two years of perceived abuses or the apartheid condition of the Palestinians, but a step instrumental to the restoration of the Islamic rule in Palestine (in an interview related to such massacre, Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, said about Israel “Israel is a country that has no place on our land” “We must remove that country because it constitutes a security, military and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nations” https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/#:~:text=A%20senior%20member%20of%20Hamas,future%20until%20Israel%20is%20exterminated). 2. Hamas’s moves look very much STRATEGICALLY CALCULATED, namely they are shaped by expectations over other relevant players' reactions (Khalil al-Hayya, a senior member of Hamas, said the action was necessary to "change the entire equation and not just have a clash... We succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/08/world/middleeast/hamas-israel-gaza-war.html) as well as by the need to maximise political effects, so not just to punish Israel (e.g. the liberation of Palestinian prisoners and combatants through exchange of captives, inducing a brutal reaction from Israel so to stir outrage in the Arab world, hinder the normalisation between Israelis and Saudis, or alienate international community sensitive to humanitarian concerns or to anti-Colonialist/anti-Western narratives, etc.).
Third, if you frame Hamas’s actions as a reaction to prior Israelis’ actions, one can also frame Israelis’ actions as a reaction to prior Hamas/Palestinians’ actions. For example, it is reported that the attack of October the 7th (named “Operation al-Aqsa Flood”) was a response to the police storming to Al Aqsa mosque during Ramadan
(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/26/who-are-qassam-armed-resistance-in-gaza, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-secretive-hamas-commander-masterminded-attack-israel-2023-10-10/). The problem is that the Israeli police REACTED to a barricade by Palestinians to prevent Jews from accessing the Jewish Temple Mount during Jewish Passover, being the Temple Mount and al-Aqsa Mosque located in the same compound (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Al-Aqsa_clashes#Incident). Notice that the Temple Mount is the holiest and most archaic place of Judaism (King Solomon is claimed to have built there the First Temple something like 1500 years before the colonisation and islamisation of the area by the Arabs ), while Al-Aqsa Mosque is only the third holiest place for Islam. Yet Muslims are more free to access and prey in that compound than Jews and Christians despite the Israeli police presiding over the compound for its security.
Fourth, your humanitarian standards seem also unfairly applied: why should Israel comply to your humanitarian standards, while Hamas shouldn’t? Is it because Israel looks much stronger so it has to apply greater restraint than Hamas? Would you think that independently from whatever the consequences are?

And when someone will counter and argue saying that destroying Hamas is a clear strategy, well, so was fighting Al-Qaeda and the War On Terror a 'clear strategy' to many at the time. Just go to Afghanistan and destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban! What could have been more clear? — ssu

I’m not sure how clear strategies can be even conceived in a period of international uncertainties and power balance shifts. In the absence of a clearer strategy, maybe one can simply try to gain time and prepare for the worse.

12000 children killed, and counting. Probably an underestimate.

And the "debate" keeps raging on the internet, while innocent kids are slaughtered each day. So much for the benefits of philosophy-reading as a hobby.

Fellas, the heated he-did-she-did routine isn't really adding much. The Middle East thing has been developing (unveloping) since, let's say, the end of the 2nd world war, to the point of a tragic dead-lock/cycle of sorts, replete with bad actors and distrust on all sides. Think there's a way to regain some trust? Perhaps to dampen things at least?

Think there's a way to regain some trust? Perhaps to dampen things at least? — jorndoe

Returning the hostages would be a good start.

12000 children killed, and counting. Probably an underestimate. — Mikie

So you agree with me that Hamas and Palestinians could surrender totally and unconditionally to Israel in exchange for peace?
How many children are YOU willing to sacrifice in support for Hamas' or the Palestinian cause?
Would you yourself sacrifice your own children and all the people you love to support a fight against a despicable foreign regime which has the means to wipe your country out if you do not surrender totally and unconditionally?

NO PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE CONFLICT,

There are still people alive who were uprooted in the Nakba, many and their descendants still live in refugee camps. Anyway, I think you’re splitting hairs a bit here. I agree there are other things in the regional political situation that play into it. I would have thought that there is more nuance in the current political situation in the region than in the origins of the current conflict.

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral case”, if you want to argue for a moral right to land, go ahead, I’m all ears. I limited myself to question a LEGAL right of Palestinians/Israelis over such disputed lands prior to the end of the British mandate.

I don’t think one can separate the moral case, or cause, from the legal case. I doubt that a Palestinian would seek to separate them. Without wanting to sound Woke, I would think there is a human rights issue here as well. There is an overwhelming case for grievance with the Palestinians. Something which many Israeli’s seem blind to.

“Merely”

Merely in the sense that it is an on/off lever, with little more control than that.

Fourth, your humanitarian standards seem also unfairly applied: why should Israel comply to your humanitarian standards, while Hamas shouldn’t? Is it because Israel looks much stronger so it has to apply greater restraint than Hamas? Would you think that independently from whatever the consequences are?

My humanitarian standards in this discussion may appear to be one sided. So is the level of aggression in the conflict and the regard to person and property.

I see now that you are hammering a nail with a geopolitical hammer. Feel free to play geopolitical chess. I doubt that many among us have the background knowledge of the political situation in the wider region to do more than broad brush predictions and generalisations.

replete with bad actors and distrust on all sides. — jorndoe

One side has basically all the power, thanks in large part to the backing of the world’s superpower. The reason Israel’s being backed isn’t a noble one— it’s for “stability” in the region, a region the US cares about because of its resources.

Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank and Gaza now for 50+ years, has pushed for illegal settlements in the former and turned the latter into a concentration camp. Since the early 1970s, they’ve rejected peace and compromise. They’ve repeatedly massacred Palestinians, the ratios being outrageous.

The international community has supported a two state settlement for decades, always blocked by the US and Israel in the UN.

So given this situation, to simply say “all sides” have distrust and bad actors, as if it’s a wash, is ignorant.

Even if 50% or 70% isn't 84%, the idea that Hamas has built in more than 50% of housing a military positions is simply outrageously ludicrous. It simply isn't the case. — ssu

An IDF spokesperson writes in the Wall Street Journal that their military has 'discovered that most homes in Gaza have terror tunnels underneath or weapon caches inside, and the majority of schools, mosques, hospitals and international institutions have been used by Hamas for their military operations.'

Their entire society has been militarized. Then their government starts a war by killing 1200 taking heads and body parts as war trophies, but Israel is called to restrain itself. After all, the indigenous Palestinian population has suffered enough!

Calling them "Palestinians" has to be the greatest psy-op in history. Why are Jews never referred to as Palestinians? There have been Jews living in that region continuously since antiquity. But no, Palestinians are not Jews. They're indigenous to a magical, non-existent land known as "Palestine." None of it makes any sense.

It's just Jews versus the regional Arab Muslims, but more specifically their wicked government. Razing a village could be "genocide" if the inhabitants of that village are designated as their own group.

t's the same as the "death cult" statements we've seen attributed to Palestinians here because schopenhauer made an observation some time about the Quran. — Benkei

I understand that the history, culture, and religion of a region don't matter to you. What matters is international law and whether it's being followed. And if not according to your view, well then I guess murder is a totally legitimate response. No morality, only law.

80 years ago Jews were stateless, had no rights, and were thus legal to murder. The holocaust was entirely legal so what was wrong with it? or does only international law have that perfect, inviolable character? Why?

Why doesn't the UN go tell Finland to return the land it won from Russia? Or the countless other parcels of land won in war?

There are still people alive who were uprooted in the Nakba, many and their descendants still live in refugee camps. — Punshhh

Sure, they are not the only ones to live in refugee camps. And it is reported that they aren’t even listed in the five largest refugee camps in the World:
https://www.unrefugees.org/news/inside-the-worlds-five-largest-refugee-camps/

Living in refugee camps must be an awful predicament. Even having a cancer must be awful. So what?

Anyway, I think you’re splitting hairs a bit here — Punshhh

.

As I said, I’m interested in conceptual analysis, so if I can’t split hairs here, in a philosophy forum, where else can I? Besides I find it a worthy exercise as long as it helps better understand things.

I’m not sure what you mean by “moral case”, if you want to argue for a moral right to land, go ahead, I’m all ears. I limited myself to question a LEGAL right of Palestinians/Israelis over such disputed lands prior to the end of the British mandate.

I don’t think one can separate the moral case, or cause, from the legal case. — Punshhh

Well, I just did. A legal system requires at least codified rules (like the Nazis laws against the Jews or the Apartheid laws in South Africa or laws to regulate traffic) and a central authority to enforce them (like with concentration camps where Jewish adults and kids can be exterminated, or places to stone to death adulterous women according to sharia laws). Some laws can be morally motivated by humanitarian concerns to some extent, but not all of them. Still they are laws.
You do not seem able to provide a compelling argument for why it wouldn’t possible to separate moral case from a legal case. Making claims is cheap, providing compelling reasons to support them is tougher, but sometimes rewarding too.

I doubt that a Palestinian would seek to separate them. — Punshhh

Palestinians want their land to be theirs not because they are human, but because they are Palestinians and refuse to be removed from lands they have been occupying for generations by foreign powers. So Palestinians are fighting to gain sovereignty over a certain territory and demand to the international community to acknowledge their nation-state status. This doesn’t need to be framed in human rights terms, not even for the international law:
As a principle of international law the right of self-determination recognized in the 1960s concerns the colonial context of territories right to independence or another outcome of decolonization. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or full assimilation. The internationally recognized right of self-determination does not include a right to an independent state for every ethnic group within a former colonial territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Without wanting to sound Woke, I would think there is a human rights issue here as well. There is an overwhelming case for grievance with the Palestinians. Something which many Israeli’s seem blind to. — Punshhh

Sure, I get why anybody who reasons in terms of human rights can see a human rights issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when civilians and kids get killed/bombed and deprived of the means of subsistence. I’m simply arguing that what one can see as human rights issue is not necessarily what Palestinians or Israelis see happening. Indeed, even Palestinians can be very much blind to an overwhelming case for grievance with the Israelis. And neither party seems compelled to frame their grievance in human rights terms as you understand them. You may WISH to have Israelis/Palestinians persuaded about your human rights framework and deal with their Nation-state demands accordingly, or you may WISH to have human rights framework imposed over Israelis/Palestinians and deal with their Nation-state demands accordingly. Either are things you may certainly WISH. That doesn’t mean that your wishes correspond to what Israelis/Palestinians wish for themselves nor that your wishes can be satisfied now or ever.

Merely in the sense that it is an on/off lever, with little more control than that — Punshhh

.

No idea what point you are trying to make with this vague statement, nor if it is an objection to anything I said about your views or mine.

My humanitarian standards in this discussion may appear to be one sided. So is the level of aggression in the conflict and the regard to person and property. — Punshhh

Meaning? If the amount of killed Jewish civilians and kids, and deprivation in terms of means of subsistence as a result of foreign aggression was equally high on both sides, would this be less of a humanitarian issue to you?
As far as I’m concerned, IDENTITARIAN views are expected to be one sided precisely because they are identitarian. Instead UNIVERSAL human rights views are expected NOT to be one sided precisely because they are universal. So, there is no conceptual issue with one sided level of aggression in the conflict and the regard to person and property if Israel reasons in identitarian terms. While there is a conceptual issue if one applies UNIVERSAL human rights views only on Israel but not on Hamas.

you are hammering a nail with a geopolitical hammer. — Punshhh

And for a compelling reason, since the geopolitical approach is very much about understanding how history and geography shape the security concerns of people around the world from their perspective, and means to deal with them. This approach is more enlightening and intellectually honest than just applying one’s preconceived notions on human conflicts concerning others, especially if others are the main ones to suffer the severe consequences of such conflicts.

I doubt that many among us have the background knowledge of the political situation in the wider region to do more than broad brush predictions and generalisations. — Punshhh

So what? Anybody can still try to understand things better than he/she used to, also by discussing with other people as it happens in this forum. And by “understanding things better”, I do not necessarily mean to know more about a subject. To get a sense of one’s own understanding limits about a subject is already a valuable achievement.

Besides I’m not playing any geopolitical chess. I’m just an anonymous nobody participating to a philosophy forum for personal intellectual entertainment. Others are free to ignore me, if not interested or bothered by what I write.

Thanks for the history lesson, . Wash? No, observation.

I’m not sure how clear strategies can be even conceived in a period of international uncertainties and power balance shifts. In the absence of a clearer strategy, maybe one can simply try to gain time and prepare for the worse. — neomac

Nonsense, actually they can. And the US showed this during the Cold War. And just how?

Well, they asked first:
-IF we do X, how is the Soviet Union going to react and counter us doing X?

It worked wonders. The US didn't go invading countries. When it got to wars (South Korea, South Vietnam), there was actually a country that had been attacked. And obviously it was then as uncertain as now, but this thinking that what would your actions make others respond was thought. This lead after the Cold War ended the US to form a coalition with multiple Arab states, even Syria, to oust Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and get the green light from the UK and from the Soviet Union.

And that then simply went to their head and diplomacy was forgotten.

Hence after 9/11 the "empathetic response" of 19 terrorists attacking the US, hence we have to invade a landlocked country on another continent because the financier of the 19 terrorists there, didn't have any kind of thinking of this kind behind it.

Did the US shed one thought just what Pakistan would do (or what goals Pakistan had)? Absolutely not. Hence Pakistan could give the US a photo op, talk the talk and not only give refuge to the Taliban, but in the end assist them to take back the country after the surrender-deal that Trump did with the Taliban.

Same thing has now happened with Israel, because so many civilians were killed on October 7th. Anticipation of what could or would neighboring Arab countries (plus Iran or Turkey) doesn't matter. What the long term solution here and how does Israel get there doesn't matter. Destroy Hamas! Let's see what to do after that.

Quite similar to current US policy.

Why are Jews never referred to as Palestinians? — BitconnectCarlos

I think the reason is that they formed a country called Israel and usually the citizens of that country are refered to being Israelis. The Jewish homeland and all that, remember?

Prior when it was Mandatory Palestine, only then had you talk about Palestinian Jews.

For your information, here's from Israel's basic law: ISRAEL - THE NATION STATE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

1 (a)The Land of Israel is the historical homeland of the
Jewish People, in which the State of Israel was
established.
(b) The State of Israel is the nation state of the Jewish
People in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious
and historical right to self-determination.
(c) The realization of the right to national self determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
Jewish People.

2. (a) The name of the State is "Israel"

So there's your psy-op. :snicker:

But no, Palestinians are not Jews. They're indigenous to a magical, non-existent land known as "Palestine." None of it makes any sense. — BitconnectCarlos

On the contrary, that state of Palestine is a non-exist is quite true. There's Israel and it's occupied territories.

Why doesn't the UN go tell Finland to return the land it won from Russia? — BitconnectCarlos

What land have we gotten from Russia? I'm confused.

FYI, Finland wasn't part of Russia itself. After Sweden lost it's eastern provinces (called Finland), they were made a Grand Dutchy, which just happened to have as it's Grand Duke the Tzar of Russia. Russians needed a passport to come to the Grand Dutchy of Finland...

The US didn't go invading countries. When it got to wars (South Korea, South Vietnam), there was actually a country that had been attacked. And obviously it was then as uncertain as now, but this thinking that what would your actions make others respond was thought. This lead after the Cold War ended the US to form a coalition with multiple Arab states, even Syria, to oust Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and get the green light from the UK and from the Soviet Union.

And that then simply went to their head and diplomacy was forgotten.

Hence after 9/11 the "empathetic response" of 19 terrorists attacking the US, hence we have to invade a landlocked country on another continent because the financier of the 19 terrorists there, didn't have any kind of thinking of this kind behind it. — ssu

I’d question your points on 2 grounds:
1. When the US got attacked by the Japs in WW2, the US nuked the Japs twice, as soon as nukes were ready. Is this an "emotional response” or a first necessary step of a “clear strategic” path for Japs to democracy, peace and prosperity for Japan in the next half century which American politicians/diplomats conceived? I couldn’t find compelling evidence of the latter. Of course, the US has less of an “emotional response” when conflicts do not concern them directly but other countries. In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “emotional responses”: indeed, it’s the emotional element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world.
2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed. Indeed, in a unipolar period the US got (over?)confident in finding unilateral solutions: like pulling jihadists to fight their wars in their homelands and overturn regimes which weren’t complacent to the US. This mixed with the idea of exporting democracy (like it happened in Europe and in the Pacific) while spinning the propaganda of a Western world (also with the possible support of Russians and Chinese) against Islamist Jihadism wasn’t that unclear to me.
Yet, long-term strategies can fail in many ways during execution because strategies are not infallible recipes. Maybe one can think better strategies or better ways to implement them in the hindsight, yet politicians do not have the chance to test different long-term solutions before picking the best one. They are compelled to follow a certain path under lots of national and international pressure, and despite all the unknowns.

Same thing has now happened with Israel, because so many civilians were killed on October 7th. Anticipation of what could or would neighboring Arab countries (plus Iran or Turkey) doesn't matter. What the long term solution here and how does Israel get there doesn't matter. Destroy Hamas! Let's see what to do after that. — ssu

I disagree for the reasons provided before and in the previous post. The “emotional response” refers to home support for Netanyahu's retaliation against Hamas in Gaza but this also serves the strategic path of making a Palestinian state solution impossible, in line with the Zionist project and consistently pursued by Netanyahu in his political carrier. Hamas aggression has given to Netanyahu the green light to at least turn Gaza into something like the West Bank.
And there are also national and international circumstances that can compel Netanyahu to pursue on this war path: postpone the bitter end of his controversial political carrier (at risk of jail and universal condemnation), the American hegemony challenged from inside and outside which could make their support weaker and more unreliable in a world that is getting more dangerous. What, I guess, remains an imperative within this strategy (even beyond Netanyahu) is also to contain Iran by pulling Saudis, Russians, Americans at convenience, preferably in its neighborhood. That part is predictably lesser clear though.

1. When the US got attacked by the Japs in WW2, the US nuked the Japs twice, as soon as nukes were ready. Is this an "empathetic response” or a first necessary step of a “clear strategic” path for Japs to democracy, peace and prosperity for Japan in the next half century which American politicians/diplomats conceived? — neomac

When Japan tried to wipe off and sink whole Pacific fleet of the US, invaded the Phillipines (then a colony of the US) and Guam and Aleutian Islands of Alaska are something totally different on scale to a terrorist strike perpetrated by a non-state actor as tiny as Al Qaeda was. So it's a bit strange to say that Roosevelt responded with oversized force. There's no doubt that the US was attacked with the objective of taking it's territory (the Phillipines). The stupidity of this action from the Japanese is really a good question.

Secondly, the atomic bomb was thought as a large bomb and note that more people were killed in the fire bombings of Japanese cities. Only with the Cold War it gained it's reputation. The idea of strategic bombing wasn't purely American, Giulio Douhet had proposed it first in the 1920's and obviously the other countries believed in the concept that taking the battle to the whole enemy country made sense.

In short, long-term strategies can still be worked out of “empathic responses”: indeed, it’s the empathic element that can ensure a united/greater home support for strategic efforts around the world. — neomac

Yes. Assuming they make sense. Did the reason why the US had it's longest war in Afghanistan make sense? The reason given was that "If the US doesn't occupy Afghanistan, it might possibly become a terrorist safe haven." It was repeated over and over again, but in my view it's even far more crazier than the "Domino Theory" in South-East Asia.

So if Osama bin Laden would yet had been staying in Sudan (as he did earlier). Then I guess the US would have gone an invaded Sudan. Guess how well that would have gone? I mean, just look at what Sudan is now EVEN WITHOUT American involvement.

2. “War on terror” doesn’t seem to me an example of unclear strategy, even if it ultimately failed. — neomac

How about "War on Blitzkrieg"?

And then just a reminder about the "War on Terror" thinking, I assume you have seen it, but if not, it is one of the classic interview from general Wesley Clark, which btw. he absolutely hated to be reminded about during the Obama administration:


That above isn't a clear strategy. It's the strategy of "We can do now everything we have wanted to do". That is unclear and will lead ultimately to failure, which it did. And actually also why there is indeed a lot to be critical about US policy.

Or this clip: here is the former secretary of Defense saying on why invading Iraq would be a stupid idea and would end up in a quagmire, which he the later promoted and then pushed through and indeed ended up as a quagmire.


Both interviews show just how clueless the response after 9/11 and the Global War on Terror was. That also domestic flights in the US started to have security controls might have indeed been the proper thing to do.

Maybe one can think better strategies or better ways to implement them in the hindsight, yet politicians do not have the chance to test different long-term solutions before picking the best one. They are compelled to follow a certain path under lots of national and international pressure, and despite all the unknowns. — neomac

It is said that prior to invading Iraq, George Bush didn't know the difference between a Sunni or a Shia. Pretty important to understand if and when you attack Iraq and think it's going to be a short, cheap war and the Iraqis will thank you. So maybe there indeed are better strategies. But when it's a unipolar moment, why listen or even think about others. Either they are with you or against you, right?

But let's think for a while what would the Americans would have thought if Bush had acted just by negotiating the handing over of OBL from the Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taleban), then had FBI and NYPD among other police departments working on the terrorist strikes. Not only would it looked like a weak response, but in fact extremely cold. That's the whole problem here. It's a version of Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine": if you a strike leaves your country in shock, you can do anything you want.

I think the reason is that they formed a country called Israel and usually the citizens of that country are refered to being Israelis. The Jewish homeland and all that, remember? — ssu

States are relatively recent inventions in the near east. We keep the discussion simpler by just referring to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. "Palestine" was the name of a land, not a people... until the 1960s when it was adopted by a certain group.

On the contrary, that state of Palestine is a non-exist is quite true. There's Israel and it's occupied territories. — ssu

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

The idea that Israel ought to surrender the entire WB is absurd and takes zero consideration of the history and development of the region. Israel has shown a willingness to negotiate for much of it though.

Jews are indigenous to the region with our texts and archaeology finding e.g. ancient burial grounds all around the area, including a very famous one in Hebron that is described in Genesis as a burial plot purchased by Abraham (~early 2nd millennium BC) where the 4 patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) are buried. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in Judea, in the WB. So much history there.

Where are the ancient Palestinian burial plots? Where is there anything that is ancient Palestinian? Jews are the indigenous; Palestinian muslims are the late coming colonizers. Israel will negotiate for the WB (and has offered ~98% of it in exchange for peace), but for the world to tell them that they must withdraw from all of it is absurd. There are 22 muslim countries and 1 Jewish one in the international community, of course they rule against Israel. I-P is the main front in the West versus Islam conflict. That's really what it's about.

I don't hate the Muslims, for the record. They claim to have new revelation and it must be frustrating for them knowing that they have word from God and those stiff necked Jews just won't listen.

What land have we gotten from Russia? I'm confused. — ssu

IIRC you mentioned a historical instance where Finland won a war (against Russia?) and as a result won a bit of land from the aggressor.

Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. — BitconnectCarlos

...and then continued the open air prison of Gaza by closing the land and sea borders and had the occasional bombing of the place. That just now has hit a new crescendo.

Exactly like... Lebanon. Where Isreal went into to defeat the PLO and stayed there for decades and thus emerged the opposition to this occupation in the form of Hezbollah, and then they decided to withdraw. And there's no peace deal between Lebanon and Israel, but the occasional larger war with an low-intensity conflict going on all the time.

You see, withdrawal would be far more effective if you would do a peace treaty. But it seems that the occasional war is a far better choice.

Where are the ancient Palestinian burial plots? Where is there anything that is ancient Palestinian? Jews are the indigenous — BitconnectCarlos

The typical racism that jingoists use. Reminds me of the Serbs and their fixation with Kosovo Polje and how important for Putin is ancient Rus being the craddle of Russia, hence Ukraine and the Ukrainians are so artificial. It always starts from despising the other and questioning their overall existence and mythologization of one's own past.

But seriously, what has happened to Palestinian burial grounds?

(CNN) The Israeli military has desecrated at least 16 cemeteries in its ground offensive in Gaza, a CNN investigation has found, leaving gravestones ruined, soil upturned, and, in some cases, bodies unearthed.

IIRC you mentioned a historical instance where Finland won a war (against Russia?) and as a result won a bit of land from the aggressor. — BitconnectCarlos

Now I'm even more confused. You do realize that we have been around as an independent state only from 1917, so I really don't know what you are talking about.

The only war Finland has ever won is it's own Civil War against the Reds. But lost first the Winter War and then after Continuation war. Even the Germans basically withdrew to Norway in our Lapland War. Hence we are very proud just to have survived and avoided an occupation.