I was aware of the elevation of the victims of October 7th victims to an exalted state, even deification, martyr’s ( a Muslim martyr has a lower status than a martyr in a Western country), in the West a martyr has a god like status. This cry across the airwaves was deafening right from day one. The atrocities were on a new level, so bad that any kind of response, retaliation was justified. Even ethnic cleansing, genocide was on the table.

Even ethnic cleansing, genocide was on the table. — Punshhh

Or is on the table.

A traumatized event leaves politicians to do something dramatic. It cannot be something of the ordinary or otherwise the leaders are seen as timid, indecisive or simply cold to the suffering of the people when the trauma hits the population. And hence some people will get a "window of opportunity" because a simple "Destroy Hamas totally" will resonate to everybody. There's nothing to debate, just destroy them! And if you have these grand plans that can be fulfilled now, then this is the moment.

The obvious myth here is that somehow people that have lived ages ago somewhere before, have then more justification for the land while if people who have lived there, but haven't had a sovereign state, are somehow less justified. — ssu

It's a tricky issue who is justified to a piece of land. Were European settlers arriving in the Americas in the 1600s justified in taking land? In hindsight, the natives should have stopped them had they known what was coming. But I'm an American so I'm ultimately okay with Europeans colonizing it; worked out well for me. But if I were native american I'd likely have a different view.

So of course I believe Jews have a claim on Jerusalem/Israel. Jerusalem is the cultic center of Judaism. Do the Palestinians have a claim? I don't mind giving them Gaza; that was historically Philistine land and not Israelite land. But to claim that the entire West Bank belongs to Arab muslims to me seems excessive. I do not agree with such an idea. There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the West Bank since antiquity. Jews built and cultivated parts of it, though I am not an expert on the region.

And more over, because Zionism is a creation of the 19th Century, so actually your ideas are not so old either.

Hertzl may have reinvigorated it or invented "modern political Zionism" but Zionism is ancient as Judaism.

Jews migrated to Europe even during the Roman Empire, so they had been here for quite a while until Zionism came along (and Hitler, obviously too). — ssu

yes because they were expelled in two big waves: 70 ad and 135 ad, but jews even in the middle ages would still make aliyah, including some very famous rabbis. i don't have numbers for you, but even in those times the jewish connection to israel was never severed. there was a continuous flow of jews to israel at that time despite the perilous journey.

And overall if we generalize, this kind of thinking, that one people have more right to territory than others living there, then puts any kind of immigration and migrants to have less claim to the home they have, which at worst can be and is a form of racism. If Finns and the few thousand Sami people have lived on the same place since Antiquity, that surely doesn't mean the few people whose ancestors have migrated here later are somehow less justified to be here. Someone who has gotten citizenship should have equal rights, obviously. — ssu

I see what you're saying. Yes we should be respectful and welcoming to immigrants, generally. It really does depend on the type though, as we can see now in Europe.

These kinds of attitudes are so similar how (Putin's) Russia thinks and belittles Ukrainians and Ukraine itself. The state of Ukraine is "artificial" to them and quite in a similar way that Palestine and Palestinians "raise your eyebrows". — ssu

I'm fine with giving them Gaza as are most Israelis -- and I think most Jews would be willing to give them some of the West Bank, but this has not at all led to peace as even before 10/7 the muslims in the region sought to eat Israel. It's been a continual thing. If Ukrainians only began existing as a people in the 1960s I would be skeptical of them as well. It's not the same thing though. Their roots go back much further.

The name "Palestine" was also used by the Romans to de-Judaize the land after they expelled the Jews and destroyed the temple in 70 AD. So yes the "Palestinians" pick up a deliberately obnoxious term and designate themselves an entirely new people in the 1960s. Arabs definitely have history in the region; palestinian history apparently begins in the 1960s and population has caused an enormous amount of problems both for its arab neighbors and israel.

I think it's quite apt in this occasion. — ssu

IMHO as long as Hamas, a totalitarian regime, controls Gaza -- Gaza will be a prison for the palestinians.

A traumatized event leaves politicians to do something dramatic. It cannot be something of the ordinary or otherwise the leaders are seen as timid, indecisive or simply cold to the suffering of the people when the trauma hits the population. — ssu

What is the protocol when 1200 are killed, 300 kidnapped, and many other raped? As an American, it is war. Anything else is out of the question.

It's a tricky issue who is justified to a piece of land. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. The US has here shows an example here with everybody that is born on US territory has the right to be an US citizen. My best friends sister's first born boy is an American, the father is an Austrian and she is a Finn now living in Vienna.

But if you think that some people are more justified than others when both have been born and lived on the same territory, then the problem is you. The whole idea of seeking justification for this from some ancient history is wrong in my mind. It's the problem itself!

IMHO as long as Hamas, a totalitarian regime, controls Gaza -- Gaza will be a prison for the palestinians. — BitconnectCarlos

Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians.

What is the protocol when 1200 are killed, 300 kidnapped, and many other raped? As an American, it is war. Anything else is out of the question. — BitconnectCarlos

And why on Earth you even seek a "protocol" for handling a terrorist attack? If there's a "protocol" I think it's quite obvious: raise security for it not to happen again, seek out the perpetrators. Then look at what the reason for the attack. If it isn't an estranged lunatic individual, for whom prison/mental asylum is the answer, but the attack is part of a political struggle, then seek a solution for the political problem.

But since you took up the numbers here, about 900 civilians killed and the rest being soldiers and security operators, you actually bring up something that is a problem here. At some point, it all just becomes this urge for reprisal, for retribution. Hell with anything else!!!

(And btw, how many of decapitated babies were there actually?)

And that's the thing that for example the US can easily be entangled in a war that the terrorists seek. You only need a successful attack, and then the answer is reprisals. And reprisals are the thing terrorists want.

Here the objectives of "Al Aqsa flood" were successfully met. It prevented the Israeli-Saudi peace-deal and it put the Palestinian issue at the forefront. That Hamas is destroyed is illogical? Well, for them every dead Hamas fighter is a martyr. In fact every killed Palestinian is a martyr. For them, Israel has just shown it's real face.

The thinking is just like the "Red Army Fraction" had in Germany: the members were convinced that West-Germany was still Nazi Germany, and they as the "fraction" of the true Red Army would have to attack the system for it to show it's true colors and thus create the mythical Rote Armee would rise up from the proletariat. Yet that didn't happen. And perhaps the simple reason is that they didn't kill enough Germans for Germans to stop thinking about is a police matter, but declare a war against them.

What Amnesty International says about how famine is used now in the Gaza strip:

(Feb 26th, 2024) One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today.

The scale and gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s relentless bombardment, destruction and suffocating siege puts more than two million Palestinians of Gaza at risk of irreparable harm.”

The supplies entering Gaza before the ICJ order have been a drop in the ocean compared to the needs for the last 16 years. Yet, in the three weeks following the ICJ order, the number of trucks entering Gaza decreased by about a third, from an average of 146 a day in the three weeks prior, to an average of 105 a day over the subsequent three weeks. Before 7 October, on average, about 500 trucks entered Gaza every day, carrying aid and commercial goods, including things like food, water, animal fodder, medical supplies and fuel. Even that quantity fell far short of meeting people’s needs. In the three weeks after the ICJ ruling, smaller quantities of fuel, which Israel tightly controls, made it into Gaza. The only crossings that Israel has allowed to open were also opened on fewer days, further demonstrating Israel’s disregard for the provisional measures. Aid workers reported multiple challenges, but said that Israel was refusing to take obvious steps to improve the situation.

Across the Gaza Strip, the engineered humanitarian disaster grows more horrifying each day. On 19 February, humanitarian agencies reported that acute malnutrition was surging in Gaza and threatening children’s lives, with 15.6% of children under two years acutely malnourished in northern Gaza and 5% of children under two years in Rafah in the south. The speed and severity of the decline in the population’s nutritional status within just three months was “unprecedented globally”.

See Amnesty International website

A while back we discussed the danger posed by the Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea.

It now seems the first vessel has sunk - the cargo ship Rubymar. Quite a large vessel as well.

This goes to show that the missiles used by the Houthi are a serious threat. They're weapons of war capable of sinking large vessels, and that includes military vessels if they are isolated and their defenses overwhelmed.

The obvious has already happened: a lot of ships are going around Africa now.

And the US is totally clueless here. When it has failed even creating a large unified front to protect the global shipping lanes, I wonder just what kind of capabilities it has to form any alliances anymore. Bombing Houthis won't have that effect. They have been OK with Saudi-Arabia bombing them for years, their country falling back 50 years in their economic prosperity with malnutrition in the country.

I think this all will end a decade from now or so in simply the US leaving the Middle East, with perhaps with Israel as it's outpost. If you extrapolate how things have gone, that's the end result.

I don't think it's tricky. Where you live and have been born and where your family has lived ought to give the right call that your home. — ssu

Ok but Jews and Palestinians both call Israel home.

The whole idea of seeking justification for this from some ancient history is wrong in my mind. It's the problem itself! — ssu

I am fine with the status quo. The Palestinian governments are not. Right wing Israeli settlers also seek to expand and these acts should be discouraged/condemned but 10/7 is in no way a justified response to settler aggression. They didn't even target settlers. Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.

Gaza was a prison even before Hamas. People couldn't get in an out without the permission of Israelis. And Netanyahu supported Hamas, as it was perfect for him to show that you cannot negotiate with the Palestinians. — ssu

Yes because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints. Before then it was easy to travel. To my understanding Netanyahu supported Hamas as a check against the PLO. I believe he tried to play them off against each other.

At some point, it all just becomes this urge for reprisal, for retribution. Hell with anything else!!! — ssu

I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off. It feels like you're advocating for appeasement/negotiations but you haven't spelled it out yet. Hamas has rejected a number of a ceasefires in exchange for releasing the hostages.

(And btw, how many of decapitated babies were there actually?) — ssu

This feels like a gotcha but it really isn't. Many women were brutally raped and had their heads stamped in and pelvis bones destroyed, and the UN refused to acknowledge it. Families were burned alive hiding away in bomb shelters. I could go on. Israel could play nice, but the pro-Palestinian crowd would still hate it and say it deserved 10/7, so I say Israel should go hard. Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it. You know Israel offers to release many Palestinian prisoners for every 1 Israeli hostage released and Hamas still refuses. Culture of life versus culture of death.

I once watch a video of a little Palestinian girl commenting on the IDF soldiers. She commented how they were cowardly hiding behind their tanks and taking precautions with their lives. I wish I could find the video, but she was probably like 6. Statements like this are not unusual. They are not just a one-off, but rather representative of a culture.

Well, for them every dead Hamas fighter is a martyr. In fact every killed Palestinian is a martyr. For them, Israel has just shown it's real face. — ssu

Yes, they are martyrs who go directly to Jannah (Islamic heaven as per Hamas's theology). So Israel is, in a way, is doing them a favor. If they want to be martyrs we should let them. Works out for everyone. Hamas doesn't let its own civilians use bomb shelters because it encourages this type of martyrdom and doesn't see why it needs to be interfered with.

Right wing Israeli settlers also seek to expand and these acts should be discouraged/condemned but 10/7 is in no way a justified response to settler aggression. — BitconnectCarlos

And those thefty/violent settlers should be hit by Israeli law and order as readily as we might expect elsewhere. To the extent that Palestinians would trust the justice system. Right, the Hamas attackers "should be discouraged/condemned".

You’ve just described Palestinians as sub human, as animals. And we know what humans do to animals.

You ever listen to the phone calls from the murderers on 10/7? "Hey mom, guess what? Killed 10 Jews today!" Some people deserve exactly what's coming to them.

10/7... Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.

Because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints....

I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off.

Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it.... Culture of life versus culture of death. — BitconnectCarlos

:100:

And where are the hostages?

Winning a war is one thing, what to do then is another. Winning the peace is the fact that is missing here. — ssu

Nicely put.

Perhaps you don't get my point: there has to be a peace that will prevail in the future. If the other side loses, then it loses and it is open to hear your terms. Yet if your terms are simply "drop dead" or there are no terms, then there is no reason to subject, but simply go on, plan how you can defeat the enemy occupier. Hence a war has been quite futile, if the peace will be broken in the future. — ssu

Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes.

And what's the solution you have in mind? A final solution like Mr Hitler had in mind for the Jews? There's seven million Palestinians, so 'doing away' with seven million will get you into Guinness World of Records and topple Mr Hitler's previous Holocaust. That is neither possible or sustainable and quite deplorable. — ssu

I’m a nobody and it would be totally irrelevant if the solution I had in mind is exterminating all Palestinians in Israel with nukes and concentration camps. I’d rather focus on what Israeli and Palestinian first decision makers could (or could more likely) do along with the decision makers of the International community community.
For example, my understanding is that Netanyahu is going to destroy Hamas (and other militant groups’) military capacity and identified combatants in Gaza as thoroughly as possible and impose a West Bank regime in Gaza. Maybe complemented with some agreements with Egypt to accept and keep refugees in Sinai as long as needed. But there is more than this that Israel likely has in mind to weaken foreign players which fuel the Palestinian resistance.
Concerning the wider prospect of solving the conflict by satisfying nation-state demands, I keep hearing people talking about one state or two states solution, instead of a confederated solution which has been proposed jointly by representatives of both sides, and sounds to me addressing the security concerns of both sides more equitably.

How about Germany? — neomac

Actually with Germany this becomes even more clear when you think of the two Post German states! Which one experienced a revolt against it's occupier as early as the 1950's? Which had to build the Berlin wall to keep it's citizens from fleeing to the other Germany? And which Germany basically collapsed as a house of cards and end up in the dustbin of history after the unification of the two states? And finally, which Germany is still an ally of the US and is totally happy that the US has bases in it's territory? — ssu

To me the case of Germany suggests that the problem for a durable peace is not necessarily the amount of devastation, civilian deaths, unconditional surrender, and loss of territorial integrity. But how oppressive the victorious foreign power is perceived to be in peace settlements, AFTER the war is ACKNOWLEDGED as lost. And limited retaliation for terroristic attacks which allows easy recovery won’t be enough to get that, so the next step could likely be to escalate to a full out war against Hamas, followed by a West Bank style occupation which is what we are seeing unfolding.
Anyways, to my understanding, one critical step on both sides is switching attitude from “just peace” to “secure peace”. And acknowledging that this is a UNEQUAL burden for Palestinians than for Israelis since the Palestinians are likely the ones which have much more to lose in terms of security (after having likely lost a “just peace” i.e. for persecution of war crimes, reparation, borders back to pre-1967, etc.) if hostility persists. That implies that Palestinians should focus less on territorial sovereignty and integrity (so being more flexible and complacent to current Israelis’ territorial demands), and more on how safely they will live and restore their economy.

Just having a war and winning the battles doesn't give you peace, especially if you don't think about what to do after a military victory. If you have only naive or delusional ideas that the people will thank you after you have bombed them or then just want retribution, the likelihood that peace will continue is doubtful. Didn't the Americans find out that after invading Iraq? Mission accomplished, as you remember
! Well, there the US is still stuck, have basically given the place to Iran with the Iraqi government asking the Americans to leave. — ssu

You are talking as if ending war is a matter of common sense. But how far can we go with common sense really? If all that is required is that ENOUGH PEOPLE are common sensical about how to reach a durable peace and this durable peace is not reached after decades, we could conclude that there aren’t enough people that follow common sense, couldn’t we? But if that’s the case what’s the point of appealing to common sense? If enough people are not guided by common sense and can screw things up to other ones which do follow common sense, then common sense is not the solution, maybe it’s even part of the problem since it passively lets it spread.
Let’s put aside this naive appeal to common sense, and acknowledge that individuals aren’t or can’t be fully micro-managed to reform their society effectively. And that individuals hardly tolerate putting continuous efforts in changing habits or expectations when the end results depend on wide collective to put equal effort, while trust is compromised, supervision is not reliable, defection is even encouraged and compliance is discouraged if not under existential threat. To be more concrete, as long as Gaza is mainly RUN politically, economically, financially, militarily, religiously, socially by Hamas (infiltrating even UNRWA) and Hamas is devoted to destroy Israel, there is no chance that Palestinians will get rid of Hamas. Hamas runs a pervasive mafia state in Gaza and, as such, it has Palestinians in its grip. Even if there are Palestinians who would go as far as to blame Hamas for all it’s happening to Palestinians, yet they can’t help but serving Hamas one way or the other. And Hamas, in turn, can greatly serve its foreign sponsors, mainly Iran and until it does, Iran will support Hamas. That’s why the situation is so messed up.

the problem is that ALSO peace depends on narratives and it remains unreachable if it is grounded in incompatible narratives about peace conditions. — neomac

Exactly. And that means you really have to take into consideration what the losing side WILL ACCEPT! True peace is what both sides can accept. But if you don't care shit about the enemy you have beaten or think of them as human animals who are incapable of handling themselves and are totally irresponsible, then you reap what you sow when the enemy comes back after a decade or two. Or continues simply continues the war with the limited resources it has. — ssu

The accusation “you don't care shit” by people without skin in the game at people who put their skin in the game doesn’t sound that compelling.
Besides stats do not seem to support optimism about chances of “true peace”: In the period 1946-2005, 63 interstate wars have been recorded globally. Only about one fifth (21%) of them had a decisive outcome in which one party ended up as the victor and the other as the loser (i.e., total victory/defeat). Almost one third (30%) of these wars ended in a ceasefire, while only one sixth (16%) were concluded with a peace agreement. The remaining cases had an outcome without clear victory/defeat nor any type of peace settlement. Worryingly, of the negotiated peace agreements between 1975 and 2018 almost four out of ten (37%) broke down following a reignition of the war between the same parties. Moreover, more than three quarters (76%) of the peace agreements that broke down did so within two years, 12% lasted for two to five years, and another 12% lasted for more than five years but eventually broke down. Wars that end in a tie as opposed to a decisive victory, where both sides share an acrimonious history, and where one side’s existence is threatened, are significantly more likely to be repeated
https://hcss.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/How-Wars-End-HCSS-2022.pdf
So one may easily try to solicit others to work harder on conditions amenable to “true peace”, but can’t assume “true peace” to be likely to succeed by those who put their skin in it.

Military build-up is an outcome of an agenda, it's not an agenda itself. NATO expansion was only one small reason, another was simply that there's only the narrative of Russia as an (threatened) empire. Russia simply cannot see itself as a nation state, because it isn't one made for just Russians. — ssu

That’s what I’m saying as well. Russia chose to invest its income from the American-led globalization in military build-up to support its power projection in the world and at the expense of the West. But the further implication is that the Pax Americana hasn’t just about screwing countries in the middle east but also about benefiting other countries (e.g. European countries, Russia, China), some of which now feel encouraged and have chosen to challenge the US.

Secular zionism wasn’t ideologically more prone to support a Palestinian state than Israel today — neomac

I might have to disagree here, even if you make your point well. Religious zionism is far more intolerant at making compromises. At least the founding fathers assumed that in the future they ought to make peace with the Palestinians/Arabs. — ssu

I conceded as much: “it would have been easier to deal with secular zionism at the end of the British Mandate, then with non-secular zionism today, given the greater pragmatism of the former and a shorter list of historical grievances against Palestinians back then”. What else do you want me to concede, exactly? What kind of compromise do you have in mind? What examples?
In the link I provided to you there is no argument to support a Palestinian state. Israel in the secular Zionist founding fathers’ own understanding is a colonial (and VIOLENT) but justified enterprise against indigenous people which must be dispossessed of lands they are expected to claim to be theirs and where the Jews would establish a nation state ethnically dominated by Jews. So, back then, “making compromise” didn’t mean being prone to acknowledge a Palestinian state over the lands they wanted to be theirs (namely,
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-palestine-as-claimed-by-world-zionist-organization-1919) and which included Gaza and West Bank.

In truth, the PLO/FATAH and the PA would have said again and again the pre-1967 borders would be enough for them. Even Hamas would have hinted at this (for example Benkei referred to this at the start of this thread). And there have been the Arab peace proposals, so you can look them up.

It's just one of the myths that the Arab/Palestinian side hasn't made any efforts at a negotiated peace themselves. — ssu

I was talking about Palestinians. The Oslo agreements (which was mainly setting interim conditions for future negotiations AND IT DIDN’T COMMIT ISRAEL TO STOP SETTLEMENTS IN THE WEST BANK) were made by political leaders with different status: an actual prime minister vs a leader of a (until then terrorist) Palestinian organization whose doubtful/controversial credibility in the Israelis’ eyes was under test from 1993 until the Camp David summit. Arafat failed the test badly and set a precedent which obviously biased Israelis toward Palestinian terrorist organizations.
Hamas is even less credible than Arafat, because in addition to the biasing effect of Arafat’s precedent, it has an Islamist penchant (so more troublesome, e.g. for arrangements over the status of Jerusalem), an even deeper link to Iran and it never recognized Israel.
So at words Palestinian representatives came up with proposals which ultimately weren’t enough credible because compromised by the irrepressible confrontational dispositions and rhetoric within the Palestinian front.

A bit off the topic, but this also is something not so obvious, was it the atomic bombs or was it actually the Russian attack on Japan? Or both? — ssu

OK I watched the video and read a few more things about the subject. Apparently he is not the first one to make the argument that the Japanese surrendered because of the Soviet incumbent involvement against Japan more than because of the nukes. I definitely welcome a richer understanding of the Japanese predicament and the reasons which may have motivated the Japanese to accept surrender. Also because, as I mentioned elsewhere, one must take into account the distribution of the decision process by decision makers. And during WW2 there was some power struggle between Japanese military and the Emperor.
Anyways, from the Emperor’s speech, we can’t discount the possibility that, under the predicament in which the Japanese were, the nukes were a strong reason to prompt surrender, at least for HIM : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast
After all, the magnitude and immediacy of devastation one single nuclear bomb could bring about against military and civil targets must have been really impressive to experience. And understandably so given how this impression still informs the logic of deterrence. Besides the Americans were threatening to launch a third nuke, likely in Tokyo, and annihilate the Imperial residence as well as the Emperor (bunkers aside) which the Japs, including the hardliners, were very much sensitive about. So it’s still plausible that while killing the Emperor would have made him a martyr and prompted resistance, threatening to kill him along with his imperial residence may have deterred some hardliners from pursing the war. Of course, within a logic of martyrdom no amount of suffering and devastation could curb resistance to the last man but then not even the Soviet involvement would have been a strong reason. Japanese proved to be capable of that (and Hamas?) but evidently there were enough decision makers who rejected this logic (starting with the Emperor himself).

Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes. — neomac

If you ask for unconditional surrender and assume to get an unconditional surrender, then there has to be someone that SURRENDERS!

Notice when the Germans surrendered to the Allied, not only was there a German leadership that surrendered and a German army that obeyed the surrender, there wasn't anything like the Werewolves to continue the fight. The Nazi regime had drawn plans to continue an insurgency, but that didn't happen: there was nobody to continue the fight.

Let's take an example here:

Assume the Russians really get fed up with the annoying Americans and notice a window of opportunity and can launch a successful surprise nuclear attack which destroys the US nuclear deterrence and the American military industrial complex. And just a few US nuclear submarines are able to shoot of their SLBMs in a retaliatory strike, but the missiles perform as poorly as the British Tridents (they fall back into the sea) with only a few getting through and only 1,5 million Russians are killed whereas 25 million Americans are killed. And they still would have a nuclear force to make an countervalue strike (basically bomb American to the stone age, as people put it). A marvellous victory!

But then what?

What if your amazing Russian victory has been so fantastically decisive, that all 18 people in the line of the Presidential succession have been killed alongside all the members of Congress. Yet obviously you have only a segment of the population, say killed 25 million, so I guess there are many Americans people in those smaller towns and cities that haven't been blown up or haven't gotten radiation poisoning.

Then obviously you would need to find someone representing the US, but if the only American officials you find respond with swearwords and the promise that they'll never surrender and commit every moment of their life to revenge this attack. What is your idea then? Try to occupy the 3rd largest country which is now partly a nuclear wasteland? Or give the Americans 50 years to make that retaliatory strike?

Hence history has shown, that you don't automatically get an unconditional surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of this. And if you think that the only way is then to take the Mongol Horde attitude to the strategy "make a desert and call it peace" of killing literally everybody, then go away only to come two weeks later to check that you really have killed off everyone, you still haven't create real peace for yourself: the Mongol Empire collapsed quite quickly to smaller parts. And isn't remembered so fondly afterwards.

To me the case of Germany suggests that the problem for a durable peace is not necessarily the amount of devastation, civilian deaths, unconditional surrender, and loss of territorial integrity. But how oppressive the victorious foreign power is perceived to be in peace settlements, AFTER the war is ACKNOWLEDGED as lost. — neomac

Oppression creates resistance. Yet if you after the peace leave the people alone or even go so far that help them to get on their feet, then actually you can look forward to a longstanding peace.

I conceded as much: “it would have been easier to deal with secular zionism at the end of the British Mandate, then with non-secular zionism today, given the greater pragmatism of the former and a shorter list of historical grievances against Palestinians back the”. — neomac

Well, this is of course self evident: If you wouldn't have had 75-year conflict but a peace then that had prevailed until today, naturally there wouldn't be the grievances of a 75-year conflict!

I was talking about Palestinians. — neomac

And I was too.

Arafat failed the test badly and set a precedent which obviously biased Israelis toward Palestinian terrorist organizations. — neomac

And the Palestinian/Arab side can actually say the same things of Israel, which didn't accept the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 which was endorsed by the Arab League and immediately embraced by Jasser Arafat and later by Mahmoud Abbas. Polls have find that the Palestinians (then) were favourable towards it. Yet The Israelis simply rejected it as a "non-starter". So why is it only the fault of the Arab side?

To me it's obvious. There's no real will for a negotiated peace or a two-state solution.

The whole arena has been hijacked by religious extremists who have succeeded to burn every bridge towards peace. And those that accuse only one side about this aren't seeing the reality.

Japanese proved to be capable of that (and Hamas?) but evidently there were enough decision makers who rejected this logic (starting with the Emperor himself). — neomac

I think who ought to be congratulated are here the Americans in the way they handled both Germany and Japan after WW2. Because you can just compare at just how well the Treaty of Versailles served the French. Mr Hitler even got even the same railroad wagon for the French unconditional surrender.

Yet sometimes it seems that the US has forgotten in it's own hubris that the international order that Trump so much hates was made by the US for the US and it succeeded very well. Somehow now the US doesn't need it because it's so awesome. But the order only succeeded when other nations went along with it, not by use of force and threat (as the Soviet Union did), but by cooperation. Places where the US has used old imperial ways aren't so happy with the Americans.

Somehow that idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation seems for many naive and wrong.

As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide.

You’re making some interesting points, but there’s something you keep pushing for which seems wrong headed to me. These two paragraphs distill it quite well.

Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes.

I think the Post-Dam declaration is a poor comparison, but I can use it to make my point. The people who were surrendering in Japan, the countrymen of Japan, not the imperialist leaders, but the people. Were living a free and fair life before and after the war. They weren’t born into a traumatised oppressed population as Palestinians are. If Hamas, surrenders now. The people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation. From an oppressive apartheid state before the war and into a perniciously oppressive apartheid state after the war. This will only make Israel’s problems worse and lead to a repeat of October 7th, or worse.

For example, my understanding is that Netanyahu is going to destroy Hamas (and other militant groups’) military capacity and identified combatants in Gaza as thoroughly as possible and impose a West Bank regime in Gaza. Maybe complemented with some agreements with Egypt to accept and keep refugees in Sinai as long as needed.

This West Bank regime is the perniciously oppressive apartheid state I referred to.
I don’t see a solution here, a confederate state would be the same in all but name.

As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Punshhh

:100: :up:

Some go with October 7th as the justification for "taking the gloves off" and everything else would be "appeasement" for them.

This is a war with no actual plan further (because destroy Hamas is a great talking point, but not a plan what to do afterwards) and the US is sleepwalking further into it. This will lead to further disenchantment towards the whole region.

As I was saying the glorification of the victims of October 7th to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide. — Punshhh

Oh, I get it- the Jews should just forget about it. No memorials, put it behind them. And definitely don't retaliate against the government that did it. 10/7 was the time to calmly ask Hamas why they did it and solemnly and calmly consider their grievances so that it doesn't happen again. Ok, u/Punshhh, thank you for providing your perspective.

The only genocide here is the genocide against truth and the english language by the pro-palestinian/pro-hamas side.

Does what you are saying imply that horrors of the war (like the ones we see in Gaza) or demand for unconditional surrender constitute a strong argument against durable peace in the region? Because history shows also that one can demand and obtain UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Potsdam-Declaration) and have prospects of a durable peace after enough devastation (including civilians, kids, cities) and even after heavy bombings and nukes. — neomac

If you ask for unconditional surrender and assume to get an unconditional surrender, then there has to be someone that SURRENDERS! — ssu

Not sure what your point is:
- Do you mean that Israel aims at exterminating Palestinians? Israel has the means to exterminate the Palestinians in Israel in Nazi style. Yet they didn’t do it up until now, nor their official rhetoric or the Zionist ideology supports that, nor Netanyahu’s current war against Hamas proves that this is the objective.
- Do you mean that Palestinians will not surrender and will keep fighting as martyrs of their cause? Well then they have to fight in increasingly worse conditions against a more powerful and more hostile force, and hope the rest of the world will keep supporting their fight, if not save them.

Hence history has shown, that you don't automatically get an unconditional surrender. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of this. And if you think that the only way is then to take the Mongol Horde attitude to the strategy "make a desert and call it peace" of killing literally everybody, then go away only to come two weeks later to check that you really have killed off everyone, you still haven't create real peace for yourself: the Mongol Empire collapsed quite quickly to smaller parts. And isn't remembered so fondly afterwards. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, I neither stated nor believe nor implied nor suggested that unconditional surrender is automatic or necessary or sufficient or necessary&sufficient for durable peace. I just argued that unconditional surrender can come even after brutal and wide devastation.
Besides there are other factors that can likely weigh in for a durable peace which I mentioned already, like: the reaction of the international environment (e.g. if major Hamas sponsors stop their support) and how oppressive is perceived the foreign dominant power to be (e.g. Israel could help restore economy, freedoms and political rights in the occupied territories).

Arafat failed the test badly and set a precedent which obviously biased Israelis toward Palestinian terrorist organizations. — neomac


And the Palestinian/Arab side can actually say the same things of Israel, which didn't accept the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 which was endorsed by the Arab League and immediately embraced by Jasser Arafat and later by Mahmoud Abbas. Polls have find that the Palestinians (then) were favourable towards it.

Yet The Israelis simply rejected it as a "non-starter". — ssu

The proposal which came from the non-Palestinian & Saudis-led Arabs (if Palestinians are a nation they shouldn’t be confused with other nations, right?) was rejected as it was, but many Israeli representatives praised and welcomed the initiative. Indeed, Shimon Peres even offered a counter-proposals to deal with remaining issues (https://www.haaretz.com/2007-05-20/ty-article/peres-israel-to-present-counter-proposal-to-arab-peace-plan/0000017f-f5ce-d47e-a37f-fdfe08050000)
And in any case, beside the thorny problem of the refugees, the Palestinian militants like Hamas (which was the incumbent replacement for Arafat) STILL rejected the proposal, refused to acknowledge Israel, and refused to give up on military fighting Israel. Israel needs security guarantees and no alternative compensation can replace that.

So why is it only the fault of the Arab side? — ssu

.

I was talking about the Palestinians and not the Arabs. And I didn’t talk in terms of “fault” for several reasons which I tried to clarify on different occasions. To summarise my point, blame is assessed wrt a certain way of framing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is that there are many of such framing views, mainly the Palestinian, the Israeli, the international community, ALL OF WHICH can be incompatible and easy to question or discredit. So for these reasons I refrain myself from assessing blame based on any such frames. Yet these different ways of framing the conflict nurture power struggles, and to that extant they all are relevant to one’s understanding of the situation. I challenge others to engage with such an understanding: it’s intellectually more honest and enlightening than chairing moral tribunals over the internet.
Besides you still refrain from talking about strategic failures by the Palestinians and the Arabs (e.g. the expulsion and persecution of Jews in the middle east for the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict made hundreds of thousands of Jews flock into Israel, the so called "Jewish Nakba”, as if the Jews didn’t have enough historical grievances against the Arabs even prior to the birth of Israel), only the West and Israel commit strategic failures.

To me it's obvious. There's no real will for a negotiated peace or a two-state solution. The whole arena has been hijacked by religious extremists who have succeeded to burn every bridge towards peace. And those that accuse only one side about this aren't seeing the reality. — ssu

I certainly do not need to discount the possibility that “there's no real will for a negotiated peace or a two-state solution”. What I’d question is your penchant for reducing controversial policies from Israel and the US as a matter of religious fanatics. Where this the case this would be EVEN MORE worrisome for Gaza which is manifestly and pervasively led by a Islamist regime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism_in_the_Gaza_Strip) sponsored by a Islamist regional power which apparently you keep overlooking in your analysis. (BTW do you know any secular or non-secular Palestinian terrorist organisation programmatically fighting for a two state solution?)
Indeed, secular and nationalist views like those of the Zionist founding fathers were pretty clear about the violent and exclusive nature of the Zionist project which doesn’t support any Palestinian state over the territory the Zionist claimed for Israel. And secular Palestinian nationalism like the one from Arafat until Oslo was also pretty violent in nature and rhetoric. After Oslo, Arafat putative “conversion” came too late, Hamas was growing in power and pulling support from Iran.
Besides Hamas does’t seem to make any difference between secular and non-secular Israelis.
And Netanyahu too is compelled to agree with Hamas on this (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-netanyahu-says-he-will-pave-way-conscript-ultra-orthodox-2024-02-29/)

Japanese proved to be capable of that (and Hamas?) but evidently there were enough decision makers who rejected this logic (starting with the Emperor himself). — neomac

I think who ought to be congratulated are here the Americans in the way they handled both Germany and Japan after WW2. — ssu

Yet nothing was CERTAIN OR EVEN ANTICIPATED before Germany and Japan surrendered after utter devastation. So utter devastation is not necessarily an obstacle to durable peace.

But the order only succeeded when other nations went along with it, not by use of force and threat (as the Soviet Union did), but by cooperation. Places where the US has used old imperial ways aren't so happy with the Americans. — ssu

We can’t simply assume that what once was feasible and convenient under certain circumstances is still feasible and convenient in other circumstances. In the middle east the US experienced the competition of Islamism and other competing hegemonic ambitions so the middle east was very much contested. It seems to me a caricature to take the American policies and the struggle for hegemony in the middle east as the result of sheer dumbness/evilness without considering the pressure coming from the inside (various lobbies) and the outside (authoritarian competitors or uncooperative/sluggish allies).

Somehow that idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation seems for many naive and wrong. — ssu

As far as I’m concerned, what seems to me naive and wrong is not the idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation, but the conflation between desirable and feasible. Human affairs are complicated, opaque and unstable under stress, so consequences can be unpredictable and very costly. Security concerns are rooted in this basic acknowledgement and coping with such predicament has its logic forged by historical experience, not by peace&love common sense. There is no amount of moral outrage over “dumbness” or “evilness” that can recover this predicament once for all. EITHER dumb and evil are the powerful majority so the minority can be screwed just because it’s the powerless minority, OR dumb and evil are the powerful minority which can screw the life of all others because the majority is powerless. SO once again POWER is what is needed to make dumb and evil people harmless. And peace&love common sense rhetoric doesn’t look that powerful in human history, so far. That is to say, the Great Satan is not the cause but the product of power struggles to cope with security concerns which start at the grassroots of humanity, always and everywhere, which then are amplified by evolving technological and demographic processes.

They weren’t born into a traumatised oppressed population as Palestinians are. If Hamas, surrenders now. The people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation. — Punshhh

Agreed with the first point. It must be taken into account for the possibility of reaching durable peace. But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?
If one looks at the history of blockades and barriers of Gaza and West Bank one sees that they were consequence of the terroristic attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_barrier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier). The blockade imposed on the movement of goods and people in and out of the Gaza Strip followed Hamas's takeover in 2007. So the “Apartheid condition” you are talking about, is very much motivated by concerns over Palestinian terroristic attacks like those of Hamas. So the segregation the Palestinians are experiencing is arguably the consequence of Hamas fight and the more Hamas fights the worse it gets for Palestinians as we see with the current devastation because Netanyahu is compelled to demilitarised the entire Gaza and police Gaza like in the West Bank.

This West Bank regime is the perniciously oppressive apartheid state I referred to. — Punshhh

Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.

I don’t see a solution here, a confederate state would be the same in all but name. — Punshhh

What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.

But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?

Simply because the situation has worsened (the means and practice of the Israeli government and the IDF.)
This is self evident for these reasons;
The stand off between Israel and the leaders of Palestine has worsened and deepened over a long time, as each new conflict occurs. It only ever gets worse, not better.
There is clear evidence of Israeli leaders becoming militant, radicalised. This will only make the situation worse and make it more difficult for Israeli’s to trust Palestinians.
Their insensitivity to the plight as evidenced by their actions re’ Gaza and concerns of Palestinian people, suggests that they will remain insensitive in any subsequent Israeli controlled state.

Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.

I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case.

What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.

You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name.

Not sure what your point is: — neomac

You might set your objective to that you fight a war to an unconditional surrender, but that doesn't mean that it happens automatically. Meaning that the defeated enemy can choose to surrender to you, hear your demands isn't something that automatically happens. Or simply doesn't appear to your surrender meeting. Hopefully you get it.

So the “Apartheid condition” you are talking about, is very much motivated by concerns over Palestinian terroristic attacks like those of Hamas. — neomac

Wrong. The Apartheid system started immediately after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza when the military occupation started. Far earlier than the first Intifada. See here.

That Palestinians living in the occupied territories are under military law and aren't citizens of Israel while Israelis living in the West Bank are (and are under Israeli law), is the obvious sign of an Apartheid system. And of course, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in Israeli elections as they aren't Israeli citizens. As there isn't an one state solution.

Usually people living in a country are under the same laws and are considered citizens of the country. Not so in occupied territories that Israel holds. That's one thing of the Apartheid system, which started well before there was any Hamas formed.

In Israel:

Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Israeli citizens and enjoy the same rights and liberties as other Jewish Israelis. They also enjoy relative impunity for violence against Palestinians. Most of the West Bank’s Palestinian residents fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which operates under an expired presidential mandate and has no functioning legislature.

In Apartheid South Africa:

In the Apartheid system The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 made every Black South African, irrespective of actual residence, a citizen of one of the Bantustans, which were organized on the basis of ethnic and linguistic groupings defined by white ethnographers. Blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship and thereby excluded from the South African body politic.

Hopefully you do see the similarities and just why people can refer quite aptly the situation to Apartheid.

"A United Nations team has found “clear and convincing” information that hostages in Gaza were sexually abused, Pramila Patten, the UN special envoy on sexual violence in conflict told reporters on Monday. There are “reasonable grounds” to believe the sexual violence is ongoing, she added.

According to Patten, the team also found “reasonable grounds to believe that conflict related sexual violence, including rape and gang rape occurred” during Hamas’ October 7 terror attack in Israel, in what is the most definitive finding by the global organization on sexual assault allegations in the aftermath of the attack."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/europe/un-team-sexual-abuse-oct-7-hostages-intl/index.html

Bunch of animals. Israel should redouble their efforts to remove them from the gene pool.

Bunch of animals. — RogueAI

Yeah, Hamas should double their efforts and take these animal murderers of 15000 children out. :up:

But why do you believe that if Hamas surrenders, the people of Palestine will be plunged into an even more oppressive situation? What evidence do you have? What reasons?

↪neomac

Simply because the situation has worsened (the means and practice of the Israeli government and the IDF.)
This is self evident for these reasons;
The stand off between Israel and the leaders of Palestine has worsened and deepened over a long time, as each new conflict occurs. It only ever gets worse, not better.
There is clear evidence of Israeli leaders becoming militant, radicalised. This will only make the situation worse and make it more difficult for Israeli’s to trust Palestinians.
Their insensitivity to the plight as evidenced by their actions re’ Gaza and concerns of Palestinian people, suggests that they will remain insensitive in any subsequent Israeli controlled state. — Punshhh

What is your argument here? The Jewish psyche? You should suggest Israelis your therapist, I guess.

You proposed a confederated solution. My point was that such a confederated solution would amount to another form of apartheid by a different name. — Punshhh

Dude, really? Is that the most you can do?

Yes you said that so many times. And the first time was already one time too much.

I will stop when you agree with me about that. Or demonstrate that it is not the case. — Punshhh

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

Not sure what your point is: — neomac

You might set your objective to that you fight a war to an unconditional surrender, but that doesn't mean that it happens automatically. Meaning that the defeated enemy can choose to surrender to you, hear your demands isn't something that automatically happens. Or simply doesn't appear to your surrender meeting. Hopefully you get it. — ssu

It sounds as if you are making an objection to me, yet I didn’t claim nowhere that unconditional surrender should happen automatically. Indeed you can not quote me saying it. So what’s the point of bringing that up? Even fighting for one state or two states solution “doesn't mean that it happens automatically”. So what?

So the “Apartheid condition” you are talking about, is very much motivated by concerns over Palestinian terroristic attacks like those of Hamas. — neomac

Wrong. The Apartheid system started immediately after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza when the military occupation started. Far earlier than the first Intifada. See here. — ssu

You can call it “apartheid system” but I’m not compelled to accept your classification until we agree on the notion of “apartheid system” and its application on this case. Your link simply reports the following: The existence of a dual system of laws for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank has been used as evidence by those who claim that Israel practices apartheid in the region.. As far as I’m concerned, I’m not sure if “dual system of laws for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank” is enough evidence to legally support the accusation of “crime of apartheid” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid) or call Israel as an “apartheid state”, so I will let legal experts and competent tribunals on such matter to decide. However I’ll question it for historical reasons I’ll clarify below.

That Palestinians living in the occupied territories are under military law and aren't citizens of Israel while Israelis living in the West Bank are (and are under Israeli law), is the obvious sign of an Apartheid system.

And of course, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in Israeli elections as they aren't Israeli citizens. As there isn't an one state solution. Usually people living in a country are under the same laws and are considered citizens of the country. Not so in occupied territories that Israel holds.

That's one thing of the Apartheid system, — ssu

Does the fact that you notice “one thing of the Apartheid system” or as “the obvious sign of an Apartheid system” suffice to call Israel an “Apartheid System”? Because that is what you seem to claim.
As far as I’m concerned, the dual system in the West Bank occupied territories consists in the fact that Palestinians were/are under Israeli military law and not under Israeli civil laws, because Palestinians are not Israelis, and military laws in the West Bank (which still leave room for Palestinian local civil laws) are enforced by the military force which controls that territory, even if it is a foreign one. That situation is not uncommon, at least during wartime.
Does this dual legal system suffice to classify Israel as an “Apartheid system” as such or an “Apartheid system” in the West Bank region, and even more so if it protracts after wartime period? I find it disputable at least on historical grounds. The “Apartheid system” I have in mind is the one implemented in South Africa. South Africa Apartheid System wasn’t a military occupation over disputed land, the imposed legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_legislation) by a white minority over a black majority in the whole country was explicitly racially based, economically exploitative/discriminatory, legally abusive (e.g. by allowing corporal punishments to blacks who violated the law), beside being politically authoritarian and segregational. And all these traits are relevant to me (as to the sources I rely on) to assess if a system can be called Apartheid System.
So I can get and do not need to discount that Palestinians in the West Bank feel oppressed by authoritarian and segregational measures (like walls and blockades) of the Israeli military rule, in addition to the abuses they accuse the Israelis to commit. And I can get if, to many, that is already enough to trigger humanitarian concerns, accusations of committing a war crime, support for the Palestinian cause, or remarks about striking analogies with the South African Apartheid System.
But I still find misleading to call Israel and apartheid system to the extant such classification suggests inferences and beliefs which would hold for the paradigmatic case of the South Africa apartheid system, but arguably not for Israel.

which started well before there was any Hamas formed. — ssu

I was talking about barriers and barricades as a form of segregation comparable to Apartheid segregational measures. Of such measures I was saying they were a response to Palestinian terroristic attacks, not specifically to Hamas’ attacks alone. But I welcome your objection to the extant it challenges people, you included, to clarify their understanding of the notion “Apartheid system” as I tried to do previously.

In Israel:

Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Israeli citizens and enjoy the same rights and liberties as other Jewish Israelis. They also enjoy relative impunity for violence against Palestinians. Most of the West Bank’s Palestinian residents fall under the administrative jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which operates under an expired presidential mandate and has no functioning legislature.


In Apartheid South Africa:

In the Apartheid system The Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970 made every Black South African, irrespective of actual residence, a citizen of one of the Bantustans, which were organized on the basis of ethnic and linguistic groupings defined by white ethnographers. Blacks were stripped of their South African citizenship and thereby excluded from the South African body politic.


Hopefully you do see the similarities and just why people can refer quite aptly the situation to Apartheid. — ssu

As I argued, I can see the similarities but I question that such similarities suffice to “refer quite aptly the situation to Apartheid”. I’m sure even Hitler and some random Jew burned in a concentration camp might have had lots of interesting similarities too, yet such similarities might not be enough to call both of them nazi.

Dude, really? Is that the most you can do?

Well I can list more reasons, it’s quite a long list. Also it’s the direction of travel. The notion that an Israeli administration that would be introduced in Gaza would be an improvement on what was there before October 7th. Or that it would even come close to something acceptable to the Palestinian population is an extraordinary position.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.

Perhaps we should try and agree what a state is first, or what a human is.

The notion that an Israeli administration that would be introduced in Gaza would be an improvement on what was there before October 7th. Or that it would even come close to something acceptable to the Palestinian population is an extraordinary position

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. — Punshhh

And where did I make such extraordinary claims exactly? Can you quote me verbatim?

You mean that the burden of proof is all on me and you have to do nothing other than making claims? You didn’t even offer a clarification of what you mean by “Apartheid state”.


Perhaps we should try and agree what a state is first, or a human. — Punshhh

Sure, if you suspect a disagreement between us over the notion of “state” or “human”. The point is that YOU feel compelled to call Israel an “Apartheid state” and want me to agree with you since you suspect a disagreement (and rightly so).

P.S. For some reason, I do not get notifications from you, even if you reference my nickname.

Some go with October 7th as the justification for "taking the gloves off" and everything else would be "appeasement" for them. — ssu

I don't think Israel is special in this regard. As an American, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 come to mind as comparable instances casualty-wise -- both of which led to "the gloves coming off." Can you cite me an instance where comparable casualties did not lead to further escalation?

Regarding the "Jewish psyche" mentioned earlier, here's Golda Meir:

“Those that perished in Hitler’s gas chambers were the last Jews to die without standing up to defend themselves.”