By the way, Israel does not represent Jews globally. It doesn't even represent all Jews within its borders. Many are adamantly opposed to Israel's malpractices. — Tzeentch

Sure, but I didn't say it did, so this is a straw man. Rather, this is the only Jewish nation-state. That is just a fact.

I think you'll have to admit that even if we disregard all of the nations you named, we will still end up with near-unanimous condemnation of Israel's conduct.

So perhaps Israel is uniquely barbaric in the modern day and age.

Its apartheid regime is perhaps most reminiscent of South Africa. South Africa also possessed over nuclear weapons, by the way.

By the way, Israel does not represent Jews globally. It doesn't even represent all Jews within its borders. Many are adamantly opposed to Israel's malpractices. — Tzeentch

:up: :up:

Jewish nation-state — schopenhauer1

i.e. ethnonationalist colonizer-settler apartheid regime

So perhaps Israel is uniquely barbaric in the modern day and age. — Tzeentch

I think this now shifts to the other thread as to what war looks like.

As far as "apartheid".. There has to be a peace movement amongst the Palestinians. That means controlling people like Hamas. Until that is solved, Israel has to defend itself.

This idea that Palestinians are like puffer fish that are filled with rage that just needs to be "let out" in various barbaric acts is ludicrous. But I'm sure you will defend it as "oppressed". And this will go around in circles.

Arafat had a chance to settle all this. He didn't. And until this type of ignoring is had, we can't talk about the issues we DO agree upon.

As far as "apartheid".. There has to be a peace movement amongst the Palestinians. That means controlling people like Hamas. Until that is solved, Israel has to defend itself. — schopenhauer1

In 1967 it was Israel who decided to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza (among other territories).

Its base territorial greed cannot excuse "controlling people like Hamas" which in practice means the brutal oppression of millions. Israel can't even legally claim self-defense in these regions, because as the belligerent occupier, it is by definition in the wrong.

In reality, there isn't even an onus on the Palestinians to negotiate. The 1967 expansion of Israel was illegal, period. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the West Bank and Gaza.

Those pesky Palestinians, refusing to simply acknowledge Israel's illegal occupation and just leave, eh?

In 1967 it was Israel who decided to illegally occupy the West Bank and Gaza (among other territories).

Its base territorial greed cannot excuse "controlling people like Hamas" which in practice means the brutal oppression of millions. Israel can't even legally claim self-defense in these regions, because as the belligerent occupier, it is by definition in the wrong. — Tzeentch

Load whatever premise to get the conclusion you need.

In reality, there isn't even an onus on the Palestinians to negotiate. The 1967 expansion of Israel was illegal, period. It has no legitimate claim whatsoever on the West Bank and Gaza. — Tzeentch

Rather, the Arab/Islamic states surrounding Israel were immanently going to try to conquer it.. Remember Nasser and the Pan-Arab movement at the time was threatening, but are we going to now rehash the conditions of June 1967? I'm sure that's been discussed here before...

Those pesky Palestinians, refusing to simply acknowledge Israel's illegal occupation and just leave, eh? — Tzeentch

This is a strawman. I didn't say that. They don't have to acknowledge anything. If "not acknowledging" means non-violence, then sure, that.

Load whatever premise to get the conclusion you need. — schopenhauer1

The premise has all the support it needs: decades upon decades of UN Security Council resolutions.

There are few things as set in stone as the fact that Israel is the belligerent occupier and has been in the wrong ever since it made that ill-fated decision.

Rather, the Arab/Islamic states surrounding Israel were immanently going to try to conquer it.. — schopenhauer1

Haha. Hahaha.

A "massive" threat I'm sure, considering Israel clobbered all of its neighbors simultaneously and doubled its own territory in the span of six days. :lol:

Yea, I'm sure the Israelis were real scared of them.

If "not acknowledging" means non-violence, then sure, that. — schopenhauer1

It's a bit rich to expect non-violence from a people who have been subjected to a brutal occupation, apartheid and other crimes against humanity for decades.

When will Israel try its hand at non-violence?

The premise has all the support it needs: decades upon decades of UN Security Council resolutions. — Tzeentch

Already addressed this, so I'm done debating it.. You can keep referring to it if you want though.

There are few things as set in stone as the fact that Israel is the belligerent occupier and has been in the wrong ever since it made that ill-fated decision. — Tzeentch

That seems to be your belief, not "set in stone" fact. But if you want to lower the value signaling, we can discuss various ways that might resolve to a state-solution.. However, even if we worked out in perfect harmony steps that might work, what of it? We are just two people debating on an online forum.

A "massive" threat I'm sure, considering Israel clobbered all of its neighbors simultaneously and doubled its own territory in the span of six days. :lol: — Tzeentch

I never get this kind of point. If an enemy is bested militarily, even easily, does it make it any less threatening? That's precisely why they did a pre-emptive strike!

It's a bit rich to expect non-violence from a people who have been subjected to a brutal occupation, apartheid and other crimes of humanity for decades.

When will Israel try its hand at non-violence? — Tzeentch

I just think this is unrealistic. If you have the upperhand, you don't equalize the playing field because someone on the sidelines calls "foul!".. in order so that when the fighting (DOES INEVITABLY) HAPPEN, you can be that much more defenseless and so be clobbered.

As we've discussed before, the fear is that Pals take the hill country in the West Bank with free use of arms, that at some point a group like Hamas will try to form a pincer attack and relentlessly try to send missiles and attacks on Israel proper.. And of course, this would lead to a "re-occupation".. So yeah there needs to be a true non-violence first amongst the Pals, before Israel would start thinking in that direction.

But again, we actually agree on certain points, but the way you are debating here, we can't get there. And thus the debate goes in the usual direction.

I never get this kind of point. If an enemy is bested militarily, even easily, does it make it any less threatening? — schopenhauer1

If Germany had excused its invasion of France under the pretense that France was oh-so threatening, would we take it very seriously?

I wouldn't.

And Israel's victory in the Six Day War was even more one-sided than Germany's.

Israel took an opportunity to double its territory, thinking it would get away with it. And then the world didn't let it.

If Germany had excused its invasion of France under the pretense that France was oh-so threatening, would we take it very seriously? — Tzeentch

Except France wasn't threatening. If anything, they were intractably in a defensive posture, even when the situation did not call for it. WWI did a number on them I guess.

Israel took an opportunity to double its territory, thinking it would get away with it. And then the world didn't let it. — Tzeentch

Again, if you want to load the premise this way, you will get your own conclusion. Someone else I am sure will bring up the 3 No's and whatnot, and that there was room for negotiation if the Arab states had made an agreement after its disastrous loss. This didn't happen though.

But again, you refuse to steer the conversation in constructive ways, so we can just keep making our points.. historical, ethical, strategic, or whatnot.

Except France wasn't threatening. If anything, they were intractably in a defensive posture, even when the situation did not call for it. — schopenhauer1

Except that the Maginot Line was most definitely built to accomodate a counter-offensive into Germany.

It even explains why on the Wikipedia page you linked...

Someone else I am sure will bring up the 3 No's and whatnot, and that there was room for negotiation if the Arab states had made an agreement after its disastrous loss. This didn't happen though. — schopenhauer1

Negotiation?

Israel decided to take land that didn't belong to it, and its adversaries rightfully resisted any naturalisation of this state of affairs. Just like the Palestinians have resisted the illegal occupation.

Why do you keep suggesting Israel should be accomodated in its illegal actions?

Except that the Maginot Line was most definitely built to accomodate a counter-offensive into Germany. — Tzeentch

Huh? The point was France did little to jack shit when Hitler was violating the Versailles treaty, opting to build a wall over taking any military or other measures to “head it off at the pass”. Essentially, they just put their head in the sand from looming threats..so in a way, Israel is the France here, but did the opposite strategy and didn’t wait to be taken over by surrounding armies.

Why do you keep suggesting Israel should be accomodated in its illegal actions? — Tzeentch

Illegal action to defend themselves? Nah not buying that argument.

decades upon decades of UN Security Council resolutions.
— Tzeentch

Already addressed this, — schopenhauer1

Yeah, already addressed it: “Sorry, biased.”
Why?
“Look at all the countries we can disregard like China and Russia and all of Africa and the Arab ones…”
And what of the ones that remain, even after these bullshit eliminations?
“Well the UN is biased.”

Another masterclass in logic by resident apartheid/ethnic cleansing / genocide apologists.

Illegal action to defend themselves? Nah not buying that argument. — schopenhauer1

There you have it folks.

Yeah, the state we happen to like for whatever reason did it, so it must be defensive. The US didn’t invade Vietnam— it was defending Vietnam. Israel is committing a genocide — it’s defending itself.

I guess Hamas too was just taking “defensive actions” on October 7th. They have a right to defend themselves against Israeli occupation, after all.

What a stupid, ahistorical rationalization.

Huh? The point was France did little to jack shit when Hitler was violating the Versailles treaty, opting to build a wall over taking any military or other measures to “head it off at the pass”. Essentially, they just put their head in the sand from looming threats..so in a way, Israel is the France here, but did the opposite strategy and didn’t wait to be taken over by surrounding armies. — schopenhauer1

France was actually preparing for a new conflict with Germany, and it was preparing to fight that conflict on German soil.

Yet, when Germany invaded France, Germany was the clear aggressor and no one would buy it if Germany said, after clobbering France in a month-and-a-half, that France was the aggressor and that it was reacting to a threat from France.

Israel, just like Germany, grossly overpowered its rivals. Israel even tried to play the victim afterwards, not unlike today.

Illegal action to defend themselves? — schopenhauer1

So occupying territory illegally now becomes "self-defense"?

When Israel does it, it is self-defense, and when Hamas does it, is it terror?

Is that sort of the way you believe this works?

Based on what you're saying, one could easily spin the October 7th attacks to be "self-defense" - Israel is the clear aggressor in this conflict after all.

France was actually preparing for a new conflict with Germany, and it was preparing to fight that conflict on German soil. — Tzeentch

You said earlier, from the Wiki article, that they were preparing for a "counteroffensive". That means AFTER they were attacked they would fight back. They were in a defensive posture. Unlike this scenario you are using where France wasn't threatening Germany, it was actually the other way around, that Germany was threatening France. And thus, unlike your scenario, the Arab armies were IMMINANTELY and loudly threatening Israel's existence. Hence why I said that you should switch this where Israel was France. Except, UNLIKE France that just sat there waiting for an attack, Israel acted pre-emptively and was obviously successful. If anything, the lesson learned in 1930s is you don't let an aggressive bully get away with it and constantly concede as Western powers were doing when Hitler was clearly violating the Versailles Treaty- rebuilding armies, taking Rhineland, invading Austria and the anschluss, going into Czechoslovakia, etc. He took over Alsace Lorraine, etc. None of this was stopped.

So occupying territory illegally now becomes "self-defense"? — Tzeentch

Yes when during the time leading up to the pre-emptive strike, you heard nothing but rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map and then after words, they said "NO" to negotiations with Israel, recognition of Israel, and no to peace with Israel. Now later on, in 79, Sadat was the first to actually overcome this stubbornness, also due to Black September, and Jordan was willing to do secret dealings with Israel that was formerly signed as a peace agreement in 1994. Oslo Accords also, so there were strides, and the West Bank was the main negotiating block with the Palestinians for the new homeland. You would have to realize before a certain time it was just assumed that all of Israel was seen as a non-starter. And even now, it is the same. Of course, even the ones willing to negotiate didn't take a good deal or present a counteroffer. And you had more violence.

Yeah, the state we happen to like for whatever reason did it, so it must be defensive. The US didn’t invade Vietnam— it was defending Vietnam. Israel is committing a genocide — it’s sending itself. — Mikie

Yeah except Vietnam was not right next door and surrounding you with several countries not just one, immanently threatening your existence as a country.

You're all over the place.

Now aggressive action is self-defense. I'm sure oppression and apartheid are self-defense, etc.

There's simply no way you can condemn Hamas while apologizing for Israel without being an utter hypocrite.

After all, I could use the same logic to claim Hamas is acting out of self-defense.

Now aggressive action is self-defense. I'm sure oppression and apartheid are self-defense, etc. — Tzeentch

Just like stopping Hitler before 1940 would have been justified and needed to stop an actual aggressor.

There's simply no way you can condemn Hamas while apologizing for Israel without being an utter hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Yes, sending rockets, and then actually invading and brutally targeting civilians and capturing hostages rather than peace talks would make me condemn Hamas. But you go ahead and ignore that so you can bring up your talking points about the Israeli rightwing.

Just like stopping Hitler before 1940 would have been justified and needed to stop an actual aggressor. — schopenhauer1

Except that 1940's Germany was an actual threat, and wasn't bullied over the span of six days after which Israel doubled its own territory.

Yes, sending rockets, and then actually invading and brutally targeting civilians and capturing hostages rather than peace talks would make me condemn Hamas. — schopenhauer1

Why? They are simply reacting to Israeli aggression with the few tools at their disposal.

There's nothing you have said so far that disqualifies that from being an act of self-defense.

and wasn't bullied over the span of six days after which Israel doubled its own territory. — Tzeentch

:lol: :roll: I'm sure Hitler would have said they were bullied if Western powers stepped in. Look at what Nasser's Egypt, and Jordan and Syria were doing and saying...

That's unfortunately what Israel has been - a bully.

Why? They are simply reacting to Israeli aggression with the few tools at their disposal.

There's nothing you have said so far that disqualifies that from being an act of self-defense. — Tzeentch

Raping and dismembering and killing civilians doesn't disqualify them? Cool, we can stop talking because we are so far apart in terms of what we see as justified violence for political goals. And to conflate actual self-defense to an actual movement bent on PURPOSEFULLY using disgusting tactics, is beyond the pale and thus disqualifies whatever "justice" is sough as the ends.

[...] dismembering and killing civilians doesn't disqualify them? — schopenhauer1

This is what Israel is doing 'round the clock, and you're still calling that self-defense, aren't you?

That's unfortunately what Israel has been - a bully. — Tzeentch

Cool, you can also tell that to millions of people in the region who are now affected by their suicide-bombings (stopping previous negotiations), and current round of straight up barbaric civilian brutal murders and rapes and dismemberment.

This is what Israel is doing 'round the clock, and you're still calling that self-defense, aren't you? — Tzeentch

Ah right, you confuse who the bullies are, and as we already covered, you confuse what war entails. Off to the other thread.

Right. I'm the one that is confused.

Nevermind the fact that any brutality perpetrated by Hamas you may point at has been repeated by Israel tenfold.

Right. I'm the one that is confused.

Nevermind the fact that any brutality perpetrated by Hamas you may point at has been repeated by Israel tenfold. — Tzeentch

You can say whatever you want and that doesn't make it true. Justifying Hamas' means and confusing war is on you, not me.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907528
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/907531

But it is true, isn't it?

Israel has inflicted over ten times as many civilian casualties as Hamas did.

Nothing screams "moral high ground" more than resorting to the same barbarism as your enemy and outdoing him ten times over.

But it is true, isn't it?

Israel has inflicted over ten times as many civilian casualties as Hamas did.

Nothing screams "moral high ground" more than resorting to the same barbarism as your enemy and outdoing him ten times over. — Tzeentch

You can have the last post if you want, I already addressed the issues. What more do you want from me?

immanently threatening your existence as a country. — schopenhauer1

It was argued that the spread of communism did indeed threaten the very existence of our country — and immanently. But that was just the pretext for that particular war. Plenty of people bought it, plenty who said it might have even believed it.

Israel is occupying lands, illegally and against the wishes of an entire people. They know very well the Palestinians aren’t going to stop fighting. So they keep pushing settlements in the West Bank, they make Gaza a hellhole, they mow the lawn, they promote Hamas (as Hamas— like Likud— doesn’t want a two state solution, as the PA does), and now they turn Gaza into rubble and displaced a million people.

The hope is to get rid of the Palestinian problem under the guise of “defense,” hoping the world believes history began on October 7th. So far, not working. Except with you and a handful of others with vast Wikipedia research.