...just like anybody else, me and you included. — neomac

Well, of course an interviewer can just ask the protesters what are they doing and why and leave then those who watch it to make their own conclusions.

Hardly done anymore, but totally possible. In fact, I remember the best coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protests made by Russia Today (when we saw it still). They actually truly just went around interviewing people and once ended up with a student that was libertarian supporting Ron Paul, which just shows how different thoughts protesters have. Naturally the channel didn't cover Anti-Putin demonstrations similarly. Then was very much done like Fox News made coverage of OWS. :smirk:

I don't doubt that either. Yet one must be naive, if not disingenuous, to believe that those pro-Palestinian students "protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending)" may have a political impact immune from risks such as costly unintended consequences (like being instrumental to Hamas) where the most direct costs are on Israeli's and Jewish shoulders. — neomac

What political impact do they have?

I don't think so much. In the media, "students" are basically portrayed to be protesting for one thing. Now it's Palestine, another time it was Black live matters. Even Greta has changed his costume to wear a keffiyeh.

If governments' legitimacy and accountability highly depend on the governments' capacity of preserving security (whatever that means) of those who willingly submit to it, we should not expect governments to pursue security of foreign people at the expense of domestic people's security. — neomac

What a government does to foreigners ought to matter. And there are laws of war. But then you can take the attitude of Russia and don't care at all.

Actually we are compelled to expect quite the contrary, especially if security concerns between foreign and domestic people are perceived as incompatible for historical and geopolitical reasons. Then of course you can add on top of that the risk of nasty polarising propaganda and politicians' selfish interest on one or both sides, among others. — neomac

Some of us still make the difference between a civilian and a combatant.

My point is that one can't convincingly flatten the analysis of this conflict down just to nasty propaganda on one or both sides. I find it shallow, if not hypocritical, and arrogant. Even more so if this is done in a philosophy forum. — neomac

Then don't think that everybody else see's the conflict as black and white. First of all, Israel exists, and it's victory in this conflict should be evident from the fact that the arguing is over the 1967 borders. As myself I have said, this conflict ought to have ended when the Cold War did. It didn't and there's no way back now. As long as it is with so little impact to Israel, the mowing of the lawn every once in a while will continue. And on the Palestinian side, a new generation of young men have to come to military age, which will also come to be.

Possibly connected, in some way, to their unflinching insistence on their (stronger) neighbor's destruction and replacement with Islamic rule. — BitconnectCarlos

If you think that Palestinians are so insane that they don't have any touch to reality, then do think so.

It's not insanity. According to the Palestinian cultural narrative, the Jews stole their land in '48 and they simply want it all back. Make it all Muslim land again. It's not that radical. It was Muslim land for centuries. Polls of Palestinians repeatedly reflect this attitude. The "occupation" is Israel (i.e. Jewish self-rule) itself.

There's the narrative that propaganda tells.

Then there's reality and understanding the realities.

But if you think that every Palestinians craves to be a martyr, because the gates of heaven will open and (I forgot how many) virgins are there waiting for them, I would disagree. But yes, there are those among them who will believe that bullshit.

I think some would be happy, if they would get to what it was like before the first Intifada. Memories are always so rosy.

But go ahead and keep digging through tiktoks. — Benkei

Like this tiktok?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
1988, but maybe you have something more current?
In this document here referenced, they make clear they are interested neither in peace nor any peaceful settlement. Whatever their "official" positions or statements, their actions speak much louder.

, Israel is already facing risks and has been for a long time. Ongoing injustices aren't a solution.

As I said, read this thread. But you've repeatedly shown zero interest into educating yourself about simple facts which is why I have zero interest in repeating myself.

I guess you're right, Benkei. Only a fool would trouble to research the documents themselves and ask about them when instead they can just read your posts here on TPF.

Only a fool ignores what is right in front of him. My posts included a multitude of verifiable links. Good luck.

what are you referring to specifically?

But if you think that every Palestinians craves to be a martyr, because the gates of heaven will open and (I forgot how many) virgins are there waiting for them, I would disagree. — ssu

I would also disagree that every Palestinian wants that but it wouldn't be particularly reassuring to find that e.g. only ~75% of them want that.

Wanting to be a martyr is, contextually speaking, not that radical. Christianity lionizes martyrdom. Islam does as well, and Palestine is a highly religious society. I wasn't able to find any polls on this exact question. But the shahid holds a high place within Palestinian society and Islam does claim perfect knowledge of the afterlife as revealed through the Qu'ran.

to make yourself feel good for defending oppressors and murderers. — Benkei

No, I call for the complete destruction of the oppressors and murderers - i.e. Hamas.

, injustices against Palestinians have been posted throughout the thread, as have the threat against Israel (not going to re-repeat). Maybe I'll keep bringing up both, hoping that some folks can get over themselves, and the discourse not just be the usual repetitions. ;)

no, you call for the destruction of only some oppressors. So you're just a hypocrite. I dare you to be consistent and voice the same about Israel if you believe you're actually offering anything that resembles a solution.

You're just a mean little man filled with hate.

I would also disagree that every Palestinian wants that but it wouldn't be particularly reassuring to find that e.g. only ~75% of them want that. — BitconnectCarlos

So only one of four doesn't want to commit suicide? Really?

If so, then the "Palestinian problem" would solve itself in no time with a huge stream of explosions, I guess...

Maybe I'll keep bringing up both, hoping that some folks can get over themselves, and the discourse not just be the usual repetitions. — jorndoe

Oh they won't. They won't notice at all you or others that do look at both objectively. They just will notice that you are criticizing their side (and thus won't notice you also criticizing the other) . How (and why) would they notice it?

Oh they won't. They won't notice at all you or others that do look at both objectively. They just will notice that you are criticizing their side (and thus won't notice you also criticizing the other) . How (and why) would they notice it? — ssu

There's an inherent problem to both-sideism though when people think equal monks, equal hoods but they start forgetting its corollary: unequal monks.

Both sides commit war crimes but this obfuscates the vital difference that war crimes committed by the oppressed are fundamentally different than those of oppressors. The moral dimensions are not the same even when ignoring intensity and scale. And they are grotesquely unalike when taking intensity and scale into account as the past 70 years have shown.

There's no war. These are not equal parties. There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West.

So only one of four doesn't want to commit suicide? Really? — ssu

Martyrs also include e.g. those who die fighting Israel with a rifle in hand and (I believe?) any civilian who is killed by Israel. Thus Hamas is utterly unconcerned with Palestinian civilian casualties -- why allow them refuge into terror tunnels when they can achieve Jannah?



Palestinian governments will not punish Palestinians for committing crimes against Israelis therefore Israeli settlers sometimes seek vigilante justice in the West Bank.

no, you call for the destruction of only some oppressors. — Benkei

if you want the destruction of all oppressors just call in the meteor. All states oppress.

I dare you to be consistent and voice the same about Israel

I would if Israel ever committed a 10/7 with the sole purpose of slaughtering & capturing & raping as many civilians as possible. Even in the darkest depths of WWII Jews never stooped to that. They never gleefully murdered innocent German civilians. But maybe in your reality they just gleefully ride around murdering Palestinians for no reason. :roll:

You're just a mean little man filled with hate. — Benkei

You hate both sides to this conflict; I only hate one. Or do you not hate Hamas? :brow:

Bibi's regime + settler movement = Hamas, etc. IMO, "both oppressors" have forfeited their "right to exist". Secular Jews & secular Arabs have been effectively disenfranchised for decades, thus the incessant cycles of atrocities & reprisals driven by religious extremists on both sides. As a matter of fact, zionfascist Bibi has supported Hamas for decades in order to "justify" apartheid, torture and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Shin Bet & IDF; apparently not enough Israelis have been slaughtered yet for Jews to break the death grip of their zionfascism. Even Sharon in the end had agreed with Rabin (& Barak) that the "Greater Israel" policy – lebensraum – (movement) will eventually destroy Israel and therefore has to cease asap. And yet, decades on, reciprocal mass murdering continues.

, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss (pointing out) that there's more than one important problem, and that they're best addressed/resolved in the same round. Is that what you call both-sideism? We all know the history, humanitarianism (including homophobia), etc; besides, it's been re-re-iterated often enough here in the thread.

, I'm not really reaching you, am I? We're not just talking some random vigilantes supposedly outside the reach of Israeli justice.

Getting the conflict aspects (and opinions) out in the open is important enough, dismissing a significant important part thereof isn't good enough. None of the radicals are going to get exactly what they want.

I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss (pointing out) that there's more than one important problem, and that they're best addressed/resolved in the same round. Is that what you call both-sideism? We all know the history, humanitarianism (including homophobia), etc; besides, it's been re-re-iterated often enough here in the thread. — jorndoe

I'm hardly dismissing it, I'm saying that it depends how it's framed. Invariably, we've only seen one type. Your tendency to share information without context doesn't help.

We have people here defending atrocities and calling it justice. They bark like dogs and call it reason. Case in point:

I would if Israel ever committed a 10/7 with the sole purpose of slaughtering & capturing & raping as many civilians as possible. Even in the darkest depths of WWII Jews never stooped to that. They never gleefully murdered innocent German civilians. But maybe in your reality they just gleefully ride around murdering Palestinians for no reason. :roll: — BitconnectCarlos

The crimes of Israel are multitude and worse in intensity and scale than the crimes of Hamas and have persisted for decades.

There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West. — Benkei

I'm hardly dismissing it — Benkei

:brow:

Keep up, the context is the (history of the) Palestinians and Jews in the region, up to and including now. Since that's centuries-long and large (re-repeated in the thread), we might focus on the present situation, like, say, two states, the injustices against Palestinians, and the threat against Israel (also re-repeated in the thread).

^{(Perhaps you'd like to see @Tzeentch's scenario become reality, by, say, isolating Israel internationally, and letting their righteous neighbors run them over (potentially involving nuclear weapons)...? That'd take a bit of sadism I suppose.)}

Here in the real world, there's more than one important problem to be addressed / figured out, contrary to what you and @BitconnectCarlos keep telling everyone.

The crimes of Israel are multitude and worse in intensity and scale than the crimes of Hamas and have persisted for decades. — Benkei

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't know evil if it knocked on your door.

I'm serious. A masked terrorist with a machete could knock on your door ready to kill you and your family and we could still say "well the Netherlands/the West is far more evil in both intensity and scale then this little rag-tag terrorist group ready to kill you." And it would be true. You belong to the oppressor and the masked terrorist is the oppressed.

Nothing more pure than the newly-formed terrorist group ready to indiscriminately murder. They are much much less evil than the countries they oppose and they can resist how they like.

Bibi's regime + settler movement = Hamas, etc. — 180 Proof

I stopped reading here.

You do not understand the historical aspect of this conflict. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organization founded before the state of Israel that seeks to Islamicize the world. Islamic fundamentalism is much older than the state of Israel and cannot be blame on Bibi or West Bank "settlers" -- some of whom have roots older than Islam itself. It is the Islamic fundamentalists who are the settlers. You think Islam is indigenous to Palestine? Think again.

Nice decontextualised quoting there. Maybe read that post again and see what it's juxtaposed against. What is the Palestinian plight according to you?

bark bark.

Your government openly postulates genocide and you live in a white supremacist nation so when the masked terrorist comes to your door remember to make it easy for them. You're in the oppressor group, after all.

How do you even measure evil vs. evil when you don't believe in objective morality? your argument has no leg to stand on.

It's not insanity. According to the Palestinian cultural narrative, the Jews stole their land in '48 and they simply want it all back. Make it all Muslim land again. It's not that radical. It was Muslim land for centuries. Polls of Palestinians repeatedly reflect this attitude. The "occupation" is Israel (i.e. Jewish self-rule) itself. — BitconnectCarlos

Did you not know that Palestinians are a mix of religions? They're Greek Orthodox Christian and some were Jews, but they've been absorbed into the Jewish communities of Israel.

...just like anybody else, me and you included. — neomac

Well, of course an interviewer can just ask the protesters what are they doing and why and leave then those who watch it to make their own conclusions. — ssu

Sure, but one can clearly hear such students express support for martyrdom, provocation, and resistance narrative, while refusing to explicitly acknowledge their implications when such narrative is to be applied to Hamas, no matter what the interviewer wants me to conclude. And the reason why I believe they are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel doesn’t depend on their holding Hamas flags, or their praising Hamas’ actions, or their response to controversial questions (like the one about decapitated kids), but on their actually chosen arguments and rhetoric.

What political impact do they have?

I don't think so much. In the media, "students" are basically portrayed to be protesting for one thing. Now it's Palestine, another time it was Black live matters. Even Greta has changed his costume to wear a keffiyeh. — ssu

In the current political circumstances, it’s plausible that students protests may have a non-negligible impact (also in the long term). This was more plausible when Biden was the likely candidate [1], with Harris maybe less, but I doubt her declarations would be enough for pro-Palestinian protestors (https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc).
Besides, my argument should still be compelling even if we reasoned in hypothetical terms.

[1]
As the Biden administration balances its policy commitments with the need to address concerns from a crucial segment of its electoral base, media analysts suggest that his response to the Gaza War is costing him support among the young voters who played a significant role in his 2020 election victory. However, dissatisfaction with Biden’s policies does not appear to be shifting young voters toward President Trump. Instead, it is leading to increased disengagement, with 14 percent of young voters indicating they would opt out of voting if the presidential election were held today. Given the overwhelming preference for Biden over Trump among young voters, these opt-outs could significantly influence the election, potentially tilting it in Trump’s favor.
https://globalamericans.org/explaining-and-predicting-the-impact-of-student-protests-across-the-americas-finding-a-balance/

Eman Abdelhadi, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, said younger people are growing increasingly frustrated with the status quo on domestic and foreign policy issues.
“I think there’s a real disaffection with the older generation, but more importantly with the system that they’re running,” said Abdelhadi.
She added that the protests mark an “inflexion moment” in US public opinion more broadly.
“In American history in general, usually the big shifts in public opinion have either coincided with or been triggered by large student movements,” Abdelhadi told Al Jazeera.
She said campus activism can be the basis of political change. “There’s a sort of sense that this is the future.”

“The reality is the Democrats have been telling us that young people need to save democracy and that people of colour need to save democracy and that any quibbles with this current administration need to be put aside in order to save democracy,” she told Al Jazeera.
“But where’s the democracy when you have state troopers beating up students and faculty for protesting, and the White House saying nothing about that?”
Wasow also said the protests and crackdown against them could add to the apathy towards Biden.
“The Democrats can’t really afford to give people more reasons to vote against Biden, and this actually becomes one.”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/26/generation-gap-what-student-protests-say-about-us-politics-israel-support

What a government does to foreigners ought to matter. — ssu

Political leaderships may more likely find this argument compelling to the extent what “a government does to foreigners” matters to domestic people. But this in turn also includes domestic people’s perception of foreigners’ hostility and the degree of trust domestic people put in their political leaderships’ policies toward hostile foreigners.

And there are laws of war. — ssu

Some of us still make the difference between a civilian and a combatant. — ssu

The problem is that asymmetric warfare and terrorism challenge the classic distinction in international humanitarian law (IHL) between international and non-international armed conflicts. Hamas’ asymmetric warfare blurs the distinction between civilians and combatants. What’s worse is that Hamas is not only nationalist but also Islamist, so I’m not sure Hamas can ever be ideologically committed to IHL at all.
Besides the weight of laws of war depends on the international order that supports them. And in the current predicament the Western-led international order (supposedly championing humanitarian principles) is destabilised by authoritarian forces hostile to such Western-led international order and exploiting the war in Ukraine as much as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict accordingly.

Then don't think that everybody else see's the conflict as black and white — ssu

.

Dude, we were talking about the pro-Palestinian student protests, right?
I already conceded as plausible that “American students who protest for Palestine are far more protesting for the end of the conflict and for an independent Palestine (with the Apartheid system ending) than supporters of the armed branches of the Palestinians in a way that would put them on a terrorist watch list”. I also conceded that the interviewer has his own biases betrayed by questions and reactions meant to elicit a certain response from his target audience. And I have no qualms even about conceding that pro-Palestinian student protests may have more nuanced and diverse views than such interviewers are interested to explore. But that is beside the point I was making.
STILL, protesting students are political activists aiming at achieving a certain political impact on government and public opinion through their actions and speeches. When protesting, they already made up their mind about what to do and how to talk, also in front of biased interviewers. When political activists engage in their protests, it’s no longer time for pondered analysis of reasons and consequences, expectations and realities, because as Marx said “the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” . So I take their political activism for what it is. And good luck with that!
But we are in a philosophy forum, not in a political forum, and I don’t buy into Marx’s motto. In other words, I’m willing to question their views as much as let others question my views without indulging into fancy slogans, emotional arguments, unverifiable conspiracy arguments, self-serving denigratory labelling and all sorts of sophisms to entrench oneself in their own ideological comfort zone.
So here my virtual questions to them: once one buys into the idea that Israel is a colonialist, genocidal, and apartheid state, would Israel lose this defamatory label immediately after acknowledging the two state solution? Or does anyone need to be reminded of it as much as possible for generations to come as anyone is reminded of the Nazis crimes? But then, why should one think that Palestinians’ grievances against Israel as a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state will be appeased once for all with a two state solution? Why should one think that once the Palestinian state will be in condition to openly and legitimately re-arm and have its own national army, while taking military control over a larger portion of Palestinian territory, there will be no chance that revisionist or revanchist Palestinian movements would politically rise and threaten Israel, a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state, or just restart terrorist attacks against Israel, a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state? Maybe still with the support of anti-Israel regional allies? BTW If Israel as a colonialist, genocidal and apartheid state has nuclear weapons, does the new Palestinian state have the right to have its nuclear weapons to defend itself?

First of all, Israel exists, and it's victory in this conflict should be evident from the fact that the arguing is over the 1967 borders — ssu

.

Who’s arguing are you referring to? Even if pro-Israeli students would be supportive of a two state solution, Hamas still questions the right of Israel to exist, and Palestinians seem more supportive of Hamas armed resistance in war time than Hamas administration in peace time [1]. Besides the arguing about the 1967 borders by pro-Palestinian students is more grounded on Palestinians’ rights to self-determination (anti-colonialist arguments) and humanitarian concerns (the atrocities committed by Israel, genocide, apartheid, etc.) without actually addressing Israeli historical security concerns, and the thorny status of Jerusalem for Israelis (especially if religious) both of which neither Palestinians nor Hamas are particularly sympathetic with.

[1]
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/gazans-back-two-state-solution-rcna144183
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-806498

As long as it is with so little impact to Israel, the mowing of the lawn every once in a while will continue. — ssu

However this time it looks more than just mowing the lawn, Netanyahu is more determined than ever to eradicate Hamas organisation and its infrastructure from Gaza.

There's an inherent problem to both-sideism though when people think equal monks, equal hoods but they start forgetting its corollary: unequal monks. — Benkei

Being objective isn't both sideism. For example in WW2 you can surely question about the Allied terror-bombings, but that simply doesn't compare with other side's "Final solution". But some people simply get offended about any criticism. That's the problem of being objective.

There's no war. These are not equal parties. There's only a struggle for independence made futile by the unconditional support of a coloniser by the West. — Benkei

Now I have to disagree.

It is a war. Trying to make this conflict to be something else is wrong in my view. A low intensity conflict or a conflict that erupts every once and a while is a war. Even with the 100-years war there were moments when nothing happened with large battles being the exception.

Secondly, where do you get the idea that wars should be fought by equal parties? Usually wars are fought by very unequal parties with the end result quite obvious from the start.

Thirdly, you can call the Israeli's whatever, but they are not leaving the place and Israel exists.

And the reason why I believe they are more pro-Hamas than pro-Israel doesn’t depend on their holding Hamas flags, or their praising Hamas’ actions, or their response to controversial questions (like the one about decapitated kids), but on their actually chosen arguments and rhetoric. — neomac

Again with your thinking that Palestine = Hamas.

Again with your thinking that Palestine = Hamas. — ssu

Palestine = Hamas may be good as a slogan. But I offered arguments and evidences, not slogans. So do not put slogans into my mouth. That's a straw man argument. Indeed, you can not quote me claiming Palestine = Hamas, nor you can logically infer that Palestine = Hamas, from what I said.