So are American blacks and Jews in other Arab countries. So is virtually every minority in every country ever.

I'm fine with an ethno-state. I'd give the Kurds one if I could.

Israeli Arabs are given the same rights as Israeli Jews. People in the disputed territories are not Israeli citizens so it's not an apartheid.

At the end of the day it's either the Jews or the Arabs in charge. It's that simple. When you tell the Jews that they need to dismantle their state and lay down their arms then you're just putting the Arabs in charge again and promoting the subjugation of Jews as is routine under Arab rule.

In any violent, vicious conflict, whom do you side with, Joshs: the weaker or the stronger? "David" or "Goliath"? Hint: The answer is fucking partisan. :shade: — 180 Proof

Ok, so you like Jews when they're weak, subjugated minorities but when they establish a state and manage to secure land from aggressors and demonstrate strength then they are the oppressors.

As a Jew I'd rather have your enmity than your support then if it means the actual security of my family. I have real skin in the game here.

Weakness does not make one good, strength does not make one bad.

Ah, so God it is, then. But if that's the case, God's been remarkably inclined to allow others to make the Jewish homeland their homes, wouldn't you say? — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, it has switched hands a few times. But its the Jews turn now.

[

The Canaanites and Philistines, and perhaps Phoenicians as well, were there before Jews were. We're told that on their arrival the Jews dealt rather harshly with their predecessors. For example: “Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.” — Joshua 6:21. Yes, even donkeys. — Ciceronianus the White

There have been some theologians that argue that this was only banishment such as William Lane Craig but in any event who knows.

It's difficult, but not impossible, to name all the others who lived in and ruled Palestine since the Jewish conquest. Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians (and Medes, I should say); then it became part of Alexander's empire, then it was ruled by his successors, Seleuces and his dynasty; then Romans, who destroyed the Second Temple in 70 C.E. and did a pretty thorough job of evicting Jews from Palestine, even renaming Jerusalem, under Hadrian; then the Byzantines (who stilled called themselves Romans); then came the Muslim conquest, interrupted briefly and partially for a couple of centuries by the Crusader kingdoms. It was Muslim/Ottoman territory until the mid-twentieth century. — Ciceronianus the White

Well done with this paragraph. Thank you for the history lesson!

Why, then say that it isn't the country of the Palestinians, but rather the Jewish homeland? It seems to be unclear even God has been convinced of that. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, it works out for me because I am Jewish and a Jewish state does serve as a form of security for the Jewish people. I can't pretend to be a totally disinterested observer to the question. I'm also generally supportive of self-determination movements elsewhere.

The oppressor and the oppressed make this determination. Sharon and Arafat, for instance, agreed on the term and need for Israel' to end the "occupation".

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-27-fg-mideast27-story.html — 180 Proof

The current position of the Israeli government, at least as of 2011 is that Gaza and the West Bank are "disputed territories," not occupied territories.

Before the oppressor (and his patrons/apologists) can legitimately criticize and condemn the oppressed for his means and methods of resistance, he/they must completely dismantle the entire state-apparatus of oppression now. — 180 Proof

What makes something qualify as being a "state-apparatus of oppression?" Who makes this determination?

Also, your statement would seem to excuse certain individuals of moral culpability.

There's no Jewish Homeland defined except in the Torah which, as a religious text, has no legal standing. There's an area designated for Jews to settle, which area was called Palestine, with the understanding original inhabitants wouldn't be displaced. We all know what happened and who have been driven from their homes. I think it was Begin who said : there's not a Jewish village that isn't build on the rubble of a Palestinian. — Benkei

So what should determine who the rightful owners are? International law? What makes international law special? If there was a UN 500 years ago would you have followed it unquestionably? But now it's word is permanently binding, it's law - ok, got it. :brow:

"You all know what happened." I'm sure you do, just you know all history that happened 80 years impeccably. Have you read Benny Morris on the subject?

Begin may have said that but what were those Palestinian homes on the rubble of? Ottoman/Turkish homes? Byzantine homes? Roman homes? Babylonian homes? Jewish homes again before all that?

I think we both know by now that we're not going to have productive conversations with each other, so can our conversations then at least be entertaining? You probably believe all kinds of fun stuff; I have no idea what the boundaries of your belief system are so why not try to find them?

More often [genocide] refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity. When these means fail the machine gun can always be utilized as a last resort. Genocide is directed against a national group as an entity and the attack on individuals is only secondary to the annihilation of the national group to which they belong. — Raphael Lemkin

I wonder whether there's a case to be made that the US is genociding black people under this definition. While the black population has grown, an argument could be made that black culture is being usurped and black social institutions destroyed. I think we can both agree that plenty of social and political policies implemented by the US government have hurt the black population.... but is there any actual plan to destroy them? Has there ever been one?

Genocide is different from mere subjugation, we gotta remember that. What do you think about this point? Are blacks subject to genocide by the US Government?

I don't think anyone here would say that murdering innocent Israelis is not a problem. — Manuel

Oh you'd be surprised, there have been quite a few posters here that have refused to explicitly condemn it.

It doesn't make murder right in any case, but it makes it understandable given the context. — Manuel

I understand what you're saying here and I agree. I understand the anger when Israel comes and bulldozes houses of the families of suicide bombers. I understand that the occupation makes life tough. However I also believe that one is always fundamentally responsible for one's actions and that one's own problems or difficulties are not an excuse for wanton murder.

As if the problems on each side are in any way equal. One is clearly much more responsible than the other, given the available force and infrastructure they have. — Manuel

I'm happy to discuss ways in which we could make things easier for Palestinians. I certainly don't hate the Palestinians, but then again I'm not an Israeli who has had a relative killed or lived through several wars where my country faced total annihilation. It's just a very different culture over there. Trust me I've been there.

I think most Israelis want peace, but ssu made a good point earlier where he cited that more conservative groups like the ultra-Orthodox and the Mizrahi are growing demographically so maybe their conservative influence will be felt more.

As long as you're ok with the existence of Israel and believe that the murder of innocents is wrong, your view has a place at the negotiation table. We can discuss about removing settlements and Israel has removed settlements in the past. I'd be more than happy to remove settlements if it meant peace. Unfortunately for the time being it seems both groups don't have much of an interest in peace from a political perspective. Israel is also facing a number of internal issues like COVID and a rapidly growing and non-productive ultra-Orthodox population which lives off the state among other problems. Life isn't easy over there.

It's the reverse, I'm saying it's the best move on moral grounds. Nothing is gained from cycles of escalation (except of course power for Israeli politicians and Hamas' warlords). — Echarmion

I'd be willing to entertain what you're saying with the note that I do believe that proportional self-defense is always a valid option. Both options - response or non-response - would be morally acceptable but I'm not an expert in these kind of issues so I need to reserve judgment for this.

It would need to be strategically justified for me to consider it. If we stopped responding to them and they just keep launching rockets then it's no-go for me. It may embolden them or it may appease them; I have no idea.

Hamas' language is no different than that of Israeli main political party. Zionism implies racism, discrimination and the slow killing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is denying the right to exist to Palestinians in their own country. That fits the bill. — Benkei

It's not their country. It's the Jewish homeland.

What amazes me is why you care so much. Are you an Arab? Just tell me you're an Arab and this'll all make sense. For a white Dutchman to have such a strong belief that this is Arab land and ought to be controlled by the Arabs and in turn Jews be subjugated is bizarre, to say the least.

That's sidestepping the question. I didn't ask whether you think Israel has some kind of "right to retaliate". I asked why they don't just stop doing it. — Echarmion

Are you honestly asking me why Israel doesn't just let Hamas fire rockets into Israel and not respond?

I don't know, maybe this is some kind of 500 IQ move that'll get them to stop and reduce violence in the long run but I honestly have no idea. If you're saying it's the best strategic move maybe I could entertain that purely on strategic grounds, not moral grounds though.

This is telling. "I won't call it what it is, because if I do, I would have to recognize the situation for what it is, and that would be unbearable to me". — StreetlightX

It's just a factual disagreement, nothing more. Never mind the fact that the Palestinian population has grown considerably over the past decade. To me it makes about as much sense as saying the US is trying to genocide black folks through police violence, but then again this may be something you believe so maybe it's not the best example for me to try to reach across the divide.

Was the murder of a white South African civilian during apartheid a good thing? Of course not. Apartheid was still the main thing responsible for the violence. — Manuel

Maybe Apartheid was in some way responsible for the violence, but the existence of Apartheid does not justify/condone murder. No one is permitted to murder people even if they're the dominant group within a racist society. China and Japan can be quite racist towards minorities, especially blacks - can we murder them? The US has obvious racial problems, can blacks go around killing whites because they help uphold the system?

Any decent starting point to negotiations begins with the unequivocable condemnation of the intentional murder of innocents.

If you murder someone because they are the dominant racial/ethnic group even within a racist society then it'syou who is at fault. By the way Arabs are equal to Jews under the law in Israel, but of course Israel like other nations does have racial problems and I'm not going to deny that racism exists. Jews are severely discriminated against in Arab countries.

Israel was safer prior to these last 15 years of incursion into Gaza and settlement expansion in the West Bank, not less safe. This is the result of such policies. — Manuel

You may very well be right here and I'm happy to discuss this. We can discuss whether Israel has gone too far in the West Bank... what is not up for discussion is whether the murder of innocent Israelis is justified or whether Israel ought to cease to exist as a state. That would put the lives of millions of Jews at serious risk. Arabs have attempted to annihilate Israel on multiple occasions and Israel is a war torn, traumatized society.

As Jews we cannot rely on other ethnicities or races to protect us. And for that we need a state. We can negotiate the rest.

Let's weep for personal tragedy to obfuscate the slow genocide of an entire people. Sorry. Not playing. I can empathise with the personal tragedy but once I step back from the particulars and look at the bigger picture the moral position is clear. That Israeli woman had been sacrificed on a zionist altar. — Benkei

It's not genocide and for you to use that term is absurd. If you think the Israelis are literally trying to genocide the Palestinians then there's no point in talking to you. It would put me in a position where I'd be defending Nazis. I can't go on in this conversation. Are you at all familiar with any of Hamas's genocidal language towards the Jews within their Constitution? But who cares about that - weak victims are always good, even if they're throwing gays off rooftops which happens frequently.

How about the Israelis renounce violence as a political tool? Clearly Israel is more powerful and less at risk. Just stop responding with violence. — Echarmion

I only support violence when it's for self-defense and if Hamas is going to launch rockets from inside Gaza then Israel, like any nation state, has a right to respond.

Well Palestinians keep killing our family members too. This cycle has gone back thousands of years and it's likely going to continue. You say the Palestinians are mad and grieving? Well so are the Israelis. How many Israelis do you know that were killed in the two intifatas? How about the random knife killing sprees in populated, urban areas that put the entire country on edge? What about the bombs disguised as wrapped gifts that Hamas used to lure in children? Do you have younger siblings?

I've never claimed Israel is perfect, but any resolution to this issue is going to have to acknowledge that it's not a black and white issue and that wrong exists on both sides.

Expansion? No. Occupation? I don't like the occupation but until the Palestinians renounce violence as a political tool I think the occupation is a necessary evil. I would love to end it though.

Do you support the intentional murder of Israeli civilians via Hamas rocket launches into residential areas?

Yes or no. That's all I want to hear.

Violence against oppression isn't evil. — Benkei

A couple days ago an elderly Israeli woman and her caregiver were killed when Hamas' rockets struck their homes in a residential area. Is this an example of resisting evil?

"We've" established no such thing. I've established your reading and comprehension difficulties given the dogshit statement below: — Maw

Does it ever get lonely up there on your pedestal?

That's exactly correct, if I sound like a miserable person it's because I interact with dogshit illiterates, such as yourself, who filter videos of Jews cheering death and destruction after rockets murdered several dozen Palestinians and nearly a dozen children into braindead commentary like: — Maw

We've established it was a misunderstanding. Most people recognize this and move on.

"Dogshit illiterates" aren't to blame either for why you're miserable. You are to blame for why you are miserable. Nobody is forcing you to react in the way that you're reacting. The recovery process begins when you acknowledge this.

Tbh, and this goes beyond philosophy and I'm not trying to be intentionally mean, but you just sound like an honestly miserable person. I've had disagreement with others but I don't get the same sense of vicious bitterness through their writing like I get through yours. Have you considered therapy or medication? I feel zero reason to engage with you if you're going to write like this.

Unless the irony is lost on me, you're playing the racist card I see. That doublespeak is mighty MAGA/QAnon of you, BC. — 180 Proof

You misunderstand me, I am playing the 'both claims have about the same level of absurdity' card.

Don't really know what kind of glue you're sniffing in order to interpret things this way, but it must be pretty strong. — Maw

The reason I responded that way was because you said you felt a tinge of self-disgust when other Jews were acting poorly. I just didn't understand why you felt self-disgust.

Help me win better. I don't follow - I don't understand - your comment. My bad. can you make it clearer? — tim wood

Oh I was just saying his point was so stupid you probably shouldn't even engage it.

Alright then, in any case I think we're both on the same page that people do shitty things then. I'm not going to justify everything that Israeli Jews do.

The apartheid colonialist State of Israel has demonstrated in the last few decades that the ineluctable lesson of history is that people more often than not refuse to learn from – not merely "forget" – their history. To wit: Nazis + "Lebensraum" —> genocide; Zionists + "Promised Land" —> ethnic cleansing. :eyes:
— 180 Proof
Breathe, 180, breathe. That's so far from being a parallel that you even first of all must see it. And with that there's naught else to say. — tim wood

Tim, you "win" by not responding to this. Yes, Zionists + Promise land = ethnic cleansing is true in just the same way that BLM + Police reform = White genocide.

You win by not responding.

Yeah nothing upsetting about Jews waving the Israeli flag, dancing and cheering as a fire breaks out near the third holiest site for Muslims. — Maw

Yeah that does sound kinda shitty. Guess there's shitty people everywhere.

I don't feel any self-disgust though and I don't see why I would. If every time a Jew did something bad it caused me to feel self-disgust I'd just permanently be in a state of grossness.

I'm a pro-Palestine American Jew, and having been conditioned, if not demanded, to support Israel for 30 years, it's hard not to feel a tinge of self-disgust watching Jews dancing and cheering at the Western Wall, waving the Magen David. — Maw

What is upsetting about Jews parading around with the Israeli flag? I get that it can be provocative to Palestinians, but what exactly is wrong with it? I understand that there's far right Jewish Israelis who support a "greater Israel" but I don't think this is what most Jews support. As an American Jew, most of my experience within Jewish communities has indicated to me that most Jews support a two state solution and just want peace.

has lead to the end result of Jewish self-hatred from Jews who support the right of Palestinians. — Maw

I do know a few Jews who are openly pro-Palestinian and while these Jews will likely be ostracized from religious communities if they are vocal in their beliefs, I haven't seen any pro-Palestinian Jews hate their own Jewishness as a result of their position, but I guess it exists on some level.

If you're a Jew who wants to immediately dismantle the state of Israel then you are advocating for a very serious security issue for millions of Jews so you deserve to be ostracized. If you're advocating for a two state solution then you're just a mainstream Jew and religious communities will have no problem with you.

I'm here to discuss the murder of flesh and blood children by an apartheid state. — StreetlightX

Great, and I'm here to discuss the flesh and blood murder of Jews who have not faced this type of hate since Nazi Germany.

Glad we could partake in this productive conversation.

What matters is what counts as such deliberate murder. That's why it's difficult for us to converse.

The difference is that I will not search high and low to come up with excuses for the among the world's most sophisticated military for it's war crimes and deliberate murder of children, while it does everything it can to exacerbate resentment among its subject population. — StreetlightX

Do you see a moral difference between:

a) Firing rockets targeting aggressors who have already fired rockets onto civilian populations with the knowledge that civilians will likely be killed, lets say 100 civilians die.

b) Intentionally targeting residential neighborhoods with the explicit purpose of murdering civilians and killing 100 civilians.

Do you see a moral difference between these two actions assuming the victim counts are the same?

I don't have 'an' attitude toward miltary action because I'm not so naive to think one can reason one's way to action from first principles. — StreetlightX

Then you don't have an attitude towards the deliberate murder of civilians under the banner of military action. This is why it's difficult for us to converse.

Can you please answer my question about the Allied bomber? Otherwise I just don't know what your attitude towards military action is.

Answer the question. Is taking arms against an occupying army justifiable? Would you consider doing that if you were a Palestinian? — Baden

Targeting the Israeli army would be a genuine step above what they're doing now which is firing rockets into residential areas intentionally and killing civilians for absolutely no reason. They aren't responding to attacks from these areas.

The best step would be for them to re-enter negotiations.

If you abstract these actions from the context in which they occur you render yourself cognitively incapacitated. And in that context, these actions are the deliberate murder of civilians. The universe doesn't operate on free-floating principles, unembedded in reality. — StreetlightX

Do you have a better idea, then? Is it just that all soldiers are war criminals and that everyone who partakes in war is guilty? Is that really the best you've got? Nazis are the same as Allied soldiers, we're all guilty and disgusting. What is your attitude towards an Allied pilot who bombs a German military base or a factory producing weapons?

So, presumably you believe war against Israel by the Palestinians is justified? Again, in their position, living under a foreign occupation, how would you react? — Baden

No, all I said was in some instances war is justified and in during warfare or military action intention does matter. That's all I was seeking to establish.

Again, cute thought experiment, but there's nothing 'necessary' about Isreali apartheid and settler colonialism. — StreetlightX

This is a different issue and I don't have time right now to engage further. All I was seeking to establish was that intention matters in military actions and that civilian casualties are generally unavoidable during military action, but that this should not be confused with the deliberate murder of civilians.

I agree that war is awful, disgusting business and that it makes monsters out of those who engage in it, but I also believe that sometimes it is necessary. Japan killed thousands in a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor including many civilians... I don't know how else to respond to that if you're leading a country.

Yeah, that's with intention. The intentional targeting of civilians is wrong, as I've been saying.

Yes. — StreetlightX

Well, at least you're following your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

I'm curious though, lets say you're in charge of the US or UK during WWII.... are you just not bombing industrial targets? How about military bases? There's plenty of civilians working on military bases, trust me.