Israel or Palestine?

[civic karma]

And therefore, in light of the topic of this discussion, in my view both Hamas and the Israeli government are acting morally wrong.

And as such, an argument like ''but hamas started first'', does not suddenly make it acceptable for the israeli government to react the way they are doing right now, in MY opinon

as i view the actions of the Israeli government as morally wrong

Just like i view the actions of hamas as morally wrong

But there is not a ''one party is more wrong than the other'' type deal here

either you are morally wrong or right, and in this case both parties are wrong

thats how i view it

[forest vale]

See, that's where we differ quite strongly. I do read the Guardian's articles, even if I don't like them. You're confirming that you don't read those from Israel, which is exactly what I accused you of.

[civic karma]

I don't read the guardian either

It's not like I'm spending 10 hours a day redding newspapers

I meanly listen to podcast to get my news

Unless I want to know something specific, then ill look it up

[forest vale]

So am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? I don't regularly read newspapers either. I read the articles people share on here because I'm trying to engage in good faith discussions, even if I don't care for the newspapers. I try to look stories up in other places too, to confirm what's being said or get a different perspective.

This is a strange statement. Are you saying that if someone was trying to kill your wife, that you wouldn't defend her?
Or are you saying, "I don't think it's right to kill an innocent, unconnected person in order to prevent a completely different person from dying"?

This trolly idea is a sadistic, unrealistic scenario. A much more real idea is the triage scenario, where a nurse is forced to decide who lives and who dies based on their level of injury. That could mean denying care to someone who could survive and recover in order to use the resources to save three people instead. It's not an easy place to be, but it is morally correct to use your available resources to the best of your ability.

By contrast, a decision to kill a terrorist before he can kill others is very simple and morally correct.

[civic karma]

Idk probably. I also try to read sources that other people post here if i am going to react on it.

[civic karma]

I would, but that does not mean i would need to kill that person

I don't believe that killing is justified at all

[forest vale]

You're not considering the ends in determining whether the act is justified or not. You have only considered a very small part of the overall outcome.

This is the main issue with those who claim that the ends do not justify the means. They inevitably fail to consider the full outcome in making their determinations. You can't make a proper judgement by ignoring half the information.

[forest vale]

There are many people who choose to avoid killing in all circumstances. There's nothing wrong with that. A famous example is Desmond Doss, who I respect very much, even if I might make different choices for myself.

[civic karma]

I am not sure i can follow, my argument is that the outcome of a certain action is not relevant to wether that action is morally justified or not

[forest vale]

At the same time, he believed that the war they were fighting was just, even if he chose not to do any killing himself.

[civic karma]

So killing a terrorist to prevent innocent people from dying is in my personal opinion morally wrong since the act of killing is wrong, the outcome is not relevant

[forest vale]

I understand, but the example you gave failed to actually consider the ends. So I'm looking for an example of what you mean when you say the ends justify the means.

[civic karma]

Well just any action that is morally wrong that leads to the preferred outcome is, in my opinion, wrong and shouldn't be done

[forest vale]

Generally, the reason we call acts morally right or wrong is because of their consequences. Sometimes, we appear to be able to avoid some of the consequences, but that's generally an illusion.

[civic karma]

To stay on topic, trying to capture and kill all hamas members is in my opinion morally wrong as i think killing is morally wrong

Regardless of what they did or what they are going to do

[forest vale]

What would you do instead? Allow them to keep killing people?

[civic karma]

Not neccesarily, there is a whole branch of phillosophy that talks about how the morals are embedded in the action and not the result

[forest vale]

It is morally wrong to allow evil that you could have prevented.

[civic karma]

And thats where we disagree

[forest vale]

I mean people can be wrong.

[civic karma]

Not doing anything is in my personal view not immoral

[forest vale]

Right, well. Go ahead and allow evil around you if you want to, but I'm not going to call you a principled person if that's your choice.

[civic karma]

There is not really a right or wrong in philosophy

[civic karma]

I dont believe in the principle of good and evil

[forest vale]

Now you're just arguing that all of morality is relative and subjective.

[civic karma]

Yes, because it is

[forest vale]

Raping people is evil. Murdering people is evil.

There's nothing subjective about that.

[civic karma]

Well i see that differently

I see those actions as morally wrong

not as evil

i dont believe in the concept of ''evil''

i dont know what else you want me to say

[forest vale]

How do you reject a view like "the ends justify the means," but then somehow hold that some things are morally wrong regardless of their consequences?

[civic karma]

my worldview and philosophic views differ from yours

[civic karma]

because the morality is in the act and not in the outcome

i told you multiple times already

again i dont know what else you want me to say

the outcome is irrelevant to wether an action is morally right or wrong

[forest vale]

Except you don't believe in morality, since everything is relative anyway.

[civic karma]

in my personal opinion

Morality is relative yes

[forest vale]

Maybe it's morally wrong to you, but morally just fine to the person doing it. So who are you to judge?

[civic karma]

what you deem as morally right, i deem as morally wrong

ergo either one of us is factually wrong, or morals are subjective

[forest vale]

If morals are subjective, then they are useless.

[civic karma]

Which is exactly why morals are subjective

[civic karma]

They are useless

[forest vale]

Then why bother condemning actions you view as immoral?

[civic karma]

I am getting the feeling that you do not understand my worldview and try to subconciously project your worldview on me

[civic karma]

Because I think it is moral to speak out against actions that i deem immoral

[forest vale]

Of course I don't understand your worldview. It sounds useless.

[forest vale]

Moral actions are useless, by your own words. So why bother?

[civic karma]

Well the opposite is true for me. I think believing in objective morals is useless

[civic karma]

Well i believe any action to be useless but thats a whole other discussion

My point being is

[forest vale]

I mean why would objective morals be useful if you already believe morals are useless? You're just restating what you already said.

[civic karma]

The philosophic branch that mostly agrees with my personal opinion is deontology

[forest vale]

Okay. Are you expecting me to go research a branch of philosophy in order to understand you better?

[civic karma]

Well for starters i dont think that such thing as objective morals can even exist

[forest vale]

Why not?

Are you an atheist?

[civic karma]

No but you seem to not understand me so maybe it would help understanding my point of view

Just looking up the definition should be enough probably

[civic karma]

Yes

[forest vale]

What is it that I've failed to understand? You've confirmed everything I've said.

[civic karma]

Although i dont see how that matters

[forest vale]

Of course it matters. As you said, you can't have objective morality as an atheist.

[civic karma]

You seem to not understand that not taking into account the outcome of an action can philosophically be a proper stance

[civic karma]

Of course you can have objective morality as an atheist

[forest vale]

What do you mean by proper stance?

[civic karma]

There are many atheists who believe that certain things are objectively good or evil

[civic karma]

Ah this is hard for me i dont know the english terms, but i mean like a consistent logical philosophical reasoning

[forest vale]

The whole point of objective morality is that there's an outside standard that you're comparing everything to. Without a belief in an entity outside yourself, there's no outside standard, so the concept of objective morality doesn't make sense. All morals would have to be subjective by definition.

[civic karma]

atheists do not believe in a deity, they can believe in something that is not a deity

[forest vale]

I mean I don't recall rejecting that it can be consistent reasoning. I wasn't arguing that it was inconsistent.

[forest vale]

What exactly would be an example of something to believe in besides a deity?

[civic karma]

I did not claim you said that either

[civic karma]

Idk people believing in the stance of the stars or sth

i am a full non-believer so dont ask me

[forest vale]

Dunno, I've never met an atheist who believed in something like that. Those people tend to describe themselves as spiritual, rather than atheist.

[forest vale]

Look, I understand the stance. I get that it can be consistent reasoning. I just don't necessarily agree with the thought that the two have to be seperated. Sometimes things very much are moral or immoral based on their outcomes, rather than an act being inherently immoral.

Is it immoral to give someone food? No. Is it immoral to give them food if I know they are only going to use that food to shove in the hair of someone in a wheelchair? Yes. So it's not the act itself, but the outcome that determines the morality of the action in that situation. It's much more difficult to seperate consequences from morality than you are portraying.

A branch of philosophy that completely separates outcome from morality seems very shallow to me. That doesn't mean that some acts aren't inherently immoral, because of course they are. But everything should be considered in context.

When I say, "the ends justify the means," I'm not talking about, "I got my desired outcome, so it doesn't matter how I got there." That's not what I mean. What I mean is that if you take all consequences, both now and in the future, intended and unintended into consideration, then moral acts have better consequences and better outcomes than immoral acts, and therefore justify themselves in that way.

The world is a complicated place. It's not always easy to immediately know what is inherently moral or immoral. But in those cases, it is possible to tell based on the fruit of the action. If it is moral, it will bear good fruit. If it is not, it will bear bad fruit.

[civic karma]

I understand your position, its just that i disagree

[civic karma]

It is completely fine if it sounds shallow to you. I am not asserting that this is the absolute truth, in fact, it is phillosophy so there is not really a ''true'' or ''false''. There is not one branch of philosophy better than another one, they are just different

[civic karma]

Okay, thanks for the clarification, because that is exactly how it sounds to me. Ends justifying the means for me means: the way of getting to a goal is irrelevant as long as i get to my goal. If that is not what you mean then we have been talking past each other.

[civic karma]

Yeah that is contradictory to my personal belief

[junior delta]

My motives for arguing that Palestine started the conflict is that I think knowing who the agressor is in war is important. I don't think self-defense should be looked down upon, noe the loss of innocent lives should be though. Unfortunately, that is just a sad reality of war.

As for the specific conflict I'd say since HAMAS officials were elected into power in 2006, the first acts commited by Palestine and/or HAMAS against Israel. Ever since they've pretty much been offered their own state and rejected it multiple times, opting instead for violence.

[forest vale]

Also, fun fact, Eastern Palestine, aka Transjordan, aka Jordan, was part of the original British mandate, and Jews were forbidden from settling there. So there's already a two state solution in place. People are claiming that there should be an additional Arab state in Gaza in addition to the one already put in place in Jordan.

[junior delta]

You are correct, I do disagree with proportionality when it comes to self defense, if a reasonable person can see that someone attacks you and is most likely going to keep doing it, such as with HAMAS consistently attacking Israel, then I see no reason you should be proportional, that just means you are going to keep letting them abuse you.

[civic karma]

I don't believe self defense should be looked down upon either so we can agree on that.

I appreciate the clear stance on your view of the start of this conflict. Where I personally mostly disagree is the mentioned starting point. Personally I believe that not including the history of israel and palestine with for example PLO and Fatah takes out important context. I think the conflicts with other organisations are too recent to not be of important context in the current conflict.

[junior delta]

I don't think it is hard to know as if we look at the religious documents from Judaism and Islam we see in both that Israel was given to the Jews by God, and then when Islam came along it claims that the land should now belong to the muslims. When a ware is on religion, I think it is fair to use their religious texts as context.

To be fair, I do agree we don't know for sure, but I think we have a reasonable timeframe.

[civic karma]

Well this is going to be a tough one because for me a religious text is not a proper source of historic context if not paired with other historic or archeological evidence. My point mostly was to point out that the conflict now is not a ''stand-alone'' conflict, and there is a lot of context and history that goes on in that specific region.

I do however agree with you on the fact that Judaism was the dominant religion before muslims came along

Like im not trying to argue that i do not believe anything in any religious document to be true, but i think that for each claim that is made within a religious text, it needs to be supported by other evidence. This is no different from my belief that one historic piece of evidence that is non-religious is not sufficient to support a claim and that too would need other evidence to support it.

But yeah i dont believe the land in the levant area was given to Jews by god, nor do I believe that it was later on given to Muslims by god.

Can i therefore make the assumption that your stance in this conflict is determined by your religious beliefs?

[forest vale]

Sure, but there's no shortage of historic and archeological evidence in this case. Even if we only had the religious document, that's still something people have had for thousands of years. So that by itself still means something.

[civic karma]

Yeah but the people who were driven off the land they had been inhabiting for generations would like to go back to their ancestral homes, which is the whole catch of the situation. They do not neccesrily want to live in an Arab state, they want to live in what they call their ancestral home

[forest vale]

You mean the Jews? Yeah, I agree.

That entire area is the ancestral land of the Jews. That's what people mean when they point out that the Jews got there first and have continually inhabited the area for thousands of years.

[civic karma]

You know very well what I mean.

During the colonisation of the land by England, there were also people living their

[forest vale]

I'm pointing out the sheer absurdity of what you mean.

[civic karma]

who also consider it their home and ancestral ground

[civic karma]

what is absurd about it

[forest vale]

Colonization? Exactly how much do you know about the history???

What do you think the British mandate was? A colony??

[civic karma]

i am just pointing out that for many of the people the issue is not that they want to live in an Arab state, the problem is they want to live in the land they they claim to be their ancestral home

[forest vale]

It's good of you to add the "claim to be" to that statement. And that's accurate. The issue is that their claims are irrelevant.

First, claims don't matter when you fought a war to wipe out Israel and lost. Your claims died with your loss.

Second, even if claims mattered, which they don't, the Jewish claims are stronger.

[civic karma]

Well after WW1, the ottoman empire collapsed and france and britain divided the territories to which britain was appointed the transjordan area

[forest vale]

Third, and way more important to me, it's extremely clear that the land will definitely prosper more as part of Israel than it would as part of another Arab state on top of the many that already exist in that area.

[forest vale]

Exactly. That has nothing to do with a British colony.

[civic karma]

Okay then don't call it colonization, matter of fact is the area was under british control

to me thats a colony but maybe in english that means something different

overseas territory?

[forest vale]

Words matter, and they matter a lot. That's not at all what a colony is.

"The area was under British control" is pretty much the only accurate way to say it.

I wouldn't call it British territory either, because it really wasn't.

[civic karma]

Brother, i told you multiple times already english is not my native language. In my native language that would be called a colony. If you disagree thats fine, i dont care what you name it. All i was trying to say is that the area was under british control

[forest vale]

No, it wouldn't, because "colony" is not a word in your native language. You have your own word.

[civic karma]

Okay man

why are you like this for rreal

you can not have in any way a normal conversation

[forest vale]

And if the word you're using has the same meaning as the word "colony" in English, then it's the wrong word.

Use normal words and it isn't an issue. I get that English isn't your native language, but you're insisting on using words that mean things other than what you mean.

If I insisted on using a word in your language despite you pointing out that it was the wrong word, then that would be weird.

[civic karma]

In my native language, the literal translation of the english word colony is by definition a ''Territory controlled by a soveign nation outside of the actual area of the motherland''

[civic karma]

You are acting like i am deliberately choosing specific words in which i actually mean something else as if i am tyring to make some ''gotcha'' statement

[forest vale]

Look, I'm going to go ahead and give you some credit and look it up myself. Because maybe I'm wrong and colony is accurate.

[civic karma]

the truth is, i am just trying my best to have a discussion in a language that is not my native one, so I make some errors

[forest vale]

So the main issue with the word "colony" is that in English, it very much means that settlers of that country also occupy the territory. So it's not just about political control.

[civic karma]

Nah in the british definition it includes members of that mother country living in or migrating to that country from what i can see

[forest vale]

Cool. We're on the same page.

[civic karma]

Yeah i get that, but it was an honest mistake. Here is the literal (google translate) translation of the word in my native language: A colony (plural: colonies, colonies) is a territory governed by a sovereign state, but falling outside the actual territory of that mother country.

[forest vale]

Yeah, that's interesting.

[civic karma]

So to me, the concept of a colony is just overseas territory that you control

And I do own up to my mistake, i shouldnt have used that word, but i did not know it had a different meaning in english

[forest vale]

Well, maybe I was a bit harsh, so I apologize. But it matters in this context because Israel are so often wrongly described as colonizers, which doesn't make sense in any context.

[civic karma]

No i agree that would not make sense

[forest vale]

For many people in America, colonizer is as ugly an accusation as Nazi.

[civic karma]

Oh im not from america, i dont know the intricate details of the ideas that people have with certain words or ideas

[forest vale]

I personally don't have an issue with colonies, but that's a different conversation. We seem to be on the same page again here.

[civic karma]

I am from the EU however and we do have some strong feelings about the word Nazi

[forest vale]

Yes indeed! Also, fun fact, the Nazis joined the Arabs and fought against the Jews in Palestine.

[civic karma]

Okay my point was

1. Some time after the second world war, there was a large migration of mostly Jewish people that started to live on the land that is now israel
2. before they got there, other people already lived there
3. the people that already lived there had to move somewhere else
4. those people still consider the land where their ancesters live as their ancestral home

That was all that i was saying

but you got all mad about that

[forest vale]

Okay... but all of those points are wrong

[civic karma]

I struggle to see how that is historically wrong

In 1948 the state of Israel was established no?

[forest vale]

1. The Jews lived there prior to WW2. In fact, the British mandate discussions about a homeland for the Jews were in place after WW1, and Jews have continually lived in the area for thousands of years.

[civic karma]

Yes, large scale jewish migration towards the levant area started already in the late 19th century

i agree

so jews already lived there

[forest vale]

2. The Jews who fled genocide arrived in the area, joining the Jews who already lived there. They continued to fight genocide, because the Nazis joined the Arabs and continued to try to murder them.

3. The people who already lived there were either Jewish or trying to kick out all the Jews. There were multiple wars where people tried to eliminate all the Jews and wipe out Israel. They lost, and so many were forced to leave. Many were also forced to leave by their home countries, who asked them to evacuate so they could invade Israel.

[civic karma]

As far as I am taught, the 'Arab' participation in the holocaust was limited to small individual groups and not a wide-scale supported thing

Maybe that is wrong, but thats what i was taught

[forest vale]

4. Those people consider the entire area their ancestral land, even if it was a Jewish home for thousands of years. They use that same excuse to force families to move out whether their actual ancestors lived there or not.

[civic karma]

But do you accept the fact that Arabs have also been living in that area for hundreds if not thousands of years and therefore they can BOTH consider it their ancestral home?

[forest vale]

The Arab participation included all Arab countries surrounding Israel declaring war on Israel and invading, as well as either kicking out all Jews or killing the ones who lived in their countries.

[civic karma]

Thats not the version of history that i have been told

[forest vale]

I'll give you no more than 1400 years, but sure. Some Arabs have been in these areas for a long time after the initial Muslim occupation.

The problem is where they consider the whole area the land of their religion, and want to kick out everyone else who has lived there for thousands of years.

Like, if you live in Israel as a Muslim, you can still be in the land of your ancestors. But you're not allowed to be a Jew in an Arab state.

[forest vale]

I mean I didn't make it up. There were multiple wars fought against Israel by countries who refused to recognize Israel as a country and wanted to wipe it off the map.

The current Jewish population of the countries surrounding Israel is zero.

Those two facts put together equal exactly what I said.

[junior delta]

You don't have to believe in the religious parts of the text to believe what they both agree on, that the land was first the Jews, they lived there first before the muslims. We also do have evidence for this as we know there used to be Jews living their, even in their own state, before muslims came along an invaded. That's why I'm saying that when a conflict boils down historically to a religious claim to land, we can see in both of them, and history that the Jews lived there first, and both sides agree, along with historians too, that the muslims invaded them pushing them out, the motives for which are what we can see atributed to their holy books.

[junior delta]

No, not at all, its based on their religious beliefs I'd say and the order of who started what.

[hollow token]

If you are still on the topic where "Jewish people have stronger historical claim" to the land then I dont think thats very true, I think both have strong historical claims.

Judaism - The religion itself was indeed the first religion to possess the land, had the land for 1199~ Years
Islam - Had the land for 1285~ Years more or less

Earliest States to have that land were the Canaanites and Jebusites Before Israelites conquered the land
The Top Empires/States that held the land were Romans - 683 Years (more or less), Judahites - 414 Years (more or less) and Ottomans - 401 Years

The Palestinian Arabs however lived in the land up untill recently untill the British came and allowed the Jews to buy the land that was inhabited by Palestinians at that time. Also the Jews illegaly immegrated to Palestine.

I do not think that one of these 2 states actually have a stronger claim, they both have lived there a long time so its not rally a point of discussion when both tried to kick each other out multiple times

[forest vale]

Your history is off. Way off.

[thorny stone]

Trying to push a reset button and returning to an arbitrary point in history is always a stupid idea. There is never any good argument for choosing one time period over another, and you can just keep going back further and further in history, until we're all forced to move back to Africa because that's where all our ancestors were living millions of years ago. This is why it's always nonsense when whatever random racists says "go back to where you came from". We're all, always, immigrants.

Currently Palestine has a Jewish majority. Before that, it had an Islamic majority. Before that, it had a Christian Majority. Before that, it had a Jewish majority. Before that it had a Canaanite majority. Before that it had something else. No group has a better claim for historical reasons than any other. They have all both become a majority in the region and lost their majority in the region.
.

So let's be clear. When the Zionists started trying to conquer all of Palestine from 1882 onwards, they had no justifiable claim to the land whatsoever (religion is not a valid justification for doing anything to anyone). Jews hadn't been in the majority in the region since the second century CE, a period of 1600 years. The area had been overwhelmingly Islamic for at least 800 years, certainly since the Crusades if not also before.

Tensions between Jews and Arabs arose because of Zionism, plain and simple. Zionists were moving to the area with the express intention of creating a religious Jewish state and expelling everyone else, and that 'everyone else' who was living there was understandably upset by this, leading to large scale protests and unrest. The British, who were administering the region, tried to control the numbers of Jewish immigrants to avoid causing problems, but the Jewish community created armed terrorist organisations to ensure immigration of Jews by force. Unsurprisingly, this escalation to violence triggered a violent response by the Arabs against both the Jews and the British who were enabling them. Between 1936 and 1939, around 5000 Arabs were killed, compared to 500 Jews and 262 British soldiers.

It's possible to move to a new place and not upset the locals who live there. But the Zionists clearly didn't do that. They fully intended to upset the locals. Between 1882 and 1948, they encouraged more and more Jews to move to the area, to try and artificially create a justification for a Jewish state in the region. In 1917 they got the support of Britain, and on 29th November 1947 they got a UN plan for a Jewish State.
.

Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for the Zionists, who wanted the whole of Palestine for Israel not just the part they had been allocated. Since at least 1937, they had been planning their military conquest of the whole area. The Zionist terrorist organisations (which would later become the core of the IDF) Haganah, Irgun and Lehi had already been carrying out attacks on Arabs (and the British) for decades by the time it reached 1947, designed to prevent resistance to the coming Zionist conquest. To conceal their weapons manufacture they hid their weapons factories and stores in, you guess it, residential areas, using human shields.

On 19th November, 10 days before the UN's plan was agreed, all Jewish men and women aged 17-25 were conscripted into Haganah in preparation for an all-out war of conquest. They spent the next few months training and fighting off the increasingly military actions of the Arabs who could see what was happening. Then starting in early April 1948, a month before British were due to leave, the Zionist terrorist organisations started a systematic offensive campaign of massacring Arab villages, poisoning wells, and looting other properties in order to gain control of areas that were supposed to remain Arab under the UN plan.

The Arab militaries sent forces from surrounding nations in once the British formally withdrew in May, but they had a tenth of the budget of the Zionist terrorist organisations, and around a quarter of the manpower after the forced conscription of all Jewish young people into the Zionist armies, and were a month behind in their activities. The net result was the forced expulsion of more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs (80% of the population) by Zionist terrorist groups, which were renamed the Israeli Defence Force on 26th May, following the official withdrawal of the British and the official declaration of the formation of Israeli on the 14th May.
.

I know that's a lot of writing, even as a summary. You can read even more detail if you like, it's all freely available. But the important points can be summarised as follows:

1. Zionists created the whole issue by trying to invade and conquer the region.
2. Zionists were then engaged in terrorist actions to try and force their will on the people who were already living in the region, since they couldn't do it legally.
3. Zionists broke, and never intended to abide by, the plan worked out by the UN to give the Jews a homeland using 55% of the area.
4. Israel systematically massacred hundreds of Palestinian villages, killing more than 15,000 Palestinian Arabs by 1949.
5. Israel continued to massacre and forcibly expel Palestinians after the initial war ended, and still continue to this day.
6. Zionists have always intended to continue to expand Israel's borders until they rule the whole area, and always been willing to do anything, legal or illegal, to achieve it.

It couldn't be clearer. The problem was the Zionists. The problem is the Zionists.

It's absolutely laughable to claim Israel has any moral high ground in this conflict at all.

[junior delta]

Everything you can say towards one side you can say towards another. No side has the moral high ground. If you get rid of historical significance between the two groups fighting then there is no reason one should have the land over others without just pure bias.

[thorny stone]

Did you read the rest of what I wrote? The difference is very stark. The Palestinians were living there and then the Zionists invaded.

[junior delta]

And you can say the same, Jews were living there, muslims invaded.

[junior delta]

The stark difference is time

[thorny stone]

Which was not nice, I agree. But it wasn't these Jews, and not these Muslims.

You can't hold people responsible for the actions of their distant ancestors.

[junior delta]

So the new generation of Jews coming in should be fine to hold the land then, since it was their parents and grandparents that where the ones who first were sent into British mandated Palestine?

[thorny stone]

I'm not suggesting to punish younger Israelis who haven't had a hand in the atrocities, no. We can find them another place to live, it doesn't have to be in the stolen home of a Palestinian. But what we do need to do, is stop the torture of the Palestinians by a significant number of current Israelis.

And unfortunately, yes, even the younger Israelis need to return the stolen property they are currently using.

Even though they might not have been the ones that stole it, it doesn't mean they don't have to give it back.

But there are a lot of currently alive Israelis who have deliberately stolen stuff. And we should punish them, absolutely. Not for the historical acts, just for what they have done themselves.

Well, I say "stolen stuff". It obviously goes much further than that. There are a lot of Israelis alive today who have personally tortured and killed innocent Palestinians.

[forest vale]

"We can find them another place to live."

What is it with these ridiculous arguments. They already live there. Find those who hate Israel another place to live. It's not hard. This is just more of the "get rid of the Jews" nonsense.

Do you even read your own words before you post them? I mean wow.

[thorny stone]

Obviously I assume Falcon is fully in support of all this clearly factual information. Thanks for the support, friend.

[forest vale]

You're welcome. I absolutely support Israel and their right to completely wipe out those trying to attack them. So nice to be appreciated.

[thorny stone]

Well yes Falcon, it is indeed clear that Israel have been the aggressors all along, and are responsible for all of the blood shed over the last 140-odd years. I too believe that their leaders deserve to be tried immediately for war crimes, and their illegal settlements given to the Palestinians, and the Israeli army immediately disbanded. I'm glad you agree.

[forest vale]

Right, because it was Israel that caused people to parachute into a music festival and murder people. It was Israel that forced people to go into neighboring towns and rape women before murdering them. I couldn't care less what happened a hundred years ago. Hamas has earned everything Israel is giving to them, and every Hamas supporter gets to share in that. It's sad that this includes so much of the population in Gaza. They should have held their leaders accountable for their terrorist acts instead of cheering in the streets. They chose the price they are paying. No need to pretend otherwise.

[thorny stone]

Thank you. That is very big of you to admit you've been wrong this whole time. Yes, I do think it would be appropriate for you to donate some time to help support organisations like UNRWA, who are trying to prevent the worst of the starvation and suffering experienced by the Palestinians. Good idea 👍
And yes, I did see that the accusations made against the UNRWA by Israel turned out to be baseless lies. I agree, it is very good that all their EU donors have now decided to ignore Israel's latest lies and go back to funding them.

[forest vale]

Lol, you mean the organization that got in trouble for literally employing terrorists? It's fitting that you'd ask for donations to them. I'll ask for donations of precision payloads to the places where they house the Hamas masters that they helped make billionaires.

[hollow token]

Prove me wrong

[hollow token]

UNRWA is an organization providing aid for the palistinians, I dont see anything wrong with that

[forest vale]

Hamas didn't become billionaires off of legitimate business enterprises, they funneled that money to themselves through aid organizations like the UNRWA. You may not see anything wrong with that, but many others are not particularly fond of it.

[forest vale]

You're conflating political ownership with living somewhere, for starters. The Jews obviously still lived in the area during the time of the Romans, and continued to live there throughout history up until the present day. But the historical argument isn't a useful one regardless. There's nothing that says occupying a territory for longer than someone makes it yours. There's winning wars, which Israel did, and there's living there or controlling the area now, which Israel does. Arabs have no claim to the land and have no right to kick Jews out. If they want to live there, they can do so as Israeli citizens or they can gtfo.

[hollow token]

The time of the Romans barely any jews lived there or lived at all I mean the romans kicked em out

Even if 1 jew lives in jerusalem, you think thats gonna add all that time to the counter?

I mean

you should provide some numbers

atleast

[forest vale]

There's no reason to. The argument is a moot point anyway. Israel is there now and will continue to be there, and it's better for the area the more Israel takes control of it.

[prisma harbor]

Your logic seems to be: killing is fine, war is fine, kicking people out of their homes is fine, it’s all fine as long as I prefer who does the harm.

[forest vale]

Everything has its time and place. It's not about what I prefer. If a group of people enjoys raping and murdering, they've taught their fellow man hatred and to do the same, they begin to attack their neighbors and kill people, and they've been doing that for decades? Then yes, it is proper to wage war against them. The world does not suffer when there are fewer terrorists in it.

[thorny stone]

Yes, that's exactly it. Falcon is a supporter of stealing, supporter of terrorism, fine with the killing of children, fully behind massacres of innocent people. The only thing they object to is not being freely allowed to do it themselves.

[forest vale]

I don't support any of those things, thank you very much. You'll have to look in the mirror for that.

[junior delta]

So I'm just struggling to see the consistency here. So the Muslims are not to blame for invading and kicking out the Jews because we can't hold people responsible for their ancestors, but if it is a Jew then it is alright?

[thorny stone]

I don't see how anyone would reach that conclusion based on anything I've said.

There's two points here.

Firstly, the Muslims didn't kick out Jews when they invaded in the 7th century. They kicked out Christians. The Jews had already been kicked out before that, in the 4th century, by the Romans who wanted to convert everyone to Christianity and to stop the Jews from revolting all the time. If you're going to complain about the treatment of Jews historically, Christians are the people you want to speak to, not Muslims.

Secondly, that all happened more than a thousand years ago. No, it's not reasonable to hold anyone alive today responsible for the actions of their ancestors that long ago, regardless of whether they are Jewish or Islamic or Christian or anything else.

I'm not talking about punishing anyone for the actions of their ancestors. I'm only talking about punishing people who are alive today for the actions they themselves have carried out. There are many Israelis alive today who have personally stolen property from Palestinians, or forced Palestinians to leave their homes, or deliberately killed Palestinian children, or deliberately massacred innocent civilians. The crimes of Israel aren't just historical, they are current as well. They haven't ever stopped, they have been committing horrible acts right up to the present day.

There are two issues now. One is dealing with the crimes specifically committed by living Israelis or Palestinians, or those committed against living Palestinians or Israelis. The Israeli and Palestinian criminals should be punished, and the living Palestinians compensated by Israel since all the crimes were done on behalf of Israel and the state bears responsibility for that. Palestinians don't have anything to compensate Israelis with, because the Israelis have already stolen it all, otherwise I would ask the same of them as well.

The second is establishing a safe, secure and long-term place for everyone to live, both sides.

[thorny stone]

THAT requires Israel to change how it acts in a lot of ways.

[forest vale]

Yeah, this is pretty ignorant. If Gaza has nothing, how did Hamas end up billionaires? Is it maybe because Gaza actually has been compensated many, many times for their suffering, but somehow all that ended up funneled into the hands of terrorists instead of going to the people of Gaza? But we're just going to blame Israel for that. Seems ridiculous.

[summer saffron]

Both and neither. Humans have been fighting over that piece of land for millennia

Until everyone can live there intermingled there will always be bloodshed

Under the current world circumstances Israel has for more resources and power and therefore hold much more of the responsibility to not be the aggressors

Someone else committing a war crime is not justification for you to commit war crimes

[forest vale]

In Israel, Arabs and Jews are intermingled. Outside of Israel, the surrounding countries have kicked out all Jews. Shouldn't that be an argument to have Israel just absorb the disputed territories, so that everyone can finally live in peace? They certainly won't be able to intermingle if it becomes an Arab state, prolonging the conflict.

[summer saffron]

Again, that is not justification for the violent appropriation of land, the killing of civilians, or the embargo set up preventing aid and creating an open air jail for millions

"Iran bad, so let's blow up Palestinians"

You're also mixing religion and race

The former should have no bearing on the ability to live somewhere, the latter being entirely a social construct

Unless you're using "Jews" as a race, in which case you get Christian Jews and Muslim Jews, which is not the societal norm and very hard to parse

[forest vale]

That wouldn't be justification for taking over the land, but the wars are. Security concerns are. Israel won multiple wars, and those areas are security risks that make more sense as part of Israel than left to attack it. That's a very real justification when every country surrounding Israel has shown that they want to wipe Israel off the map.

The lack of intermingling is justification to not give the land to Arabs or to Muslims, who would continue to ensure, as they have, that no Jews live there, whether religious or ethnic.

The justification for the current conflict doesn't need to have anything to do with any of that. The elected power in charge of a country spent decades building up weapons with the express purpose of targeting civilians, launching an attack that killed over 1200 in the most brutal manner possible while taking hundreds hostage. That is justification enough for war, and justification enough to restrict the entry of anything into the country that could assist Hamas. The people of Gaza have allowed this terrorism to continue, with half even actively supporting it. They knew what they were doing and are now paying the price for their hatred or their inaction. They are not being targeted, but they will certainly feel the effects, and many will die. The fastest way to help them is to help remove Hamas, because Israel cannot stop until every single one of those terrorists is gone. Slowing down Israel just increases the time until the area can focus on rebuilding.

[thorny stone]

It's scary how consistent Falcon is in their belief that the murder of innocent people is fine. I really don't think it's a good idea to engage in conversation with someone quite so obviously depraved.

It's also scary that they seem to think the world began on October 7th. The amount of facts they ignore is astounding.

The Zionists spent decades building up weapons for the express purpose of massacring civilians, and launched an initial attack that killed more than 15,000 Palestinians, displaced more than 700,000, tortures more than 2 million, and continued it for decades killing tens of thousands more innocent Palestinians. At any given time, Israel holds more than 1200 Palestinians hostage in inhumane prisons. There's no argument to be had, Israel is one of the most bloodthirsty and vicious governments that has ever existed, and the Palestinians are clearly the victims. The only way to stop the unnecessary bloodshed is to stop Israel doing it. They are the problem, and everyone knows it.

[summer saffron]

It's almost like Millions of humans have died over +3 Millennia fighting over the same mound of sand

But "THIS TIME WE ARE IN THE RIGHT!!!!!"

[summer saffron]

1200 dead is not justification to kill +40,000, injure another +100,000 and cause half a century worth of infrastructure damage

Especially when you're the ones who have spent decades enforcing a blockade causing poverty and famin

[thorny stone]

Yeah, consistency isn't their strong point.

[hollow token]

Also theres no need of cutting Aid and Food supplies is there? Especially Water supplies

[forest vale]

It's not "justification to kill 40,000+", it's justification to wipe out the terrorists that have infected your neighbors. You're all acting like Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself against invasions. That's wild, and not a standard applied to any other country.

Launching a terrorist attack that involves murdering and raping people at a music festival is something that could never be justified. That's not something allowed in retaliation to anything. A bullet fired at a civilian who you know ahead of time has no military connection is wrong. Taking hostages is wrong. Raping people is wrong. There is no justifying those actions. But you act like history somehow gives Hamas the right to do these things. It doesn't, and those who allowed Hamas to do it are now feeling a lot of the pain. Unfortunate, but as I said before, they knew what they were getting themselves into.

[junior delta]

Muslims have never at any point in history expelled Jews from the lands of Israel, whatever you may want to call the lands specifically? I'm not complaining about the treatment of Jews historically, every group of people have been treated poorly at one point of time or another, I'm simply saying that it is inconsistent to put on standard on one group and not the other.

Again though you are being inconsistent with it not being reasonable to hold anyone alive today for actions of their ancestors, but when it comes to the young Israeli generation (which by the way is not entirely Jewish) they should be responsible for the actions of Israel historically. The people in charge of Israel who allow illegal actions to occur should be punished, not the individual citizens who have no part in the matter. And again, Israel should be responsible for their actions, but Palestine shouldn't?

I'm sorry, but I am not going to argue with double-standards.

[forest vale]

Definitely. Actually expelling Jews is a much newer phenomenon in history, which pretty much coincided with the Nazis joining the Arabs to attack the Jews around the time of WW2. Actual genocide has a way of making people leave in a way that fake genocide does not.

Also, I don't know where someone gets the idea that I'm more than one person, but I'm not a "they."

[summer saffron]

Israel didn't exist before the end of WW2, and it only exists now because the UK decided to attack the locals to clear it out and give it over to the Jews.
It's just the most recent governance in a long saga of bloodshed.

[summer saffron]

Alright, she doesn't understand and isn't getting the idea

[forest vale]

The UK voted against the UN resolution that authorized the creation of Israel. Israeli fighters were attacking the British before they left.

[summer saffron]

MAYBE "they" is used in English as a neuter pronoun

[forest vale]

That's a recent phenomenon that the majority of the population doesn't agree with or commonly practice.

You're attempting to call me whatever you think I'm not, so you clearly don't agree with the practice either.

[summer saffron]

No it's not, it's been used for centuries, especially with the monarchy

[forest vale]

I'm not monarchy. "They" is used for actual neutral situations, not as a pronoun for people you're actively talking about in the same conversation.

They pairs with "someone" if it's in a neutral context.

I'm not a neutral.

[summer saffron]

In 1948 the UK was in control of Palestine, having forcibly taken it over. Ofcourse they didn't want to give it up, but that doesn't negate the fact that they took it by force from the locals

[summer saffron]

In electronic conversation you are until you establish otherwise. Much like intonation and sarcasm doesn't come through, neither does sex/gender

[forest vale]

But you feel it appropriate to intentionally call someone what you're pretty sure they aren't?

[forest vale]

The UK mandate was in place after WW1 after the Ottomans lost and control over the territory was divided among European countries, with the UK and France controlling territory relevant to our discussion.

[summer saffron]

I flipped a coin. You were the one objecting to the neuter, and still haven't given indicators to the contrary

Last I checked Falcons were birds that came in both sexes

[forest vale]

I have definitely given indicators to the contrary.

[summer saffron]

Highlight one? Because defending guns and genocide is sex agnostic

[forest vale]

This, obviously.

[summer saffron]

You're objecting to "they", but gave no indication of an alternative. So I had 2 opinions and picked "She".
You still haven't confirmed or rejected that one.

[forest vale]

Since context clues seem to be eluding you, I'll let you know that "she" is incorrect. I am a man.

[junior delta]

Israel did used to exist, ever heard of the Kingdom of Israel?

[junior delta]

Who had taken it by force from before, and before and before, all the way back to the Israelites, and they took it over from other people, that list can go on, so who should it be given too then? (And by taken I am referring to how they received it, whether it was a gift or not from another nation)

[thorny stone]

There aren't any double standards in this conversation, except from Falcon. I specifically said we shouldn't punish the members of the young Israeli generation who haven't been involved in the horrific acts by their compatriots, and that we should punish both Israelis and Palestinians who are guilty of crimes, so I think you must have completely misread or misunderstood what I wrote.

[thorny stone]

You're fine. "They" is a word commonly used to refer to a person or persons of unspecified gender, so Falcon is probably complaining about nothing again.

[thorny stone]

Yes. That's a country that nobody knows whether it actually existed or not.

[junior delta]

You're entire argument was predicated on the fact that Israel should have to give everything to Palestinians.

[junior delta]

Except for the vast majority of historians...

[summer saffron]

That's exactly my point. It's been >3000 years of bloodshed, doubling down on "but you killed my grandfather" gets us nowhere but more dead. It shouldn't be "given" to anyone, it should be shared by everyone

Start by not starving millions and locking them in an open air prison

Stop killing, relocating, and/or stealing land from generations of people that have lived there

[thorny stone]

Er, some of that needs clarification or correction.

The UK took over Palestine from the Ottomans, with the help of the Arabs, during the First World War, and was then told by the League of Nations to make a country out of it. But they had already declared support for the creation of a Jewish state there as early as 1917, and had written the plan for the creation of a Palestine state in 1939, to be completed within 10 years. They certainly didn't vote against the 1948 UN resolution which enabled the creation of Israel. The only reason the UN was having a vote on the matter at all was because the UK passed it on to them, having tried and failed to get the Arabs and Jews to talk to each other and so were trying to wash their hands of the region completely. The last thing Britain wanted in 1948 was to be forced to deal with administering Palestine any longer.

[summer saffron]

Obey international rule of law

[thorny stone]

No it's not. Where did you get that crazy idea from?

I think Israel should give the land it stole back to the Palestinians, sure, but not the other 55% of the land it was originally allocated.

[summer saffron]

Arbitrary lines on a map determined by century old men with moustaches from 1000s km away aren't great justification for anything

[thorny stone]

That's clearly false. There's no solid archaeological evidence for it, only brief references in the Hebrew Bible.

[summer saffron]

Part of the issue, as highlighted by that other dude in the chat, is that without integration they don't see the other side as human

2 state solution is just going to perpetuate the eye-for-an-eye

Especially when you have theocratic governments

It's extremely telling that they can live as neighbours once they emigrate, yet in their isolated nations they are constantly at eachothers throats

[forest vale]

They can only live as neighbors inside Israel. The surrounding countries and territories have consistently supported war against Israel. The Jews were forced to flee those countries due to the policy of killing Jews. It's very telling that when Israel was founded, despite Arab rejection, 20% of the population was Arab and they remained in Israel. Even today, they make up about the same amount of the population. By contrast, Jews were kicked out of Arab countries in fear for their lives. So this idea that Israel wanted to kick out Palestinians has no basis in reality. When they were given the opportunity, Israel didn't kick out the Arabs that weren't actively trying to kill Jews. In fact, they made them full citizens with full rights until war was declared and the Jewish citizens were afraid to trust their Arab citizens since the Arabs were trying so hard to kill them. Then later, full rights of Arab citizens were restored, and they continued to live in Israel without being kicked out.

Those who left were not allow to return, because again, they had helped fight a war to kill Jews and wipe Israel off the map. So they lost their land.

Israel has consistently accepted plans with large Arab populations. The Arabs have consistently rejected plans that included any Jewish state at all.

The only plan Arabs would consider is one where Jews live under Muslim rule and submit to Muslim authority. Considering how all such countries then tried to murder all of their Jews, that could never have ended well.

[junior delta]

Yes I agree, the Arabs should not be doing that. I mean I think it's almost inhumane the way HAMAS steals aid meant for Palestinians and uses it for themselves, and when they repurposed a water center for military storage, just awful.

[junior delta]

Shared by everyone, that sounds very globalist of you. Sharing land between two groups of people that hate each other will never work out, I mean it would be nice if they could get along (similar to inside Israel not too long before October 7th) but that isn't going to happen, if it could I'd fully support it. However, I'd never support forcing a nation to put down arms when they are defending themselves.

[junior delta]

"the living Palestinians compensated by Israel since all the crimes were done on behalf of Israel and the state bears responsibility for that. Palestinians don't have anything to compensate Israelis with, because the Israelis have already stolen it all, otherwise I would ask the same of them as well. " directly contradicts the notion of not punishing the new generations for the actions of their ancestors. If you want to go house by house, restoring individual lands to still-alive people in cases where an individual removed someone from a home, then sure. If you're talking about war where one side gains territory, then no. That's how war works.

You can say not to punish the members of the young Israeli generation, but then you immediately go and say to give away everything from Israel who many of the younger generations had no part in.

Also it seems a lot like you are sympathizing with the horrors of HAMAS against Palestinians and Israelis by implying that it is pretty much only Israel that is comitting horrific acts, specifically noticed in the quote above.

[hollow token]

You cannot convince Falcon that what israel is doing is completely wrong, which is because this man hates Arabs/Muslims personally and probably had rough personal experiences with them <- which is unfortunate nonetheless

[civic karma]

However, there are Israelis that lay improper claims on land that is not theirs and chase away the current inhabitants in the government-funded settlement policy of the Netanyahu government. The israeli's that perform these crimes are generally young, fundamentalists that behave as if they don't see palestinians as humans. Palestinians are arrested for verbally attacking settlers. Meanwhile, on multiple instances, settlers have shot Palestinians in the west bank taking their lives and no action was taken. The IDF is not present to protect the piece, the IDF is only present to protect the settlers. People are literally cleared out of their homes. Children are being taken for no reason kept locked up for weeks. The main actors in this policy are the settlers (mostly young people) and the IDF (mostly young people)

To then, in light of these actions, claim that ''younger generations have no part in this'' is, sorry for my language, complete bullshit.

Israeli people are indoctinated from birth with the idea that they are the chosen ones and everyone around them is trying to kill them, justifying any action taken against ''those filthy arabs''

The best representation of this was an episode of some show i listened to where they invited people from both sides of the conflict and one israeli guy said something along the lines of (paraphrased,, can't remember exactly): I don't need to listen to [his, palestinian on the other side] arguments, since he is not worthy of being listened to. After the palestinian guy said all he wanted is to have a safe place to live away from IDF and away from Muslim fundamentalists

Israeli people are taught that all arabs are terrorists in disguise and allowing them to speak is equal to directly endangering yourself, which works completely contradictory, because NOT allowing them to speak is exactly the reason for young arabs radicalising and joining terrorists organisations.

And i am quite sure, however this is speculation, that the Israeli goverment does know this, but it is actually their preferred outcome. They want arabs to commit terrorist attacks against Israel so they can always claim moral highground whenever they decide to kill tens of thousands of innocent people

[civic karma]

But as far as the argument you make here, i assume you are talking about not punishing young israelis for the actions of their parents/grandparents etc, then i fully agree with that. It is in my opinion an insanely stupid idea to hold someone responsible for actions that they did not make.

[feral skiff]

anyone who says palestine is in the right or israel is in the right is in my opinion someone who doesnt look at history and is only fueled by emotion

israel and palestine has been an issue caused by the clusterfuck of ethicity that is the middle east

palestine struck on october 7th

because they were desperate and angry at israel, do I blame them? No.

Israel stuck back for revenge, do I blame them? No.

However Israels response has been genocidal at best

They have leveled Gaza Strip to the ground

Israel killed over 35 thousand people
of which 15 thousand are children.

Compare this to Ukraine with 600 children killed and (correct me if im wrong but from both sides)

Hamas commited a terrorist attack

and Israel one upped them

[civic karma]

Except for using the word ''blame'', i pretty much agree with your stance. I DO blame Hamas and i DO blame the israeli goverment for their actions, but i do understand their motives for performing these actions.

[feral skiff]

Mind you I didnt say Hamas

I said the palesitinian people

At the end of the day the people who attacked on the october 7th were regular people

there was a quote I read from a Russian general, i havent checked for it in its entirety but to paraphrase:

The most dangerous soldier isnt the most trained one, the best equipped one, the most dangerous soldier is the one who came to his university, to his home to find out it doesnt exist anymore, who lost everything, a man who lost everything has nothing left to lose

and at the end of the day I cannot blame israle

If I was israeli I would want palestine wiped from the face of this earth

because its not a good vs bad its us vs them

world war 2 was very good vs evil, but since then there have been very few wars fought where there is a clear good and a clear evil

[civic karma]

I don't believe this is an accurate representation. The actions were performed by radicalised people that affiliated with a terrorist organisation. That is wildly different from saying ''they were regular people''.

[feral skiff]

at the end of the day these radicalised terrorists were people who came home one day to find their house missing

[civic karma]

I agree

but there is a huge difference between ''the average palestinian'' and ''hamas''

[feral skiff]

theres a difference between this radicalisation and isis radicalisation which is due to religious supremacy

[civic karma]

and you are acting like they are mostly similar

[feral skiff]

ehhhhh i wouldnt be surprised if hamas was popular in gaza strip

[civic karma]

Me neither, but thats not what neither me or you are saying

You are equalling hamas to palestine

which is unfair to most palestinians

because most palestinians are not affiliated with hamas

[feral skiff]

im not saying palestine = hamas

im saying that theres a very strong link between them

[civic karma]

You said ''palestine struck on october 7th''

which is a misrepresentation

since by saying ''palestine'' you are insinuating that it is something that the palestinian people did

whereas in reality it was a mere subset of those people that were behind the attacks

it was hamas who performed the attacks, not palestine

because by saying palestine you refer to all palestinian people

And whether Hamas is popular in palestine is irrelevant to the question who are responsible for the attacks

The whole problem with this discussion is that it is not about israel vs palestine, but everyone seems to want to dumb down the whole conflict to a binary one.

There are many parties involved in the conflict, not just two

[feral skiff]

i agree that its way more complex than that

however i think its quite relevant that hamas has the support they do in gaza

as a gazan id be happy to see the same kind of punishment dished out on the israelis that they have been dishing out to me

[civic karma]

Sure, but that still does not mean that you are now responsible for those attacks

Even if you support them, if you did not carry them out, you are not responsible its that easy

[thorny stone]

It doesn't contradict it at all. Yes, I'm saying all property including houses and land should be returned to their rightful owners. No, I'm not suggesting the compensation take the form of the Palestinians randomly being given land that was lawfully (UN law not Israeli law, obviously) owned by Israelis. I'm compensating the Palestinians for the murders and the torture and the theft carried out by Israelis, but I'm not compensating them for having to share the land with the Israelis. I don't view either side as having a valid reason to claim the whole area, so the only reason to transfer ownership of any land would be 1) to restore ownership to the rightful owners before it was stolen, 2) to create two viable nations (both sides need farm land, resources, infrastructure etc.), or 3) if someone wants to buy it off someone else for a reasonable amount.

I've never suggested Israel should give away everything, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making false claims like that.

The problem was caused by the Zionists. Yes, I do sympathise more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, since the Israelis are the invading force. Both sides have committed horrible acts, but the responsibility for it all lies with the Zionists. When you have murderous gangs of Zionists wandering about massacring innocent Palestinian civilians, I don't find fault in the Palestinians for fighting back. I don't condone their murder of innocent Israelis in any way, but the war was started by the Zionists, plain and simple.

[thorny stone]

The only reason the two sides can't get along with each other is because one of them contains Zionists. They have never been able to get along with anyone. If your stated policy contains words to the effect of "God told us we can do whatever we like to anyone else" then you are not someone that can ever engage reasonably. They moved into the area in the first place with the intention of causing trouble, and even if they somehow manage to kill all of the Palestinians in Gaza, they will just turn their attention back to the West Bank and start murdering more innocent civilians there again. We know what the Zionists in charge want. We've seen them do this time after time, and it's been their clearly stated plan for more than 100 years. They pretend to claim to only be concerned with a small area, and then once people give in to them on that they immediately move to claim more areas. And their method of 'claiming' is to invade, massacre innocent civilians and children, and seize the land when people flee. The more you give them, they more they will claim, until they control the whole region. The only solution to stop trouble is to stop the Zionists from causing the trouble. They are currently acting like sociopaths, and need to be prevented from harming others while we work out a way to try and let them heal from their previous hurts.

[feral skiff]

couldnt have said it better myself

[summer saffron]

The only reason I lay more blame on Isreal for the current actions is because they are the more developed and more powerful nation at the present time.

Both side have been doing bad things for generations.

But currently its Israel that holds the cards, so it is, IMO incumbent on them to stop blocking aid, stop bombing civilian assets, non-combatants and children.

The blocking of aid, the destruction of infrastructure, homes etc., the killing of innocent fathers, mothers, children, friends is what will create the next generation/incarnation of Hamas

[feral skiff]

its true

[civic karma]

Yes, so in 20 years we get a new incident again where the then Israeli-fundamentalists will claim the new incident is a stand-alone event which gives them the right to destroy all terrorists and not worry about collateral damage, and so the cycle continues

[forest vale]

What is up with people just straight up using my name to lie constantly?

[forest vale]

You're never forced to commit terrorist actions. That's such a ridiculous argument. No matter what anyone does to Israel, that could never justify a soldier going into a civilian home and raping and murdering people. That would never justify a civilian who comes out of a civilian home in a civilian area with no military presence or connection who is identified as a civilian and not being aggressive being shot by a soldier.

But you use this nonsense argument that the terrorist actions are provoked. No they aren't. You provoke a military response, not terrorist actions.

[forest vale]

You don't have to rape people when you get desperate or angry. This is not a legitimate defense.

[forest vale]

Killing the terrorists who are murdering and raping your civilians is not revenge. It's a normal action of security and self-defense. Revenge is obviously going to be present in some form for some people, but arguing that it's all revenge completely removes the very real and obvious security aspects of their actions.

[forest vale]

Every poll has them quite popular. Even the latest polls still have around half the population supporting Hamas.

[forest vale]

That's like saying most Americans aren't affiliated with the US government and military. That's not how that works. Palestinians have allowed Hamas to build under their schools and hospitals. They have elected and supported Hamas for decades. They joined Hamas on October 7.

We often say "Hamas" as a shortcut when we talk about October 7, but the reality is that it wasn't just Hamas. It is far more accurate to say Palestinians, because it was a number of groups who banded together to carry out the attack. Hamas, PIJ, Mujahideen Brigades, and Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades openly claimed to have taken hostages, but there were 10 groups training alongside Hamas to carry out these attacks, five of whom posted videos showing participation in the attacks, and ordinary Palestinian civilians are also shown taking part in the attacks. So as much as we say Hamas, it's much more accurate to say Palestinians. And that was the point the Arab scholar made in the discussion I was watching last night, where he was arguing against the Jewish scholars.

[civic karma]

Luckily thats not at all what i said 🙂

[civic karma]

Ah, similarly to how people in North Korea must LOVE Kim Jong Un since he got 99.9% of votes during elections?

[civic karma]

It is not more accurate to say palestinians and with that statement you are showing your true colors of having a racial issue with palestinians, I would kindly ask you to retract that statement because it goes over so many boundaries.

[forest vale]

I wasn't quoting you. I was pointing out that your argument that someone wants someone else to commit terrorist attacks is ridiculous. The only people who commit terrorist attacks are those who are evil. There is no military or resistance justification for it. That's why they are considered terrorist attacks, which are illegitimate attacks.

[forest vale]

When was the last time North Korea allowed foreign governments into their country to conduct anonymous polling of citizens?

[civic karma]

But you act like i said that it was justified for hamas to commit terrorist attacks

and i said no such thing

not even close

[forest vale]

No, I'm showing that I'm listening to the Arab scholars who were making that point, and you're showing your ignorance of the attack.

[civic karma]

Okay sure, then lets take russia for an example

[forest vale]

It is a defense, whether you meant it like that or not. People keep claiming that the terrorist attacks were provoked. That's never true.

[civic karma]

No the problem is that you are blind to what is happening in the greater context on the conflict

[forest vale]

Terrorist attacks are never provoked, because they are by their nature illegitimate.

[civic karma]

Like how you said earlier that the conflict started on october 7th

if you truly believe that you are just ignoring all information that does not suit you

[civic karma]

This is such a rediculous statement

[forest vale]

This is how you justify terrorism.

You are defending terrorism here.

[civic karma]

Ah here we go again

"you do not agree with me, therefore you justify terrorism''

[forest vale]

Saying the terrorism was provoked is literally a justification. That's what it is.

Terrorism isn't provoked. Resistance is provoked.

[civic karma]

If you claim that terrorism can never be reactionairy to some other event ''due to their nature'' than you are just willfully ignorant

[forest vale]

Terrorism is illegitimate. There's never an excuse or justification for it.

[civic karma]

There are motives for any event that humans do

whether you like them or not

i am not justifying anything

You keep putting words in my mouth

act like i argue things that i never said

[forest vale]

I don't care if it happens in response to something else. That doesn't justify it and can't be a defense. You're not provoking terrorism, you're provoking legitimate resistance.

[civic karma]

its such a cheap tactic

[forest vale]

You're saying the Israelis are to blame for the terrorist attack

[civic karma]

You are literally doing it again

I never said such a thing

this is getting rediculous

[forest vale]

It's not a cheap tactic, that's what people have been saying.

[civic karma]

Except i have not said anything like that

[forest vale]

Here.

[civic karma]

Reply to the message where i said that israel is to blame for terrorist attacks

[forest vale]

And so many other places. Arguing that October 7 is just a response in a long line of provocations.

[civic karma]

Because that is what the greater context of the conflict is

that you are not willing to see that is up to you

but then don't start putting words in my mouth for things i have never said

[forest vale]

This is saying things that I have never said.

Who are you to pretend others are putting words in your mouth?

Look in the mirror.

[civic karma]

You take one specific group of people, extrapolate it to full people and blame them, thats exactly what you wrote there

Bro yoiu are so pathetic

[forest vale]

I correctly point out who actually participated in the attack. It wasn't just Hamas, and it's been documented well enough that Palestinian civilians also participated in the attack.

Additionally, Hamas isn't just "one group of people." They are the ruling and military body of the area. It's not an isolated group, it's their government and leaders which over half of Gaza supported back in the election and they continue to support the group.

This idea that pointing out that Gaza civilians participated in the attack is somehow a racial thing is nonsense. The entire area is the same racial group. Israelis and Arabs share the same race. It's been well studied and documented. Additionally, if it was racially motivated, why would Arab citizens of Israel be granted full rights nearly 60 years ago?

[thorny stone]

For the record I don't think you have said that. But if you did want to say that, here's a page you could use for evidence that it's true. Israel are definitely responsible for their own terrorist acts that far outweigh anything the Palestinians have ever done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Irgun was one of several Zionist terrorist organisations, founded for the purpose of taking complete control over not just Palestine but Jordan as well. They carried out terrorist acts against the Arabs and the British, killing thousands of innocent people. In 1948 they, and the other terrorist groups, changed their name and become the IDF. The leader of Irgun, Menachem Begin, went on to found the Likud political party explicitly based on the principles of "Israel owns all the land west of the River Jordan including Gaza and the West Bank", "Palestinians aren't allowed their own land", and "Attack anyone we see as enemies before they have a chance to attack us".

Netanyahu is currently the leader of Likud, and the Prime Minister of Israel. Israel is a country led by terrorists. Their political leaders are terrorists, and their army is a terrorist organisation under another name.

[junior delta]

I never claimed young people can't have a part in it, I'm simply saying what about the young people who do not have a part in it.

[junior delta]

That is what I'm talking about. Because from his response it sounds like even in land directly given to Israel, not territories like Gaza or the West Bank that originally weren't supposed to be given to them, those lands should be given back to Palestine, because Israel is just colonizing them. That then would be directly punishing kids who do not have a part in the atrocities, nor the adults who may also not have a part.

I'm not going to defend the actions Israel may take domestically against Arab citizens, but I just don't see a way we can logically say who should have what land, other than whoever can hold and defend said land. That is for the most part how territory works. Now if their policies are immoral against people, then that is horrible, but the issue isn't about policy morality, it's about who should hold the land, and that is always going to be subjective.

[junior delta]

So should Israelis then also be compensated for murders, torture, and theft carried out by Palestinians, Arabs, etc.

Also I want to discuss the idea of "[restoring] ownership to the rightful owners before it was stolen" because how do we define rightful owners?

I think two viable nations would be a good idea, I think either way though there will always be conflict due to the religious nature of the area.

I am sorry for misinterpreting your claim, it seemed to me like you're opinion was that even UN given land was stolen by Israel because of the various Jewish terrorist's groups during that time. I'm assuming you meant just the lands in Gaza and the West Bank then?

[junior delta]

Question then, were Zionists the reason that Palestine declined multiple two-state proposals?

[junior delta]

Can you please make me aware of what aid they're blocking? If it was my understanding, Palestine had been receiving aid for a while that HAMAS was taking and using for themselves, not giving it to the other Palestinians. I agree that bombing civilian targets (even though it is military targets just surrounded by civilian shields) is a bad practice, but there is something to be said in war-time for it, you save the lives of your soldiers by not having to go in on a full ground campaign for a single target location.

Destroying infastructure is just a part of war, it is horrible, but it is just simply a reality of war. Wouldn't it also be fair to say that the murder of innocent Israeli civillians would create the next generation of "Zionists"? Even if you could sya one side is wrong, the murder on both sides would only add fuel to the flame of extremism on both sides.

[forest vale]

Pretty difficult for Hamas leaders to become billionaires without taking the aid meant for the people of Gaza, not to mention the billions spent on building military infrastructure, tunnels, and weapons with which to target Israel, all at the expense of the people of Gaza.

[summer saffron]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip?wprov=sfla1

A terrorist attack by a small minority is not justification to bomb 100,000s of impoverished people.

100% I would say that you are creating adversity and radicalization of future Zionists. The difference with the past ~15 years the relative power imbalance

The loss of a couple of soldiers is not justification from bombing and killing 10,000s of civilians

Knowingly bombarding civilian infrastructure including schools and hospitals is a war crime

Hostage taking, rape, etc is also a war crime

One is not justification for the other

It's for that reason that BOTH sides are listed in the ICC filing for international arrest warrants

[junior delta]

exactly

[junior delta]

No, but a terrorist attack by the elected government of a region you allowed to act autonomously is a reason to bomb military targets

[junior delta]

So is using hospitals as cover for military combatants

[junior delta]

Exactly, the entire point is that one side is not better than the other.

[summer saffron]

That is still not justification to bomb the hospital

[junior delta]

Military target*

[summer saffron]

You cannot commit war crimes

[summer saffron]

Then you are incumbent to attack the military targets WITHOUT committing war crimes by bombing the hospital on top of it

It's costly, and dangerous, but the alternative chosen,"Just fucking bomb the hospital" is still a war crime

[junior delta]

The hospital is a military target, many hospitals are used to store mortars and personnel

[summer saffron]

Unfortunately, it was still also being used as a hospital

Therefore war crime

It doesn't matter if the opponent is breaking international law

You are still bound by it

[junior delta]

Just checked, it actually isn't a warcrime

[summer saffron]

a) iii. Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
iv. Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

b) iii. Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-aid-workers-killed-2d08786a9839dfc402632c7ca745acca

[junior delta]

You mean like HAMAS shooting at US military personnel attempting to build a dock for bringing in humanitarian supplies?

[summer saffron]

b) iv.Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

[junior delta]

I'm not arguing any of those are bad

And I'm not arguing both sides don't violate those

[summer saffron]

Again, for the 4th time. The other side committing war crimes is no justification for you to do so

[junior delta]

I never said that was a justification

[summer saffron]

Then why "whataboutism" it

It has no import on the conversation

I'm not defending HAMAS

[junior delta]

You were just quoting random clauses and I was asking as an example if that'd apply.

[summer saffron]

I'm condemning Isreal

[junior delta]

And also HAMAS

[forest vale]

It's not a small minority! It's the official ruling body and military of Gaza!

[summer saffron]

Yes

[junior delta]

There you go, no need to only bring in one side

When both sides do it

Doesn't excuse it

[summer saffron]

But again, Isreal is the more affluent and more powerful side

They are also the ones that have been blockadeing the civilians for over a decade

[junior delta]

Real life experience has shown that technology doesn't equal better.

[summer saffron]

They are the ones with international presence

[forest vale]

Knowingly putting your military structures inside and under civilian structures such as schools and hospitals is a war crime. At that point, however, they are legitimate military targets because they are being used for military purposes. Hamas is committing the war crime in that case, not Israel.

[junior delta]

Hamas has done that to Palestinians as well.

[summer saffron]

It is incumbent on them (Israel) to break the cycle, not perpetuate it, as the ones currently on the top of the wheel

[junior delta]

That is unfair to ask

[forest vale]

I don't think there's any moral equivalency between terrorists that rape and murder vs those who are targeting those terrorists.

[summer saffron]

No it's not. It's like telling the adult to stop punching the petulant child

[forest vale]

It literally is, based on international law and common sense. Anything used for military purposes is a legitimate military target.

[summer saffron]

Otherwise you get eye for an eye into eternity

[junior delta]

No, not at all. Are you calling Palestine children?

[summer saffron]

I am saying that is the equivalent power discrepancy

[junior delta]

Level of technology has nothing to do with power. Every single modern war against a force that blends in with locals has shown this. Vietnam War, War in Afghanistan, etc.

Vietnam isn't even really modern, but shows this pretty well.

[summer saffron]

Are you starting to realize that the USA might have committed war crimes?

[junior delta]

Starting to realize, no I absolutely know we have.

If you expect a group of uniformed soldiers to just sit and take hits from people who look like civillians, you are just dilusional. Now, loss of innocent lives is tragic, but they aren't avoidable in this type of situation.

Well it is avoidable for HAMAS because the force they are fighting are uniformed, but not for the IDF

[forest vale]

The difference between this and other wars is that in other cases, civilians have actually evacuated, while here, they are forced to remain by Hamas or choose to stay. Then you add in the fact that Israel is actually focused on wiping out Hamas, not just defeating an adversary like every other war. It's not common for a war to actually have the goal of wiping out the other side.

[thorny stone]

Yes, the Israelis should be compensated for the acts of violence against them. In theory. But in practice, the Israelis have committed far more violence against the Palestinians than the Palestinians have committed against the Israelis, so when you cancel it out you're left with Israel giving substantial compensation to the Palestinians.

How do we define rightful owners? For the land we ask the UN. Their decision is the most impartial decision on it we're going to get. We will have to modify their original decision a bit, since Israel has changed the land quite a lot since the 1947 agreement, but that's something we can do. For individual houses, the rightful owner is whoever owned the house before someone came and stole it from them at the beginning of this war. We're not trying to find a remedy for conflicts that ended thousands of years ago, just the current conflict, because that's the one that affects the people alive today.

There will always be conflict as long as Zionists are allowed to pursue their goals of wiping out all the Arabs in the region, certainly. But for most people, they just want to live in peace, same as anywhere else in the world. If we disregard the idiotic Zionist claims of being told by their god that they could have Palestine and Jordan, then the only religious dispute is Jerusalem, and we already know what the solution there is: Neutral territory. Nobody owns it, it's an international inter-cultural city.

The UN division of land gave Israel substantially less land than they currently occupy. It's not just Gaza and the West Bank, it's another 23% of the whole region that should be rightfully governed by the Palestinians. Israel stole half of what the Arabs were suppose to have. Yes technically Israel stole all their land through Zionist invasions of immigration in the first place. But I'm making the decision that in the present day it's better to keep them roughly where they are than to start trying to move millions of Jews elsewhere.

[thorny stone]

Personally, I'm not sure it's really going to be viable to have two states that don't have continuous borders. So given we're going to have to push Israel out of some areas it already controls anyway, it would seem to make more sense to swap the borders around and make the two states, Israel and Palestine, each more of a regular shape. I would just connect the West Bank and Gaza and give the Palestinians The West Bank plus everything south of a line level with Jerusalem. I don't know the details about things like power stations and water supplies so we might have to adjust that a bit to make the states viable, but I think it's a lot better to do it that way than have a lot of crossing points where both sides will have to deal with each other all the time in order to move around their own lands.

[thorny stone]

Yes, of course they were. The only two-state proposals Israel ever makes are ones drawn up by the Zionists to legitimise whatever land Israel has stolen most recently. Israel steals more land, and then says "is this ok?" Of course the answer will be no, because saying yes would mean you're fine with Israel stealing stuff from you. So then Israel steals more land and asks again, "How about now, is this ok?". The answer will always be no when you're just stealing more and more stuff. Nobody is ever going to feel fine when you've just this second stolen stuff from them.

[thorny stone]

Can you find any evidence that anything like that actually happened? I've spent a fair bit of time looking and not found anything at all. The only thing that comes remotely close that I've found has been three US soldiers injured near the pier in non-combat-related accidents, and Hamas attacking Israelis near where the pier was going to end up, before the pier or US soldiers were even there. There are a number of right-wing media organisations deliberately misrepresenting those events by writing misleading headlines to pretend that Hamas has targeted US troops, but not even they are actually saying Hamas fired on the US military when you read the articles. This feels like a standard piece of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

[civic karma]

There are 2 reasons why we do this. 1) it is evident to everyone that Hamas is in the wrong, there is no need to discuss that since we all agree. 2) Israel has signed international law and Hamas did not. So for Israel there is no excuse to break those laws as they themselves agreed to it. The fact that the other party also breaks these laws is irrelevant to the case of Israel.

And the whataboutism that happens everytime someone is critical at the Israeli government does not help the discussion in any way

[civic karma]

I have been called something along the lines of a ''terrorist symphatiser'' now multiple times since im critical about the actions of the Israeli governemnt. But I believe that being able to critisise any policy is neccesary for a democratic and relatively peaceful society. As soon as we cannot critisise one side of a conflict anymore due to whataboutism is the moment we give up freedom as a whole.

And therefore its dangerous to believe that critisism against israeli government policies equals sympathisation with hamas or anti-semitism etc...

Because you can be both critical of the israeli government and of hamas at the same time

And the israeli goverment is an institute of the state of israel and has nothing to do with jewish people or sympathising with a terrorist organisation

[civic karma]

And we can also add another unforgiving act to the Netanyahu government: Bombing of a refugee camp in a spot that the goverment themselves pointed out as a ''safe zone'' in the night of sunday/monday

[forest vale]

That's not what people actually say. They say Hamas was justified in their "resistance" on October 7 and that it was provoked by Israel, and essentially that Israel was at fault and not Hamas. They say that all civilian casualties are the fault of Israel, and completely ignore the Hamas attacks on refugees or aid workers. Even the Hamas attacks on the IDF are wrong if they're attacking the portion of the IDF whose job it is to set up the pier that the US is setting up, because now Hamas is delaying the distribution of aid. But again, if that aid isn't distributed, who is to blame? The IDF for some reason, and not Hamas who launched attacks against those involved in the pier. It's such a ridiculous double standard. And no one is talking about the fact that Hamas has been stealing aid for decades, that it's been their primary resource stream, and that the citizens of Gaza suffer because Hamas stole their aid, not because of any kind of blockade. You wouldn't need the blockade if Hamas wasn't so focused on stealing aid to build tunnels and import weapons.

[forest vale]

And people are constantly pretending Israeli attacks break international law when they objectively do not, which makes it really hard to find cases to analyze where they may have broken it. You have to wade through ten cases where international law obviously wasn't broken to find the one case where analysis is worth it, but by that time the Gaza supporters just whine that you're just going to support Israel no matter what happens and you don't care about civilians and blah blah blah.

How about you stop bringing up incidents where the IDF were clearly targeting military objectives and actually bring up incidents that are clearly questionable where the source is something other than Hamas? Is that really such a high standard?

[forest vale]

It's not "whataboutism" to ask you about Hamas, it's trying to figure out what your standard is. And you don't seem to have any kind of standard, which is why it keeps getting brought up. If you actually allow someone to figure out what your standard is by explicitly stating things instead of just pretending everyone knows Hamas is wrong anyway, then the conversation can actually progress.

[forest vale]

Except it's not the Netanyahu government, is it. According to many people, Israel today should be paying for things that were done in 1947. They brought October 7 on themselves in 1947, and never mind the multiple wars to wipe out Israel that were fought. Never mind the multitude of cease fires broken. Never mind the endless rocket attacks over the last decades. Never mind that nobody cared when Netanyahu wasn't in power, it wasn't like it was a big reset button. Everyone still pretended that nothing had changed.

How about just recognizing that every country surrounding Israel has much, much worse records on anything related to civil or human rights. How about recognizing that if you actually created a state in Gaza or the West Bank, human rights would suck, Jews wouldn't be allowed in, and attacks on Israel would continue. How about recognizing that Arab states do not grant full rights to Christians or Jews, but somehow no one calls Egypt or Jordan an apartheid state.

[thorny stone]

They don't. Every other country in the world has a better human rights record than Israel, by a distance. Israel is literally a terrorist state.

[forest vale]

If you only care about crimes when they are committed by Israel, then obviously you're antisemitic. Obviously you're supporting terrorists. Obviously you're ignoring history. Every country surrounding Israel attacked the Jews when Israel was created. They were attacking people who had nothing to do with Zionosm, who were forced to flee their homes. But now you expect Israel to give up land to these countries that launched such attacks for no reason, and have continued to launch terrorist attacks against Israel non-stop? That's insanity.

And it's these comments by Arklar that seal it. Where it's so obvious that other countries have worse human rights records, he just puts Israel at the top of the list. Worse than North Korea, worse than Afghanistan. Who cares if women aren't allowed to uncover their hair in public or drive or go to school, right? That has nothing to do with human rights. Who cares if you're literally not allowed to leave a country. Nothing to do with human rights. Who cares about any of that.

You act like human rights in Israel are so horrible, but every example you bring up has nothing to do with human rights in Israel.

[thorny stone]

Can we just do some fact checking, please?

1. Looking at one problem at a time is not racist. Nor is it supporting terrorism in any way. Nor is it ignoring history. Nobody "only" cares about Israel's crimes, but Israel are the biggest problem right now, so it makes sense to try and start there. Making false claims like that only stops people listening to you.

2. The Zionists attacked first. They were massacring Arab civilians in a systematic ethnic cleansing weeks before the Arab army invaded on the day the British officially pulled out. That is a clear fact. The Arab army was fighting a defensive war. Israeli forces have always been invading and occupying territory that doesn't belong to them, since before Israel officially existed, so the Arab side has always been a defensive war. It's incredibly misleading to claim that other countries attacked Israel. They were doing so in self-defence, and always have been. This is a clear fact. It is simply a lie to claim that a) Israel was the one that was attacked, and b) for no reason. The reasons are VERY obvious.

3. Palestinians launch terrorist attacks against Israel because Israel, and the Zionists terrorist organisations that the IDF was before Israel was officially created, have been launching far worse terrorist attacks at them, and they did it first, and continually since then. You say that people are allowed to defend themselves? Well, that's all the Palestinians have been trying to do, since the start.
   .

4. Yes, Israel is worse on human rights than North Korea or Afghanistan. Clearly so.
   Deliberately and continually torturing, starving, and massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians for 80-odd years is far worse than running a very authoritarian anti-capitalist government. Bad though it might be to restrict things like someone's religion, movement and trade union affiliations, that doesn't compare to systematic torture of millions for decades.
   Afghanistan is approaching the same level of human rights abuses as Israel, with a virtual apartheid, but has been in that situation for a far shorter amount of time and so isn't yet on the same scale as Israel. And yes, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza has been worse than the treatment of women in Afghanistan. I'm not saying either are good, just that if we're trying to rank them I'd put Israel out ahead as the worst.

But, I mean, arguing over whether Israel are the actual worst in the world, or only the second worst, feels like missing the point. The point is that Israel are committing terrible acts of abuse, and have been for decades. It doesn't matter where they are on the rankings, what they are doing needs to stop, immediately.

To clarify, because I think you're trying to conflate two different issues, the treatment of Arabs Israelis within Israel is not on its own a bigger human rights abuse than countries like North Korea or Afghanistan. If it was just that than maybe Israel wouldn't even be in the top 10 of worst countries in the world. But the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and the other lands Israel has invaded and annexed over the last 76 years definitely IS a bigger humans rights abuse than those examples.

[thorny stone]

So let's try and simplify this.

Nobody is singling Israel out for worse criticism than other countries get, or seeking to only blame Israel for everything, so we can disregard any accusations of those things.

Israel very clearly HAS broken either international law or international agreements on a number of occasions. They broke the 1947 UN resolution on the division of Palestine the instant is was made, they have ignored various other UN resolutions in the decades since then, and they are currently ignoring UN directives to stop the fighting. The UN, and the ICC, clearly believe that Israel has committed war crimes just in the past few months. So this is not some unfounded or obviously untrue belief. The world experts on war crimes say Israel is committing war crimes.

We can't justify Israel's poor treatment of Arab Israelis on the basis that some other groups are treated worse in some other countries. We don't get to say things are fine just because things are also bad elsewhere. So we can get rid of any arguments along these lines. No acts of terrorism or persecution are justified simply because someone else is doing the same.

[junior delta]

Question, how do you compensate someone for their lose of life? Would you compensate their family, and if so how? What compensation would be equal to the loss of their family member? Or, should compensation only be for physical property?

What makes the UN the appropriate authority to determine who rightfully owns what? If the UN voted to let Israel have all of the region of modern day Israel and Palestine, would that still be fine with you? If the UN is already the most impartial decision in your opinion, why would their decision need to be modified, wouldn't that make it more biased? As for the houses, and conquered land, do you think that no country should ever conquer land from another country, no matter the circumstances or reasons?

Wait, so Zionists aren't Jews then, or are they Messianic Jews? Doesn't Judaism state that the Messiah is the one that will bring the Jews back and restore their homeland to them?

[civic karma]

Zionism and Jews overlap but they are not the same. In principle all zionists are jews, but not all jews are zionists. If I may put it in my own words, Zionism is nowadays practiced as the far-right branch of religious-fundamental politics that includes the main goal of having a Jewish state in Palestine. Basically they are just a form of radicalised religoius fundamentalists. It was not always like that, when it started it was only about uniting the jewish people into one homeland, but in recent history it took a turn in their beliefs as well as how their beliefs are practiced.

[junior delta]

I do agree here, if they are to be two distinct state, then they should have continuous borders. But, it does seem like both sides were willing to have Palestine as a non-continuous nation in both the West Bank and Gaza, fully autonomous, but extremists on both sides lead to the downfall of a peaceful divergence. Mostly a Jewish extremist assasinating Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and growing Hamas attacks which lead to the election of Netanyahu. They even both agreed to Israel withdrawing even more forces from the West Bank in return for Palestine taking measures to prevent attacks against Israel, but both sides accused the other of not upholding their end. Neither side supported Netanyahu after this because the left thought he wasn't doing enough for peace and the right thought he was giving away too much land to Palestine, so Barak was elected and declared he'd bring peace in 15 months. With the US mediating, Israel and Palestine had negotiations on borders, but this just comes down to what each side finds acceptable. Needless to say, the Palestinian representative didn't support the offered borders, so Barak was eventually removed from PM. This is why land in my opinion should be held by the stronger power, in this case Israel.

[junior delta]

That then seems like the "Zionists" are not truly Jews, religiously, unless they are claiming that the messiah brough them back to Israel.

[civic karma]

I am not sure what you mean, but I also don't want to speak out any value claims about this topic. If zionists call themselves jewish, i guess they are jewish.

But its definitely a hard topic. For example, some muslim fundamentalist organisations, such as IS for that matter, claim to be muslim, however whenever I speak to ''actual'' practicing muslims, they despise those groups

And I am sure that for a lot of jewish people around the world, they don't like Zionism either

or at least, the way it is practiced nowadays

[forest vale]

"Zionist" doesn't mean anything these days. It originally meant someone who supported the creation of a Jewish state. That's over. It's already here. You aren't a Zionist if you're okay with Israel existing. It's just a meaningless political term these days that hasn't meant anything for a good 50 years. That's like talking about the Bolsheviks when you're discussing the Soviet Union. They became the communist party in the Society Union. So for the next 68 years, people stopped talking about the Bolsheviks and instead talked about the communists.

When you claim Zionists are the problem, as people on here have done, then you're essentially claiming that anyone who thinks Israel should continue to exist in the world today is the problem. That's the majority of the world at this point, and certainly the entirety of the non-Arab world.

[prisma harbor]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kAfIYtpcBxo&si=daWhD3HntnKG5K8N

For anyone still confused as to what is going on in Gaza and Israel or anyone who wants to better understand the overall problem. The second part of the video goes into talking about the problem between USA, Iran and Israel.

[thorny stone]

Yeah, compensation for deaths is a hugely tricky question. I don't really think you can compensate for that. My best suggestion, is to put things in place that stop anything like that from happening again.

What makes the UN the appropriate authority? Democracy. No decision-making process is perfect, but the UN is the only organisation that has a chance of making sure all the important issues are considered in resolving this situation. Even if I disagree with their decisions, I agree with the process. That's what happens with democracy sometimes. Sometimes you're in the minority. Doesn't mean democracy is a bad idea.
But, precisely because it has a decent shot at considering all sides, I'm pretty sure the UN wouldn't decide that way. We don't really need to hypothesise about what would happen if a good decision-making process ended up making a bad decision, because by definition they usually don't.

I already explained why the 1947 decision would need to be adjusted. Israel has built a ton of houses on a ton of land since then, and has bombed other areas into oblivion since then as well. The land is very different than it was in 1947.

I can't offhand think of a scenario where one country conquering land from another country would be justified. It might be possible. Certainly there are worse solutions than the UN invading Israel, deposing their government and taking back the land they stole. But I also think there would be quite a few better solutions than that, too. In general, invading another country to steal land is bad.

I'm no expert on Judaic teachings. But certainly not all Jews are Zionists, no. That's immediately obvious with even a cursory look at the main critics of Zionism, a large number of whom are Jewish.

[thorny stone]

The problem we've got is that neither side trusts the other side at all. Both sides assume the other will break any and all agreements, and so feel no need to abide by them themselves. So agreements are currently meaningless.

If you take away the psychopathic Zionists, and some of the most worked up Palestinians, I think the vast majority of both sides could live in peace alongside each other in the same nation, never mind two separate nations with complicated borders. But in practice there isn't a way of removing those two groups, so the solution needs to take them into account as well. Part of it therefore needs to involve both sides having, essentially, defensible borders.

Palestinians are never going to agree to a proposal made by the Zionist leaders within Israel. That's a given, because the Zionists will check that a proposal is unacceptable to the Palestinians before they make it, because they don't want an agreement. Any proposal with any chance of success has to come from the US therefore, because the US is the only opinion Israel recognises as having any value at all. But it has to come from a US government that is prepared to force the Israelis to settle and not automatically side with Israel, because if they just repackage an Israeli proposal we already know it won't be reasonable. Also, as long as the US is prepared to back anything Israel does, Israel has no pressure to ever agree to anything because the US will protect it at all costs. So the roadblock really, is waiting for a sensible US government. That was what it took in Northern Ireland to resolve that problem, and that is what it will take in Palestine as well. The US needs to say enough is enough.

[thorny stone]

On the issue of Zionism, we do need to recognise that Zionism is a movement that has changed meaning over time.

In the 19th century, and really all the way up to 1948, Zionism was indeed characterised by a desire to form a Jewish state, in most cases in Palestine. This was a hugely problematic belief because it meant taking the land away from the people living there already, which is always stealing. So yes, this form of Zionism then was absolutely an objectively bad thing, because it was a belief system predicated on the idea that theft was acceptable.

In the 20th Century, as the creation of a Jewish state became increasingly inevitable, Zionism started to push for more. It had been successful with its initial goal, and that gave Zionists confidence that they could get other things as well. So instead of simply trying to get any old Jewish state, Zionism started to call more and more strongly for a big and powerful Jewish state, asking for the things at the top of their wish list like control over all of Palestine and Transjordan.

In the 21st century, we can look back with rose tinted spectacles at the early incarnation of Zionism and find it acceptable in the modern era. We already have a Jewish state now, and so the call for a Jewish state to exist doesn't feel problematic. That desire isn't problematic in the current world because the world is different now.

The problematic part, is that that's not what Zionism is now. Zionism now, is characterised by the desire for Israel to rule over all of Palestine, and maybe more. This new adaptation of Zionism is still problematic in the current world.

Fundamentally, Zionism has always been about the push for Israel to have more than it currently has. At any given time, it's always a problematic belief system because it demands things from other people. Whenever we're thinking about it, we should be careful not to confuse an outdated view of Zionism with the present reality.

The current reality is that Zionism currently seeks to remove the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank through any means necessary.

[feral skiff]

youre speaking from a rational point of view, i agree. You cannot speak from the shoes of someone who lost EVERYTHING

[feral skiff]

if i was palestinian i would join hamas

not because hamas is right

but because israel is wrong

[feral skiff]

what israel is doing is terrorism too, you dont seem to have any problems justifying it

[feral skiff]

i am saying that the Israeli government and right wing militias (including settler groups) are responsible for this

[forest vale]

If your response to losing everything is to rape and murder innocent people who had nothing to do with taking things away from you, then the correct response is to wipe you off the face of the planet.

[forest vale]

Justifying what? Name one terrorist action that I've justified. You're throwing out nonsense accusations because you aren't actually paying attention.

[forest vale]

People are responsible for their own actions. Painting people generically with the, "well they hate you so it's okay if they rape and murder you" really seems like nonsense. You don't think Israel has reason to hate the countries around them? Remember when Jews who weren't Zionist, who had nothing to do with the formation of Israel, suddenly found themselves attacked in their own countries in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and elsewhere and forced to flee with what wasn't already murdered of their families? This is such a nonsense double standard.

If Israel commits atrocities, it's not wrong to hold them accountable for that. Defending their country is not the same as committing atrocities.

If Palestinians commit atrocities against an extremely powerful nation whose normal operating pattern is to ignore rocket fire and barely respond to it until it's been getting out of hand for months... I mean poke a bear enough, you're going to get mauled. Rape and murder a bear's cubs, get wiped off the map.

"Power imbalance" doesn't justify terrorist actions the way people on here are pretending it does. That's not a thing.

[thorny stone]

So is the correct response to Israel's torture and murder of innocent people to wipe them from the face of the planet too? Or is this just a principle that only applies to Muslims?

[feral skiff]

once again youre speaking from the point of view from a person who hasnt lost everything

you dont understand hatred

and you cant blame palestinians for the hatred of their oppressors

its basic human psychology

that when the tables are switched you will enact the same punishment that has been enacted on you by your oppressors

its a cycle of violence

and so far over 30000 palestinian women and children have been killed compared to around 1000 israeli civilians (men women and children) on october 7th

i dont believe in black or white

very rare cases when something is purely evil or good

[hollow token]

In his eyes I think it may only apply to muslims

[forest vale]

That's strange. Why would Arkie suggest that people should wipe out all of Israel based on the actions of some Israelis? Does that mean we should wipe out all of Palestine based on the actions of some Palestinians? In the Western world, we have this odd concept of holding people accountable for their own actions, rather than the actions of someone else.

[forest vale]

Early Christians were routinely fed to wild animals, entire families slaughtered in the arena for sport. Somehow, they didn't respond with extreme violence. Probably had something to do with their religion. Might even be the specific directive to rejoice when you are persecuted and to pray for those who wish you harm.

But you act like it's mandatory to murder innocent civilians if someone harmed your ancestors 50 years ago. I don't buy it. The people committing murder weren't those who had lost everything, though I'm sure some had that experience. Far more, it was those who were taught to hate from a very young age, and bred into terrorists.

[forest vale]

This is quite inaccurate as a statistic. First, half of that number are men. Second, that is all the casualties, including all those who were militants. Third, that includes all the casualties caused by Hamas bullets, Hamas rockets, Hamas ammunition dump explosions, and other Hamas actions. Fourth, that number generally comes from Hamas sources, which have proven themselves inaccurate.

You're pretending the IDF personally killed 30000 innocent women and children civilians. That's not at all what that number represents. War is bad enough on its own. You don't have to lie to make it worse.

Lastly, the point that apparently needs to be made over and over again, Hamas intended to kill all of those 850 civilians, without a military target to go with them. They were the target. Given the option, Hamas would have killed more. By contrast, the IDF are not trying to kill civilians, but are rather keeping the overall civilian casualties down. If they actually wanted to just kill civilians, there would be 500,000 bodies by now, if not more.

[summer saffron]

I'm assuming this is Falcon. He doesn't have a great world view. He thinks USA is more diverse than Iceland through Turkey.
He has a VERY USA centric view of the world, and seems to be lacking in true empathy.
You're never going to convince him of a different opinion, and in my experience are better off just not engaging

[feral skiff]

what the fuck are you on about christians raped and pillaged muslim lands just like they did to us

im from a place that sold muslims in slavery throughout europe

[feral skiff]

so 30 something thousand women and children were militants?

[feral skiff]

oh but trust me you dont accidentally kill 30 thousand civilians

look at civillian casualties in ukraine

im sure your media pretends its worse there

[forest vale]

It isn't 30k women and children, and it isn't 30k civilians. Your statistics are wrong. Half the 30k are men, and it doesn't distinguish between civilians and militants.

[feral skiff]

i can actually get you the proper statistics here

[forest vale]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-69014893

[feral skiff]

okay so reading the actual article you sent me

THE ISRAELI PRESIDENT

Netanyahu

IF THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS SAYS THEY KILLED MORE CIVILIANS THAN HAMAS

dont you think that something is wrong

mind you

if the Israeli leader says this

god only knows what the actual number of civilians killed is

to israel every gazan can be considered a terrorist

[forest vale]

And? What exactly do you expect from war? Is it news to you that every building of military interest in Gaza is in a densely populated civilian area? It's not normal for militaries to be set up that way. Why wouldn't you expect a corresponding increase in civilian casualties when military buildings are set up to increase civilian casualties? The weird part is where this is news to you.

They're also committed to wiping out Hamas, which is not a normal military objective. It's not about winning a war, it's about completely removing the enemy. That's not a common thing. That means a lot more bombing civilian houses when Hamas members are inside, rather than just targeting leaders or those actively in military buildings illegally placed under hospitals and schools.

And there's likely another 10k Hamas fighters to eliminate, so buckle up.

[feral skiff]

so i assume you have the same attitude when it comes to ukraine?

[feral skiff]

hamas will never be defeated
you kill 1000 fighters, another 1000 replace them

[thorny stone]

You're avoiding the question. Should the Israelis who have tortured and murdered innocent civilians be wiped from the face of the Earth, yes or no?

[feral skiff]

ill ask a better question

Should the Americans who killed millions of Iraqis be wiped from the face of the Earth?

[thorny stone]

Falcon is generally lacking in facts, and honesty, as well as empathy.

[forest vale]

Russia's objective is not to eliminate all members of the Ukrainian military.

Ukraine's objective is not to eliminate all members of Russia's military.

What point are you making?

If someone has intentionally murdered civilians, they should obviously be held accountable, as I've said numerous times.

Where have I ever said anything different from that?

[feral skiff]

so whats Bush doing?

Netanyahu?

[forest vale]

What about them?

[feral skiff]

war criminals?

or are you gonna say theyre innocent?

[forest vale]

Tried by the court of public opinion.

Bush didn't order anyone to kill civilians.

[feral skiff]

so the iraq war wasnt based on lies?

millions of civilians did not die?

the bombs were never dropped?

[forest vale]

Bibi didn't order anyone to kill civilians.

[forest vale]

The war was definitely based on lies, but not the way it's commonly portrayed. And we did actually find quite a few biological weapons, which are WMDs. They exaggerated their program quite a bit, and we didn't realize they were bluffing.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with intentionally murdering civilians, a concept you don't seem to understand. Civilians dying during a war is not what people mean when they say intentionally murdering civilians.

[feral skiff]

do you have proof of this

[feral skiff]

so israel has not intentionally murdered civilians?

America has not intentionally murdered civilians?

The most notorious free-fire zone was in Fallujah. In April 2004, U.S. forces attacked the village and killed 736 people, at least 60 percent of whom were women and children. In another attack the following November, U.S. troops killed between 581 and 670 civilians in Fallujah.

Another infamous example of extrajudicial killing was the Haditha Massacre in November 2005, when U.S. Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians “execution-style” in a 3-to-4-hour rampage. The U.S. covered up the massacre until Time magazine ran a story about it in March 2006.

Documented extrajudicial killings also took place in the Iraqi cities of Al-Qa’im, Taal Al Jal, Mukaradeeb, Mahmudiya, Al-Hamdaniyah, Samarra, Salahuddin and Ishaqi.

These war crimes are not only abhorrent, but punishable under the U.S. War Crimes Act and the U.S. Torture Statute. Yet, although it has been 20 years since the invasion of Iraq, no U.S. leaders have been indicted. The Obama administration’s Department of Justice actively decided not to prosecute anyone for the torture and abuse committed during the Bush regime. Yet it only took one year for the ICC to charge Putin with war crimes in Ukraine.

https://truthout.org/articles/for-20-years-team-bush-has-escaped-prosecution-for-war-crimes-in-iraq/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-64914542

oh and off topic

but do please read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

[forest vale]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

What we found were abandoned programs, but that still included a decent number of biological weapons. Iraq lied quite extensively about their program. I think they believed they needed to lie to establish deterrence, but that ended up backfiring.

[feral skiff]

from the very same article you sent me

these chemical weapons were built by the iraqis with help from the west for use against iran during the iraqi-iranian war

and these weapons were remnants

iraq did not have any WMD's

[forest vale]

What does that have to do with anything? International bodies have proven themselves biased, political, and completely atrocious at supporting human rights.

[feral skiff]

so you have just proven to me with what youve sent me

a few things

[forest vale]

You're changing statements quite a bit.

[feral skiff]

1. Iraq did not have WMD's
2. Their old WMD stockpile was assisted by the West
3. You dont read your sources

[forest vale]

What makes you think I didn't read the source?

[feral skiff]

so do you think the ICC arrest warrants for russian generals and the hamas guy whats his name is justified

[forest vale]

Is it because you only share biased sources, so you assume the same of others?

[feral skiff]

bro i shared BBC as one of my sources

[forest vale]

The ICC is a joke. Couldn't care less what they have to say.

[feral skiff]

it doesnt get any less biased than that

[forest vale]

It certainly does, but I'm wondering why you think I didn't read that source

[feral skiff]

because if you did youd know that the point youre making is not helping your argument

[forest vale]

What argument is that?

[feral skiff]

that iraq had WMD's

[forest vale]

What did I say?

[feral skiff]

and therefore the invasion wasnt based on the WMD lie

[forest vale]

You clearly weren't paying attention.

[forest vale]

I have to repeat myself soooooo often.

What exactly does, "We didn't realize they were bluffing" mean to you?

What does, "They were exaggerating their program" mean to you?

[feral skiff]

they werent bluffing any program

[forest vale]

What does, "They found biological weapons" mean to you?

[feral skiff]

if anything iraq was in a rush to show the world they had no WMD's

they invited international experts over

[forest vale]

They refused inspections. That was a big part of the war justification.

I was alive during that time. I remember it well enough.

"Some remnant WMD were scattered at various locations throughout Iraq, but most were old and unusable. During the US occupation of Iraq, weapons were occasionally discovered and destroyed. On occasion, these would test positive for chemical weapons. Most of the chemical warheads were left over from the Iraq-Iran war, and none newer than 1991. The majority of chemical weapons were found near the Muthanna State Establishment not far from Baghdad. US and Iraqi personnel sustained injuries on six documented cases during 2004-2011. However, most of the details remain classified."

Biological weapons were found. Those are WMDs. That doesn't mean they had an active, thriving program. They had pretty much abandoned it or transported it all out before we arrived.

[feral skiff]

the war started in 2003 no?

no new weapons in 1991

there were inspectors in iraq the day before america invaded

[forest vale]

The point wasn't that the inspectors were in the country. They weren't being allowed full access.

A huge portion of Iraq's claims were ones of unilateral destruction. That's the equivalent of saying, "I lost all my guns in a boating accident."

[feral skiff]

someone i know was one of these UN inspectors in Iraq

to this day they regret it all

[forest vale]

And? Were they allowed to inspect anything and everything they wanted to, anywhere they wanted?

[feral skiff]

well look what you have to show for it

no WMDS

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-DUELFERREPORT

[forest vale]

Old WMDs. Not none.

[feral skiff]

yeah like those would have been used

[forest vale]

What's your point? Because accuracy is clearly not something you care much about.

[feral skiff]

you invaded iraq based on them having WMD's capable of strike

iraq had none

now a million people are dead

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5xJuyrUIIA

[forest vale]

Yep. Bad intel. And inspectors didn't get full access to the country to confirm very shady claims.

[feral skiff]

you seem very nonchalant about it

Israel has WMD's

why havent we shocked and awed them

[forest vale]

Do I? Kinda tired of your willingness to say wrong information.

[feral skiff]

oh i say wrong information?

[forest vale]

They had WMDs. Old ones.

That's not the same as none.

They had lots of opportunities to move things out. They refused to allow inspectors full access.

[feral skiff]

the americans had no right to invade

they were slow moving sure

[forest vale]

We went in based on bad intel and the fact that we didn't trust a country that had already proven itself a bad actor. We didn't believe them when they said, "Oh yeah, we destroyed those. You can trust us."

[feral skiff]

but that doesnt excuse the invasion

[forest vale]

I don't think the invasion was justified. That wasn't the point that I was making.

[feral skiff]

your lack of trust has killed a million people

and it has created terrorism in th emiddle eat

[forest vale]

Or rather their lack of willingness to cooperate.

[feral skiff]

you created the power vacuum that enabled radicals to flourish

[feral skiff]

god i cant with you

the iraqi lack of willinges to cooperate led to the deaths of a million iraqis

[forest vale]

Na, that already existed. You act like 9/11 hadn't just happened.

[feral skiff]

its their own fault

actually i was going to say

you created 9/11

you funded the mujihadeen

you called bin laden a freedom fighter

[feral skiff]

and i can say the lack of willingness of the US government to not meddle in other countries affairs led to 9/11

the lack of willingness of Israel to not turn Gaza into an open air prison led to october 7th

[forest vale]

It was a very stupid move on their part to refuse access to the international community when they had already been proven to use and store large amounts of WMDs. They also were shown to have a nuclear program that nearly had a functional weapon. The concerns were real. The fact that they had actually stopped their programs was a surprise to a lot of people.

[forest vale]

And now Hamas gets to be vaporized.

[feral skiff]

and settler communities

[forest vale]

Bye bye Hamas.

[feral skiff]

you buffoon, you cannot kill an Idea

Hamas will never die

[forest vale]

The idea of terrorism? What idea?

[feral skiff]

you can kill 1000 terrorists

with those 1000 terrorists comes 3000 civilian collateral

you now have 2000 pissed off civilians and 1000 more terrorists

[forest vale]

They'll live on by another name. Their tunnels will be gone. Their weapons will be gone. And Gaza will be taken over by Israel in a way that will prevent something similar from rising up.

[feral skiff]

you are going to eradicate all of palestine before you destroy hamas

[forest vale]

There's no need to grant the area self-governance any more or allow them to educate their children to hate Israel. Israel will likely intercede in a big way to change all that stuff. I'm sure it will be quite overpowering and a bit tyrannical, but when you're the civilian population in a war you lost, that's the way things go.

[feral skiff]

no offence but if you think you can force a human to live a living hell and then force him to not hate you with every fibre of his body and soul you are honestly an idiot

[forest vale]

Ideally, they'll be absorbed and eventually be full citizens just like the Arabs were granted citizenship around 1967ish. So it'll probably take another 20 years or so.

[feral skiff]

wait wait

Israel will never do that

[forest vale]

Na, you don't worry about the current human. It's the next generation you care about.

[feral skiff]

an ethnostate will never willingly absorb such a large population of another ethnicity

[forest vale]

Sure they will. They already did, and they've offered to in the past.

[feral skiff]

it will never happen mark my words

[feral skiff]

the only way you can change what children think is if their parents arent there to tell them otherwise

[forest vale]

They already offered to annex the region. I think that's more likely than other solutions, but that's just my opinion.

[feral skiff]

do you plan on taking away children from their parents to indoctrinate them?

[forest vale]

You mean like running schools and having children attend? Probably.

[feral skiff]

annexation =/= assimilation

[feral skiff]

do the children see their parents?

[forest vale]

That's why it'll take 20 years.

[forest vale]

I'm sure they'll run schools for the parents to. Gotta ensure everyone has useful occupations and unlearns their hatred of Israel.

I don't see Israel as not being tyrannical in this. It's very unlikely they'll leave it all up to chance and give Gaza the freedom they had over the last few decades.

[feral skiff]

you cannot unlearn a hatred

its basic human nature

[forest vale]

That's why you don't worry about it much. You educate the children instead.

[feral skiff]

palestine will wage a guerilla war

[forest vale]

Hate dies in a generation.

[feral skiff]

parents have a bigger influence on children than schooling does

[forest vale]

They won't have the capacity for that.

[feral skiff]

ehhhh i disagree

[forest vale]

Depends.

[feral skiff]

you dont need much

some guns

some explosives

some anti tank weapons

very easy to source

[forest vale]

Lol. You argue that US citizens can't defend themselves, but Palestinians can.

That's insane.

[feral skiff]

theres a difference between a long term guerilla war between a war torn population and some pissed off rednecks who have been coddled their whole lives

and isnt there a right to self determination

what happens if palestine wants a palestinian state

[forest vale]

US citizens are a million times better armed and better equipped, with way better connections. The military would be way more divided in attacking US citizens.

Compare that to Gaza:
No weapons
No equipment
Strong control over border
Way fewer people
United military against Gaza

How do you argue that Gaza could mount a defense, but arming US civilians is useless? You have no consistency.

[feral skiff]

the united states would fart all over their population if need be

drones already allow soldiers to be completely disconnected from their victims

[forest vale]

And Israel can fart all over Gaza if they feel like it.

What's your point?

[feral skiff]

israel isnt fighting a war

theyre fighting a genocide

[forest vale]

The objective isn't genocide.

That's not a thing.

[feral skiff]

when your entire country looks like this maybe the issue isnt with the soldiers

[forest vale]

Again, what's your point?

You're arguing that Gaza could mount an effective resistance. That seems ludicrous.

[feral skiff]

you are showing an incredible lack of empathy towards the palestinian people who have been dealing with oppression for ages and are now having bombs dropped on their heads day after day

[forest vale]

I'm showing skepticism that they will be effective guerilla fighters

[feral skiff]

frankly palestine deserved all this not less than israel deserved october 7th or america deserved 9/11

[forest vale]

That has little to do with showing or not showing empathy

[feral skiff]

why not?

guerilla campaigns are effective force multipliers

they can be constantly resupplied

[forest vale]

No support, no weapons, and an enemy that is very tired of their games with effective AI targeting systems.

[forest vale]

By whom?

[feral skiff]

so why is hamas still kicking alive and strong

[feral skiff]

smuggled weapons parts

[forest vale]

The area is too small. Israel controls the border well enough.

[feral skiff]

do you know how ridiculously easy it is to build your own guns

to even assemble them

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-idf-intel-assesses-that-hamas-will-survive-as-terror-group-post-war/#:~:text=Report%3A IDF intel assesses that,war | The Times of Israel

(did not read this article, just thought the headline was enough)

[forest vale]

Because they've been stealing aid from the civilians of Gaza for a really long time and built miles and miles of tunnels under the whole area. That's been their whole focus at the expense of everything else. That, and Israel has shown lots of hesitancy to move into densely populated civilian areas. How is that even a question?

[feral skiff]

fuck u on about israel literally has been on a gaza safari

[forest vale]

How exactly do Hamas leaders end up as billionaires?

Do you have an explanation for that?

[feral skiff]

what on earth makes you think i like hamas

their leaders can shit in a hole and die for all i care

my empathy is with the palestinian people

[forest vale]

You seem to be skeptical when I point out that they stole the aid meant for their civilians.

[feral skiff]

no??

i have no doubt they did

[forest vale]

So why get annoyed when I point that out?

Or are you not aware that Israel has paused numerous times during the war prior to going into densely populated areas?

That's not saying anything particularly earth-shattering for good or bad. But you were asking why they hadn't destroyed Hamas yet.

I mean it's 30k fighters in a population of half a million. They take a minute to find.

[civic karma]

I think the problem is that he is not open for a discussion, he is only here to tell others how they are wrong

[civic karma]

This is the problem with falcons way of arguing. He is defending case A. Whenever you do not agree with case A, he neccesarily puts you in the ''other'' camp that agrees to case B, even though you may disagree with both. He just cannot fathom that some people can simultaneously despise Hamas but also be critical of israeli government. In his eyes, being critical of israel is the same as siding with terrorists. He has two main tactics of arguing, one being whataboutism, where whenever you point something out, he starts to go off about ''but what about this group'' and the other one is putting words in your mouth. He misinterprets your statements as he interprets them with his own worldview instead of an open mind and then claims you said things that you never said. I would suggest to just stop reacting to this guy

Also personally I will not argue with anyone anymore that thinks killing children can be justified, i personally don't believe their moral compass is in the right place

No doubt he'll respond to this, but i will ignore it

[forest vale]

Please do.

[forest vale]

You can't name a single time where I've said it's fine to kill children, but you whine about other people putting words in your mouth.

[prisma harbor]

Yeah, and what is sad about his attitude is that it seems to be bringing most of the philosophy conversations down to kindergarten level of sophistication. And he is participating in most of the philosophy posts. The only ones who will be left to discuss on these posts, if he stays, will either be those ready to argue at his level, or those patient enough to try to reason with him but who will eventually realize soon enough that it is pointless.

[hollow token]

It’s pointless

I thought in here I would be talking to someone who has the ability to change views

[feral skiff]

I have my own biases and im sure that influences my way of thinking, but I always try to view things with an open mind and from both perspectives

but i believe in a Humanist way of thinking and I try to not look at things as numbers

casualties as just a statistic

thats 30000 people gone

there is no justifying that

or when we were discussing iraq

the million people dead because of their speed of UN inspection

like thats justifiable

[granite prawn]

People who feel confident enough to speak on a subject are rarely movable, especially online.

Even if you get them on every point its just human nature to not admit defeat.

It's the bystanders that can be swayed, and the person you are discussing with could have seeds planted but it can take a long time for those seeds to grow and have any impact.

[thorny stone]

Yeah, online discussion is very rarely going to change the mind of the person you're discussing things with. The best aim is to understand both their position and your position better, because anything more is entirely out of your control.

[junior delta]

Ok well now this is just a blatant lie again. Reading through I could understand your points, but there's no way you actually believe this and if you do, do you not hold Egypt to blame too, Egypt at least actually force Palestinians to remain in Gaza, at least Israel let people leave Gaza for medical situation.

Also even if that was the case, does that justify killing civilians, why not go after Israeli governmental targets?

[feral skiff]

no i was using falcons logic

thats not what i actually think

@junior delta

[forest vale]

No one said it was justified. Discussing the reasons the war happened doesn't mean the war was justified.

[forest vale]

It's very much a blatant lie, because it's not what I think or what my logic would dictate at all.

[forest vale]

Why don't you stick to expressing what you think instead of lying about what others think?

[junior delta]

Oh ok, mb.

[forest vale]

You actually made a good point though. Why is no one pressuring Egypt to take in people from Gaza? Is there a particular reason for that? Do they not like Palestinians or what?

[junior delta]

That's the crazy thing most people don't realize, there is almost no countries near the region of Palestine that are willing to take in Palestinians, they don't like Palestinians. Palestinians moved all the way from Arabia, where they originated (as Palestinians are Arabs) to various countries in-between Arabia and their current land they occupy, but they were kicked out of every country they've been in. I mean, these countries are willing to fund Hamas because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but they aren't willing to actually allow Palestinians to leave the so called "open air prison" where no aid is getting to them because of Hamas.

[thorny stone]

I'm sorry but that's complete and utter nonsense.

Firstly......

Jordan: 2 million Palestinians living there.
Syria and Lebanon: 1 million Palestinians.
Saudi Arabia: 750,000 Palestinians.
Qatar: 295,000 Palestinians.
Etc.

There are Palestinians everywhere in that region. EVERY country has been willing to take in Palestinians.

Secondly....

Palestinians are from Palestine. They categorically did not move from Arabia. The Arabian culture spread from Arabia and was largely adopted by these people, but the people are the descendants of people who have lived in the region for millennia, as far back as any kind of records exist.

Honestly, why even bother to write a message like that? It takes like 5 minutes research at most to see that it's nonsense.

[junior delta]

Where did you get your information from?

I know for a fact, Palestinians are not from Palestine, as I believe it was you, not entierlly sure though as it couldn't been "Can I have a water" maybe, but humans didn't originate in Palestine. So if we want to get technical, from a non-biblical viewpoint, all humans are from like Africa or something, not Palestine. Palestinians, categorically are decendents of Arabs.

[feral skiff]

in an ideal world i dont believe in the concept of this was our land therefore it is ours now, however I believe in the fact that land belongs to the people living there

correct me if im wrong

but the entire concept of a jewish state is wrong to jews

CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG
Doesnt the torah say that a Jewish state may only be established after the first coming of the messiah which they do not believe has happened yet

[forest vale]

The point isn't whether people who at one point lived in Palestine now live in other countries. The point is that right now, during this war, they aren't letting Palestinians leave. Egypt is refusing to allow people to cross from Gaza into Egypt. Shouldn't there be pressure on Egypt to allow that? What do they have against Gaza?

[thorny stone]

Books. Articles. Academic research. Speaking to Palestinians about their family origins. Even Wikipedia agrees. I actually can't find any source that disagrees. According to all sources, Palestinians are descended from the people who have been living in the Palestine and Levant area since historical records began. The only online sources I can find that even mention the idea that Palestinians might be descended from Arabian Arabs are websites that are specifically debunking that misconception.

Where did you get the idea that they were descended from Arabian Arabs?

[junior delta]

Indentifying as something and being something are two different thing. This is one of the issues with transgenderism, they identify as men, they are biological women, viceversa for biological men identifying as women. It is still a biological man, no matter how much it identifies as a woman.

Also, the wikipedia on Palestinians even calls them Arabs lol.

[thorny stone]

That's what you're basing it on? "They are called Arabs so they must have come from Arabia"?

Did you never even google what an Arab is?

[feral skiff]

but this is a ridiculous argument

in that case humans should abandon all land other than the centre of africa where we originated from

where do you draw the line?

At which point in human existence do you draw the line and say this ethincity originated from this point

fuck it why not go further back

we must all devolve back into the primordial soup

that is where we came from

[junior delta]

Well that's not where we came from though, so no.

[junior delta]

That's the thing. I don't care whose land it originially was, which seems to be the case presented by pro-Palestine people. I care by who can hold the land. If you can take over and hold the land, it is yours.

[thorny stone]

I find it pretty amazing that your moral system views theft and murder as being totally fine. I'm not sure it will ever be possible to be consistent with moral views like that, and I would doubt many people would respect those views. But ok, I guess that's the end of the conversation.

[forest vale]

If you cannot take over and control the land, then theft and murder will be the norm. Weakness of authority invites conflict. Criminals thrive in such environments.

[feral skiff]

thats the philosophy of strength takes all

so then apply that to your everyday life

not to offend you but i doubt you are the strongest or smartest person in your area

not because of anything i know about you

but just basic statistics

so do you believe that person should have the power to dominate you, take your house, rape your wife, kill your children?

our entire civilisation has evolved to be a lot more complicated than just strength

[feral skiff]

so do you support Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia, poland, denmark, norway, the low countries, france, the soviet union?

they had the strength

and they killed MILLIONS

or the japanese invading the chinese

they had the strength

[feral skiff]

is this coming from your views on evolution?

in that case do you believe that humans originated from central africa?

[junior delta]

No it comes from my views on the origin of life. evolution explains diversification fo life, not origin of life.

[junior delta]

I don't support the Nazi regime, but I think if they have the ability to take and hold the land, which they didn't, then they are the ones holding the land. Preference for who I want to hold the land is subjective. The only objective measurement we can use without being hypocritical is to say whoever can hold the land should have it

[junior delta]

Well realistically strength does take all. If they have the power to control you, then they have the power to control you. This is why numbers and technology are great advantages. Numbers allow you to have more bodys to defend and technology allows you to have the technology to defend. Sure, tehre are nuances to that where the strongest physically may not take all, but it still comes down to power. The United States is not powerful just because its military, but also because it's diplomatic alliances with other nations. Diplomacy isn't physical strength but it sure can help make a nation powerful. Borders are literally defined by what a nation is willing to defend militarily and have the ability to exhibit power over.

The US can claim to own Mexico all it wants, but if it can't reasonably get them to subjugate themselves under US law, then the US doesn't really own Mexico.

[junior delta]

My moral system doesn't view theft and murder as being totally fine, not sure where you got that idea from. I never made a moral claim in that statement.

[thorny stone]

I don't care whose land it originially was... ...I care by who can hold the land. If you can take over and hold the land, it is yours.
Right here, in this sentence. You explicitly said that you don't care who rightfully owns the land, all that matters to you is whose army can occupy and defend the land.

Invading land that is not yours and killing the inhabitants so they can't fight back is explicitly fine by you. That is what "take over and hold the land" means. There is no other possible meaning to your words than "stealing someone's land and killing those who oppose you gives you the right to the land."
That statement indicates your moral stance on the issue. And since I don't think that's in any way a defensible moral position to take, there's no point having a conversation with you while that's your stated view. We don't need to discuss whether or not stealing and murder of innocents is wrong.

[feral skiff]

but were not talking about the possibility of such

were talking about the legality and/or the morality

i can beat, murder and rape anyone i want

but may I?

Should I?

its not legal and its not right

just because you can physically do something doesnt excuse it

or is this just a misunderstanding between us?

im not really getting the point youre making

[junior delta]

No one "rightfully owns the land" and you even said that. We all come from Africa or something in your viewpoint so no one has claim to that land other than invading and settling there, the closest to a "rightful owner" would be the very first people group to establish themselves in the land. Whose army can occupy and defend the land isn't my standard, it is the standard. That is how land is determined...

I never said it is fine, I said that is how land is determined. You try to ascribe moral views onto people without even fully understanding their argument. From your viewpoint your moral stance is no one should ever move anywhere or claim any land because it is not originally theres other than Africa.

You confalte reality with moral views, that is just not acceptable.

[junior delta]

I think it is a misunderstanding. I am saying what land actually is. Y'all are talking about emotionally feeling who we think deserves to have the land. Correct me if I'm wrong on your view.

[thorny stone]

Do you honestly not understand the concept of human ownership?

Everything that goes into the making of my shoes existed well before I, or any human, was born. So does that mean nobody owns these shoes?

[junior delta]

By your logic yes. It is just colonized and stolen and therefore immoral.

[thorny stone]

What the fuck are you talking about?

You've made that logic up yourself.

[junior delta]

So you really need me to quote you?

[thorny stone]

Sure, quote me the part that you misunderstood so badly that you think it means that nobody can own land in my view.

[junior delta]

Invading land that is not yours and killing the inhabitants so they can't fight back is explicitly fine by you. That is what "take over and hold the land" means.
Right here you say that taking over things that are not yours is immoral. Unless the shoes are made from resoures ONLY where humans originally existed would it then be fine, by YOUR standards.

Virtually no land is in the hand of the original people to discover it.

[civic karma]

I think its fair to say that none of it is

[junior delta]

I'd be inclined to agree, I don't know for sure so just decided to say virtually.

[civic karma]

fair enough

[thorny stone]

I was quoting you!

[junior delta]

That entire statement was a quote of me? Or just "take over and hold the land" was. The entire first sentence is your own view and interpretation of mine, which shows your implicit view.

[thorny stone]

There is a difference between stealing something that is already owned, and claiming something that is not owned. You understand this, right?

[junior delta]

Yes I do

You understand no one today owns land that was not previously owned, right?

[thorny stone]

And there is a moral difference between purchasing something, and stealing something, right?

[junior delta]

Yes morally there is a big difference

[thorny stone]

Ok. So who owns your house?

[junior delta]

My university does

lol

[thorny stone]

OK. And you would have no problem if some guy walked in, beat you up, and took control of your house?

[junior delta]

I would, that's assault and is morally wrong. And since he has no claim to the apartment, police would remove him.

[thorny stone]

The police are busy, and it's more hassle to try and remove him than they can be bothered with. So the house is now his, right?

[junior delta]

No, it is still the universities, he just occupies it. If the university doesn't care to deal with it, and the police don't then yes, it technically would be his

[thorny stone]

What is the moral difference between that guy coming into your house and stealing it, and the Israelis coming into a Palestinian's house and stealing it?

[thorny stone]

Just wow. So you don't recognise really any law except the law of your fists? You would be fine to just give up if the other person was bigger and stronger than you?

"Oh well, the strong should rule the weak" is really your view?

[civic karma]

More like, instead of the police being busy, they actually just encourage the guy by funding him and looking the other way

[junior delta]

The moral difference, there are a lot of moral differences. For one, I'm not actively commiting atrocities against the burglar and the burglar isn't comitting atrocities against me. The real differece comes down to just the differences of the situations. If you want to talk specifically about just ownership, then yes he stole it from me, Israelis are stealing it from Palestinians, only Israelis were given part of the land, burglar wasn't given part of my house. Morally it is bad.

[junior delta]

No that's not my view, that's how the world works.

[thorny stone]

The burglar was given the house next door, but he took your house anyway.

Who owns the house next door is irrelevant in the question of who owns YOUR house.

[junior delta]

Yea morally I can see a problem with that. Now let's look at me, I bought that house ffrom my government, who stole that land from Native Americans. So shouldn't by your logic, my house really be the Native Americans house, since we stole it from them? And then which tribe gets it, we've had many tribe sin this area fight and kill each other over this land.

[civic karma]

Those native americans also stole it from other native americans if we wanna go down that route

[thorny stone]

Is it? The world just lets people with bigger armies do whatever they like? There's no action by anyone to try and address people who try and invade other countries?

[civic karma]

Like the natives that lived there during colonialisation were not the same as the people that migrated >20KYA ago into north america

[junior delta]

Yea, mentioned in my last sentence, it gets tricky when talking about all this. Hard to find who exactly originally owned it

[junior delta]

No surly not, people may try, but unless they can OVERPOWER the larger army, they are subject to it's authority

Doesn't mean people are going to recognize it, but it is either die or give in.

[civic karma]

Out of interest, do you say this because you think this is the correct way, or do you say this because you think this is the realistic way

[junior delta]

I think it is just the realistic way, I don't think it is morally right.

That was my point I was trying to make to him

[feral skiff]

so who do you believe should rightfully live on palestinian land

when i say palestine i dont mean all israel + palestine

i mean west bank + gaza strip

[thorny stone]

You're inventing a position there that I'm not expressing. At no point have I ever said that we should try and go back through history and give land back to the first people to ever settle there.

It's possible to recognise that an action was wrong without feeling the need to try and undo that action in the present day. We can't punish people who are dead, and we shouldn't punish people who are alive for things they didn't do.

For this entire conversation, all of the months I've been discussing this topic here, my point of view has always been that we should try and solve only the problems faced by the people and situation that we have right now. Maybe you confused someone else's messages for mine.

But right now, we have a bunch of living people (i.e. some of the Israelis) who have stolen land from people, and massacred innocent people whose close relatives are still alive, and tortured innocent people who are also still alive. This is a problem for the now, and it is something that we could do something about. It appears to me that you're suggesting that we should just stand back and watch this injustice happen and do nothing about it, even though we could stop it. I'm saying that I don't think that is the right thing to do, and I'm not sure even morally defensible in the eyes of most of the world.

[feral skiff]

in particular the 2nd or third photo

[junior delta]

Rightfully, I don't care who lives there. Personally, I would prefer Israel. Realistically, both of them, as if one side was to control all of it, there'd be all out war over there.

[junior delta]

No I'm just confused on how you can say just because time it is now rightfully Palestine's even if it wasn't their land. But when Israel is given the land and invades more land then it is suddenly not allowed, but I guess if Israel can hold the land without invading other land for more than a generation, then it should be fine for them to keep, right?

It's possible to recognise that an action was wrong without feeling the need to try and undo that action in the present day.
Aren't you doing the exact opposite with Israel though?

Oh ok so you think because Israel was given the land and they kept pushing for more, that we are morally obligated to go and prevent that? Isn't that sort of savior complex? If both sides are comitting atrocities, why do you find one side to say they are in the wrong, but this other side I'm just going to ignore and say this land is rightfully theirs? You think history shouldn't hold any weight?

[thorny stone]

No, it's not about holding it for more than a generation. For starters, Israel isn't ever going to stop stealing land unless we force them to. We all know what happens with people who think they can take stuff by force. They just keep taking stuff by force until someone stops them. The longer you leave it the harder it gets.

But it's also not about holding it for a generation because the effects are passed on through generations. The suffering of Palestinian babies born in refugee camps, and the lives they go on to lead as a result of being born into such hardship, is also the direct responsibility of Israel. So even when all the current Palestinians are long dead, the effects of Israel's actions will live on, and there will still be people living in suffering because of them. Israel will still owe a moral debt to those people as well.

Just because I know you're going to ask why that's different from the Jews being treated badly in the region 1500 years ago, I will answer that as well. It's not. The impact of those atrocities back then also had a long-lasting impact that extended well beyond one single generation.
But even though the impact was long-lasting, it is not eternal. The effects of those actions stopped being noticeable a long, long time ago. There is no wrong from that time period remaining to try and right. Present day Israelis do not deserve any special or preferential treatment as a result of events that long ago. That wouldn't be a just decision.

[thorny stone]

Can we use the actual words for things and not hide behind euphemisms? Israel are not "pushing" for more land, they are "invading, massacring and torturing" for more land.

Yes, we are morally obliged to step in to situations where a strong group is trying to force a weaker group to do what they want. That's how we stand up to tyranny, by standing together. It's also the only way to stand up to tyranny. History teaches us that unless we stand up to bullies as a group, they keep taking more and more. There isn't a grey area on this.

Trying to pretend that both sides are equal because both sides are doing bad things now is a cop out of the highest degree, and requires choosing not to see the whole situation. Why do we treat the sides differently? Because one side is far worse than the other. Israel are committing a ton more atrocities than the Palestinians are, but also they are stealing Palestinian homes and lands which cause the disagreement in the first place. Israel and the Palestinians are not doing the same things at all, and so there is no reason to treat them the same.

The lands and homes that Israel stole from the Palestinians rightfully belong to these Palestinians because these Palestinians acquired the lands and homes legally and fairly. They didn't invade anyone, they didn't steal it from anyone. That is a clear difference between them and present day Israelis, because the present day Israelis DID steal it.

[junior delta]

Ok, so your view is that because one side does bad things, the other side is justified, but we're just going to say they're both wrong while openly supporting one side. And then say that oh because the Israelis haven't lived there for a long time and the Palestinians have lived there much more recently compared to the Israelis, that we can forget about any other group of people and say that land must belong to Palestine. I'm sorry, your contradictions are just too blatant and you jsut ignore them. You treat one side differently than the other, which is fine, but admit that you are biased and you just prefer Palestinian rule over the land over Israeli rule over the land.

Israel was rightfully given the vast majority of the land they hold, so should they only give back the land they weren't given. And if so, should Palestine give back any land they've invaded? Should every country in the world give back land they've invaded? What if it's land that they no longer own? You just choose an arbitrary point in time and set that as when we should stop caring about who owned the land beforehand. Even if Palestine was legally given the land by previous occupiers of the land, where those people legally given the land from people who were legally given the land, all the way back until there was no one there and the first ancient settlers came in? I highly doubt it. Every land is stolen, that is life. Doesn't mean it is good, but it is life. If you are given stolen property, it doesn't just suddenly mean the property is no longer stolen, wouldn't you agree?

[summer saffron]

Unfortunately some of that is not true, as the land has gone back and forth for centuries, taken not legally, but forcibly by a number of parties.
I'm not making excuses for either side, just that both sides have taken land with force and bloodshed.

I'm 100% on board with holding Isreal to a higher account, as they are currently the more powerful, wealthy and resource rich side, and I agree that they are acting Tyrannical etc.

[summer saffron]

Yes 100% we as a globe chose a moment in time to fix boarders. It's approximately 1947. Before that point even Europe was ebbing and flowing. Then the Major European powers of the time picked arbitrary lines and said this is how it should be

Their authority was "bigger gun diplomacy"

[civic karma]

I believe we already had established that we are only concerend with the current generations and the direct relatives (e.g. parents and/or grandparents) and that all other generations are irrelevant to the discussion

So all people who are currently ''directly'' involved in the conflict

For the same reason we would not want to punish people now for things that their great great grandparents have comitted

We need to put some historical boundary somewhere, otherwise we can go back to the beginning of the eart some couple billion years ago

If you do not agree with that historical boundary, you are free to discuss

But we need some reference point in order to have a proper discussion

[thorny stone]

What have events 1000 years ago got to do with the current situation?

It's simply untrue to say that both sides have taken land by force and with bloodshed. The present day Palestinians are not the same group of people as people who carried out the Islamic conquest in the 7th century. The Palestinians have not taken any land by force.

The people living in the area hadn't changed substantially for a millennia before the Zionists started moving in en masse at the start of the 20th century.

[summer saffron]

The idea that a Jewish state has full control over a region with millennia of claim to several different religions and peoples just because they were "given" it in the 1940s is laughable.

[summer saffron]

Again, I'm not saying that the farmers who have been there for generations peacefully are to blame.

And that pushing them off at gun point is correct

[thorny stone]

OK, then it's clearly inaccurate to say that both sides have taken land by force.

[summer saffron]

1948

[thorny stone]

The Palestinians have never done that.

What about 1948? In 1948 the Zionists were busy massacring the Palestinians and taking their land, not the reverse.

[summer saffron]

1948 Arab Israeli war
1956 Suez Crisis

The list goes on

Both sides have been militants

Killing civilians and carpet bombing is not the answer

[thorny stone]

Let's be clear, none of those examples contain Palestinians taking land by force.

The 1948 Arab - Israeli war was simply a renaming of the Palestine civil war started by Zionists, due to the fact that they were now calling themselves Israel. Zionist forces had already been massacring Palestinians in their thousands for years by that point.

The 1956 Suez Crisis was an invasion by Israel, Britain and France of Egypt.

[summer saffron]

It SHOULD be incumbent on Isreal to take the military assets and terrorist threats out WITHOUT civilian casualty

e.g. precise operations, not the wonton destruction currently under way

[thorny stone]

How about they just stop the war altogether, since the only reason they are being attacked is because they're massacring, torturing and stealing from Palestinians?

[thorny stone]

There is no equivalency between a force trying to invade another country, and the people of that country trying to defend themselves. It's not just about holding Israel to higher standards simply because they're more powerful, it's also about holding them to account because they are the ones that are causing the problem.

[summer saffron]

Again, not justification, but attacking 1,000s of civilians in what amounts to terrorism isn't exactly peaceful

They are both in the wrong

But IMO it's on Isreal to act as the "adult in the room"

[civic karma]

Now let us be very clear; the ''both'' refers to two parties. Those two parties here are Hamas and the Israeli government. At no point are regular civilians at fault.

[summer saffron]

And not take it out on the Palestinian civilians

[summer saffron]

I think I've been abundantly clear on that

It's the militants, not the civilians

[civic karma]

I know, but so now and then someone passes along and makes a huge fuzz about how israeli jews did nothing wrong etc etc

Or tell you how you are anti-semitic by making such a statement

It wasn't neccesarily pointed towards you rather towards the silent spectators we have here

[civic karma]

Yeah i mean this is obvious no? So long as israel wants to be internationally recognized, they must hold themselves to international law etc

[thorny stone]

I don't disagree. Both sides have killed civilians. I think it's important though to differentiate between violent acts of aggression, and violent acts of self defence. Both are wrong, but the difference is important when trying to solve the problem.

But I'm really trying to correct what you said earlier about both sides having taken land with force and bloodshed, because that part is not true. It is only Israel that has taken land with force and bloodshed.

[summer saffron]

This is my "favourite". Like somehow criticism of a government and military action is persecution of a religion or peoples

[civic karma]

Yes because people equate israel = jew

[thorny stone]

Israel as a whole cares about that, but there is a sizable number of Zionists within Israel that do not care about that, and have never cared about that, and unfortunately the angry shouty people tend to get their way more often than not.

[civic karma]

Sure but there is a difference between official israeli representation and minority groups that shout

[thorny stone]

Not at present, with Likud in power.

[civic karma]

Well im hesitant to make such statements

[thorny stone]

Right now, official Israeli representation is done by those lunatic right-wing groups.

[civic karma]

Although I am probably the biggest Netanyahu hater in this server, so you can already guess my stance in this 😉

[thorny stone]

Do you know the history of Likud? It was founded by the leader of the Zionist terrorists who thought it would be a good idea to randomly kill innocent Palestinians even before there was an Israel to encourage them to leave. It's literally part of their party's stated aims to remove all Palestinians from all the lands west of the Jordan river.

These are the same guys who think Israel has a right to control all of Jordan as well.

[sterile crag]

Both Israel and Palestine (their respective people in power and those who execute said power, to be precise) have committed atrocities, yet it is to be noted that Israel has not committed terrorist attacks in my country, whilst Hamas or their allies and likeminded organizations have. Thus, if I absolutely have to choose one or the other I'd choose Israel. Another reason for me to rather side with Israel is that they do not use the same amount of barbarism that Hamas does. Still, I find criticism of Israel's quite indifferent carpet bombing well in order. Violence only brings on more violence. To claim moral high ground, one has to sacrifice the hunger for revenge and seek a peaceful solution. To me it seems that neither Israel's government nor Hamas seems interested in a peaceful solution of the conflict, which is simply put very sad to see.

[thorny stone]

Do you take into account who the aggressors are in a situation, when trying to resolve it? Is it incumbent on the defenders to lay down their arms first in a conflict?

[civic karma]

oth Israel and Palestine (their respective people in power and those who execute said power, to be precise) have committed atrocities, yet it is to be noted that Israel has not committed terrorist attacks in my country
What do you mean with ''in my country''

Because Israel difinitely has had a terrorist military agenda
Israel military definitely have done some barbaric shit

So now im wondering whether you are personally involved in some way

[thorny stone]

Yeah, obviously Israel has done far worse stuff than Hamas has, but I was concentrating on the other point first.

[sterile crag]

This conflict has been going for so long that those who started it are already way beyond the age of actively working in politics. Thus this cannot be taken into account here, as current power holders inherited the conflict, and didn't start it.

[sterile crag]

I'm from Germany. There have been radical islamic terror attacks, but no radical zionist terror attacks here within a reasonable timeframe.

[thorny stone]

I don't think that is answering the question I asked. Even though the Zionist leaders from the early part of the 20th century are now dead, there are still Israelis trying to fight a war of conquest. Do you differentiate between them, and the Palestinians who are only trying to defend their homes?

[sterile crag]

I find that hard to believe, having seen footage of october 7th of last year.

[civic karma]

Ehm...

So any radical terrorist group is now somehow equalling to Hamas?

[thorny stone]

Are you familiar with an organisation known as Irgun?

[sterile crag]

if they are traced back to Iran, yes, and quite a number of them were.

[sterile crag]

again you're talking about things that happened in the 1940s, that isn't quite the point. Otherwise you could accuse almost every nation on earth, if we take history into account.

[thorny stone]

Those acts of terrorism were still done by Israeli forces. But ok, let's restrict ourselves to recent events. Are you familiar with the Israeli snipers who routinely shoot children?

[civic karma]

How about daily raping sessions, burning people alive etc? That not on the same level of barbarism as the 7 october attacks?

And yes, there are TikToks of people in the israeli military that have filmed that shit

[thorny stone]

Did you hear the story about the civilian who was imprisoned in an Israeli prison (and I use the term prison loosely since it was just a tent) with handcuffs on constantly and so tight his hands had to be amputated?

[sterile crag]

yes, I am familiar with that. I have seen footage. Children throw stones, snipers shoot. That is murder in my opinion and those individuals should be charged with that. Are you familiar with the scenes that occurred on october 7th of last year? The public raping to death of ravers who attended a peace festival?

[thorny stone]

Ah, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Children walk down the road, Israelis shoot them. There was no throwing of stones in most cases. Not that it makes a difference I guess, but we might as well get the details right. Some Israelis kill Palestinians on sight as standard, regardless of age, if they happen to feel like it.

Public raping to death? Obviously that's not nice, but even if we assume that actually happened to a few people it doesn't compare to the systematic torture of millions of people over 80+ years.