— AD (2018-05-17T01:06:00)
Good article, sad situation :\(
13 Inconvenient Truths About What Has Been Happening in Gaza – Tablet Magazine
— HD (2018-05-18T09:36:00)
It is correct to point out that when the reportage is uncertain, it's better to stick to facts.
Which is why it's strange that the article doesn't once mention the indisputable fact that is driving outrage and Israeli condemnation world-wide: the death/injury toll stands at 50+/1000+ Palestinians vs. 0/0 Israelis. You can't massage the facts enough to make that go away.
Tabletmag is an explicitly pro-Israel publication, and is trying here to pass itself as a neutral even-handed resource by taking a few light jabs against the pro-Israel narrative while throwing a bunch of right hard hooks against the anti-massacre side.
For example, At 10) it devotes more time and sources discussing the misleading claims that an 8-month-old baby died than at 12) discussing how the US is the only nation to block independent UN inquiry into Israel. (
At 5) the article says "many" protesters were unarmed, obviating the fact that the vast majority were unarmed (and the fact that when one side has tanks and snipers to call rocks weapons is ludicrous). You could forgive such disingenuous equivocating language, but then it goes on to ensure that the reader comes off with the impression that they are manipulated by Hamas, via 6) and 9), restating the propaganda point that protestors are effectively nothing but weapons of the militants.
So, a mild statement that explains why what is reported is not so, and two statements to make sure that the reader comes off believing it regardless. Brilliant propaganda.
The propaganda Israel engages in, such as trying extremely hard to smear the journalist it murdered as Hamas-linked, also not brought up (
Frankly, to come off believing you just understood "both sides are bad" after reading this tripe is self-indulgent intellectual laziness.
The fact is that outwards-facing Israeli propaganda for years now is focused on two big planks: "both sides are bad" and "you're an antisemite if you criticize Israel". The last one is starting to lose its edge seeing as its been blatantly thrown around disingenuously, used to smear even jewish scholars such as Norman Finkelsten and Noam Chomsky, or associations such as Jewdas. However, it's perhaps weakened even more by the fact that Netanyahu has cozied up to plenty of anti-semites as part of the expansionist project (
), and engaged in Hitler-minimizing anti-semitic propaganda himself (
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-34591629/netanyahu-s-controversial-holocaust-comments). So the efforts to make the "both sides" narrative stick have been redoubled.
The reality here is that the "sides" on this conflict aren't "pro-jewish" vs. "anti-jewish", they are "pro-ethnostate" vs. "anti-ethnostate". Which is why you find the same people who condemn white supremacy in America condemning the brutality Israel commits for the sake of maintaining an explicitly jewish state, and why literal proven white-supremacist anti-semite evangelist preachers are called friends of Israel and invited to speak there (
It's also why people keep prattling on about a "two state solution", never giving due spotlight to the real solution of simply ending apartheid and letting Palestinians and Israelis live together. The explanation given why this is impossible would sound farcical if it came from the mouth of an american Trumper who wants to preserve the white character of America, but is given a pass if the explicitly racist faction is instead jewish (although...
So yeah, regarding the Gaza Massacre, it's all very sad, but it's not complex. You and your friends up here say variations of "Israel was just not allowed to win a war because everyone is racist". If you want to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to America's treatment of Native-Americans, be my guest. I think it puts in evidence plainly what is going on.
For anyone interested, there's been good correctives to pieces like this one:
- Peter Beinart, historically a fairly conservative and pro-status quo journalistic voice, wrote basically the antithesis of this piece for Haaretz, explaining all the myths that are passed around in his community from his Jewish-American perspective:
- Norman Finkelstein also speaks eloquently about the subject, bringing up again how disingenuously the question is posed an existential when what you have is a massively asymmetric death toll:
- Also worth listening to the people who almost never get a platform in these discussions. Palestinian/Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani, shot by Israeli snipers while plainly marked as a field medic, is probably worth a read or a listen:
— AR (2018-05-18T09:43:00)
While I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, you have conveniently sidestepped the existence of Hamas and other extremist factions whose core mandate is the destruction of the State of Israel, as well of the fact that these and other terrorist factions (e.g., the PLO and Hezbollah, historically) have shown themselves willing to commit atrocities against Israeli citizens in the pursuit of this goal. This situation didn't arise in a vacuum, and the need for security isn't entirely a fabrication, nor the need to control the population dynamics of the State of Israel. It is insistence on ideological premises over pragmatic solutions that keeps this situation in a quagmire. Israel is never going to open its borders to people who are, almost to a person, intent on its destruction. Insisting that they do will lead absolutely nowhere. There is a long history here that you are conveniently ignoring in order to support the narrative that Israel is evil and the Palestinians are all angels.
Also, from the Haaretz article, I am confused as to why pointing out that Hamas was elected somehow justifies their existence. It doesn't. If anything, it demonstrates the degree to which they represent the attitude of Gazans — i.e., that absolute opposition to and violent resistance against Israeli occupation is the only way to address their dilemma. It is the worst way to address their dilemma, as Israel has demonstrated time and again. I in no way condone Israel's military incursions into Gaza, or the behaviour of the IDF generally, but the fact that Hamas was elected to take a hard line underscores the unwillingness of Gazans to engage in negotiations over peace terms and Israeli withdrawal from their lands. This is coupled with the facts in the original article concerning Hamas's brutal oppression of dissidence, and its refusal to hold new elections since 2006.
Hamas are not angels. They are a huge impediment to negotiation and peace. Israel is also hugely responsible for this, but I cannot understand the willingness to completely dismiss Hamas or its affiliates as though they play no factor in this predicament.
— RC (2018-05-18T10:39:00)
Gaza is the largest open-air prison on Earth. Hamas are violent prisoners-turned-prison guards whose violence affects the Palestinians more so than it does Israelis. No one is advocating for Hamas on this thread. And if we want to keep going back, we should start with the 750,000 refugees created when Jewish Israelis sought to create a white, Jewish-supremacist ethnostate. We don't have to stray so far from the name of the 'Birthright' program to see how people Israel with white Jews is part of their mission.
Hamas is awful, but how anyone expects a non-repressive leadership to emerge out of the level of poverty and deprivation imposed on Gazans is beyond me. Generational poverty and subjugation over decades will not lead to the emergence of a palatable political class. It especially won't be palatable to its opponents.
As per the right to exist, well, it's always odd to me how such a right to exist is being defended for the nation-state that has already has that right. Meanwhile, Israel denies the existence of a Palestinian state and all of a sudden the INTENTIONS of Hamas are reprehensible? Hamas is arguing for exactly what the Israelis are doing to Gazans. It's just bizarre to continuously criticize the intentions of the heads of the prison revolt (Hamas) while a military-industrial ethnostate (Israel) supported by Trump and his circle of racist evangelicals is given a pass for actually accomplishing their intentions of denying Gazans the right to an existence without suffering.
— AR (2018-05-18T11:15:00)
We could debate the morals of this endlessly. I have, trust me. It's a pointless exercise. You could argue about what happened between the 40s and now, or you can argue what happened in 637 when the Arabs forcibly ejected the Jews from their homeland.
However, either you're interested in a solution to this modern-day cycle of violence and oppression, or you're interested in the philosophical debate of whether "ethnostates" are evil or not.
I'm more concerned with the former. Israel is an established state and understandably wants to remain that way. I support their right to exist. I also, to a large extent, support their right to limit the immigration of Arabs who for the large part have the explicit intention of destroying the State of Israel. So yes, intentions are important here. I also support the right of Palestine to exist, and believe that all Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal. I do not support Israel's continued annexation policy, and its refusal to negotiate in earnest with Palestinian moderates such as Abbas and Erekat. I also do not support their policy of continued oppression and deliberate provocation of the Palestinian people. I believe they must be opposed in this policy and I support sanctions and boycotts as a valid expression of this opposition.
But I don't give Hamas a pass, and I also don't buy the argument that they are simply a reaction to Israeli oppression, as opposed to a long-lasting hatred of Jews and unwavering insistence on the complete removal of the Jewish people from the Levant. Besides Hamas there was the P.L.O. (founded 1964). There are the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (founded by Arafat in 2000) and there is Hezbollah (founded 1985). There are basically all Arab states that surround Israel. None of these has shown willingness to negotiate terms that allow Israel to continue existing as a state. Of course, none if this is helped by Israel's continued U.S.-backed policy of belligerence. But again, this isn't happening in a vacuum. There are two sides to blame (many more, actually).
— RC (2018-05-18T11:40:00)
The point of explaining the morals is to establish what solutions favour ethnostates and what solutions favour those who have been forcibly removed by them. Richard Spencer, literally the most popular pro-Nazi Alt-Righter, looks to Israel as a model ethnostate.
Repeating the same old line of 'I support Israel's right to exist' is just hiding support for ethnocide behind slogans. Israel cannot exist as it does today unless its displacement of the 750,000 Palestinian people and their descendants becomes permanent. There is a moral question as to how one can support an ethnocidal state and call for solutions that favour ethnocide.
No one is giving Hamas a pass, but to use Hamas as the reason for Palestinian struggles when Hamas was founded in 1987, decades after the initial displacement of 750,000 refugees, is counter-factual.
I'm very glad to hear you are against the continued annexation of the West Bank.
My motivations in bringing up Israel's existence as an ethnostate is that the very same people who are trying to Make America White Again in the US are ardent supporters of Israel's ethnocidal project. It's so easy for everyone in North America to oppose Trump but there's this blind spot to the racist policies when it comes to Israel.
— RC (2018-05-18T11:41:00)
As per actual, larger diplomatic solutions, let's resoundingly condemn mass-murder and stop supporting the policies, politicians, and states that make it possible. Let's start there, at the very least. You can't negotiate a large-scale solution to a problem in the midst of murder, and I don't see the point of working on such a complex solution when we can't even bring people to condemn mass-murder.
— AD (2018-05-18T11:48:00)
I don't think that defending your borders against civilians who have been tricked into rushing the fence is the same as mass murder. The stakes are very high here; if Israel ever falls to Hamas a lot more Jews are going to die than the 62 Palestinians in this episode. The Israeli government used to try for a solution, as did Abbas, but without any other partners, nobody is even trying any more. I don't see how another, less reprehensible Israeli government could do anything significantly differently (in Gaza)
— AD (2018-05-18T11:49:00)
CIJA put out a statement condemning Trudeau's comments. It's amazing to me that CIJA can't even concede that maybe Israeli snipers shooting Canadian doctors in the legs TWICE is maybe something that the Canadian government should be concerned about.
— AD (2018-05-18T11:51:00)
CIJA is the worst and that guy Shimon Fogel once said in a closed-door meeting that Jews are better than Arabs. That's not the kind of leadership we need in the diaspora, and it's producing anti-Israeli sentiment
— AD (2018-05-18T11:52:00)
We need something like JStreet in Canada
— HD (2018-05-18T12:01:00)
"He was no angel" is the kind of thing the media says when excusing the extrajudicial murder of Michael Brown or Colten Boushie. I would love to know what Beinart or I said that caused you to write such a long reply to a point that neither of us made or ever would have made. A specific quote would be nice.
After all, you say, we could debate this endlessly. What is not up for debate is you, much like the article we're discussing, trying to position yourself as some hard-headed even-handed realist when your total contribution to this discussion has been to: a) vaguely acknowledge that I have some valid points, nothing specific; b) use that to derail the discussion in favor of some made-up quagmire talking point about how Hamas are "angels", and launch onto invectives against them.
I see Hamas as a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. Stereotyping an entire population as so consumed by bloodthirst and vengeance that unshackling them is an existential threat is the kind of dehumanizing thing people said about black americans and black south africans prior to their emancipation. Racists pointed at things like Nelson Mandela's terrorism or the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X, and said "they're coming for us if we cede an inch". It never came to pass, the dehumanizing propaganda was without substance.
Asking Palestinians to swear of Hamas is akin to asking the Irish to swear off the IRA. In spite of how shit they are, why would they ever do that, when there's nothing indicating it would improve their station one bit? Do you think they are blind to the fact that Netanyahu is cozying up to literal anti-semites like Haggee and Jeffries? It makes a mockery of the idea that it's their proclamations that get them in trouble. It's about land and race, not religion and culture.
Also, any serious commentator truly concerned about Hamas wouldn't merely bring up the bullshit spouted by them. They'd put it in context, to diminish their threat and create hope for a future without their influence, rather than exaggerate it. They'd bring up how after WW2, Folke Bernadotte was unanimously chosen UN mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948, and was then assassinated by terrorist group Lehi. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte). What's up with that?
Honestly I find few things more frustrating in argument than donning the mantle of high-minded solidarity while arguing in total bad faith. I hope this ain't what you're doing.
— HD (2018-05-18T12:05:00)
The solution starts with unanimous condemnation of settler expansions and their rollback, btw. Again, not that complex. "Palestinians show their true colours by voting Hamas" applies doubly so to Israelis keeping that thug Netanyahu in power, when Israelis have far more choice in the matter. Left-wing Israelis also happen to be some of the harshest critics of the regime, and are often sent to jail for refusing to be conscripted.
— RC (2018-05-18T12:05:00)
Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by right-wing Israeli fanatic as Rabin began implementing the Oslo Accords, lest we forget.
— RC (2018-05-18T12:07:00)
Also hundreds of people were shot over a hundred meters from the fence by Israeli snipers, including Tarek Loubani, the Canadian doctor, whose paramedic rescuer was later murdered. 24 first-responders were shot on the same day, one fatally. That is what we are talking about.
— JZ (2018-05-18T17:34:00)
This is a nauseating thread.
A Hamas official confirmed that 50/60 killed were Hamas operatives. That means that 10/30,000 are the figures of “potential” innocents that died (meaning that not necessarily all 10 were)
And when people point out the ratio of how many die on one side compared to the other, that brings up 2 questions:
- Would it then be more ok if some Jews died too?
- How would you stop 30,000 people, who you warn not to come closer, from rushing in, cutting the fence, throwing pipe bombs and burning kites, and going in with meat cleavers? (How do you do this if all, or most forms of non-lethal crowd dispersal weapons are not long ranged?)
At that range, if 30,000 people break through and get to the nearest village, and start running in trying to butcher every Jew they see, what alternative would Israel have at that point, other than to kill 30,000, when the alternative is allowing the murder of many of their citizens?
(I know that I’m not going to get any real responses to these questions, but I’ll cross my fingers that someone does actually respond to these so that a legitimate conversation can be had)
— HD (2018-05-18T20:20:00)
You seem like you're pretty used to people not replying to you. This is probably because you present poor arguments mixed with a completely unearned tone of wounded righteousness. I'll do you a solid, though.
I presume as a hardcore zionist you regularly call Hamas liars. So, it's strange that you'll lowball the number of dead as 60, disbelieving the official numbers reported by Palestinian authorities (it's at least 111 since the protests started,
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/gaza-protest-latest-updates-180406092506561.html), but then turn around and claim that you fully and unquestionably believe them when they claim ~50 of those killed are their operatives. All of this while pointing out how duplicitous and manipulative they are. Remarkable mental gymastics, convenient how you perform min-maxing in one go, but I suppose it's not original work.
The evidentiary standard for what constitutes valid self-defense hasn't changed: prove that there was a credible threat, people may buy into it, people may forgive it. Then again, Israel blocked the UN inquiry, I guess they didn't like that route after all.
What do you present in lieu? A would-be slasher film where Palestinians are reduced to a mob of 30,000 deranged zombies with meat cleavers chasing down innocent jewish bystanders. I don't know, maybe some people are persuaded by this garbage, but to me it sounds the average american racist tripe about how every mexican illegal immigrant crossing the border is a potential rapist.
This racist propaganda you're regurgitating here, about the endless bloodlust of your inhuman enemy, and how this justifies preemptive brutal violence against them, is uncannily similar to what Joseph Goebbels used as propaganda aganst jewish people:
> The Jews gradually are having to depend more and more on themselves, and have recently found a new trick. They knew the good-natured German Michael in us, always ready to shed sentimental tears for the injustice done to them. One suddenly has the impression that the Berlin Jewish population consists only of little babies whose childish helplessness might move us, or else fragile old ladies. The Jews send out the pitiable. They may confuse some harmless souls for a while, but not us. We know exactly what the situation is. [...] For their sake alone we must win the war. If we lose it, these harmless-looking Jewish chaps would suddenly become raging wolves. They would attack our women and children to carry out revenge. There are enough examples in history. That is what they did in Bessarabia and the Baltic states when Bolshevism marched in, even though neither the people nor their governments had done anything to them. There is no turning back in our battle against the Jews — even if we wanted to, which we do not. The Jews must be removed from the German community, for they endanger our national unity.
I won't suffer any dehumanizing rhetoric, about anyone, from anyone. Take it elsewhere.
— AR (2018-05-18T20:38:00)
Romney Copeman "Repeating the same old line of 'I support Israel's right to exist' is just hiding support for ethnocide behind slogans."
So, let's clarify: asserting Israel's right to exist is equivalent to endorsing genocide? Or sorry, "ethnocide", a term that was newly coined because why? What does it mean? Be explicit? Are you accusing Israel of systematically murdering Palestinians? Let's not hide behind jargon, it's tiring. Say what you mean and refrain from using meaningless terms, otherwise this dialogue is meaningless... either you are making an accusation or you are not. Which is it?
Harold Day "Honestly I find few things more frustrating in argument than donning the mantle of high-minded solidarity while arguing in total bad faith. I hope this ain't what you're doing."
Believe me when I say I don't care whether you agree with me or not, and have no pretence of "solidarity" with you. I will express my opinion, and if I engage with you it is because I respect your intelligence to some extent. That wanes with statements such as "trying to position yourself as some hard-headed even-handed realist". I genuinely admire your passion, but not your attempts to evade actual dialogue with petty bullshit. I believe I've made my position clear; if you dismiss that as posturing, there's really nothing left to discuss.
Which would be a shame, because I feel your motives are genuine. Am I mistaken?
— AR (2018-05-18T20:52:00)
"I see Hamas as a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. Stereotyping an entire population as so consumed by bloodthirst and vengeance that unshackling them is an existential threat is the kind of dehumanizing thing people said about black americans and black south africans prior to their emancipation."
I see it differently. There is more than ample evidence that this is a prevailing sentiment amongst the citizens of Arab nations. This is evident from many angles, including the election of Hamas in 2006, but let's consider facts:
"Marking a notable shift in Palestinian public opinion, 60 percent of the population surveyed in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (55% and 68%, respectively) said that the five-year goal “should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea,” according to the poll, a position meaning the elimination of Israel. Meanwhile, less than 30% (31% in the West Bank, 22% in Gaza) would like to “end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution.” "
"Palestinians are divided into three groups on the most effective means of building a Palestinian state next to the state of Israel: 33% believe that negotiation is the most effective; 37% think armed action is the most effective; and 24% think non-violent popular resistance is the most effective."
This is not viable. It won't work. What is your solution for this? More words?
— AD (2018-05-18T22:13:00)
Harold when you argue on the internet you often sound like an asshole. Jeff you always sound like an asshole. Romney I disagree with you and you seem to hate Israel no matter what the circumstance but at least you don't sound like an asshole. Andrew you have a nuanced understanding and even though I disagree with you sometimes now I understand that you're not just a lefty/righty zealot like everyone else
— HD (2018-05-19T12:21:00)
@Reid My motives are simple: end suffering due to apartheid, figure out how to make the one state solution work, fight support of ethnostates everywhere.
Polls are lossy predictors of attitude, and attitudes change. Clinton was given, what, 85% chance of winning the last election in the front page of the NYT? So much for that. I bet polls about black south african opinions during apartheid expressed hatred. In fact, I can just look that up:
>The poll, published in today's editions of The Sunday Times, showed that 72 percent of whites, up from 63 percent last year, say they expect the apartheid system not to exist in 10 years; 59 percent of blacks agreed.
>As to what might follow, 40 percent of blacks and 33 percent of whites said they expected a civil war. The white figure showed no significant change from last year.
>[...] The question about Mr. Mandela showed that most of the whites backing his release were willing to have him freed only if he renounced violence.
Will you look at that! Mandela never renounced violence, by the way.
Anyway, people using such polls to justify their enduring support of apartheid were wrong then, and anyone using similar polls to justify their enduring support of Palestinian apartheid is wrong now.
People who keep bringing up the "two state solution" don't deserve to be taken seriously, it's been used as a fig-leaf to give moral cover to the settler-expansionist project for decades now.
In your second poll, if you strip away the ridiculousness whereby the one state solution is draped in evil language ("reclaiming ... from river to sea") and the dumb two state solution is draped in conciliatory langauge ("end the occupation"), it becomes clear what people were trying to express through that stupid leading poll: the two state solution is dead.
The one state solution will work, because the alternative is ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. Simple as that.
I think the so-called "manipulative tactic" of putting in evidence just how evil Netanyahu's regime is will succeed, and will eventually lead to withdrawal of international support for Israel, which will force Israel to end apartheid. It's not rocket science. It's happened before.
— AC (2018-05-19T13:46:00)
Andrew best part of this thread, by far, was you breaking down the attitudes of those on it. Hilarious 😂
— AR (2018-05-19T18:09:00)
"The one state solution will work, because the alternative is ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. Simple as that."
I'm thinking you're misunderstanding the term "ethnic cleansing". Google Adolf Hitler. Despite that Israel's actions are wrong and deplorable, there is no ethnic cleansing going on here. The intent is to push Palestinians off their land in into other primarily-Arab jurisdictions.
The statement above is not logical. How will the "one-state solution" work? Give a simple practical example. Are we pretending that, because you dismiss polls and all other obvious indicators that a vast majority Palestinian Arabs want to see Israel wiped from the map, that the opposite is true? Are we pretending that, if Israel were to be so careless as to allow an influx of Palestinians (including the estimated 5 million refugees and their descendants) into its territory, that this would somehow go well? That would be reckless and irresponsible. I think it's clear to those who want to see reality that this would never work. The only way it could work is if it were to occur gradually, over many decades or even centuries, because it would take that long for the deep-seeded enmities between these two peoples to subside. See Ireland as an example (and they still have the occasional threat of sectarian violence).
And quite simple: Israel will never accept this solution. They would fight to the death to defend it. They have nowhere else to go, and they understand more than anyone what ethnic cleansing looks like. They are not going back to that — try and realize this.
Your rationale dismissing the two-state solution is similarly weak, imo. First of all, this: "People who keep bringing up the "two state solution" don't deserve to be taken seriously"... isn't logic, it's simple preaching. It shows a desire to profess rather than to engage, and anyone who acts as a professor on this topic is the one who should not be taken seriously. Indeed, given the degree to which these groups have been polarized against each other (which is as close as we can get to fact in this situation), a two-state solution is the only possible solution. There is no viable alternative, and Israel would never accept one. It is hopeless ideological to argue as you are arguing, in my opinion. Israel is not South Africa.
— HD (2018-05-19T18:38:00)
> Despite that Israel's actions are wrong and deplorable, there is no ethnic cleansing going on here. The intent is to push Palestinians off their land in into other primarily-Arab jurisdictions.
> Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.
Really makes you think, huh?
One state solution would work like in South Africa. The whole country can be called Israel, language laws can be passed to preserve Hebrew (side note: the revival of a near-dead language is one of my favourite achievements of Israel), the state can intervene to preserve jewish institutions, you can even have an american-style police state with militarized cops or whatever, etc. It would take time, but it would work.
However, if what you want is to preserve the ethnic homogeneity of a nation, that's a fucking ethnostate, and I don't see how that's any less racist than a Trump supporter claiming they want to keep America White. I don't support ethnostates, for obvious reasons. Please be clear if this is what you're defending.
As for the practical stuff, you're dismissing my position in the same way that people dismissed the end of apartheid. "OMG Are you seriously suggesting that things will go over well if we end apartheid?" — yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. I literally sent you a bunch of polls where you can literally see how many people expected civil war. I don't think Palestinians are as bloodthirsty as you portray them as being, it's as simple as that.
Israel won't accept a one state solution unless they stop receiving international support. A boycott would take care of that really quick, which is why they oppose it so viciously, even though it's just a perfectly non-violent form of activism. Now, again, if you're suggesting that Israel would rather attack their allies or start nuclear war if support is cut, then your opinion of the depravity of Israeli leadership is lower than mine. Same as with Palestinians, I don't think they would do that.
The two state solution is fucking garbage, it's dead. It's a thing that liberals keep telling themselves is always in the horizon to avoid reckoning with the fact that they need to stop supporting apartheid. Any reasons why Israel would never accept integration also apply to them not ceding "settled" lands, so just use your own logic here. Here's a good rundown:
I don't think you've earned the right to criticize the "logic" of my arguments. "Israel is not South Africa" is not an argument.
— AD (2018-05-19T18:46:00)
Harold, it's literally in Hamas' charter to destroy Israel. Have you ever even been to the region?
— HD (2018-05-19T19:06:00)
That's gotta be the stupidest gotcha yet in the whole fucking thread.
No, Doyle, I didn't get a paid propaganda trip when I was young, and I'm not super wealthy so I spend most of my travel opportunities visiting my family in South America.
Tarek Loubani did go to the middle east recently though, he's that clearly-marked doctor who got shot by Israeli snipers, did you listen to his interview?
Keep misportraying Palestinians as one homogeneous angry evil mob. It's intellectually dishonest and dehumanizing, but I unfortunately must concede that it's almost impossible to disprove. This is why propaganda tactics like that have been so effectively utilized to enable atrocities throughout history.
— AD (2018-05-19T19:14:00)
It's the stupidest gotcha that Hamas, the elected leaders of the Palestinian people (your argument), has declared in their charter that they want to destroy Israel?
Did you read the part of the thread where I criticized the whole shooting unarmed Canadian doctors thing? No, you didn't because you only care about what supports your position
— HD (2018-05-19T19:20:00)
Americans elected the GOP in en-masse, I still don't treat Americans like vermin. Electoral stuff is complicated, especially when involving desperate people and impossible choices.
I'm not gonna pursue the quagmire point of trying to prove to you that Palestinians have use of reason, and humanity. If you don't believe that those things are true because Hamas won an election, we have nothing to discuss.
— AD (2018-05-19T20:01:00)
Nobody in this thread has said any of those things, and if you're just going to repeat this rhetoric, you're not worth arguing with.
— HD (2018-05-19T20:59:00)
Honestly, what I wanted to do was expose your original share as the piece of propaganda that it was. I think I did that successfully.
This ensuing discussion didn't address any of my points, but instead tried to act like Israel was under existential threat, to deflect from the fact that we're discussing the aftermath of the wanton murder of unarmed protestors. I kinda feel bad I lent credibility and spotlight to that misdirection by engaging with it.
So yeah, let's call it.
— AR (2018-05-20T07:18:00)
"I don't support ethnostates, for obvious reasons. Please be clear if this is what you're defending."
I don't defend it in principle, I think the ultimate goal of any state is open borders. But I've learned to temper idealism with pragmatism. The only situation where open borders work is the one in which there is no sectarian strife over territory and strong historical tensions. That is clearly not the case in Israel.
I simply disbelieve your assertion that letting in a flood of Palestinians, in their current state of anger and denial, would ever result in anything but civil war. That was what started the original war in 1948. I can't see that much has changed in terms of attitudes. If anything, the anger and hatred is worse (on both sides). The only reason there is less violence in Israel is that they have erected barriers and policies that prevent it from erupting. But the it is still simmering.
As for "ethnostate", Israel is comprised of 20% Arabs; I don't see these being "ethnically cleansed". There are certainly questionable acts such as denying new permits in East Jerusalem, etc., but in general the claim of ethnic cleansing, with its connections to other far more nefarious events, is disingenuous. Besides which, every state that has immigration control can be classified as an ethnostate under your definition. We literally all deny entry visas or settlement permission on the basis of citizenship, largely determined by ethnicity. This is gradually lessening, but under very controlled conditions such as the EU, or between states where there is no threat of mass immigration of impoverished and poorly trained people. It's not ideal, but without it our modern states would collapse. We need to be practical while pushing for progressively more ideal state definitions and policies.
In the case of Israel a one-state solution would be the eventual goal. But it won't happen very quickly, and in the meantime we need a solution. For me that solution is to create an independent and sovereign State of Palestine, return most of the land that was annexed in the previous decades (subject to fair negotiations), give Palestinians a chance to normalize their affairs, become productive, and develop a stake in peace and the acceptance of Israel, and then, gradually, work towards normalizing relations and building trust. The appeal of extremism (on both sides) would likely wane under this situation, because people have more stake in peace, and the corresponding drive to procreate at unsustainable rates would also be curtailed. It is a long process towards social harmony. Nowhere in the world did it happen overnight, or through the hopelessly flawed logic of ideologues.
I think it is absurdly idealistic and impractical to expect this will develop by throwing everyone together into a single state, and governing this state with military police (as if this is somehow better!?). It is also dangerously naive to believe this sort of situation could work; nobody is suggesting that all Palestinians are unreasonable animals, they aren't. But they are (rightfully) angry and there is, very objectively despite your denials/apologies, a strong support for the destruction of the State of Israel, and the removal of Jews (capital J btw) from Palestine. On that I guess we'll have to disagree.
— HD (2018-05-20T10:26:00)