Israel - Palestine discussion thread

[Danoff]

No. Taliban, ISIS, Hezbollah, HAMAS and Houthi feeding from people sufferings. While they in control, people would suffer.

None of those organizations has ever really been in control. Granted, I agree with what you say for if they were in control.

Thing is... people suffer when Israel is in control as well.

ISIS as army was obliterated by US, Syrians and RF.

Israel, Saudi and US keeping Houthi under control.

I see. You're under the false impression that terrorism comes from these organizations rather than the other way around.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The moral clarity that... Israel offers? No.

Nah, the West.

This is where I diverge from Syed.

None of those organizations has ever really been in control.

What do you mean here?

 

[inCloud]

None of those organizations has ever really been in control

All of them controlling respective territories(even ISIS and beheaded Hezbollah).

people suffer when Israel is in control as well

Israel is only country in region that threats its citizens by European standards. Sure, I want it to stay in control.

 

[Scaff]

Israel is only country in region that threats its citizens by European standards.

Annexes its neighbours', steals their land, and regularly carries out extra-judicial imprisonments and executions?

Well, that does sound quite a bit like Russia, but it's not an aspirational standard.

Sure, I want it to stay in control.

That tracks...

What do they want,

To not be killed or invaded/annexed

Israel to suddenly not exist?

No, most would settle for a viable two-state solution (and before you bang on about threats to 'wipe out Israel - ask yourself why that view has become so ingrained).

 

[HenrySwanson]

To not be killed or invaded/annexed

Time to be big boys then.

No, most would settle for a viable two-state solution

OK....then wouldn't it be reasonable to ask them to stop attacking Israel. If we're to treat Arab nations the same, shouldn't we expect that of them?

(and before you bang on about threats to 'wipe out Israel - ask yourself why that view has become so ingrained).

Why has it?

 

[Scaff]

Time to be big boys then.

More meaningless nonsense.

OK....then wouldn't it be reasonable to ask them to stop attacking Israel. If we're to treat Arab nations the same, shouldn't we expect that of them?

That question would be what we call a double standard.

Why has it?

Don't answer a question with a question. If you don't know, acknowledge that.

 

[HenrySwanson]

More meaningless nonsense.

I've been quite consistent in what should be expected of Arab states. Perhaps you can explain why you disagree?

That question would be what we call a double standard.

How so?

Remember my point about treating Arab states differently from Israel. Why is it a double standard to expect them to stop attacking?

Don't answer a question with a question. If you don't know, acknowledge that.

Huh? I believe that it is because it is a Jewish state. Your view?

 

[Danoff]

Nah, the West.

You see how this destroys the entire point right? If Israel is not the west, or the source of moral clarity, where's the argument for siding with them. Not that the west offers moral clarity, or that moral clarity is automatically something to be cherished. I'd say moral legitimacy is a stronger statement than clarity, for example.

But again, you're going to need to actually link this to Israel. And since you declined above, I don't see the connection. The problem is that the argument incorrectly assumes that Israel is desirable because something in some other nation is desirable.

What do you mean here?

All of them controlling respective territories(even ISIS and beheaded Hezbollah).

I mean Israel is and has been in control.

Israel is only country in region that threats its citizens by European standards. Sure, I want it to stay in control.

In some respects Israel treats its citizens by European standards, in some respects not. It kinda depends on what you think European standards are. I think what you're maybe saying is the Israel is more civilized from your point of view, and that Israel is someplace you'd rather live than, for example, with Hezbollah. There are a lot of different aspects of this, including relative wealth and safety. For example, I'd rather live in Israel than Lebanon right now in part because I'd be safer from Israel in Israel.

If I had to pick an oppressive religion to live under, I guess I'd take judaism over islam. But why are we picking sides again? I'm not moving to the middle east. I don't want to live in that region. If those people want to fight over some land I don't want to live in, so be it. If that means we need to trade with other nations, or produce more on our own, so be it. Israel is a troublemaker, and we should stop helping them make trouble. Maybe they'd be more interested in peace through peace instead of peace through annihilation if they didn't have us supplying the annihilation.

 

[Scaff]

I've been quite consistent in what should be expected of Arab states. Perhaps you can explain why you disagree?

Perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean rather than talking in soundbites!

How so?

Remember my point about treating Arab states differently from Israel. Why is it a double standard to expect them to stop attacking?

Seriously, you're calling for one side to stop attacking as if it's the sole aggressor here.

Huh? I believe that it is because it is a Jewish state. Your view?

So your standpoint is that the source of the issue is simply that a Jewish state exists? That's it.

Hezbollah didn't come into being simply because a Jewish state exists, ditto for Fatah, ditto for Hamas.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Israel is a troublemaker, and we should stop helping them make trouble. Maybe they'd be more interested in peace through peace instead of peace through annihilation if they didn't have us supplying the annihilation.

I think this is the long range strategic error Israel is making because that is an unachievable goal. Netanyahu sees his/Israeli's enemies as being static. If I kill these guys then the job is done. The mistake he's making is that the terror campaign Israel is waging on Hamas and Hezbollah, however abstractly justifiable that is and however tactically effective it is, is producing more future enemies within the collateral damage. It's just sustaining inevitable future conflict. The Netanyahu government doesn't seem to want peace, because their electoral viability depends on conflict, and in Netanyahu's case specifically probably his personal freedom too.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You see how this destroys the entire point right?

Syed's point, yes.

If Israel is not the west, or the source of moral clarity, where's the argument for siding with them.

I don't think we should be providing any help to Israel. We should condemn the way they are going about their objective. We should, however, be siding with their aim.

Not that the west offers moral clarity, or that moral clarity is automatically something to be cherished. I'd say moral legitimacy is a stronger statement than clarity, for example.

I'm not sure where I got "moral clarity" from, and googling it says it's a conservative thing. Could you expand on why moral legitimacy is better?

But again, you're going to need to actually link this to Israel. And since you declined above, I don't see the connection. The problem is that the argument incorrectly assumes that Israel is desirable because something in some other nation is desirable.

Few reasons. There's always going to be antisemitism, and I'd imagine a Jewish land capable of defending itself is desirable when things get rough for Jews. As we have a refugee crisis one of the ideas to stem it is to make conditions in other lands more bearable so people want to stay in their country. I think you'll have more people wanting to stay in a more tolerant Israel and Palestine under a 2 state system rather than the destruction of Israel (I believe this is/was Hezbollah and Hamas's aim, I'm not sure if they've updated it) and whatever entity springs up in its place.

I mean Israel is and has been in control.

I'm not sure how? The organisations listed are found throughout the world and not just in Israel.

In some respects Israel treats its citizens by European standards, in some respects not. It kinda depends on what you think European standards are. I think what you're maybe saying is the Israel is more civilized from your point of view, and that Israel is someplace you'd rather live than, for example, with Hezbollah. There are a lot of different aspects of this, including relative wealth and safety. For example, I'd rather live in Israel than Lebanon right now in part because I'd be safer from Israel in Israel.

If I had to pick an oppressive religion to live under, I guess I'd take judaism over islam. But why are we picking sides again? I'm not moving to the middle east. I don't want to live in that region. If those people want to fight over some land I don't want to live in, so be it. If that means we need to trade with other nations, or produce more on our own, so be it. Israel is a troublemaker, and we should stop helping them make trouble. Maybe they'd be more interested in peace through peace instead of peace through annihilation if they didn't have us supplying the annihilation.

I'd take living under a Jewish state over an Islamic one 7 days out of 7, no guessing needed.

In which country would I be more at risk when displaying this:

Perhaps you should explain exactly what you mean rather than talking in soundbites!

Maybe an example will help because I've tried to explain before. Why can't Arab nations have a relationship with Israel like this:

Israel–Jordan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Seriously, you're calling for one side to stop attacking as if it's the sole aggressor here.

When Israel stop (and they should now), that should be the end. But it won't be. That's why Lebanon should seize this opportunity to rid itself of the cancer.

So your standpoint is that the source of the issue is simply that a Jewish state exists? That's it.

Hezbollah didn't come into being simply because a Jewish state exists, ditto for Fatah, ditto for Hamas.

When has there not been an attack on Israel by some Arab group/nation since its founding?

 

[Scaff]

Maybe an example will help because I've tried to explain before. Why can't Arab nations have a relationship with Israel like this:

Israel–Jordan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So thats a no, you can't actually explain it yourself.

When Israel stop (and they should now), that should be the end. But it won't be.

Be specific, when Israel stop what.

That's why Lebanon should seize this opportunity to rid itself of the cancer.

Once again you've made this statement without explaining how.

When has there not been an attack on Israel by some Arab group/nation since its founding?

The degree of ignorance this statement contains is mind-blowing.

We should, however, be siding with their aim.

One of those aims is the annexation of all Palestinian land and the effective remove of itscpeople, regardless of the collateral damage involved.

You think that's an aim to side with?

 

[HenrySwanson]

So thats a no, you can't actually explain it yourself.

Dude....

Why can't Arab nations have a relationship with Israel like this:

Israel–Jordan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scaff]

Dude....

Why can't Arab nations have a relationship with Israel like this:

Israel–Jordan relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now explain, in your own words, why that works and how it can be used as a model for other nations. Be sure to cover any key differences that need addressing.

Doing so might help you understand why repeatedly laying the onus in Arab states isn't workable.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Now explain, in your own words, why that works and how it can be used as a model for other nations. Be sure to cover any key differences that need addressing.

Let's talk about Lebanon. Hezbollah has a lot of influence there. Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel.

Hence...this is a great time for Lebanon to change course.

Be specific, when Israel stop what.

Attacks on the Arab areas.

The degree of ignorance this statement contains is mind-blowing.

Can you name a time when there has been complete peace?

One of those aims is the annexation of all Palestinian land and the effective remove of itscpeople, regardless of the collateral damage involved.

Is this true?

 

[Danoff]

We should, however, be siding with their aim.

Which aim would that be specifically.

I'm not sure where I got "moral clarity" from, and googling it says it's a conservative thing. Could you expand on why moral legitimacy is better?

You can be morally very clear that women must be covered at all times in public. But it is not a legitimate moral position due to how it is derived.

Few reasons. There's always going to be antisemitism, and I'd imagine a Jewish land capable of defending itself is desirable when things get rough for Jews. As we have a refugee crisis one of the ideas to stem it is to make conditions in other lands more bearable so people want to stay in their country. I think you'll have more people wanting to stay in a more tolerant Israel and Palestine under a 2 state system rather than the destruction of Israel (I believe this is/was Hezbollah and Hamas's aim, I'm not sure if they've updated it) and whatever entity springs up in its place.

I'm fine with the US being a place where people can come to find tolerance. I wish we were doing a better job of that. I have no hope of controlling such a condition in the middle east when I cannot control it in my own country.

I'm not sure how? The organisations listed are found throughout the world and not just in Israel.

Israel is very good at dictating conditions and behavior outside of its border.

In which country would I be more at risk when displaying this:

View attachment 1393350

In what country would you be more at risk for displaying a criticism of islam? Probably an islamic one.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Which aim would that be specifically.

A safe and secure Israel and Palestine, although @Scaff has stated they want to annex all Palestinian land so I'm doing more research since I thought when writing it a 2 state solution could still be on the cards down the line even with the right-wing nut Netanyahu currently calling the shots.

You can be morally very clear that women must be covered at all times in public. But it is not a legitimate moral position due to how it is derived.

True. It's something we should encourage.

I'm fine with the US being a place where people can come to find tolerance. I wish we were doing a better job of that. I have no hope of controlling such a condition in the middle east when I cannot control it in my own country.

Same with the UK....but the crisis is only going to get worse with instability and climate change.

Israel is very good at dictating conditions and behavior outside of its border.

I'm not sure I'm following. Eg, ISIS did have control of a region like @inCloud said

In what country would you be more at risk for displaying a criticism of islam? Probably an islamic one.

And would I be more at risk if I went outside right now in West London displaying that or

 

[Danoff]

A safe and secure Israel and Palestine, although @Scaff has stated they want to annex all Palestinian land so I'm doing more research since I thought when writing it a 2 state solution could still be on the cards down the line even with the right-wing nut Netanyahu currently calling the shots.

What makes you think Israel's aims include a safe and secure Palestine?

I'm not sure I'm following. Eg, ISIS did have control of a region like @inCloud said

That's hard to agree or disagree with. It's just not an easy answer. The countries in this region tend to be so weak, that a terrorist organization can take "control" within the nation and affect or even dictate the everyday lives of individuals within the region, and yet the terrorist organization can be essentially powerless when it comes to negotiating with other nations, or trade, or developing infrastructure or any of the things that you would normally associate with actual governance of a region.

If someone broke into my house and pointed a gun at me, from one aspect you could say they control my house and me, from another aspect you could say absolutely not. It really depends on what is meant by control.

Israel not only controls its country from the perspective of governance and trade, but Israel also exerts military control, in a capricious and erratic way, within the entire region outside of Israeli borders. If you ask me which country was in control of Gaza, for example. I would say Israel for sure. Long periods of time will go by where people will do their things and go about their business, and various strong-arm factions will move in and push people around, and then Israel will decide to blow stuff up.

I'd say Israel is mostly in control in that scenario.

And would I be more at risk if I went outside right now in West London displaying that or

View attachment 1393361

I don't know. What is the point you're making? I suspect you're trying to say that Islamic people are not safe to be around but I'm not sure.