Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[JoeMorgue]

Does this matter? Displaced people in a war torn land get radicalized. As the oppression increases, so do their desire for vengeance.

Why does this excuse (yes excuse not "i'M jUsT ExpLanIng!") Hamas anymore than Israel?

You ain't gonna win a "displaced oppressed people" dick waving contest with the Jews.

 

[uke2se]

Why does this excuse (yes excuse not "i'M jUsT ExpLanIng!") Hamas anymore than Israel?

You ain't gonna win a "displaced oppressed people" dick waving contest with the Jews.

It doesn't. It's a race to the bottom where one side constantly aims to outdo the other in cruelty.

However, it is not a symmetrical conflict. One side is considerably better armed and is killing considerably more civilians.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It doesn't. It's a race to the bottom where one side constantly aims to outdo the other in cruelty.

However, it is not a symmetrical conflict. One side is considerably better armed and is killing considerably more civilians.

I'm so sick of hearing about how less powerful Hamas is. As if it matters. At all.

Again, yet again, Hamas doesn't get points/credit/extra slack/a golf handicap for being the underdog.

I honestly don't get this attitude some of you have that in a conflict between a low tech and a high tech the low tech side just gets more slack.

This isn't the movies. The underdog isn't actually morally advantaged in the real world.

By this logic the South had an advantage in the Civil War and Germany morally won WWII. After all they were the smaller little scrappy underdogs fighting the bigger opponent.

And again ALL of this is because you see this as a battle between Hamas and Israel and not Israel and the rest of the Middle East / The Entire Muslim World where Israel most definitely is NOT the... overdog. (That needs to be a word.)

I honestly don't get the sympathy for Hamas for being "plucky."

 

[The Great Zaganza]

yes, you don't get it at all.

but that's because you keep on strawmanning.

 

[JoeMorgue]

yes, you don't get it at all.

but that's because you keep on strawmanning.

1. Strawmanning was on your word of the day calendar yesterday. Time to pick a new word to throw out to dismiss everyone else's argument.

2. Then what IS the point of being constantly reminded that Hamas is less powerful?

 

[Shadowdweller]

Would you say the current Jewish people of Israel have a better claim to the entire territory than the Palestinians, and what do you think should be done to the displaced Palestinians?

Maybe. How are we supposed to determine the quality of a claim to territory anyway? Need? Merit? History? Might? Some arbitrary measure of moral integrity? Personally, I'm a socialist - I'm not super-sympathetic to claims based on birth or inheritance at the best of times.

As for what to do with displaced Palestinians: Ideally, assimilate or accommodate, granting them full citizenship in whatever leadership takes over the territory. Barring that: Grant them partial or probationary citizenship and/or find them alternate places to live that will grant them citizenship. Preferably providing assistance with jobs and transportation as necessary.

 

[uke2se]

I'm so sick of hearing about how less powerful Hamas is. As if it matters. At all.

Again, yet again, Hamas doesn't get points/credit/extra slack/a golf handicap for being the underdog.

I honestly don't get this attitude some of you have that in a conflict between a low tech and a high tech the low tech side just gets more slack.

This isn't the movies. The underdog isn't actually morally advantaged in the real world.

By this logic the South had an advantage in the Civil War and Germany morally won WWII. After all they were the smaller little scrappy underdogs fighting the bigger opponent.

And again ALL of this is because you see this as a battle between Hamas and Israel and not Israel and the rest of the Middle East / The Entire Muslim World where Israel most definitely is NOT the... overdog. (That needs to be a word.)

I honestly don't get the sympathy for Hamas for being "plucky."

I don't ask you to give sympathy to Hamas for being plucky. I am asking you to see that the two sides aren't causing an equal amount of destruction. One is causing considerably more and killing a lot more people. Both are bad. One is worse - measured by the amount of innocent people they kill.

 

[uke2se]

Maybe. How are we supposed to determine the quality of a claim to territory anyway? Need? Merit? History? Might? Some arbitrary measure of moral integrity? Personally, I'm a socialist - I'm not super-sympathetic to claims based on birth or inheritance at the best of times.

As for what to do with displaced Palestinians: Ideally, assimilate or accommodate, granting them full citizenship in whatever leadership takes over the territory. Barring that: Grant them partial or probationary citizenship and/or find them alternate places to live that will grant them citizenship. Preferably providing assistance with jobs and transportation as necessary.

Citizenship in what country? Where should they go? Who will give assistance with jobs and transportation?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Citizenship in what country? Where should they go? Who will give assistance with jobs and transportation?

I... don't... care.

The world is not a job rehab center for Terrorists. If you can drive a truck to a suicide bombing site you can drive it to Jordan or Syria and settle there.

If the Muslim countries don't want to take them in either (which they won't, funny that) then put the EXACT SAME pressure on them to be accommodating that you're putting on Israel.

Again the only issue to be solved her is why the only place that "Palestinians" want to live has Jews for them to kill.

Again I'd appreciate an answer as to why it's the one tiny Jewish country's sole job to accommodate these people.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It is eerie how much alike the reporting and discussion on the bombing/invasion of Gaza by Israel is to the bombing/invasion of Iraq by the US.

Any attempt to point out that it was/is a bad idea is always taken as support for Saddam/Hamas.

And no one is allowed to even think about what happens when everything is rubble and boots are on the ground and you have to occupy the space for decades only to get back to where we started.

Seriously, what is Step2 after Hamas is gone?
Or is it really only about "an eye for an eye"?

 

[uke2se]

I... don't... care.

The world is not a job rehab center for Terrorists. If you can drive a truck to a suicide bombing site you can drive it to Jordan or Syria and settle there.

If the Muslim countries don't want to take them in either (which they won't, funny that) then put the EXACT SAME pressure on them to be accommodating that you're putting on Israel.

Again the only issue to be solved her is why the only place that "Palestinians" want to live has Jews for them to kill.

Again I'd appreciate an answer as to why it's the one tiny Jewish country's sole job to accommodate these people.

I'm talking about the Palestinian people, not Hamas. Do you believe that all Palestinians are terrorists? Including the children?

In my view, it's Israels responsibility because it's Israel that moved them where they are now, at gun point.

It seems to me that the Palestinian people is an annoyance to you. It's unfortunately not an uncommon view. It reminds me of the early stages of the holocaust. In the end, it was simpler to just exterminate them.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Or is it really only about "an eye for an eye"?

Actually, no. "An eye for an eye" would be an improvement. This is a classic blood feud, the kind ol' Hammurabi was trying to discourage with that. It meant don't take the whole damn head off.

Consider that JoeMorgue is being genuine, and truly does not give a crap about what happens to Palestinians so long as they're no longer Israel's problem. Start by begging the question that the people doing the displacing owe nothing to the displaced, and it's an amazingly simple conclusion.

 

[webfusion]

Are there any countries who would accept immigrants from Gaza?

Scotland.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm talking about the Palestinian people, not Hamas. Do you believe that all Palestinians are terrorists? Including the children?

Hamas is their elected leadership has been thrown back in our face multiple times in this thread. You can't ignore that when it becomes inconvenient.

No it is not so simplistic as "all Palestinians" are terrorists, I'm not even gonna dignify arguing against that or explaining it further.

It reminds me of the early stages of the holocaust.

And again I get it, people here think the "Jews are becoming what tried to destroy them did you notice did you notice do you get it do you get it" is amazing poetical irony and people think the world runs on that. Yes I get it, never has history ever hand delivered us on a silver platter so perfect a petard to hoist someone up on. I get wanting to do it. I really and honestly do. The poster child for the victim of genocide being the oppressor, I get the setup and the punchline. I see same delicious irony that everyone else sees. It's "updog" on a cosmic and terrible scale. I GET IT. It's really clever. It's a gotcha for the ages.

But it's not the point. And I think a lot of you are leaning on this narrative a little too hard. The side that needs to taken down a notch for being full of itself or not seeing the irony or hypocrisy is not (necessarily) worse then the side that's just straight up evil. This is "The Republicans are being evil, but the Democrats are being dramatic about so the Democrats are really the problem" taking to a much larger scale with more serious impacts on both sides. (ETA: And much like whenever I use the "Republicans are Evil, Democrats are Dramatic and Annoying" thing I'm AGREEING that Democrats are dramatic and annoying. Same thing here. Israel IS a full of itself country that frankly does need to be, speaking casually in layman's terms "Be taken down a notch." They do need to reminded of their place in the world.)

Too many of you are trying to write a story with proper power balance and character arcs and a moral at the end. This is the real world. It doesn't have those things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Consider that JoeMorgue is being genuine, and truly does not give a crap about what happens to Palestinians so long as they're no longer Israel's problem. Start by begging the question that the people doing the displacing owe nothing to the displaced, and it's an amazingly simple conclusion.

You're the one saying "The only way to care about Palestinians is by putting them somewhere were they can kill Jews and literally no where else."

So no I don't care about them by YOUR standards and definition, but I'm fine with that.

 

[webfusion]

30 km down the road to where? Is there free land there for them to settle?

Northern Sinai (the coast, over from Rafah to el-Arish) is basically vacant.
In 1982, the Egyptians fenced-off 1/2 of Rafah and split that Palestinian town into two.
Maybe after this fiasco, the Egyptians can reverse things and return that salient to the Palestinians, after all, it's been part of Palestine since time immemorial.

 

[uke2se]

Hamas is their elected leadership has been thrown back in our face multiple times in this thread. You can't ignore that when it becomes inconvenient.

No it is not so simplistic as "all Palestinians" are terrorists, I'm not even gonna dignify arguing against that or explaining it further.

Hamas was elected in 2006. Roughly half of the population of the Gaza strip wasn't born then. Do you think they ought to be punished for their ancestors electing Hamas?

And again I get it, people here think the "Jews are becoming what tried to destroy them did you notice did you notice do you get it do you get it" is amazing poetical irony and people think the world runs on that. Yes I get it, never has history ever hand delivered us on a silver platter so perfect a petard to hoist someone up on. I get wanting to do it. I really and honestly do. The poster child for the victim of genocide being the oppressor, I get the setup and the punchline. I get the delicious the same delicious irony that everyone else sees. It's "updog" on a cosmic scale. I GET IT. It's really clever. It's a gotcha for the ages.

It's not supposed to be clever. It's supposed to make you consider why you are so adamantly arguing for (or failing to argue against) ethnic cleansing and genocide. Because that is what we're talking about here.

But it's not the point. And I think a lot of you are leaning on this narrative a little too hard. The side that needs to taken down a notch for being full of itself or not seeing the irony or hypocrisy is not (necessarily) better then the side that's just straight up evil.

Too many of you are trying to write a story with proper power balance and character arcs and a moral at the end. This is the real world. It doesn't have those things.

It sure doesn't. There is a considerable power inbalance at play. Israel is much more powerful than the people they oppress. They kill a lot more Palestinians then terrorists do Israelis. You see this but you somehow fail to account for it.

 

[uke2se]

You're the one saying "The only way to care about Palestinians is by putting them somewhere were they can kill Jews and literally no where else."

So no I don't care about them by YOUR standards and definition, but I'm fine with that.

You seem to not care about them by any standards, considering you will not even engage with the question of "if not there, where?" Instead you explode into another sarcastic tirade that essentially boils down to "I don't care". If you don't care, be quiet and let the grown ups speak.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You seem to not care about them by any standards, considering you will not even engage with the question of "if not there, where?" Instead you explode into another sarcastic tirade that essentially boils down to "I don't care". If you don't care, be quiet and let the grown ups speak.

Oh please. I've answered it a dozen times.

Again there are literally dozens of Muslim, Arabic Speaking countries that could assimilate the 2 million Palestinians and not even notice it.

But, and I keep asking why, Israel and Israel alone has the sole and complete responsibility of "compromising" and "finding space" for these people.

Again the narrative we keep getting told is the "right one" is "Israel has some inherent metaphysical duty to make a "Palestine" within its borders, literally nobody else does."

Again if you buy the whole "No that 25 mile long strip of sand is our sacred ancestorial homeland" story this all makes sense to you. I don't buy for a second, so it doesn't.

If they had put Israel 50 miles in the other direction or on the Sinai or on a floating artificial island in the Persian Gulf the Palestinians would be going "No right there! That's totally our homeland! That's always where we wanted to live! No really!"

 

[Ziggurat]

It is eerie how much alike the reporting and discussion on the bombing/invasion of Gaza by Israel is to the bombing/invasion of Iraq by the US.

Is there an analogue to the false claims that Israel bombed a hospital, killing 500? When what actually happened is an Islamic Jihad missile fell on a parking lot next to a hospital, and I don't think I've seen proof of even a single fatality?

Any attempt to point out that it was/is a bad idea is always taken as support for Saddam/Hamas.

There are multiple reasons one might have for claiming that the imminent Israeli incursion is a bad idea, and responses to those different claims are likely to be different as well. For example, one might claim that Hamas is so well entrenched that the Israeli military incursion will fail to dig them out and result in extremely high Israeli casualties. One might claim that Israel has no right to even try to dig out Hamas, regardless of the prospects for success, since Palestinians have the right to resist Israeli oppression. One might claim that an Israeli incursion will prompt war with its neighbors. And that's not the full list of why one might think it's a bad idea. And they aren't mutually exclusive, so one might believe multiple claims simultaneously. But they're still very different claims. And some of them absolutely are support for Hamas. Not all of them, but some of them. And some of them, while perhaps not being support for Hamas, show no sympathy for Israel. Those two categories are likely to get conflated, which is unfortunate, but even without being conflated both of them are going to receive pushback from people who are sympathetic to Israel's plight.

Seriously, what is Step2 after Hamas is gone?

That's probably largely up to the Palestinians. Do they want to repeat the cycle, or do they want to try something different this time? I would suggest the latter, but I have a feeling they might choose the former. And suffer the consequences.