Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Copernicus]

It is unfortunate that you are unable to tell the difference between being trolled and being cross-examined...

To be fair, I was looking for anything like a civil discussion on the subject matter from you and not a lot of time-wasting argumentative nonsense. You could try actually addressing the material in the post you pretended to respond to. Still looking...

 

[Bomb#20]

It is unfortunate that you are unable to tell the difference between being trolled and being cross-examined...

To be fair, I was looking for anything like a civil discussion on the subject matter

... and you felt

This is your idea of a country "in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected"? Not sure how you got that out of what I wrote, but maybe you didn't read it very carefully. I suppose I should have actually written up a constitution for my ideal and posted it here to avoid confusing you.

qualifies as civil discussion, did you?

from you

Ah, that explains it. Civil discussion from me. With no expectation for you to reciprocate. Got it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I understood your loaded questions perfectly. Given what I said, it was obvious that I had not just a democracy in mind, but one that ensured equal rights for all citizens under a rule of law. Once you started talking about a Sultan in Istanbul, it was obvious to me that you were more interested in trolling than an honest discussion. Democracies are not always about the protection of minority rights, so a government needs a constitution in which rights are guaranteed to all citizens, not just an ethnic minority. We know which minorities we are talking about in the case of Israel-Palestine. The US has its own protected minorities, as well.

And how do you propose to create a democracy that can't be subject to tyranny of the majority?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My own bias? That's what everyone involved expects.

To be fair, I doubt that everyone involved has even heard of you.

But those who have probably do expect that, yes.

By "those involved" I mean Israel and the Palestinians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

News Flash: Hamas can resurrect the dead!

First hostage release brings fresh proof that Hamas must be destroyed

Hamas’ first hostage release has confirmed facts about the terrorists: 1) They’re ruthless liars; 2) they’ll victimize anyone they can, and 3) they think they can get America to break with Israel.…

nypost.com

Not only are they liars but they are stupid liars.

What does the article say to lead to that conclusion?

She was dead, now she's alive. Obviously they can resurrect the dead.

Or they were lying the first time. Lying about something where your lie is liable to be exposed is stupid.

 

[laughing dog]

News Flash: Hamas can resurrect the dead!

First hostage release brings fresh proof that Hamas must be destroyed

Hamas’ first hostage release has confirmed facts about the terrorists: 1) They’re ruthless liars; 2) they’ll victimize anyone they can, and 3) they think they can get America to break with Israel.…

nypost.com

Not only are they liars but they are stupid liars.

What does the article say to lead to that conclusion?

She was dead, now she's alive. Obviously they can resurrect the dead.

Or they were lying the first time. Lying about something where your lie is liable to be exposed is stupid.

If course, they could simply have been mistaken the first time. Just like when Netanyahu claimed Hamas had beheaded hostages including children.

 

[bilby]

My own bias? That's what everyone involved expects.

To be fair, I doubt that everyone involved has even heard of you.

But those who have probably do expect that, yes.

By "those involved" I mean Israel and the Palestinians.

Me too. Most of them haven't heard of you, so they probably wouldn't expect your bias.

 

[bilby]

Obviously they can resurrect the dead.

To be fair, many people believe that there's a precedent in that region of the world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course there are morally defensible solutions other than an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. You even proved it yourself, when you wrote "it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens. The best the current generations can hope for is probably the two-state separation." What, so in order to be morally defensible the Israelis have to build a time machine and jump forward to whenever the Palestinians become willing and able to protect them from hotheads who want to stab Jews on a bus? If the best the current generations can hope for is two-state separation then that automatically makes it morally defensible. Ought implies can. This is not rocket science.

Hamas doesn't want a two-state solution (or any solution really). Nor does Netanyahu. Which is part of the problem. Radicals are dictating the terms and conditions, which is never good when it is one side, forget both.

You could have actually written up a constitution for your ideal and posted it here to avoid confusing me, and it could have been the best constitution in the world, and that would not have made your proposal different in any substantive way from "the Israelis ought to make their own human rights and their own survival conditional on the Palestinians choosing to tolerate them."

It is so much easier to make arguments using broad brushes, isn't it.

Palestine and extremism is a self-perpetuating dilemma propagated by Iran et al and worsened by far right Israeli policy.

What some people seemingly are overlooking is that all of these far right Israeli policies on the Palestinians were put in place to protect Israelis. The policies don't exist just for the heck of it, or because the Israeli government hates the Palestinians. No, the policies are supposed to protect Israel.

The atrocity of October 7th happened anyway. Which should make some people stop and think whether doubling down on what didn't work is the path forward.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hamas doesn't want a two-state solution (or any solution really). Nor does Netanyahu. Which is part of the problem. Radicals are dictating the terms and conditions, which is never good when it is one side, forget both.

True that. Getting the radicals out of power is a necessary precondition for any solution other than ethnic cleansing.

You could have actually written up a constitution for your ideal and posted it here to avoid confusing me, and it could have been the best constitution in the world, and that would not have made your proposal different in any substantive way from "the Israelis ought to make their own human rights and their own survival conditional on the Palestinians choosing to tolerate them."

It is so much easier to make arguments using broad brushes, isn't it.

Who the heck am I supposed to have broad-brushed? For that matter, who the heck am I supposed to have brushed? Did you read that sentence and think you were reading a claim about the Palestinians? It's a logical analysis of the previous poster's moral claim, taking into account the fact that constitutions are not self-enforcing.

Palestine and extremism is a self-perpetuating dilemma propagated by Iran et al and worsened by far right Israeli policy.

Yup.

What some people seemingly are overlooking is that all of these far right Israeli policies on the Palestinians were put in place to protect Israelis. The policies don't exist just for the heck of it, or because the Israeli government hates the Palestinians. No, the policies are supposed to protect Israel.

Bingo. Which is what makes the endlessly repeated canard that Israel is an apartheid state so disingenuous.

The atrocity of October 7th happened anyway. Which should make some people stop and think whether doubling down on what didn't work is the path forward.

Everyone agrees with that -- the dispute is over which aspect of current policy is responsible for the "didn't work". To my mind the obvious aspect to blame is Netanyahu; and the Israeli parliamentary system that makes it so difficult to remove him also needs to be reengineered. But others will take contrary lessons.

 

[Copernicus]

I understood your loaded questions perfectly. Given what I said, it was obvious that I had not just a democracy in mind, but one that ensured equal rights for all citizens under a rule of law. Once you started talking about a Sultan in Istanbul, it was obvious to me that you were more interested in trolling than an honest discussion. Democracies are not always about the protection of minority rights, so a government needs a constitution in which rights are guaranteed to all citizens, not just an ethnic minority. We know which minorities we are talking about in the case of Israel-Palestine. The US has its own protected minorities, as well.

And how do you propose to create a democracy that can't be subject to tyranny of the majority?

Are you not a citizen of the United States? Do you not know how the Constitution and due process work? The Constitution specifies the powers of government. If it does not give the government the power to take away a right, then the majority doesn't get to pass laws that remove that right.

 

[bilby]

What some people seemingly are overlooking is that all of these far right Israeli policies on the Palestinians were put in place to protect Israelis. The policies don't exist just for the heck of it, or because the Israeli government hates the Palestinians. No, the policies are supposed to protect Israel.

Bingo. Which is what makes the endlessly repeated canard that Israel is an apartheid state so disingenuous

Apartheid was put in place to protect South Africans. Apartheid didn't exist just for the heck of it, or because the South African government liked being a global pariah. No, the policy was supposed to protect South Africa.

It clearly failed massively, but then, so has Israeli policy with regards to the Palistinian issue, and particularly Gaza.

I would say that describing Israel as an apartheid state was neither disingenuous nor a canard; From my seat here, it looks like a remarkably apt analogy. There is literally one defined group with all the power, and their policy is to keep the other powerless and separate. Or, if you prefer, to keep these groups "apart".

Even the details of how Israeli policy for Palestinians is implemented are eerily similar to the South African model.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hamas doesn't want a two-state solution (or any solution really). Nor does Netanyahu. Which is part of the problem. Radicals are dictating the terms and conditions, which is never good when it is one side, forget both.

True that. Getting the radicals out of power is a necessary precondition for any solution other than ethnic cleansing.

Except Hamas aren't really in power. They won a plurality of the vote with a frustrated Palestinian population that was desperate for something else with the repeated failures and corruption of their former leadership.

You could have actually written up a constitution for your ideal and posted it here to avoid confusing me, and it could have been the best constitution in the world, and that would not have made your proposal different in any substantive way from "the Israelis ought to make their own human rights and their own survival conditional on the Palestinians choosing to tolerate them."

It is so much easier to make arguments using broad brushes, isn't it.

Who the heck am I supposed to have broad-brushed?

Other than the Palestinians... and their drive towards Israeli extinction? If you didn't mean that, it'd be my mistake, however, you are swapping Hamas and Palestinians rather carelessly in your post.

Palestine and extremism is a self-perpetuating dilemma propagated by Iran et al and worsened by far right Israeli policy.

Yup.

What some people seemingly are overlooking is that all of these far right Israeli policies on the Palestinians were put in place to protect Israelis. The policies don't exist just for the heck of it, or because the Israeli government hates the Palestinians. No, the policies are supposed to protect Israel.

Bingo. Which is what makes the endlessly repeated canard that Israel is an apartheid state so disingenuous.

But you said "yup" regarding far-right Israeli policies being a part of the problem. Also saying it is disingenuous is invalid. Palestine is a land neglected by most people, Arabs, Persians, Israel, a real team effort.

The atrocity of October 7th happened anyway. Which should make some people stop and think whether doubling down on what didn't work is the path forward.

Everyone agrees with that -- the dispute is over which aspect of current policy is responsible for the "didn't work". To my mind the obvious aspect to blame is Netanyahu; and the Israeli parliamentary system that makes it so difficult to remove him also needs to be reengineered. But others will take contrary lessons.

There are many problems involved. Palestinians being dehumanized doesn't help much.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hostages are being released bit by bit. Israel is releasing people from prison as well, some detained without charges.

While the hostage releases are good for the hostages and their families, this is definitely creating a bad precedent. You see, the trouble we have here is that Israel has been bombing the fuck out of Hamas, without actually you know any sense of justice. The hostages being released (as well as their families) are going to be scarred by the entire thing, both survivors guilt and the trauma of Hamas detention. And without the justice side of thing, Hamas has created a loophole of sorts that really negates any potential for them to have any formal presence in Palestine. Hamas leadership goes unpunished, and the idea of any future atrocities allowing for their continued existence by taking more hostages.

Effectively the only reason the senior leadership is currently alive is because of the hostages. Hamas discovered a glitch in the system. I do not envy Israel trying to resolve it. Sadly, they lack the leadership to work on it. Honestly, I don't know how this is resolvable without Saudi/Qatari involvement.

Palestine without Hamas, really lacks any sense of governance, and Hamas wasn't exactly government to begin with. Someone needs to pick up the pieces. If I was the UN, I'd tell Iran to put their money where their mouth is regarding the Palestinians. Of course, Iran would just say they shouldn't have to pay to rebuild what Israel blew up. Which then who is left? The US pays to rebuild Palestine and Iran pays to govern it?

 

[bilby]

Someone needs to pick up the pieces. If I was the UN, I'd tell Iran to put their money where their mouth is regarding the Palestinians. Of course, Iran would just say they shouldn't have to pay to rebuild what Israel blew up. Which then who is left? The US pays to rebuild Palestine and Iran pays to govern it?

Under the "You break it, you bought it" principle, Israel should pay to rebuild what Israel blew up.

In the form of the Marshall Plan, this proved a very effective way to rebuild Europe after war had reduced much of it to a sea of rubble.

 

[TomC]

Under the "You break it, you bought it" principle, Israel should pay to rebuild what Israel blew up.

What "principle" are you talking about?

How about the Muslim armies of 1948 fix Israel?
Yeah, right.
Tom

 

[Arctish]

A return to the status quo before October won't be enough. There has to be significant improvement in the situation for the Palestinians, otherwise the lid just goes back on the pressure cooker while the burner is still lit.

 

[Arctish]

Under the "You break it, you bought it" principle, Israel should pay to rebuild what Israel blew up.

What "principle" are you talking about?

How about the Muslim armies of 1948 fix Israel?
Yeah, right.
Tom

Israel did not exist before 1948. What was there to fix?

Do you mean the non-Jews in the region should have helped all those illegal immigrants steal land from their neighbors?

 

[bilby]

Under the "You break it, you bought it" principle, Israel should pay to rebuild what Israel blew up.

What "principle" are you talking about?

Have you never been in a store with a sign that says "You break it, you bought it"?

If you break someone else's property, you have a moral obligation to pay for its repair or replacement.

 

[Derec]

Have you never been in a store with a sign that says "You break it, you bought it"?
If you break someone else's property, you have a moral obligation to pay for its repair or replacement.

That does not apply when the other side starts a war and murders ~1,200 of your civilians and kidnaps ~250 others.
If anything, it is Hamas and their masters in Tehran that should pay Israel for damages resulting from their aggression. Compensation for the families of the killed, compensation for the kidnapping victims, and paying for the property damage thousands of rockets they shot at Israel caused.