Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[bilby]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

If Biden hadn't put a couple carriers there in the initial stages, good chance that Iran and Hezbos would have joined in the terrorist attack. Far more people and civilians would be dead today. Much greater disruption to international trade. And etc.

You say "good chance", I say "wild and completely unfounded speculation".

 

[Harry Bosch]

US also needs to be more forceful against Iran

Why does the US have to do anything? These places are thousands of miles from the US, and there's bugger all reason for the US to even take much of an interest, much less to "need to" do anything at all.

The only reason Iran has a problem with the US at all is that the US keeps interfering in Iran and her immediate neighbourhood. The only reason Iran is an Islamic theocracy is because the US thought it was a brilliant idea to go over there and fuck things up.

If Biden hadn't put a couple carriers there in the initial stages, good chance that Iran and Hezbos would have joined in the terrorist attack. Far more people and civilians would be dead today. Much greater disruption to international trade. And etc.

You say "good chance", I say "wild and completely unfounded speculation".

Sure, they might have been deployed there to celebrate the US Navy's crossing the line ceremony! Maybe. But I doubt it! Biden's foreign policy has many themes, but chief among them is to prevent military conflicts from spreading. We see this in Eastern Europe, Asian waters, and the mid-east:

‘A message’: Why has Biden dispatched a US strike group during Gaza war?

Experts say direct US involvement in conflict is unlikely despite sending an aircraft carrier to Eastern Mediterranean.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[bilby]

good chance that Iran and Hezbos would have joined in the terrorist attack.

Like all "would have" statements, this is unknowable, and represents a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I am not criticising Biden's policies; I am pointing out that your reasoning about those policies is irrational and unsupported.

I see no reason whatsoever to imagine that Iran would have joined in, had everything other than the disposition of this carrier group been the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The real problem is that there are two different concepts of nationhood. The most popular one is that a nation should represent an ethnically homogeneous group--one language and culture predominates. You're in the club or you're out. The other concept is one that tolerates ethnic and cultural diversity where anyone willing to play by the rules is allowed into the club as an equal. Israel was conceived as an ethnically homogeneous club, and most Israelis don't want that to change. The two-state solution maintains the ethnically pure concept, even though Israelis are still basically of the same culture as Palestinian Muslims. The one-state solution follows the concept of tolerance for diversity, but the Jewish population would lose its dominance and control.

Except tolerance for diversity only works if the people tolerate diversity. A one-state solution produces a diverse society in which most people will not tolerate the diversity.

Yes, I grew up in such a society in the 1950s and 1960s, so I know what you are talking about. The narrative from those who opposed diversity was that integration was impossible, couldn't possibly work, and would never be accepted. The fact is that they weren't totally wrong. There are still people out there who can't accept that it wasn't the end of the world when some of those barriers to integration were removed.

In the case of Israel, the Jewish population will survive even in the face of becoming a very large minority of the population. Most people do, in fact, end up tolerating diversity quite nicely. Those of us who have lived in NYC--the most diverse population in the country--have discovered that it is really possible for very diverse peoples and cultures to live side by side in peace, counterintuitive as that may seem to you. In fact, a lot of Jews live in that city side by side with Muslims, Hindus, Christians, atheists, etc. It could happen even in an integrated Israel, crazy as that must seem. After all, 20% of the population of Israel already consists of Palestinians. But most Palestinian Arabs want the same thing that Israeli Jews do--peace and prosperity. They just have to learn to stop killing each other to get it.

But nobody was advocating for the extermination of the minority.

 

[Copernicus]

But nobody was advocating for the extermination of the minority.

There are always extremists who advocate for wild acts of violence. Kahanists are no better than some of the worst Palestinian terrorists. You focus on them and ignore all of those calling for peace and reconciliation. I think Arctish has done a good job of dealing with the perpetual hysteria espoused by many Israelis that it is either apartheid or extermination of Israel.

The current government of Israel is on record as advocating for the expulsion and dispersal of the entire Palestinian population into Egypt and other Arab countries. The Palestinian population will still be in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after the fighting stops, and Israel is going to have to live with the state of mind they will carry into the future. The current rightwing extremist government of Israel is not going to get what it wants, so it will have to consider at least some form of a two-state solution or just face more terrorist attacks in the future. Even with a two-state solution, there won't be an end to the violence. The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but 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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Charter says:

6. The Palestinian people are one people, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation

^That^ includes Palestinian Jews.

What Palestinian Jews? Few people from before 1948 are left on either side.

The charter says that persons with Palestinian fathers are Palestinians. That includes a lot more Jews than just the old folks who were born in the area around Jerusalem before 1948.

I'm not surprised you choose to ignore entire communities of Jews when it's convenient and hold them up as examples when you want to make a different argument. It's all part of your bullshit schtick. I've come to expect it.

Even if you're correct most of the Jews would be expelled.

#16-#17--basically calling for the expulsion of the Jews.

Totally false.

The Charter says:

16. Hamas confirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet is is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entry.

The Charter makes a clear distinction between Zionism and Judaism, and between Zionists and Jews. It clearly states that Hamas opposes Zionism but does not wage a struggle against Jews.

But by being in Israel they are Zionists. #16 is saying they aren't going after Jews elsewhere.

Being in Israel doesn't make someone a Zionist any more than being in Gaza makes someone an Islamist.

Sheesh, Loren. It appears Hamas knows more about Zionism than you do.

They consider anyone who moved to Israel a Zionist.

It also points out that Zionists frequently conflate Zionism and Judaism but there is a difference and Hamas recognizes it.

The Charter says:

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.

^This^ is a rejection of ethnic cleansing,

Settlement occupation--in other words, throw out anyone who moved to Israel.

What part of rejecting the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds do you not understand?

Suppose a peace deal is reached in which the illegal settlers who moved into the Occupied Territories in violation of international law have to apply for legal status and become citizens of the Palestinian State. Suppose most of them decided to move back to Israel. Would you call that ethnic cleansing?

Yes, it would be ethnic cleansing. Same as happened in 1948--the Jews were expelled from the areas that ended up under Palestinian control.

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

It is a major issue wrt your arguments whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned.

No.

You're not addressing the point: the problems predate the settlements. Thus the settlements can't be the cause of the problem.

We also have the Hamas spokesman upthread who said the problem is the very existence of Israel.

Pick a lane.

Either you believe it is intolerably dangerous for Jews to live where they would be outnumbered by Christian and Muslim Palestinians, or it's not really a problem.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

Both sides recognize what would happen? That if Jews lived in a place where they were outnumbered by non-Jewish Palestinians they'd like it so much they'd encourage others to join them?

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

Bullshit.

You are ignoring your own posting history and the thoroughly documented history of the founding of Israel.

Muslims were removed from a few sensitive areas, not from Israel. The mass departure was at the behest of the Arabs. Israel then didn't allow them to return because they wouldn't swear to non-violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But nobody was advocating for the extermination of the minority.

There are always extremists who advocate for wild acts of violence. Kahanists are no better than some of the worst Palestinian terrorists. You focus on them and ignore all of those calling for peace and reconciliation. I think Arctish has done a good job of dealing with the perpetual hysteria espoused by many Israelis that it is either apartheid or extermination of Israel.

Even the Klan didn't want them exterminated, just kept as an underclass.

The current government of Israel is on record as advocating for the expulsion and dispersal of the entire Palestinian population into Egypt and other Arab countries. The Palestinian population will still be in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank after the fighting stops, and Israel is going to have to live with the state of mind they will carry into the future. The current rightwing extremist government of Israel is not going to get what it wants, so it will have to consider at least some form of a two-state solution or just face more terrorist attacks in the future. Even with a two-state solution, there won't be an end to the violence. The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but 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.

Even if you're right that it's the only morally defensible solution doesn't mean it is a workable solution.

And I don't think two-state is the right answer anymore. Fatah and Hamas are enemies--it should be a three-state solution. I think there's no hope of peace with both of them because of the money from Iran, but peace with one might be remotely possible.

 

[Arctish]

The charter says that persons with Palestinian fathers are Palestinians. That includes a lot more Jews than just the old folks who were born in the area around Jerusalem before 1948.

I'm not surprised you choose to ignore entire communities of Jews when it's convenient and hold them up as examples when you want to make a different argument. It's all part of your bullshit schtick. I've come to expect it.

Even if you're correct most of the Jews would be expelled.

That is your opinion.

It appears to be based purely on your own bias.

They consider anyone who moved to Israel a Zionist.

Support this claim.

Also, what do they consider people who were born in Israel? Don't just say 'Zionists' because we all know that Israel has Christians, Muslims, secular Jews, and Jewish peace activists who support the reintegration of Palestinians within Israel.

Yes, it would be ethnic cleansing. Same as happened in 1948--the Jews were expelled from the areas that ended up under Palestinian control.

And while you're at it, support this claim, too.

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

It is a major issue wrt your arguments whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned.

No.

You're not addressing the point: the problems predate the settlements. Thus the settlements can't be the cause of the problem.

We also have the Hamas spokesman upthread who said the problem is the very existence of Israel.

The point I am raising that you are dodging is that you say Jews living as a minority among non-Jews would be in dire peril of death and ethnic cleansing but you don't have a problem with Jews living as a minority among non-Jews when they're illegal settlers in the West Bank.

It's like that cartoon of dog in a burning house saying "This is fine" where the settlers are the dog and you agree with them, but if someone mentions human rights you start shouting about the house being on fire.

Pick a lane.

Either you believe it is intolerably dangerous for Jews to live where they would be outnumbered by Christian and Muslim Palestinians, or it's not really a problem.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

Both sides recognize what would happen? That if Jews lived in a place where they were outnumbered by non-Jewish Palestinians they'd like it so much they'd encourage others to join them?

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

Bullshit.

You are ignoring your own posting history and the thoroughly documented history of the founding of Israel.

Muslims were removed from a few sensitive areas, not from Israel. The mass departure was at the behest of the Arabs. Israel then didn't allow them to return because they wouldn't swear to non-violence.

Support this claim. And be prepared for a rebuttal featuring articles written by Israeli historians and posted at The Jewish Virtual Library.

 

[Copernicus]

And I don't think two-state is the right answer anymore. Fatah and Hamas are enemies--it should be a three-state solution. I think there's no hope of peace with both of them because of the money from Iran, but peace with one might be remotely possible.

That three-state solution was Netanyahu's failed policy of splitting the Palestinian leadership in order to prevent a two-state solution. It was a foolish gamble that led directly to the October 7 attacks. It was far worse than a two-state solution for Israel, but the Israeli right wing extremists wanted those West Bank settlements, and they thought this was the way to get them. So we are back to either the two-state or one-state solution. Let's go back to the two-state solution, because, if at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you don't succeed again. It may take another generation or two, but I think that Israeli Jews will eventually see that it is in their interest to have a government that protects all minorities, not just the Jewish one.

 

[Bomb#20]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

?? It appears that you have doubts that Hamas could lead a liberal democracy that respects the rights of all minorities?? Hamas is exactly the kind of group that I love to have my children live under.....

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if you're correct most of the Jews would be expelled.

That is your opinion.

It appears to be based purely on your own bias.

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

They consider anyone who moved to Israel a Zionist.

Support this claim.

Also, what do they consider people who were born in Israel? Don't just say 'Zionists' because we all know that Israel has Christians, Muslims, secular Jews, and Jewish peace activists who support the reintegration of Palestinians within Israel.

Has a tiny minority that are trying for peace. The vast majority know better.

Yes, it would be ethnic cleansing. Same as happened in 1948--the Jews were expelled from the areas that ended up under Palestinian control.

And while you're at it, support this claim, too.

Huh? It's not exactly hidden knowledge.

Netanyahu: Arabs ‘ethnically cleansed’ Jews from West Bank

Netanyahu pointed out that in 1929, the Arabs massacred the Jews in Hebron; in 1948, Jews were expelled and murdered in Gush Etzion, Kalya (near the Dead Sea) and Atarot, north of Jerusalem.

www.jpost.com

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

It is a major issue wrt your arguments whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned.

No.

You're not addressing the point: the problems predate the settlements. Thus the settlements can't be the cause of the problem.

We also have the Hamas spokesman upthread who said the problem is the very existence of Israel.

The point I am raising that you are dodging is that you say Jews living as a minority among non-Jews would be in dire peril of death and ethnic cleansing but you don't have a problem with Jews living as a minority among non-Jews when they're illegal settlers in the West Bank.

The issue isn't a minority itself, but the democracy. The West Bank doesn't cause the problem because the Palestinians can't vote away Jewish self defense.

Pick a lane.

Either you believe it is intolerably dangerous for Jews to live where they would be outnumbered by Christian and Muslim Palestinians, or it's not really a problem.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

Both sides recognize what would happen? That if Jews lived in a place where they were outnumbered by non-Jewish Palestinians they'd like it so much they'd encourage others to join them?

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

Bullshit.

You are ignoring your own posting history and the thoroughly documented history of the founding of Israel.

Muslims were removed from a few sensitive areas, not from Israel. The mass departure was at the behest of the Arabs. Israel then didn't allow them to return because they wouldn't swear to non-violence.

Support this claim. And be prepared for a rebuttal featuring articles written by Israeli historians and posted at The Jewish Virtual Library.

I'm not saying there was no cleansing, but that most of it wasn't done by Israel.

 

[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.

 

[Rhea]

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?

 

[Copernicus]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

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.

 

[Arctish]

Even if you're correct most of the Jews would be expelled.

That is your opinion.

It appears to be based purely on your own bias.

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

Show

They consider anyone who moved to Israel a Zionist.

Support this claim.

Also, what do they consider people who were born in Israel? Don't just say 'Zionists' because we all know that Israel has Christians, Muslims, secular Jews, and Jewish peace activists who support the reintegration of Palestinians within Israel.

Has a tiny minority that are trying for peace. The vast majority know better.

Yes, it would be ethnic cleansing. Same as happened in 1948--the Jews were expelled from the areas that ended up under Palestinian control.

And while you're at it, support this claim, too.

Huh? It's not exactly hidden knowledge.

Netanyahu: Arabs ‘ethnically cleansed’ Jews from West Bank

Netanyahu pointed out that in 1929, the Arabs massacred the Jews in Hebron; in 1948, Jews were expelled and murdered in Gush Etzion, Kalya (near the Dead Sea) and Atarot, north of Jerusalem.

www.jpost.com

It also echoes something David Ben-Gurion said about the Palestinian people having had nothing to do with the persecution that fueled the Zionist movement among the European Jews who illegally immigrated to Palestine in order to take the region for themselves.

You can't use the Hamas charter to support your claims. It doesn't say what you want it to say,

The problem is you are interpreting the words in a very favorable light--they are intended to look ok in a favorable light.

You've fallen for their deceptions hook, line and sinker. The "Occupied Territory" and the right of return aren't about the West Bank as they have deceived you into thinking, but about Israel itself.

As for evacuating the settlers by force if needed--they tried that in Gaza. It just made the situation worse.

You are dodging the question.

No, I'm addressing it. Right of return gives the Palestinians a majority. Israel is a democracy--next election the Palestinians will be in charge. Even if the government plays moderate it's not going to stop individual actions against Jews.

You are dodging the question. Why aren't you the most strident opponent of the building of settlements in the West Bank? Why don't you care that Jews are moving into situations you liken to being surrounded by hungry lions? I think it's because your argument is bullshit.

I consider the settlements a minor issue because I realize they are a red herring. Yes, they should not exist but the problem predates the existence of the settlements so unless there's a time machine involved they aren't the cause.

It is a major issue wrt your arguments whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned.

No.

You're not addressing the point: the problems predate the settlements. Thus the settlements can't be the cause of the problem.

We also have the Hamas spokesman upthread who said the problem is the very existence of Israel.

The point I am raising that you are dodging is that you say Jews living as a minority among non-Jews would be in dire peril of death and ethnic cleansing but you don't have a problem with Jews living as a minority among non-Jews when they're illegal settlers in the West Bank.

The issue isn't a minority itself, but the democracy. The West Bank doesn't cause the problem because the Palestinians can't vote away Jewish self defense.

Pick a lane.

Either you believe it is intolerably dangerous for Jews to live where they would be outnumbered by Christian and Muslim Palestinians, or it's not really a problem.

Here you are, making that same extremist all-or-nothing, dead-or-fled excluded middle fallacy whenever the Right of Return for Palestinians is mentioned, while at the same time you don't think it is a problem for non-Jews to outnumber Jews by a 4-1 margin in the West Bank.

It's not extremist--both sides recognize that's what would happen.

Both sides recognize what would happen? That if Jews lived in a place where they were outnumbered by non-Jewish Palestinians they'd like it so much they'd encourage others to join them?

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

And the West Bank does cause a problem that I have mentioned multiple times--a Jew who gets lost and enters a Palestinian area very well might be murdered. It doesn't cause an overall problem because the Palestinians are Jordanian, not Israeli, and don't vote in Israeli elections.

Your argument for why the results of ethnic cleansing should be made permanent is just fear mongering meant to appeal to bigotry and racism rather than reason.

All the ethnic cleansing was done by the Muslim side.

Bullshit.

You are ignoring your own posting history and the thoroughly documented history of the founding of Israel.

Muslims were removed from a few sensitive areas, not from Israel. The mass departure was at the behest of the Arabs. Israel then didn't allow them to return because they wouldn't swear to non-violence.

Support this claim. And be prepared for a rebuttal featuring articles written by Israeli historians and posted at The Jewish Virtual Library.

I'm not saying there was no cleansing, but that most of it wasn't done by Israel.

You keep making claims and refusing to support them.

Everything you've posted recently is just piling on the assertions and bullshit.

I once told you I won't pretend that you're stupid or just a child. You and I have been discussing the history of Israel and Palestine for 20 years. I'm not going to pretend you don't know about the Transfer Committee of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, or Plan Dalet, or what was discussed at the Lausanne Conference of 1949, or that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Ashkelon continued into the 1950s, or that periodic attacks on Palestinian communities and the forced expulsion of non-Jews was a feature of the early years of the State of Israel. Not when we have discussed these things over and over again, with plenty of linked articles, interviews, and documents as sources of information.

You know better. You aren't arguing in good faith.

 

[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.

 

[Bomb#20]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

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.

Did you not understand the questions; or are you refusing to answer them?

Maybe the complexity of the questions confused you. I will simplify it for you.

Is the "morally defensible solution" you're proposing a democracy?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If you instead once again give an answer containing a baseless claim about what "my idea" is, it will be an unresponsive evasion.

 

[Copernicus]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

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.

Did you not understand the questions; or are you refusing to answer them?

Maybe the complexity of the questions confused you. I will simplify it for you.

Is the "morally defensible solution" you're proposing a democracy?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If you instead once again give an answer containing a baseless claim about what "my idea" is, it will be an unresponsive evasion.

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

The only morally defensible solution would be an integrated Palestine in which the rights of all minorities are protected by law and respected. It is not as impossible an ideal as so many people seem to think, but it will take a long time in coming, if it ever happens.

Can you clarify whether the morally defensible solution you're proposing is a democracy? Or is there, say, a Sultan off in Istanbul who polices integrated Palestine, and imposes the law, and enforces respect for minority rights whether the local majority likes it or not?

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.

Did you not understand the questions; or are you refusing to answer them?

Maybe the complexity of the questions confused you. I will simplify it for you.

Is the "morally defensible solution" you're proposing a democracy?​

That's a yes-or-no question. If you instead once again give an answer containing a baseless claim about what "my idea" is, it will be an unresponsive evasion.

I understood your loaded questions perfectly.

So you refused to answer; and so you falsely accused me of getting the Sultan out of what you wrote rather than out of logical analysis even though you understood the question perfectly. Jolly good show.

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.

Given what you've said elsewhere. But it in no way follows from what you said in the post. Democracy is not a requirement for protection of minority rights; protection of minority rights typically precedes democracy in societies' evolution; Hong Kong was one of the freest countries in the world when it was ruled by a handful of Britons in London. I asked about democracy because what you said in the post was just barely within the realm of sanity. Putting it together with a demand for democracy pushes it into the realm of psychopathy -- it makes it equivalent to "the only morally defensible solution is for the Israelis to make their own human rights and their own survival conditional on the Palestinians choosing to tolerate them."

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.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to tell the difference between being trolled and being cross-examined. I get that being cross-examined is not a pleasant experience, but if you aren't willing to be subjected to it then stop trying to pass off obedience to your religious piety as though it were a demand of morality.

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.

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.

Without either a majority or a nondemocratic ruling clique that's willing to put itself out in order to enforce the guarantees on behalf of minorities it dislikes, a constitution is an empty piece of paper. With either a majority or a nondemocratic ruling clique that's willing to put itself out in order to protect the rights of minorities it dislikes, a constitution is a nonessential nice-to-have, and one that some rule-of-law societies have adequately muddled along without. India has a constitution in which rights are guaranteed to all citizens, not just an ethnic minority. Didn't stop Hindu mobs from massacring a thousand-odd Muslims while Hindu police stood back and watched. Or joined in.

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."