-
Features
Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel
- Thread starter Derec
- Start date
To denote when two or more threads have been merged
I think the (main) problem with a blacklist of "unreconcilable issues that have been done to death", mention of which gets warnings, and for repeated offences, suspensions”…
is that such a list, drawn on a particularly slippery slope, would leave us little TO talk about.
How selectively hypocritical would it be to ban any reference to Israel/Palestine while allowing daily dead-horse-beatings on the topic of “Does God exist?”
“Is Evolution or Creationism the truth?”
“Who wrote the Bible—and when?”
“Is Trump an existential threat to the world or the bestest most awesome winner ever, many people are saying?”
“What’s the deal with all this gun violence in America?”
“Do immigrants enrich or threaten the societies they migrate to?”
And on and on and on.
I think, instead of taking a topic off the table (especially while leaving equally divisive ones ON it), the answer is for the adults seated AROUND the table to do it more dispassionately and rationally.
(It appears that for some reason, the Russia/Ukraine war is generally able to meet that standard (with one exception who is, perhaps, somewhat understandable.)
I also think the burden should fall on we adults to more or less police ourselves better, and, failing that, moderators should make sure of it.
I have the feeling that moderators let this particular screaming match get out of hand, which at best tolerated (and at worst encouraged) the participants to dig deeper into the mud.
is that such a list, drawn on a particularly slippery slope, would leave us little TO talk about.
How selectively hypocritical would it be to ban any reference to Israel/Palestine while allowing daily dead-horse-beatings on the topic of “Does God exist?”
“Is Evolution or Creationism the truth?”
“Who wrote the Bible—and when?”
“Is Trump an existential threat to the world or the bestest most awesome winner ever, many people are saying?”
“What’s the deal with all this gun violence in America?”
“Do immigrants enrich or threaten the societies they migrate to?”
And on and on and on.
I think, instead of taking a topic off the table (especially while leaving equally divisive ones ON it), the answer is for the adults seated AROUND the table to do it more dispassionately and rationally.
(It appears that for some reason, the Russia/Ukraine war is generally able to meet that standard (with one exception who is, perhaps, somewhat understandable.)
I also think the burden should fall on we adults to more or less police ourselves better, and, failing that, moderators should make sure of it.
I have the feeling that moderators let this particular screaming match get out of hand, which at best tolerated (and at worst encouraged) the participants to dig deeper into the mud.
Gospel
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 7,565
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Ghetto Black Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Atheist
Discussion of moderation rules is a violation of the Terms of Use. You might want to dismount that high horse if it's just going to trample over decorum. And if you're going to weigh in on an issue, it’s probably best to understand how it actually unfolded first. The same principle applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, surface-level commentary rarely does justice to deeper complexities.
For example, if DrZoidberg and others agree to discontinue calling me a Hamas apologist and instead focus on my actual arguments, we might be able to reach a mutual understanding.
It's a shame, real people are dying in both Israel and Palestine, and the least we could do is show them the basic courtesy of speaking over their graves with respect.
For example, if DrZoidberg and others agree to discontinue calling me a Hamas apologist and instead focus on my actual arguments, we might be able to reach a mutual understanding.
It's a shame, real people are dying in both Israel and Palestine, and the least we could do is show them the basic courtesy of speaking over their graves with respect.
Ah. Did not realize that; my bad. I guess it’s like the wall of text that people tend to click “accept” on, without poring over the fine print. At any rate, if “them’s the rules,” I apologize for breaching them and will take better note of them.
And while undoubtedly I will find posters here whose sense of decorum I find worthy of emulation, an example to follow, I know already you won’t be one of them, so keep your advice on that topic.
Yes, certainly it advances the discussion to basically say that Dr. Zoidberg is still a poopy-head, and him being such a poopy-head is the only real impediment to a productive discussion here.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
I'm glad that you joined the forum. However, rather than discussing other posters decorum; why not give us your opinion? Let's start with an easy question first: how can we create peace between Israel and the Palestinians that will equally satisfy both sides?
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
On a magnitude scale of 1-10, that question is a 35.
However, since I've chimed in, here's my answer: Erase thousands years of history, un-invent Abrahamic religion, and don't allow European imperialism to ever touch the ME.
That oughta do it.
“Easy question first,” LOL
…followed by, arguably, the hardest, most unanswerable question in geopolitics; one which has utterly baffled every generation to consider it for millennia, defied every attempt to solve it, and shows not one iota of promise that it ever will be solved. Nice.
Yeah, I’ll just come up with the fix to this little Mediterranean dust-up for the world real quick; no, don’t thank me.
Don’t take it as a cop-out that, sorry, I think the very question is fatally flawed—it literally has no possible correct answer. The dealbreaker is the (unrealistic) caveat that the solution must satisfy both sides equally.
Given that literally no conflict in world history has ever been resolved to the equal satisfaction of both/all combatants, it seems even more egregious to make that goal conditional for a dispute as inherently intractable as the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
(I’m also, as more of a procedural concern, not sure that page 475 of 475 is necessarily the best place for me to essentially, reset the whole thread back to zero and start afresh. No, I was late to this party, and will be content to catch the next one. As already established, this dead horse will come due for a fresh beating before long.)
laughing dog
Contributor
You're the one who keeps repeating Israeli propaganda in this thread. We have no reason to think it is the truth.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,192
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
I hope I am not saying too much but Gospel initiated a conversation with me about this. He admitted he went over the line and promised to try to do better. I cannot think of anyone here who has not gone OTL at one time or another.
As for your bullshit...
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,192
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,588
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Mo Mowlam managed it in Northern Ireland, though I have no idea how. That conflict looked as entrenched, unsolvable, and intractible as the one between Israel and Palestine; until it didn't.
As far as I can tell, a large part of her superpower was the rejection of the idea that anyone (no matter their history or affiliation) was someone she could not, or should not, talk to. She was the first Northern Ireland minister to visit the Maze prison, where the most notorious terrorists were kept, and have face-to-face meetings with convicted murderers from both sides of the conflict.
She did all of that while under treatment for a brain tumor; Perhaps her obvious physical frailty was as important as her obvious mental strength, in getting the hard men to back off their violent first resort responses and instead to actually have a conversation.
Sadly, Mo died in 2005, so we will need someone else to deal with this one.
Tigers!
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 5,865
- Location
- On the wing, waiting for a kick.
- Basic Beliefs
- Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
A big difference between NI and Gaza is that both sides (in the ME) have those who want the extinction of the other. It is extremely hard to end a conflicit when either side seems to want to make the other disappear, one way or another.
NI never had that. They had idiots, fools and knaves but never those who sole reason for existence was the elimination of the other.
She did so well and her untimely death was a great loss.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Only one side is trying to exterminate the other in the Israel Palestine conflict
Framing Israels actions in Gaza as that is just relativism. Not cool.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,588
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That's true, but to be fair, Hamas would be too, if only they had the capability.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 49,889
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Netanyahu attempted to displace the Gazans into Egypt, permanently. However, I'm not daft (enough) to suggest that Netanyahu represents the entire or strong majority of the "Israeli side".
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 49,889
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
If Iran wanted to, Israel could have been "dealt with". The Iranian theocracy needs Israel as a "villain". So they really can't wipe out Israel.
Colonel Sanders
Veteran Member
Iran would get its ass handed to it before it could get within 1,000 miles of Israel. Hell, Iran would be lucky if its military wasn't destroyed the moment it crossed into Iraq.
Iran does what it does because it knows it has a less than zero chance of winning a war against Israel. The only thing I'll give them credit for is learning the lessons that Syria, Egypt, and Jordan did when attempting to make "From the River to the Sea" a reality (multiple times btw).
Iran and Hamas are the geopolitical version of two little shits TP'ing their neighbors house and thinking it's an enormous show of force.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 49,889
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Terrorists dropped the WTC towers using two airplanes. Hamas slaughtered nearly 2000 Israelis without any formal military equipment at all. The greatest destruction doesn't need to come from a mobilized military strike.
I know the history. I also know that Jordan and Egypt aren't at war with Israel and haven't been since Carter managed to pull off a coup with that armistice. Iran is tougher because we have so much more baggage with Iran.
That isn't remotely accurate. Hamas is a very small proxy of Iran. Iran is a nation state. The Theocratic leadership in Iran isn't well regarded at home, and it needs a villain, as well as a suffocating state police, to hold onto power. As I keep trying to explain, Iran against Israel is simply political. Hamas is a bunch of angry and hopeless teenagers being used by wealthy despots that probably don't believe any of the crap they say.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You frame the Israel-Palestine conflict as an ancient, insoluble riddle—something that has confounded every generation for millennia. But that framing oversimplifies the situation. The conflict has not endured solely because it’s inherently unresolvable, but because powerful geopolitical actors have repeatedly chosen strategic dominance over genuine compromise, often backing one side’s expansion or violence while obstructing meaningful peace efforts. Any serious discussion of a solution must begin by acknowledging those forces, alongside an honest reckoning with the roles all parties have played in perpetuating the violence.
As for “resetting the thread to zero,” if that means rethinking the framing entirely, I’d agree in principle. The thread’s original framing was far from neutral. It implicitly delegitimized one side, encouraged tribal reactions, and foreclosed the possibility of genuine, balanced analysis. A more dispassionate opening would probably have received far less engagement—not because the issue lacks urgency, but because antagonistic-driven narratives generate more clicks than critical reflection.
By now, it's clear that much of this thread hasn’t been about reducing suffering, advancing justice, or thinking critically about peacebuilding. Instead, it’s been an exercise in narrative control. From the outset, the framing cast one side in moral and historical isolation, while those who attempted to offer historical context or systemic critique were painted as pro-Hamas, antisemitic, or "giddy" at violence. The sudden moral panic over one user expressing frustration on page 470+ feels like a microcosm of the entire dynamic: "Gospel launches unprovoked attack—whatever happened to rational discourse?"
Oh please.
At this point, the real question isn’t “how do we solve the conflict”—though that remains a vital question—but rather, what can we realistically do within the confines of this thread? If the aim is honest, productive discourse—an aim the thread’s original framing clearly did not serve—then a full reframing may be needed. If, however, the thread has already veered too far into emotionally charged territory, perhaps it’s better off relocated to a space where people can continue venting without the illusion of meaningful debate: Up in Flames.