Why there's no hope of peace in Israel

[Jarhyn]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.

 

[PyramidHead]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.

You treat the assault on Palestinian freedom and self-determination as something that happened long ago, when it's actually an ongoing encroachment of their homes and disenfranchisement of their people. Israel is holding elections this week, and in this beacon of democracy in the middle east, no Palestinian living in Israel will be able to cast a vote, even though their lives are materially affected by the outcome. These are not the innocent descendants of invaders that are long gone, they are the active participants in an apartheid state. I don't recognize a statute of limitations for settler-colonial genocide that continues unabated for decades and will not stop until the original inhabitants are wiped out. I have no beef with the Israeli people insofar as they are not complicit, unless they vote for people who carry out the expansion, in which case fuck them; their act of voting for people who openly call for further oppression denies them any claim of innocence in my eyes, and in the eyes of the people whose homes are destroyed because of those votes.

 

[Gun Nut]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

How about in the analogy I was responding to? did you decipher any relevant bit? A group of people living for multiple generations in a country can be compared with a new squatter in your house... how?

 

[PyramidHead]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

How about in the analogy I was responding to? did you decipher any relevant bit? A group of people living for multiple generations in a country can be compared with a new squatter in your house... how?

No, I couldn't make heads or tails of any of it. You should've just said that if it's what you meant. See my response to Jahryn. Squatters who start in one room of your house and gradually (through their descendants, let's say) take over more and more rooms, squishing you (or your descendants, let's say) into the equivalent of a guest bedroom and not letting you leave it, controlling what you're able to eat and drink in your guest bedroom, letting you walk around the rest of the house without giving you the ability to change the conditions you're living under, and indiscriminately murdering any of your family who resists or tries to reclaim the rooms that were taken over. Year after year, they hold elections and keep replacing the previous leaders--who are happy with the ongoing process of claiming more rooms for themselves--with new ones--who are similarly happy with said process and fully intend to continue it. The most sympathetic people from the world outside your house, despite the clear injustice of your situation, are people who just wish you'd agree to coexist with the new occupants and stop causing such a fuss. If you just agreed not to ask for the rest of your house back, they might be willing to vacate almost half of its rooms for you. Never mind the fact that you used to have half the rooms, and that didn't stop them from taking three quarters, and four fifths, and so on. What you'd really like back is what your ancestors rightly regarded as their home, all of it, without exception. I don't think you're in the wrong in that situation for not taking the deal given to you by the same people who perpetuate your miserable situation, even though they are only the descendants of the people who initiated it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Because the people who are there are not the people who invaded. All those folks are dead or in retirement homes now. The people there now didn't ask for that to be their home nor demand it. It always has been their home from their perspective. At best you can ask them to share it.

You treat the assault on Palestinian freedom and self-determination as something that happened long ago, when it's actually an ongoing encroachment of their homes and disenfranchisement of their people. Israel is holding elections this week, and in this beacon of democracy in the middle east, no Palestinian living in Israel will be able to cast a vote, even though their lives are materially affected by the outcome. These are not the innocent descendants of invaders that are long gone, they are the active participants in an apartheid state. I don't recognize a statute of limitations for settler-colonial genocide that continues unabated for decades and will not stop until the original inhabitants are wiped out. I have no beef with the Israeli people insofar as they are not complicit, unless they vote for people who carry out the expansion, in which case fuck them; their act of voting for people who openly call for further oppression denies them any claim of innocence in my eyes, and in the eyes of the people whose homes are destroyed because of those votes.

I find the denial of representation or freedom to move or leave repugnant. These are things that need to change. The Apartheid state needs to change.

Regardless of whether there is one state or two, people deserve representation in government, freedom to go and be where they please, equal rights concerning ownership of land, and access to quality education.

All the people currently expressing a claim to the region deserve to have those rights respected, no more, no less. I will not accept any bullshit rhetoric that one side or the other deserves anything less. There are atrocities all around.

 

[Trausti]

Why not a three state solution? Hamas and Fatah will not share.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At this time, there is little hope for true peace in that region. But to place the responsibility or blame for that one party is to ignore the perfidy on the part of all the parties that drives the fundamental lack of trust. It is a vicious circle that will only stop under two scenarios: utter destruction of one side or the fortitude and courage of longstanding leadership on the part of all parties that encourages and engenders the necessary trust to deliver and maintain true peace. It is clear that none of the current leaders of the gov't of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza are willing or fit to do the latter.

This isn't even a matter of trust. The majority of Palestinians say they want to continue the war even after a "peace" agreement.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not a three state solution? Hamas and Fatah will not share.

I've been saying this for years.

While I do not believe it would bring peace it very well might make things better between Israel and Fatah.

 

[Arctish]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.

When did the war start? Tell us the date.

 

[PyramidHead]

My pen is (having a "stroke") get it? haha.

While it is true that an analogy can go only as far as it was intended to be used, I am trying to find in what way it parallels the discussion in ANY way.

But thank you for asking about my health.

The question is about whether it's permissible to displace people who are living somewhere, declare it yours, and then expect them to honor a "two state" solution on the grounds of you being able to say "we are here now". I couldn't decipher anything relevant in your word salad regarding that question.

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

Holy shit, and you're okay with that. Loren... did they ask the Palestinians if it was okay to change "the government in charge"?

 

[PyramidHead]

I find the denial of representation or freedom to move or leave repugnant. These are things that need to change. The Apartheid state needs to change.

Regardless of whether there is one state or two, people deserve representation in government, freedom to go and be where they please, equal rights concerning ownership of land, and access to quality education.

All the people currently expressing a claim to the region deserve to have those rights respected, no more, no less. I will not accept any bullshit rhetoric that one side or the other deserves anything less. There are atrocities all around.

But you're providing a textbook archetype of bullshit rhetoric with your last sentence. Do you realize how many times that's been employed, and always to excuse the acts of oppressors? What do you call people who benefit from the violent repression of a region's inhabitants and democratically elect people who openly advocate for extending their prison colony-like conditions, if not undeserving of the right to remain there? At what point does the wrongness of living in Omelas compel you to walk away from it?

"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin. With deliberately both vague and vivid descriptions, the narrator depicts a summer festival in the utopian city of Omelas, whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.[1] "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" was nominated for the Locus Award for Best Short Fiction in 1974[2] and won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974.[3]

 

[Jarhyn]

I find the denial of representation or freedom to move or leave repugnant. These are things that need to change. The Apartheid state needs to change.

Regardless of whether there is one state or two, people deserve representation in government, freedom to go and be where they please, equal rights concerning ownership of land, and access to quality education.

All the people currently expressing a claim to the region deserve to have those rights respected, no more, no less. I will not accept any bullshit rhetoric that one side or the other deserves anything less. There are atrocities all around.

But you're providing a textbook archetype of bullshit rhetoric with your last sentence. Do you realize how many times that's been employed, and always to excuse the acts of oppressors? What do you call people who benefit from the violent repression of a region's inhabitants and democratically elect people who openly advocate for extending their prison colony-like conditions, if not undeserving of the right to remain there? At what point does the wrongness of living in Omelas compel you to walk away from it?

"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is a 1973 work of short philosophical fiction by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin. With deliberately both vague and vivid descriptions, the narrator depicts a summer festival in the utopian city of Omelas, whose prosperity depends on the perpetual misery of a single child.[1] "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" was nominated for the Locus Award for Best Short Fiction in 1974[2] and won the Hugo Award for Best Short Story in 1974.[3]

I keep pointing this out, and you keep ignoring the fact, that compromise should be expected of everyone.

The other night, I had the joy of attending a concert by The Hu. There was a native American man standing a bit closer to the stage carrying something. Eventually, he holds high his flag: a Canadian flag held upside down marked with the words "de-colonize". I support both this man and the Palestinians in their goals of decolonization to equal extents. Which is to say I laugh at them and wish they would just shut the fuck up and ask for realistic things.

All over the world, there are people who have been displaced. The answer to the displacement today can only exist reasonably in a solution that exists for today. People suffer in reservations and in the west bank and other shitty situations all over the world. This is an evil. The solution is always going to be negotiating, paying the costs to bring people into an independent and acceptable state within society, and treating them with the full measure of representation and independence anyone else is allowed in that society. The answer is NOT forcing people into continuing in this imbalanced situation OR the people who currently live there giving up absolutely everything that has been built and worked on since then. You don't build a city on suffering absent the continued consent of those who suffer, obviously. And if the sufferer does not consent and everything falls because of that, everything falls. But this is not the situation where a compromise can or should cause the world to fall.

Compromise is necessary and your rhetoric is bullshit.

 

[PyramidHead]

But you're providing a textbook archetype of bullshit rhetoric with your last sentence. Do you realize how many times that's been employed, and always to excuse the acts of oppressors? What do you call people who benefit from the violent repression of a region's inhabitants and democratically elect people who openly advocate for extending their prison colony-like conditions, if not undeserving of the right to remain there? At what point does the wrongness of living in Omelas compel you to walk away from it?

I keep pointing this out, and you keep ignoring the fact, that compromise should be expected of everyone.

That's two strikes in the ballgame of bullshit rhetoric: all sides are to blame, compromise is the way forward. Let's see if you get to the third.

The other night, I had the joy of attending a concert by The Hu. There was a native American man standing a bit closer to the stage carrying something. Eventually, he holds high his flag: a Canadian flag held upside down marked with the words "de-colonize". I support both this man and the Palestinians black people in their goals of decolonization full equality under the law to equal extents. Which is to say I laugh at them and wish they would just shut the fuck up and ask for realistic things.

All over the world, there are people who have been displaced. enslaved. The answer to the displacement slavery today can only exist reasonably in a solution that exists for today. People suffer in reservations plantations and in the west bank Confederacyand other shitty situations all over the world. This is an evil. The solution is always going to be negotiating, paying the costs to bring people into an independent and acceptable state within society, and treating them with the full measure of representation and independence anyone else is allowed in that society. The answer is NOT forcing people into continuing in this imbalanced situation OR the people who currently live there giving up absolutely everything that has been built and worked on since then. You don't build a city trade of humans on suffering absent the continued consent of those who suffer, obviously. And if the sufferer does not consent and everything falls because of that, everything falls. But this is not the situation where a compromise can or should cause the world to fall.

Compromise is necessary and your rhetoric is bullshit.

Not quite but I won't put it past you yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's two strikes in the ballgame of bullshit rhetoric: all sides are to blame, compromise is the way forward. Let's see if you get to the third.

The other night, I had the joy of attending a concert by The Hu. There was a native American man standing a bit closer to the stage carrying something. Eventually, he holds high his flag: a Canadian flag held upside down marked with the words "de-colonize". I support both this man and the Palestinians black people in their goals of decolonization full equality under the law to equal extents. Which is to say I laugh at them and wish they would just shut the fuck up and ask for realistic things.

All over the world, there are people who have been displaced. enslaved. The answer to the displacement slavery today can only exist reasonably in a solution that exists for today. People suffer in reservations plantations and in the west bank Confederacyand other shitty situations all over the world. This is an evil. The solution is always going to be negotiating, paying the costs to bring people into an independent and acceptable state within society, and treating them with the full measure of representation and independence anyone else is allowed in that society. The answer is NOT forcing people into continuing in this imbalanced situation OR the people who currently live there giving up absolutely everything that has been built and worked on since then. You don't build a city trade of humans on suffering absent the continued consent of those who suffer, obviously. And if the sufferer does not consent and everything falls because of that, everything falls. But this is not the situation where a compromise can or should cause the world to fall.

Compromise is necessary and your rhetoric is bullshit.

Not quite but I won't put it past you yet.

Decolonization is not "full equality under the law". The first is leaving an area and reversing the Apartheid in a full 180. The oppressors become the oppressed. The oppressed become the oppressors. The king is dead, long live the king!

I am not going to agree with you that the people of Israel need to leave Isreal. They do need to give up their oppression, and bring the Palestinian people full equality under the law.

Both the Palestinians and the Israili government are being unreasonable. One wants all the Israelis dead or gone. The other side wants all the Palestinians powerless, in ghettos or dead or both.

Neither of those positions is reasonable. YOU are not being reasonable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.

When did the war start? Tell us the date.

There's no one date you can point to because it was a pattern of escalating conflict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

Holy shit, and you're okay with that. Loren... did they ask the Palestinians if it was okay to change "the government in charge"?

The majority gets to decide what government they want.

Should I take up arms because of what the GOP is doing?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Decolonization is not "full equality under the law". The first is leaving an area and reversing the Apartheid in a full 180. The oppressors become the oppressed. The oppressed become the oppressors. The king is dead, long live the king!

I am not going to agree with you that the people of Israel need to leave Isreal. They do need to give up their oppression, and bring the Palestinian people full equality under the law.

Both the Palestinians and the Israili government are being unreasonable. One wants all the Israelis dead or gone. The other side wants all the Palestinians powerless, in ghettos or dead or both.

Neither of those positions is reasonable. YOU are not being reasonable.

That's all well said, but most of the people on the planet still act as if war and aggression and inequality are all quite reasonable. We kill to stay alive, just like any other animal. Our instincts are presently stronger than any rational thoughts we may collectively possess. We're more feeling than thinking creatures. The Israelis and Palestinians need a common bogeyman.

 

[Arctish]

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

The displacement stemmed from the war--a war started by the Arabs. Thus your attack should be applied to them.

When did the war start? Tell us the date.

There's no one date you can point to because it was a pattern of escalating conflict.

If you don't know when it started, how can you know how it started?

 

[PyramidHead]

The creation of Israel displaced nobody, all it did was change the government in charge.

Holy shit, and you're okay with that. Loren... did they ask the Palestinians if it was okay to change "the government in charge"?

The majority gets to decide what government they want.

Unless they are Arabs.

Should I take up arms because of what the GOP is doing?

YES, why do you think that's some kind of "gotcha"?