Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

Max forgets to mention that the Nazis in his hypothetical are also building settlements in lands claimed by the Jews, expanding them by confiscating land and resources from the Jews and fragmenting Jewish communities by building Nazi only roads, subjecting Jewish citizens to military law while the Nazis living among them live under Nazi civil law. All of this is in violation of international law - including the Geneva Convention - but the Nazis claim otherwise, even when the highest courts in Naziland also say they’re illegal.

Since we're talking about Gaza, I didn't go into detail on the West Bank, no. Sure, the situation in the West Bank is far from ideal in many ways, but it's certainly fundamentally different from Gaza, and no worse than many other circumstances the western countries routinely tolerate around the world, including, for example, the Donbass, where Russian separatists considered themselves to be under Ukrainian occupation.

I have also said before, and continue to hold, that the institution of "international law" has no legitimacy and is just a tool certain countries use when it suits them. I don't care about international law, I only care about actual harm caused, and, for all that you've said, it's also true that intersettlement between Israelis and Palestinians is just about the only thing history shows can actually reduce ethnic tensions.

Remember that Israel agreed to a two-state solution, and the Palestinian Arabs rejected it, declared war, lost, and got conquered. As far as conquered peoples go in history, they're getting off easy. This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer for things to be different if it were practical, but it is to say that, my god, we should have other priorities than someone building mean roads.

Do you want to know, though, what I think would actually be among the best practically possible outcomes, one the international community could easily bring into being if only enough people in power actually wanted to? I call it a "third-state solution", since it's neither a one-state or a two-state solution. That is to say, for some third party - most likely a UN-backed NATO coalition - to take control of the entire area, both Israel and Palestine, and enforce disarmament on all sides, which will require a very strong crackdown; followed by mutual intersettlement, the compilation of a basic set of overarching laws for the entire territory, and the formation of parallel Jewish, Islamic, and Christian and other minority group legal systems with personal rather than territorial jurisdiction, which would be required to cooperate within the overarching legal system when people from different communities come into dispute. Historically, this kind of intervention by an impartial external empire seems to be the only thing that reliably suppresses ethnic hatred, and even that takes a few generations. But something like this will never happen, because the members of the international community find it more to their own interests to condemn only one side or the other without any interest in the historical context.

[Maximum Spin]

Consider two fathers, probably both just looking to make sure their kids are going to be OK, taught that the other guy is out to get them, when in reality they probably really are just like "wait, you're only 'trying to get me' because you think I'm 'trying to get you'?  No man, really I just want to go to work and make sure my kid ends up better than I do!"

Yeah, the truth is, the western liberalism that produces this way of thinking is honestly just a historical anomaly. Most people really just don't think like that. In many cases because they really are trying to get each other for some stupid ideological reason. You realize this over time as you meet people.

[hector13]

Well you gave a canned history of the conflict and said that the winning side tried to leave the other alone when that’s absolutely not the case. There were settlements in Gaza before Israel pulled out (literally dragging out the settlers in some cases) and the first arrests made under administrative detention were Gazan youths doing the horrible crime of being unemployed young men.

The only reason Israel doesn’t do in Gaza what they do in the West Bank anymore is because they’re not there.

I’m also not particularly bothered by “mean roads”, rather that being one of the tools to ultimately push Palestinians out. You might complain about international law being a bit useless, but it provides an outline of behaviour that’s unacceptable, and thus a framework for the international community to put pressure on sides involved. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than allowing the race to the bottom (like that discussed during the “some war crimes are “”ok””***” chat we had recently in thread) to go unchallenged.

Intersettlement would only really work when there aren’t extremists calling for the blood and/or property of the other side. Unfortunately those are the people in charge on both sides. Until that changes (lol) nothing else will.

[EuchreJack]

I'm actually of the opinion that intersettlement has already occurred, and is probably one of the chief causes of the war.

If two ethic communities intermarry, the patriarchs on both sides lose power. So the patriarchs on both sides attempt to kill anyone that might be in the middle, cutting both sides off for another generation.  In fact, if you see how both Hamas and Israel have acted, they have both focused on killing anyone in the middle areas. In other words, they're killing off the people that have intermarried.  The whole point of the war is the older generation killing off anyone in the younger generation that wants to bridge that gap.

[Maximum Spin]

Well you gave a canned history of the conflict and said that the winning side tried to leave the other alone when that’s absolutely not the case. There were settlements in Gaza before Israel pulled out (literally dragging out the settlers in some cases) and the first arrests made under administrative detention were Gazan youths doing the horrible crime of being unemployed young men.

No, the settlement came AFTER the Six Day War, after Israel annexed the regions, so that was in a different part of the timeline than "tried to leave the other alone". That may still be a little editorializing, as there are border disputes during that period where it's not clear who shot first, but the overall sentiment at the time seems to have been in that direction.

Intersettlement would only really work when there aren’t extremists calling for the blood and/or property of the other side. Unfortunately those are the people in charge on both sides. Until that changes (lol) nothing else will.

As I said, it takes generations.

ETA:
You know, let me add something else. The main position I have in this thread, and I think Strongpoint would agree, is that there's this really widespread vague idea out there, including from some people here, that because Israel does and has done some bad things, the people there deserve to be attacked by Hamas. While many people certainly think that outright, even more have a tendency to allow, passively, that argument to lodge in their brains and color their thinking without acknowledgement. This is the thing I find appalling. The Israelis, even the ones who completely support their government doing bad things, don't deserve to be attacked by Hamas any more than the Palestinians, even the ones who completely support their quasi-government doing bad things, deserve to be attacked by Israel. And when you honestly compare the tactics of the two, Hamas really does come off the worse, not that it even matters much. Even if Israel stops doing bad things, Hamas will still want to eradicate Israelis. Israel, on the other hand, has historically shown again and again that they do not want to eradicate Palestinians, even if they don't like them very much. Hamas has clearly indicated they have no interest in any kind of two-state solution or even a ceasefire; Israel accepted a two-state solution that was more favorable to Palestine in the first place and has repeatedly acceded to ceasefires. As I keep pointing out, Israel wanting to be rid of neighbors who have shown them nothing but hostility over and over again bears an awful lot of resemblance to Ukraine and the Russians - yes, including the "settlements", just as Ukraine tried to encourage the Ukrainization of the Donbass. I just want to see these nuances acknowledged.

[Strongpoint]

I'm actually of the opinion that intersettlement has already occurred, and is probably one of the chief causes of the war.

If two ethic communities intermarry, the patriarchs on both sides lose power. So the patriarchs on both sides attempt to kill anyone that might be in the middle, cutting both sides off for another generation.  In fact, if you see how both Hamas and Israel have acted, they have both focused on killing anyone in the middle areas. In other words, they're killing off the people that have intermarried.  The whole point of the war is the older generation killing off anyone in the younger generation that wants to bridge that gap.

It would be an interesting hypothesis if Israeli Arabs didn't exist. They are the middle area and they are not the target of the war. Even Hamas doesn't make Arabs who are loyal to Israel their priority target under some explanation like "traitors that deserve to die"

And no, there is no Jewish presence in Gaza or West Bank. Any unarmed Jew will be lynched on the spot in both places. There is no concept of a "good Jew" there, even in some form of racist "good N". Even those Jews who hate Israel and want its destruction are not welcome in Palestine and WILL be killed. And settlers do not really interact with locals in non-violent ways.

And before you start - Arabs and Palestinians are different entities. They are not in the eyes of most Israelis, they don't recognize Palestinians as a separate nation, just a subset of Arabs (which I find silly because all key components of a nation are there). In a similar fashion, Palestinians believe that Arab citizens of Israel are Palestinians not some "silly thing" like Arab Israeli.

[EuchreJack]

Thank you Strongpoint, I was using the wrong word.

"Intersettlement" is not what I meant at all. "Intermarriage" is what I meant. Or maybe not even marriage, just Palestinian-Israeli children.

When two groups live next to each other, there will invariably be children. This is a good thing, unless you want to keep the groups separate.

It explains why both sides are trying to kill off the folks "just over the border".

I think this is actually worth mentioning, as the intermarriage of Israelis and Palestinians is the only real peaceful future.
If enough people of future generations see themselves as both Israeli and Palestinian, then simple beautiful paper and words can fix everything.

It also explains why both sides desperately need "settlers" from outside their group, to keep the intermarried people marginalized and outnumbered by the "pure believers".

...I can see many parallels between Israel and America. No wonder we're their biggest ally.

[Strongpoint]

If you want the blending of Arab and Jewish cultures into one it is actually happening already in Israel. There is serious resistance to it from religious and nationalist groups (which are almost the same in the case of ethnicity defined by religion) but it is happening. A joint Israeli (not Jewish or Arab - Israeli) identity is forming. Mixed families are happening even if uncommon (again, religion. There is no such thing as civil marriage in Israel.)


But when we talk not about superethnic group Arabs but about specifically Palestinians thing you propose is outright impossible. Any Palestinian who marries a Jew will be hated by the majority of their community, effectively stopping being a part of it. In fact, he (or especially she) has a good chance of being killed on the spot for dishonoring the family. You don't understand the extent of hate there.

What marriage are we talking about if any unarmed Jew that appears in Gaza or the West Bank will be either taken hostage by militants or lynched on the spot? People love speaking about the "Apartheid" of Israel, while true apartheid exists in Palestinian-controlled areas, Jews can't enter there.

[bloop_bleep]

And no, there is no Jewish presence in Gaza or West Bank. Any unarmed Jew will be lynched on the spot in both places. There is no concept of a "good Jew" there, even in some form of racist "good N". Even those Jews who hate Israel and want its destruction are not welcome in Palestine and WILL be killed. And settlers do not really interact with locals in non-violent ways.

What on Earth are you talking about? No Jewish presence in the West Bank? Have you been around the past few years? Every unarmed Jew gets lynched? Who, exactly, are you under the impression starts the conflicts between settlers and local Palestinians in the West Bank?

You are making up fictions to try to paint a picture of Palestinians as all bloodthirsty subhuman animals and not regular human beings who by and large want to live a life in peace like everybody else.

EDIT:

You know, let me add something else. The main position I have in this thread, and I think Strongpoint would agree, is that there's this really widespread vague idea out there, including from some people here, that because Israel does and has done some bad things, the people there deserve to be attacked by Hamas. While many people certainly think that outright, even more have a tendency to allow, passively, that argument to lodge in their brains and color their thinking without acknowledgement. This is the thing I find appalling. The Israelis, even the ones who completely support their government doing bad things, don't deserve to be attacked by Hamas any more than the Palestinians, even the ones who completely support their quasi-government doing bad things, deserve to be attacked by Israel. And when you honestly compare the tactics of the two, Hamas really does come off the worse, not that it even matters much. Even if Israel stops doing bad things, Hamas will still want to eradicate Israelis. Israel, on the other hand, has historically shown again and again that they do not want to eradicate Palestinians, even if they don't like them very much. Hamas has clearly indicated they have no interest in any kind of two-state solution or even a ceasefire; Israel accepted a two-state solution that was more favorable to Palestine in the first place and has repeatedly acceded to ceasefires. As I keep pointing out, Israel wanting to be rid of neighbors who have shown them nothing but hostility over and over again bears an awful lot of resemblance to Ukraine and the Russians - yes, including the "settlements", just as Ukraine tried to encourage the Ukrainization of the Donbass. I just want to see these nuances acknowledged.

You can spend every other waking word reiterating that terrorist attacks against civilians are entirely unacceptable and entirely disconnected from the point and still Israel ride-or-diers will insist it is your unobservable, ephemeral, terrorist sympathies sequestered away in the crystal plane that makes you want fewer civilians to be massacred all the time.

[hector13]

There are 144 settlements in the West Bank, 12 in East Jerusalem. There are also unofficial outposts, which the Israeli government find difficult to count because they’re illegal under Israeli law.

The presence of settlements in the West Bank is the basic of the basic stuff. You have to be willfully ignorant to not know that there are settlements there.

You can spend every other waking word reiterating that terrorist attacks against civilians are entirely unacceptable and entirely disconnected from the point and still Israel ride-or-diers will insist it is your unobservable, ephemeral, terrorist sympathies sequestered away in the crystal plane that makes you want fewer civilians to be massacred all the time.

Sounds familiar.

[Strongpoint]

*facepalms* You guys are something. Sometimes I think you are dyslexic.

Settlers are not unarmed Jews. They are radical armed groups who are more than ready to defend themselves with deadly force and they live in well-protected isolated communities. They are not a part of Palestinian society in any way, shape, or form (unlike Arabs who are part of Israeli society). The probability of one of the settlers marrying a Palestinian (read what I was discussing with EuchreJack) has a probability of around zero.

So yes, I repeat, there is no Jewish presence among Palestinians of Gaza or the West Bank. There is a total apartheid. Jews are not allowed in unless they go uninvited with weapons. Anyone who is foolish enough to do otherwise will likely have a very unpleasant death. Jews are different, Arabs do live in Israel, even those who self-identify as Palestinians and don't hide their hate but don't commit actual crimes.


And yes, Palestinians despise the very idea of peace with Jews. They are all for war. What they dislike in war is LOSING. Their key national idea is to eliminate all and every Jew out of Palestine\Israel. Saying otherwise means you understand nothing about the conflict.

[hector13]

Eh, not worth it.

[Starver]

I just want to point out that that, in that summary, on the one hand Palestinians[1] can't live with Jews amongst them. On the other hand, Palestinians[1] can live amongst Jews.

There is more to it than that, of course.


[1] - shorthand term, because it's largely not actually wrong.