“The same approach which treats sins common to the human race as peculiarities of ‘our society’ often also makes the fatal error of confusing victimhood with virtue, by lining up on the side of the victim, instead of lining up on the side of a moral principle. Yet nothing has been more common in history than for victims to become oppressors when they gain power…” — Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture
The power of that lesson is to apply it bilaterally, rather than selectively. Applying it blindly in only one direciton turns it into a weapon rather than reflective wisdom.
Some will see it as applying only to Israel as the former victims of Nazi extermination, later becoming oppressive to Palestinians, feeling justified.
Others will see it as a warning that Palestinians, the current designated victims, ever gain the power to accomplish their aims, they would try to exterminate Israelis, feeling justified.
The deep lesson is that both can be true, and that ANY victims can become the oppressors, period. If we get too emotionally attached on one demographic, we can slip into seeing only half of that picture, and turning that insight into a framing for perpetuating the seesaw of oppression, rather than escaping from it.
Though there is absolute truth, there is also complexity. In war, there are our guys and their guys, and, in our minds, their guys are bad guys. While in Vietnam, the guys trying to kill our guys (and me) were my bad guys. But they were trying to kill us because we were killing their guys. We were their bad guys. Nothing makes you decide who the bad guys are than if they are trying to kill you. I know this with high assurance.
In public opinion of what's going on in Gaza, we are for the most part spectators. I have no kin there. Most of us don't. Who the bad guys are is not the standard "They killed my brother" of the people who are there. Many subject themselves to the accepted view of their tribes. People want to belong. As irrational as all things in tribal partisan political politics, a curse on humanity. Does my opinion based upon morality as I understand it from afar matter to the people in the killing fields?
Unfortunately, people go on university campuses and stick a microphone in the face of students who are seen as pro Hamas because they think what Isriel (my enemy's enemy is my friend) is doing is wrong and they often will also tell you that men can have babies and if you disagree you are a transphobe denying that trans people exist. All you need to do is show people holding a certain view are idiots based upon their view on an unrelated subject and all of their opinions become null and void. The most effective tool of the political right.
"In public opinion of what's going on in Gaza, we are for the most part spectators."
This is, of course, true. But if you look at the last twenty years of history, say, we're more involved than most people appreciate.
It's quite probable the Iraq war wouldn't have happened (or at least would have gone differently) without Netanyahu's assurances to congress that it would bring stability to the Middle East. (It also wouldn't have created ISIL).
The only reason the houthis are firing rockets at ships in the Red Sea is the Genocide in Gaza.
The Israeli occupation in Palestine was the number one motivation cited by Bin Laden for 9/11 in his "letter to the West."
This stuff does affect the rest of the world. So while I wish we lived in the kind of world where the simple, moral, "killing children so you can steal their homes is bad" argument were enough, even the self-interest argument is worth deeper consideration than it gets.
Your murder story is confusing. I don't think anything about Israel's murderous brutality needs a prelude.
I don't think people are indifferent to this; we're seeing several trends coming together in the worst way.
1) 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 Atrocities everywhere, Trump grabbing the news cycle, people are exhausted, mass shootings. We live in a fucking slaughterhouse and take refuge in entertainment.
2) 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 Making value judgments is what the religious right does. We don't want to be like them, do we? Everything is subjective, isn't it? Besides, their neighbors hate them (I can't imagine why) and, as GWB recited so many times, Izrl hazzarat to DEFENN isself, doesn't it?
3) 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 "I'm a conservative, therefore I unreservedly support Israel." "I'm "woke so I unreservedly suppport the Palestinians" Neither giving a moment's thought to what they're endorsing. Aside: I've known both at Microsoft and elsewhere; some Israelis are fine people, most are arrogant shits I wouldn't throw a life preserver to. Most Muslims I've known were such polite and gracious people that I felt like an asshole. Some are cold and distant to others not of their faith. I'll take the Muslims. And the worst I have heard about Israel comes from friends who live there or who visited.
I could name others. I've followed Netanyahu over half my life, and he's on my top five list of People Who Need Their Heads Ventilated. He is a monstrously bad man, and the settlers who control the government deserve a Holocaust like my great-grandparents died in.
Personal: my sister, whom I have never been close to despite years of attempts, has decided that since three of our grandparents were unobservant Jews that she is now Jewish, taking the ceremonies of conversion (though for reasons unknown to me, I am not supposed to call it that). She doesn't believe in God any more than I do, it's just her newest clique. She's always been about cliques.
In my mind, even opposing Trump personally but voting Republican means endorsing the destruction of the natural kingdom and the destruction of democracy; to become a Jew at this time is tantamount to taking the limbs off a Palestinian child. She is dead to me now. Whichever us us survives the other will not be attending the other's funeral.
Sad, but at 70 most people unclutter their lives of people who are not helping, Bye, Liz, thanks a lot mocking my stutter in front of your clique in high school. Move to the West Bank and fuck off.
"Your murder story is confusing. I don't think anything about Israel's murderous brutality needs a prelude."
I think there are an awful lot of people (I've spoken to many of them), some of whom even argue the Zionist side passionately, who know next-to-nothing about the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Many people only started paying attention on Oct 7th. So I think it's useful to give each article something of an "on ramp."
As for indifference, again, I've spoken to a lot of people who are more or-less indifferent. Not necessarily because they're bad people, but because, as you say, there's a degree of outrage fatigue, especially for a conflict halfway around the world that's been raging for 76 years.
Almost everybody who takes a clear-headed look at the facts ends up at least recognising that Israel's fanaticism is the main obstacle to peace here. But thanks to the enormous bias in the media, and, of course, Hamas' brutality being smeared across all Palestinian people, communicating the facts is very challenging.
Respectfully, I think that your characterization of the history of this conflict is missing a serious back story. I didn’t see it mentioned that Izzy and her family were moving into the apartment because it was the only place they could be, relatively safe.
The reality is that the first waves of Jewish— well I really think the rest of this comes down to what noun you want to follow that— but the reality is that the first waves of Jewish migrants, settlers (potentially your word), or refugees (I most align with this word) were a group of people who were fleeing mass pogroms in Eastern Europe ; when it wasn’t outright genocidal, they were being ostracized politically and treated as second class citizens. Such was the case from the late 19th century to the early 1920s. The Zionist project or dream didn’t emerge out of a vacuum, it was a response to a genuine and persistent antisemitism— and we all know where that ended up some twenty years later.
It is also important to note— and I believe this is vital— that at a time when Jewish people were fleeing Eastern Europe in mass numbers, the rest of their world turned their back on them. The United States and Western Europe had placed severe limits on Jewish immigration; and Great Britains solution to this conflagration of Jewish refugees was to utilize one of their actual colonies to house them— chiefly because they did not want them.
It is one of the great tragedies of the world that at a time when so many Jews sought refuge from Nazi germany— the world turned their backs on them. I believe that if we are being honest that history, that shared responsibility of Western Europe and the US, that is one of the roots of this cause. So no Izzy did not simply invite her family into the apartment. They fled there when the entire world was either trying to kill them or refused to help.
Any telling of the origins of situation that doesn’t account for this is missing a vital piece. And the Jewish migrants or refugees or if you insist settlers who came during this time certainly do not fit the traditional definition of settler colonialism. They had no mother country backing them. The rest of the world was either hell bent on killing them or was hell bent on keeping them out of their country. In either case that is how Izzy and her family ended up there.
Such disingenuous, dishonest, pearl clutching - if not just outright channeling of propaganda - ignores, oh let’s say, Arab-Palestinian refusal to allow the Israeli state to live in peace, to even propose an equitable peace plan, let alone just sign up to the ones that were presented. Decades of hostage taking - a war crime - suicide bombings, random knife and gun attacks in Israeli cities, war declared on Israel on 1948, 1967 and 1973, not to mention two millennia of antisemitism.
Your moral admonishment of Israel allows the Palestinians to be absolved of any agency, the typical stance of a bigotry of low expectations, that having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel should just ignore the indiscriminate bombing of its people, the failure of the UN to keep Hezbollah to the terms of the ceasefire, the transformation of Gaza into a military base of operations from which to attack Israel.
You never seemingly once seem to reflect that ham ass surrendering and returning the hostages would end the war. You present a stance swathed in the concern of morality but it’s the same old racist bullshit that’s happy to see Jewish people die but immediately refuse the reality of warfare. Ham ass - the only genocidal actor in the region (not counting Hezbollah) - started this, they chose violence - again. They started this, they could end this - this is all on them, or more accurately, their billionaire managers in Qatar and Iran.
Sorry if Israel and Israelis don’t just let themselves be slaughtered like in the good old days. It’s weasels like you who would have appeased the Third Reich and you don’t even have the courage of your convictions to admit why, passing it off in the grotesque inversion of Arab-coloniser aggression becoming victimhood. For all your moral grandstanding you’re just another useful idiot.
Except that Izzy and Paul never lived “happily together”. Paul had in fact a history dripping in Izzy’s blood. Moreover, Paul himself originated from a completely different neighborhood and had no ownership in the apartment.
Note I said Muslims. Not Palestinians. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. Not all Muslims are radical. But a very large percentage are as the many of the governments of Muslim countries indicate.
Palestinians don’t “deserve” their own country any more than the Kurds, Barcelonians, etc deserve their own country. They need to have the might to maintain their country. It’s not the worlds responsibility to decide who does and who does not deserve to have a country.
I find it so telling that people are happy to judge Muslims by their governments but will immediately complain if you judge them by their government.
Does Trump represent Christianity? Was America a Christian nation when it was segregated or when half of it it fought to maintain slavery or when gay people risked being executed for being gay? If so, is Christianity a fundamentally wicked religion?
It’s just so infuriatingly bigoted and lazy.
And yes, nobody “deserves” their own country. This is one of the reasons why this “Israel’s right to exist” trope is so annoying.
But PEOPLE have rights, to life, to freedom, to live in their homes and not be forcibly displaced. The rules of war state that it’s a war crime to deliberately destroy civilian homes in an attempt to drive people from their land. These are the rights that Israel has spent decades violating.
Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from.
The history of humanity doesn't point to any of the following as what human's do:
- But thankfully, there are still people who understand the lessons of the atrocities that Koestler spent a decade screaming about.
- People with the courage to face the truth, even if they don’t like what they see.
- People who refuse to accept that violence and hatred are their only options.
- People who are willing to fight against dehumanisation, nationalism, and cruelty whenever and wherever it appears.
In fact all history supports what Israel did and is doing.
Why does that matter?
Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should acknowledge the reality of how humanity works rather than focus either on your ideological view of how humanity is "supposed to" work or their ideologic view that Allah is God and the land from the river to the sea is theirs.
This is an ideological war. From my perspective, between the values of the West (which have gotten a little fuzzy lately) and the values of the Muslim world.
The west has taken in many Muslims who have left the Muslim world because of the Muslim violence. How many have the Muslim countries taken in?
Maybe, just maybe, we stick with the reality of the human condition versus your ideology or the various Muslim ideologies or even the various Jewish ideologies.
"Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from."
It comes from my very firm belief that a world where we would all agree that we should oppose the Nazis, say, is better than a world where we shrug our shoulders as Hitler kills millions of Jews.
No, this isn't an ideological war, at least not in the sense you see to mean it. It's a war against a coloniser and the people who were colonised. And all I'm arguing for at this point is that the coloniser abides by international law and stops killing innocent people in its pursuit of more land. This mindset is reflective of someone actually upholding the stated values of the West, not just paying lip service to them.
I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree with this or you're just doing an impression of someone who does for some reason, but I think this is too intrinsic to argue about. Either you believe in fairness and basic human decency across the board or you don't. If you don't that's your right. But I don't want to live in the world you're advocating.
I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist.
I understand that human condition creates situations like the Nazi's, Genghis Khan, Stalin, McCarthy, Trump, and the Muslim world (which colonized and converted more areas than Alexander the Great).
You do understand that if the Muslim world hadn't colonized the area you call Palestine in the 8th century, it would be predominately Jewish and Christian. You seem to arbitrarily think that the last 100 or 200 years is more significant than the last 2000 years or maybe 4000 years. I don't understand that logic.
The human condition is clear, might makes right. The Muslims had the might in the 8th century to colonize much of the world. The West had the might in the last 400 years to colonize much of the world. In the end, I prefer the West ideology over the Muslim ideology. You may think that makes me an Islamophobe. It doesn't.
As HAMAS clearly says, the Muslims don't fear death. The west loves life. I prefer the west perspective.
So in a discussion of Israel versus the Palestinians (e.g. radical Muslims), I overwhelmingly support Israel. As a gay man I can be myself in Israel. In almost every Muslim country including the Gaza and the Palestinian parts of the West bank, I would be imprisoned or in many cases put to death by Muslims. Not a society I endorse.
You're an idealist. You believe in irrelevant concepts like the UN and ICC. They are meaningless and have caused more problems from my perspective than they have solved. As for human decency. Human decency is not something that can be universally defined (e.g. the UN Human Rights charter which is in conflict with itself. It protects the right to religious belief both personally and in community). The Muslim world believes Sharia law is human decency. The West believes in Democracy (such as it is) as human decency. The Pope believes the Catholic Church defines human decency. I could go on.
I believe in the historical reality of the human condition. Likely genetically driven. That reality has produced humanity today. Babylon 5 did a great job of representing the struggle between the concept of decency and the concepts of the need to evolve through military struggle. Evolution does not care about human decency. It does align with military struggle.
What you don't understand when you make statements like "I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree" is that you are proving my point. The differences in our views is the human condition. I believe might makes right. You believe in some idealistic concept of we all just need to get along. That is the multiculturalism concept. Many people (including my Danish relatives) no longer believe in multiculturalism. Muslim culture and the West culture are incompatible. Just as Chinese culture (i.e. supporting an authoritarian government) is not compatible with the west culture.
The question for the west is whether we continue to believe that multiculturalism can work. I believe that answer is clear no!
"I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist."
Okay, great. So you recognise that there are times when it's necessary to act against injustice and/or evil. The question is, do you ever recognise that AHEAD of time? Because judging by the arguments you consistently make, I'm pretty positive you'd have been among the people in the early 1940s arguing that there was no need to stop Hitler or get involved with WWII. Or the people arguing against de-segregation.
"You're an idealist for wanting to end segregation," you'd have said. "There's no way people will accept an integrated society."
Or, "The African slaves lack the military and economic power to fight the slave trade. Might makes right!"
It's only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it seems obvious to you that the Nazis had to be stopped and that those people were wrong.
So again, how is it that you are making your distinction? Is it really as self-centred as how accepting they are of gay people? Do people raised in cultures you disagree with not deserve to live? Is that it?
And yes, very obviously, I consider events that happened within a human lifetime to be more important than events that took place 800 or 2000 years ago. What exactly is confusing or arbitrary about that? Israel is 76 years old. There are many people alive today older than the state of Israel who remember being forced from their homes. Obviously that matters more than who did what 800 years ago.
I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.
The Palestinians I've known were Christians. I visited the Vatican with one of them. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and became friends with some of them. I didn't care for the way they treat women but they were often nice enough to me, a man.
One of my trainees came in the shop behind me and poked me in the head with a gun and said, Dave, I'm going to kill you. I disarmed him without touching him up but I was the only American in the shop with six Saudis so I didn't shove the gun up his ass, I put it in a safe.
The next day Prince Turkey summoned me to his office after word went around that one of the Saudies tried to kill his trainer. It was his low IQ idea of a joke. He asked me how I wanted Ali punished. I told him that I didn't. He seemed relieved, I think he would have if I asked.
My Korean Taekwondo instructor was teaching rich and well placed children, including little Prince Turkey and requested that I go and teach some classes. The kids were a big slack and he suggested that I bring my daughters, red/black poom belt holders that were more skilled than me. Not fond out being shown up by girls they shaped you and we had some good classes.
My older daughter, just entering puberty was gazelle-like and was to do a flying over a row of chairs board break in a demonstration for the father Prince Turkey. They brought in someone from Riyad who could jump over a longer row of chairs.
When all is said and done, my experiences with people from the middle east have been mostly cordial and friendly. The exception being my kill the last Jew trainee that I developed a friendship with. He gave me his recipe for a fruit punch that included their frisbee bread (yeast) with the words, don't leave the bread over two days or it will be too strong for your children. How do you say this is my wine recipe without saying it's my wine recipe. ;0)
At any rate, people bring in religion to attract allies, but I think it is more about the bloody land grab. Leaving out religion and ethnicity grotesque overkill and settler activity is obviously a bad thing.
"The premise is simply that the Jews should just shut up, lie down and die."
Okay, please, PLEASE help me understand what information you've absorbed that leads you to believe this. Do you really think everybody arguing for an end to the killing in Gaza is advocating the slaughter of millions of Jews? Especially people who are basing their argument entirely on their opposition to the killing of thousands of Palestinians? Is it not far more likely that you are labouring under some misapprehension somewhere?
Anyway, again, I'd sincerely love to know what logic is leading to the conclusion that the premise of the argument to stop killing Palestinian civilians is that the Jews should "shut up, lie down, and die."
“Simply, reality says that Hamas has that immmutable goal of a properly described genocide”
Let’s say this is true, that the only thing that could satisfy Hamas is the total extinction of the Jewish people. How does killing Palestinians help keep Jews safe?
Are you suggesting that Israel should kill every single Palestinian man to ensure that none of Hamas remains? Are you signing off on that? How about the boys? Kill them too, just in case they grow up to hate the people who killed their fathers and brothers? Seems reasonable.
But then, what about the women? What if they have male children who grow up to hate the people who didn’t even spare Palestinian children? Better kill them too, eh? And the girls of course, just in case they have children when they’re old enough.
But any Palestinian women who are beyond their child-bearing years are fine, right? So it’s not as if you’re advocating wiping out the Palestinians entirely! I’m sure that Israel will be in no danger from others in the region if they do this!
Just one thought though.
What if Israel just attempts following international law. What if they stop killing innocent people, demand whatever security/disarmament measures they need, and stop stealing Palestinian land? What if they finally stop preventing the establishment of the Palestinian state? What if they give the Palestinians a chance to be free and build a life for themselves? Isn’t it worth attempting this before committing the genocide you’re advocating for?
"À simple approach. What would you do if your neighbor burrowed under your house and he and all his family Said they would accept no outcome otherr than the annihalation of you, your wife and children? Answers on a postcard please."
YES! I love empathy approaches like this. I won't jump straight to whataboutism, I'll answer your question first.
If I had this neighbour, I would want him gone. Anybody would. I understand why many Israelis feel this way. The thing is, I would also ask myself what I had done that made him hate me so much.
And if the answer was that I had stolen his home and driven him from it, if I had spent decades killing his family and continued even up till the present day, I would recognise that his hatred was very largely my fault. And I would hope that at some point along the 76 years I'd been doing this to him for, I would have chosen to stop and make a sincere attempt at peace (no, before you say it, Israel has absolutely never done this).
But here's the whataboutism I foreshadowed. And I'd like you to also answer before any whataboutism of your own.
What would you do, if a group of foreigners came from overseas, declared half your home their territory now, and forced you and your family out of your home at gunpoint, killing and raping any who remained for too long? What would you do if, over the next 76 years years, they slowly but surely stole more and more of your home, occasionally "mowing the lawn" by which they meant killing you and your family?
As for the solution, as I mention in the article (I desperately wish people would actually READ my articles), there's been a solution on the table since 1988. It has near universal international support, hundreds of countries in support, including Palestine, and all it requires of Israel is that they follow the international laws that they've spent decades violating: stay within your borders, stop occupying foreign territory, address the people who you forced from their homes, either by letting them return, or compensating them for their losses.
This solution has been voted on in the UN dozens of times, always with overwhelming international support, almost always with Israel and the US being the only major countries in opposition. In the last vote in 2022 153 countries voted in favour, 10 abstained, and only 9 voted against.
There is a solution. It's a good one. Israel doesn't want it because they want to continue stealing the land.
So you expect subtlety and nuance from people who are being murdered to steal their land. If they want to see Israelis, excuse me, "Jews," die, it can only be out if irrational bigotry.
Hear, hear! The Jews and the rest of the world really should synthesise the Holocaust in a less partisan way. There are always two equivalent sides to every story, right?
Or, ooor, are there times when one side is clearly the side most guilty of wrongdoing and when it would be ridiculous to ignore or minimise that?
“The same approach which treats sins common to the human race as peculiarities of ‘our society’ often also makes the fatal error of confusing victimhood with virtue, by lining up on the side of the victim, instead of lining up on the side of a moral principle. Yet nothing has been more common in history than for victims to become oppressors when they gain power…” — Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture
A quote lifted from Thomas St Thomas's story, https://thomasstthomas.medium.com/woke-right-a-litmus-test-2c58d769ba8b
"nothing has been more common in history than for victims to become oppressors when they gain power…”
An absolutely tragic truth.
The power of that lesson is to apply it bilaterally, rather than selectively. Applying it blindly in only one direciton turns it into a weapon rather than reflective wisdom.
Some will see it as applying only to Israel as the former victims of Nazi extermination, later becoming oppressive to Palestinians, feeling justified.
Others will see it as a warning that Palestinians, the current designated victims, ever gain the power to accomplish their aims, they would try to exterminate Israelis, feeling justified.
The deep lesson is that both can be true, and that ANY victims can become the oppressors, period. If we get too emotionally attached on one demographic, we can slip into seeing only half of that picture, and turning that insight into a framing for perpetuating the seesaw of oppression, rather than escaping from it.
Though there is absolute truth, there is also complexity. In war, there are our guys and their guys, and, in our minds, their guys are bad guys. While in Vietnam, the guys trying to kill our guys (and me) were my bad guys. But they were trying to kill us because we were killing their guys. We were their bad guys. Nothing makes you decide who the bad guys are than if they are trying to kill you. I know this with high assurance.
In public opinion of what's going on in Gaza, we are for the most part spectators. I have no kin there. Most of us don't. Who the bad guys are is not the standard "They killed my brother" of the people who are there. Many subject themselves to the accepted view of their tribes. People want to belong. As irrational as all things in tribal partisan political politics, a curse on humanity. Does my opinion based upon morality as I understand it from afar matter to the people in the killing fields?
Unfortunately, people go on university campuses and stick a microphone in the face of students who are seen as pro Hamas because they think what Isriel (my enemy's enemy is my friend) is doing is wrong and they often will also tell you that men can have babies and if you disagree you are a transphobe denying that trans people exist. All you need to do is show people holding a certain view are idiots based upon their view on an unrelated subject and all of their opinions become null and void. The most effective tool of the political right.
"In public opinion of what's going on in Gaza, we are for the most part spectators."
This is, of course, true. But if you look at the last twenty years of history, say, we're more involved than most people appreciate.
It's quite probable the Iraq war wouldn't have happened (or at least would have gone differently) without Netanyahu's assurances to congress that it would bring stability to the Middle East. (It also wouldn't have created ISIL).
The only reason the houthis are firing rockets at ships in the Red Sea is the Genocide in Gaza.
The Israeli occupation in Palestine was the number one motivation cited by Bin Laden for 9/11 in his "letter to the West."
This stuff does affect the rest of the world. So while I wish we lived in the kind of world where the simple, moral, "killing children so you can steal their homes is bad" argument were enough, even the self-interest argument is worth deeper consideration than it gets.
Your murder story is confusing. I don't think anything about Israel's murderous brutality needs a prelude.
I don't think people are indifferent to this; we're seeing several trends coming together in the worst way.
1) 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐅𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐞 Atrocities everywhere, Trump grabbing the news cycle, people are exhausted, mass shootings. We live in a fucking slaughterhouse and take refuge in entertainment.
2) 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 Making value judgments is what the religious right does. We don't want to be like them, do we? Everything is subjective, isn't it? Besides, their neighbors hate them (I can't imagine why) and, as GWB recited so many times, Izrl hazzarat to DEFENN isself, doesn't it?
3) 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 "I'm a conservative, therefore I unreservedly support Israel." "I'm "woke so I unreservedly suppport the Palestinians" Neither giving a moment's thought to what they're endorsing. Aside: I've known both at Microsoft and elsewhere; some Israelis are fine people, most are arrogant shits I wouldn't throw a life preserver to. Most Muslims I've known were such polite and gracious people that I felt like an asshole. Some are cold and distant to others not of their faith. I'll take the Muslims. And the worst I have heard about Israel comes from friends who live there or who visited.
I could name others. I've followed Netanyahu over half my life, and he's on my top five list of People Who Need Their Heads Ventilated. He is a monstrously bad man, and the settlers who control the government deserve a Holocaust like my great-grandparents died in.
Personal: my sister, whom I have never been close to despite years of attempts, has decided that since three of our grandparents were unobservant Jews that she is now Jewish, taking the ceremonies of conversion (though for reasons unknown to me, I am not supposed to call it that). She doesn't believe in God any more than I do, it's just her newest clique. She's always been about cliques.
In my mind, even opposing Trump personally but voting Republican means endorsing the destruction of the natural kingdom and the destruction of democracy; to become a Jew at this time is tantamount to taking the limbs off a Palestinian child. She is dead to me now. Whichever us us survives the other will not be attending the other's funeral.
Sad, but at 70 most people unclutter their lives of people who are not helping, Bye, Liz, thanks a lot mocking my stutter in front of your clique in high school. Move to the West Bank and fuck off.
"Your murder story is confusing. I don't think anything about Israel's murderous brutality needs a prelude."
I think there are an awful lot of people (I've spoken to many of them), some of whom even argue the Zionist side passionately, who know next-to-nothing about the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Many people only started paying attention on Oct 7th. So I think it's useful to give each article something of an "on ramp."
As for indifference, again, I've spoken to a lot of people who are more or-less indifferent. Not necessarily because they're bad people, but because, as you say, there's a degree of outrage fatigue, especially for a conflict halfway around the world that's been raging for 76 years.
Almost everybody who takes a clear-headed look at the facts ends up at least recognising that Israel's fanaticism is the main obstacle to peace here. But thanks to the enormous bias in the media, and, of course, Hamas' brutality being smeared across all Palestinian people, communicating the facts is very challenging.
The thing they’re fanatics about is Arabs not being allowed to do this stuff:
Respectfully, I think that your characterization of the history of this conflict is missing a serious back story. I didn’t see it mentioned that Izzy and her family were moving into the apartment because it was the only place they could be, relatively safe.
The reality is that the first waves of Jewish— well I really think the rest of this comes down to what noun you want to follow that— but the reality is that the first waves of Jewish migrants, settlers (potentially your word), or refugees (I most align with this word) were a group of people who were fleeing mass pogroms in Eastern Europe ; when it wasn’t outright genocidal, they were being ostracized politically and treated as second class citizens. Such was the case from the late 19th century to the early 1920s. The Zionist project or dream didn’t emerge out of a vacuum, it was a response to a genuine and persistent antisemitism— and we all know where that ended up some twenty years later.
It is also important to note— and I believe this is vital— that at a time when Jewish people were fleeing Eastern Europe in mass numbers, the rest of their world turned their back on them. The United States and Western Europe had placed severe limits on Jewish immigration; and Great Britains solution to this conflagration of Jewish refugees was to utilize one of their actual colonies to house them— chiefly because they did not want them.
It is one of the great tragedies of the world that at a time when so many Jews sought refuge from Nazi germany— the world turned their backs on them. I believe that if we are being honest that history, that shared responsibility of Western Europe and the US, that is one of the roots of this cause. So no Izzy did not simply invite her family into the apartment. They fled there when the entire world was either trying to kill them or refused to help.
Any telling of the origins of situation that doesn’t account for this is missing a vital piece. And the Jewish migrants or refugees or if you insist settlers who came during this time certainly do not fit the traditional definition of settler colonialism. They had no mother country backing them. The rest of the world was either hell bent on killing them or was hell bent on keeping them out of their country. In either case that is how Izzy and her family ended up there.
Such disingenuous, dishonest, pearl clutching - if not just outright channeling of propaganda - ignores, oh let’s say, Arab-Palestinian refusal to allow the Israeli state to live in peace, to even propose an equitable peace plan, let alone just sign up to the ones that were presented. Decades of hostage taking - a war crime - suicide bombings, random knife and gun attacks in Israeli cities, war declared on Israel on 1948, 1967 and 1973, not to mention two millennia of antisemitism.
Your moral admonishment of Israel allows the Palestinians to be absolved of any agency, the typical stance of a bigotry of low expectations, that having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel should just ignore the indiscriminate bombing of its people, the failure of the UN to keep Hezbollah to the terms of the ceasefire, the transformation of Gaza into a military base of operations from which to attack Israel.
You never seemingly once seem to reflect that ham ass surrendering and returning the hostages would end the war. You present a stance swathed in the concern of morality but it’s the same old racist bullshit that’s happy to see Jewish people die but immediately refuse the reality of warfare. Ham ass - the only genocidal actor in the region (not counting Hezbollah) - started this, they chose violence - again. They started this, they could end this - this is all on them, or more accurately, their billionaire managers in Qatar and Iran.
Sorry if Israel and Israelis don’t just let themselves be slaughtered like in the good old days. It’s weasels like you who would have appeased the Third Reich and you don’t even have the courage of your convictions to admit why, passing it off in the grotesque inversion of Arab-coloniser aggression becoming victimhood. For all your moral grandstanding you’re just another useful idiot.
Except that Izzy and Paul never lived “happily together”. Paul had in fact a history dripping in Izzy’s blood. Moreover, Paul himself originated from a completely different neighborhood and had no ownership in the apartment.
Note I said Muslims. Not Palestinians. Not all Palestinians are Muslim. Not all Muslims are radical. But a very large percentage are as the many of the governments of Muslim countries indicate.
Palestinians don’t “deserve” their own country any more than the Kurds, Barcelonians, etc deserve their own country. They need to have the might to maintain their country. It’s not the worlds responsibility to decide who does and who does not deserve to have a country.
I find it so telling that people are happy to judge Muslims by their governments but will immediately complain if you judge them by their government.
Does Trump represent Christianity? Was America a Christian nation when it was segregated or when half of it it fought to maintain slavery or when gay people risked being executed for being gay? If so, is Christianity a fundamentally wicked religion?
It’s just so infuriatingly bigoted and lazy.
And yes, nobody “deserves” their own country. This is one of the reasons why this “Israel’s right to exist” trope is so annoying.
But PEOPLE have rights, to life, to freedom, to live in their homes and not be forcibly displaced. The rules of war state that it’s a war crime to deliberately destroy civilian homes in an attempt to drive people from their land. These are the rights that Israel has spent decades violating.
Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from.
The history of humanity doesn't point to any of the following as what human's do:
- But thankfully, there are still people who understand the lessons of the atrocities that Koestler spent a decade screaming about.
- People with the courage to face the truth, even if they don’t like what they see.
- People who refuse to accept that violence and hatred are their only options.
- People who are willing to fight against dehumanisation, nationalism, and cruelty whenever and wherever it appears.
In fact all history supports what Israel did and is doing.
Why does that matter?
Maybe, just maybe, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should acknowledge the reality of how humanity works rather than focus either on your ideological view of how humanity is "supposed to" work or their ideologic view that Allah is God and the land from the river to the sea is theirs.
This is an ideological war. From my perspective, between the values of the West (which have gotten a little fuzzy lately) and the values of the Muslim world.
The west has taken in many Muslims who have left the Muslim world because of the Muslim violence. How many have the Muslim countries taken in?
Maybe, just maybe, we stick with the reality of the human condition versus your ideology or the various Muslim ideologies or even the various Jewish ideologies.
"Where does this "Because that, for the record, is what all of us are supposed to do." come from."
It comes from my very firm belief that a world where we would all agree that we should oppose the Nazis, say, is better than a world where we shrug our shoulders as Hitler kills millions of Jews.
No, this isn't an ideological war, at least not in the sense you see to mean it. It's a war against a coloniser and the people who were colonised. And all I'm arguing for at this point is that the coloniser abides by international law and stops killing innocent people in its pursuit of more land. This mindset is reflective of someone actually upholding the stated values of the West, not just paying lip service to them.
I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree with this or you're just doing an impression of someone who does for some reason, but I think this is too intrinsic to argue about. Either you believe in fairness and basic human decency across the board or you don't. If you don't that's your right. But I don't want to live in the world you're advocating.
I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist.
I understand that human condition creates situations like the Nazi's, Genghis Khan, Stalin, McCarthy, Trump, and the Muslim world (which colonized and converted more areas than Alexander the Great).
You do understand that if the Muslim world hadn't colonized the area you call Palestine in the 8th century, it would be predominately Jewish and Christian. You seem to arbitrarily think that the last 100 or 200 years is more significant than the last 2000 years or maybe 4000 years. I don't understand that logic.
The human condition is clear, might makes right. The Muslims had the might in the 8th century to colonize much of the world. The West had the might in the last 400 years to colonize much of the world. In the end, I prefer the West ideology over the Muslim ideology. You may think that makes me an Islamophobe. It doesn't.
As HAMAS clearly says, the Muslims don't fear death. The west loves life. I prefer the west perspective.
So in a discussion of Israel versus the Palestinians (e.g. radical Muslims), I overwhelmingly support Israel. As a gay man I can be myself in Israel. In almost every Muslim country including the Gaza and the Palestinian parts of the West bank, I would be imprisoned or in many cases put to death by Muslims. Not a society I endorse.
You're an idealist. You believe in irrelevant concepts like the UN and ICC. They are meaningless and have caused more problems from my perspective than they have solved. As for human decency. Human decency is not something that can be universally defined (e.g. the UN Human Rights charter which is in conflict with itself. It protects the right to religious belief both personally and in community). The Muslim world believes Sharia law is human decency. The West believes in Democracy (such as it is) as human decency. The Pope believes the Catholic Church defines human decency. I could go on.
I believe in the historical reality of the human condition. Likely genetically driven. That reality has produced humanity today. Babylon 5 did a great job of representing the struggle between the concept of decency and the concepts of the need to evolve through military struggle. Evolution does not care about human decency. It does align with military struggle.
What you don't understand when you make statements like "I honestly don't know if you genuinely disagree" is that you are proving my point. The differences in our views is the human condition. I believe might makes right. You believe in some idealistic concept of we all just need to get along. That is the multiculturalism concept. Many people (including my Danish relatives) no longer believe in multiculturalism. Muslim culture and the West culture are incompatible. Just as Chinese culture (i.e. supporting an authoritarian government) is not compatible with the west culture.
The question for the west is whether we continue to believe that multiculturalism can work. I believe that answer is clear no!
"I don't advocate for a world where the Nazi's exist."
Okay, great. So you recognise that there are times when it's necessary to act against injustice and/or evil. The question is, do you ever recognise that AHEAD of time? Because judging by the arguments you consistently make, I'm pretty positive you'd have been among the people in the early 1940s arguing that there was no need to stop Hitler or get involved with WWII. Or the people arguing against de-segregation.
"You're an idealist for wanting to end segregation," you'd have said. "There's no way people will accept an integrated society."
Or, "The African slaves lack the military and economic power to fight the slave trade. Might makes right!"
It's only now, with the benefit of hindsight, that it seems obvious to you that the Nazis had to be stopped and that those people were wrong.
So again, how is it that you are making your distinction? Is it really as self-centred as how accepting they are of gay people? Do people raised in cultures you disagree with not deserve to live? Is that it?
And yes, very obviously, I consider events that happened within a human lifetime to be more important than events that took place 800 or 2000 years ago. What exactly is confusing or arbitrary about that? Israel is 76 years old. There are many people alive today older than the state of Israel who remember being forced from their homes. Obviously that matters more than who did what 800 years ago.
I'm community/state focused at this point.
I support Ukraines idealism but I think Zelenskyy is an ass.
He courted aligning with the West including trying to join NATO knowing full well Putin wouldn't support. That idealism has caused 100,000s to die.
Three years later is becoming obvious how stupid his position was to most people.
I live in CA. My fight is to get Newsom to tell the federal government that CA doesn't need its help on anything but national defense, a common currency and alignment on international policy. I support repealing the 16th amendment and having CA collect all taxes from its residents and give the federal government money for services we agree with.
Other states in the country can align with CA if they desire.
I support the ideals of DOGE but I'm not thrilled with the tactics. But redong the federal government is way way way overdue.
I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state. Many Palestinians who are already Israeli citizen clearly prefer the Israeli state over Hamas. If Palestinians don't support, like the Muslims who left Syria, Lebanon and other Muslims countries, they can immigrate to their preferred Muslim country. Its interesting that Muslim countries would not support.
I understand that you wouldn't agree with that view. But its the only view that I believe will work in the long run. Anything else (a.l.a. two state solution or harping on Israel being a colonist or committing Genocide) is meaningless.
“I support Israel taking charge of the West bank and Gaza. It can create a way for Palestinians to become Israeli citizens without changing the basic structure of Israel as a Jewish state.”
This is fundamentally incorrect. Again, I beg you to actually ask yourself if your hunches are correct and do a little reading on a topic before confidently opining on it. The entire reason Israel was created is that Jews were a minority in Palestine and couldn’t create a Jewish state without forcing Arabs out of what would become Israel.
One of the main sources of strife in this conflict is the Israeli desire to ensure that Jews remain the majority in Israel, which they eventually want to be all of Palestine.
The only way the Israelis can absorb the West Bank and Gaza and remain a “Jewish state” is by continuing the campaign of ethnic cleansing that they’ve been carrying out since 1948. Even before that, in fact.
Many Jews believe their historic claim to the land is more important than the last 100 years. You have a difference of opinion. The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other. Therefore you have no basis but your view of what Israel is to justify your perspective.
Israel was not "created". Jews migrated to the area. They purchased property and also squatted on areas. The area had very little property ownership formality. The Ottoman empire owned most of the land. The British did not have a specific proposal on how the land would be transitioned when the Ottoman empire collapsed. The British certainly favored western Jews given the Ottoman empire supported Hitler. Seems kinda an obvious concept.
The Jews living there declared Israel to be a state. That caused the war. Israel won the war. They ask the UN for recognition. The UN recognized Israel as a state. Might makes right.
The countries surrounding Israel didn't want Israel to exist as a state. They went to war with Israel. They lost in every case. Might makes right. Israel agreed to give the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the peace deal. Jordan relinquished the West Bank. Egypt relinquished the Gaza strip. Israel ruled the Gaza strip. Then left. Hamas took over. Has a charter to eliminate the state of Israel. They attacked. They lost biggly. I doubt Israel will ever relinquish control of the Gaza again. Might makes right.
Hezbollah attacked. They lost biggly. Might makes right. The Houthi's attacked Israel. Saudi Arabia does not support the Houthi's. Israel does not support the Houthi's. Trump is dropping bombs on the Houthi's. Might makes right.
Iran is continuing to threaten Israel and the US. Trump is saying that if they don't relinquish their nuclear program, they will be bombed. Might makes right.
You may not like the human condition. Your idealism does not change the human condition. You and Hamas are trying to use the UN and the ICC to gain might against Israel and the US. Good luck with that strategy. They are both meaningless organizations from my perspective. Israel, the US, Russia, and China will never relinquish their military might to the UN or ICC. That's why they are meaningless orgs. But go ahead and be idealistic. That will work out as well for you as it has with the Palestinians.
Israel has a number of proposals on how to maintain being a Jewish state with a Muslim majority. You are uniformed. Alternately, they can just do what the Muslims did in the 8th century and state Palestinian Muslims can leave or conform.
Once again, this conversation proves in spades the reality of the human condition. You and I are not close to agreeing. I align with those who have the might. You don't have the might behind your view. You're trying to use the power of the UN and ICC to get more might behind your view. It won't work.
"The UN Human Rights charter does not favor one over the other."
Wait, aren't you the one who's always ridiculing organisations like the UN and the ICC? And here you are using them as an authority? Can you please make up your mind where you stand on literally any topic?
Anyway, I'm sorry man, I can't keep correcting your glaring and basic failures of knowledge on things like this. It's exhausting. You don't understand this conflict at all, even simple, uncontested historical facts about it, because almost everything you think you know is Israeli propaganda. And when I point this out to you, you just move on to the next thing without ever seriously engaging with it.
So all of your arguments, while they might seem reasonable to you, are built on completely incorrect foundations.
I invite you, as I've invited you several times, to actually read what the UN, for example, has to say about this. But I suspect you won't.
Its interesting how you debate.
You broadly claim I'm incorrect, claim you're exhausted, claim contradictions, but do not include any facts.
I include many facts but you don't counter any of them.
What the UN has to claim about "this". What is "this"?
I have read the UN human rights charter. I know exactly what it says. It protects individual rights in your classic view of rights at the same time it protects the right to religion of the individual and in community. Many religious positions are at odds with the individual rights? Who is right.
I close with the quote from JC Superstar I have left you with before.
But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths - are mine the same as yours?
This quote encapsulates the human condition.
"Its interesting how you debate."
It's interesting that you can only parse this feedback, that I and several others have given you over the years, as a "debate" tactic.
You've read hundreds of my conversations. Is this a "debate tactic" you've seen me use with other people? No. I say things like this to you, and again, I'm not the only one, because you are one of the most consistent and belligerent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I have ever seen.
To be extremely clear, we don't both have "truths." We both have OPINIONS. And yes, opinions can be more or less correct. They can also be totally incorrect because they're based on nonsense or gut feelings that have never been tested against facts or evidence.
That's why you say obviously incorrect things about a range of topics with absolute and totally unearned confidence, you appear to take nothing onboard when you're corrected, and often, though thankfully not in this case, do so in the most arrogant and combative tone possible.
It is, therefore, IMPOSSIBLE to have a "debate" with you, because you don't know enough, and I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time digging up facts and evidence to fill in the gaps in your knowledge. Why on Earth would I do that over and over again for a guy on the internet who has proven himself unwilling to learn? That's why I end up deciding to stop wasting my time.
Things MIGHT be a little better if you approached them as simple conversations instead of "debates." If you had the good sense to recognise when you're not particularly well-informed about a topic and approached conversations with a little humility. You might even learn something. But I've already suggested that several times, and it also seems to be beyond you.
The Palestinians I've known were Christians. I visited the Vatican with one of them. I lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and became friends with some of them. I didn't care for the way they treat women but they were often nice enough to me, a man.
One of my trainees came in the shop behind me and poked me in the head with a gun and said, Dave, I'm going to kill you. I disarmed him without touching him up but I was the only American in the shop with six Saudis so I didn't shove the gun up his ass, I put it in a safe.
The next day Prince Turkey summoned me to his office after word went around that one of the Saudies tried to kill his trainer. It was his low IQ idea of a joke. He asked me how I wanted Ali punished. I told him that I didn't. He seemed relieved, I think he would have if I asked.
My Korean Taekwondo instructor was teaching rich and well placed children, including little Prince Turkey and requested that I go and teach some classes. The kids were a big slack and he suggested that I bring my daughters, red/black poom belt holders that were more skilled than me. Not fond out being shown up by girls they shaped you and we had some good classes.
My older daughter, just entering puberty was gazelle-like and was to do a flying over a row of chairs board break in a demonstration for the father Prince Turkey. They brought in someone from Riyad who could jump over a longer row of chairs.
When all is said and done, my experiences with people from the middle east have been mostly cordial and friendly. The exception being my kill the last Jew trainee that I developed a friendship with. He gave me his recipe for a fruit punch that included their frisbee bread (yeast) with the words, don't leave the bread over two days or it will be too strong for your children. How do you say this is my wine recipe without saying it's my wine recipe. ;0)
At any rate, people bring in religion to attract allies, but I think it is more about the bloody land grab. Leaving out religion and ethnicity grotesque overkill and settler activity is obviously a bad thing.
"The premise is simply that the Jews should just shut up, lie down and die."
Okay, please, PLEASE help me understand what information you've absorbed that leads you to believe this. Do you really think everybody arguing for an end to the killing in Gaza is advocating the slaughter of millions of Jews? Especially people who are basing their argument entirely on their opposition to the killing of thousands of Palestinians? Is it not far more likely that you are labouring under some misapprehension somewhere?
Anyway, again, I'd sincerely love to know what logic is leading to the conclusion that the premise of the argument to stop killing Palestinian civilians is that the Jews should "shut up, lie down, and die."
“Simply, reality says that Hamas has that immmutable goal of a properly described genocide”
Let’s say this is true, that the only thing that could satisfy Hamas is the total extinction of the Jewish people. How does killing Palestinians help keep Jews safe?
Are you suggesting that Israel should kill every single Palestinian man to ensure that none of Hamas remains? Are you signing off on that? How about the boys? Kill them too, just in case they grow up to hate the people who killed their fathers and brothers? Seems reasonable.
But then, what about the women? What if they have male children who grow up to hate the people who didn’t even spare Palestinian children? Better kill them too, eh? And the girls of course, just in case they have children when they’re old enough.
But any Palestinian women who are beyond their child-bearing years are fine, right? So it’s not as if you’re advocating wiping out the Palestinians entirely! I’m sure that Israel will be in no danger from others in the region if they do this!
Just one thought though.
What if Israel just attempts following international law. What if they stop killing innocent people, demand whatever security/disarmament measures they need, and stop stealing Palestinian land? What if they finally stop preventing the establishment of the Palestinian state? What if they give the Palestinians a chance to be free and build a life for themselves? Isn’t it worth attempting this before committing the genocide you’re advocating for?
"À simple approach. What would you do if your neighbor burrowed under your house and he and all his family Said they would accept no outcome otherr than the annihalation of you, your wife and children? Answers on a postcard please."
YES! I love empathy approaches like this. I won't jump straight to whataboutism, I'll answer your question first.
If I had this neighbour, I would want him gone. Anybody would. I understand why many Israelis feel this way. The thing is, I would also ask myself what I had done that made him hate me so much.
And if the answer was that I had stolen his home and driven him from it, if I had spent decades killing his family and continued even up till the present day, I would recognise that his hatred was very largely my fault. And I would hope that at some point along the 76 years I'd been doing this to him for, I would have chosen to stop and make a sincere attempt at peace (no, before you say it, Israel has absolutely never done this).
But here's the whataboutism I foreshadowed. And I'd like you to also answer before any whataboutism of your own.
What would you do, if a group of foreigners came from overseas, declared half your home their territory now, and forced you and your family out of your home at gunpoint, killing and raping any who remained for too long? What would you do if, over the next 76 years years, they slowly but surely stole more and more of your home, occasionally "mowing the lawn" by which they meant killing you and your family?
As for the solution, as I mention in the article (I desperately wish people would actually READ my articles), there's been a solution on the table since 1988. It has near universal international support, hundreds of countries in support, including Palestine, and all it requires of Israel is that they follow the international laws that they've spent decades violating: stay within your borders, stop occupying foreign territory, address the people who you forced from their homes, either by letting them return, or compensating them for their losses.
This solution has been voted on in the UN dozens of times, always with overwhelming international support, almost always with Israel and the US being the only major countries in opposition. In the last vote in 2022 153 countries voted in favour, 10 abstained, and only 9 voted against.
There is a solution. It's a good one. Israel doesn't want it because they want to continue stealing the land.
So you expect subtlety and nuance from people who are being murdered to steal their land. If they want to see Israelis, excuse me, "Jews," die, it can only be out if irrational bigotry.
They should just bury their children and shut up.
You're a really charming guy.
Hear, hear! The Jews and the rest of the world really should synthesise the Holocaust in a less partisan way. There are always two equivalent sides to every story, right?
Or, ooor, are there times when one side is clearly the side most guilty of wrongdoing and when it would be ridiculous to ignore or minimise that?