6 ms·

> This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first re

> This isn't a question of 1937 versus 1939 You have decided this 2 years difference allows you to entirely dismiss the significance of this being the first retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. I don't blame you. I wouldn't address it either if I were you. That it was in 1937 vs 1939 still entirely undermines your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil and Palestinians are their innocent victims. Why are you like this? > The point is the unequivocally colonial intent of the Zionist project from its earliest beginnings. The guy had an opinion, for which he was bitterly criticised by other Zionists. What is with you?

racional 2y ago
Your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil It's not my thesis, and nothing I've written even remotely suggests that.
- rendall 2y ago
  I mean, really, if you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist, then outline a realistic plan of what will happen to the Israelis after its end?
  - racional 2y ago
    If you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist I never said that either.
    - rendall 2y ago
      Lots of tit-for-tat here. My thesis is that it was not Zionism that caused today's conflict, but today's conflict is but a continuation of centuries of Arab violence against Jews. In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries. Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too. In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality. Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis? So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?
      - racional 2y ago
        Lots of tit-for-tat here. You were attributing to me views which I haven't expressed. So a correction was provided, which was hopefully helpful to you. In any case it seems we've traded enough notes about historical bloodletting the topic of Zionism as such. If you like you can tell us how you think should look on the ground -- in, say, about 20 years from now -- in your most optimistic (but realistically obtainable) scenario. Specifically with regard to (1) the final and borders of the State of Israel, (2) the status of the West Bank settlements (for those which do not end up on the Israeli side of the final borders), and (3) whether you see a need for any "population transfer" (as per the Decisive Plan or other proposals) in order to create conditions for a just and lasting peace. If you want to. I'd just be curious.
        rendall 2y ago
        To answer you. The ideal situation would be a borderless friendliness between Israel and the Palestinian states of Gaza and the West Bank. No attacks. I know that Israel would be delighted to have peaceful, prosperous neighbors. I know that having political control of Israel through a majority rule is important to Jews, so I don't see a "right of return" for Muslims not already citizens of Israel, but in the ideal scenario, Palestinians with actual, legitimate claims in Israeli territory will have been financially compensated for, and made peace with, their loss. Gaza will have been rebuilt and be a tourist destination for those who like beaches and Mediterranean sun. But, no, while I think my ideal future for the region is a pipe dream that will never come about, I don't think the answer is actual genocide like population transfer. Earlier you made assertions that Zionism is a settler-colonialist project and at least strongly implied that it was the cause of the conflict today. In light of the fact that continuous Arab attacks against Jews of the region began decades before Zionism, has it changed your mind at all about the cause of the conflict? Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
        rendall 2y ago
        I'll just restate it here: there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. In order to argue against Israel, particularly that Israel is somehow deeply immoral, one must distort, deny and divert. There is no argument against the state of Israel that does not rely on this. Anyone who employs principles of rationality to the conflict will be pro-Israel. When pressed or challenged too hard, an anti-Israeli will simply end the conversation and ghost. Prove me wrong.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

racional 2y ago

Your central thesis that Israelis are pure, unadulterated evil It's not my thesis, and nothing I've written even remotely suggests that.

rendall 2y ago
I mean, really, if you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist, then outline a realistic plan of what will happen to the Israelis after its end?
- racional 2y ago
  If you do not believe that the State of Israel should exist I never said that either.
  - rendall 2y ago
    Lots of tit-for-tat here. My thesis is that it was not Zionism that caused today's conflict, but today's conflict is but a continuation of centuries of Arab violence against Jews. In support, I offer the fact that the Irgun attack of 1937 cum 1939 was the first Jewish retaliation after centuries of Arab attacks. You attempted to demonstrate that Zionism was the cause of today's conflict by excerpting a 1917 essay. I don't think this reasonably compares to the historical record which shows a long, long pattern of Arab violence and calumny against Jews going back centuries. Your username implies that you value rationality. Great! Me too. In general, after years of arguing about this with strangers on the internet, I have not ever once encountered an anti-Zionist who argues well and honestly by scrupulously steel-manning the pro-Israeli argument, employing the Principle of Charity, citing falsifiable evidence for assertions, acknowledging opponents' points rather than ghosting, avoiding logical fallacy, and so forth. After years of only ever hearing fallacious arguing of that sort, I strongly suspect that there is no foundation for the anti-Israel stance based in logic and rationality. Is there? Can you meet that challenge? Can you address the challenge directly and honestly, steel-manning and then refuting that thesis? So, directly: if the first Jewish attack on Arabs was in 1937 while, to be charitable, the "first" Arab attack on Jews of the region were over 100 years earlier in 1834 in Safed and Hebron, with many thereafter, then how can it be Zionism that caused Arabs to attack Jews? Isn't it more credible to say that Arabs attack Jews irrespective of Zionism? Rather, that "Zionism" is the excuse for attacks that would happen anyway? Moreover, isn't it possible that Zionism gained status and authority, not as a bigoted "settler-colonialist project" as you term it, but rather as a necessary defensive corrective against ongoing violent attacks, both in the region and abroad? As the kids say these days, where the lie?
    - racional 2y ago
      Lots of tit-for-tat here. You were attributing to me views which I haven't expressed. So a correction was provided, which was hopefully helpful to you. In any case it seems we've traded enough notes about historical bloodletting the topic of Zionism as such. If you like you can tell us how you think should look on the ground -- in, say, about 20 years from now -- in your most optimistic (but realistically obtainable) scenario. Specifically with regard to (1) the final and borders of the State of Israel, (2) the status of the West Bank settlements (for those which do not end up on the Israeli side of the final borders), and (3) whether you see a need for any "population transfer" (as per the Decisive Plan or other proposals) in order to create conditions for a just and lasting peace. If you want to. I'd just be curious.
      - rendall 2y ago
        To answer you. The ideal situation would be a borderless friendliness between Israel and the Palestinian states of Gaza and the West Bank. No attacks. I know that Israel would be delighted to have peaceful, prosperous neighbors. I know that having political control of Israel through a majority rule is important to Jews, so I don't see a "right of return" for Muslims not already citizens of Israel, but in the ideal scenario, Palestinians with actual, legitimate claims in Israeli territory will have been financially compensated for, and made peace with, their loss. Gaza will have been rebuilt and be a tourist destination for those who like beaches and Mediterranean sun. But, no, while I think my ideal future for the region is a pipe dream that will never come about, I don't think the answer is actual genocide like population transfer. Earlier you made assertions that Zionism is a settler-colonialist project and at least strongly implied that it was the cause of the conflict today. In light of the fact that continuous Arab attacks against Jews of the region began decades before Zionism, has it changed your mind at all about the cause of the conflict? Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability?
        rendall 2y ago
        I'll just restate it here: there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. In order to argue against Israel, particularly that Israel is somehow deeply immoral, one must distort, deny and divert. There is no argument against the state of Israel that does not rely on this. Anyone who employs principles of rationality to the conflict will be pro-Israel. When pressed or challenged too hard, an anti-Israeli will simply end the conversation and ghost. Prove me wrong.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]