5 ms·

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 th

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.
- runarberg 2y ago
  > there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. This seems like a leap of logic. I see there are only two possibilities for that to hold true. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique and unquestionable I don’t think (b) is worth discussing as such exceptionalism is at the base of all genocidal states, and are almost always illegitimate (I’ll make an exception for the Vatican) And (a) is easily disproven with a simple look at history. There are plenty of illegitimate states throughout history. A recent example is Apartheid South Africa which got replaced by a democratic South Africa in 1994. A more blatant example is Rhodesia. Almost everybody questioned the legitimacy of Rhodesia, and any anti-Rhodesian argument was indeed rational. Rhodesia was funded as a racist, white-supremacist, ethno-state and as such had no right to exist. Most of the world agreed. Not even Israel recognized Rhodesia (despite militarily supporting the white ethno-fascist government). Israel in its current form has not right to exist. Israel needs to either a) grant full sovereignty to Palestine, and either pay reparations or grant the right of return to the descendants of those displaced in the Nakba and following atrocities; or b) unite with Palestine under a single democratic government with equal rights of all citizens. It cannot exist as a Jewish ethno-national ethno-state, which subjugates Palestinians in a settler colonial fashion, and further antagonizes its neighbors who shelter Palestinian refugees with constant military incursions.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I know this is an annoying comment, but I can't not: you all are commenting on a ten day old thread. It's dead, Jim. The very fact that you're seeing this at all means you're unpersuadable, and communicating only with the unpersuadable. I would want someone else to tell me this on the (many) occasions where I've gone on tilt like this.
    - rendall 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - rendall 2y ago
    >> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. > This seems like a leap of logic. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique and unquestionable ...<then non-sequiturs about South Africa and Rhodesia> I am a Westerner. One of my core beliefs is that rationalism and logic leads to truth and correct action; conversely that irrationality and emotionalism leads to suffering and poor decisions. I'm not pro-Israel because I've chosen "team Israel, right or wrong". I'm pro-Israel because the pro-Israel arguments that I've heard are far more rational than pro-Palestinian arguments. I do seek out anti-Israel arguments, hoping to find something rational, but so far, nothing. Again, my goal is truth and correct action, not tribal chest-thumping. Your arguments here did not hit the mark. I do not accept that South Africa or Rhodesia are appropriate comparisons, and therefore their inclusion was a non-sequitur. Further, my null hypothesis is that Israel is an unremarkable state, not "unique and unquestionable". I therefore interpret Israel as doing only that which any Western nation would do in the same circumstances. Yours appears to be the obverse, that Israel is uniquely questionable. Maybe it is? You'd have to supply evidence or arguments compelling enough to match that thesis, for me to be convinced. If you do want to earnestly go down this path of becoming the first to construct actually rational arguments against Israel, you won't be able to just throw around emotional shorthands like "apartheid", "Nakba", "settler-colonialist", etc. It's lazy emotionalism designed to stop rational thought. It will convince only those who are already convinced, but it's not a rational argument. If you want to argue rationally and compellingly that Israel is "an apartheid state" then understand the strongest arguments against using that term, and dismantle those arguments. We pro-Israel peeps have heard all the accusations, but have never heard any considered, thoughtful, direct, courageous rebuttal of the "Israel is not apartheid, actually" arguments. Just more emotionalism. I do bet that if you take the journey to understand the arguments for and the arguments against you will conclude that it's not appropriate in Israel's case. But! Maybe I'm wrong about that! Maybe you will come up with a really rational, dispassionate argument that Israel is an apartheid state and all rational people will be compelled to follow the truth, reluctantly or not. Good luck. I honestly look forward to see what you come up with.
racional 2y ago
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? I was already aware of the chronology. I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides. Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability? That said I just don't believe in the idea collective blame, as applies to any ethnic or religious group. And certainly not going back centuries and millennia. I do see it as an intrinsically modern conflict, and in essence -- the outcome of global and regional power interests. Ignorance, fear, hatred and the conscious actions of individuals at local levels certainly have their roles also. But in the bigger picture -- it's the larger geopolitical interests, and the decisions of persons at these levels which have exploited these factors, and brought us to where we are today.
- rendall 2y ago
  > I just don't believe in the idea collective blame > -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides. These two statements are contradictory and non-sequiturs. Apparently Arabs are not to be assigned collective blame for their attacks, while Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame. No one talked about blame anyway, but the cause and effect of the historical pattern of Arabs killing Jews in the region. > I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day This is an evasion when the question became tough. Now it's about "multiple sources of causality" when it's clear it was not Zionism or settler-colonialism that caused Arabs to attack Jews. You say "there is plenty of blame to go around", and yet every post of yours exclusively focuses on Israeli and Zionist culpability and Palestinian victimhood, and you seem unable to seriously entertain any mitigating arguments our evidence on behalf of Israel. Disappointing.
  - racional 2y ago
    While Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame. I've never said or implied any such thing. Collective blame and victimhood are your themes, not mine.

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.

runarberg 2y ago
> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. This seems like a leap of logic. I see there are only two possibilities for that to hold true. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique and unquestionable I don’t think (b) is worth discussing as such exceptionalism is at the base of all genocidal states, and are almost always illegitimate (I’ll make an exception for the Vatican) And (a) is easily disproven with a simple look at history. There are plenty of illegitimate states throughout history. A recent example is Apartheid South Africa which got replaced by a democratic South Africa in 1994. A more blatant example is Rhodesia. Almost everybody questioned the legitimacy of Rhodesia, and any anti-Rhodesian argument was indeed rational. Rhodesia was funded as a racist, white-supremacist, ethno-state and as such had no right to exist. Most of the world agreed. Not even Israel recognized Rhodesia (despite militarily supporting the white ethno-fascist government). Israel in its current form has not right to exist. Israel needs to either a) grant full sovereignty to Palestine, and either pay reparations or grant the right of return to the descendants of those displaced in the Nakba and following atrocities; or b) unite with Palestine under a single democratic government with equal rights of all citizens. It cannot exist as a Jewish ethno-national ethno-state, which subjugates Palestinians in a settler colonial fashion, and further antagonizes its neighbors who shelter Palestinian refugees with constant military incursions.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I know this is an annoying comment, but I can't not: you all are commenting on a ten day old thread. It's dead, Jim. The very fact that you're seeing this at all means you're unpersuadable, and communicating only with the unpersuadable. I would want someone else to tell me this on the (many) occasions where I've gone on tilt like this.
  - rendall 2y ago
    [flagged]
- rendall 2y ago
  >> there are no arguments that are both rational and anti-Israel. > This seems like a leap of logic. a) There are no illegitimate states b) Israel is unique and unquestionable ...<then non-sequiturs about South Africa and Rhodesia> I am a Westerner. One of my core beliefs is that rationalism and logic leads to truth and correct action; conversely that irrationality and emotionalism leads to suffering and poor decisions. I'm not pro-Israel because I've chosen "team Israel, right or wrong". I'm pro-Israel because the pro-Israel arguments that I've heard are far more rational than pro-Palestinian arguments. I do seek out anti-Israel arguments, hoping to find something rational, but so far, nothing. Again, my goal is truth and correct action, not tribal chest-thumping. Your arguments here did not hit the mark. I do not accept that South Africa or Rhodesia are appropriate comparisons, and therefore their inclusion was a non-sequitur. Further, my null hypothesis is that Israel is an unremarkable state, not "unique and unquestionable". I therefore interpret Israel as doing only that which any Western nation would do in the same circumstances. Yours appears to be the obverse, that Israel is uniquely questionable. Maybe it is? You'd have to supply evidence or arguments compelling enough to match that thesis, for me to be convinced. If you do want to earnestly go down this path of becoming the first to construct actually rational arguments against Israel, you won't be able to just throw around emotional shorthands like "apartheid", "Nakba", "settler-colonialist", etc. It's lazy emotionalism designed to stop rational thought. It will convince only those who are already convinced, but it's not a rational argument. If you want to argue rationally and compellingly that Israel is "an apartheid state" then understand the strongest arguments against using that term, and dismantle those arguments. We pro-Israel peeps have heard all the accusations, but have never heard any considered, thoughtful, direct, courageous rebuttal of the "Israel is not apartheid, actually" arguments. Just more emotionalism. I do bet that if you take the journey to understand the arguments for and the arguments against you will conclude that it's not appropriate in Israel's case. But! Maybe I'm wrong about that! Maybe you will come up with a really rational, dispassionate argument that Israel is an apartheid state and all rational people will be compelled to follow the truth, reluctantly or not. Good luck. I honestly look forward to see what you come up with.

racional 2y ago

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? I was already aware of the chronology. I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides. Changed your calculation at least to a degree regarding Arab culpability? That said I just don't believe in the idea collective blame, as applies to any ethnic or religious group. And certainly not going back centuries and millennia. I do see it as an intrinsically modern conflict, and in essence -- the outcome of global and regional power interests. Ignorance, fear, hatred and the conscious actions of individuals at local levels certainly have their roles also. But in the bigger picture -- it's the larger geopolitical interests, and the decisions of persons at these levels which have exploited these factors, and brought us to where we are today.

rendall 2y ago
> I just don't believe in the idea collective blame > -- with plenty of blame to go around to various parties on all sides. These two statements are contradictory and non-sequiturs. Apparently Arabs are not to be assigned collective blame for their attacks, while Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame. No one talked about blame anyway, but the cause and effect of the historical pattern of Arabs killing Jews in the region. > I've pretty much always seen the conflict as having multiple sources of causality, both in its origins and in its reasons continuing to this day This is an evasion when the question became tough. Now it's about "multiple sources of causality" when it's clear it was not Zionism or settler-colonialism that caused Arabs to attack Jews. You say "there is plenty of blame to go around", and yet every post of yours exclusively focuses on Israeli and Zionist culpability and Palestinian victimhood, and you seem unable to seriously entertain any mitigating arguments our evidence on behalf of Israel. Disappointing.
- racional 2y ago
  While Israeli Jews receive full, collective blame. I've never said or implied any such thing. Collective blame and victimhood are your themes, not mine.