4 ms·

What's happening in Gaza right now is unequivocally genocide, and it's shameful. But... > The Israelis have a near monopoly on force in this conflict. They ar

What's happening in Gaza right now is unequivocally genocide, and it's shameful. But... > The Israelis have a near monopoly on force in this conflict. They are the overwhelmingly dominant party, the only one with tanks, aircraft, destroyers and nuclear weapons. They have the power to dictate solutions, and that's what they've been doing for decades, using brute force. Pretending these are two equal sides that just can't agree is a fantasy. Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Has that ever happened, in all of recorded history? Say the Israelis don't want to give up East Jerusalem under any circumstances, what then? Would the Palestinian side be justified in "blocking" the resolution of the conflict? The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. Today, I don't know. I don't think that there is a fair or best solution. They're probably going to just keep fighting until the Palestinian side is hollowed-out and the Israeli side is a Burma-tier pariah state.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
> Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. > The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. They only want the rump: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Most big Israeli cities used to be Palestinian cities, until the Israelis conquered and ethnically cleansed them in 1948. The standard 2-state solution is already a massive concession by the Palestinians. It's not the starting point for more concessions. You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The way out of this is massive international pressure on Israel. Israel is strong as long as it's beating up on almost completely defenseless Palestinians. But Israel is a small country that could be pressured by the US and EU fairly easily. Instead, they back it to the tune of billions of dollars a year and give it diplomatic support.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        That "certain period" was over a thousand years. For at least hundreds of years until the about 1900, the region of Palestine was inhabited by the people we now call the Palestinians, not by the ancestors of the Israelis. > Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. This is radically different than the Zionist colonization of Palestine, which was a mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory. > Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights I think you would accept that the following two situations would be very different: 1. People immigrate to the US, settle down, send their kids to school, and eventually become American citizens. 2. A large group of people enter the US with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country - a country in which they want there to be as few Americans as possible. They have their own militias and operate completely outside the control of any government that the people of the United States control. Just to make this scenario more realistic, we can say that the US is currently under the rule of a foreign empire, so that Americans have no say in their own government. The foreign settlers start taking over large parts of the country. Finally, the UN says that the US should be split in two, giving half of it to the foreign settlers. The foreign settlers agree, but Americans think it's unfair and don't agree. War erupts. The foreign settlers, based on superior political organization and funding from abroad, quickly establish massive military dominance over the Americans, and go on to conquer 78% of the United States, expelling 80% of the American population from the territory they control. Not exactly the same thing.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
You're assuming it actually is genocide. And you assume it's Israeli actions rather than Hamas actions. Hamas sets people up to be killed, points at Israel, the world blames Israel.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- stubish 1y ago
  Unfortunately the evidence is overwhelming, without compelling counter arguments, to the point of fact. To the point of the UN investigators concluding it is genocide. Denial is unbelievable. All that is left is justification.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    > To the point of the UN investigators concluding it is genocide This is a really unconvincing appeal to authority when we consider the three particular individuals behind the report, as well as broad anti-Israel bias in the UN.
    - stubish 1y ago
      Feel free to replace 'UN investigators' with any of the other people or organizations who have been forced to recognize that the evidence is overwhelming, even against their best interest. Appealing to no authority except the evidence here. Once that gets placed on the table and forced into consideration, the only defenses are irrationality, conspiracy theories and claiming special knowledge.
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        Which of them would you claim is neutral? Amnesty International, who opened their report with "On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive", as if nothing else happened on 7 October? And then decided that the usual standard for inferring specific intent was "overly cramped". > Appealing to no authority except the evidence here You haven't mentioned evidence here, only authorities.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago

> Why should the losers of a conflict get to decide the terms? Because might doesn't make right. Because there's such a thing as international law. Because it's wrong to steal land and force people out of their homes. > The way I see it, the fairest and best outcome was a two-state solution with Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem -- this would have represented a compromise on both sides. The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. They only want the rump: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Most big Israeli cities used to be Palestinian cities, until the Israelis conquered and ethnically cleansed them in 1948. The standard 2-state solution is already a massive concession by the Palestinians. It's not the starting point for more concessions. You're asking them to now concede the most cherished piece of Palestine that they haven't yet given up: East Jerusalem. That would be such a humiliation that the Palestinians would never accept it. The way out of this is massive international pressure on Israel. Israel is strong as long as it's beating up on almost completely defenseless Palestinians. But Israel is a small country that could be pressured by the US and EU fairly easily. Instead, they back it to the tune of billions of dollars a year and give it diplomatic support.

dlubarov 1y ago
> The Palestinians have already given up 78% of Palestine. You seem to be conflating the region of Palestine, which has always included a mix of religions including Jews, with the modern Palestinian national identity.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  Jews were only a few percent of the population before Europeans started moving in at the end of the 19th Century. The people we now call Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the whole region of Palestine. They've given up 78% of it.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    Yes, there was a certain period when Jews were a small minority; so what? If we're using "Palestinian" to mean someone from Palestine, why wouldn't we count a family from the First Aliyah as Palestinian? The Second Aliyah? Holocaust refugees? Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Would you say they're not real Palestinians, because they joined too recently? How about Arafat, who doesn't have a "pure" unbroken Levantine lineage (being born in Cairo)? Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights, perhaps less voting power, than families who have been here for multiple centuries?
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      That "certain period" was over a thousand years. For at least hundreds of years until the about 1900, the region of Palestine was inhabited by the people we now call the Palestinians, not by the ancestors of the Israelis. > Some who now identify as Palestinian also immigrated during the economically prosperous Mandatory Palestine period. Relatively few. Not enough to have much of an impact on the overall Arab population of Palestine. This is radically different than the Zionist colonization of Palestine, which was a mass influx of people with the explicit intention of taking over control of the territory. > Should American families who have only been here for one century have fewer rights I think you would accept that the following two situations would be very different: 1. People immigrate to the US, settle down, send their kids to school, and eventually become American citizens. 2. A large group of people enter the US with the explicitly stated goal of founding their own country - a country in which they want there to be as few Americans as possible. They have their own militias and operate completely outside the control of any government that the people of the United States control. Just to make this scenario more realistic, we can say that the US is currently under the rule of a foreign empire, so that Americans have no say in their own government. The foreign settlers start taking over large parts of the country. Finally, the UN says that the US should be split in two, giving half of it to the foreign settlers. The foreign settlers agree, but Americans think it's unfair and don't agree. War erupts. The foreign settlers, based on superior political organization and funding from abroad, quickly establish massive military dominance over the Americans, and go on to conquer 78% of the United States, expelling 80% of the American population from the territory they control. Not exactly the same thing.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

You're assuming it actually is genocide. And you assume it's Israeli actions rather than Hamas actions. Hamas sets people up to be killed, points at Israel, the world blames Israel.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
stubish 1y ago
Unfortunately the evidence is overwhelming, without compelling counter arguments, to the point of fact. To the point of the UN investigators concluding it is genocide. Denial is unbelievable. All that is left is justification.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  > To the point of the UN investigators concluding it is genocide This is a really unconvincing appeal to authority when we consider the three particular individuals behind the report, as well as broad anti-Israel bias in the UN.
  - stubish 1y ago
    Feel free to replace 'UN investigators' with any of the other people or organizations who have been forced to recognize that the evidence is overwhelming, even against their best interest. Appealing to no authority except the evidence here. Once that gets placed on the table and forced into consideration, the only defenses are irrationality, conspiracy theories and claiming special knowledge.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      Which of them would you claim is neutral? Amnesty International, who opened their report with "On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive", as if nothing else happened on 7 October? And then decided that the usual standard for inferring specific intent was "overly cramped". > Appealing to no authority except the evidence here You haven't mentioned evidence here, only authorities.