[RD] War in Gaza News: Pas de Deux

[Senethro]

...that's the point. Starting wars you can't win is unreasonable.

You're missing the point repeatedly. They're losing the wars. They're losing the ceasefires. They would lose an imposed peace.

They have no good options, so you're not exactly a big brained genius for being able to find criticism of their actions.

 

[Senethro]

Now, that is their own lens of interpretation, and I'm sure they feel that that is right. But I find it to be an unhealthy and outdated one in the long run. That was not Israel's "fault" for framing their opposition in such a regard; they came up with that themselves. They say this is the answer.

It might be Israel's fault for repeatedly bombing all the housing and infrastructure. Maybe.

And perhaps that has an effect on the mindsets in Gaza. It may be one you consider unhealthy!

 

[Voidwalkin]

You're missing the point repeatedly. They're losing the wars. They're losing the ceasefires. They would lose an imposed peace.

They have no good options, so you're not exactly a big brained genius for being able to find criticism of their actions.

They do have good options. Drop right to return, recognize Israelis as native in 2025, cease terrorism. This they will not do.

I don't understand why excuses continue to be made, endlessly, for a movement that won't recognize the Israelis are just as native in 2025. That much is something I'm missing, yes.

 

[danjuno]

Good options. Lmao.

 

[Senethro]

They do have good options. Drop right to return, recognize Israelis as native in 2025, cease terrorism. This they will not do.

I don't understand why excuses continue to be made, endlessly, for a movement that won't recognize the Israelis are just as native in 2025. That much is something I'm missing, yes.

And which Israeli political parties would go for this? In all sincerity. We can be certain that some would find even this unacceptable, and that they're in government in a coalition at present.

 

[Voidwalkin]

And which Israeli political parties would go for this? In all sincerity. We can be certain that some would find even this unacceptable, and that they're in government in a coalition at present.

I believe you'll find the present government is largely shaped by Palestinian agency. Clinton was very close to peace, Arafat rejected it, because Israel would not concede right of return, deciding instead to launch an Intifada.

Is it any real wonder that in those circumstances Israelis would come to believe that the true Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel? Of course, it also doesn't help that during a high profile dinner, Arafat questions whether Jewish people ever had a temple in the famous site to begin with. Nothing crank-adjacent there.

The offer was later repeated to Arafat's successor, and also declined. If it really were statehood they were after, independence, why would an offer that saw them set to receive 95% of the WB(compensated for that 5 too), and Gaza, be rejected?

It cannot be presumed that the Israeli attitude would remain constant should a different approach be taken. It's rather obvious that it wouldn't.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't understand why excuses continue to be made, endlessly, for a movement that won't recognize the Israelis are just as native in 2025.

And neither do I, for those who won't recognise Palestinians. You talk of apologia, constantly. It's hard to take sincerely.

It cannot be presumed that the Israeli attitude would remain constant should a different approach be taken.

And again. You ignore the power disparity, and the relative weight of actions. One side must be perfect and hope for the best. The other can continue with barely a shred of criticism. What criticism exists always exists in tandem with blame of the side perfection is demanded of.

 

[Voidwalkin]

And neither do I, for those who won't recognise Palestinians. You talk of apologia, constantly. It's hard to take sincerely.

If it really were statehood they were after, independence, why would an offer that saw them set to receive 95% of the WB(compensated for that 5 too), and Gaza, be rejected?

 

[Gorbles]

That isn't recognition, that's a leading question. Where does it lead? Nobody but you can answer that.

It's like me asking "if Israel cared about the hostages, why ignore Hamas offering to release them"?

 

[Crezth]

I believe you'll find the present government is largely shaped by Palestinian agency. Clinton was very close to peace, Arafat rejected it, because Israel would not concede right of return, deciding instead to launch an Intifada.

Is it any real wonder that in those circumstances Israelis would come to believe that the true Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel? Of course, it also doesn't help that during a high profile dinner, Arafat questions whether Jewish people ever had a temple in the famous site to begin with. Nothing crank-adjacent there.

The offer was later repeated to Arafat's successor, and also declined. If it really were statehood they were after, independence, why would an offer that saw them set to receive 95% of the WB(compensated for that 5 too), and Gaza, be rejected?

It cannot be presumed that the Israeli attitude would remain constant should a different approach be taken. It's rather obvious that it wouldn't.

To talk about all this without mentioning Itzhak Rabin is awfully convenient

 

[Lexicus]

To talk about all this without mentioning Itzhak Rabin is awfully convenient

Or what happened to him, or the guy who threatened to kill him like two weeks before it happened, who is now in charge of all the police in Israel or something idk

 

[Voidwalkin]

To talk about all this without mentioning Itzhak Rabin is awfully convenient

-it's been mentioned here before about 20k times
-much more importantly, an offer of real statehood was later refused twice, which does make one wonder what the real commitment to Oslo ever really was to begin with

 

[Crezth]

-it's been mentioned here before about 20k times
-much more importantly, an offer of real statehood was later refused twice, which does make one wonder what the real commitment to Oslo ever really was to begin with

But in the context you’re addressing it’s a crucial detail. Why can’t peace prevail? It’s because the peaceful are killed. And for the record, MLK Jr and Gandhi were both also killed, and hatred is still a problem in America and India. I think the peacekeeping gallery should know that.

 

[Voidwalkin]

But in the context you’re addressing it’s a crucial detail. Why can’t peace prevail? It’s because the peaceful are killed. And for the record, MLK Jr and Gandhi were both also killed, and hatred is still a problem in America and India. I think the peacekeeping gallery should know that.

I'm mostly speaking to CFC regulars who have personally written about Rabin in prior posts. I don't really dissent against an argument for complete presentation generally. I just seldom see it mentioned in this latest flare-up that the Palestinians actually were presented two real offers of statehood and declined them both in order to keep fighting, leading directly to the rise of the Israeli right.

My interest in the debate comes and goes. I do think there are common misconceptions regarding what the Palestinian side has indicated they're about. This was most famously the case when the (somewhat perplexingly) esteemed Coates went to Israel for approximately ten days, in order to write a book that deliberately ignores any complexity in favor of a much simpler moral narrative about colonialism(ignoring, at the same time, that the present belligerent openly characterizes the struggle as holy war)

I am firmly of the mind that the lens used to examine this thing is made basically warped by a tendency to attribute characteristics and righteousness to whomever is lesser in power, beyond what's actually been demonstrated.

 

[Crezth]

I'm mostly speaking to CFC regulars who have personally written about Rabin in prior posts. I don't really dissent against an argument for complete presentation generally. I just seldom see it mentioned in this latest flare-up that the Palestinians actually were presented two real offers of statehood and declined them both in order to keep fighting, leading directly to the rise of the Israeli right.

My interest in the debate comes and goes. I do think there are common misconceptions regarding what the Palestinian side has indicated they're about. This was most famously the case when the (somewhat perplexingly) esteemed Coates went to Israel for approximately ten days, in order to write a book that deliberately ignores any complexity in favor of a much simpler moral narrative about colonialism(ignoring, at the same time, that the present belligerent openly characterizes the struggle as holy war)

I am firmly of the mind that the lens used to examine this thing is made basically warped by a tendency to attribute characteristics and righteousness to whomever is lesser in power, beyond what's actually been demonstrated.

Yeah, look, I get all this but if you want to be correct and not just win arguments online you have to be critical. And indeed, if we spoke about what we really think and not just what we think is convincing to the other side we admit that we think the leftists just always root for geopolitical underdogs. But are they underdogs for no reason, and should you always trust the more powerful’s representatives? Yes if you live in starship troopers, no if you think shelling out a pittance to some friendly local bosses is “justice.” Obviously neither can work long term. But they don’t get slung around for your health. The things that really objectively matters besides all of this are “are civilians legitimate targets of war?” And “does the law matter less when it inconveniences your superiors?” That’s where the whole constitutionalism and freedom and self defense that attacks unrelated countries for Halliburton’s bottom line argument breaks down. And maybe you want to take the dumbass locals of flyover stupid people land for granted. But they’re really not that stupid.

 

[Lexicus]

That guy in Florida shooting two people because he thought they were Palestinian, those two turning out to be Israelis, and the two later posting that they were targeted for being Jewish is...idk...what is there really to say?

 

[Yeekim]

Their Gandhis were murdered by Israel

Anyone specific in mind?

 

[Gorbles]

I just seldom see it mentioned in this latest flare-up that the Palestinians actually were presented two real offers of statehood and declined them both in order to keep fighting, leading directly to the rise of the Israeli right.

This is a causative link you're claiming when in fact it's nothing but your opinion - opinion designed to put the blame on Palestine for Israel's subsequent actions.

You keep doing this, and keep accusing others of apologia for Palestinians (when you actually mean Hamas, and you often conflate the two). Feels intentional!

This was most famously the case when the (somewhat perplexingly) esteemed Coates went to Israel for approximately ten days, in order to write a book that deliberately ignores any complexity in favor of a much simpler moral narrative about colonialism(ignoring, at the same time, that the present belligerent openly characterizes the struggle as holy war)

If that's what you took from Coates' trip and subsequent writing, a lot of things make more sense r.e. your philosophising in general.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Yeah, look, I get all this but if you want to be correct and not just win arguments online you have to be critical. And indeed, if we spoke about what we really think and not just what we think is convincing to the other side we admit that we think the leftists just always root for geopolitical underdogs. But are they underdogs for no reason, and should you always trust the more powerful’s representatives

I do not believe you should always trust the powerful.

However, to be real, when a commitment to supporting the underdog becomes strong enough that, especially amongst deep left figures, there is an ongoing convergence between leftist thought, and, strikingly, political Islamism, it should really be wondered if the universalism that used to carry the project has been replaced with some really, truly bizarre identitarian thinking.

Having "support underdog" as a principle is not bad. Commitment to it to the extent that all other principles are forgotten or glossed over with an exception made in order to support an underdog is an unfairness, limiting in mass appeal.

If that's what you took from Coates' trip and subsequent writing, a lot of things make more sense r.e. your philosophising in general.

I did indeed take that The Message was nonsense. Really bad. He openly stated he was not interested in hearing any opposing perspectives, and it showed.

This is a causative link you're claiming when in fact it's nothing but your opinion - opinion designed to put the blame on Palestine for Israel's subsequent actions.

You keep doing this, and keep accusing others of apologia for Palestinians (when you actually mean Hamas, and you often conflate the two). Feels intentional

My, how radical, that Palestine may have to endure some blame? Inconceivable!

 

[Gorbles]

I did indeed take that The Message was nonsense. Really bad. He openly stated he was not interested in hearing any opposing perspectives, and it showed.

Many people openly state such, on a variety of topics. Others implicitly act as though there are no other perspectives. There is little difference, except I'm not on a forum with Coates, and neither are you.

My, how radical, that Palestine may have to endure some blame? Inconceivable!

This is both a strawman and moving the goalposts, but I guess it's out in the open now at least.

Nobody, at any point, as claimed that Hamas has zero culpability stemming from its own actions. This is not a real argument. It is fictitious. "Palestine" as a barely-recognised state deserves even less, but given the PA's willingness to be seen as an arm of Israel vs. Israel sending armed settlers into it in recent weeks really shows how much "culpability" is relevant here.

So sure, let's say there is some non-zero amount of blame to be shared between Hamas and the PA; between Gaza and the West Bank.

My position is that a lot more blame should be shouldered by Israel. Reasonable, no?

It feels like you're arguing the inverse. Which is fascinating, really, especially with all your conversations with Crezth. You've certainly learned a lot in less than a year. Which is doable! But certainly fascinating, to me personally. You don't tend to link sources much, and you've pooh-poohed Coates . . . so what does inform your general historical understanding? What things have you read in the past six to eight months? Did you actually read Coates' book? I haven't, books are a money and time luxury I very rarely can indulge in. I'm interested!