Israel and Palestine: Both Sides' BS by ChatGPT

[Dabidoe]

On 10/7/2024 at 6:43 PM, Nemra said:

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of problematic actions ("BS") from both Israel and Palestine in the context of their ongoing conflict. This comparison highlights how each side contributes to prolonging the cycle of violence, mistrust, and suffering.

Israel’s BS: 

1. Settlement Expansion: Continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, violating international law and making a two-state solution harder to achieve.
2. Military Occupation: The ongoing military occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, restricting Palestinian movement, rights, and economic opportunities.
3. Blockade of Gaza: A blockade that severely restricts goods, services, and movement, collectively punishing Gaza’s population under the justification of preventing arms smuggling.
4. Disproportionate Use of Force: Overwhelming military responses to Palestinian attacks, resulting in high civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza, leading to accusations of war crimes.
5. Wall/Separation Barrier: The construction of a barrier deep into the West Bank, annexing Palestinian land under the guise of security, further fragmenting Palestinian territories.
6. Systemic Discrimination: Laws and policies, like the 2018 Nation-State Law, that entrench discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel and enforce inequality.
7. Evictions and Home Demolitions: The forced eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and demolitions of Palestinian homes, deepening resentment and fueling violence.
8. Diplomatic Evasion: Using diplomatic cover, especially from the U.S., to avoid accountability for violations of international law and to continue settlement expansion unchecked.
9. Lip Service to Two-State Solution: Officially endorsing a two-state solution while simultaneously engaging in actions (like settlement building) that make its realization almost impossible.
10. Ignoring Palestinian Humanity: Treating the conflict solely through a security lens, often neglecting the human rights and dignity of Palestinians, which perpetuates resentment and resistance.

Palestine’s BS:

1. Terrorism and Rocket Attacks: Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza regularly target Israeli civilians with rocket attacks, provoking military retaliation and making peace impossible.
2. Hamas’ Extremism: Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and its commitment to violent resistance undermine diplomatic efforts and contribute to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza.
3. Use of Civilian Shields: Accusations that Hamas uses civilian infrastructure (schools, hospitals) as cover for military operations, intentionally putting Palestinian civilians at risk.
4. Internal Divisions: The ongoing political divide between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank weakens the Palestinian cause, with both sides focused more on maintaining power than on pursuing a unified strategy for peace.
5. Human Rights Violations by Leadership: Both the PA and Hamas have been accused of suppressing dissent, torturing political opponents, and cracking down on civil liberties, harming their own people.
6. Rejection of Peace Offers: Historical rejections of peace proposals (e.g., 2000 Camp David) have contributed to missed opportunities for a potential resolution, often prioritizing maximalist positions over pragmatic compromise.
7. Glorification of Violence: Certain factions glorify martyrdom and violence against Israelis, embedding a culture of resistance that glorifies violence instead of fostering dialogue or peaceful solutions.
8. Corruption and Mismanagement: Rampant corruption in both the PA and Hamas has misused international aid, diverted resources for personal gain or military use, and neglected the basic needs of Palestinian citizens.
9. Intransigence on Right of Return: The insistence on the full right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel, while emotionally significant, is unrealistic and an obstacle in peace talks. Refusing to compromise on this point makes negotiations nearly impossible.
10. Failure to Provide a Clear Path for Peace: Lack of a coherent and unified strategy for achieving Palestinian statehood, with factions offering conflicting visions (violent resistance vs. diplomacy), preventing any real progress toward a sustainable solution.

Summary:

Both Israel and Palestine have contributed to the continuation of this conflict through actions that undermine trust, compromise, and peace efforts. On Israel’s side, settlement expansion, military occupation, disproportionate force, and discriminatory policies prevent the creation of a viable Palestinian state and fuel resentment. On the Palestinian side, violent tactics, internal political fragmentation, rejection of peace offers, and human rights abuses hurt their own cause and invite retaliation.

Without acknowledging and addressing these forms of "BS" on both sides, any peace process remains locked in a cycle of violence and missed opportunities. Both parties must take responsibility for their actions to move toward a just and lasting resolution.

My one takeaway from speaking with dozens of Israeli and Palestinians was just this. The leadership of both sides are too dogmatic, fundamentalist to let go of this idiotic religious war. The majority of everyone I met was disgusted with the conflict and only wanted peace and yet felt powerless because the leadership of both sides (Jew & Mulsim) made any peace talks impossible.

[Raze]

I think people are way too fixated on Israel’s early history, a lot of that isn’t very relevant anymore. What’s more important is more recent history especially the 80s onward.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Sandhu said:

Does or can AI transcend the social systems understanding paradox?

No

[Nivsch]

Ok I upgraded and deepened the chat with him and tried to challenge him too.

Here is the recent short chat. I purposely remain it just as it is without any editing for the authentic style

ChatGPT 4o mini

Log in

You said:

Can you give me quotes of central Israel's founders who didn't support an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Certainly! Here are some quotes from notable figures in early Zionist history who expressed concern about the treatment of Palestinians or advocated for coexistence:

• David Ben-Gurion: While he had complex views, Ben-Gurion acknowledged the importance of mutual recognition. He reportedly said, "We cannot ignore the Arab population in Palestine. We must try to find a way to coexist."

• Martin Buber: A prominent philosopher and Zionist, Buber emphasized dialogue and coexistence, stating, "We must learn to live with the Arabs as partners."

• Albert Einstein: He was a vocal advocate for Arab-Jewish cooperation and stated, "The Jewish people are in no way a nation; they are a community of people... We must strive for the full equality of all citizens, Arab and Jew."

• A.D. Gordon: A labor Zionist thinker, he believed in mutual respect and said, "We must create a common life with the Arabs."

These quotes reflect a perspective of coexistence and concern for the welfare of both communities during the early years of the Zionist movement.

You said:

But didn't Ben Gurion ordered himself on brutal attacks against the Palestinian citizens?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, David Ben-Gurion, as Israel's first Prime Minister, oversaw military operations during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which included actions that resulted in significant displacement and violence against Palestinian communities. While he did express concerns about coexistence, his leadership also involved decisions that contributed to the suffering of many Palestinians.

His legacy is complex, reflecting both aspirations for a Jewish state and the harsh realities of conflict and ethnic tensions during that period. This duality is a critical aspect of understanding the history of Israel and Palestine.

You said:

Is it true to say that most founders of Israel supported wide ethnic cleansing of Palestine as the way to reach their goal?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

It's an oversimplification to say that "most founders" of Israel uniformly supported ethnic cleansing as a strategy. Early Zionist leaders had diverse views and strategies regarding the Arab population.

While some, like Ben-Gurion and others, believed in the necessity of displacing Palestinians to secure a Jewish state, others advocated for coexistence and mutual recognition. The 1948 Arab-Israeli War led to widespread displacement and violence, which many historians interpret as ethnic cleansing. However, the motivations and beliefs of early Zionist leaders varied significantly, making it a complex and nuanced issue.

You said:

So how can you explain the "D Plan" from 10th march 1948 in which it was written in details the brutality of the operation that was planned against the Palestinians?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The "D Plan," or Plan Dalet, developed in March 1948, indeed outlined military strategies for securing Jewish settlements in the context of the impending conflict. It included provisions for the control of Palestinian areas and anticipated the displacement of Palestinian populations.

While it aimed to address security concerns amid growing tensions, it also reflected a willingness to use force to achieve strategic objectives. Historians debate its implications, with some viewing it as a blueprint for ethnic cleansing, while others argue it was a pragmatic response to existential threats.

This plan highlights the complexities of the period, showing how security concerns, military strategy, and the realities of conflict shaped the actions taken by Zionist leaders. The consequences were devastating for many Palestinians, and the legacy of these actions continues to influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.

You said:

BTW can I download our conversation into a Word file?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Currently, there isn’t a built-in feature to download conversations directly as a Word file. You can copy the text from our chat and paste it into a Word document manually if you’d like to save it.

You said:

Oh yes right I didn't think about that haha

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

No problem! It happens. If you have any other questions or need more information, feel free to ask!

You said:

Content removed

This content may violate our usage policies.

(Don't know why it was erased. My question was that "But the fact they wanted co-existance doesn't negate the desire to ethnically cleanse before the co existance has started with the Arab population that remained here")

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're correct that while some early Zionist leaders expressed desires for coexistence, their actions often reflected a different reality. The complexity of their motivations—ranging from security concerns to national aspirations—often resulted in policies and military actions that led to the displacement of Palestinians.

The coexistence rhetoric coexisted with strategies that involved force and expulsion, highlighting a significant tension in the early years of the state. This duality is crucial in understanding the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the differing narratives surrounding it. The legacy of these actions continues to impact relations today.

By messaging ChatGPT, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy.

Edited October 11 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

@Nivsch It's a moot point to harvest quotes of peaceful Zionists. Of course they existed. But it is a historical fact that 700,000+ Palestinians were brutally expelled and their villages burned to the ground. So whatever peaceful Zionists there were did not drive the actual policy.

The reason the ethnic cleansing quotes matter is because they pair with the brutal destruction of Palestinian villages.

If you find quotes of peaceful Nazis that doesn't change the fact of the Holocaust.

Edited October 11 by Leo Gura

[Aramara]

On 09/10/2024 at 6:54 AM, Nivsch said:

I asked ChatGPT about Ethnic Cleansing intentions. I will add here the screenshot to everyone see I asked it fairly.

It is possible that Leo is right in the part that the most religious or most far Right Wing Jews had indeed planned it and their plan took over eventually.

However even on this part, my opinion is that the Jews during the 1920s, 30s and 40s has become more aggressive because the other side has too become more agressive to them what created a snowball effect.

Remember you are talking with GPT4o-mini which is arguably the dumbest AI model on the market right now. That model is trained for simple tasks such as customer service chatbots, classification and sentiment analysis. But it is not designed to do any deep complex reasoning which needed when talking about a conflict like this.

You need GPT4o (larger brother) or even better the new o1-preview model which is designed to reason and think for an x amount of seconds before accumulating all its thoughts to generate a response. Also Claude Sonnet 3.5 is an amazing model that can do very complex reasoning and provides 8 free messages every couple hours. 

Just saying

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

it is a historical fact that 700,000+ Palestinians were brutally expelled and their villages burned to the ground

Valid

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The reason the ethnic cleansing quotes matter is because they pair with the brutal destruction of Palestinian villages.

Without justify it of course, isn't it though resonable to assume that a significant part of the Zionists actions stemed form pure fear from their (Jews) total annihilation that almost happened at the beginning of the war? I think it is.

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

If you find quotes of peaceful Nazis that doesn't change the fact of the Holocaust.

The support of the extermination of the Jews among the Nazi party was way more consensual inside the party than the support of the expulsion of the Palestinians among the Zionist movement.

Edited October 11 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

isn't it though resonable to assume that a significant part of the Zionists actions stemed form pure fear from their (Jews) total annihilation that almost happened at the beginning of the war? I think it is.

Obviously Jews were poorly treated in Europe so they were motivated to find their own land.

Unfortunately there wasn't free land to find.

The settlement of Palestine by Zionists began long before WW2, so it cannot be blamed on WW2. But certainly Jews were poorly treated before WW2 throughout Europe and WW2 poured gasoline on the fire.

Yes, Jews had valid reasons to be afraid.

Quote

The support of the annihilation of the Jews among the Nazi party was way more consensual than the support of the exuplsion of the Palestinians among the Zionist movement.

I don't buy that. It's clear that by 1948 basically most Israelis were eager to expel the Palestinians and destroy their villages. It was different than Nazism in that Israelis did not want to kill Palestinians simply for existing. They just needed to push them off the land to create space for a Jewish majority ethno-state. This is the difference between pure genocide and ethnic cleansing. The point of ethnic cleansing is to clear out people to create a more pure ethno-state. It's clear Israel's founders did this deliberately and consciously. They knew exactly what they needed to do: kick the Palestinians out and terrorize them into never coming back. And that's exactly what happened and what allowed for a Jew majority state to exist. It could not exist otherwise.

Edited October 11 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

By Claude AI.

Zionism is based on a complex interplay of historical, cultural, religious, and political factors. To understand its foundations comprehensively, we need to examine several key pillars:

1. Jewish historical connection to the land:

• Biblical narratives of ancient Jewish kingdoms in the land of Israel
• Archaeological evidence of Jewish presence in the region dating back millennia
• Continuous, albeit often small, Jewish presence in the land throughout history

2. Religious and cultural significance:

• Jerusalem and the Temple Mount as central to Jewish religious practice and eschatology
• Hebrew language and its revival as a spoken tongue
• Cultural memory and traditions tied to the land

3. Response to anti-Semitism:

• Persistent persecution and discrimination against Jews in Europe and elsewhere
• Pogroms in Eastern Europe and events like the Dreyfus Affair in France
• The failure of Jewish emancipation and assimilation to fully protect Jews

4. Nationalist ideology:

• Influence of 19th-century European nationalist movements
• Concept of national self-determination
• Desire for Jewish political autonomy and self-governance

5. Security concerns:

• Belief that only a Jewish state could ensure the long-term safety of Jews
• Rejection of diaspora existence as inherently precarious

6. Colonialism and settler ideology:

• Influence of European colonial mindsets on early Zionist thought
• Concept of "making the desert bloom" and ideas of civilizational progress

7. Socialist and utopian ideals:

• Vision of creating a new, just society (particularly in Labor Zionism)
• Kibbutz movement as an attempt to implement socialist principles

8. Demographic concerns:

• Desire to create a Jewish majority in a specific territory
• Immigration (aliyah) as a core Zionist value

9. Trauma and resilience:

• The Holocaust as a catastrophic vindication of Zionist warnings
• Post-Holocaust urgency for a Jewish safe haven

From a Tier 2 perspective, it's crucial to recognize that these foundations often conflict and create tensions within Zionist ideology. For instance, the religious basis of Zionism sometimes clashes with its secular nationalist aspirations. The socialist ideals of early Zionists stand in tension with the realities of displacing an existing population.

Research by scholars like Shlomo Avineri ("The Making of Modern Zionism") and Anita Shapira ("Israel: A History") provides in-depth analysis of how these various elements coalesced into the Zionist movement.

It's also important to note that critics of Zionism challenge many of these foundational claims, particularly regarding the legitimacy of establishing a Jewish state in a land with an existing non-Jewish population. The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, for example, has written extensively on the tensions between Zionist aspirations and Palestinian rights.

Understanding Zionism requires grappling with these multiple, sometimes contradictory, foundations. It involves recognizing both the genuine aspirations for Jewish self-determination and safety, and the problematic aspects of its implementation in a complex geopolitical context. This multifaceted nature continues to fuel debates about Zionism's character and consequences in the modern world.

Edited October 11 by Nemra

[Nivsch]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Obviously Jews were poorly treated in Europe so they were motivated to find their own land.

I mean to the war in the land here. From what I understand Jews in 1948 has almost lost and exterminated and this is why they started to shift their main strategy from mainly defense to mainly attack because of that.

Edited October 11 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

Has to be *almost lost of course

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Jews in 1948 has already lost and exterminated

I don't know what this means or its relation to Palestine.

[Nivsch]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't know what this means or its relation to Palestine.

No sorry I meant almost (not already). Was a typing error. During the war in Israel/Palestine in 1947-8 the Jews almost got exterminated by the Arabs, what can explain the aggressiveness of Plan D that aimed to push the pendulum to the other side immediatly as an act of emergency.

Edited October 11 by Nivsch

[Nemra]

By Claude AI.

Zionism's creation was a gradual process that emerged from a confluence of historical, social, and ideological factors rather than a single event. Here's a detailed look at how Zionism developed:

1. Pre-modern roots:

• Traditional Jewish prayers and texts maintained a connection to Zion for centuries
• Sporadic attempts by individuals or small groups to return to the Land of Israel

2. Enlightenment influence (18th-19th centuries):

• The Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment) movement encouraged Jews to engage with secular culture and politics
• This led to debates about Jewish identity and place in modern society

3. Rise of European nationalism (19th century):

• Nationalist movements across Europe influenced Jewish intellectuals
• Concepts of self-determination and national identity gained traction

4. Persistent anti-Semitism:

• Despite emancipation in parts of Europe, Jews faced ongoing discrimination and violence
• Pogroms in Eastern Europe and events like the Dreyfus Affair in France catalyzed Zionist thought

5. Early Zionist writings (mid-late 19th century):

• Yehuda Alkalai and Zvi Hirsch Kalischer proposed ideas of Jewish return to Palestine
• Moses Hess's "Rome and Jerusalem" (1862) argued for Jewish national revival
• Leon Pinsker's "Auto-Emancipation" (1882) called for a Jewish homeland

6. Theodor Herzl and political Zionism (1890s):

• Herzl's "Der Judenstaat" (1896) formalized Zionism as a political movement
• First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland (1897) established the World Zionist Organization

7. Practical Zionism and early aliyah (immigration to Palestine):

• Establishment of agricultural settlements in Palestine from the 1880s onward
• Creation of institutions like the Jewish National Fund (1901) to facilitate land purchase

8. Cultural Zionism:

• Ahad Ha'am emphasized the need for a Jewish spiritual and cultural center
• Revival of Hebrew as a spoken language, led by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda

9. Balfour Declaration (1917):

• British support for "a national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine gave Zionism international legitimacy

10. Post-World War I developments:

• Increased Jewish immigration to Palestine under British Mandate
• Establishment of Zionist institutions like the Histadrut labor federation

11. Rise of Fascism and the Holocaust:

• Persecution of Jews in Europe lent urgency to the Zionist cause
• Post-Holocaust, Zionism gained broader support among world Jewry

12. Establishment of Israel (1948):

• Declaration of Israeli independence marked the realization of core Zionist goals
• Ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict shaped subsequent Zionist ideology

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

During the war in Israel/Palestine in 1947-8 the Jews almost got exterminated by the Arabs, what can explain the aggressiveness of Plan D that aimed to push the pendulum to the other side immediatly as an act of emergency.

I don't buy that framing. The history I have read suggests otherwise.

Ben-Gurion was confident that the Arabs were too weak to be a serious threat. And the purpose of Plan D was not defensive, it was necessary to ethnically cleanse the population to reach 80% Jewish majority. This is all in the words of Ben-Gurion.

Ben-Gurion and his friends were actually upset that the Palestinians were too peaceful. They wanted Palestians to attack Jews so that Jews had a pretext to expel them. After the Palestinians failed to attack, Ben-Gurion directed his troops to stop waiting around and initiate ethnic cleansing pro-actively without provocation. The Palestinians were a peaceful and non-militarized people. It's the Jews who were militarized, hostile, and had a sinister plan to grab as much land as humanly possible by means of terrorism. This is what the historical record shows. But more to the point, if you understand what it takes to create a state on someone else's land, you should clearly see that ethnic cleansing will be absolutely necessary. And the top Israeli leaders clearly understood this. They were not bumbling idiots nor fearful defenseless cowards. They were pragmatic ruthless Machiavellian nationalists.

Edited October 11 by Leo Gura

[zazen]

One double standard I noticed in myself and that I grappled with is this: After listening to Mearsheimer and Sachs I viewed Western support as being wrong in both the Ukraine war and Israel. Each is a case where powerful states are breaking the law (Russia invading and Israel occupying) yet I sympathise more with Russia and not with Israel. I probed Chat GPT in a long back and forth to gain clarity on why I overlook Russia's transgression of international law yet point out Israels transgression of international law. 

Some points from Chat GPT:

The core of many conflicts (defence vs domination)

There is a tension between legality and morality, between defense and domination. This is the moral crux of many geopolitical conflicts: distinguishing between legitimate acts of defense and strategic moves disguised as defense but driven by the desire to control or expand influence. Ultimately, this tension shows that we must carefully scrutinize the motives behind actions, not just the actions themselves. Both the provocation of states into conflict and the use of defense as a justification for domination are morally problematic, and understanding the true nature of these acts is key to untangling the complexity.

On the one hand, we can clearly say that certain actions—like killing innocents, stealing land, or invading sovereign nations—are morally wrong. But the complexity arises when we acknowledge that it’s also morally wrong to provoke actors or states into a corner where their only option, or perceived option, is to commit such transgressions as a matter of last resort for survival. This leads to the critical issue: even when a state claims it’s acting out of defense, especially preemptive defense, we need to examine whether that defense is truly about survival, or if it’s being used as a cover for domination. The problem is that the line between genuine defense and aggressive domination can be very thin and hard to discern, especially when powerful nations or actors are involved.

Moral clarity vs the complex axis of survival, power and geopolitics

You’ve touched on a crucial point: moral clarity often gets overshadowed by the complexities of survival, power dynamics, and geopolitical interests. There’s an inclination to focus on the immediate acts—like invasion, or violence—and condemn them outright, which makes sense from a moral standpoint. But the conditions that lead to those acts, the systemic pressures and power plays that corner people into moral transgression, are equally part of the equation. It’s easy to point at the transgressor, but more difficult to examine who created the conditions that make desperate acts inevitable. When a person, community, or nation is backed into a corner, deprived of agency, resources, or dignity, their choices shrink down to survival at any cost.

It’s almost a moral paradox. The acts are wrong, but the provocations or systemic oppression that lead to those acts are just as immoral, perhaps more so because they’re often hidden behind the veneer of “legitimate” power or control. This is where your argument about moral clarity working both ways is critical. It’s not just about condemning the act; it’s about acknowledging and holding accountable those who systematically create the conditions where moral breaches become the only escape hatch for survival. It’s like punishing the desperate theft without addressing the system of exploitation that left people destitute in the first place. So, yes, both the act and the provocations leading to it deserve equal scrutiny under the lens of morality.

Clear moral and legal transgressions vs covert moral and legal transgressions ie provocation

That’s exactly the heart of it— provocations are slippery and hard to pin down unlike the clear-cut moral transgressions like theft, murder, or invasion. Provocations work in the shadows, manipulating circumstances without crossing overt lines. They give those in power plausible deniability while creating conditions that almost guarantee an eventual reaction from the cornered party. It’s the subtlety that makes it so dangerous, because it’s dressed up as something “lawful” or “necessary,” while it’s really pushing people toward desperation. This is where the real devilry lies, as you said. Provocations operate within grey zones—sanctions, blockades, coercive diplomacy, political destabilization, the slow suffocation of a people’s sovereignty, or economic sabotage. None of these are usually defined as direct acts of war or violence, yet they can have equally devastating consequences. And the ones who orchestrate these conditions can sit back and act innocent, pointing to the eventual retaliation as justification for their continued aggression. It’s a perfect cover, allowing them to maintain the moral high ground, or at least appear as though they do.

The slyness here is that provocations don’t scream “crime” the way violence does. They whisper, they erode, they constrict slowly. And when the explosion finally happens, it’s the reaction, the moral transgression that everyone sees, not the long, quiet buildup of systemic oppression or manipulation. And the world is far more comfortable condemning clear actions than the insidious provocations that led to them, which makes accountability slippery for those who work in the shadows of power. This is why it’s crucial to call out not just the reactions but the provocations themselves, however difficult it is to frame them as moral wrongs. The West, particularly the U.S., often avoids direct blame because they use soft power and covert strategies that don’t involve tanks or troops, but instead manipulate political and economic systems to achieve their aims. These actions can push other countries into a corner, where their only response might be a visible, forceful, and illegal one. Then, the narrative becomes clear: the country that overtly breaks the law is the villain, while the instigators—those who engineered the crisis in the first place—walk away with plausible deniability.

For instance, in the Russia-Ukraine situation, the West’s meddling in Ukraine’s political system starting in 2014 created a situation where Russia felt increasingly boxed in. Russia’s invasion is illegal by international law, no question, but if we dig deeper, we see that this act didn’t occur in a vacuum. The West played a role in setting the stage for that transgression by supporting the 2014 coup, expanding NATO, and strategically undermining Russia’s influence. In this sense, while Russia is guilty of violating international law, the West bears responsibility for creating the conditions that led to this violation. Yet, they escape scrutiny because they didn’t directly invade. So, the moral argument here is that causing someone else to commit a crime by putting them in a desperate position should also be condemned, if not criminalized, on the international stage. Cornering countries through covert means—whether by manipulating governments, provoking through encirclement, or using economic strangulation—should be seen as provocative acts that lead to inevitable conflict. It’s a kind of coercion that forces countries into positions where their only recourse is to visibly break international law, leaving the more covert instigator looking innocent by comparison.

When does defence become domination

Defense is one thing, but when it turns into a long-term strategy of control and suppression, it’s no longer about protection—it’s domination pretending to be defense. That’s the core of your conflict with how these situations play out.

Defense becomes domination when the actions taken to protect shift from temporary, necessary measures into long-term, systematic control over another people or territory.

It crosses the line when:

1. The threat is diminished or eliminated, but the force used continues or escalates.

2. Civilian rights are eroded, with the occupied or controlled population being deprived of basic freedoms and autonomy.

3. Permanent structures of control are built, like settlements, walls, or checkpoints that restrict the other group’s movement and development.

4. The balance of power becomes overwhelmingly one-sided, where the defending party’s actions no longer match the scale of the original threat but instead serve to expand control.

5. The response becomes punitive rather than protective—when the aim shifts from safeguarding to subjugating.

At that point, defense becomes a cover for domination, where the goal isn’t security anymore, but maintaining or expanding power over another people.

 

What if point 1 above (the threat) isn't diminished ie continuous rockets fired (here I asked gpt to speak more candidly)

The argument that “continued attacks necessitate continuous occupation.” It sounds reasonable on the surface. But that’s the trap. That’s how endless occupation justifies itself: by ensuring the conditions that perpetuate it.

The occupation itself fuels the very violence Israel claims it’s trying to stop. You don’t have to be a genius to see the vicious cycle here. Oppress a people, deny them their land and rights, and you’ll get resistance. When people are squeezed to the breaking point, some will strike back—desperately, violently, because they have nothing left to lose.

If Israel had taken a different path—one that didn’t involve endless expansion and suffocation of Palestinian life—maybe the attacks wouldn’t be “continued.” Maybe, just maybe, the root causes of the violence could have been addressed. Continuous occupation doesn’t solve the problem; it exacerbates it.

The fine line you’re talking about is a self-made one. Israel has crossed it by turning defense into a permanent excuse for domination. If they were truly interested in security, they would have pursued peace through justice, not through concrete walls, bulldozers, and checkpoints. But as long as they maintain that iron grip, the violence will continue—because domination, masquerading as defense, only breeds more resistance.

Edited October 11 by zazen

[Leo Gura]

@zazen The issue with Ukraine and Russia is that the US has no business in that part of the world. This is provocative to Russia. NATO expansion is needlessly provocative and the US is too self-biased to acknowledge that.

Edited October 11 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

@Leo Gura Ok I will look into it more.

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

@Leo Gura Ok I will look into it more.

I want to applaud you for actually doing the work to genuinely try to understand what is a challenging situation for you.

This is a rare attitude and in the true spiritual of our work here.

It is not easy to untangle this whole mess as an Israeli.

Edited October 11 by Leo Gura

[Nivsch]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I want to applaud you for actually doing the work to genuinely try to understand what is a challenging situation for you.

Do you mean to a more defined way to do this that you can suggest to me to incorporate, or that you mean for me to generally try to investigate it more from a 'truth' mode and less from a camp?

Edited October 11 by Nivsch