Saving Israel by Ending Its War in Gaza

[Leo Gura]

21 minutes ago, jaylimix said:

The Pales' population is on the rise throughout the decades.

Just because the Palestinians breed vigorously does not mean ethic cleansing hasn't been happening.

The claim is not that Israel will succeed in exterminating all the Palestinians. The claim is more subtle than that. Obviously in the 21st century ethnic cleansing must be done in a more nuanced way than in centuries past.

Edited January 4 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@Nivsch

22 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

For example the palestinians.

   Of course, obviously they can't help themselves when they're being oppressed by another more militarily developed state next door, by HAMAs somewhat, by PLO which is partly puppet by Zionists ruling Israel, other nearby societies, which all justifies IDF bombings of more civilians than terrorists DUH! Well GG Israel, because that UN tribunal will be another embarrassing event for Israel I guess.

Edited January 4 by Danioover9000

[zazen]

1 hour ago, jaylimix said:

If by ethnic cleansing you meant to " prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and to populate Judea and Samaria with Jews " then yes you are correct.

If by ethnic cleansing you mean to reduce the population of Palestinians, then no. The Pales' population is on the rise throughout the decades.

Pales have terrorise not only Israelis but also their Arab "brothers and sisters" and had suffered multiple Nakbas.

https://x.com/mewapawa/status/1742467153763406301?t=rxTqRb-VrhrTMfSw5LsX4g&s=09

 

 

I followed your link which seems to be your x profile - if so why post things like below. You think your supporting Israel but your only discrediting them even more by association to your genocidal memes and rhetoric. You corrupt the cause in how you conduct yourself in pursuit of that cause.

 

Edited January 4 by zazen

[Vrubel]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because the Palestinians breed vigorously does not mean ethic cleansing hasn't been happening.

The claim is not that Israel will succeed in exterminating all the Palestinians. The claim is more subtle than that.

The claim is so subtle that it is false. If Israel wants genocide they would have done it a long time ago. Israelis always wanted and idealistically craved peace but got embittered along the way due to Palestinian terrorism and savagery. Israelis have now zero trust in Palestinians and you can't blame them.

I want them to have a state but I don't trust them with it because they are so vicious and underdeveloped. Ironically the system of checkpoints and occasional raids on terrorist organizing is effective security. 

[Nivsch]

@Vrubel Yes. After the the peace agreement with Jordan, Israel was determined to make peace also with Syria and with the Palestinians, at least that was the vibe I got from my family and my surrounding at that time. But is was exploded on the Israelis in october 2000 when the palestinians chose to start the second intifada right after Camp David.

Edited January 4 by Nivsch

[Vrubel]

@Nivsch Yes, back then people thought that peace was around the corner and even the IDF got scaled back.

[zazen]

@Gennadiy1981 @Vrubel Respectfully - yes Israel did win the war. No one needs to dispute that or that Jews as a group have contributed to their own nation and globally.

Rational people aren't disputing Israel's right to exist or defend itself; the concern lies in the current state of its existence and its conduct in defense. Theirs no issue in the legitimacy of its existence but in how it currently exists at the expense of another group (local inhabitants). The problem is not the cause for its existence but the manner in which it conducts itself in pursuit of that cause. Similarly, it's not the Palestinian cause (for self determination) itself that is unjust, but rather the methods employed in advancing that cause ie October 7th

Another concern lies in the underlying purpose behind a defensive war and the weaponization of a opportunistic moment to sneak in a more malevolent agenda -  transferring Palestinians off their land ( if the term ethnic cleansing is too inflammatory ).

There exists another perspective in favour of what is in Israel's (and the Palestinians) best interest as the current path is only in the favour of a few who send others to die in order to save their own skin - politically and physically. Unfortunately the propaganda apparatus of vested interests have done a great job to block any other perspectives including the eyes of Israeli society which are reflexively bloodshot with ruthlessness vengeance - not enough to whole sale kill all Gazans, but enough to not care about not killing them indirectly.

Edited January 4 by zazen

[Karmadhi]

1 hour ago, Vrubel said:

The claim is so subtle that it is false. If Israel wants genocide they would have done it a long time ago. Israelis always wanted and idealistically craved peace but got embittered along the way due to Palestinian terrorism and savagery. Israelis have now zero trust in Palestinians and you can't blame them.

I want them to have a state but I don't trust them with it because they are so vicious and underdeveloped. Ironically the system of checkpoints and occasional raids on terrorist organizing is effective security. 

I just saw, population wise Israel is around 7 million Jews and Palestine is around 5 million, add another 2 million Arabs from Israel and it is 50/50.

By default the land that was the British Palestinian Mandate should be 50/50 split, meanwhile Israel has like 85% of it.

Why dont they retreat and give the Arabs there half the land, since they are half the population?

Curious.

@Nivsch

Same question to you.

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because the Palestinians breed vigorously does not mean ethic cleansing hasn't been happening.

The claim is not that Israel will succeed in exterminating all the Palestinians. The claim is more subtle than that. Obviously in the 21st century ethnic cleansing must be done in a more nuanced way than in centuries past.

But all the peace offers contradicts that.

And the situation right now is difficult to judge, because what happens now is an explosion from a feeling of fear and terror been accumulated in the Israelis for 30 years and the last straw 3 months ago cause them to explode.

Edited January 4 by Nivsch

[Vrubel]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Respectfully - yes Israel did win the war. No one needs to dispute that or that Jews as a group have contributed to their own nation and globally.

Rational people aren't disputing Israel's right to exist or defend itself; the concern lies in the current state of its existence and its conduct in defense. No issue in the legitimacy of its existence but in how it currently exists at the expense of another group (local inhabitants). The problem is not the cause for its existence but the manner in which it conducts itself in pursuit of that cause. Similarly, it's not the Palestinian cause (to self determination) itself that is unjust, but rather the methods employed in advancing that cause ie October 7th

I agree to a large degree, but Israel does not exist at the expense of the Palestinians rather: Israel exists. And the Palestinians are not willing to accept this reality, they want from the river to the sea. And let's not be naive about what this means in practical reality. 
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Another concern lies in the underlying purpose behind a defensive war and the weaponization of a opportunistic moment to sneak in a more malevolent agenda -  transferring Palestinians off their land ( if the term ethnic cleansing is too inflammatory ).

If the ultimate goal of the Palestinians is to live and grow (preferably also to build and educate but apparently that is too much to ask now) they should not do actions that lay them at the feet of Israelis. Israelis are generally more developed and more connected with the broader world but it does not mean they are angles, yes there is Ben Gvir and Smotrich. So don't beg for a genocide. Even if a genocide was to happen it would go down in history books as provoked by mass murder and unspeakable atrocities.
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

There exists another perspective in favour of what is in Israel's (and the Palestinians) best interest as the current path is only in the favour of a few who send others to die in order to save their own skin - politically and physically.

The sons of Israeli politicians and more broadly the Israeli elite are fighting just the same as everybody else. This is also an important point about Israeli society, values and morale which is very admirable. But generally speaking, the flames are fanned by extremists on both sides and the solution will have to come from a reasonable center position. I know Israel has a broad centrist base that is highly reasonable and open to peace. They are polled to win the next elections. Not sure how strong the Palestinian moderates are but at least they exist. 

 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Unfortunately the propaganda apparatus of vested interests have done a great job to block any other perspectives including the eyes of Israeli society which are reflexively bloodshot with ruthlessness vengeance - not enough to whole sale kill all Gazans, but enough to not care about not killing them indirectly.

I get your point but I think we differ on a fundamental level in mentality. There is a reason why I keep emphasizing to look at the satellite map view of how sprawling Palestinian villages and towns are and on street level how their houses are roomy with often big gardens. Because these people are not absolutely oppressed in some kind of Warsaw Ghetto. These people are not slaves and have freewill to choose how they pursue their political goals but they choose for war and terror. If not committing it then supporting it. So if you choose such a path you'll inevitably have to deal with the consequences of this path. From a geopolitical to a state security POV there is no way Israel can let Hamas off the hook. 
 

Edited January 4 by Vrubel

[Vrubel]

@Karmadhi You live in Lalaland, you're too biased to have a reasonable discussion with. Just ask Arab Israelis how much they want to live in a Palestinian state. (Seriously you can look that up).

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Vrubel said:

The claim is so subtle that it is false. If Israel wants genocide they would have done it a long time ago.

If we don't agree on definitions we are by definition not communicating and going in circles.  Leo said a ethnic cleansing campaign has been in process over the decades not genocide, which is a more accurate term for what's currently happening.

The UN definition of genocide are ''acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Which entail the following categories:

1. Killing members of the group;

2.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''

Of course we can stretch definitions to absurd degrees to fit things in and prove our points so we need to use them with reason and not play semantics. For example, if I take point ''2. Causing bodily or mental harm'' I could stretch the definition of that to include someone calling a certain group mean names or underdeveloped which could affect their mental health which of course isn't genocide. 

The UN definition of ethnic cleansing is ''rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.''

Isn't that what has been happening in the West Bank through settlements the past decades? Displacement, dispossession, expelled - different words pertaining to the same thing. If intent is there, including actions upon that intent that lead to attempts which are failed or are done in a long subtle process which go under the radar of the worlds eyes and human rights organisations - shouldn't that suffice in meeting the definition.  
https://www.btselem.org/communities_facing_expulsion

If people measure ethnic cleansing purely by population numbers that leaves out a lot. Cleansing doesn't mean expelled from the land as in the territory or the state of Israel to another state or territory but implies any area being lived on. If 10 Palestinians are displaced from North London to South London I can't say 'but the population still has 10 Palestinian in London so they aren't being ethnically cleansed' because the definition means removing a certain group from one area to another, not one sovereign state or territory to another.

 

Edited January 4 by zazen

[Karmadhi]

42 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

You live in Lalaland, you're too biased to have a reasonable discussion with. Just ask Arab Israelis how much they want to live in a Palestinian state. (Seriously you can look that up).

Money corrupts people, I am sure they would prefer to live like second class citizens in a rich country. 

Telling a thief to return what he stole may be LaLa land to you but Russia giving Crimea back to Ukraine is equally LaLa yet you advocate for it.

[Danioover9000]

@Vrubel

56 minutes ago, Vrubel said:

I agree to a large degree, but Israel does not exist at the expense of the Palestinians rather: Israel exists. And the Palestinians are not willing to accept this reality, they want from the river to the sea. And let's not be naive about what this means in practical reality. 
 

If the ultimate goal of the Palestinians is to live and grow (preferably also to build and educate but apparently that is too much to ask now) they should not do actions that lay them at the feet of Israelis. Israelis are generally more developed and more connected with the broader world but it does not mean they are angles, yes there is Ben Gvir and Smotrich. So don't beg for a genocide. Even if a genocide was to happen it would go down in history books as provoked by mass murder and unspeakable atrocities.
 

The sons of Israeli politicians and more broadly the Israeli elite are fighting just the same as everybody else. This is also an important point about Israeli society, values and morale which is very admirable. But generally speaking, the flames are fanned by extremists on both sides and the solution will have to come from a reasonable center position. I know Israel has a broad centrist base that is highly reasonable and open to peace. They are polled to win the next elections. Not sure how strong the Palestinian moderates are but at least they exist. 

 

I get your point but I think we differ on a fundamental level in mentality. There is a reason why I keep emphasizing to look at the satellite map view of how sprawling Palestinian villages and towns are and on street level how their houses are roomy with often big gardens. Because these people are not absolutely oppressed in some kind of Warsaw Ghetto. These people are not slaves and have freewill to choose how they pursue their political goals but they choose for war and terror. If not committing it then supporting it. So if you choose such a path you'll inevitably have to deal with the consequences of this path. From a geopolitical to a state security POV there is no way Israel can let Hamas off the hook. 
 

   Versus

@zazen

16 minutes ago, zazen said:

If we don't agree on definitions we are by definition not communicating and going in circles.  Leo said a ethnic cleansing campaign has been in process over the decades not genocide, which is a more accurate term for what's currently happening.

The UN definition of genocide are ''acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Which entail the following categories:

1. Killing members of the group;

2.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

3.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

4.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

5.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group''

Of course we can stretch definitions to absurd degrees to fit things in and prove our points so we need to use them with reason and not play semantics. For example, if I take point ''2. Causing bodily or mental harm'' I could stretch the definition of that to include someone calling a certain group mean names or underdeveloped which could affect their mental health which of course isn't genocide. 

The UN definition of ethnic cleansing is ''rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.''

Isn't that what has been happening in the West Bank through settlements the past decades? Displacement, dispossession, expelled - different words pertaining to the same thing. If intent is there, including actions upon that intent  that lead to attempts which are failed or are done in a long subtle process which go under the radar of the worlds eyes and human rights organisations - shouldn't that suffice in meeting the definition.  
https://www.btselem.org/communities_facing_expulsion

If people measure ethnic cleansing by population numbers that leaves out a lot. Cleansing doesn't mean expelled from the land as in the territory or the state of Israel to another state or territory but implies any area being lived on. If 10 Palestinians are displaced from North London to South London I can't 'but the population still has 10 Palestinian in London so they aren't being ethnically cleansed'/ because the definition means removing a certain group from one area to another, not one sovereign state or territory to another.

 

   @zazen 1, @Vrubel 0 for round 1. OOF.

   Putting that aside, I have to agree with @zazen, especially if we're trying to debate/argue, or even just talk, we do need some commonly established definitions for loaded terminologies, and unpack any terms that are loaded or complex, with high degree of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Genocide is one word worth defining from the opening, and it's worth considering the UN's definition especially since there'll be a UN tribunal that'll charge Israel and Netanyahu or whoever with war crimes of genocide, and maybe even the USA being complicit with this situation may get charged too.

   As for @Vrubel you did bring up some later points, with some implications going back to Israel Zionism, oppression of Palestinians, and the complicated conflict between the two nations historical, but what costed you round 1 was you're lack of condemning either side for their limitations, and for defining your own loaded terms when you also use them, and for not being mindful of when you do fallacies that make you seem  hypocritical, or attempting to both siding the two nation's issues when it's asymmetrically more from Israel and less from Palestine specifically.

Edited January 4 by Danioover9000

[Raze]

 

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

1 hour ago, Raze said:

 

   Wasn't this interview 9 years ago? Otherwise great take from Noam Chomsky.

   note: Love how Noam Chomsky pronounces Gaza, like it's 'Gee-za' instead of 'Gaw-za' .😁

Edited January 4 by Danioover9000

[zazen]

@Danioover9000 Lol, all in good faith. True, important we know what each of us means by our definitions or else we're just talking past each other. 

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I agree to a large degree, but Israel does not exist at the expense of the Palestinians rather: Israel exists. And the Palestinians are not willing to accept this reality, they want from the river to the sea. And let's not be naive about what this means in practical reality.

Doesn't it exist at the expense of never offering the other side a fair sovereign state that when they fight for the dignity of they're subjugated, oppressed and gaslighted for as savage. The military occupied area of West Bank which could possibly be their future state gets continually eaten away at through settlements - that's not a peaceful atmosphere for negotiations. From the river to the sea has different interpretations but in practice they have negotiated and come close to accepting recognised borders (not from the river to the sea) but these deals fell through on other details such as right of return, rights to resources (water), demilitarisation and the issue of still having Israeli security points within their 'sovereign' state.  So Israel would always have the means to protect themselves but the Palestinians don't?  

Likuds charter also mentions from the river to the sea and that no other sovereignty will be recognised within it. On the contrary and in practical reality Israel has implemented that via military occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank and now clearing out Gaza - that's actually from the river to the sea in practice and not just in ink.

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

If the ultimate goal of the Palestinians is to live and grow (preferably also to build and educate but apparently that is too much to ask now) they should not do actions that lay them at the feet of Israelis. Israelis are generally more developed and more connected with the broader world but it does not mean they are angles, yes there is Ben Gvir and Smotrich. So don't beg for a genocide. Even if a genocide was to happen it would go down in history books as provoked by mass murder and unspeakable atrocities.

Palestinians have one of the highest literacy rates in the Arab world. West Bank is littered with check points and trouble for kids on the way to school not to mention delays and clashes which obviously restrict access - including permits restricting development of enough schools. I guess they are also preoccupied with securing their survival before higher aspirations of higher education like in Gaza where schools are routinely destroyed or damaged through periodic operations which btw the current destruction of schools only shifts these kids into what will probably come to be make shift camps where Hamas can more easily recruit motivated vengeful kids who've had loved ones die.

Couldn't the October 7th atrocity likewise be provoked by past atrocities done to Palestinians. Just by the numbers alone they have suffered far more deaths than Israeli's and much more discrimination - this can never justify a genocide however and each life matters besides the numbers.

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

The sons of Israeli politicians and more broadly the Israeli elite are fighting just the same as everybody else. This is also an important point about Israeli society, values and morale which is very admirable. But generally speaking, the flames are fanned by extremists on both sides and the solution will have to come from a reasonable center position. I know Israel has a broad centrist base that is highly reasonable and open to peace. They are polled to win the next elections. Not sure how strong the Palestinian moderates are but at least they exist. 

The elderly politicians themselves aren't fighting yet it's  'old men who plan for wars that young men die for'. It is admirable of Israeli society to create a sense of national pride and unity (as long as that doesn't manifest in particularly ugly ethno-nationalistic ways) and the meaning that comes with that. 'Man dies for fiction more so than facts' - we are dreaming creatures that die more readily for symbols we attribute meaning to (a religion, a flag, a idea)

The centre of gravity has moved much more right blurring the middle and aligning the society especially when it comes to this war and after October 7th. The polls showing Netanyahu popularity plummeting is good at least, though other troubling polls show over 75% believe in Gazan's leaving Gaza being a good idea or majority of Jews (80%) not caring for how much suffering Palestinians incur in the next phases of fighting: 

4 hours ago, Vrubel said:

I get your point but I think we differ on a fundamental level in mentality. There is a reason why I keep emphasizing to look at the satellite map view of how sprawling Palestinian villages and towns are and on street level how their houses are roomy with often big gardens. Because these people are not absolutely oppressed in some kind of Warsaw Ghetto. These people are not slaves and have freewill to choose how they pursue their political goals but they choose for war and terror. If not committing it then supporting it. So if you choose such a path you'll inevitably have to deal with the consequences of this path. From a geopolitical to a state security POV there is no way Israel can let Hamas off the hook. 

True they aren't oppressed to the level of a Warsaw ghetto or slaves and its silly of people to equate Israeli's to the Nazi's also. Again with how words are used it doesn't have to be the most absolute use of a word to apply as people can describe situations in metaphorical ways like when David Cameron called Gaza an open air prison in the past which isn't true in its most literal sense but partially true in the sense of freedom of movement and restrictions. If we're talking international law then definitions require more precision to be used and applied (genocide, ethnic cleansing for example). Otherwise, certain words are used as analogous to make a point.

A revolt or resistance doesn't have to exclusively be only to the most extreme absolute versions of oppression and it doesn't deny the fact that some form of oppression is occurring that needs resisting and protesting to. Ethnic cleansing/displacement is still happening whether they live in a nice house or not - maybe it's worse if a family had a big house with a nice garden in West Bank which they get dispossessed of because their loss is greater - nonetheless a home is a home whether big or small. As for Gaza - they exercised their freewill and democracy which was overseen by 3rd parties and deemed a fair election but they made the mistake of using their freewill to choose the wrong party not as sympathetic to Israel/the West.

When people are denied a state their denied a certain type of more civilised and accepted means of protection/deterrence  - when a group doesn't have a military, navy, air force, tank units, intelligence agencies or the backing of a global superpower they need to resort to guerrilla warfare and other unsavoury uncivilised tactics for offence and defence like suicide or terrorist attacks - which they are then gaslighted as savages for and I get it, it is savage - but it doesn't detract from their cause being a just one of equal human rights, self determination and dignity even though they go about it in undignified unjust ways of which they have been left with little choice.

Edited January 4 by zazen

[Raze]

 

 

[Leo Gura]

Locking this. Go argue in the main Israel/Gaza thread.