446
Israel orders Gazans to flee, bombs where it sends them (www.reuters.com)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by sousmerde_retardatr@lemm.ee to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
127 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Previous title apparently :

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I appreciate your tone and demeanor, it's nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.

Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, ... perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). ... You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative,

I know that's the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I don't personally care about ancient claims nor do I believe they are very relevant to the present conflict. What matters more is who controls it now, and fighting over holy cities just ensures that this will never end because it's hard to compromise with people who believe God is on their side and granted them access to specific lands. On some level I think the world would be better off if neither party had Jerusalem and it was independent, like the original partition plan called for, but now that ship has sailed and Israel controls it. I don't see this changing any time soon.

If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&’total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)

Unfortunately I don't think any of that is viable except perhaps for the security and separation part, it would be hard for the losing side to get the winning side to agree to such terms and pay war reparations for a war they didn't start and won.

I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction.

I'm not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasn't been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but it's certainly justifiable in the name of self-defense. Returning territories while their enemy remains belligerent seems like a bad strategy. The problem is that war is not a transitory state in this part of the world like the UN assumes are their nature, it is a permanent condition. Palestine refuses to concede despite being defeated time and time again. From the polling I've seen, most Palestinians don't want to compromise for anything less than the '48 lands back with a one-state solution they control, which is a non-starter. International laws regarding war seem to be written with the idea that wars end when peace is sued for, and this conflict doesn't fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.

Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. ... then perhaps ... it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).

I don't think either should be destroyed, but that's probably what will happen if Palestine doesn't surrender and pacify itself. Endless intifada will just push Israel to keep responding to violence with harsh responses and annexations, and they hold all the cards militarily speaking. If I were in charge, I think the best solution would be to eventually make the entire west bank the state of Palestine, contiguous and autonomous, provided it remains peaceful. This is not possible while the population wants revenge more than viable peace.

Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security,

I just looked up current polling regarding what Israelis want regarding Palestine, evidently it's a contentious issue with the Israeli public generally split regarding how to proceed:

  • Strive for peace based on a two-state solution: 36%
  • Strive to annex the West Bank and establish a single state with privileged status for Jews: 28%
  • Strive to annex the West Bank and establish one state with full equal rights for all: 11%
  • Don't know: 25%

You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.

Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation's ability to change that situation. I'm reminded of the saying, "give me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change."

[-] sousmerde_retardatr@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation's ability to change that situation.

We're arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Here's why i think that the law of the strongest doesn't necessarily work against them :

Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Since you mentioned "realpolitik", and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant "terrorism" by more numerous inhabitants.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Yet when i'm thinking of such examples it's about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldn't be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).

Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
If it wasn't enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That'd mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they're still closer to us.
(What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldn't matter, but even through that lens, )Here's a (naive )picture of how it could happen :

  • they'll throw a lot of propaganda to make their citizens f*cking hate to death israelis, painting them as monsters by recycling their war crimes and implying that they're doing so because they're evils, not because they want to survive, antisemitism could also help in that ;
  • they'll progressively cut all economic ties with the west as long as we dont accept their request, and have prepared beforehand as much as they can to withstand sanctions/'economic war' ;
  • they'll strengthen their link and, this is important, pledge publicly and repeatedly that they'll invade each other if(when) someone is elected(, or placed after a coup,) that intend to break this oath ;
  • they'll regularly make military threats to Israel, but without acting upon it unless they know how to get rid of the bomb, so mostly to mark a point before diplomatic meetings and eventually take a habit of strengthening popular support like that, rejoicing in the fear that they think it may bring israelis, and of the coming day when they'll conquer back their lands, as well as enact laws against israelis or even perhaps westerners ;
  • ...

If 'fairness is excluded'/'might makes right'/'the only factor is strength', then they're not weak.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/'never doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.im' then we wouldn't rely on states, laws, borders, ..., for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldn't belong to anyone and we wouldn't possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since we're not perfect it's useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldn't be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other don't also believe that he's one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.

Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It's not really comparable because of this.

Since you mentioned “realpolitik”, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant “terrorism” by more numerous inhabitants.

  • Ukraine is also fighting for its existence.
  • Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.
  • Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel. They have been dealing with terrorism/intifada relatively effectively for the past 70 years and have built a sophisticated system that insulates them from Palestinian belligerents. While it failed spectacularly on Oct7, I don't suspect that will happen again. The only domain where Palestinians seem to be able to gain territory is in the court of public opinion.

In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.

For Israel this isn't a fight to colonize, it's a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews who have already been expelled from the Muslim world, and are facing enemies who quite explicitly want to genocide them.

Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.

Wasn't that what happened in '48 and '67? It didn't work out well for other nations who went to war on their behalf. Israel is much stronger now than it was then.

If it wasn’t enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That’d mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they’re still closer to us.

Interesting

  • I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations.
  • Palestinian resistance groups are getting support from Iran, who is using them as a proxy, but most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands. Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.
  • Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front, and there are many Russian Jews in Israel. Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.

If ‘fairness is excluded’/‘might makes right’/‘the only factor is strength’, then they’re not weak.

It is not the only factor but it is the most relevant one in this conflict, because it's so very asymmetrical.

Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner

If such creatures exist, they haven't weighed in, which is curious given that Allah/Yahweh supposedly care so much about their followers and who controls their holy cities. Funny how gods are always concerned with the same things that their followers and the men who claim to speak for them are, rather than what I'd expect from omnipotent creatures beyond our understanding. It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?

freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth

I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.

[-] sousmerde_retardatr@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israel's enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israel's safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the "illegal" settlements,) could be envisioned, that's a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesn't seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israel's destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
I'm in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
"I do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&'their allies' recognise Israel" is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question

It's just an addition, please don't feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
446 points (92.9% liked)

Not The Onion

12321 readers
1251 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
kescusay@lemmy.world