Hamas Attacks Israel: 70 Israelis, 198 Palestinians Dead

[Luvnit2]

(10-11-2023, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 14 US Citizens killed, confirmed US Citizens among the hostages taken, at least 20 Americans in Israel still unaccounted for.

Students at colleges, BLM, and Democratic Socialists celebrating the rape and slaughter of civilians including children, over 1,000 dead, siding with a group threatening to execute hostages on video. Really taking off the mask here.

I will give Biden credit today, he was firm in his words for Israel. I am not sure why he refused to discussed Iran and the money source for Hamas. Then at the WH press briefing, the squad was called out. Now the question is will Jeffries also call them out or let them continue to side against Israel. This is not me speaking, it is Biden and his team.

Let's see if Biden's words are followed up by Biden's actions. He needs to help Israel cut off the head of the snake (Iran) or this conflict will never end. How do you hurt Iran, destroy their main source of income oil to China and others. Destroy their oil fields, kills Iran's economy and ability to support terrorist organizations throughout the middles east and hurts a major foe China and also Russia.

[CJD]

(10-10-2023, 09:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not that complicated.  The Palestinians had far more land when Israel was created than they do now.  Why is this?  Because they deliberately participated in numerous military actions aimed at the destruction if Israel.  Do I agree with Israel seizing the land after defending themselves successfully against Arab aggression?  No, ultimately it would have been better for them, morally if for no other reason, to not do so.  Do I think there wouldn't still be ongoing attempts to destroy Israel even if they had done so?  Absolutely.  This isn't a political struggle, it is a religious one.  Far too many Muslim majority nations see the destruction of Israel as a religious duty.  Why you continue to ignore their embracing terrorism as a means of retaliation is beyond me.

They defended themselves against an effort to colonize and confiscate their land, which prompted Israel (And the powers backing them) to take more and more land until they were backed into two small areas which are now effectively under control of Israel. I don't know if you're intentionally sugar coating the scenario to make Israel sound less cruel, but morally, it would have been better for them to never colonize the area to begin with.

The terminology "destroy Israel" is rather inflammatory, in my opinion. Israel did not exist until land was taken from the Palestinians to create it. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to un-do that seizing of land.

Imagine if, backed by British forces, a group of people settled in Texas and began confiscating homes and land from the people living there. They created a new nation called, I don't know, Mexicana. Slowly backing those people into the bay of Houston and occupying the city to control the remainder of the Texans still residing in the area (the ones they had not killed, deported, imprisoned or otherwise forced to be refugees elsewhere).

Do you think it would be unreasonable for the Texans to fight back against this effort to remove them from their homes?

And, if there were violent outbursts from the native Texans, do you think it would be correct for the media to paint those efforts as a group of terrorists trying to "destroy Mexicana"?

Your first sentence was "It's not that complicated," which I vehemently disagree with. 

Quote:To which I would counter with this.  Much has been made in this thread about "understanding" the Palestinian actions of the past few days and why they felt they were necessary.  Why not such call for an "understanding" of why Israel had conducted themselves as they have the past sixty plus years?  Do you think Israel has had no cause to respond or act as they have?


Even if you refuse to grant the same appeal for understanding to Israel that this thread demands for the Palestinians, one must ask a simple question.  How can you even attempt to side with a people, regardless of how just you believe their ultimate cause to be, that would condone, and encourage, the wanton slaughter of civilians?  This includes the beheading of infants, the livestream murders of hostages,  the kidnapping and gang raping of women, the wholesale and deliberate slaughter of families in their homes.  If we're discussing a people who would accept, and encourage, such actions, then you are correct, I have a very hard time expressing sympathy for them, no matter how valid their initial grievances were.

Understanding why people are behaving the way they do is not a justification for it. I understand why Hamas and the Palestinians hate Israel. I do not support them killing and ravaging innocent Israelis. 

In terms of understanding why Israel conducted themselves the way they have, I think people do. They were expelled from their ancestral home centuries ago and still feel a link to it now. That's understandable. Especially considering the fact that Jewish people, historically, have been mistreated for Millenia by...so many governing bodies across the world.

The oppression and systemic removal and/or subjugation of the Palestinian people who currently live on the land they have an ancestral link to is not an appropriate response to the desire to re-establish that ancestral link though.

There are viewpoints in which different people view situations. My viewpoint is in respect to the power imbalance between two groups of people. Oppressed groups lashing out against oppression is destructive, often not helpful and often inhumane in its own right. This can manifest in truly ghastly and horrible acts, as we are seeing right now. But it's coming from the anguish of being oppressed.

The violence of the oppressor on the other hand...It's a lot harder to reckon with. The Palestinians are captives in their own land, they have no control over their own fate and are, essentially, completely dependent upon the actions of those around them for their very survival.

The Israelis have complete control over their own fate, their land, their governance and the fate of their people.

And once you bring in the fact that both sides are acting based on religious (and therefore rigid and illogical) standpoints, you have a situation that will not be resolved until the oppressor stops oppressing or one of the groups is completely dead (which is incredibly difficult to do).

The cards are in Israel's hands. They just refuse to play them.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2023, 01:30 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They defended themselves against an effort to colonize and confiscate their land, which prompted Israel (And the powers backing them) to take more and more land until they were backed into two small areas which are now effectively under control of Israel. I don't know if you're intentionally sugar coating the scenario to make Israel sound less cruel, but morally, it would have been better for them to never colonize the area to begin with.

The terminology "destroy Israel" is rather inflammatory, in my opinion. Israel did not exist until land was taken from the Palestinians to create it. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to un-do that seizing of land.

Imagine if, backed by British forces, a group of people settled in Texas and began confiscating homes and land from the people living there. They created a new nation called, I don't know, Mexicana. Slowly backing those people into the bay of Houston and occupying the city to control the remainder of the Texans still residing in the area (the ones they had not killed, deported, imprisoned or otherwise forced to be refugees elsewhere).

Do you think it would be unreasonable for the Texans to fight back against this effort to remove them from their homes?

And, if there were violent outbursts from the native Texans, do you think it would be correct for the media to paint those efforts as a group of terrorists trying to "destroy Mexicana"?

Your first sentence was "It's not that complicated," which I vehemently disagree with. 


Understanding why people are behaving the way they do is not a justification for it. I understand why Hamas and the Palestinians hate Israel. I do not support them killing and ravaging innocent Israelis. 

In terms of understanding why Israel conducted themselves the way they have, I think people do. They were expelled from their ancestral home centuries ago and still feel a link to it now. That's understandable. Especially considering the fact that Jewish people, historically, have been mistreated for Millenia by...so many governing bodies across the world.

The oppression and systemic removal and/or subjugation of the Palestinian people who currently live on the land they have an ancestral link to is not an appropriate response to the desire to re-establish that ancestral link though.

There are viewpoints in which different people view situations. My viewpoint is in respect to the power imbalance between two groups of people. Oppressed groups lashing out against oppression is destructive, often not helpful and often inhumane in its own right. This can manifest in truly ghastly and horrible acts, as we are seeing right now. But it's coming from the anguish of being oppressed.

The violence of the oppressor on the other hand...It's a lot harder to reckon with. The Palestinians are captives in their own land, they have no control over their own fate and are, essentially, completely dependent upon the actions of those around them for their very survival.

The Israelis have complete control over their own fate, their land, their governance and the fate of their people.

And once you bring in the fact that both sides are acting based on religious (and therefore rigid and illogical) standpoints, you have a situation that will not be resolved until the oppressor stops oppressing or one of the groups is completely dead (which is incredibly difficult to do).

The cards are in Israel's hands. They just refuse to play them.

Fantastic post.  Kudos.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2023, 01:30 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They defended themselves against an effort to colonize and confiscate their land, which prompted Israel (And the powers backing them) to take more and more land until they were backed into two small areas which are now effectively under control of Israel. I don't know if you're intentionally sugar coating the scenario to make Israel sound less cruel, but morally, it would have been better for them to never colonize the area to begin with.

The terminology "destroy Israel" is rather inflammatory, in my opinion. Israel did not exist until land was taken from the Palestinians to create it. It makes perfect sense that they'd want to un-do that seizing of land.

Imagine if, backed by British forces, a group of people settled in Texas and began confiscating homes and land from the people living there. They created a new nation called, I don't know, Mexicana. Slowly backing those people into the bay of Houston and occupying the city to control the remainder of the Texans still residing in the area (the ones they had not killed, deported, imprisoned or otherwise forced to be refugees elsewhere).

Do you think it would be unreasonable for the Texans to fight back against this effort to remove them from their homes?

And, if there were violent outbursts from the native Texans, do you think it would be correct for the media to paint those efforts as a group of terrorists trying to "destroy Mexicana"?

Your first sentence was "It's not that complicated," which I vehemently disagree with. 


Understanding why people are behaving the way they do is not a justification for it. I understand why Hamas and the Palestinians hate Israel. I do not support them killing and ravaging innocent Israelis. 

In terms of understanding why Israel conducted themselves the way they have, I think people do. They were expelled from their ancestral home centuries ago and still feel a link to it now. That's understandable. Especially considering the fact that Jewish people, historically, have been mistreated for Millenia by...so many governing bodies across the world.

The oppression and systemic removal and/or subjugation of the Palestinian people who currently live on the land they have an ancestral link to is not an appropriate response to the desire to re-establish that ancestral link though.

There are viewpoints in which different people view situations. My viewpoint is in respect to the power imbalance between two groups of people. Oppressed groups lashing out against oppression is destructive, often not helpful and often inhumane in its own right. This can manifest in truly ghastly and horrible acts, as we are seeing right now. But it's coming from the anguish of being oppressed.

The violence of the oppressor on the other hand...It's a lot harder to reckon with. The Palestinians are captives in their own land, they have no control over their own fate and are, essentially, completely dependent upon the actions of those around them for their very survival.

The Israelis have complete control over their own fate, their land, their governance and the fate of their people.

And once you bring in the fact that both sides are acting based on religious (and therefore rigid and illogical) standpoints, you have a situation that will not be resolved until the oppressor stops oppressing or one of the groups is completely dead (which is incredibly difficult to do).

The cards are in Israel's hands. They just refuse to play them.

You're omitting some key facts.  Israel did not create itself.  It didn't magically appear overnight.  Any blame for those displaced does not fall on them, it falls on those who enabled the creation of Israel.  Of course, once created, they are responsible for their own conduct.  And they have been attacked almost relentlessly since that time.  Their choices were/are to fight back or die.  The Palestinians were represented by numerous Arab states in these conflicts.  Their backers proved insufficient to achieve the goal of eliminating the state of Israel.  Your view of Israel as the oppressors and the Palestinians as a displaced people with no nation or agency is a much more recent phenomena.  This status quo occurred after Israel successfully defended themselves from several wars of aggression involving several Arab nations.

Again, would it have been better for Israel not to seize more land after winning those wars, yes.  Doing so would certainly provide them with the moral high ground.  But would doing so prevent further attacks and the asymmetric warfare that goes on to this day, absolutely not.  Israel will be under attack until they no longer exist, the goal of numerous Arab nations and Iran, or religious fanatics of both Judaism and Islam stop being religious fanatics, i.e. never.  

So, I will again point out that your current view of Israel as the big stick in this scenario only occurred after successfully defending themselves in several wars meant to eradicate them as a state.  And if the current atrocities are any indication, as a people as well.  So, while I could sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, their continued support of terrorism, as well as gang rape, kidnapping, torture, the deliberate murder of children and infants, means I no longer do.  The fact is what they consider their homeland and is now within the borders of Israel are gone.  Israel is not going to give them up.  So your choices are this, find a new homeland (make Gaza part of Egypt for example) or continue as is.  The two state solution is never going to work, because at the end of the day neither party really wants it.  The Israelis have decided they have control of their ancestral homeland and aren't giving it up, and the Muslims in the area won't be happy until Israel is a memory.

Sympathize, empathize and understand all you want (just for one side oddly enough), but that's the reality.

[Goalpost]

https://radio.foxnews.com/2023/10/10/sscr/

Condoleezza Rice's comments on this.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

A quick question for those with the courage to answer it. We were told repeatedly that Trump's perceived failure to condemn white supremacist supporters indicated his acceptance of their tenants.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/politics/proud-boys-trump-white-supremacists-debate/index.html


Using the same logic, I ask the following. If you refuse to condemn the actions of Hamas are you not, in the same exact fashion, at the very least condoning their behavior?

[GMDino]

I'm sure that when all the Palestinians who don't want war but want to live in peace begin leaving we won't hear anything about the "illegal immigrants" trying to to get into other countries.

[basballguy]

(10-11-2023, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure that when all the Palestinians who don't want war but want to live in peace begin leaving we won't hear anything about the "illegal immigrants" trying to to get into other countries.

Very odd and irrelevant statement which appears to be fishing for a fight and not adding any substance to the conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2023, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure that when all the Palestinians who don't want war but want to live in peace begin leaving we won't hear anything about the "illegal immigrants" trying to to get into other countries.

Why would they be illegal if said countries allow them in?  Do the Arab nations have no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians?  Always amusing to see you wedge left wing talking points into conversations though.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2023, 11:57 AM)basballguy Wrote: Very odd and irrelevant statement which appears to be fishing for a fight and not adding any substance to the conversation.

Absolutely not.  

If we are to accept that those living there can either leave or they will be killed in a war they don't want then the next thing will be about the "immigration crisis" that follows.

It's just history.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2023, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why would they be illegal if said countries allow them in?  Do the Arab nations have no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians?  Always amusing to see you wedge left wing talking points into conversations though.

I'm foreseeing the next "crisis" in the never ending wars in the ME.

If you choose to make it about "left wing" that is on you.  

I'm sure Luvnit will agree with your take.

[CJD]

(10-11-2023, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A quick question for those with the courage to answer it.  We were told repeatedly that Trump's perceived failure to condemn white supremacist supporters indicated his acceptance of their tenants.  

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/politics/proud-boys-trump-white-supremacists-debate/index.html


Using the same logic, I ask the following.  If you refuse to condemn the actions of Hamas are you not, in the same exact fashion, at the very least condoning their behavior?

If white people were being oppressed and, as some on the right like to claim, subject to genocide (via the immigration and subsequent children of non-white people), then people fighting for white people's rights would be among the same moral grounds as Palestinians who do not condemn the actions of Hamas.

The major difference is that white people are not oppressed or being genocided. It's a fantasy cooked up in white supremacists' minds. That's why they're called "supremacists" and not freedom fighters.

To support Hamas in their war against the IDF, to thousands or maybe millions of Palestinians, is a genuine fight against their displacement and extermination. 

I imagine a lot of Palestinians are suffering through a moral quandary that is wanting their freedom, recognizing that Hamas is fighting against their oppressors but not agreeing with the horrid acts that Hamas is committing against Israeli civilians.

Or, alternatively, it's possible a lot of Palestinians are not aware of all that Hamas is doing or believe it to be a misinformation campaign led by the Israelis to sway support against their fight for freedom.

White supremacists do not suffer from such a moral quandary. They're literally just racists.

EDIT: But to answer the question flatly, yes not condemning actions is, at the very least, condoning them. The definition of condone is "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue."

I think it's safe to say that Palestinians are accepting and allowing Hamas to continue their attacks.

[CJD]

(10-11-2023, 11:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're omitting some key facts.  Israel did not create itself.  It didn't magically appear overnight.  Any blame for those displaced does not fall on them, it falls on those who enabled the creation of Israel.  Of course, once created, they are responsible for their own conduct.  And they have been attacked almost relentlessly since that time.  Their choices were/are to fight back or die.  The Palestinians were represented by numerous Arab states in these conflicts.  Their backers proved insufficient to achieve the goal of eliminating the state of Israel.  Your view of Israel as the oppressors and the Palestinians as a displaced people with no nation or agency is a much more recent phenomena.  This status quo occurred after Israel successfully defended themselves from several wars of aggression involving several Arab nations.

Are you saying Israel was created against the Israelis' will? I don't understand what you mean here. Of course they didn't create themselves overnight. They were backed by the British, who were the chief culprits in the original seizing of land from the Palestinians. They were attacked relentlessly because they were occupying stolen land. You can phrase it in a way that makes them sound like they were on the defensive as much as you want, but the thing that will never change is that the land they resided on during those wars was taken from the people who lived there by an outside force. Whether that outside force was purely British, purely Zionists or a mixture of the two is immaterial. The land was seized. There were struggles to gain it back from the people who were given the land. Israel won those struggles.

Quote:... The fact is what they consider their homeland and is now within the borders of Israel are gone.  Israel is not going to give them up.  So your choices are this, find a new homeland (make Gaza part of Egypt for example) or continue as is.  The two state solution is never going to work, because at the end of the day neither party really wants it.  The Israelis have decided they have control of their ancestral homeland and aren't giving it up, and the Muslims in the area won't be happy until Israel is a memory.


Sympathize, empathize and understand all you want (just for one side oddly enough), but that's the reality.

That's the exact problem. Israel seized their land, they defended it against attempts to reclaim it and are now settled there.

There is no compromise that will make either group happy. It would be unjust to tell the Palestinians to just go find somewhere else to live. It would be unjust to tell Israelis who have lived in the area for almost 100 years to vacate now. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

The correct solution would have been for Israel to have never been created in the first place.

Since that's obviously not possible anymore, the next best solution would be for Israel to stop oppressing Palestinians and be extremely conciliatory in negotiations about a potential dual state or blended state scenario. Israel are the victimizers (or the benefactors of the victimizers at the very least) in this conflict, they should be the ones to budge, not the Palestinians.

Of course, as we've already said, they (along with the Palestinians) are filled with religious fervor, so that will never happen either.

So where do we go from here? Terroristic violence was the obvious next step. The backlash will likely be fierce. I wouldn't be surprised if Gaza were leveled at the end of this. I just hope the Palestinians find a way to flee the area before that happens.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2023, 12:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If white people were being oppressed and, as some on the right like to claim, subject to genocide (via the immigration and subsequent children of non-white people), then people fighting for white people's rights would be among the same moral grounds as Palestinians who do not condemn the actions of Hamas.

The major difference is that white people are not oppressed or being genocided. It's a fantasy cooked up in white supremacists' minds. That's why they're called "supremacists" and not freedom fighters.

To support Hamas in their war against the IDF, to thousands or maybe millions of Palestinians, is a genuine fight against their displacement and extermination. 

I imagine a lot of Palestinians are suffering through a moral quandary that is wanting their freedom, recognizing that Hamas is fighting against their oppressors but not agreeing with the horrid acts that Hamas is committing against Israeli civilians.

Or, alternatively, it's possible a lot of Palestinians are not aware of all that Hamas is doing or believe it to be a misinformation campaign led by the Israelis to sway support against their fight for freedom.

White supremacists do not suffer from such a moral quandary. They're literally just racists.

Can we agree that is most/all people during wars?  

We know that innocent people are dying and at risk and that horrible things are being done...but we must defend ourselves/destroy the enemy.  

I think that's why so many of us wish we could NOT have these wars and disputes and that human beings could find a way to coexist in peace, but that's not going to happen until we kill each other completely off.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2023, 12:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm foreseeing the next "crisis" in the never ending wars in the ME.

Refugees are not "illegal immigrants."

Quote:If you choose to make it about "left wing" that is on you.  

I didn't choose to do so, you did when you used an incorrect term in line with left wing talking points.

Quote:I'm sure Luvnit will agree with your take.

Whether he would or not is immaterial.  If Luvnit and I both agree that the sky is blue is that a bad thing because of who you perceive Luvnit to be as a person?

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2023, 11:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A quick question for those with the courage to answer it. We were told repeatedly that Trump's perceived failure to condemn white supremacist supporters indicated his acceptance of their tenants.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/politics/proud-boys-trump-white-supremacists-debate/index.html


Using the same logic, I ask the following. If you refuse to condemn the actions of Hamas are you not, in the same exact fashion, at the very least condoning their behavior?

Yes.

My only issue with many of those expressing this is their refusal to understand the nuance. There is an ability to condemn while seeking to understand. I do it with white supremacists, and I faced criticism for it from some. I do it with Palestinians and Hamas as well, and as a result face criticism from the typically ideological opposite group. It's good times.

[GMDino]

(10-11-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Refugees are not "illegal immigrants."



I didn't choose to do so, you did when you used an incorrect term in line with left wing talking points.


Whether he would or not is immaterial.  If Luvnit and I both agree that the sky is blue is that a bad thing because of who you perceive Luvnit to be as a person?

Those refugees will be called illegal immigrants.  Or there will be an "immigrant crisis". You know it.  You just won't admit it because I said it which is why you just shouldn't respond to me at all.  I'd appreciate that as would much of the board.

And if Luvnit said the sky was blue and you agreed somehow it would be Biden and "the left" that caused it and it would mean P01135809 would have done it better. 

[basballguy]

(10-11-2023, 12:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Since that's obviously not possible anymore, the next best solution would be for Israel to stop oppressing Palestinians and be extremely conciliatory in negotiations about a potential dual state or blended state scenario. Israel are the victimizers (or the benefactors of the victimizers at the very least) in this conflict, they should be the ones to budge, not the Palestinians.

Of course, as we've already said, they (along with the Palestinians) are filled with religious fervor, so that will never happen either.

You act like if Palestinians were awarded independence they would suddenly stop hating Jews and trying to annihilate them.

This goes beyond any state solution and is rooted down to pure evil.

Here’s a CNN piece published today that offers a bit more perspective

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/opinions/israel-gaza-hamas-biden-greenblatt/index.html

[CJD]

(10-11-2023, 12:44 PM)basballguy Wrote: You act like if Palestinians were awarded independence they would suddenly stop hating Jews and trying to annihilate them.  

This goes beyond any state solution and is rooted down to pure evil.  

Here’s a CNN piece published today that offers a bit more perspective

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/10/opinions/israel-gaza-hamas-biden-greenblatt/index.html

If Israel were vacated and given back to the Palestinians (and did not attempt to reclaim the land in any shape or form), then I do believe Palestinians would stop actively warring with the Israeli people.

They may still hate them because...wounds don't heal immediately, but I'm not convinced they'd want to continue fighting if they got their land back with no strings.

If Israel persisted in a two state solution, I agree that fighting would continue. That's why I said, "Of course, as we've already said, they (along with the Palestinians) are filled with religious fervor, so that will never happen either."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2023, 12:12 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If white people were being oppressed and, as some on the right like to claim, subject to genocide (via the immigration and subsequent children of non-white people), then people fighting for white people's rights would be among the same moral grounds as Palestinians who do not condemn the actions of Hamas.

The major difference is that white people are not oppressed or being genocided. It's a fantasy cooked up in white supremacists' minds. That's why they're called "supremacists" and not freedom fighters.

Interestingly enough the same people sympathizing with the Palestinians would also be condemning the "white people" in your example.  Are the Palestinians subject to genocide?  That's a rather weighty accusation for which I've seen no proof.  Are they being round up and exterminated?

Quote:To support Hamas in their war against the IDF, to thousands or maybe millions of Palestinians, is a genuine fight against their displacement and extermination. 

If you believe that, good for you.  Just be prepared for me to find you (you in the plural), and anyone like you a reprehensible person undeserving of further sympathy.  If you support the actions of Hamas, in any way shape or form, you are no better than the "men" chopping the heads of infants in front of their parents.

Quote:I imagine a lot of Palestinians are suffering through a moral quandary that is wanting their freedom, recognizing that Hamas is fighting against their oppressors but not agreeing with the horrid acts that Hamas is committing against Israeli civilians.

And imagine you must, because I haven't heard a single person say so publicly.  I have seen numerous instances of people justifying it though, some coming from members of Congress.

Quote:Or, alternatively, it's possible a lot of Palestinians are not aware of all that Hamas is doing or believe it to be a misinformation campaign led by the Israelis to sway support against their fight for freedom.

Unlikely.  But believe what you will.

Quote:White supremacists do not suffer from such a moral quandary. They're literally just racists.

Antisemites do not suffer from such a moral quandary. They're literally just racists.  And a lot of them have been exposing themselves of late.

(10-11-2023, 12:22 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Are you saying Israel was created against the Israelis' will? I don't understand what you mean here. Of course they didn't create themselves overnight. They were backed by the British, who were the chief culprits in the original seizing of land from the Palestinians. They were attacked relentlessly because they were occupying stolen land. You can phrase it in a way that makes them sound like they were on the defensive as much as you want, but the thing that will never change is that the land they resided on during those wars was taken from the people who lived there by an outside force. Whether that outside force was purely British, purely Zionists or a mixture of the two is immaterial. The land was seized. There were struggles to gain it back from the people who were given the land. Israel won those struggles.

Yes, Israel fought off attempts to exterminate them

Quote:That's the exact problem. Israel seized their land, they defended it against attempts to reclaim it and are now settled there.

As you say, that UK seized the land.  Israel defended it.

Quote:There is no compromise that will make either group happy. It would be unjust to tell the Palestinians to just go find somewhere else to live. It would be unjust to tell Israelis who have lived in the area for almost 100 years to vacate now. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

On this we agree.

Quote:The correct solution would have been for Israel to have never been created in the first place.

That's not a solution, that's a fantasy, and an unhelpful one at that.  Don't worry though, many state actors are looking to rectify that "error".

Quote:Since that's obviously not possible anymore, the next best solution would be for Israel to stop oppressing Palestinians and be extremely conciliatory in negotiations about a potential dual state or blended state scenario. Israel are the victimizers (or the benefactors of the victimizers at the very least) in this conflict, they should be the ones to budge, not the Palestinians.

As we both agree, a two state solution will not work as neither party actually wants it.  Where we differ is you place the lions share of the blame for this on Israel.

Quote:Of course, as we've already said, they (along with the Palestinians) are filled with religious fervor, so that will never happen either.

We again agree.

Quote:So where do we go from here? Terroristic violence was the obvious next step. The backlash will likely be fierce. I wouldn't be surprised if Gaza were leveled at the end of this. I just hope the Palestinians find a way to flee the area before that happens.

There are only two possible outcomes here.  Either the Palestinians give up their claim and live elsewhere, or Israel ceases to exist, with all the attendant consequences of that.  Anything else is a pipe dream and the current situation will continue.  Blame whoever you want, justify any action you want on either side, but that's what it boils down to.  Religion allows for no other possibility, both Judaism and Islam.

In the meantime I will comfortably condemn, unequivocally, the actions of Hamas, regardless of any perceived provocation or justification.  I am very comfortable making such a moral stance.  I realize others feel differently, including every single representative of the Palestinians I have heard speak on this issue, as well as several Dem members of Congress.