Political Roundtable Part XXXII

[pancakes3]

what are the sides?

[doclinkin]

We are basing this debate and having feelings and thoughts based on false information..

Except I used the Israeli military's numbers:

By their own estimation, Israel's military claim they have killed 13,000 militants while suggesting a total of 30,000 people have been killed in total. Even while this figure is highly disputed and actual toll is clearly greater, by these numbers Israel tacitly admits they are responsible for the death of 17,000 citizen non-combatants.

A pretty horrific ratio. No matter whose 'numbers' you use. And by numbers we are talking human beings. One cannot on the one hand demand sympathy for the horrific actions against the 1200+ victims of October 7, and then wave away the terrible destruction enacted on other people's grandmothers and infants.

If evil is evil, it is evil no matter to whom it happens. If we start talking numbers then we slide into measuring one atrocity against another. Misery is not a zero sum game. There is more than enough torment for the entire world if we all play the game that way.

Nitpicking about 'numbers' is playing a devil's accounting game. Turns my stomach that you think it is appropriate. A dead kid is a dead kid. One murdered kid should be an offense against any person with a conscience. But if you have to play that game, if it helps you to pretend to humanity, consider how you would feel if those 1200 murdered were instead 12,000 Israelis killed on October 7. Horrible. Now imagine Palestinian parents also kiss their kids on the head and hope they live through today. Sickening that you think quibbling about numbers would matter at all. Doesn't matter if anyone's numbers are 100% accurate, you know to be skeptical of Israel's numbers as well. Unless you are saying you believe the number is secretly zero. Which not even Israel claims. Nobody is that stupid. Dumb to play the argument that: 'If one thing is wrong well all the information must be wrong'. You're just playing that game to avoid having a conscience about the unconscionable.

This you do know: Thousands upon thousands of innocents are being killed, starved, maimed. That serves no military purpose but magnifies the problem in the long term.

[Zonkerbl]

Not sure I got the logic..
One state is like saying France and Germany should become a one state.. what am I missing here?

England and Scotland were literally at war with each other for more than a century.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-AngloScottish-Wars-or-Wars-of-Scottish-Independence/

See also The Troubles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

I think it's a good question, is the two state solution really a proper solution. If Palestine has their own country, of course the first thing they will do is raise as much money as they can to buy guns and start waging war on Israel. And vice versa. It will barely change the current dynamic. If it's one country, well you can't wage war on yourself. Interestingly the number of Palestinians in the occupied territories, combined with Arab Israel citizens, comes out to about the same as the number of Jewish Israel citizens.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/26/arabs-outnumber-jews-in-israel-occupied-territories-official

This is news to me, I always thought the one state solution was impossible because there are so many more Palestinians. This is way closer than I thought it was. I bet a multi party system could work, but the newly formed government would have to be seriously committed to reparations. Furthermore, both sides need to admit to the harm they've caused, say they're sorry and commit to changing who they are so they are no longer the kind of person who commits harm.

[2Fluffy4U]

Not sure I got the logic..
One state is like saying France and Germany should become a one state.. what am I missing here?

England and Scotland were literally at war with each other for more than a century.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-AngloScottish-Wars-or-Wars-of-Scottish-Independence/

See also The Troubles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

I think it's a good question, is the two state solution really a proper solution. If Palestine has their own country, of course the first thing they will do is raise as much money as they can to buy guns and start waging war on Israel. And vice versa. It will barely change the current dynamic. If it's one country, well you can't wage war on yourself. Interestingly the number of Palestinians in the occupied territories, combined with Arab Israel citizens, comes out to about the same as the number of Jewish Israel citizens.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/26/arabs-outnumber-jews-in-israel-occupied-territories-official

This is news to me, I always thought the one state solution was impossible because there are so many more Palestinians. This is way closer than I thought it was. I bet a multi party system could work, but the newly formed government would have to be seriously committed to reparations. Furthermore, both sides need to admit to the harm they've caused, say they're sorry and commit to changing who they are so they are no longer the kind of person who commits harm.

I think the fundemental notion you are missing is that states are established based upon common denominators within its people/society.

The Idea of one state is not a viable nor feasible option. As I said - there is no reason for France and Germany to become one right? Two different cultures/peoples/histories.

Would you let all american Jews for example gather in DC (become the majority of local population) and demand soveregnity and a new state of their own in DC?
Would you let all american Arabs/Muslims gather in L.A (become Majority) and demend inependence from the american federal law and erect a new state?

What this One state idea for this conflict means is the End of Israel due to demographic changes over time.. as there will be a lot more arabs than jews in the span of few more generations..
Solution - Israeli state for Israelis, Palestine state for those who identify as Palestinians. And each state enforce normal western immigration rules.

Also: when you say- "Furthermore, both sides need to admit to the harm they've caused, say they're sorry and commit to changing who they are so they are no longer the kind of person who commits harm."

I do feel this is a bit on the naive / woky side of things..
There is no such thing as a person who no longer commits harm.

Humanity and being human is extremly complex.
We must accept there is no such thing as perfect / good / evil. One mans good is the others evil.. there is never equilibrium - only the swing of the pendulin..

I am quite sure that when Hitler was elected by the German people - most of them did not consider themselves as 'evil'. On the contrary, they were most likely sure this is whats best for their society..

The only thing we can do is try to promote what we believe is best for the people we care about. And hope to end on the right side when history judges us..

[Zonkerbl]

Not sure I got the logic..
One state is like saying France and Germany should become a one state.. what am I missing here?

England and Scotland were literally at war with each other for more than a century.

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-AngloScottish-Wars-or-Wars-of-Scottish-Independence/

See also The Troubles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

I think it's a good question, is the two state solution really a proper solution. If Palestine has their own country, of course the first thing they will do is raise as much money as they can to buy guns and start waging war on Israel. And vice versa. It will barely change the current dynamic. If it's one country, well you can't wage war on yourself. Interestingly the number of Palestinians in the occupied territories, combined with Arab Israel citizens, comes out to about the same as the number of Jewish Israel citizens.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/26/arabs-outnumber-jews-in-israel-occupied-territories-official

This is news to me, I always thought the one state solution was impossible because there are so many more Palestinians. This is way closer than I thought it was. I bet a multi party system could work, but the newly formed government would have to be seriously committed to reparations. Furthermore, both sides need to admit to the harm they've caused, say they're sorry and commit to changing who they are so they are no longer the kind of person who commits harm.

I think the fundemental notion you are missing is that states are established based upon common denominators within its people/society.

The Idea of one state is not a viable nor feasible option. As I said - there is no reason for France and Germany to become one right? Two different cultures/peoples/histories.

Would you let all american Jews for example gather in DC (become the majority of local population) and demand soveregnity and a new state of their own in DC?
Would you let all american Arabs/Muslims gather in L.A (become Majority) and demend inependence from the american federal law and erect a new state?

What this One state idea for this conflict means is the End of Israel due to demographic changes over time.. as there will be a lot more arabs than jews in the span of few more generations..
Solution - Israeli state for Israelis, Palestine state for those who identify as Palestinians. And each state enforce normal western immigration rules.

Well according to your logic the United States should not exist, so I reject it entirely. Furthermore, your examples contradict the point you are trying to make. Giving Palestinians the vote is absolutely not the same as giving them sovereignty over a piece of your country, what you are describing - as an example of a completely non feasible solution! - is in fact the two state solution.

[2Fluffy4U]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

[Zonkerbl]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

uh, this is racist, replacement theory horsecrap

[2Fluffy4U]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

uh, this is racist, replacement theory horsecrap

If that is the case - please clarify reason for immigration laws..

What is the purpose of that then?

[pancakes3]

you either accept 1 state or 2 states, and Israel has thus far done neither. the closest is that Israel conditionally recognizes the PLO's right to govern a portion of land they ultimately believe to be Israel's.

and i'm not following your DC/LA example. 160 years ago, a group of localized Americans did gather and demand sovereignty and independence from the federal government, and we fought a war to keep it 1-state. The solution was explicitly not a free state for abolitionists, and a slave state for slavers.

And your france/germany example is nonsensical. a much more convincing example would be if Puerto Rico wanted to declare independence, which if they did, the democratic voice of the people should be honored, and PR (palestine) in this analogy, should be given its independence.

BUT, as stated in the first paragraph, if that happens, the US should be expected to recognize the sovereignty of puerto rico, and if a terrorist attack was launched by groups comprised of Puerto Rican citizens, the US should NOT be able to use that as an excuse to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets in PR, to the tune of 35,000 dead.

But sure, 2-state solution. Define the borders. Draft up the treaty. Handle it without bloodshed, which is why a cease-fire is so crucial. I'm not sure why we're engaging in this discussion like it's a hypothetical when the death toll mounts daily, as millions of dollars worth of munitions are dropped that does not get anyone closer to a solution, whether it's 1-state or 2-state.

I also have to call out the thinly veiled racism in the "othering" of palestinians. ethnically speaking, israelis and palestinians are from the same canaanite people dating back to 2000 bc. Palestinians may be culturally arab now, but if we checked the DNA, palestinians would be closer to israelis than arabs. same family as samaritans.

[pancakes3]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

lol, ok i take back "thinly veiled." it's just full on racism.

[2Fluffy4U]

you either accept 1 state or 2 states, and Israel has thus far done neither. the closest is that Israel conditionally recognizes the PLO's right to govern a portion of land they ultimately believe to be Israel's.

and i'm not following your DC/LA example. 160 years ago, a group of localized Americans did gather and demand sovereignty and independence from the federal government, and we fought a war to keep it 1-state. The solution was explicitly not a free state for abolitionists, and a slave state for slavers.

And your france/germany example is nonsensical. a much more convincing example would be if Puerto Rico wanted to declare independence, which if they did, the democratic voice of the people should be honored, and PR (palestine) in this analogy, should be given its independence.

BUT, as stated in the first paragraph, if that happens, the US should be expected to recognize the sovereignty of puerto rico, and if a terrorist attack was launched by groups comprised of Puerto Rican citizens, the US should NOT be able to use that as an excuse to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets in PR, to the tune of 35,000 dead.

But sure, 2-state solution. Define the borders. Draft up the treaty. Handle it without bloodshed, which is why a cease-fire is so crucial. I'm not sure why we're engaging in this discussion like it's a hypothetical when the death toll mounts daily, as millions of dollars worth of munitions are dropped that does not get anyone closer to a solution, whether it's 1-state or 2-state.

I also have to call out the thinly veiled racism in the "othering" of palestinians. ethnically speaking, israelis and palestinians are from the same canaanite people dating back to 2000 bc. Palestinians may be culturally arab now, but if we checked the DNA, palestinians would be closer to israelis than arabs. same family as samaritans.

I implor you to please watch this video:

Watch on YouTube

In this video the speaker (Arab who's father is a Hamas leader) talks about the use of force.

I am intersted to hear you opinion of his takes on the conflict.
.

[2Fluffy4U]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

lol, ok i take back "thinly veiled." it's just full on racism.

I think you are mixing between racism and nationalism..

I may be stupid but I can't for the life of me even fathom where you see racism here..

[pancakes3]

you either accept 1 state or 2 states, and Israel has thus far done neither. the closest is that Israel conditionally recognizes the PLO's right to govern a portion of land they ultimately believe to be Israel's.

and i'm not following your DC/LA example. 160 years ago, a group of localized Americans did gather and demand sovereignty and independence from the federal government, and we fought a war to keep it 1-state. The solution was explicitly not a free state for abolitionists, and a slave state for slavers.

And your france/germany example is nonsensical. a much more convincing example would be if Puerto Rico wanted to declare independence, which if they did, the democratic voice of the people should be honored, and PR (palestine) in this analogy, should be given its independence.

BUT, as stated in the first paragraph, if that happens, the US should be expected to recognize the sovereignty of puerto rico, and if a terrorist attack was launched by groups comprised of Puerto Rican citizens, the US should NOT be able to use that as an excuse to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets in PR, to the tune of 35,000 dead.

But sure, 2-state solution. Define the borders. Draft up the treaty. Handle it without bloodshed, which is why a cease-fire is so crucial. I'm not sure why we're engaging in this discussion like it's a hypothetical when the death toll mounts daily, as millions of dollars worth of munitions are dropped that does not get anyone closer to a solution, whether it's 1-state or 2-state.

I also have to call out the thinly veiled racism in the "othering" of palestinians. ethnically speaking, israelis and palestinians are from the same canaanite people dating back to 2000 bc. Palestinians may be culturally arab now, but if we checked the DNA, palestinians would be closer to israelis than arabs. same family as samaritans.

I implor you to please watch this video:

Watch on YouTube

In this video the speaker (Arab who's father is a Hamas leader) talks about the use of force.

I am intersted to hear you opinion of his takes on the conflict.
.

Doc's responded as much and it's pretty clear where he lost me. We don't care much for parsing words to differentiate Oct 7 victims with Gazan civilians. Dead civilians are dead civilians. Dead children are dead children. The rest of his talk is similarly weak. The blood of gazan civilians at the hands of israeli bombs is not "on the hands of hamas and on the hands of hamas alone."

Nobody here condones Hamas, and they absolutely have blood on their hands. Nobody here advocates for Oct 7 or the eradication of jews. The point of contention, however, is that the Israeli retaliation against hamas is disproportionate, indiscriminate, and ineffective. Israel's response is not targeted, the collateral damage is tremendous, and 7 months later is no closer to achieving "victory" over Hamas, so what are we doing here? Stop killing civilians, and try something else.

And the larger arc of history, Netanyahu is a monster, who has completely derailed any potential path towards lasting peace that Rabin started. I believe him to be the one with the most blood on his hands.

[2Fluffy4U]

you either accept 1 state or 2 states, and Israel has thus far done neither. the closest is that Israel conditionally recognizes the PLO's right to govern a portion of land they ultimately believe to be Israel's.

and i'm not following your DC/LA example. 160 years ago, a group of localized Americans did gather and demand sovereignty and independence from the federal government, and we fought a war to keep it 1-state. The solution was explicitly not a free state for abolitionists, and a slave state for slavers.

And your france/germany example is nonsensical. a much more convincing example would be if Puerto Rico wanted to declare independence, which if they did, the democratic voice of the people should be honored, and PR (palestine) in this analogy, should be given its independence.

BUT, as stated in the first paragraph, if that happens, the US should be expected to recognize the sovereignty of puerto rico, and if a terrorist attack was launched by groups comprised of Puerto Rican citizens, the US should NOT be able to use that as an excuse to indiscriminately bomb civilian targets in PR, to the tune of 35,000 dead.

But sure, 2-state solution. Define the borders. Draft up the treaty. Handle it without bloodshed, which is why a cease-fire is so crucial. I'm not sure why we're engaging in this discussion like it's a hypothetical when the death toll mounts daily, as millions of dollars worth of munitions are dropped that does not get anyone closer to a solution, whether it's 1-state or 2-state.

I also have to call out the thinly veiled racism in the "othering" of palestinians. ethnically speaking, israelis and palestinians are from the same canaanite people dating back to 2000 bc. Palestinians may be culturally arab now, but if we checked the DNA, palestinians would be closer to israelis than arabs. same family as samaritans.

I implor you to please watch this video:

Watch on YouTube

In this video the speaker (Arab who's father is a Hamas leader) talks about the use of force.

I am intersted to hear you opinion of his takes on the conflict.
.

Doc's responded as much and it's pretty clear where he lost me. We don't care much for parsing words to differentiate Oct 7 victims with Gazan civilians. Dead civilians are dead civilians. Dead children are dead children. The rest of his talk is similarly weak. The blood of gazan civilians at the hands of israeli bombs is not "on the hands of hamas and on the hands of hamas alone."

Nobody here condones Hamas, and they absolutely have blood on their hands. Nobody here advocates for Oct 7 or the eradication of jews. The point of contention, however, is that the Israeli retaliation against hamas is disproportionate, indiscriminate, and ineffective. Israel's response is not targeted, the collateral damage is tremendous, and 7 months later is no closer to achieving "victory" over Hamas, so what are we doing here? Stop killing civilians, and try something else.

And the larger arc of history, Netanyahu is a monster, who has completely derailed any potential path towards lasting peace that Rabin started. I believe him to be the one with the most blood on his hands.

I would argue (and this is just an argument) that in an alternative reality in which Trump (which I think to be an awful president for USA) is the current president - this conflict may not have escalated/ would shut down quickly.
The reason: he is crazy and unpredictable - and when no one knows on what side of the bed you woke up today - no one messes with you.. I think the middle east needs a sherrif and power manager instead of 'please stop killing each other that is mean'...
Also - if a US president decides to be active in middle east policy (for either side) - he loses his upcoming election.. and this is major contributing factor the not being able to de-escelate the situation.

[doclinkin]

And the larger arc of history, Netanyahu is a monster, who has completely derailed any potential path towards lasting peace that Rabin started. I believe him to be the one with the most blood on his hands.

Netanyahu is a war criminal. And the only hope for an eventual peace process will be to see him tried, convicted, and incarcerated for these crimes. Likewise capturing the masterminds of Oct 7, and seeing them locked away in a lightless cell for the rest of their lives, not assassinated, which would make them martyrs.

[dobrojim]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

In this scenario of a one state solution, there would have to be the strongest of protections for the rights
of minority people.

[2Fluffy4U]

You do know that in democracy when people are a majority and can vote - this mean they are the sovereigns right?
If China would send half their population to USA and they were to become citizens - you understand this would theoretically mean no USA anymore right?

In this scenario of a one state solution, there would have to be the strongest of protections for the rights
of minority people.

Do you guys not have mandatory civil class in middle school?
The whole point of democracies is that the system inherently protects minority rights..

But to our discussion - none of you seems to realise the core issue you is that you cant just decide to have one state for two peoples..

It's not about racism and it's not about politics..
It's called nationalism - and if you don't understand what nationalism concept is then there really is no hope to be able to bridge many of the gaps..

[Zonkerbl]

I reject your racist premise. Blithely asserting that your statement is not racist does not make it so. Your argument that being racist is good and a great reason to justify... whatever it is you are arguing for is not persuasive. Move on.

[2Fluffy4U]

I reject your racist premise. Blithely asserting that your statement is not racist does not make it so. Your argument that being racist is good and a great reason to justify... whatever it is you are arguing for is not persuasive. Move on.

My statements are not racist because I never said one word about race. Didnt mention DNA like others have or referred to biological relativeness.. Check my comment - I talk about nationalities and people. Not race (black,white, middle eastern, asian etc) but people and nations (USA, Israel, Americans, Palestinians, China, France, Germany)..

In fact - I think Israelis and Palestinians are preety much the same race if you want to go the DNA lineage path.. And I have nothing to say about it as it has no weight or meaning in my view. I see everyone as humans/people.

Here, I explained why this is not racist.
Please explain why we live in a world with nationalities.
Please explain why immigration laws and rules apply today (do you think they shouldn't?)

[Fairview4Life]

We live in a world where some people believe in nationalism because some people are very easy to convince that all of their problems are caused by scary “other” people from over that way that don’t belong to the group they identify with. I would think a Jewish person would be well acquainted with that history, but maybe they don’t teach that in your mandatory civil class in middle school.