Gaza Situation: Opinions

[RedCelt69]

To be fair to Zanbato, you started insulting him before he used that line.

That's quite a stretch. Classifying a one word reply "clearly" as an insult. It was an observation and a statement of fact. If observations and facts count as insulting... well, then, insults are a good thing.

RedCelt, come across as the worst of the two parties in my eyes.

Not sure how I'll get to sleep tonight with that weighing on my mind. If you think more of someone advocating ethnic cleansing than you do the person who takes issue with that stance, then your succor isn't worth earning.

You have opened every reply with an Ad Hominem attack and the tone of your posts has been one of anger.

Ad hominem = attacking the person instead of their position. Attacking the person and their views isn't ad hominem. As for my anger, it is more irritation at the stupidity of some of the opinions being expressed.

[munchingfoo]

Depending on your usage of "and", I disagree with your definition of Ad Hominem. Calling someone names or stating that you they aren't fit to be in the same gene pool as you is an Ad Hominem. Whether or not it is based on their argument is irrelevant. After rereading I was incorrect about you "opening" each post with an attack, but each post certainly contains one.

The other person did not openly advocate genocide. He/she used the phrase "decisive victory". It is possible in war to achieve a decisive victory without resorting to genocide (WWII, German front), therefore the user did not necessarily refer to this.

[RedCelt69]

Depending on your usage of "and", I disagree with your definition of Ad Hominem.

Well, it isn't my defintion. It is the definition.

If someone were to say that x=y...

Someone replying with "no, cos you smell" would be ad hominem. Unimaginative ad hominem, but ad hominem nonetheless.

Someone replying with "no, because y>z and z=x... and you smell" would not be ad hominem.

Calling someone names or stating that you they aren't fit to be in the same gene pool as you is an Ad Hominem.

I said I wish I could disavow the fact... not that they aren't fit to be. The first is a statement of desire, whilst the second is a statement of opinion.

The other person did not openly advocate genocide. He/she used the phrase "decisive victory". It is possible in war to achieve a decisive victory without resorting to genocide (WWII, German front), therefore the user did not necessarily refer to this.

WW2 lasted approximately 6 years. This war/conflict is an extension of one that has been ongoing since biblical times. The cessation of an inter-generational war of ideals (by means of letting one side achieve a "decisive victory") requires the extermination of those ideals. Kill a terrorist/freedom fighter and their children will want revenge.

[jequirity]

Equating "decisive victory" to "Ethnic Cleansing" is quite a stretch. Ethnic cleansing would solve little of Israel's problems and create bigger problems as soon as they implemented this type of senseless program. To destroy the palestinians ideals would not achieve "victory" for Israel.

A decisive victory for Hamas is quite well defined - the annihilation of Israel. This type of victory can be achieved through purely military means. Hamas do not have the military means to achieve this though. Other countries have shared this aim in the past and have had the military means to carry out the annihilation of Israel but were denied their decisive victories.

A decisive victory for Israel is rather less well defined. Certainly, whatever this victory may be, it cannot be achieved through ethnic cleansing, neither can it be achieved using military force alone. Diplomatic and political means must be employed to achieve any sort of "victory".

Ultimately, I don't think that any sort of decisive victory can be achieved by either the Israeli goverment or by Hamas. Both sides need to make major concessions, try to understand the point of view of the other and let bygones be bygones, neither side achieving a decisive victory in their eyes. This isn't the most probable of outcomes, which is why I think there's not going to be any solution to this matter for a very long time.

At the end of the day I don't think anyone fully understands the situation, everyone has their prejudices and opinions and these types of discussions usually end up in people slagging each other off for not agreeing with them.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Seriously, RedCelt... you need to reconsider your definition of ad hominem. A substantive reply, plus and insult is a substantive reply plus an ad hominem attack. You don't get to roll them together and mash them up into one 'response' and then say "No, it's not ad hominem, because see... there's a substantive element."

Also, the conflict hasn't lasted since Biblical times. That's utter nonsense. The conflict has lasted since 1948, or a couple decades earlier if you count the disturbances in British Palestine - though those were largely directed at the British. The endemic conflict in the former Yugolsav republics is of longer standing, and yet through intensive peacekeeping operations and other tools of international pressure progress has been made there in finding a modus vivendi. Just because a conflict is old doesn't mean it's entirely intractable - especially when it's not really as old as everyone seems to think.

[exnihilo]

LonelyPilgrim, you're spot on (in both paragraphs).

For a solution to the problem, however, I'd add the caveat that the involvement of the neighbouring Arab nations is essential, most especially Jordan which was also carved out of the old Mandate. It's too easy to see this as an Israeli/Palestinian issue, but in reality it is broader. Until there is also an end to the use of the Palestinians as pawns by their supposed brothers there can be little hope.

[RedCelt69]

Seriously, RedCelt... you need to reconsider your definition of ad hominem. A substantive reply, plus and insult is a substantive reply plus an ad hominem attack. You don't get to roll them together and mash them up into one 'response' and then say "No, it's not ad hominem, because see... there's a substantive element."

Seriously, I don't. I'm not the one working with a dodgy definition of ad hominem.

Also, the conflict hasn't lasted since Biblical times. That's utter nonsense.

The Jewish claim to the territory dates back to Moses. The Jewish killing of non-Jews in the Middle East is documented at some length in Exodus. I said the current conflict is an extension of one lasting since biblical times. Which it is. Which certainly isn't nonsense.

[RedCelt69]

Equating "decisive victory" to "Ethnic Cleansing" is quite a stretch.

In the short term, it isn't. Wiping out all of the Palestinians (in Palestine and in the migrant communities in neighbouring territories) followed by any who claim Islamic brotherhood with the Palestinian plight (see the previously suggested "Glass Crater" solution) would count as a decisive victory for Israel. Of course, they'd have to live in a world that was appalled at their actions... making long-term survival as a nation considerably more difficult. But it would end the "problem" of the Palestinians.

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Jenkins?

[jequirity]

Equating "decisive victory" to "Ethnic Cleansing" is quite a stretch.

In the short term, it isn't. Wiping out all of the Palestinians (in Palestine and in the migrant communities in neighbouring territories) followed by any who claim Islamic brotherhood with the Palestinian plight (see the previously suggested "Glass Crater" solution) would count as a decisive victory for Israel. Of course, they'd have to live in a world that was appalled at their actions... making long-term survival as a nation considerably more difficult. But it would end the "problem" of the Palestinians.

LEEERRRROYYYY!!!!

Jenkins?

I guess i'd use the term "decisive" to indicate complete success. Technically, wiping out every Palestinian would end the "problem" of the Palastinians however I would not say that this would not achieve the kind of victory Israel is seeking. As you said yourself this would make long-term survival very hairy for Israel, which as a nation strives to survive amongst some hostile neighbours and so the whole genocide idea would ultimately work against Israel's favour. If genocide were to happen (Which I have no doubt that it will not) then Israelis would certainly not view this as a decisive victory, more of a complete utter disaster. I guess in some hardliner's minds it would be a decisive victory followed by a "oh shit" so yes it could be considered short term but I don't think any hardliner would consider genocide as being any kind of practical solution to the situation Israel finds itself in. Therefore i'd say that in Israeli eyes, this would not be a decisive victory, more a strategic blunder +5.

(Jenkins indeed, haven't updated the sig in quite a while. Makes me laugh everytime I watch it )

[The Crushinator.]

Equating "decisive victory" to "Ethnic Cleansing" is quite a stretch.

the majority species wipes the sub-species out. In the race for survival, numbers matter.

Go get 'em cowboy.

[RedCelt69]

Riiiight. So in quoting a comment from me in a thread about evolution, you're trying to make what point, exactly?

[Anon.]

Also, the conflict hasn't lasted since Biblical times. That's utter nonsense.

The Jewish claim to the territory dates back to Moses.

This sort of statement is very often trotted out (e.g. by a mad woman on Question Time a few weeks ago who started ranting on about how there were Jews in the Land before Islam even existed etc etc), and it's ridiculous. Trying to say that because Jews lived in Israel 1,500-odd years ago, then centuries later their descendants have some sort of inherited right to return there, and bedamned to those who try to say otherwise, is fully as absurd as for modern-day English people to start forming illegal colonies in Schleswig-Holstein and Neidersachsen, and murdering any German authorities who try to stop them, with the justification that those states were the homelands of the Anglo-Saxons once upon a time ago.

I think that my current take on the subject (which changes quite often) is that the idea of (re-)establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine in the late 1910s was a mistake. The British authorities in the '30s and '40s recognised this and tried to limit and then halt the wave of immigration that had resulted, as it was wildly destabilising the region. Britain increasingly couldn't cope with the situation as the Zionist campaign of violence increased (including assassinating Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in the developing civil war, as soon as he made a decision against them), particularly as the international sympathy for the Jewish cause provoked by the sickening culmination of centuries of Jewish persecution in the form of the Holocaust was outweighing consideration for the claims of the local people who had been actually in possession of the land for just as many centuries. After winning power through terrorism (or freedom-fighting, if you want) the new State of Israel began that fierce defence of its claims against the often forceful protests of its neighbours which continues to this day.

The Israelis' claim to the land is by right of conquest. The Palestinians' claim to the land is by right of inheritance. The sometimes-voiced Israeli claim of ownership predating the Palestinians' is bollocks.

What do other people think of that summary? I'm quite open to persuasion that it's utterly wrong - as I said, my thoughts on the matter change quite often.

[RedCelt69]

The Jewish claim to the territory dates back to Moses.

This sort of statement is very often trotted out (e.g. by a mad woman on Question Time a few weeks ago who started ranting on about how there were Jews in the Land before Islam even existed etc etc), and it's ridiculous.

I agree that the claim is ridiculous, but that doesn't stop some Israelis making it. In recent years, each time there were peace negotiations involving the closure of illegal Israeli settlements, the inhabitants would be interviewed. Each time, they lay claim to the notion that they were Yahweh's Chosen People and that they were living in the Promised Land. The Six Day War didn't get a mention.

[exnihilo]

What do other people think of that summary? I'm quite open to persuasion that it's utterly wrong - as I said, my thoughts on the matter change quite often.

It's not a bad summary. It does miss out a few details, like the huge swathes of land in 'Palestine' which were legitimately purchased in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it wasn't just people arriving and saying "this is mine, because Moses once lived here". It's worth noting that the immigrants were not from a state with an army, they were individuals, and the campaign of terrorism only began once a large enough group was present, and born, in the region and felt that its voice was being ignored by the ruling power.

It misses out the point, often glossed over, that the old British Mandate does not equate to modern Israel, that's only about 15% of it, the rest became the Kingdom of Jordan in due course, where most 'Palestinians' live but where they are not permitted to become citizens and which nobody is calling for chunks of to be handed over to form a Palestinian state. Obviously, we can agree that the displacement of various people was terrible, but most sources would put the numbers displace on each side at roughly similar*, but so much of the suffering on the Palestinian side is caused not by Israel, but the failure of the Arab neighbours to allow them to settle in their territory preferring to use them as political bargaining chips. Consider, in contrast, the position of Israel's 20% non-Jewish citizens.

Finally, even if Israel were to withdraw to the 1948, or even 1967, territory many of its neighbours would still be unsatisfied - and its own people would wonder why, having taken that land in a series of wars to protect their very existence, their government was handing it back. There's room for negotiation, perhaps, but the point is that the problem is as it now exists. Debates about how we got here are not going to solve it, it must be dealt with as it stands. We can argue forever about whether there should or should not be a state of Israel, but demonising it now and placing the onus on it to fix the Middle East is pointless - nothing will be fixed until the Arab nations are brought to the table as well and until they too are prepared to make concessions.

[Anon.]

Thanks for pointing out those aspects I had overlooked.

Finally, even if Israel were to withdraw to the 1948, or even 1967, territory many of its neighbours would still be unsatisfied - and its own people would wonder why, having taken that land in a series of wars to protect their very existence, their government was handing it back.

I sometimes think it's a bit like Britain or France hanging on to their Occupied Zones of Germany after 1945 on the basis that they had taken that land in a war to protect their very existence. Of course it should have been handed back.

There's room for negotiation, perhaps, but the point is that the problem is as it now exists. Debates about how we got here are not going to solve it, it must be dealt with as it stands. We can argue forever about whether there should or should not be a state of Israel, but demonising it now and placing the onus on it to fix the Middle East is pointless - nothing will be fixed until the Arab nations are brought to the table as well and until they too are prepared to make concessions.

I totally agree. Considering how the situation arose is only useful for understanding why people feel so strongly about issues; to try and turn the clock back and undo the mistakes of history is pointless. Those who now deny the State of Israel's right to exist are the biggest problem in the whole situtation.

[exnihilo]

D'accord.


*I just noticed that I put an asterisk in my last post and then didn't write the note to accompany it. The roughly similar figures are: approximately 750,000 Palestinians displaced from what is now Israel (how many needed to be is open to debate, and some of the blame rests with their leaders as much as with Israel as generous terms were offered by Moshe Dayan and others, including full citizenship), and around 700,000 Jews expelled from neighbouring Arab countries - almost all of whom settled in Israel.

[xxx]

"I sometimes think it's a bit like Britain or France hanging on to their Occupied Zones of Germany after 1945 on the basis that they had taken that land in a war to protect their very existence. Of course it should have been handed back."

Are you seriously equating the relative strategic importance of the post-war Occupied Zones to say, the Golan Heights? 'Handing back' this land isn't a matter of Israel ceding some pretty stretch of mountains and lake-front property. By doing so, it risks the security of its main drinking-water supply, and gives Syria the ability to, as it did in 67, use the area to launch strikes against its population.

[jequirity]

"I sometimes think it's a bit like Britain or France hanging on to their Occupied Zones of Germany after 1945 on the basis that they had taken that land in a war to protect their very existence. Of course it should have been handed back."

Are you seriously equating the relative strategic importance of the post-war Occupied Zones to say, the Golan Heights? 'Handing back' this land isn't a matter of Israel ceding some pretty stretch of mountains and lake-front property. By doing so, it risks the security of its main drinking-water supply, and gives Syria the ability to, as it did in 67, use the area to launch strikes against its population.

Certain areas of the post-war occupied zones were strategically as important as the Golan Heights (The Fulda Gap and the North German Plain) as they were the most likely areas for any deep Warsaw pact armoured thrusts towards the channel and thus had a higher proportion of NATO armoured divisions deployed to defend them. However, the fact that the occuping powers retained quite a few divisions in their respective zones (apart from the French) after the handovers would differ from the case where Israel might hand the Golan heights back to Syria (The Syrians probably wouldn't let Israel retain strong defensive forces there after the handover).

In any case the Golan Heights are definitely one of the most strategically important positions in the Middle East and to hand them back would be detrimental to peace efforts in the long run in my opinion.