Israel, Palestine and Iran

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I absolutely disagree i think systems can fail like capitalism or socialism or authoritarianism or democracy and countries who implement those bad systems can fail to. Failing=means you cease to exist as a country by influence of the outside world.

Would you agree that if Palestine can do nothing more than just democratically elect terrorist elements into their government they are failing as a country and population?

So i think i can give you a scenario where you would say population cleansing might be reasonable.

You live in a democracy i Thanos snap 30% of your countries population into radicalism racism authoritarianism. They dont believe in democracy or your state and they terorising the 70% of liberal population. What do you think your country should do? options:

1. cleanse the hostile population 

cleansing trying to deport them from your home is better than killing them

2. kill them.

killing them is worse than cleansing.

3.Give up democracy

it would be just sad.

so can you engage with this?

I can’t, no. All 3 of those are totally unacceptable. The first 2 are utterly inhumane, fail to demonstrate any respect for human life or human rights and are appalling.

[Tumblerseven]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

I can’t, no. All 3 of those are totally unacceptable. The first 2 are utterly inhumane, fail to demonstrate any respect for human life or human rights and are appalling.

But realistically there is no other option you have to acknowledge that. You must agree that there are certain situations where humane and peaceful options doesn't exist.

Like in self defense. You not expected to talk to your attacker who wants to kill you like a humane person. You are expected to defend yourself by any means necessary.

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[magnkarl]

Crikey, I thought I had seen the lowest stooping by either side in this conflict when I got 'Remember where you were in 1940!' thrown in my face in North London the other day, but here we are having someone saying ethnic cleansing isn't all bad.

I suggest we put Likud, its troll-farms and right wing allies into a box together with Hamas/the Iranian priesthood and Putin, and have them solve questions only solvable by showing any sort of empathy for the other side to open the box, they'd never get out.

The state of the world we live in.

I'll be in my garden pulling up this year's spuds if you need me.

Edited November 5, 2023 by magnkarl

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

that’s absolutely specifically what leads to and allows the murders of the last 4 weeks

Well, we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree. Nothing that Hamas did on 7 October is acceptable/explained by/caused by anyone’s opinions or beliefs other than their own murderous, deep seated, sick, racist hatred. Someone posting their “acceptance” of “cleansing” people after those events is shocking, but they bear no responsibility for the events.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

You must agree that there are certain situations where humane and peaceful options doesn't exist.

They do exist. They’re not being employed or implemented at the moment, true, as neither party is minded to use them, to their eternal shame. The external world is also badly failing to get them implemented.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Like in self defense. You not expected to talk to your attacker who wants to kill you like a humane person. You are expected to defend yourself by any means necessary.

Defend yourself is one thing. Going on a blood soaked revenge killing spree is another thing entirely.

[Jareth]

5 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

But realistically there is no other option you have to acknowledge that. You must agree that there are certain situations where humane and peaceful options doesn't exist.

Like in self defense. You not expected to talk to your attacker who wants to kill you like a humane person. You are expected to defend yourself by any means necessary.

 

Netanyahu entirely failed to defend Israel - he in fact funded Hamas. What Israel are doing right now is not defence, they are making themselves less safe in the long term. 

[Rustibrooks]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, we’ll have to agree to strongly disagree. Nothing that Hamas did on 7 October is acceptable/explained by/caused by anyone’s opinions or beliefs other than their own murderous, deep seated, sick, racist hatred. Someone posting their “acceptance” of “cleansing” people after those events is shocking, but they bear no responsibility for the events.

Surely the mentality of accepting ethnic cleansing is a possible thought process of why the IDF/Israeli government are fine with dropping bombs on Gazans. Hamas are bad and should be targeted, but at times it almost feels like the IDF use the word Hamas like a buzzword when explaining themselves why they bombed an ambulance etc. 

[El Segundo]

Quote

Settlements. Well it happened once in 2005 when israel removed settlements from gaza and then they elected established terrorist organization in 2006. So its possible i would say very likely

Yes Israel removed settlements from Gaza in 2005 but continued to expand settlements in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights.  So I wouldn't see that as a change of policy overall.     

Quote

Alternative to violent means you build your country educate and elevate your people and areas you have find allies and trades and recognition and then negotiate with israel like equals. Nothing of sort have been done period.

So Palestinians were supposed to build their country even though you yourself have stated there was no country before Israel.  Even though most of the land they occupied was seized or handed over to the Israelis.  Even though they were holed up in open prisons.  Even though their attempts with their allies to take back their lands and build their country led to military defeats and further Israeli expansions.  To assign blame to Palestinians for not “building their country” in those conditions looks very much like victim blaming to me.       

Quote

I think i agreed about the self-governance im not trying to defend what Britts did. I already said this.

No I don't think you did.

The above answers your second two questions.  To answer your other question, no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced.  No country or people should have the right to occupy someone else's land and claim it as their own. Many who express such views with regard to Israel are dismissed anti-Zionist, or anti-Semitic.  They are neither.  I've nothing against the Jewish people, I've nothing against some of them wanting a Jewish homeland.  I just don't think they had any legal or moral claim or right to the land they took or were "awarded", and I think the way they have gone ahead anyway is abhorrent.    

     

Edited November 5, 2023 by El Segundo

[delboy54]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Why should there be reasoned engagement when war crimes are happening daily? You can’t dress it up. 

Well there has to be a point where "jaw jaw is better than war war"...

Are you suggesting that "while war crimes are happening" by both sides then this should continue forever.

There has to be some sort of long term resolution to this but where to start?

I used to think this conflict was about religion or ideology but I am now starting to realise that some countries/people just like fighting and killing and just look for an excuse for it

[Tumblerseven]

19 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

 To answer your other question, no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced. 

So first of all if i would write this kind of statement i would get 5 people jumping on me with their performative outrage trying to tell me how evil i am. I will see what reactions you will get

Do you then believe that Palestinians have the right to fight illegal occupation from Israelis by any means necessary? yes/no what kind of means actions are justified.

Would you call october 7 attack trying to fight the occupation? yes/no why?

Would you call Hamas freedom fighters? yes/no why?

Do you think october 7 attacks are justified because there is illegal ocupation of israel? yes/no why?

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[Mr_Dogg]

20 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

So first of all if i would write this kind of statement i would get 5 people jumping on me with their performative outrage trying to tell me how evil i am. I will see what reactions you will get

Do you then believe that Palestinians have the right to fight illegal occupation from Israelis by any means necessary? yes/no what kind of means actions are justified.

Would you call october 7 attack trying to fight the occupation? yes/no why?

Would you call Hamas freedom fighters? yes/no why?

Do you think october 7 attacks are justified because there is illegal ocupation of israel? yes/no why?

Please stop posting like this, with the bold and large font.

[El Segundo]

Why are you shouting again?  As I said I am fully aware some ill-informed people will say my stance is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist and that's why a lot of people who agree with me are afraid to express such views.  I've already explained they are neither, so what is your issue ?  Why would anyone be able to call it evil?

I believe the Palestinians have the right to fight occupation but not by any means necessary such as committing war crimes. 

I can't possibly say whether the October 7th attack was motivated by fighting the occupation or pushed by Iran or whoever to stir up trouble. I don't have that knowledge.  You will have to ask Hamas what their motivation was.  

I've never called Hamas freedom fighters.  Some of the oppressed might very well see them as such but I don't.  Hamas are too extreme in their methods to be called such.       

I don't think the October 7th attacks on civilians were justified or proportionate, illegal occupation or not.  Fighting the occupation should not include targeting civilians.   

[Mic09]

25 minutes ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Please stop posting like this, with the bold and large font.

Don't you know it makes it more important?

[Tumblerseven]

25 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Why are you shouting again?  As I said I am fully aware some ill-informed people will say my stance is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist and that's why a lot of people who agree with me are afraid to express such views.  I've already explained they are neither, so what is your issue ?  Why would anyone be able to call it evil?

I believe the Palestinians have the right to fight occupation but not by any means necessary such as committing war crimes. 

I can't possibly say whether the October 7th attack was motivated by fighting the occupation or pushed by Iran or whoever to stir up trouble. I don't have that knowledge.  You will have to ask Hamas what their motivation was.  

I've never called Hamas freedom fighters.  Some of the oppressed might very well see them as such but I don't.  Hamas are too extreme in their methods to be called such.       

I don't think the October 7th attacks on civilians were justified or proportionate, illegal occupation or not.  Fighting the occupation should not include targeting civilians.   

I think people would call your stance evil because when you say that Israel has no right to exist you are implying bad stuff. You can have a stance but you dont get to choose the effects or outcomes of that stance.

example: If i say i want to eat pork but i am against pig being killed its nonsensical. I am literally the reason why pig gets killed. I dont get to choose to eat pork and then disassociate from the outcome pig being killed.

So by saying that Israel has no right to exist you implying one state solution aka from the river to the sea Palestine. Any person with two braincells understands what would follow in one state solution with Palestinians controlling their lands and country. Holocaust of jews. So that is the outcome of your position you dont get to choose to disassociate from the outcome.

[El Segundo]

34 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think people would call your stance evil because when you say that Israel has no right to exist you are implying bad stuff. You can have a stance but you dont get to choose the effects or outcomes of that stance.

example: If i say i want to eat pork but i am against pig being killed its nonsensical. I am literally the reason why pig gets killed. I dont get to choose to eat pork and then disassociate from the outcome pig being killed.

So by saying that Israel has no right to exist you implying one state solution aka from the river to the sea Palestine. Any person with two braincells understands what would follow in one state solution with Palestinians controlling their lands and country. Holocaust of jews. So that is the outcome of your position you dont get to choose to disassociate from the outcome.

I'm implying nothing of the sort because I've not even said Israel has no right to exist.

The question you asked was this: 

19 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

The key part is "in those lands".  Most of that land, even excluding the Gaza and the West Bank, belonged to Palestinians and was unfairly taken away from them.  I do not believe Israel ever had a right to be given, or to take those lands. I don't support the right of any people or country to exist in land that has been stolen from other people.     

Do you think they have a right to those lands? If yes, on what basis?

Second, not believing in Israel's right to exist in those lands does not entail that I think Israel has no right to exist anywhere. From what I've read, other locations were considered by the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland.  If land anywhere, including Palestine, had been acquired fairly and without prejudice to set up a Jewish Homeland  then they would have every right to exist there.      

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

Is that simple enough for you?  

 

[Tumblerseven]

17 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I'm implying nothing of the sort because I've not even said Israel has no right to exist.

The question you asked was this: 

The key part is "in those lands".  Most of that land, even excluding the Gaza and the West Bank, belonged to Palestinians and was unfairly taken away from them.  I do not believe Israel ever had a right to be given, or to take those lands. I don't support the right of any people or country to exist in land that has been stolen from other people.     

Do you think they have a right to those lands? If yes, on what basis?

Second, not believing in Israel's right to exist in those lands does not entail that I think Israel has no right to exist anywhere. From what I've read, other locations were considered by the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland.  If land anywhere, including Palestine, had been acquired fairly and without prejudice to set up a Jewish Homeland  then they would have every right to exist there.      

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

Is that simple enough for you?  

 

I cant explain or teach what implications are or that language and words have actual meaning. Im not playing that game and im not wasting my time with that.

my question: 2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

your answer: no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced. 

This is very clear answer this implicates one state solution of Palestine and you cant disassociate from the outcomes of it.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Tumblerseven

[meregreen]

24 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I'm implying nothing of the sort because I've not even said Israel has no right to exist.

The question you asked was this: 

The key part is "in those lands".  Most of that land, even excluding the Gaza and the West Bank, belonged to Palestinians and was unfairly taken away from them.  I do not believe Israel ever had a right to be given, or to take those lands. I don't support the right of any people or country to exist in land that has been stolen from other people.     

Do you think they have a right to those lands? If yes, on what basis?

Second, not believing in Israel's right to exist in those lands does not entail that I think Israel has no right to exist anywhere. From what I've read, other locations were considered by the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland.  If land anywhere, including Palestine, had been acquired fairly and without prejudice to set up a Jewish Homeland  then they would have every right to exist there.      

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

Is that simple enough for you?  

 

Israel’s going nowhere, ever. They are there and they are there to stay. The sooner some people recognise that fact, the sooner there can be serious discussions about providing a State for the Palestinians, who also aren’t going to go away. Deal with the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be.

[El Segundo]

5 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

This is very clear answer this implicates one state solution of Palestine and you cant disassociate from the outcomes of it.

No it doesn't and yes I can, and I have.  Just because that doesn't suit your illogical conclusions or kow-tow to your false accusations doesn't change that.  You're doing exactly what Israel does, attempting to undermine any criticism by playing the cards of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.  It's pathetic.   

Are you going to answer my question - on what basis do you think Israel has a the right to exist in those lands?

[El Segundo]

2 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Israel’s going nowhere, ever. They are there and they are there to stay. The sooner some people recognise that fact, the sooner there can be serious discussions about providing a State for the Palestinians, who also aren’t going to go away. Deal with the world as it is, not as you’d like it to be.

Has anyone said any different?