Meanwhile back in Israel

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Only the first three paragraphs deal with your comments. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think I was making any big leaps...? You made excuses for the appointment - that was my main point. I'm glad youre disgusted, but have to wonder why you only showed up to be nitpicky about my criticism, instead of expressing your disgust...

I asked BS the question regarding the Israel vs PA coalitions first...still hoping he'll take a shot at that one....

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Israel's population density is close to 400 capita/square kilometre. Gaza's is ten times that, at over 4,000 capita/square kilometre. This, combined with the limited (and controlled) access to fresh water and crops, and restrictions on fishing - essentially mandates imports for the sake of the flourishing of the Palestinian people. When these restrictions or limitations on access are not lifted, and the flow of goods and services into the territories is still limited, I don't see how this would've seen by the Palestinian people as anything but a means to appease global condemnation. A first step would be associated with a true sign of faith, not a meaningless act meant to silence protesters. This was a very solid effort to make the lives of Israelis easier and less affected by what they seem to deem the cancerous cells of Israel. Rather than maintaining the internal harmony of the country, they could simply isolate anything 'problematic', and ensure its strife and turmoil is unseen and unheard elsewhere in the country.

Hamas' one-vote/one-time election is only an issue after what Israel deems the appropriate maximum term length ought to be has elapsed (which, given that Netanyahu is on his fourth term, even interrupted by a term out of office, is strange to me). Until that point, the one-vote/one-time election is a moot point.

Hamas and the PA indeed do not agree ideologically: the PA's stance has been weakened to only have hope for a two-state solution; Hamas have hope for a one-state solution. This has nothing to do with rejectionist viewpoints: it's the simple reality that pushing for a one-state solution and pushing for a two-state solution must have different procedures, so they butt heads. This means that when you say that you believe Hamas is a true obstacle to peace - you should clarify: Hamas is a true obstacle to a two-state solution, inasmuch as the PA is a true obstacle to a one-state solution. Must they align in their goal? Absolutely: pushing for either scenario damages the effort to push for the other.

Hamas is a true obstacle to peace. Full stop. It does not need to be clarified.

A wrongfully segregated and ghettoized population who are an annoyance in their existence, and ruining the perceived purity of a land, are discriminated against and elect a group to represent an opposition to their injustices. The group, stripped of any way of making tangible change through peaceful protest (i.e. no voices heard), opts to violence - a way to shock global powers into condemning those in prolonging the injustices, proposing crippling the oppressors' economy, and ensuring that the oppressed refuse to accept pacifism for the sake of maintaining an unjust status quo.

This seems to be the story in South Africa and in Israel. In both cases, the violent resistance force is seen as heroic and noble by the supporters of the oppressed; and coined a terrorist organization by those in opposition (typically those in a position of power with a ways to fall and profit to be lost).

Injustice and prejudice go hand in hand. When your prejudice refuses to allow your brain to consume and debate in details related to context related to premises related to viewpoints, you are relegated to a status of unwavering conviction in your opinions in spite of logic. This way of being is a true obstacle to peace, more so than Hamas could ever be.

By the way, I'm still looking forward to a response to my thought experiment which I thought adequately represented the basics of the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Perhaps a response besides "I'm hungover and it's nice outside".

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Only the first three paragraphs deal with your comments. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think I was making any big leaps...? You made excuses for the appointment - that was my main point. I'm glad youre disgusted, but have to wonder why you only showed up to be nitpicky about my criticism, instead of expressing your disgust...

I asked BS the question regarding the Israel vs PA coalitions first...still hoping he'll take a shot at that one....

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Israel's population density is close to 400 capita/square kilometre. Gaza's is ten times that, at over 4,000 capita/square kilometre. This, combined with the limited (and controlled) access to fresh water and crops, and restrictions on fishing - essentially mandates imports for the sake of the flourishing of the Palestinian people. When these restrictions or limitations on access are not lifted, and the flow of goods and services into the territories is still limited, I don't see how this would've seen by the Palestinian people as anything but a means to appease global condemnation. A first step would be associated with a true sign of faith, not a meaningless act meant to silence protesters. This was a very solid effort to make the lives of Israelis easier and less affected by what they seem to deem the cancerous cells of Israel. Rather than maintaining the internal harmony of the country, they could simply isolate anything 'problematic', and ensure its strife and turmoil is unseen and unheard elsewhere in the country.

Hamas' one-vote/one-time election is only an issue after what Israel deems the appropriate maximum term length ought to be has elapsed (which, given that Netanyahu is on his fourth term, even interrupted by a term out of office, is strange to me). Until that point, the one-vote/one-time election is a moot point.

Hamas and the PA indeed do not agree ideologically: the PA's stance has been weakened to only have hope for a two-state solution; Hamas have hope for a one-state solution. This has nothing to do with rejectionist viewpoints: it's the simple reality that pushing for a one-state solution and pushing for a two-state solution must have different procedures, so they butt heads. This means that when you say that you believe Hamas is a true obstacle to peace - you should clarify: Hamas is a true obstacle to a two-state solution, inasmuch as the PA is a true obstacle to a one-state solution. Must they align in their goal? Absolutely: pushing for either scenario damages the effort to push for the other.

Hamas is a true obstacle to peace. Full stop. It does not need to be clarified.

A wrongfully segregated and ghettoized population who are an annoyance in their existence, and ruining the perceived purity of a land, are discriminated against and elect a group to represent an opposition to their injustices. The group, stripped of any way of making tangible change through peaceful protest (i.e. no voices heard), opts to violence - a way to shock global powers into condemning those in prolonging the injustices, proposing crippling the oppressors' economy, and ensuring that the oppressed refuse to accept pacifism for the sake of maintaining an unjust status quo.

This seems to be the story in South Africa and in Israel. In both cases, the violent resistance force is seen as heroic and noble by the supporters of the oppressed; and coined a terrorist organization by those in opposition (typically those in a position of power with a ways to fall and profit to be lost).

Injustice and prejudice go hand in hand. When your prejudice refuses to allow your brain to consume and debate in details related to context related to premises related to viewpoints, you are relegated to a status of unwavering conviction in your opinions in spite of logic. This way of being is a true obstacle to peace, more so than Hamas could ever be.

By the way, I'm still looking forward to a response to my thought experiment which I thought adequately represented the basics of the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Perhaps a response besides "I'm hungover and it's nice outside".

He doesn't like questions and he's not interested in dialog. Kind of like Bibi and the zionists in Israel come to think of it.

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Only the first three paragraphs deal with your comments. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think I was making any big leaps...? You made excuses for the appointment - that was my main point. I'm glad youre disgusted, but have to wonder why you only showed up to be nitpicky about my criticism, instead of expressing your disgust...

I asked BS the question regarding the Israel vs PA coalitions first...still hoping he'll take a shot at that one....

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Israel's population density is close to 400 capita/square kilometre. Gaza's is ten times that, at over 4,000 capita/square kilometre. This, combined with the limited (and controlled) access to fresh water and crops, and restrictions on fishing - essentially mandates imports for the sake of the flourishing of the Palestinian people. When these restrictions or limitations on access are not lifted, and the flow of goods and services into the territories is still limited, I don't see how this would've seen by the Palestinian people as anything but a means to appease global condemnation. A first step would be associated with a true sign of faith, not a meaningless act meant to silence protesters. This was a very solid effort to make the lives of Israelis easier and less affected by what they seem to deem the cancerous cells of Israel. Rather than maintaining the internal harmony of the country, they could simply isolate anything 'problematic', and ensure its strife and turmoil is unseen and unheard elsewhere in the country.

Hamas' one-vote/one-time election is only an issue after what Israel deems the appropriate maximum term length ought to be has elapsed (which, given that Netanyahu is on his fourth term, even interrupted by a term out of office, is strange to me). Until that point, the one-vote/one-time election is a moot point.

Hamas and the PA indeed do not agree ideologically: the PA's stance has been weakened to only have hope for a two-state solution; Hamas have hope for a one-state solution. This has nothing to do with rejectionist viewpoints: it's the simple reality that pushing for a one-state solution and pushing for a two-state solution must have different procedures, so they butt heads. This means that when you say that you believe Hamas is a true obstacle to peace - you should clarify: Hamas is a true obstacle to a two-state solution, inasmuch as the PA is a true obstacle to a one-state solution. Must they align in their goal? Absolutely: pushing for either scenario damages the effort to push for the other.

Hamas is a true obstacle to peace. Full stop. It does not need to be clarified.

A wrongfully segregated and ghettoized population who are an annoyance in their existence, and ruining the perceived purity of a land, are discriminated against and elect a group to represent an opposition to their injustices. The group, stripped of any way of making tangible change through peaceful protest (i.e. no voices heard), opts to violence - a way to shock global powers into condemning those in prolonging the injustices, proposing crippling the oppressors' economy, and ensuring that the oppressed refuse to accept pacifism for the sake of maintaining an unjust status quo.

This seems to be the story in South Africa and in Israel. In both cases, the violent resistance force is seen as heroic and noble by the supporters of the oppressed; and coined a terrorist organization by those in opposition (typically those in a position of power with a ways to fall and profit to be lost).

Injustice and prejudice go hand in hand. When your prejudice refuses to allow your brain to consume and debate in details related to context related to premises related to viewpoints, you are relegated to a status of unwavering conviction in your opinions in spite of logic. This way of being is a true obstacle to peace, more so than Hamas could ever be.

By the way, I'm still looking forward to a response to my thought experiment which I thought adequately represented the basics of the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Perhaps a response besides "I'm hungover and it's nice outside".

I answered your "living room" thought experiment. You didn't like my answer and proposed a new, larger experiment. I hate to say this but your experiment is silly and makes zero sense. Why deal with the issue in the abstract? We are not talking about living rooms and renters...blah blah. We are talking about Israel and there is no need to bury the facts we all know under silly terms. Hamas is an obstacle to peace. The end. Your experiment cannot paper over the current facts on the ground.

Yosi, does Hamas not exist to champion a one-state solution and condemn Jewish sovereignty over the region (and don't get me wrong - it's inexcusable for them to champion Islamic sovereignty as well)? When they say Israel has no right to exist - that's exactly the statement they make: a state with Jewish sovereignty ought not to exist when the region houses Jews and non-Jews alike. This is relevant not only at the time of the birth of Israel, but even at the time when Zionism pinpointed this very parcel of land to situate itself on. Until then, Zionism was not a problematic concept. Israel's existence promotes an outright elitist and racist point of view through the discrepancy of treatment between conforming Jews and all others, and was outdated decades ago. Why it is accepted in the case of Israel and condemned elsewhere is beyond me.

Until Israel acknowledges this initial injustice of self-appointed Jewish sovereignty (along with the affiliated injustices that are much more tangible: inappropriate seizure of land, humiliation, mistreatment, the segregation of a people even from each other with regards to Gaza and the West Bank, discrepancy in rights provided, etc) and begins to enter damage control in tangible and meaningful ways, Israel will never have peace, and as the BDS movement grows, Israel will never have economic stability. The sanctions will become stronger. The opposition will become louder. Canada and America's indigenous populations would not be peaceful without the meagre reparations granted by our respective governments. The reparations granted to the Palestinian population at this point fall short and fluctuate around (but just barely) non-existent, occasionally adding or retracting rights or land here or there when the inactivity is more damaging than minor change, as granted by the self-perceived superior and charitable race.

This is the reality: If Israel doesn't push for owed reparations (likely akin to those given to indigenous populations around the world - i.e. familiar), the world will watch as Israel burns slowly and painfully. My personal hope is for an iota of progress: there has never been a status quo of stability in Israel, and there's a reason for that. The world accepts two outcomes to injustice: work to rectify it slowly or partially to an unfortunate but acceptable state, or rectify it entirely. To minimize it only when convenient does not work, as injustices are done to seize or preserve power, and to undo injustice by definition would mean the return or rebalancing of power (i.e. it is inherently inconvenient).

As for my thought experiment, I stand by it, as plenty of scientists have stood by thought experiments that increase clarity to abstract scenarios and to extract and remove bias. Renter A and Renter B, and Landlord Joe have no prior biases in our minds - when you label them as Israel, Palestine, and England, they sure as hell do. BS, your response acknowledged the fact that I had omitted critical contextual points necessary to validate it, and so I tweaked it to add analogous historical context. If you had thought it did not relate whatsoever, why did you not speak up in the first iteration? Why now?

Once again, BS, you claim to be fact-driven, but you can not claim to be fact-driven if you make blanket statements (Hamas is an obstacle to peace) and ignore the subtext used to justify them (literally any statement providing nuance or refuting this notion). That's not logic: that's cherry-picking your arguments with a tunnel vision commitment to the outcome you've already decided upon. You had your mind made up prior to entering this discussion, and you manipulate, omit, or refuse to address conflicting facts, in an effort to reveal what you coin the 'truth'.

As long as people act this way on the Israeli/Palestinian topic, Israel is destined for global condemnation, violence, political and socioeconomic unrest, and impactful economic sanctions. Deal with it.

Nart, thanks, but I'm really not interested in having people back up my post... I'd love your input if you have something to add to it, but I believe in what I have to say, and the most validating thing to come of it would come in the form of questions or discussion, not just acceptance. By the way, if any of what I write doesn't make sense, you're always more than welcome to refute or elaborate as well! It's always nice to hear what parts of the puzzle I've missed - they're inevitably there.

badbrains said:

benjs said:

Nart, thanks, but I'm really not interested in having people back up my post... I'd love your input if you have something to add to it, but I believe in what I have to say, and the most validating thing to come of it would come in the form of questions or discussion, not just acceptance. By the way, if any of what I write doesn't make sense, you're always more than welcome to refute or elaborate as well! It's always nice to hear what parts of the puzzle I've missed - they're inevitably there.

Shit, I'm just like everyone else Ben, throwing my input here and there. Learn from a lot of people who post. You seem to be one that writes a lot of what I'm thinking to a degree, yet I can't put into words as good as you and others do. When I pat you on the back, it's not cuz I agree with you, it's because you put into words a lot of how I feel. Hope that makes sense, if not, fuck you Ben. Hahahaha, when you coming to the city for some katzs with me? How's that for a question? Think I had a little too much wake/n/bake

All good! Didn't mean that with any animosity, I just know how you feel about when people blindly cheerlead without adding anything of meaning for other topics, and we've got to be consistent in how we handle that regardless of whether we agree with a post or not. Either we should be free to put in a unanimous "hear, hear" without being charged of prejudice, or we shouldn't. That has to be across the board.

And sorry if this is coming off with unmeant hostility - I'm under the weather and running off three hours of sleep. Feel like a crotchety old man with a sore back and case of insomnia.

As for Katz's - you're on. Though if Jewy food is the objective, have you been to Russ and Daughters' in NYC? That place holds a special place in my stomach.

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Only the first three paragraphs deal with your comments. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't think I was making any big leaps...? You made excuses for the appointment - that was my main point. I'm glad youre disgusted, but have to wonder why you only showed up to be nitpicky about my criticism, instead of expressing your disgust...

I asked BS the question regarding the Israel vs PA coalitions first...still hoping he'll take a shot at that one....

Sorry for the delay Drowned. That was a great point on the coalitions and you wouldn't be wrong to suggest a double standard. This sort of gets into a "which came first the chicken or the egg" scenerio. As I see it when Israel completely withdrew from Gaza a number of years back that should have been seen as a softening of the Israeli position. I know it didn't come close to satisfying all Palestinian demands but it was certainly a first step and the appropriate response would have been to work peacefully to additional concessions. However, Hamas very quickly instituted a one-vote/one-time election and seized control of Gaza. This became problematic because Hamas and the PA do not agree ideologically. Hamas is completely rejectionist and by their actions has superseded any ability of the PA to negotiate. Many israeli's, including many on the left, now look back at the Gaza withdrawal and ask themselves "is peace even possible...we returned Gaza and it has only gotten worse?". It is this feeling that has moved the Israeli electorate to the right and has resulted in the Israeli coalition. Lastly...as my personal views often get lost in the weeds on here by being everyone's conservative foil...I am not an Israeli apologist as I see fault on all sides. I want a two-state solution of some type. What I absolutely believe though is at this point Hamas is the true obstacle peace. Egypt agrees with this. The PA agrees with this. Unless they are removed you will unfortunately see this Netanyahu coalition for a long long time.

Israel's population density is close to 400 capita/square kilometre. Gaza's is ten times that, at over 4,000 capita/square kilometre. This, combined with the limited (and controlled) access to fresh water and crops, and restrictions on fishing - essentially mandates imports for the sake of the flourishing of the Palestinian people. When these restrictions or limitations on access are not lifted, and the flow of goods and services into the territories is still limited, I don't see how this would've seen by the Palestinian people as anything but a means to appease global condemnation. A first step would be associated with a true sign of faith, not a meaningless act meant to silence protesters. This was a very solid effort to make the lives of Israelis easier and less affected by what they seem to deem the cancerous cells of Israel. Rather than maintaining the internal harmony of the country, they could simply isolate anything 'problematic', and ensure its strife and turmoil is unseen and unheard elsewhere in the country.

Hamas' one-vote/one-time election is only an issue after what Israel deems the appropriate maximum term length ought to be has elapsed (which, given that Netanyahu is on his fourth term, even interrupted by a term out of office, is strange to me). Until that point, the one-vote/one-time election is a moot point.

Hamas and the PA indeed do not agree ideologically: the PA's stance has been weakened to only have hope for a two-state solution; Hamas have hope for a one-state solution. This has nothing to do with rejectionist viewpoints: it's the simple reality that pushing for a one-state solution and pushing for a two-state solution must have different procedures, so they butt heads. This means that when you say that you believe Hamas is a true obstacle to peace - you should clarify: Hamas is a true obstacle to a two-state solution, inasmuch as the PA is a true obstacle to a one-state solution. Must they align in their goal? Absolutely: pushing for either scenario damages the effort to push for the other.

Hamas is a true obstacle to peace. Full stop. It does not need to be clarified.

A wrongfully segregated and ghettoized population who are an annoyance in their existence, and ruining the perceived purity of a land, are discriminated against and elect a group to represent an opposition to their injustices. The group, stripped of any way of making tangible change through peaceful protest (i.e. no voices heard), opts to violence - a way to shock global powers into condemning those in prolonging the injustices, proposing crippling the oppressors' economy, and ensuring that the oppressed refuse to accept pacifism for the sake of maintaining an unjust status quo.

This seems to be the story in South Africa and in Israel. In both cases, the violent resistance force is seen as heroic and noble by the supporters of the oppressed; and coined a terrorist organization by those in opposition (typically those in a position of power with a ways to fall and profit to be lost).

Injustice and prejudice go hand in hand. When your prejudice refuses to allow your brain to consume and debate in details related to context related to premises related to viewpoints, you are relegated to a status of unwavering conviction in your opinions in spite of logic. This way of being is a true obstacle to peace, more so than Hamas could ever be.

By the way, I'm still looking forward to a response to my thought experiment which I thought adequately represented the basics of the situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories. Perhaps a response besides "I'm hungover and it's nice outside".

I answered your "living room" thought experiment. You didn't like my answer and proposed a new, larger experiment. I hate to say this but your experiment is silly and makes zero sense. Why deal with the issue in the abstract? We are not talking about living rooms and renters...blah blah. We are talking about Israel and there is no need to bury the facts we all know under silly terms. Hamas is an obstacle to peace. The end. Your experiment cannot paper over the current facts on the ground.

I see that the intellectually lazy struck again. Bibi is an obstacle to peace. Deal with it.