Israel vs Palestinians

[McDad]

I view it like this...both sides have good reason to feel wronged by the other. It goes so far back now, it doesn't actually matter how it started. Neither side is good. Both have committed atrocities. Generally speaking, IDF uses more acceptable methods for fighting, but they do 10x body count. That's basically the history of my life. One Palestinian kills 1 Israeli, and then Israel kills 10 Palestinians. So who is right? The people who want sovereignty and can't fight fair or the masters who can fight fair and still mass murder?

The answer is neither is right. For some reason, Americans are hell-bent on picking a side. I don't know what the solution is, but it can't go on the same way. Netanyahu likes it this way. He has political power when it's this way. That's why he funneled $ to Hamas (which means we American taxpayers indirectly funneled $ to Hamas). He thinks their having power is good for him. We have a conflict of interest here. Netanyahu is promising no 2-state solution to his political supporters. We can't take a 2-state solution completely off the table if we're interested in figuring out what the best solution is. IDK if a 2-state solution is best, I am just saying this is compelling evidence that Netanyahu not pursuing what's best. Netanyahu and the people in power can keep things in turmoil forever, never fixing anything. It's similar to hot-button issues here, like immigration. Never fix it because the fact that it's bad for the country is good for you, Senator.

I urge anybody to listen to this podcast series (hosted by a Jewish guy who appears pretty unbiased). I think most people would be pretty shocked to learn about the history. I've posted this all a few times. Pretty doubtful anybody has taken the challenge to cross-examine what they believe about the situation:

Israel at War: Why Did Hamas Attack?

What motivated the Hamas terrorist attack? How did Israel fail to stop it? And what should Americans know about the state of Israel’s chaotic internal politics?

www.theringer.com

The Tragedy of Picking Sides in the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Author Peter Beinart joins Derek to further discuss the war between Israel and Hamas

www.theringer.com

Israel Has No Good Options

Georgetown University professor Daniel Byman, one of the world’s leading researchers on terrorism, counterterrorism, and Israel’s military, joins to discuss the failings of Israel’s current strategy

www.theringer.com

Two Israel-Palestine Historians Explain: How Did We Get Here? And What Happens Next?

Two historians share their thoughts on Israel’s military response, the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the "missing moderate middle" on both sides

www.theringer.com

The Fragile Hope for Peace in Israel-Palestine

Sally Abed, an activist with the group Standing Together, joins Derek to discuss what it’s like being Palestinian in Israel, how to build a coalition for peace, and more

www.theringer.com

World on Fire, Part 1: The Houthis, Israel’s Impossible War, and Worsening Middle East Chaos

Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, joins Dereks to talk about the current state of the Middle East

www.theringer.com

World on Fire, Part 2: Global Conflict Has Surged to an 80-Year High. Why?

This might be the most violent period of the 21st century, with more total conflicts than any year since World War II

www.theringer.com

Thanks for the thougtful and thought provoking reply. Much appreciated.

I am likely to not engage with the podcast so I'd like to ask a follow up question associated with it. The conflict does go back many decades. Bill Clinton "brokered" a peace deal during his presidency. Actually had PLO and Prime minister shaking hands. Does the podcast mention the event(s) after that peace deal which broke the agreement?

 

[hog88]

how would have dying as soon as he stepped foot in Palestine actually served the cause? how would have dying to indirect fire served the cause? how would have having his face blown off when the Israelis breached his bunker served the cause?

you don't need to die on the line to serve a cause. and his cause may have been more about peace than victory.

Maybe he could have taken out some IDF soldiers before he bought the farm? But without any doubt in my mind him setting himself on fire did nothing for his "cause".

 

[EasternVol]

I cannot find the proof it is from burning monks. I am not willing to make the assumption.

If people burning themselves gets us to take action, we should get the word out to flammable North Koreans.

It was because the president was pretty much hated by most of the population and that hatred was stoked by the monk's immolation and those that followed.

 

[EasternVol]

Interesting. What do you base that on? You have psychic ability?

I’m certain some tragedies on Israel’s part were intentional. You seem certain 100% of them were intentional.

How in the world could you possibly know that?

Testimony of witnesses.
How do I seem certain that 100% were intentional? We've only discussed a few.

 

[McDad]

It was because the president was pretty much hated by most of the population and that hatred was stoked by the monk's immolation and those that followed.

let me make sure i am understanding you.

"it" = the motivation for regime change?
"population" = the people affected? the whole country? the people of the world?

 

[EasternVol]

Do they see IDF & Hamas the same? Lord, no.

They see IDF as objectively worse.

IDF is prosecuting a Genocide.
Hamas holds no such desires.

IDF deliberately bombs babies.
Hamas simply steals babies.

IDF tortures prisoners of war.
Hamas is viewed warmly by hostages.

Now how do you know what other people think?

 

[Vol8188]

Testimony of witnesses.
How do I seem certain that 100% were intentional? We've only discussed a few.

I’ve never seen you believe any to be unintentional. Can you provide examples?

Which specific witness testimony tells you this was intentional

 

[EasternVol]

let me make sure i am understanding you.

"it" = the motivation for regime change?

that's right

"population" = the people affected? the whole country? the people of the world?

the population of the country

 

[EasternVol]

I’ve never seen you believe any to be unintentional. Can you provide examples?

Which specific witness testimony tells you this was intentional

How many have we discussed?
Those that I saw and read around the time it happened. You can read up on it if you want.

 

[McDad]

Now how do you know what other people think?

If you care to or have time, I would really like to read your thoughts on my questions.

 

[McDad]

that's right

the population of the country

On this I agree. Those factors have to be present for the people in the country to pursue change.

However, is there any proof monks burning themselves motivated the US to intervene?

 

[EasternVol]

At least you’re self aware

That's funny.

 

[LouderVol]

So you have a positive view of people who set themselves on fire for a cause and you believe that’s the view of the general public also?

I don’t think the majority view burning yourself alive as a noble act

I think it all comes down to the cause you are doing it for.

In the Tibetan monk situation I think most people can identify with that cause as a positive, and thus see the individual favorably. or at least I do. has nothing to do with the particular choice of dramatic protest.

in this case I don't think people view him positively, and its solely due to his cause. not the act itself.

just because I don't align with his cause doesn't mean I can't respect the will and belief of the individual who took it. that's the reason protest is protected in this country. the decision to allow or not should never be based on if the cause is acceptable.

and considering the likely alternative, especially considering the cause if you assume all pro Palestinians are terrorist supporters of Hamas like 85 does in here, was terrorism. self immolation that involves no one else seems like a pretty favorable outcome and positive protest vs a possible act of terrorism.

 

[Vol8188]

How many have we discussed?
Those that I saw and read around the time it happened. You can read up on it if you want.

So you’re sure it was intentional, but have no interest in providing the evidence as to why?

This seems to be the same game you always play. “The evidence is out there! Find it yourself!”

 

[LouderVol]

That's a wonderful quality. You're a good man to have that level of empathy.

I see it as an incredible waste of the gift of life.

I am admittedly more cynical and jaded than you.

I don't set the value of another person's life, or how much various things should matter to them. to you his cause isn't that important to you, so its a waste of life.

but he believed his cause was worth his life, and he had the will to act out on it, and the grace to not involve others in a directly negative manner. I can certainly find empathy for all of those factors.

 

[n_huffhines]

Thanks for the thougtful and thought provoking reply. Much appreciated.

I am likely to not engage with the podcast so I'd like to ask a follow up question associated with it. The conflict does go back many decades. Bill Clinton "brokered" a peace deal during his presidency. Actually had PLO and Prime minister shaking hands. Does the podcast mention the event(s) after that peace deal which broke the agreement?

The podcast goes back 150 years, but yeah, it covers that. As I recall, the pro-Israeli historian admits this was a sham deal for Palestine and it was never going to keep the peace.

It's easy to knock out podcasts when you carry around a little earbud. Anytime I'm doing anything, like yard work, the dishes, a walk, the gym, in the grocery store, etc. I just tap the bud and my pod picks up where it left off. I can consume like 20 hours of podcasts in a week and it took no time off my schedule. Highly recommend it (but I'm probably over-doing it).

 

[EasternVol]

On this I agree. Those factors have to be present for the people in the country to pursue change.

However, is there any proof monks burning themselves motivated the US to intervene?

I don't know about proof but per what I've read the immolations stoked antipathy to the president. With the growing unrest we and the ARVN thought the country was becoming ungovernable so a change was made.

 

[McDad]

I don't set the value of another person's life, or how much various things should matter to them. to you his cause isn't that important to you, so its a waste of life.

but he believed his cause was worth his life, and he had the will to act out on it, and the grace to not involve others in a directly negative manner. I can certainly find empathy for all of those factors.

No sir, you misunderstand why it is unimportant to me.

People believe in their ability to live with bears, bicycle through islamist extermists territory, fly their home made rocket to prove a flat earth. Are you able to generate empathy for them?

 

[EasternVol]

So you’re sure it was intentional, but have no interest in providing the evidence as to why?

This seems to be the same game you always play. “The evidence is out there! Find it yourself!”

It's a shame about your reading comprehension. I saw and read what I saw and read. It you're too lazy to look it up then that's on you.

 

[LouderVol]

Just to be clear, it’s possible to unintentionally kill civilians on a beach right?

But it’s not possible to unintentionally kidnap children.

sure it is.

you hijack a car, not knowing the arsehole parent left a kid in the back seat.

you take shelter in a building and there happens to be a child in there you don't let go wonder out into a an active war zone.

you take a kid thinking you are just moving them to safety not knowing your superiors want to use them as human shields after you leave.

its war, there is probably not ever a truly single case of morality one way or the other. war creates impossible situations where people have to do completely terrible things to survive they otherwise wouldn't have done. either generally or in specific cases.

 

[LouderVol]

I realize I do not understand how many of you think about the ongoing conflict.

For those of you willing to shed light, I would appreciate it.

Do you see the IDF and Hamas as essentially the same in practice just different in ideology?

Are (Gaza, WB, Gollun Heights) Palestinians different than Palestinians who live and work peacefully in Israel?

essentially yes. Hamas clearly started this and thus lost the right to protest retaliation, but I believe the Israelis are taking their response beyond the instigating events to advance their own self interests beyond the safety factor of the initiating events.

like wanting to steal someone's *insert thing here*, so you create a situation that allows you to steal it. could be you start a verbal altercation trusting to them escalating with a physical response. then once they punch you in the nose, you pull out your gun and shoot them dead and take the thing you wanted. can't say its wrong to defend oneself but clearly by this point the self defense is self serving beyond a matter of protection and starts to look premeditated and not just a true action/reaction chain of events.

 

[McDad]

The podcast goes back 150 years, but yeah, it covers that. As I recall, the pro-Israeli historian admits this was a sham deal for Palestine and it was never going to keep the peace.

It's easy to knock out podcasts when you carry around a little earbud. Anytime I'm doing anything, like yard work, the dishes, a walk, the gym, in the grocery store, etc. I just tap the bud and my pod picks up where it left off. I can consume like 20 hours of podcasts in a week and it took no time off my schedule. Highly recommend it (but I'm probably over-doing it).

Are you able to explain why the historian says it was a sham deal for Palestinians?

 

[LouderVol]

lol @ hot take.
Anyone setting themselves on fire for “bringing attention too…” is a moron.

glad someone finally picked up on that joke.

 

[Vol8188]

sure it is.

you hijack a car, not knowing the arsehole parent left a kid in the back seat.

you take shelter in a building and there happens to be a child in there you don't let go wonder out into a an active war zone.

you take a kid thinking you are just moving them to safety not knowing your superiors want to use them as human shields after you leave.

its war, there is probably not ever a truly single case of morality one way or the other. war creates impossible situations where people have to do completely terrible things to survive they otherwise wouldn't have done. either generally or in specific cases.

Do you believe the children kidnapped by Hamas were taken unintentionally?

 

[EasternVol]

If you care to or have time, I would really like to read your thoughts on my questions.

Do you see the IDF and Hamas as essentially the same in practice just different in ideology?
Speaking of the military wing of hamas, since hamas's a political organization and not all members are armed: One's a very well armed and supplied state army and the other's a less well armed guerilla organization. One operates in the open and the other is underground. So different in practice.
Are (Gaza, WB, Gollun Heights) Palestinians different than Palestinians who live and work peacefully in Israel?
The Golan Heights are occupied Syrian territory so it's not quite the same as the occupied Palestinian territory. Otherwise, different how?