Opinion of this quote

[Indy Texas]

I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

There's no unanimity among Palestinians that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a good idea either, but Israel has no problem collectively punishing them for that.

Why is it beyond the pale for the Palestinians to collectively punish Israel for their own non-unanimous decision?

[bedstuy]

I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

There's no unanimity among Palestinians that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a good idea either, but Israel has no problem collectively punishing them for that.

Why is it beyond the pale for the Palestinians to collectively punish Israel for their own non-unanimous decision?

So, people in East Jerusalem adding a bedroom to their house is tantamount to firing rockets at civilians?  I don't support Israel building settlements either, but it's not warfare.  It's provocative and wrong, but it must be dealt with using peaceful means. 

To further distinguish, I think Israel is following established international norms of warfare.  Going into Gaza to destroy rockets and their access points is in response to a military threat and proportional to its scope.  It's not just, Israel disapproves of Hamas so they're going to bomb Gaza.  It's not collective punishment, even if that's the net effect of any war.

Hamas, on the other hand, constantly violates the basic international rules of war.  They're a terrorist group that targets civilians.  That's not a legitimate tactic.  What they should do is recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism and come to the bargaining table.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

[bedstuy]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

[Indy Texas]

I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

There's no unanimity among Palestinians that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a good idea either, but Israel has no problem collectively punishing them for that.

Why is it beyond the pale for the Palestinians to collectively punish Israel for their own non-unanimous decision?

So, people in East Jerusalem adding a bedroom to their house is tantamount to firing rockets at civilians?  I don't support Israel building settlements either, but it's not warfare.  It's provocative and wrong, but it must be dealt with using peaceful means. 

To further distinguish, I think Israel is following established international norms of warfare.  Going into Gaza to destroy rockets and their access points is in response to a military threat and proportional to its scope.  It's not just, Israel disapproves of Hamas so they're going to bomb Gaza.  It's not collective punishment, even if that's the net effect of any war.

Hamas, on the other hand, constantly violates the basic international rules of war.  They're a terrorist group that targets civilians.  That's not a legitimate tactic.  What they should do is recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism and come to the bargaining table.

When your government demolishes the house of the person next door because that person isn't the right religion so that you can add that extra bedroom, you're certainly not leaving them with a shortage of reasons to be firing rockets.

What "peaceful means" deter that kind of behavior? They've been doing it for at least 40 years. I'm sure if linking hands and singing Kumbaya were effective, it would have been done by now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

And equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism is appropriate?  In many ways, Israel continues to act as a late 19th century European power when it comes to how it treats its neighbors.  Which is isn't too surprising since Zionism came of age as a political viewpoint in late 19th century Europe.

[bedstuy]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

And equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism is appropriate?  In many ways, Israel continues to act as a late 19th century European power when it comes to how it treats its neighbors.  Which is isn't too surprising since Zionism came of age as a political viewpoint in late 19th century Europe.

I'm not getting into one of your loops of pedantry and being purposefully obtuse.  What I said is appropriate rational discourse, what you said is not.  And, if you actually think Israel is like Nazi Germany, you're an idiot. 

I mean, I generally agree that Israel's settlement policy is horrible and illegal.  But, there's no unanimity in Israel over the idea that all the settlements need to stay. 

There's no unanimity among Palestinians that Hamas firing rockets into Israel is a good idea either, but Israel has no problem collectively punishing them for that.

Why is it beyond the pale for the Palestinians to collectively punish Israel for their own non-unanimous decision?

So, people in East Jerusalem adding a bedroom to their house is tantamount to firing rockets at civilians?  I don't support Israel building settlements either, but it's not warfare.  It's provocative and wrong, but it must be dealt with using peaceful means. 

To further distinguish, I think Israel is following established international norms of warfare.  Going into Gaza to destroy rockets and their access points is in response to a military threat and proportional to its scope.  It's not just, Israel disapproves of Hamas so they're going to bomb Gaza.  It's not collective punishment, even if that's the net effect of any war.

Hamas, on the other hand, constantly violates the basic international rules of war.  They're a terrorist group that targets civilians.  That's not a legitimate tactic.  What they should do is recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism and come to the bargaining table.

When your government demolishes the house of the person next door because that person isn't the right religion so that you can add that extra bedroom, you're certainly not leaving them with a shortage of reasons to be firing rockets.

What "peaceful means" deter that kind of behavior? They've been doing it for at least 40 years. I'm sure if linking hands and singing Kumbaya were effective, it would have been done by now.

If you think it's perfectly OK to shoot rockets at civilians, I don't know what to tell you.  If you think Hamas's terrorist tactics are legitimate and helpful to the situation, we have to just agree to disagree.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least you're willing to admit that Israel has a share of the blame.  But I think you're wrong about a majority of Israelis not wanting to keep control of the West Bank.  Certainly a majority oppose integrating it into Israel proper because of the massive increase in Arab citizens that would result if all of the West Bank, including the ghettos the Palestinians have been forced into there, were part of Israel.  Maintaining the bantustans while obtaining the desired lebensraum for Zion appears to be the generally accepted Israeli policy given what has happened over the last four decades since the Yom Kippur War under a wide variety of governments.  (Politically loaded words used on purpose as they are useful shorthands despite not being fully accurate.)

If you're going to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, you don't exactly have your figure on the pulse of Jewish people.  That's really offensive honestly.

Lebensraum was a policy goal of German nationalists of a variety of stripes, not just the Nazis.

I'm sure you have lots of pedantic justifications for why you're allowed to say offensive, borderline anti-Semitic things.  That doesn't make it appropriate discourse.

And equating criticism of Israel to antisemitism is appropriate?  In many ways, Israel continues to act as a late 19th century European power when it comes to how it treats its neighbors.  Which is isn't too surprising since Zionism came of age as a political viewpoint in late 19th century Europe.

I'm not getting into one of your loops of pedantry and being purposefully obtuse.  What I said is appropriate rational discourse, what you said is not.  And, if you actually think Israel is like Nazi Germany, you're an idiot. 

As far as any comparison to Germany is concerned,World War I-era Germany is a closer match to Israel than Nazi Germany. Apartheid-era South Africa would be an even closer match, tho not exact by any means.  Comparison doesn't mean exact equivalence, and if you don't understand that, well ...

Despite its efforts to portray itself as a peace-loving democracy, the State of Israel is controlling territory thru the use of military force, rather than thru the use of the ballot box.  So it's no wonder that comparison to other similar attempts to control territory would be made, even if none of them are exact, nor would anyone other than an idiot expect them to be exact.

That said, Israel is in a tough spot as none of the options currently available to it are desirable.  A two-state solution involving a return to the 1949-1967 cease fire line or a mutually agreed upon alteration thereof, let alone to the 1948 international borders of the partition, and thus an end of the occupation of Palestinian Arabs is fraught with peril, especially under the current circumstances.  However, Israel has done anything of late to make such a return less perilous, and indeed its actions have mainly been to make it more perilous of late.

Similarly, even if Israelis could bring themselves to accept a one-state solution, that would be even more perilous.  Indeed, I don't see how it could possibly work.

There is always the no-state solution, i.e., the end of the Zionist experiment, but while I think that will be the ultimate outcome, it won't happen voluntarily or anytime soon, but when Israel loses the military superiority it depends upon for its survival.

Arguably, Israel could try for an alternative two state solution in which it gives up Gaza and absorbs the West Bank.  But that would require that Gazans and West Bankers not see themselves as part of a common Palestinian identity for it to even work.  Despite the dreams of some Zionists, that's not going to happen.  If ever Palestinian identity is abandoned, it won't be for a further fractured identity but for a pan-Arab identity that would be the Zionists worst nightmare, since a fractured Arab identity is essential to the continued existence of Israel.

So what is left?  Israel as an occupying imperialistic government, denying a large number of people the right to full self-determination because if they had it, such self-determination would imperil the very existence of the State of Israel.  Not a very pleasant option, but it is the one Israel has chosen to embrace rather than undertake steps to make a mutually agreed upon two-state solution possible.

[Indy Texas]

If you think it's perfectly OK to shoot rockets at civilians, I don't know what to tell you.  If you think Hamas's terrorist tactics are legitimate and helpful to the situation, we have to just agree to disagree.

I don't think it's "perfectly OK."

Do you think it's "perfectly OK" that Israel has been shelling a UN-run school full of children?

At this point, there's really no substantive difference between what these two groups of people are doing apart from the fact that one is the official military of a recognized government and the other is a para-military organization affiliated with a political party in an unrecognized state.

[bedstuy]

If you think it's perfectly OK to shoot rockets at civilians, I don't know what to tell you.  If you think Hamas's terrorist tactics are legitimate and helpful to the situation, we have to just agree to disagree.

I don't think it's "perfectly OK."

Do you think it's "perfectly OK" that Israel has been shelling a UN-run school full of children?

At this point, there's really no substantive difference between what these two groups of people are doing apart from the fact that one is the official military of a recognized government and the other is a para-military organization affiliated with a political party in an unrecognized state.

Israel kills civilians unintentionally in the process of legal, proportional self-defense.  Israel abides by the Geneva Conventions and tries to avoid civilian casualties.  Israel follows every international rule of war in defending itself. 

Hamas targets Israeli civilians, uses their own population as human shields and engages in terrorism and flagrant violations of human rights.  In fact, Hamas has used UN schools as weapons depots.

The two sides couldn't be more different.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At this point, there's really no substantive difference between what these two groups of people are doing apart from the fact that one is the official military of a recognized government and the other is a para-military organization affiliated with a political party in an unrecognized state.

Israel kills civilians unintentionally in the process of legal, proportional self-defense.

[...]

The two sides couldn't be more different.

You're both wrong.  There have been far too many of these unintentional incidents in this campaign for Israel to claim the summit of morality.  Higher up the slopes of morality than Hamas, but clearly not the summit, so while they are different, they could be more different, and they ought to be.  Since the fighting in Gaza would not be occurring without the presence of the IDF there, primary responsibility for civilian deaths there belongs to the IDF despite the unjustified actions of Hamas.  The numbers of dead Palestinian civilians compared to the number of dead IDF personnel, let alone the relatively miniscule number of Israeli civilians clearly demonstrates that the Israeli response has not been proportionate by any reasonable definition of the word proportionate.

[bedstuy]

At this point, there's really no substantive difference between what these two groups of people are doing apart from the fact that one is the official military of a recognized government and the other is a para-military organization affiliated with a political party in an unrecognized state.

Israel kills civilians unintentionally in the process of legal, proportional self-defense.

[...]

The two sides couldn't be more different.

You're both wrong.  There have been far too many of these unintentional incidents in this campaign for Israel to claim the summit of morality.  Higher up the slopes of morality than Hamas, but clearly not the summit, so while they are different, they could be more different, and they ought to be.  Since the fighting in Gaza would not be occurring without the presence of the IDF there, primary responsibility for civilian deaths there belongs to the IDF despite the unjustified actions of Hamas.  The numbers of dead Palestinian civilians compared to the number of dead IDF personnel, let alone the relatively miniscule number of Israeli civilians clearly demonstrates that the Israeli response has not been proportionate by any reasonable definition of the word proportionate.

That's neither here nor there in terms of the rules of war.  There's no requirement that your civilians need to die at the same rate as another belligerent's civilians.  In those terms, the US was in the wrong during WWII because Germany lost thousands of civilians and we lost hardly any.  Should the US have refrained from any bombing campaign in occupied Europe because Nazi bombers couldn't reach the US?  That's blatantly silly and would seek to punish Israel for protecting its citizens instead of using them as human shields as Hamas does.

Rather, I mean proportional as its used in the discussion of the legality of warfare.  Under the rules of war, Israel's actions in Gaza are totally justified. 

If you want to make the argument Israel could take more pains to avoid civilian casualties, I might agree with that.  There's no requirement though that Israel protect civilians in Gaza at the expense of civilians in Beersheba. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If WWII had only involved the US and Germany, your ludicrous comparison might have some merit.