Randomness thread, part two.

[CoccoBill]

There were Semitic-speaking people (Canaanites) living in the region that is now called Israel as far back as the Bronze Age. Palestinian claims surely date back to the Islamic conquest of 634-641 AD.

It's not so simple as "it was all theirs before Israel existed", because before Islam existed, it was all Jewish.

How far do we go back in history when deciding which group has the moral right to a territory?

That's exactly why I just went to the previous situation, it's not like any group of people have some inherent claim to any piece of land.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The imbalance of power is significant, and relevant.
Power imbalance creates responsibilities and obligations.
A child misbehaving with violence is not a reason to abuse the child. The power imbalance matters. Prisoners of the state have rights because the power imbalance matters.


For Israel to respond the way it did is immoral on any level.
Yes, they have the right to defend themselves, but that's not what they did. They retaliated with overwhelming force against people who were not responsible for the terrorism they were responding to. They responded to their civilians being killed by targeting civilians.

SMH. You responded to evil with evil.
Epic fail.

[OngBonga]

It's getting harder to argue that Israel's response is reasonable. It seems to me that their strategy is to force the evacuation of literally everyone in the entire north of the Strip, before moving in with ground troops, killing anyone on sight.

If this is the only way they feel they can permanently eliminate Hamas, not just defeat them, then it can be argued they are being reasonable, and that their evacuation orders are actually saving civilian lives, or at least intended to. And the argument they are attacking people "not responsible for terrorism" isn't as clear cut as it often is because these terrorists were democratically elected. That doesn't make the population a legitimate military target, but it does complicate the argument that the civilian population are blameless.

The problem I have isn't Gaza. It's the West Bank. Israeli settlers are responding to Hamas' terrorism with their own breed of terrorism. They are attacking civilians, forcing them off their land or just killing them, while police and soldiers look on, and in some cases help. That latter part is the problem. You can't argue it's vigilantism or rogue criminals when they are not being stopped by security forces. That makes the State of Israel complicit in what can only be described as ethnic cleansing.

And when Israeli civilians behave like this, it's no wonder that Hamas, or even normal Palestinians, want to cause such harm to Israeli people. Of course I'm no excusing Hamas here, there is no justification for what they did. That doesn't further a military aim in any way, other that to obtain hostages, which they could have done without the raping and killing.

I'm starting to think they both need wiping off the map.

[oskar]

they both need wiping off the map.

After four reasonable and measured paragraphs I was starting to get worried.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ironically, Israel played a huge part in getting Hamas elected

I know the point I'm making is not counter to the point you made in the post I've quoted, but it's a quote to give context to my point, and feel free to correct me if I've mischaracterized your argument.


I heard this morning that this democratic election you keep mentioning was a full 18 years ago.
The majority of people living under Hamas rule were not old enough to vote when Hamas was elected.

This perspective kinda changes your argument quite a lot, IMO.

I mean.. maybe those people would re-elect Hamas if given the chance... but maybe not.
We can hardly hold the current majority as responsible for putting Hamas in power when none of them even could have voted for Hamas at the time.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also, the US elected Trump once and he still has the best polling of any Rep running for the next election.

Note that not even a majority of the votes cast by US citizens were for Trump. Let alone an actual majority of all citizens (including non-voting ones). It was electoral college shenanigans that got him elected. Fewer than 300 people's actual votes put him in charge.

Your argument would hold all of the US citizens accountable for his misdeeds, and is immoral on so many levels. Especially when the punishment for those misdeeds amounts to a death sentence with no trial or jury.

[OngBonga]

After four reasonable and measured paragraphs I was starting to get worried.

To be clear it was hyperbole, I do not advocate wiping any nation off the map. I was just expressing the point that both sides are evil.

[Poopadoop]

Goddamn woke Eurolibtards, calling for people to stop killing each other!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...-with-britain/

I'm so glad I live in a country that encourages war crimes committed in self-defense.

[OngBonga]

This perspective kinda changes your argument quite a lot, IMO.

You might be right, and frankly I wasn't aware it was this long since they had fair elections. But this kinda depends on how much of an appetite the people have for political change, whether the ruling party is using force to maintain its position. If the reason there haven't been any elections is because there is no appetite for political change, then that strongly implies to me that Hamas still has a democratic mandate.

Your argument would hold all of the US citizens accountable for his misdeeds

Let's just clear one thing up... I haven't held the civilian population responsible for Hamas' evil, I simply pointed out that the fact they were democratically elected means the population isn't entirely blameless. If North Korea were attacking the South, the North Korean civilians who die as a result of the ensuing counteroffensive will, in my opinion, deserve more sympathy than people who elect bad actors into office. That doesn't mean Palestinians deserve no sympathy, I don't believe that and I do have sympathy for them. Just not as much as I would if the population were living under a dictatorship. It's complicated.

If you elect people like this into office, and they do things you strongly oppose (like rape and torture), then you act to remove them from office. You at least force them to show the world that they are holding onto power by force, you undermine their democratic credibility. Given Western media isn't all that critical of Hamas' democratic credibility, I assume they are not holding on to power by force.

[OngBonga]

Another way of looking at it is this... if there were factions within Gaza that wanted to remove Hamas from power, you can rest assured Israel would be working with them. They would be armed and would ultimately succeed. That is Israel's best chance of defeating Hamas - by making their political opponents stronger than them. But what if they have no political opponents?

I don't see how Israel can defeat Hamas without massive civilian bloodshed. So the question then is... should Israel try to defeat them?

[MadMojoMonkey]

should Israel try to defeat them?

100% yes.... under the condition that their approach is non-violent, respectful of human dignity, and willing to compromise.
I mean... if you want to be the good guys, you gonna take some immoral hits.
To remain the good guys, you just have to take them and keep responding with dignity for yourself and your opponents.


You make it sound like if a particularly angsty middle-schooler punches a world champion boxer, that the boxer is within their moral rights to retaliate with what is not hypothetical lethal force.
I'm not down with that.

What Hamas did is horrific. Well beyond some middle-school fuckery. Those responsible should be brought to justice.
Those *responsible* in a non-tangential sense. A legal sense.
Electing a bad actor is not a crime. The acts of the bad actor are the crimes.

To respond with equal crimes or worse is just giving up any moral high ground.
If it's a bloodbath, then it is what it is... and other nations should end the rhetoric about morality and take a side on ethnic cleansing.

[oskar]

https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-s...-yo-1850922505
The Onion, as usual, on the right (Israel's) side of history.

[OngBonga]

100% yes.... under the condition that their approach is non-violent

You're not this naive mojo. There's no non-violent way to defeat a terrorist organisation operating with impunity from a foreign territory, that are committed to your destruction.

You make it sound like if a particularly angsty middle-schooler punches a world champion boxer, that the boxer is within their moral rights to retaliate with what is not hypothetical lethal force.

But it's not like a champion boxer taking a punch from some teenage weakling. We're not talking about a bruised ego here.

Let's instead imagine that this same teenage weakling pulls a gun out on an armed cop. That cop is most certainly within his rights to open fire, and likely will do. Are you going to argue the cop should have taken a non-violent approach?

Those responsible should be brought to justice.

How? The only way to ensure this is to go into Gaza and arrest Hamas members. That requires strategic military preparation, including shelling strategic targets where Hamas are operating, especially locations from which they are firing rockets, and that in turn means civilian casualties, since Hamas operates in civilian areas.

Given the glaringly obvious fact that to attempt to bring Hamas to justice is inherently a violent process, I'll ask again... do you think Israel should attempt to eliminate Hamas?

[OngBonga]

The real issue at play isn't whether Israel has the right to attempt to eliminate Hamas violently. The issue is whether Israel are doing their best to minimise civilian casualties. Issuing an evacuation order to a million people might have created a humanitarian disaster, but surely not on the scale of shelling a fully populated city.

Is the shelling necessary? I'm not a military strategist but surely some is necessary, certainly while rockets continue to be fired at Israel.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm not naive... you're the one arguing that somehow using violence will end a cycle of violence.
SMH

Sure, it hasn't been working for the past 80 years, but let's just keep doing it.
Maybe it'll work this time.

Given the glaringly obvious fact that to attempt to bring Hamas to justice is inherently a violent process, I'll ask again... do you think Israel should attempt to eliminate Hamas?

IDK if I gave a direct answer before, so let me give one here:

Eliminating terrorism has nothing to do with killing terrorists. With that in mind, yes, I do hope that Israel and the entire world can manage to learn this and actually end some terrorism. 'Cause the approach so far has been to continue to dehumanize people who are fucking pissed off and trying to kill you because you constantly dehumanize them.

But again... let's just keep ignoring the root causes and our own culpability in those causes past and present.
I'm sure it'll work this time.

[OngBonga]

I'm not naive... you're the one arguing that somehow using violence will end a cycle of violence.

Well not quite. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was using that word sincerely. We can all be naive sometimes, and if you're suggesting that Israel attempt to defeat Hamas non-violently, then I honestly think you're being naive on this matter.,

The argument that violence can solve violence is not naive. An obvious example is if someone pulls a gun out on me and I shoot them dead. Problem solved.

Sure, it hasn't been working for the past 80 years, but let's just keep doing it.

They haven't been spending 80 years trying to eliminate Hamas. They've spent 80 years trying to contain them. That hasn't worked.

Eliminating terrorism has nothing to do with killing terrorists.

Correct. The problem isn't a handful of Palestinians. It's a very large amount of religious nutjobs spread across the world. But Israel's immediate problem is the terrorists on their doorstep.

They can't outright eliminate the terrorist threat against Israel by levelling Gaza. What they can do is make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for Hamas to operate in Gaza. And that is a huge win for Israel.

'Cause the approach so far has been to continue to dehumanize people who are fucking pissed off and trying to kill you because you constantly dehumanize them.

I think that naivitiy is creeping in again.

No doubt Israel's actions in the last 80 years have contributed to the terrorist desire to wipe Israel off the map. But might I just remind you that the first attack on Israel was literally one day after they declared their sovereignty. The primary motivation for the hatred towards Jewish people is not revenge for Israel's aggression over a long period of time. I will grant that Israel's aggression has made it so there is no appetite for peace, but when we're talking about two groups of people who both believe they have religious authority to live in this region of the world, you've got a problem that isn't going away.

But again... let's just keep ignoring the root causes and our own culpability in those causes past and present.
I'm sure it'll work this time.

The root cause is religion. But if I were to sit here and say that one of these religions is more oppressive than the other, you'd probably respond that I'm being unfair. Though I can prove it. The fact Hamas attacked a music festival is enough proof for me. You show me where, in any Islamic ruled country, scantily clad women are dancing to psychedelic trance. And then tell me that Islam is not oppressive.

The root cause is Islam being completely unwilling to tolerate a non-Islamic population in the Levant.

[OngBonga]

The reason I think you're being naive is because you're unwilling to acknowledge in any way that Islam is the root cause. You're blaming Israel for reactionary responses, which is fair enough, but to suggest that is the root cause is ignorant to the fact that the hatred is religiously motivated. You simply seem to refuse to accept that Islam is in any way bad.

The reason for this is because you're a nice guy, so please don't take my "naive" comments as an insult. If anything it's a compliment. I'm not naive because I'm a sociopath capable of considering cold hard facts without being burdened by emotional responses to what is happening.

[Poopadoop]

Islam is the root cause .

Ah, I knew we'd get there in the end.

[OngBonga]

I don't understand why it's considered taboo to criticise an oppressive 6th century religion. Forgive me for being liberal.

[OngBonga]

What is it about Islam that makes it immune to criticism?

[OngBonga]

I don't understand why it's considered taboo to criticise an oppressive 6th century religion. Forgive me for being liberal.

*7th century.

All religion is bollocks, and all are oppressive to different degrees. And while there's still pockets of fundamentalist Christians and Catholics, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, every religion has problems with fundamentalists who are misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant of other religions, motivated by hate, but none on the sheer scale of Islam.

That isn't anything other than an observation.

[OngBonga]

The problem as I see it is that otherwise intelligent people are brainwashed into thinking that any criticism of Islam is motivated by racism. In many cases it is, I don't doubt there are dribbling morons out there who despise Islam for no reason other than the fact it's a foreign religion whose adherents are mostly a different race. But that does not mean that any and all criticism is motivated by such intolerance.

People defend this religion and protect it from criticism out of fear of being labelled racist, and that in turn means they are complicit in the most organised form of misogyny and homophobia in the world today.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The problem with criticizing Islam is that you're saying the 2nd most popular religion in the world, of which ~23% of humans claim to be, is one of violence and hate.

The problem is that if 23% of the world were terrorists full of violence and hate, they'd have already killed the rest of us. Or there'd be constant world war between the Muslims and non-Muslims.

The reality is that simply isn't the case.

I'm certain there are Muslims who live near you who want nothing more than to live a comfortable life as a British Muslim person. With all the cross-cultural mixing that entails.

Criticizing their religion as harmful is simply and clearly false. The vast majority of Muslim people are peaceful, note hateful.

The word Islam literally translates to "peace" in English.

Calling the religious zealots of any religion the paragons or hallmarks of that religion is completely unfair. There are Christian fundamentalists that do terrorism in the name of Jesus. That doesn't make all Christians terrorists, nor does it make Christianity a religion of violence and hate.

Terrorists love to appropriate the language of religion. There's power in religion. The power to control and influence crowds of people can be had through many avenues, and religious fervor is one of them.

That doesn't make the religion itself at fault for the terrorists' appropriation.


Justice is not handed out to crowds. Justice does not happen when people not directly responsible for the violence and hate are punished.
Justice should apply to all sides.


Hamas killed 1400+ Israelis in a horrific terrorist attack. In response, Israel has killed 1500+ civilians and displaced 300k+ more people from their homes in a desert with no access to clean water, electricity, or even any humanitarian safe routes out of the area.

This is retribution, not justice.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No religion is above criticism, but criticizing the religion is one thing.
Drawing conclusions about its followers which are clearly at statistical odds with reality is where I get my undies in a bind.

Criticize Islam all you like. Just take pains to give grace to the vast majority of non-violent practitioners of the faith.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The argument that violence can solve violence is not naive. An obvious example is if someone pulls a gun out on me and I shoot them dead. Problem solved.

SMH
Sure, in a universe of only 2 people, that would work.

Unfortunately, irl, it only works until their parent/child/neighbor/friend realizes that vigilante justice is your method, so it will be theirs as well.

Doesn't matter the truth of whether your life was actually threatened in the first place. They weren't there. They wont believe you insisting you were only defending yourself. They *know* their child/parent/friend would *never* do *anything* like what you describe unless you pushed them to it. They're hurt and irrational, and will believe everything you say is lies to hide your guilt.

And now they're driven to violence.
And now you have to defend yourself against their violence.

Bicycle! Bicycle!
I want to ride my Bicycle!
I want to ride my

[OngBonga]

The problem with criticizing Islam is that you're saying the 2nd most popular religion in the world, of which ~23% of humans claim to be, is one of violence and hate.

All religions to a degree are ones of violence and hate.

The problem is that if 23% of the world were terrorists

This isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm certain there are Muslims who live near you who want nothing more than to live a comfortable life as a British Muslim person. With all the cross-cultural mixing that entails.

Yup. And their women still cover their faces in the UK, and marry who they're told to marry. And Islamic homosexuality is still massively taboo within the Islamic community. They still live under the oppressive regime that is Islam.

Of course that's their choice, in the UK they can quite easily say "I don't want to be Islamic" and live a safe and happy life. Or say "I'll be a bit Islamic, moderate if you will". So they essentially choose to be oppressed. But I'm perfectly entitled, as an observer, to say "this shit is oppressive".

Criticizing their religion as harmful is simply and clearly false.

You're choosing to interpret it this way.

I'm criticising their religion as oppressive, which is a statement of fact. I'm also criticising it as being intolerant of Jewish presence in the Levant, which is a statement of fact.

I do believe Islam is harmful, I feel the same about all religion. That's not s statement of fact, that's an opinion.

The vast majority of Muslim people are peaceful, note hateful.

I'm not arguing otherwise. You're interpreting criticism of a religion as criticism of the people who, in my opinion, are brainwashed by that religion. The religion is not the people. The religion is the system. If I criticise US policy, that's not an attack on you.

The word Islam literally translates to "peace" in English.

Yeah and North Korea is democratic.

They don't want peace with Israel. They want Jewish people to leave the Middle East.

There are Christian fundamentalists that do terrorism in the name of Jesus.

Yes, and fortunately they do not control vast arsenals and have trained militias ready and willing to die. They are not governments of countries. For the most part, Christianity is in control of its extremists. Same with nearly every religion.

Judaism is an exception. They do have trained militias with military-grade arsenals, and control a country. Whether or not they are terrorists is an acceptable debate. With Hamas, it isn't even a debate. With any fundamentalist Islamic group attacking civilians, it isn't a debate. That's exactly what terrorism is... ideologically motivated attacks against the civilian population. Is Israel trying to advance its ideological goals by using fear as a weapon against he civilian population of Gaza? Maybe. When they are seizing land for settlements, that argument has some weight to it. When they are reacting to hostile actions, it doesn't.

Terrorists love to appropriate the language of religion. There's power in religion.

And this is why religion is harmful.

That doesn't make the religion itself at fault for the terrorists' appropriation.

Yes it does. The entire point of religion is to control a population by coercive means. So when extremists take advantage of this core aspect of religion to radicalise its adherents, then absolutely it's fair to call into question the religion itself.

This is retribution, not justice.

I don't know what Israel's motivation for the counteroffensive was, how much of their decision making and firepower is weight by military necessity vs revenge. You're talking as though there isn't a relentless stream of rockets coming from Gaza directed at Israel. If those rockets are being launched from densely populated areas, then civilians are going to die when they get taken out. The blame for that lies with the people firing rockets from civilian areas. Israel are duty bound to protect their own citizens first and foremost.

Drawing conclusions about its followers

You're drawing conclusions about my opinions.

Other than to say I think that the followers of Islam (and all religions) are brainwashed, I'm not criticising Muslims, I'm criticising the system as oppressive and controlling, more so than other religions. If an individual Muslim is homophobic and misogynistic, that's the fault of the system that brainwashed him into thinking this was an acceptable moral position.

[OngBonga]

Unfortunately, irl, it only works until their parent/child/neighbor/friend realizes that vigilante justice is your method, so it will be theirs as well.

This is fair enough, but you seem to be critical of Israel for creating this kind of problem, while not accepting criticism of the other side for doing exactly the same thing.

What about the children of those killed in the villages of Israel? When they grow up to be war-hungry politicians, will you show them the same sympathy as the terrorist whose father was killed by an Israel air strike?

[OngBonga]

I'm kinda curious how you think Israel should have responded to this incident, if not to unleash massive firepower on the perpetrators.

Blaming Israel for their part in creating the conditions in the first place, that's fair enough, but given the scale and horror of what happened, what should Israel have done in response?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Other than to say I think that the followers of Islam (and all religions) are brainwashed, I'm not criticising Muslims, I'm criticising the system as oppressive and controlling, more so than other religions. If an individual Muslim is homophobic and misogynistic, that's the fault of the system that brainwashed him into thinking this was an acceptable moral position.

Understood. I apologize for the bad read of what you were saying.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is fair enough, but you seem to be critical of Israel for creating this kind of problem, while not accepting criticism of the other side for doing exactly the same thing.

What about the children of those killed in the villages of Israel? When they grow up to be war-hungry politicians, will you show them the same sympathy as the terrorist whose father was killed by an Israel air strike?

If I haven't made it clear that I'm a proponent of all sides:
using their words,
taking responsibility for past bad actions,
being willing to compromise and offer dignity to their opponents,
and above all to demonstrate they stand for human rights and not merely the protection of their little alliance,
then let it be clear.


My entire point is that Israel responded to evil with evil.
SMH

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm kinda curious how you think Israel should have responded to this incident, if not to unleash massive firepower on the perpetrators.

Blaming Israel for their part in creating the conditions in the first place, that's fair enough, but given the scale and horror of what happened, what should Israel have done in response?

I'd not be 1/10th as upset if they did that. Unfortunately, they didn't launch an attack against the perpetrators. They launched an attack in the general direction of people who mostly had no direct connection to the terrorists who attacked them.

What Israel should have done, should currently do, is to put their guns where their ideologies are. If they claim to be offended by the disrespect for the humans' lives lost in that terrorist attack... then their actions should reflect that ideology. However, their actions do not show that. They show tribalism and retribution. They show an even greater disrespect for human life (in scale if nothing else) than what was visited upon them.

What Israel should have done is deliver justice to the criminals... not to anyone who is within a X mile radius of said criminals.

[OngBonga]

My entire point is that Israel responded to evil with evil.

I understand that. War is inherently evil. What the British did to some German cities was pure evil. But it was necessary evil. The challenge of those in control of civilised armies was to be the least evil it was possible to be under such circumstances. Considering that when the war was over, German citizens fled Soviet-occupied territories, fleeing to British occupation, I'd say we did a decent job. But what we did was still evil.

If the battle is against a greater evil, then it's a battle that has to be won at any cost.

Before recent events, I wouldn't have believed it was fair to compare Hamas with the Nazis. Now I'm not so sure. Given the chance, if they had the military strength to not only defeat Israel but to challenge world powers, then yes I do believe they would be as bad as the Nazis.

Is it reasonable for the Jews to believe they are facing an evil of the same nature they faced in the 1940s? Well considering I'm starting to think so, then it's no surprise that they have such concerns.

They launched an attack in the general direction of people who mostly had no direct connection to the terrorists who attacked them.

It's also in the general direction of where rockets are coming from. You're choosing to believe the civilian population were the target. I'm not taking any position here other than to say that both are possible. Where rockets are the target, Israel are not responsible for civilian deaths, Hamas is.

What Israel should have done is deliver justice to the criminals... not to anyone who is within a X mile radius of said criminals.

So the Allies in the 1940s shouldn't have bombed anywhere there's a civilian within a certain radius of a Nazi?

War sucks.

I do believe Israel need to treat Palestinians better, of course they should, but Israel's current blockade was a direct result of the Gaza population electing Hamas, an organisation committed to Israel's destruction. Expecting Israel to improve relations with people who elected a group Israel considers to be terrorists might be asking a bit much. It's natural that relations have deteriorated in that time.

This is why the people of Gaza cannot be held entirely blameless. They elected Hamas knowing how bad it would be for relations with Israel. Again, this doesn't make them a legitimate target. But it does mean they bear some responsibility for creating the conditions where war became inevitable.

[Poopadoop]

Hamas was elected 18 years ago. Less than half the population of Gaza was able to vote then. So if Netanyahu is guilty of war crimes (which is the way it's looking right now), is the entire Israeli population responsible because he was democractically elected?? Hmmm....

But at least your logic is consistent, because Germans elected Hitler in 1933, then German kids were fair game in a war in 1944.

The indiscriminate bombing of German civilians in WWII did nothing to help win the war btw. Did they give up? No. Did they stop fighting because their house got blown up and half their family got killed? No, it just hardened their resolve. Most of the high command didn't think the bombing of civilians was worth it, it got pushed by nutters in the air force.

Also, it's one thing to aim for a factory that makes weapons and miss, or aim at an identifiable mass of troops and have some civilians nearby get killed. At least you can justify that in a war. The Israelis aren't even trying to target Hamas fighters, they're just spewing death in the general direction of Palestinians because some bad people are over there somewhere.

Saying the UK did ok by the Germans because they'd rather have been occupied by anyone but Stalin. Wow that's a real win there. We weren't as bad as Stalin, ergo bombing civilians was okey dokey.

And yeah, you're didn't criticise Islam, you said Islam is the root cause of all the problems. As if the current situation has nothing to do with people being displaced from their homes in 1948, and being treated like subhumans for the last 20 years.

The thing Mojo keeps saying about a proportionate response is spot on. A Palestinian kid throws a rock at an IDF soldier and he gets shot in return. That actually happens. By the time Israel is done with Gaza, that's going to be a lot closer good analogy for the whole mess than your attempt to make it out like Palestine drew a gun on Israel and got shot first or w/e the hell you were arguing.

[OngBonga]

And yeah, you're didn't criticise Islam

What are you on about? I did criticise Islam and have been quite open about that.

As if the current situation has nothing to do with people being displaced from their homes in 1948

That's 75 years ago now. I'm not saying that it was right to allow the creation of a Jewish state in the aftermath of WWII, but it happened and it's there. It's 2023 now and Israel exists.

If you're insisting that Palestinians still have a moral right to Israeli territory (gained in 1948) then you're de facto supporting the ethnic cleansing of Israelis from this region, because that's what it means to oppose Israel as a legitimate state in 2023. You're saying these Jews do not have the right to live where they live.

Islamic claims to this land were founded by conquest over Semites. How far back do you want to go?

[OngBonga]

Correction - the Islamic claims to this land were founded by conquest over Byzantines (Romans), not Semites. Semitic claims go back to the 2nd century BC.

[OngBonga]

The indiscriminate bombing of German civilians in WWII did nothing to help win the war btw.

Debateable. The most notorious example of indiscriminate bombing would likely be the levelling of Dresden, which was pure retaliation for the Nazi attack on Coventry (which my Nan witnessed from Solihull while on lookout, she saw the waves of aircraft). But did it serve a military purpose, or was it just revenge? It showed Hitler that we had a great deal more firepower at our disposal, that were were showing restraint in terms of our full potential. That acts as a deterrent and destroys national morale. So yeah, It can be said that shock and awe tactics serve a military purpose.

The destruction of Hamburg was what we might call an "necessary evil", with it being an important port. Did we need to be as brutal as we were? That depends if it was felt necessary to break German spirit. And breaking national spirit can win wars. So, arguably, there's merit to such horrendous tactics.

War sucks.

[Poopadoop]

Correction - the Islamic claims to this land were founded by conquest over Byzantines (Romans), not Semites. Semitic claims go back to the 2nd century BC.

First, you're comparing the claims of a religion that didn't even exist 2000 years ago to an ethnic tribe. Well played. Second, if we are talking about tribes, does only recorded history count? How do you know the land wasn't possessed by Arabs for 100 000 years before that?

By your logic, the Americas should be ruled by a bunch of small Native American bands, with the power to kick everyone who doesn't belong to said bands out.

And for that matter, the Celts should be in charge of Eastern England, and have the right to bounce you all the way back to Anglony Saxony Land, you're a squatter.


See why your little rule of firsters morers doesn't really work in the real world?

People will claim the right to possess land for all kinds of reasons, just one of which is who was there the earliest in recorded history. These problems are intractable, that's why people need to be willing to find compromises that let them leave together in peace.

[Poopadoop]

What are you on about? I did criticise Islam and have been quite open about that.

Obviously what I meant was you're not ONLY critisicing Islam, you're blaming everything on it.

It's ironic how scapegoating a religion for all the ills of the world is associated with one of the worst crimes against humanity ever, which led to the creation of Israel, and now you're doing the very same thing with a different religion as if it's somehow acceptable because it's not the jews this time.

If you're insisting that Palestinians still have a moral right to Israeli territory (gained in 1948) then you're de facto supporting the ethnic cleansing of Israelis from this region,

Lol, wut? That's some serious reductio an bananing you're doing there.

because that's what it means to oppose Israel as a legitimate state in 2023.

I'm not sure where people get this attitude that if you criticise Israel when it behaves very badly that means you want a return of the Holocaust. It's so over the top to say that.

You're saying these Jews do not have the right to live where they live.

Reductio ad bananum. Pointing out that displacing Arabs from Israel in 1948 caused problems is not the same as saying all jews should die.

I'd be ok with Israel staying in it's original borders as demarcated in 1948. The problem is they're not doing that. They keep expanding and invading and plonking settlers down in other territories that were never given to them. They've fought a bunch of wars where they've roflstomped the Arab states around them, and they're still trying to argue the people of these states are a threat to their very existence to justify them acting like bigger and bigger dicks.


You also didn't answer my question about holding all Israel's responsible for Netanyahu's war crimes.

[OngBonga]

How do you know the land wasn't possessed by Arabs for 100 000 years before that?

Because Arabs aren't the old. The first record of them is in the Iron Age, around 900 BC. They have around 3000 years of recorded history. It's quite possible they were around a bit before then, but probably not 97k years before.

By your logic, the Americas should be ruled by a bunch of small Native American bands, with the power to kick everyone who doesn't belong to said bands out.

It's not my logic, All I did was point out Arabs conquered the land and that Semites occupied it well before. I never argued that anyone has an absolute right to live on a territory based on historical claims, actually it was you who implied that by pointing to 1948.

Why is 1948 AD more important than 900 BC when the Arabs first came? You're the one making this argument by arguing the Palestinians were evicted from their land.

These problems are intractable, that's why people need to be willing to find compromises

Since 1948 is such an important year for you, I'll point out then that was the year Arabs rejected compromise and decided to go down the path of conflict.

Obviously what I meant was you're not ONLY critisicing Islam, you're blaming everything on it.

I'm blaming Islam for being unwilling to tolerate Jewish presence in the Levant, and pointing out the homophobic and misogynistic nature of the religion. If that is "everything" then I guess I am blaming them for "everything".

It's ironic how scapegoating a religion for all the ills of the world is associated with one of the worst crimes against humanity ever, which led to the creation of Israel, and now you're doing the very same thing with a different religion as if it's somehow acceptable because it's not the jews this time.

This is some serious mental gymnastics, I'm impressed.

I'm not sure where people get this attitude that if you criticise Israel when it behaves very badly that means you want a return of the Holocaust.

This is you deliberately taking the comment that way so you can make this exact refutation.

I'm not protecting Israel from criticism. I'm protecting them from genocide and ethnic cleansing. Big, big, big, big, big difference.

You be as critical as you like of Israel. But, if you argue that they shouldn't exist as a state, then what are you suggesting happens to all the people that currently live there? They should forcibly me moved based on the fact they are Jewish? That is ethnic cleansing. So if you argue Israel should cease to exist, and that the people should move and allow Arabs to resettle the land, there you cannot avoid the cold fact you support ethnic cleansing.

Pointing out that displacing Arabs from Israel in 1948 caused problems is not the same as saying all jews should die.

You keep saying this "reducto" bollocks when you make incorrect assumptions, it's hilarious.

Where did I say "die"? Ethnic cleansing isn't killing people, it's forcing them off their land.

I'd be ok with Israel staying in it's original borders as demarcated in 1948.

Then start being critical of any group of people that refuses to accept even this. I recommend you start with Arabs.

[OngBonga]

You also didn't answer my question about holding all Israel's responsible for Netanyahu's war crimes.

It's a stupid question. Israeli people didn't vote into power a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of their neighbour. If that was Netanyahu's open policy, and they voted for him on that basis, then you'd have a valid point.

[OngBonga]

Netanyahu might still lose power as result of this. He's already up against corruption charges that could land him in jail, if the people see this war effort as an effort to preserve his political career, that could backfire horribly on him and end up with him facing war crime charges. That might happen.

It's quite possible that Israel "stood down" and allowed Hamas to run amok for hours before intervening. A "Pearl Harbour" job. If any compelling evidence emerges that supports this, again he's bang in trouble.

Do you suppose Palestinians are willing to remove Hamas from power and even turn the leadership over to war crime tribunals?

[OngBonga]

I wonder what we'd be arguing about if we had social media in 1944. I wonder if poop would be arguing that we shouldn't be bombing the shit out of Germany. We'd probably agree that the American nukes were a bit much, maybe. Then again I'd probably be the one opposing that while poop would say it was necessary to avoid a ground assault on Japan. We'd definitely be arguing though.

[Poopadoop]

We'd definitely be arguing though.

That's for certain. Apart from reductio ad bananum, your other favourite ploy is reductio ad contrarum, where you just try to argue against pretty much everything people say, with varying degrees of fail. It's good entertainment though...

[Poopadoop]

Israeli people didn't vote into power a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of their neighbour.

Right, they voted into power a leader whose actions have shown him to be committed to the destruction of their neighbors through conventional arms. Big difference there.

[OngBonga]

Right, they voted into power a leader whose actions have shown him to be committed to the destruction of their neighbors through conventional arms. Big difference there.

There isn't a single government in the world, other than perhaps Hamas, that has designated the Israeli government a terrorist organisation. Even Iran haven't gone this far. By all measures of international standards, the Israeli government is legitimate and not rogue. We can debate how reasonable the "rogue" bit is if you like but the fact of the matter is there is a massive difference between the warhawks in charge of Israel and the warlords in charge of Gaza. The latter's sole policy is the destruction of Israel, which they have shown is not just rhetoric.

[CoccoBill]

Palestinians don't become terrorists because of islam, they do because they're poor and oppressed.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[OngBonga]

So how come those terrorists that did 9/11 were Saudis? They're filthy rich, and it's only the women and gays who are oppressed.

[Poopadoop]

I'm confused as to why you're comparing Palestine to Saudia Arabia unless it's because you're treating Muslims as a monolithic entity. That doesn't sound like you, so please explain.

[CoccoBill]

So how come those terrorists that did 9/11 were Saudis? They're filthy rich, and it's only the women and gays who are oppressed.

I didn't say that poverty and oppression are the only reason to turn to terrorism (or criminal activity, or drugs, or...), it's one of them, and I'd argue the main one when it comes to Palestinians. If Israel's borders were still at '48 or even '67 levels and Palestinians were regarded as full members of society, I doubt many of them would feel the need to start blowing shit up. They've lived all their lives in an open-air prison, which has been gradually chipped away by the settlements. If you were born and lived there, how optimistically would you view your future? How would you fight cynicism and maintain civility with your oppressors?

I have zero sympathy towards Hamas, but I have a lot of empathy towards Palestinians. I stayed at a kibbutz for 3 months in '95 (Rabin actually was assassinated the first week I went there), made friends with plenty of both Israelis and Palestinians. Surprisingly they're both just regular people.

[OngBonga]

I'm confused as to why you're comparing Palestine to Saudia Arabia...

Because cocco aqppeared to argue that terrorism happens because of poverty, so I pointed out that isn't true. It's really quite simple and not remotely controversial.

[OngBonga]

Terrorism happens because of radicalism. There could be a ton of reasons why someone might be vulnerable to radicalism, including poverty, but ultimately it's ideologically motivated. People who commit acts of terrorism usually believe they are acting with the authority of God. Anyone, rich or poor, black or white, anyone is potentially a terrorist. All it takes is religiously motivated violence.

I have zero sympathy towards Hamas, but I have a lot of empathy towards Palestinians.

Sure, me too, at least the ones that weren't out on the streets in celebration when this all kicked off. I also have empathy for Israeli citizens, at least the ones who aren't behaving like terrorists themselves. I have sympathy and empathy for any innocent victims of war.

Surprisingly they're both just regular people.

There's something wrong with this sentence, and that is that you're speaking as though we're talking about two people. But we're not. We're talking about two populations, and both of these populations have "regular people" and "utter cunts".

Regular people don't spit on naked hostages while dancing in the streets celebrating the onset of war. And regular people don't take up arms and drive people out of their villages in the name of Zionism. I don't have empathy or sympathy for these kind of people.

[OngBonga]

Because cocco aqppeared to argue that terrorism happens because of poverty, so I pointed out that isn't true. It's really quite simple and not remotely controversial.

Just to add to this... it's kinda difficult to find examples of large scale non-Islamic terrorism. That guy who went nuts in Norway, that was terrorism, and he wasn't poor. It's not all Islamic. But Islamic terrorism is the most prolific example of ideologically motivated violence against civilians in the world today.

So when I use Saudis as an example of "not poor terrorists", it's not because they're Islamic, it's because they're terrorists, and they're not poor. The fact they are Islamic is a matter that isn't to be ignored, I'm not going to just sweep it under the carpet because I don't want to insult a religion.

There is absolutely no moral problem with insulting a religion as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to defend Islam, then defend every religion, including "moderate" Satanism (that's where they don't actually sacrifice live animals or humans and just lawfully worship the Devil).

[Poopadoop]

Because cocco aqppeared to argue that terrorism happens because of poverty, so I pointed out that isn't true. It's really quite simple and not remotely controversial.

No, he argued that Palestinians become terrorists because they're poor and oppressed. You reductio ad bananum'd him to infer he was talking about all terrorists everywhere, when he implied no such thing.

This whole mind-reading thing you do doesn't work, either on its own or as a rhetorical device. But I guess if you didn't do it, you'd have nothing to argue.

[Poopadoop]

Terrorism happens because of radicalism. There could be a ton of reasons why someone might be vulnerable to radicalism, including poverty, but ultimately it's ideologically motivated.

And now you're following that up by making a gross overgeneralisation yourself by saying all terrorism is based on ideology.

It's easy to think of tons of examples where occupation and mistreatment led to terrorism that wasn't ideologically motivated. Take the French resistance in WWII (or the Polish resistance or the Yugoslav resitance, or the Viet resistance to colonial occupation after WWII, or for that matter any resistance to occupation and mistreatment that's occurred in the past...whoa wait it's almost like being occupied and mistreated by another power encourages terrorism, and ideology is irrelevant! Goddamn.)

Seriously Ong, try harder. Or at all.

[OngBonga]

No, he argued that Palestinians become terrorists because they're poor and oppressed.

Well I don't believe this is the case. I believe they're terrorists because they are radical Islamists who want the destruction of Israel. I was making the point, a valid point, that very wealthy people who aren't oppressed and are in fact the oppressors, they are terrorists. And if you think Hamas terrorists are poor, you obviously don't understand who's funding them. Regular Palestinians are poor, but I thought we established that regular Palestinians are not terrorists?

[OngBonga]

It's easy to think of tons of examples where occupation and mistreatment led to terrorism that wasn't ideologically motivated.

Sure. The IRA. They just wanted the British to fuck off out of Ireland, hardly an ideology. But we still call it terrorism when they blow up pubs.

Forgive me for loosely defining terrorism as merely ideologically motivated. It can be politically motivated too, so long as the targets are civilians.

[OngBonga]

In other news, Boris Johnson is joining GB News.

That is actually hilarious.

[CoccoBill]

Terrorism happens because of radicalism. There could be a ton of reasons why someone might be vulnerable to radicalism, including poverty, but ultimately it's ideologically motivated. People who commit acts of terrorism usually believe they are acting with the authority of God. Anyone, rich or poor, black or white, anyone is potentially a terrorist. All it takes is religiously motivated violence.

No one who doesn't feel like they've been mistreated gets radicalized. WHEN they are, they might easily channel it through religion or whatever makes them feel justified in their actions. The ideology or religion isn't the root cause.

[CoccoBill]

Well I don't believe this is the case. I believe they're terrorists because they are radical Islamists who want the destruction of Israel. I was making the point, a valid point, that very wealthy people who aren't oppressed and are in fact the oppressors, they are terrorists. And if you think Hamas terrorists are poor, you obviously don't understand who's funding them. Regular Palestinians are poor, but I thought we established that regular Palestinians are not terrorists?

And why do they want the destruction of Israel? They were just born with the gene? Nothing to do with how Israel has oppressed them for decades? Do you not think Hamas members were born as regular Palestinians?

[Poopadoop]

In other news, Boris Johnson is joining GB News.

That is actually hilarious.

It's the perfect (and only) audience for him.

Hilarious would be Liz Truss joining the IMF.

[OngBonga]

And why do they want the destruction of Israel?

Is this even a reasonable question? Let's rephrase it.

Why do they want to commit genocide?

Who cares why? There is literally no justification for genocide.

Now we can use that word loosely and claim that's what Israel are doing to Palestine if you like, but I don't believe Israel's goal is to eliminate Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank entirely at any cost. Their goal is to control the terrorist threat.

What we're seeing from Israel in some regions is certainly ethnic cleansing, I don't think that's going too far. That's the expulsion of a people from a territory. But genocide is a systematic effort to eliminate a group of people, as in attempt to kill them all. Which is exactly what Hamas would do to Jews if they had the capability to. You can't assume that they wouldn't when they have shown the same degree of brutality that actual genociders have shown over and over throughout human history. We know humans are horrible enough to do it, and we know Hamas hate Jews enough. So rest assured their policy is genocide. That's what "destruction of Israel" means.

So I don't give a toss why they want to commit genocide. It's not close to an acceptable policy. Taking up arms against the Israeli government, that would be different. That's not what "destruction of Israel" means to these people.

[CoccoBill]

Is this even a reasonable question? Let's rephrase it.

Why do they want to commit genocide?

Who cares why? There is literally no justification for genocide.

How is that not the most important question? If we don't know why they act the way they do, what chance is there ever to fix anything? If you stop to think about it even for a moment you realize there's a reason some of them feel attracted to violence, and it's not islam, sin ce the vast vast majority of muslims aren't violent. I'd say a third of humans are stupid assholes, another third are one or the other, and (I know I'm being generous here) the last third is hopefully the group of people I have to deal with in my lifetime. This apllies equally to all genders, nationalities, races and religions.

[OngBonga]

If we don't know why they act the way they do, what chance is there ever to fix anything?

Why did the Nazis want to kill Jews? Does that matter? It doesn't to me. I don't want to understand the mind of a genocidal maniac.

And clearly we aren't fixing anything, because he were are in 2023 still being genocidal maniacs.

[CoccoBill]

Why did the Nazis want to kill Jews? Does that matter? It doesn't to me. I don't want to understand the mind of a genocidal maniac.

You don't want to know what might push people towards violent acts? You wouldn't want to prevent them? Yes, just punishing them afterwards sounds like a sound plan.

And clearly we aren't fixing anything, because he were are in 2023 still being genocidal maniacs.

Yup, because we haven't learned something yet, there's no point in trying to either.

[OngBonga]

You don't want to know what might push people towards violent acts?

The motivation? Or the psychology? Because the former, it's easy to understand what might motivate someone. Hate is a powerful emotion, revenge is a powerful motivator, and religion is a powerful tool. What I don't understand is how someone can be lacking in empathy to the degree that they can commit acts of genocide, torture, sexual warfare, stuff that we hoped was consigned to the bin of history after WWII. And no, there's not really a part of my morbid curiosity that has an interest in their psychology. They play no role in trying to build a civilised world free of warfare and suffering, people like this need to disappear from the population and be nothing more than a stain on human history.

And while Israel's actions are also evil, they are defending themselves, and they at least are attempting to build a civilised, tolerant society. I don't think there's widespread desire amongst Jews for Israel to occupy all of Palestinian territories, most Jews want to live in peace alongside Muslims. Can you really say the same about Muslims? Do they want to live alongside Jews in peace? It really doesn't look like it to me.

So if I lean towards Israel on this matter, that's why, and the fact I'm leaning in that direction is because Hamas chose the path of extreme terrorism, acting like the geneociders their rhetoric always implied. And the reason I have less empathy (not none) for Palestinians than I might have for a population oppressed by their own government is because they were dancing on the streets, spitting at hostages. While that isn't all Palestinians, it was still a lot of people, and it was a fucking party to them. The hatred of Jews is deep rooted, widespread, and not something we should turn a blind eye to just because Israel as a state is oppressive towards Palestinians.

[CoccoBill]

If all the Jews left Israel tomorrow and were replaced by Canadians, who took over and continued doing exactly what Israel has since '48, in a couple decades we would be wondering why Palestinians have this deep rooted hatred of Canadians.

[OngBonga]

You're talking as though the Palestinians have a god given right to the land. Thing is, that land has been the subject of conquest over and over again throughout history. Before Israel existed, between WWI and WWII, it was British Mandate for Palestine, which was the British, under international agreement, overseeing control of the territory after the Ottoman Empire lost WWI. Before them it was the Mamluks. Before then it was a Catholic state. I could go on.

Israel exists. It doesn't matter how it came about. Lots of countries are formed through migration, conquest, colonisation, and all the other bad things that happen. Once a country is established and recognised, then history has had its say and we move on. Or we just engage in a constant state of conflict over land that very few people alive in Gaza have ever stepped foot on.

[CoccoBill]

You're talking as though the Palestinians have a god given right to the land. Thing is, that land has been the subject of conquest over and over again throughout history. Before Israel existed, between WWI and WWII, it was British Mandate for Palestine, which was the British, under international agreement, overseeing control of the territory after the Ottoman Empire lost WWI. Before them it was the Mamluks. Before then it was a Catholic state. I could go on.

LOL. https://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerf...96#post2318996

Israel exists. It doesn't matter how it came about. Lots of countries are formed through migration, conquest, colonisation, and all the other bad things that happen. Once a country is established and recognised, then history has had its say and we move on. Or we just engage in a constant state of conflict over land that very few people alive in Gaza have ever stepped foot on.

That's what an elderly Palestinian living there has seen. I'm not sure how you expect him to just be happy that Israel has so far left them some scraps? And mark my words, the borders are again gonna be very different after this war, I wouldn't count on them having anything left. But yeah islam.

[OngBonga]

So...

Image 1 - Immediately after WWII,

Image 2 - The plan that Jews accepted but Arabs rejected,

Image 3 - The consequences of the 1948 War,

Image 4 - the consequences of the 1967 Six-Day War.

Those images tell more of a story that you realise.

[OngBonga]

And you LOL me while still talking as though Israel's de facto existence means less than Arab presence in 1947 (which was relic of conquest and colonialism in its own right).

If Arabs pursued a path of peace they would have more land in the Levant. They chose war, and they lost. The losers of war tend to lose territory. That's precisely why Muslims inhabited that area in the first place, because they took land off the losers of war.

This is human history, it's the birth of many countries. People take land off other people. I'm not arguing that it's moral to do so, just that it's happened throughout history and many people, probably most, today live on land that was taken by force from someone else at some point in history.

Just because Israel was only formed in 1948, doesn't mean we should say "well they're not a real country".

[MadMojoMonkey]

Root causes of WWII go deep, but mostly it's the fact that the world tried to force Germany to pay for the destruction caused in WWI. This was cruel and unusual punishment to the people of Germany after the war was over. During the war, that's one thing. After peace is made... that's not peace.

Throw on some philosophy (Kierkegaard) that says the rise and fall of nations is God's will enacted and you have a perfect recipe to incite a large number of people to violence. The particular scapegoat for the root cause of the violence is a moot point, really. Hitler rose to power and his charismatic leadership was tainted by antisemitism. It could have been tainted by anything, but it was antisemitism.

The power of the mob to explode in that moment was there. It was only a matter of which charismatic leader stepped up and what their personal gripe was.


Basically the same things we see playing out throughout history. A population is being mistreated by neighboring populations. Being denied the basic human rights and dignities their neighbors enjoy. That's the foundation of a violent insurrection. The populace is pissed off and with good reason... but how they respond to that anger is going to be directed by whatever charismatic leader comes to power.


Now... add in the actual conspiracy theories about large powers assassinating either in body or character any viable opposition. Many of those conspiracy theories are proven true after decades of secrecy. And you see why violent leaders remain. Peaceful leaders are eliminated. Violent leaders rise up. The opposition loves a violent leader, 'cause it paints them as morally superior.

The amount of "tail-wags-the-dog" politics and secrecy that goes on is not a hypothetical. Only the particulars of the wagging are.


***
Any argument that hinges on the lack of humanity in a population is obviously flawed and totally wrong.
Any argument that hinges on justifying inhumane treatment of humans is flawed and wrong.

It's hard to be the good guys, but if you cede all your moral responsibilities the moment hardships arises, then you're not the good guys at all. I am not easily deluded by such arguments.

You want to bomb them 'cause they bombed you? Fine. I understand retaliation and retribution.
You want to call it your moral right to do so? GTFO with that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And I'd like to re-inject the balance of power into this conversation.

Hamas is a gothy teen.
Israel is a MMA fighter.

When the gothy teen tries to pick a fight with the MMA fighter, it is NOT appropriate for the MMA fighter to respond with violence.
SMH

This is why we have a judicial system, you know..?

[CoccoBill]

So...

Image 1 - Immediately after WWII,

Image 2 - The plan that Jews accepted but Arabs rejected,

Image 3 - The consequences of the 1948 War,

Image 4 - the consequences of the 1967 Six-Day War.

Those images tell more of a story that you realise.

You do realize the land was 95% Palestinians before WW2? Forgetting all about history and how justified any of those border changes since that has been, if you were Palestinian would you not be even a tiny bit peeved that your country has disappeared? Is it really that hard to realize that after decades of oppression and land grab this might make someone want to retaliate, justifiably or not? Remember, we were talking about reasons for someone turning to terrorism. If you still feel religion is the main cause, I don't know what to tell you.

[CoccoBill]

And you LOL me while still talking as though Israel's de facto existence means less than Arab presence in 1947 (which was relic of conquest and colonialism in its own right).

If Arabs pursued a path of peace they would have more land in the Levant. They chose war, and they lost. The losers of war tend to lose territory. That's precisely why Muslims inhabited that area in the first place, because they took land off the losers of war.

This is human history, it's the birth of many countries. People take land off other people. I'm not arguing that it's moral to do so, just that it's happened throughout history and many people, probably most, today live on land that was taken by force from someone else at some point in history.

Just because Israel was only formed in 1948, doesn't mean we should say "well they're not a real country".

I think at some point in this discussion you forgot or completely misunderstood what I was talking about.

*Sigh* fine, I'll reiterate. As I already said in the earlier post I linked to, idgaf who was there first or who has a stronger legal or biblical claim to the land. A lot of people have lived there, starting from ancient tribes and Canaanites, well before either of the current occupants. That's why I said I'm only looking at the latest developments. The latest established and internationally agreed borders are the '67 ones. Is that were the borders are now?

[OngBonga]

You want to bomb them 'cause they bombed you? Fine. I understand retaliation and retribution.
You want to call it your moral right to do so? GTFO with that.

Fair enough here.

When the gothy teen tries to pick a fight with the MMA fighter, it is NOT appropriate for the MMA fighter to respond with violence.

This isn't fair enough. This has already been addressed, but the gothy teen is not "picking a fight" with the MMA fighter, he's threating death to the MMA fighter. If I pull a knife out on Mike Tyson, then absolutely it's appropriate for him to respond with violence, if he feels this will nullify the threat I pose.

If you're a gothy teen, then don't pick fights with MMA fighters, and definitely don't threaten them with death.