fionwe1987

I can show you proof of religious discrimination in pretty much every Western state known. I have family in Indonesia who aren't Muslim, which is where my understanding comes from. This doesn't make it some kind of secular paradise. There have been regional religious tensions aplenty. But it is a mostly functioning secular democracy, and it has a very large Muslim population, the largest in the world. Seems fairly relevant to this discussion of whether Muslim majorities can live in a secular democracy. If we're now shifting goalposts to "secular multiethnic democracy with no religious intolerance", we're in make believe land, since I know no existing nation that fits that bill.

What contradictory needs, specifically? I see a lot of common needs, especially intensified this past month and a half. Actually, if no, why not, is a better question. It's reasonable to say such examples are currently rare. But I don't think you're claiming there's something fundamental to being Muslim and Arab that makes this impossible. So why not? The answer certainly lies in the history of geopolitical violence in the region, but any peace process and solution (whether one state or two state) has to deal with those issues head on. I've asked this before, but wouldn't answering these questions about what would work for a future solution be best answered by way of plebiscite of the entire population of the region? I may be way off in my optimism, and such a process might reveal deep un-healable divisions in the populace, and not just in the extremest leaderships of both peoples, but then at least we'd have clear boundaries of what is plausible. As it is, I think we're all taking the actions of leaders of the various players, seeing their complete failure, and ascribing to Israelis and Palestinians a total inability to exist in a future where both their rights are protected equally. Indonesia springs to mind? The land with the largest Muslim population in the world? I do want to know what specific criteria we're assessing this by here, though. And to then ask if we know of Christian or Jewish majority lands meet those criteria as well. And that in turn is a result of the thinning out of moderate or modernizing voices who also happened to question colonial rule, or later, the oil-centered American geopolitics in the region, which further bolstered rule by religious authority. None of that says that the people are incapable of living in a secular democracy that enshrines the rights of minorities. Its not nearly as simple as that. For one thing, Bangladesh, which was East Pakistan, separated from Pakistan by India geographically, also gained political independence, at no small cost to lives. And if you look at the history of partition, it is not about deep religions animosity on the ground driving a practical solution of partition. Even the nature of Partition was not understood by the very leaders doing it. There are letters showing Jinnah planned to keep his homes in Bombay and Delhi, and he definitely did want a secular Pakistan, not an Islamic state. If you look at the history of the subcontinent, I think it is proof that a two state solution was not needed, even if needed should have been implemented better, and once implemented has only led to war and ruin. Not exactly something I want to wish on the Israelis and Palestinians in perpetuity. Even if a two state solution is all we end up with, they better learn from the Subcontinent and not repeat the fuck ups, but evidence so far is that things are proceeding in alarmingly similar lines.

Stepping back into this with some hesitation, but I've read beautiful writing from Israelis and Palestinians imagining some kind of single state with a binational identity, either by having federated regions along roughly the current borders, or by having something of a mini-EU. I'm sure there are those here who will be crying "impractical" almost before I hit "Submit Reply", but the reason for its impracticality today is the circle of violence various folks here have been decrying and desperately hoping for an end for. Certainly, each passing day of this war makes any such solution seem remote, but the fact remains, whatever a unitary state does or does not do to address the wrongs of the past, it is certainly possible to design one to reduce future harms, and if that is a worthy aim, then the option merits some exploration.

You keep tossing up straw men to justify more murders. The absence of a violent response is not an absence of a response. That you lack the imagination to see anything but violence as an acceptable option is your problem, not mine. But do reach out to those Hamas folks. You'll definitely find a lot of compatriots there with similar views.

Yes it is. Stop lying.

Its not naivety. What's going on is a continued and insidious attempt to reverse humanitarian gains in the conduct of war. The nations of the world can shrug today, but if they think the people watching will swallow it, they've got another thing coming.

You could have saved yourself the trouble and asked. I am hardly trying to hide my views. It's almost like you think pacifism is some shameful view to hold.

You objected to it being held to those standards a few pages ago. And Israel certainly isn't clearing those standards. Soldiers jobs are not to minimize civilian deaths while achieving their goals? Then they're basically terrorists. If you've given in to the cynicism and decided to join in sinking the ship, you can fucking stop pretending you hold a moral high ground. You can't have it both ways. My own government did, as have others. If you're going to make a claim like this, back it up with actual data? Many scholars such as? These are the only two options? Ground troops or drone bombs? Israel is the coward for bombing a refugee camp to get one man. And you're an even bigger coward because you sit in comfort and justify it.

Yes? I'm really concerned you seem to think there is doubt here. You're actually arguing that you can mow down all civilians in the way of your target who's shooting at you? What the actual fuck?

It's high school bully boy dynamics, that we're being asked to swallow as international law and the last word on the moral use of force. It is utter horseshit, as far as most of the world is concerned. But point that out in this conversation, and you're likely to be called an antisemite.

Only the US eh? So the United States is the arbiter of morality here? I guess the day has been saved..I'll certainly sleep better tonight. Thanks.

Not when you can nuke the city the Hamas leaders are in. Why waste the life of special forces soldiers in your team when you can guarantee the death of the guys you want killed? The others are collateral damage. This is war, after all. What else can be expected. *Add dramatic shake of the head, slowly, to indicate sadness and inner struggle to cover the completely bonkers morality being expressed.*

Setting aside whether killing civilians elsewhere en masse does anything to protect citizens back home, is this a carte blanche? A government can do anything outside it's borders in the name of protecting it's own people? For instance the United States has the technical capability to place missile armed satellites across the globe. These could hunt down terrorists, evil dictators, and missiles launched by other nations. Clearly, a protective effect for the people of the US can be argued. Is the US therefore morally permitted to do this?

Yep. I'm glad it's coming into the open. It's a noxious argument, and it needs to be aired so people can respond. If I have the technological capability to shoot down what is fired from that location, then of course. To me, it is readily obvious that if you have greater technological capability for war, that should and does increase your moral responsibility to minimize loss of life. That is the only way to keep the mechanization of war in check. Cross that line, and I don't know where we end up. Nowhere that makes any moral sense to me. It is? I'd like to know how you think these are completely different. That's sad. Take this logic, and expand it to the world you said you see coming, full of climate refugees and governments imposing draconian measures. It will make the world measurably worse. I am not. I have already detailed alternate steps I think should be taken. You insisted that those were all things that Hamas wanted and therefore weren't acceptable. This is the same argument that was used to justify dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sorry, this isn't a moral argument, it's one of risk minimization in the here and now. This is also the logic used by the Obama government for their drone campaigns. They're the blackest stain on his presidency, as far as I'm concerned. You seem to be arguing otherwise. No, that really isn't true. You've closed off the conversation from options that have significantly fewer civilian deaths. And now you seem to be arguing that since this death is inevitable, it's ok to bomb refugee camps. You're sliding further and further into this toxicity. As is the world, so at least you're not alone.

And what is this supposedly strong argument? And let's note that "enemy's civilians" is a weird term to describe human shields.

I'd say no one needs to be killed so immediately that a refugee camp can be blown up to get them. I'd say that if it was bin Laden in that camp. At some point, we need to acknowledge that arial bombardment is not an appropriate response for people. Its attraction to nation states as a low risk option is obvious, but I don't understand how low risk became the same as moral. If a guy is hiding in a refugee camp, go in and get him. If that isn't possible today, wait till it is, since it's not like a ground invasion isn't being planned.

I dunno that it fuels antisemitism. But it certainly devalues the term if supporting civilians in Gaza, BDS, and criticism of the Israeli government get called antisemitism. I also don't understand the usefulness of creating a heirarchy of which kind of hatred and religiously charged violence is worse or matters more. That kind of calculation doesn't hold up anyway. It's certainly true antisemitic violence is widespread in the US, and more numerous cases of it reported than anti-Muslim violence. But what can we conclude based on this? At the same time this is true, more people have died in Gaza than did in Israel during this conflict. Hold those two facts and come up with something coherent to say about how Muslims and Jews are being treated worldwide. I certainly cannot. All of this is used to impose a clean narrative on this hell show. To justify past violence. To justify the continuation of violence. They all distract from the central fact that concepts like nationhood, borders, even religion should not matter more than the humanity of the people suffering. The only morality that I accept in such a situation is one that gives reducing the loss of innocent life primacy in any formula to decide what must be done next. Hamas certainly didn't do this. And Israel is showing itself to be no different.

Past Lies About War in the Middle East are Getting in the Way of the Truth Today https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/opinion/columnists/israel-gaza-hamas-misinformation.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

The military objective is to terrorize the population and exact collective punishment. That is not a legitimate military objective, mind. Not to most of the world. But it is what Israel is doing.

The contours of this debate, in these threads, is that one side is saying civilian deaths on either side of the border are sickening and deplorable, and the other side is saying the deaths in Gaza are inevitable, and minimizing those deaths, while insisting that only the Israeli loss of life be acknowledged. There is no one here saying October 7 was ok, justified, or acceptable. It's contemptible to keep inventing this stuff to distract from loss of life that is continuing.

He's saying that because Hamas started this, the people of Gaza "cannot play the victim card". Since they're not really victims, it follows that they cannot be given humanitarian aid, either. They are, unlike other humans, collectively responsible for Hamas's action, you see. So why pause the important work of "ending Hamas for all time" to pretend these people matter? They're human animals anyway.

Dude, stop making shit up. You said "And I hate to break your heart, when you start a war you don't get to play the victim card,". to which I replied that Hamas started the war, but the people "playing the victim card" are the civilians of Gaza. Why the fuck would I refer to Israeli victims in this context? I think I was correct that you were referring to Gazans in your sentence. Not mentioning Israeli victims here is not a sign that they're a distant memory. They just aren't relevant to the conversation you started about Gaza's civilian victims. Yeesh.

Um, I'm not a Westerner. My perspective is post-colonial, and rooted in the experience of my family and people. I certainly hold a lot of views in common with Western liberals. That says good things for them, but they remain a minority in the West, because the typical Western perspective is to dismiss colonialism and it's horrors as a canard.

This dismissal says more about you than anything else, too, you know. You have to be truly ignorant of colonialism to imply that it has no explanatory power over the religious conflicts of the world. It was literal colonial policy to intensify and mine existing religious tensions. And there is extensive work showing exactly how well those policies work. It's highly convenient to dismiss all this and say "ah these Arabs are too obsessed with their religion". It isn't an inherent property of being an Arab. It is a result of actual history, of which we have clear written records from the perpetrators. Of course, those nations that perpetrated this are alive and well today, and would love to bury that under the rug. Buy into this BS if you please, but that attitude will directly contribute to strengthening Hamas, and any worse body that will inevitable take their place if the "solution" is bombing them and continuing to ignore colonial history while thinking of solutions. Can I also say this: it is intensely hypocritical to say that the history of the Holocaust cannot be ignored, but colonial history from the same time should be. You're no different from a Holocaust denier when you deny colonialsm and it's impact. Deny either, and you're contributing to this conflict. Denying either let's you justify perpetuating more violence. It is sick. It is wrong.

Let's name names and quote posts, please. Again, please name these posters, and feel free to quote them where they made these arguments. No it fucking has not. You're just making the absolutely batshit case that the only way to show sympathy to these victims is to support whatever retaliation the Israeli government chooses. If you lay the condition that you'll only count the sympathy from those who completely agree with you, I'm sure the sympathy feels minimal, but that is entirely on you. And here's the bullshit again. Who is the "you" here? Hamas started this. The victims under discussion are the citizens of Gaza. They absolutely can play the victim card. If you have a worldview that says they're all responsible, that is a fascist worldview, period. You keep blending the people of Gaza with the perpetrators of the horror on October 7th. And that is morally repugnant, and strategically idiotic. It certainly won't result in the end of Hamas, which you claim to want. No, it really isn't. Hamas doesn't get any kind of pass for its actions, but Israel is not some preprogrammed automaton that has no choices. Nothing I say today will undo October 7th. But the ongoing battles in Gaza aren't in the past. And they will get even more focus as time goes on. This isn't antisemitic, or pro Hamas. It's the basic reality of people focusing on actions that can have effect in the future. In terms of actions Hamas can take, we've all repeatedly brought up releasing the hostages, which is a continuing horror. Note, the lack of interest in those hostages is mostly concentrated among posters who also want Israel to go in and "end Hamas" whatever that means. No, my discussion has always encompassed their actions. I've repeatedly mentioned the cycle of violence. Are you implying I secretly didn't mean this was a cycle where escalations have happened on both sides? Stop selectively reading my posts. Stop ascribing the views of other posters to me. And stop vague criticism. Name names. Quote the actual posts, if you have the receipts to back up what you're saying about Hamas's actions being minimized or ignored.