debate club

Meanwhile most people: the answer to who is the bad guy is:
Both. Both is good
- Ah yes, the millions of innocent palestianians that had their homeland taken from them and are now being bombed are literally just ask guilty as the people doing the invading and bombing. Very enlightened take.
  
  The problem with saying "both" is that there are 5 groups involved, maybe even 6.
  The Israeli government
  The Israeli people
  The West Bank Palestinian government (Fatah)
  The Gaza Strip Palestinian government (Hamas)
  The Palestinian people (arguably separate groups to account for differing levels of suffering and oppression)
  I'd agree that "both" are bad if you mean the Israeli government and Hamas, though to different degrees at different times. I'd agree "both" are victims if you mean the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, though undoubtedly the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are the most victimized right now and in general.
  
  My take is very simple:
  -are they actively targeting civilians? If yes then bad:
  
  -Israeli government- yes, then bad. -Hamas- yes, then bad.
  -are they following what is recognised as international law (namely the 1993 Oslo agreements):
  
  -Israeli government- while they formally recognise Palestine as a state, they have consistently undermined the Palestinian authority and occupied much of the West Bank without a plan for either self governance or leaving, settling parts of the West Bank aggressively, therefore bad. -Hamas- does not recognise Israel in any way and openly calls for its destruction, therefore bad.

I support an elected government with secular state thank you

Does a historical claim hold weight over a long established later claim? No-one knows the answer to this one - how old must a claim be before it becomes invalid?
Are restrictive religious laws ok? I think the resounding answer is always "mine are, but theirs aren't", which really is just a recipe for war eternal. They never strike me as ok, because most of them focus on making a group of people "the other".
Is murdering civilians to achieve military objectives ok? No, it isn't, everyone knows that really - it's an idea that belongs in the middle ages and should have been left there.
I don't think I could join the Israel vs Palestine camps (both governments are shit - both are out for genocide), I think I prefer the camp filled with people who just want an end to the conflict, people who live on both sides of those ill defined borders.
What does everyone who matters (the people living through this hell) really want? They want their lives back, the ability to be themselves, and carry out their traditions undisturbed. Most of all, they want the killing and persecution to stop, and the time to mourn their losses.
How do we do that? Put the guns down, stop the bombardments and bombings, have each side treat the wounded of the other side, and then figure out the rest without starting the killing again.
- Hamas isn't a government, it's a terrorist group. It's also horrible to Palestinians and it undermines the actual government of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority. There was just an article posted to Lemmy that talked about how Likud (the far right party governing Israel that's undermined peace talks multiple times) helped fund Hamas.
  Oppressed people can't "put their guns down" because they're being exterminated. Only the oppressor can stop. If you're really against both Hamas and Israel, then you believe that Israel needs to stop committing genocide. If you're pretending "both sides" are equal, then you're playing the same game Trump said when he equated people waving Nazi and confederate flags witj people trying not to be killed by people waving Nazi and confederate flags by saying "both sides are to blame."
  Pretending oppressed people have as much power as their oppressors is the game oppressors use to perpetuate their oppression.
  
  Or, I'm looking at people rather than nations, which is the correct way to view any conflict.
  My argument is that both sides put their guns down, because that's how a war stops. Both sides treat the injured of the other side, since that is how empathy is built and denial is eliminated. Homes can be rebuilt, and land disagreements can be settled, but nothing will bring the dead back; there are some things that cannot be undone. These are the things we need to stop FIRST.
  "POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media" ( http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/)
  
  Hamas is the government of Gaza. Claiming otherwise is spreading misinformation.
  The government of Gaza is currently holding hostages. The government of Israel has said it's not stopping until those hostages are released.
  To claim the Palestinians have no power is spreading misinformation. They absolutely have the power to stop this war.
  None of this is to say what Israel's government is doing is acceptable.
- I think I prefer the camp filled with people who just want an end to the conflict, people who live on both sides of those ill defined borders.
  I agree, but it's also arguably more complicated than this. I follow a DUI lawyer on youtube who happened to be in Israel (and fairly close to a crossfire) when the war started. He gave this very real and very neutral explanation of things those of us outside the region often miss, covering his upbringing in Israel.
  Basically, he said, the most common opinion you can hear from either side is "the only good OTHER SIDE is a dead OTHER SIDE". From the mouths of civilians, from children. They believe it because their parents told them it and because they've lived through conflict that corroborates it.
  To want peace at all costs, but to still instinctively dehumanize the other side is a very complicated place to be. And you can understand why both sides' civilians might feel that way about the other. So many people feel a desire for justice, but to both countries, justice is the other side being punished.
- What's Israel's superior justification, and where's any evidence of restraint beyond keeping things juuuust below the threshold where the US will be forced to withdraw support from it's regional toehold?

This discussion happened between me and a Zionist just the other day
them: What would you do if 1200 of your people were butchered?
me: 17k of my people have been butchered by Israel
them: "As a Palestinian, you don’t have any criticism of Hamas ? Oct 7th was just an “act of resistance” according to your view?"
I wonder how people like that would treat me if they met me on the public street.
- Within the same 2 months.
  
  Timeline? Hamas does a terror attack on Oct 7th and kills 1200 people, Israel responds by killing at least 17000 Palestinians over the next 2 months and that's just the lower end of the estimate.
- Don't leave us hanging, what is your answer to their last question?
  
  I'm highly critical of Hamas and have lost many friends over it.

I am always curious, why does Egypt not want to help Palestinian refugees? Or even allow then to travel through?
- Good question. The official position is that they would not be able to go back to gaza once the war ended. And therefore they would be helping israel in displacing the palestinian people of their lands.
  Plus, i suspect no one really wants 2M "permanent" refugees. On election season no less.
- Because the guy who runs Egypt is a dictator. Guess who appointed him?
- Because then in 5 years israel would start attacking and creating "buffer zones" within Egypt until Egypt ceases to exist.
  Israel is like the Nazi's in every single way. They want to keep expanding their lebensraum and genocide everyone who isn't of their race.
  Deplacing the Palestinians would only worsen the problem because they are not the problem, israel is.
  
  ".....and genocide everyone who isn't of their race..."
  What race is that?

Zionists were using that phrase before Israel was even a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea?wprov=sfla1

Me IRL

So you support the displacement of the people of israel?
Where to?
Which people? Anyone who is an Israeli citizen?
- You know, when you advantage a hypothetical displacement over an ongoing one, the implicit argument is that Israelis are superior to Palestinians. You're asking: wouldn't it be horrible for the Palestinians to do to the Israelis what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians?
  If you think it's unfair to displace one oppressed people in favor of another, then yea, I agree.
  
  And the slogan is “Palestine will be free”. It isn’t that Israelis will be exiled or some shit. It is a call for liberation of all people.
  
  I think it's unfair to expect a people to just belly up and die because Jihadists are using their own people as human shields. There have been over 7 times where the Palestinian people have had a chance to establish an actual state. They refused each and every time. So I'm struggling to see a parallel between what Israel is doing (defending its people) vs what you are suggesting.
- From the River to the Sea does not necessarily insinuate that all Israelis will be displeased, killed, etc.
  At minimum, the Israeli state should be abolished. I think first generation settlers who aren't refugees and can return to their home country should probably leave.
  
  Please go on. Where should the jews go? Which countries in the world would gladly accept 7 million jews? And by abolishing the Israel state I assume you are a big supporter of Sharia law. So no women rights, all LGBT people should be put to death, etc...
- Whatever country they come from or to new palestine if that's not possible.
  Yes, all Israelis
  
  Hang on, don't stop. Which countries? And by new palastine do you mean the one controlled by Hamas who have kill all jews and christians in their charter? So basically just kill everyone who is currently living in Israel?
  So all the christian and muslim arabs who are Israeli citizens too. Right? You wouldn't want to come off as a racist impliying only jews should be displaced would you?