I hate the 'blame both sidesism' that people use to describe Palestine/Israel.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkQ4HZAepYc]

I agree with John Oliver here and well done to him for being one of the few public voices to call it like it is.

Also, the Biden administration has just approved a major arms sale to Israel:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/17/power-up-biden-administration-approves-735-million-weapons-sale-israel-raising-red-flags-some-house-democrats/

The Republicans would have done the same and other Governments (including the British one) are complicit with other arms sales and uncritical allegiance. This is a problem that could be solved by a [i]genuinely [/i]even-handed approach. That would involve the international community having the will (it has the means) to force the dominant antagonist not to further breach international law and to stop Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land. Yes, also make sure that Israel is protected from its neighbors and Israeli Jews do not become the oppressed minority instead. The blockades, bombs, and settlements are about domination, not protection though: let's be clear.

I just wish people would stop pretending it's a war between equals when it's more of military occupation. Albeit one which is given preferential treatment because it is seen as a key part of NATO interests, as well as being a weird prophecy project for the American evangelical right.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

You agree that there should be a "but" after he says that Hamas shoots of a 1000 rockets which he calls "reprehensible"? Because what comes after the "but" is pretty stupid. It's not because a rocket doesn't reach the target, that the act of firing off a rocket doesn't have the clear intention of hitting the mark. And since Hamas with his random rockets are just firing all over the place to hit random non-combatant targets, there is no "but". Just like every target Israel hits that is full of non-combatants is reprehensible without a "but", so are similair actions of the opponent. Attacks on non-combatants and infrastructure that don't belong to the political institutions that govern, can never be justifiable.

It's kinda hard to just discredit the "protection" argument that Israel keeps playing, when Oliver clearly thinks that shooting 1000 rockets towards civilian territory is rephrehensible. If Hamas was a bit smarter and not goes shooting rockets over civilian territory, then you could at least invoke that argument. Now it just feels silly. This could have stayed with local riots, but Hamas never really was good at that and by doing what they do they make it pretty hard to hold an honest discussion about just the citizens that seriously need a break from all the crap that they have to endure and the hot heads that still believe that Palestine should be free from the river to the sea. Which is... well, totally delusional in todays context.

At that John just cuts out all the context to make it easy on himself... well, that's just lazy John. He ussually isn't that lazy. But I can symphathesize here and there. If people were really concerned about international law [i](which I am too)[/i] then the nations inside the UN should enforce it. Since the UN has no power, and totally relies on the goodwill of it's members. The US, European nations and a bunch of other powers that have a seat in the UN should do what they should do, enforce the laws they voted and signed years ago. Laws that are supposed to protect [i](or try to safeguard)[/i] all human beings from war crimes [i](that means everyone, including you... the reader)[/i]. But because geopolitics is full of favoritism, I would be amazed that this will actually happen. In the meantime, Israel will enforce national law which is their right as a sovereign nation. They should abide to international law too, but since no one is going to enforce it, those civilians out there are just as much victims of the international community that keeps staring and not doing what they have to do then they are victims of being born on the bad side of the fence in this tribal-conflict. Because everyone in full support of Israel might want to wonder how their world would look like if they popped out of a Palestinians' vagina in the West bank or the Gaza strip.

I also wonder why I don't here a lot of voices discussing that the political people in charge on both sides are just trying to crick up their popularity by showing muscle. Even though all the civilians are loosing, both Hamas and Likud can profile themselves as strong political leaders at the cost of everything and everyone else.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 Your argument suffers from a heavy emphasis problem.

Its a video from Oliver and I'm sure he'd be happy to answer your questions. He gets a lot right though.

The death toll is completely one sided and Israel occupies (and is occupying more) pestinian land and home. I won't respond to the strawman about people wanting Palestine to exist from river to sea because you know I mentioned international law. Hence the Oslo agreement, which has never been complied with. I support a two state solution, as implied.

Of course the 'real politic' requires member states to enforce UN treaties. I mentioned reasons in must post why that is not happening although its still morally reprehensible.

No fan of Hamas and firing rickets does them no good. However, if you were part of a people being ethnically cleansed, then wouldn't you react in some way?

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Burnley123 This isn't a strawmen. The Oslo agreements can only work if both sides respect them. There has been some serious issues concerning this respect from both sides. Hamas in particulair, has never stopped chanting that Palestine should be free from the river to the sea. That's not a slogan that agrees with your goals, because your goals are not their goals. Everyone wants these sides to abide by our notions of what should happen, but that doesn't mean they are going to do that. And argueing that our notions are automatically their notions... now, that's a strawman right there, because you are making the argument for them.

The death tole is one sided, because one side is equiped to deal with part of the issue and the other is not. That doesn't mean that the side that isn't equiped is not trying to do as much damadge as possible and they are clearly not targeting specific buildings because they don't have the means to do so. It's not because they don't have the means to do so, that it gives them the right to just shoot wherever they can and hope to get as much casualties as possible in some deranged perverse action to save their pride.

If Hamas didn't start firing, which they do often in this conflict, then maybe the conversation could have gone about what it should have gone. Namely how both parties are treating eachother and what they actually want and if there is some room for an honorable compromise. But every time those bombs go off, then sympathy for the cause get diminished by a lot because that's what part of the pro-israel side will focus on. On the other side of the coin is the simple fact, that most nations actively stopped caring a long time ago. When some sad image reaches national television, there is suddenly some outcry for the injustice. But as long as that doesn't happen, no one cares and no one is burning their political hands on this issue anny longer because there is nothing to gain. And the sides that should come at the table are both untrustworthy. In the mean time, the citizens suffer like always.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 From my post:

[quote]Yes, also make sure that Israel is protected from its neighbors and Israeli Jews do not become the oppressed minority instead.
[/quote]

From my first reply to you:

[quote]No fan of Hamas and firing rickets does them no good.[/quote]

I spelt rockets wrong but whatever. This already deal with much of what you posted.

[quote]The death tole is one sided, because one side is equiped to deal with part of the issue and the other is not.[/quote]

Therein lies [i]the main point[/i] of why 'both-sidesism' isn't a viable solution. One side has almost no power, is under military occupation and has DIY rockets. The other has one of the most powerful militaries in the world. The latter is also funded and armed by the West. It is able to get away with human rights abuses because of its strategic importance to NATO in the ME. Sure, if Israel had lost the Six Day War the situation could have been the opposite and all teh lefties would be protesting about freeing the Israeli's from Arab oppression. Its didn't though and the world we live in is what I described at the start.

[quote]If Hamas didn't start firing, which they do often in this conflict, then maybe the conversation could have gone about what it should have gone. Namely how both parties are treating each other and what they actually want and if there is some room for an honourable compromise.[/quote]

I'm not sure what your solution is here. Honourable compromise have been brokered before (by Israel) and saying: 'Calm down the two of you!' isn't gonna stop the slow-burn removal of all Palestinians from Israel. Doing nothing (or the same as now - which is backing Israel) is leading to that very outcome.

The only viable path forward would be to threaten Israel with cuts in aid and to stop selling them arms. As you said, they have all the power, hence they have no need for serious negotiation. This is why both sides-ism ain't a viable solution.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 Do you believe that Hamas ceased all hostilities and every Palestinian jsut started passively looking at the sky, that Israel would withdraw its occupation and returned the settled Palestinian lands?

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Burnley123
[quote]Therein lies the main point of why 'both-sidesism' isn't a viable solution. One side has almost no power, is under military occupation and has DIY rockets.[/quote]

It's not a sollution, it's just a conclussion after everything that happened since the begining of the conflict. Every time someone took the courage to bring both parties around the table to create some kind of consensus, some side fucks it up. And the option that the international community is rooting for, no one seems to want to enforce that. And like Hobbes said: "Covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.". Forcing our sollution over there, is also not going to work. The best diplomatic thing would be an embargo, but considering the US position, that's just not going to happen.

I have no sollution, and I don't pretend to have one. Everything I would propose, could only work if both sides are willing too go sit around the table. The only hope I have for this conflict is that the international community gets it's shit together and start enforcing international law. But that means, that certain countries need to start sending their political leaders too den Hague. The reason why international law is failing, is because big powers refuse to enforce the laws on their own political body. And I don't see that happening in the current political climate, international laws seem to have become a stick to smack the little ones, and preferably smacking them in a way that is profitable for the person that holds the stick.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula If they did that, they would actually have a case in an international courtcase. But since their repercursions actively targets civilians they have no case what so ever. They blow it up themselves.

And people on here, that keep pretending that when some injustice is happening, that when the other side is weak that it's okay for them to target non-combatant targets just because they are weak. Well, people like that disgust me. Because they actively advocate for terrorism.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula I like Kwek as a person, but you will never get a short answer from him and he will reply and reply until you are exhausted. His first ever PM to me was a critique of one of my shorter posts and it was 3,500 words long (I copied it into word to count).

@Kwek00 I stand by everything I have said in my posts and in my replies to you. I don't think you have adequately dealt with my criticisms of your position but I can't be arsed continuing. Claim victory if you want.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Burnley123 This isn't about victory, just an exchange of ideas. Not everything is a debate. I rather have a discussion.

Your first post was short, because John Oliver does 5 minute of the talking.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 That's a huge dodge on my question though. Let's say all the terrorism stopped and stopped for say, five years.

Would Israel just take more land, or would they return it?

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 No, I am talking about a few years back when you first messaged me out of the blue with literally a 3,500-word essay. I was like: "What the f***!?!" It was well-sourced tbf.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@Burnley123 Ah, well, if it was well sourced, then it's actually something I know something about.

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula As things stand, I don't see that happening without the international community pressuring them. Since it has never happened before without international pressure.

Unless Israel in 5 years has a totally diffrent governement that actually wants to move towards a compromise.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Kwek00 [quote]Ah, well, if it was well-sourced, then it's actually something I know something about.[/quote]

Yes and I respect that. Bless you. 🙂

Kwek00 · 41-45, M

@CountScrofula Are we actually going somewhere with my answer? Because what I just said, wasn't that spectaculair. 😅 And it all fits in the "both sides are bad" idea.