The USA and Israel

[Sculptor]

aaaa.jpg

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's your opinion, but it doesn't mesh with reality. The reality is, Israel is fighting for future survival, not past wrongs done against them. The past wrongs of October 7 are evidence of that, along with the promises of the terrorists to wipe out Israel, and their refusal of a two-state solution. What's the slogan? From the river to the sea ... no Israel.

You can't have one-party make an agreement to a two-state solution, when the other party has vowed genocide.

All Hamas has to do is leave to stop the war. Then Israel can hunt them down like dogs elsewhere, away from their human shields, for what they did.

It is actually a question of perspective and also of interpretation.

So if Israel had been truly interested in survival, it would long ago have made sure that it came to a better resolution. What you deny is the actual intention of Israelis and Israel's leadership: a conquest of the entire region. Indeed there is talk of a Greater Israel which extends Israel even farther than its present borders.

"Meshing with reality" is a curious phrase. It does sort of depend son whose *reality* you refer to as being the real reality. Walker, I think you lack the skill and expertise to think outside of your own subjectivity. Such thinking allows for the creation of stark narratives, and it is easier to get behind a stark narrative, but here in this environment we can access the viewpoints of others.

I do not deny that Israel believes it is *fighting for its survival*. But what I say is that if it had really been concerned for long-term survival it would have made other choices earlier on.

And if that is the case the only way to fight this war is by total annihilation of the enemy. Kill all the Gazans.

[Walker]

didn't wrote

You pasted a picture.

What is your hypothesis, based on those words, and who said them?

What is the evidence that he did say that? After all, this is the age of propaganda, faked videos, faked pictures, fake news, fake allegations against Trump by the ton ... not to mention pictures without commentary, which is frowned upon in the forum, you looking to get reported?

How many bombs is hundreds of tons? Hundreds? How many. Two hundreds?

If I had Age's proclivity, I could ask a lot more questions.
If I had another type of proclivity, I could attack you.

As it is, despite your meanness, I think you see more than you let on, and you're an adept elicitor for those who need to expound ... for the philosopical cause in which we, all together now, join together in wishing that everything was hunky dory.

[Walker]

Gotta run AJ. Later. Holday stuff, many people, eating, all that jazz for awhile. brb, if I remember.

[promethean75]

"The reality is, Israel is fighting for future survival, not past wrongs done against them"

what a crock of shit. the only thing that would threaten israel in the next hundred years would be a full scale invasion by islamic countries, and they wouldn't dare do that for two reasons. the territory isn't enough to fret over and the allied nations would back Israel in the event of an invasion.

this whole thing is precisely about revenge, about being given a reason to dominate the gaza strip... something israel has been itchin to do since its inception.

it's like your stuck in the 1930s dude. the holocaust is over. the jews are doin great everywhere they go. they aren't *gasp* 'fighting for their survival' any more. they fuckin got it made.

[Immanuel Can]

That is the duty of a civil country to prefer negotiation over mass murder.

Well, yes, if negotiation is going to be accepted and done in good faith. However, right now, it's the duty of Hamas to surrender, and not to shoot any more rockets, and not to dress as civilians, and not to keep their munitions in kindergartens, hospitals and mosques.

But how has that worked out?

It takes two sides to negotiate: not just one. So far, Hamas is not negotiating at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is the duty of a civil country to prefer negotiation over mass murder.

Well, yes, if negotiation is going to be accepted and done in good faith. However, right now, it's the duty of Hamas to surrender, and not to shoot any more rockets, and not to dress as civilians, and not to keep their munitions in kindergartens, hospitals and mosques.

But how has that worked out?

It takes two sides to negotiate: not just one. So far, Hamas is not negotiating at all.

Again, nearly everything you say, from your religious conceptions, your metaphysical predicates, to political opinions, all of it, becomes a cause to examine thinking within fixed and established limits.

Looked at from the angle of Hamas and its supporters the object is most certainly not to surrender! And their object is to carry on with their struggle for their people.

Azzam Tamini wrote: Hamas: Unwritten Chapters in 2009:

Hamas won an overwhelming electoral victory in January 2006, overturning many assumptions regionally and globally. Branded as terrorist by Israel and the West, it is the largest Palestinian militant Islamist organization, formed fifteen years ago at the beginning of the first intifada. Its short-term objective is to drive Israeli forces from the West Bank and Gaza, an aim it hopes to realize through attacks on Israeli troops and settlers in the Occupied Territories and - more controversially - civilians. It also has the long-term aim of establishing an Islamic state on all of historic Palestine. In the post-Oslo world, Hamas gained power and influence as Israel steadily destroyed the power structure of the avowedly secular Yasser Arafat and his Palestinian Authority. A grass-roots organization that commands wide respect among Palestinians for its incorruptibility, Hamas is divided into two main sections, one responsible for establishing schools, hospitals and religious institutions, the other for military action and terror attacks carried out by its armed underground wing the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades. This book charts the origins of Hamas among the Muslim Brotherhood, details the influence of its exiled leadership in Syria and elsewhere, and sets out its internal structure and political objectives. This new edition includes an additional chapter covering events since the book's original publication in November 2006.

One of the reviews of the book:

Mr. Tamimi has given readers an excellent perspective from within Hamas. The author used his access to this group and its leadership to create a work that gives the reader the Hamas story as seen by Hamas. There is no filter, but instead the reader hears the Hamas perspective from their own mouths as they see themselves. This is a very important distinction because too often we get the Hamas story as told from the Western perspective. Hamas as viewed by the West is a limited and skewed perspective, and the only way to really get a whole picture is to see this group from their own vantage point as well. Any good student of history knows that the more angles one views a particular subject the more clearer the image becomes.

Mr. Tamimi's work is a chronological history of Hamas from its ideological inception from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood organization all the way to its electoral victories in the Palestinian elections. This book really gives the reader a sense of the evolution of this group from its humble beginnings trying to revitalize Palestinian society that was largely secular to its beginnings as a resistance organization to its eventual ascension to political power. The reader will be able to see how many different factors worked for and against this group and how these factors influenced the evolution of this group.

What I most liked about this book is that it focuses in on leaders and on their philosophy. The author uses their own statements and writings to give the reader a sense of what they believe and what they are fighting for. Too often we hear that this group is simply a violent, racist group that cannot be reasoned with or expected to be reliable brokers at the negotiating table, but what we see in this book is that the leadership is filled with intelligent and articulate people. The author does a good job dispelling some of the myths and clearing up points of contention when it comes to Hamas' positions on things like peace with Israel, its vision of a Palestinian state and its willingness to dialogue with the West.

The author does an excellent job detailing the Hamas position on peace with Israel, and the author describes the impediments as well. Like Hamas's inability to recognize Israel officially, although many would say they have de facto recognized Israel in many statements they have made. The author goes into this problem in detail and also describes how Hamas has suggested ways to overcome these problems through things like hudna which is system of truce. Once a hudna has been reached it is a sin to breach the truce. There are problems and risks inherent in any type of deal for both Israel and the Palestinians, but any possibility for peace no matter how imperfect should be explored, and the one thing that can be said for Hamas they are dedicated to Islam which requires them to respect the terms of the hudna.

Some of my criticism of this book are the same things I praise it for such as its tendancy to focus solely on the leadership. I have been looking for a work that details the grassroots level activism that goes on in this organization. A book that goes into detail describing what Hamas offers the ordinary Palestinian and describes in depth the reason for this groups popularity. On a certain level I understand that they are not corrupt like the PLO and they offer much needed services, but I want to know more about the street level activism and this book's focus is more on the leadership.

Next the author doesn't go much into the al-Qassam brigades. The author makes some statements that seem contradictory to me. He asserts that the military wing is separate from the political wing, but in the book he describes how the military side respects and follows decisions made by the political branch. This leads the reader to question just what the relationship really is. Whether the military branch is really distinguishable in any real way from the political leaders if they have that type of authority.

All in all I would say this is a very good book despite the very real problems I had with certain aspects of the work. The author has a very nice style that makes the book an easy read, and he is obviously very knowledgeable about the issues surrounding this group. Whether the reader accepts the perspective the author offers or not the perspective itself is extremely important to know and understand. Hamas has a large following and millions of sympathizers the world over. All of these people are not racists who want to see Israel destroyed so this group must have something that appeals to people in the East and West. This book will give the reader the insight needed to understand that appeal.

[phyllo]

Really?

Do you care about Russians? Or just Ukrainians? And do you care about Israelis? Or just Hamas?

Did I say somewhere that I didn't care about those people?

Let's find out if you do.

What do you propose...both in Ukraine and in Gaza?

I have already addressed this more than once.

I have no interest in repeating myself yet again.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you propose...both in Ukraine and in Gaza?

The question is a good one. I will only make comments in regard to Gaza.

So...answering a question not addressed to you, and answering only the half you like, and which saves your problem from being...er...problematic.

[Immanuel Can]

Did I say somewhere that I didn't care about those people?

Let's find out if you do.

What do you propose...both in Ukraine and in Gaza?

I have already addressed this more than once.

I have no interest in repeating myself yet again.

I understand why: you don't have a consistent answer.

[bahman]

That is the duty of a civil country to prefer negotiation over mass murder.

Well, yes, if negotiation is going to be accepted and done in good faith. However, right now, it's the duty of Hamas to surrender, and not to shoot any more rockets, and not to dress as civilians, and not to keep their munitions in kindergartens, hospitals and mosques.

But how has that worked out?

It takes two sides to negotiate: not just one. So far, Hamas is not negotiating at all.

Hamas already said that they would accept the ceasefire if the aggression is completely stopped.

[Walker]

That's your opinion, but it doesn't mesh with reality. The reality is, Israel is fighting for future survival, not past wrongs done against them. The past wrongs of October 7 are evidence of that, along with the promises of the terrorists to wipe out Israel, and their refusal of a two-state solution. What's the slogan? From the river to the sea ... no Israel.

You can't have one-party make an agreement to a two-state solution, when the other party has vowed genocide.

All Hamas has to do is leave to stop the war. Then Israel can hunt them down like dogs elsewhere, away from their human shields, for what they did.

It is actually a question of perspective and also of interpretation.

So if Israel had been truly interested in survival, it would long ago have made sure that it came to a better resolution. What you deny is the actual intention of Israelis and Israel's leadership: a conquest of the entire region. Indeed there is talk of a Greater Israel which extends Israel even farther than its present borders.

"Meshing with reality" is a curious phrase. It does sort of depend son whose *reality* you refer to as being the real reality. Walker, I think you lack the skill and expertise to think outside of your own subjectivity. Such thinking allows for the creation of stark narratives, and it is easier to get behind a stark narrative, but here in this environment we can access the viewpoints of others.

I do not deny that Israel believes it is *fighting for its survival*. But what I say is that if it had really been concerned for long-term survival it would have made other choices earlier on.

And if that is the case the only way to fight this war is by total annihilation of the enemy. Kill all the Gazans.

I know. Facts and reality can be stark.
Better to not go around them with bias and belief that make things comfy cozy.

Proportion:
Just look at a map of the region to understand this proportion analogy:
- Israel to the Middle East is like Earth to the Milky Way.

- Earth is a bright light in a large, hostile environment.
- Israel is a bright light in a large, hostile environment.

- 3 million Arabs in Israel.
- 7 million Jews in Israel.
- 410 million folks in the Middle East.

- Before 10/7 ... would a Jew dare to live or walk in Gaza? Not many, if any.
- How about, where were Jews welcomed in the Middle East, outside of Israel?
- Not many places, if any.

- In the one hand you have 10 million.
- In the other hand, you have 400 million.
- 7 million … 400 million.
- stark proportion.

Keep mind, too much nuance will turn your mind to mush.
- In other words, your custodial responsibilities to the life and form given to you, that you did not create, requires that you keep the portal in your care, the portal to the totality of mind shared by all, free of irresponsibly caused obscurations.

[phyllo]

Let's find out if you do.

What do you propose...both in Ukraine and in Gaza?

I have already addressed this more than once.

I have no interest in repeating myself yet again.

I understand why: you don't have a consistent answer.

I don't think that you even know what my answer(s) are.

I have written the answers but you often just seem to ignore what I write.

You didn't read? You forgot? You dismissed? You don't care?

Tiresome hamster wheel.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I know. Facts and reality can be stark. Better to not go around them with bias and belief that make things comfy cozy.

First allow me to mention that for a long time I was a defender of Israel and quite pro-Zionist. I said this before, perhaps on this thread (?) and I will say it again: I defended Israel despite any facts and any *reality* in respect to the truth (facts/reality) of what it needed to do to reconquer the territory. My argument was essentially the Thrasymachus argument: that ultimately, in this world, it is power that chooses and decides things. And it was also the Machiavellian argument which I understand to be the same or similar.

My philosophy therefore was one of *realism*. So for example I explained and in a sense defended the original South African colonies and the culture and civilization they created there on no other basis but that they came, they got a foothold, the pushed other (primitive, undeveloped) people off of their land, and they built a pretty remarkable nation and civilization in the southern cone of Africa. That model applies everywhere in our world. That is the model of our world. And how it is explained, and how justified, is the basis of political theory.

Social distinction, and indeed racial distinction, and South African society based on stark separation and rigid hierarchy in that culture, and here I speak mostly of the two centuries prior to the 20th century, did not bother me in any way. But like anyone, and like all of us, when I viewed South Africa and the political culture of apartheid from the perspective of a modern, and when I saw what was required in our present to maintain it, I found myself in as much of a conflict about it as anyone. There are certain comparisons that one could make between South Africa and Israel and I think the main one is that Israel is an Ashkenazi creation (on the whole) and the Jewish Ashkenazi culture embodies that of ultra-sophisticated Europe in all categories. In that sense South Africa can be compared to Israel.

The Palestinian culture is, in comparison, *primitive*. Their cultural, social and civilizational ambitions, if I can put it like this, are not comparable to the sophisticated European Jew. And that explains the European Israeli Jew's will to build, develop and create. But here is another thing: the Ashkenazi Jew tends to look down on the Sephardic Jew who has more in common with Arab culture, and this with Palestinian culture, and often speaks Arabic, than the Askenazi Jews. These two cultures within Israeli society are not on the friendliest of terms. In fact Israeli culture is highly stratified.

There is simply no way around understanding Askenazi Jewish culture as essentially racist -- in the sense that this term is used today which is as an absolutely negative term. Many people do not understand that Ashkenazi Jewish religious culture is profoundly and unashamedly 'racialist' in those senses that directly correspond to National Socialist racialist ideology.

Everyone in the world today shudders in horror when the racialism and racism of the Nazis is mentioned, yet they are ignorant of the degree to which fundamental Judaism is necessarily racist and racialist. It is based on a religious ideology of separation and distinction. It was essentially metaphysical insofar as a Jewish soul was understood to be a divine soul. You do not mix a divine soul (or 'spark') with that of a lower being.

If a lower being converts (though a religious process of denial of paganism), they ascend by God's grace to a higher level, or it is said that (again by God's will or grace) that they had a 'Jewish soul' that found its way home. And referring to that guiding idea, which is foundational to Judaism, the entire world must be bent, as it were, to serve that higher divine emanation. Judaism is at its core an ideology of power and conquest through the idea-realm. Christianity inherits this assertion but through a more universalized religiousness.

So you tell me how interested in *facts* and *reality* you are but I know that you are very far from being capable of truthfulness because your grasp of facts and reality is really quite limited. Why is this? My answer is because you are, and we all are, outcomes of extraordinary processes of ideological formation, and certain ideas have been so ingrained in us that if we are introduced to a contrary idea we -- literally -- shudder on a moral level. And you and we are quite obviously a *product* of a late phase of American culture which is a later phase of European culture. In your case there seems to be a pretense of being rightist or right-oriented (Conservative of-a-sort) but the fact and the reality is that, as such, you are a living and walking expression of ideological confusion. My view is that we live in times of intense, and seemingly insuperable, ideological confusion. It tears us to shreds and we also tear those around us to shreds. We are shredded people.

But if I say such a thing it should not be taken to mean that I exclude myself from the realistic accusation of ideological confusion. The mistake that is made in these our conversation (on the forum) is not to have enough awareness of our ideological informing and the forcefulness of ideological predicates that determine what we believe is *right & good* and of course the opposite. I refer to the most stark example: Immanuel and his (believed literally) notion that Israel has been bequeathed to Abraham & Sarah by divine dispensation. When examined critically, or when it is undressed so to speak, it reveals itself as a most fantastical idea.

Once we begin to unravel ideas of this sort, whole skeins of conceptual fabric become susceptible to the process of examination exemplified by the term *critical examination*.

Now, the curious thing is that I have many more good and sound reasons to *support* Israel and the project of modern Jewry than I do to *support* and in that sense to empower Palestinian or pan-Arab cultural aims. And the same is true for all who write here. We are after all the outcomes of cosmopolitan cultural processes. I have far more in common, and so do you, with the average Israeli citizen in educational background and general cultural identification than I do with the average Palestinian.

Facts and reality can be stark. Better to not go around them with bias and belief that make things comfy cozy.

I liked the idea. And so I made an effort to work within it, or in relation to it, to come up with some things to say.

[Immanuel Can]

That is the duty of a civil country to prefer negotiation over mass murder.

Well, yes, if negotiation is going to be accepted and done in good faith. However, right now, it's the duty of Hamas to surrender, and not to shoot any more rockets, and not to dress as civilians, and not to keep their munitions in kindergartens, hospitals and mosques.

But how has that worked out?

It takes two sides to negotiate: not just one. So far, Hamas is not negotiating at all.

Hamas already said that they would accept the ceasefire if the aggression is completely stopped.

...and they broke the last ceasefire within 15 minutes. You can't bargain with people who will not keep their word, and who are sworn to kill you.

So what's your next plan?