Israel/Palestine thread

Nope. Sunni's and Shia's have been at it long before there was any concept of oil. Oil does at fuel to the fire, but it is not the source of the conflict.

Right now, if you had to pick a side, would it be Saudi Arabia's or Iran's?

So have Catholics and Protestants. That is absolutely not a good analysis. Iraq is a very good demonstration really. Before the war in Iraq people hardly knew who was Shia or Sunni. Neighborhoods were not segregated. During the war (talking about 2003 war) there was fighting between Shia and Sunni, which was largely driven by outside influence from Iran, the US/UK, and Saudi Arabia and neighborhoods segregated as violence increased. Now, some years after most of the fighting has abated in Iraq, there's much less animosity between Shia and Sunni.

I wouldn't pick a side. Both governments suck, but Saudi Arabia is a far more unjust society. The Gulf States only look ok if you are just looking at the rich people and ignoring how most of the people living there are indentured servants and not citizens.

The Western world is post-Christian for the most part. The actual religion practiced through most of the West for most of the last century is reason or rationality.

In the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and the failure of the national socialists to remove Western influence and destroy Israel as promised; the MENA has going through a conservative Muslim revival. And increased conflict between Sunni and Shia that is akin to the Protestant and Catholic schism in the 1600s is definitely a part of this revival.

And the Iranian revolution was a giant instigator of the increased tensions.

The socialists in Iran did not try to remove Western influence, they tried to nationalize oil. They were trying to decolonize and d imperialize not to reject modernity..Then the UK and the US did the coup and that led to the revolution in Iran.

If there is ever a free and popular and Democratic government in Saudi Arabia, the same thing will happen. The US will do a coup against it and restore the monarchy.

Iran gives no shits about Hamas or the Palestinian people. I am not sure even Jalfrezi and Victor are brainwashed enough to believe this (although I could be wrong here. They continue to surprise in their willful ignorance)

That being said, I think you underestimate how important it is to Iran's perceived legitimacy in the entire region that they are opposing the "Israeli devil". And I would say that is an important material benefit in their belligerence towards Israel, through support of Hezbollah and Hamas; on top of the military benefits in the low intensity war they have been ongoing with Israel since they hyper charged their nuclear weapons program and Israel has been covertly sabotaging it.

And I think you are mistaken about the UN. When Netanyahu was using the "weapons going through Gaza tunnels" as rational to go into Rafah, IDF military opposed him, arguing most of Hamas weapons are actually smuggled in by UN agencies in trucks marked "humanitarian aid." And of course it would be impossible for them to build the underground tunnel cities without UN helping them.

The UN is tremendously involved in supporting the Hamas war machine, through material and propaganda efforts. Without UN involvement I dont think the Hamas war machine would be able to sustain itself. Current levels of Iranian and Qatari support would not be enough.

Because people have been lying about the war from the beginning. It was called a genocide on day 1 before anyone on the Palestinian side even died. Obviously the incentive structure is there to lie, it gives Palestinians more leverage against Israel.

I'm talking moral. right, not legal right, Suppose:

1. There is absolutely no doubt he wants you dead and would kill you if he could

2. It is clear he will never change his mind

2. His reason for wanting you dead is unquestionably unjustified.

3. There is a small (say 5% chance) he will one day have the means and will thus attempt your murder

4. No counter strategy other than killing him brings that 5% down to 0%.

5. Your murdering him will never be found out.

Obviously, these criteria will never fully exist in real life but suppose they did? Are there non-religious counter arguments strong enough to make you take that 5% chance of being killed? If you say "yes", would you give the same answer if the one in danger was your daughter?

David,

It all hinges on what number you pick for that 5% and, even if I could pick that number for myself, that would be of no import. It's a personal and subjective decision. I submit that the danger to any particular Israeli or the state of Israel from Gaza is nowhere near 5% though, by orders of magnitude.

And I know this isn't an answer to your abstract question, but I think Israel's response to 10/7 has made the children of Israel, the future children of Israel, and Jews around the world less safe, not more.

Putting my daughter into the question is more muddling than illuminating. I would want it clear that think racial or nationalist affiliations between people, strangers, are not ethical, while affiliation between family and friends is. Also, I don't want it just glossed over that many (not all) Israelis (unlike Gazans) can easily leave.

Why should they leave when their great * 80 grandparents lived there?

Most of their parents were born there and for many of them grandparents. And for many Jews it goes back further than that. People born there have as much right to live there as anyone else and that goes for any of the Arabs born in Gaza or in the rest of israel. But, being born somewhere should give you the right to stay there, but not if it means you have to kill children to do it. My great-grandparents should have been able to stay in Russia and Romania if they wanted without facing discrimination and oppression, but that doesn't mean they would have been right to kill a bunch of innocent children when they had the option to just come to america.

Careful. Palestinians believe that if they had great grandparents that had to leave their land because they lost a war that they should be able to kick out Israelis currently living on that land. Both sides play the historical argument game to the detriment of peace.

Johnny? Is that you?

Also true, which is why the only fair solution is to be equally unfair to everyone and give them all passports to whichever country they want and a fixed amount of time to **** off there.

Should this also apply to the entire Muslim world that kicked out their Jews. Should they all be forced to **** off in the name of fairness? Is Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, Lebanon, etc. obligated to empty themselves? I could also easily think of 20 other recent historical examples where this same logic could easily apply.

Or does your worldview entail one rule for Jews and one rule for everyone else?

They will not have a good answer for this...

DS's questions is bogus. It has nothing to do with morality

The asumptions are that some things are definite. Even if these things were somehow definite (which thery can't be), you can never be certain they are and be sane. If you are certain of any these things then you're not mentally capable of making moral decisions. You're suffering from some form of psychosis

The uncertainy is a necessary part of moral decisions. There are always other ways and other possibilities except in extreme trolly problems where we could be persuaded to do anything.

DS may try to argue the certainty isn't relevant to the question his is asking and is just there for simplicity. He will be wrong.

I was clearly referring to Palestinians too. An Israel + Gaza + WB completely devoid of all humans. Bliss! Chances of WW3 diminished significantly.

Obviously this is a completely unworkable worldview. Your worldview has many problems, but the biggest one is that it ignores the reality that the people with the biggest guns get to make the rules, and if you dont have guns and/or are unwilling to use them you dont get to make any rules.

Even your perfect society of Rojava can only exist because the US wants the oil fields there. If the US left they would be instantly over-run by some combination of Syria, Iran and Russia.

If that's what you believe in, then the RoW should stop suppling weapons to Israel and instead arm the Palestinians to the same level.

You should try more knowledge and less "first principles". Like, you don't even name the country that would overrun Rojava. Do you not think that having specific knowledge might be important for understanding world affairs?

My point is that Jews going back to Europe, North Africa, North America, or worse Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc is just not feasible. And Palestinians going back to Israel from other countries in the Middle East is also not feasible. Reparations are probably possible, giving back land is probably possible, but mass population movements are not going to happen.

The people with the biggest guns often think they get to make the rules. They are often wrong.

I could move to Romania any time I want and I might even be able to afford a house there. They offer citizenship by descent, so I could probably even get that. Reparations probably not coming though.