← Back to context

Comment by JasonADrury

16 hours ago

Yeah, they're just quotes. It's a quote.

>Can you provide some support for your moral position?

Yes, of course. A bunch of people from Europe decided to move to Palestine and start a religious ethnostate there. In doing so they expelled and murdered lots of local residents.

The surviving locals are understandably less than happy about this, and have continued to fight to defend their lands to this day.

Since then, the those people have caused far more harm to non-jewish Palestinians than non-jewish Palestinians have caused to the those people.

>allows us to sidestep the issues with Gazans’ support of Jihad, other extremist doctrines, and the extermination of Jews?

It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of jews. In the extreme environment that Israeli jews force Palestinians to live in, it's fundamentally ridiculous to even describe it as an extremist position.

In a comfortable European context it's certainly extreme, but that's a fundamentally dishonest way of portraying it.

"It's perfectly natural that Gazans would support the extermination of Jews."

That's not a point about colonialism or occupation; that's a justification for ethnic extermination based on the conditions of the people holding the position. By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.

In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution. Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward. You haven't described a political framework- you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.

You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.

  • >By that logic there is no floor: any atrocity becomes "perfectly natural" if the grievance is large enough.

    This is mostly true, yeah. Do you not believe that humans act like that?

    >In your broader argument you're describing a blood debt with no statute of limitations and no mechanism for resolution

    Nonsense.

    >Skåne (where I live) was Danish. Alsace was German. Most of Europe was Roman. At some point borders exist, people live within them, and the only available direction is forward.

    Except Israel does not want Palestine to move forward.

    There are approximately zero living people that give a shit about the things you mentioned, there are millions of living Palestinians who do care and suffer at the hands of Israeli state every single day.

    How did you intend for this comparison to be even vaguely relevant?

    >you've described a permanent state of war with no exit condition except one side's disappearance.

    This is deliberately obtuse, Israel has had a plenty of ways to largely exit this conflict. At the very least they could've given all Palestinians Israeli citizenship and equal rights decades ago.

    Of course, that's not really compatible with the ideals of the jewish ethnostate. I'm sure the Palestinians wouldn't seriously object though.

    >You just said it's perfectly natural to want to exterminate an ethnic group. Read that back.

    I'll repeat it if you want me to. We've seen it over and over again in history, it's hardly a new thing.

    Considering how the jewish people choose to treat the Palestinians, it is not surprising that Palestinians want to exterminate the jewish people. It is a perfectly predictable reaction, and not some special quirk of the Palestinians.

    • Israel has been at the table at Oslo, Camp David, Taba and Annapolis. Palestinian leadership walked away from each without a counter-proposal. That's not a secret.

    • Since I already wrote a reply to your now-deleted comment:

      >You've just made my point. The reason Skåne isn't contested is that there are no living people suffering under Danish occupation of it. You've described the mechanism yourself: time plus resolution. That's exactly what a two-state settlement would produce. You've argued for the process without noticing.

      Israel has explicitly rejected that over and over again, and continues to do so every day through ongoing annexations.

      There will never be moral high ground for the state of Israel as long as it allows the settlements to exist and doesn't at the very least honor it's internationally recognized borders.

      >On citizenship: Israel granting full citizenship to all Palestinians would mean the end of a Jewish majority state within a generation, by demographics alone. You know that. Proposing it as a "simple solution Israel refused" is not a good faith argument; it's describing the dissolution of Israel but painting it as moderation.

      A jewish ethnostate is as morally unacceptable as an aryan ethnostate.

      >On extermination: you've moved from "perfectly natural" to "perfectly predictable." Those aren't the same thing. Predictable means understandable given the circumstances. Natural means it requires no further justification. You've retreated and you haven't noticed.

      No, it's both. It's predictable because it's a natural reaction.

      4 replies →

No one disagrees that the Gazans feel the way they do. But your position is a stronger one. You seem to be excusing or justifying the moral behavior of Gazans in a way that looks self-undermining.

It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.

  • So, are you saying that it's not justified for Gazans to feel the way they do? Why not?

    > It’s not morally credible to focus on the Jews’ actions alone, given the broader context of the conflict, Islamic conquest and domination. I don’t want to be patronizing and give history lessons, but antisemitism, Jihadism, and other Islamicist extremist doctrines predate the state of Israel by centuries.

    That's just whataboutism and has approximately nothing to do with the conflict started by the creation of the modern state of Israel.

    The only people who you could reasonably blame besides the zionist jews are the other Europeans.