'Instead of Gaza' | How should we name the new city?

[toomuchtime_]

Of course they won't. My claim is that usurping another's property (taking it by force) is IMMORAL. Your position seems to be that usurping another's property (taking it by force) is sometimes permissible and sometimes not permissible. It reads to me as a double standard.

You can't make sense of what ESay is saying because he is posting nonsense. Does the word, property, refer to privately owned land? If so, the use of force by governmental authorities to acquire such land is well established; what is an urban renewal project other than the acquisition of land through force or the threat of force?

If, on the other hand, the word, property, refers to land claimed by some political entity, then the acquisition of it by force or the threat of force is only prohibited if it is acquired in an aggressive war and then only if the pollical entity that claims it is a state. Since Israel has never acquired land through an aggressive war against another state, the whole issue is irrelevant to a discussion of the ME.

 

[Shusha]

You can't make sense of what ESay is saying because he is posting nonsense. Does the word, property, refer to privately owned land? If so, the use of force by governmental authorities to acquire such land is well established; what is an urban renewal project other than the acquisition of land through force or the threat of force?

If, on the other hand, the word, property, refers to land claimed by some political entity, then the acquisition of it by force or the threat of force is only prohibited if it is acquired in an aggressive war and then only if the pollical entity that claims it is a state. Since Israel has never acquired land through an aggressive war against another state, the whole issue is irrelevant to a discussion of the ME.

I scratched the talking points, and it turns out there is no substance beneath them.

And, while I wouldn't word it in quite the same way, yes, obviously, Israel has never acquired territory that she doesn't have valid legal (if disputed) claim to.

 

[ESay]

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean that you don't accept these as examples of extremism?

Yes, I don't.

 

[ESay]

Of course they won't. My claim is that usurping another's property (taking it by force) is IMMORAL. Your position seems to be that usurping another's property (taking it by force) is sometimes permissible and sometimes not permissible. It reads to me as a double standard.

Sigh. Seizure of other people's land happened throughout human history. And still going on now. The question is not about what is moral and what not. There was the time when the Jews seized that land; and massacred or pushed out, or assimilated people that lived there. There was the time when that land was under control of some outer powers. At some point of history it became an Arab dominated, who also massacred, pushed out Jewish people there.

And of course, the Jews can say that by taking over these lands they restore historical justice. But some other people would say that ignoring a thousand years of history is unacceptable. And I can't say that one side is 100% right and the other one is wrong.

Actually, why I started all that discussion is because I wrongly assumed that you somewhat shifted you position while saying about 'children playing together'. Too bad it was just a flash of hypocrisy.

 

[Shusha]

Actually, why I started all that discussion is because I wrongly assumed that you somewhat shifted you position while saying about 'children playing together'. Too bad it was just a flash of hypocrisy.

Curious. What position did you think I held, and how do you think it might have shifted?

 

[Shusha]

Yes, I don't.

I defined "resistance" as calls to take (disputed) territory by force.

Are you suggesting that it is fine for one side to use force, but not the other? As in, if Israelis call to take territory by force, it's extremism. But if Arabs call to take territory by force, it's permissible?

I'm okay with removing "breaking peace treaties" as a form of extremism. Scratched off the list.

 

[Shusha]

And of course, the Jews can say that by taking over these lands they restore historical justice. But some other people would say that ignoring a thousand years of history is unacceptable.

How about this, then?

Jewish extremism:

• denying the thousand+ years of Arab history in the land

 

[ESay]

Curious. What position did you think I held, and how do you think it might have shifted?

In short, and without words trumpery:
Shut up and get out
to
It is not bad to come up to some agreeable solution.

 

[ESay]

I defined "resistance" as calls to take (disputed) territory by force.

Are you suggesting that it is fine for one side to use force, but not the other? As in, if Israelis call to take territory by force, it's extremism. But if Arabs call to take territory by force, it's permissible?

I'm okay with removing "breaking peace treaties" as a form of extremism. Scratched off the list.

From the river to the sea - extremism.
In the scope of 1967 borders - resistance.

 

[ESay]

How about this, then?

Jewish extremism:

• denying the thousand+ years of Arab history in the land

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

 

[Shusha]

In short, and without words trumpery:
Shut up and get out
to
It is not bad to come up to some agreeable solution.

Oh. I see. I wonder if you have me confused with someone else. Let me introduce myself. Hi, I'm Shusha. I've been researching, studying, and debating this particular conflict for nearly 30 years. I have been a consistent supporter of what is usually referred to as the "two-state" solution: a separate, independent, sovereign state within a portion of the territory for each group who seeks it. I am ideologically opposed to ethnic cleansing (from either side) and assume each sovereign state will have some minority population from other groups, and that this is a benefit. I view the conflict as a civil war of secession which can only be solved with negotiation, mutual cooperation, and peace treaties.

 

[Shusha]

From the river to the sea - extremism.
In the scope of 1967 borders - resistance.

Fair. Setting "1967 borders" aside, for the moment, as it is my assertion that there is no such thing and it is a very bad pre-condition...

Do you think it is permissible to utilize "resistance" (force, violence) outside your borders? Is it permissible as an act of resistance to attack the other "state" within their own acknowledge "67 borders" (such as the October 7 attack on sovereign Israel from Gaza)?

 

[ESay]

Oh. I see. I wonder if you have me confused with someone else. Let me introduce myself. Hi, I'm Shusha. I've been researching, studying, and debating this particular conflict for nearly 30 years. I have been a consistent supporter of what is usually referred to as the "two-state" solution: a separate, independent, sovereign state within a portion of the territory for each group who seeks it. I am ideologically opposed to ethnic cleansing (from either side) and assume each sovereign state will have some minority population from other groups, and that this is a benefit. I view the conflict as a civil war of secession which can only be solved with negotiation, mutual cooperation, and peace treaties.

Hi, nice to meet you. My experience in this field is much smaller. I also a supporter of a two-state solution; I don't think it is a good one, but there is no alternative. I think that your suggestions not only don't lead to this solution, but make it harder to achieve. But it may well be a result of my poor comprehension abilities.

 

[ESay]

Fair. Setting "1967 borders" aside, for the moment, as it is my assertion that there is no such thing and it is a very bad pre-condition...

Do you think it is permissible to utilize "resistance" (force, violence) outside your borders? Is it permissible as an act of resistance to attack the other "state" within their own acknowledge "67 borders" (such as the October 7 attack on sovereign Israel from Gaza)?

I think that yes, if some state occupies some of your territories, it is permissible to attack this state as the part of resistance.

Though, I don't support and condemn any attack on civilian population. And so, I condemn the October 7 attack.

 

[Shusha]

I think that your suggestions not only don't lead to this solution, but make it harder to achieve.

I would like to hear more about this from your perspective.

 

[Shusha]

I think that yes, if some state occupies some of your territories, it is permissible to attack this state as the part of resistance.

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'd have to think it through.

My position is that Israel does not occupy Gaza and hasn't since 2005. I think many people conflate normal border controls with occupation in order to deliberately continue to chastise Israel, rather than holding Gaza responsible for her actions. I think people also conflate a sea blockade with occupation, again to continue to hold Israel responsible for Gaza even though she has no control over the government and people of Gaza.

Further, I believe the idea that the people of Gaza are incapable of developing Gaza into a thriving and viable state (whether in partnership with the Arabs in the "West Bank" or not) is deeply offensive and discriminatory. I believe they can, and should. They just need the will to turn their efforts and funding to building to accomplish this. The occupation has ended. The sea blockade will end when they no longer use the sea to import weapons to use against Israel. (This is, obviously, is no longer relevant after October 7 and the current war).

If, however, we believe that the people of Gaza are utterly incapable of anything but resistance and continued war with Israel, and are utterly incapable of building a viable state, they need to be turned over to someone who can.

Though, I don't support and condemn any attack on civilian population. And so, I condemn the October 7 attack.

As all reasonable people should.

 

[ESay]

I would like to hear more about this from your perspective.

Sigh. I already wrote about them.

1. The Gaza Strip becoming an independent state. Some interim period with international governing body; then local elections that will form governing bodies. Some limitations and obligations in military and security fields. No embargoes, concerning the air and sea.

2. Jerusalem remains Israeli capital. But Israel agrees to secede some areas for Palestinian governmental quarters.

3. The Temple Mount preserves its status quo. With the Jews being allowed for praying there, without permanent installations.

4. The West Bank. Israel should demolish the bulk of their settlements there.

5. After all that transformations are done and interim period ends, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip form a Palestinian state. With peace agreement with Israel and cooperation with it in security sphere.

6. Treaties of recognition between Israel and Arab states that would encompass military, security, economic cooperation.

 

[Shusha]

Sigh. I already wrote about them.

1. The Gaza Strip becoming an independent state. Some interim period with international governing body; then local elections that will form governing bodies. Some limitations and obligations in military and security fields. No embargoes, concerning the air and sea.

2. Jerusalem remains Israeli capital. But Israel agrees to secede some areas for Palestinian governmental quarters.

3. The Temple Mount preserves its status quo. With the Jews being allowed for praying there, without permanent installations.

4. The West Bank. Israel should demolish the bulk of their settlements there.

5. After all that transformations are done and interim period ends, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip form a Palestinian state. With peace agreement with Israel and cooperation with it in security sphere.

6. Treaties of recognition between Israel and Arab states that would encompass military, security, economic cooperation.

clarification: these things would lead to a solution, or are an obstacle to a solution?

 

[ESay]

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'd have to think it through.

My position is that Israel does not occupy Gaza and hasn't since 2005. I think many people conflate normal border controls with occupation in order to deliberately continue to chastise Israel, rather than holding Gaza responsible for her actions. I think people also conflate a sea blockade with occupation, again to continue to hold Israel responsible for Gaza even though she has no control over the government and people of Gaza.

Further, I believe the idea that the people of Gaza are incapable of developing Gaza into a thriving and viable state (whether in partnership with the Arabs in the "West Bank" or not) is deeply offensive and discriminatory. I believe they can, and should. They just need the will to turn their efforts and funding to building to accomplish this. The occupation has ended. The sea blockade will end when they no longer use the sea to import weapons to use against Israel. (This is, obviously, is no longer relevant after October 7 and the current war).

If, however, we believe that the people of Gaza are utterly incapable of anything but resistance and continued war with Israel, and are utterly incapable of building a viable state, they need to be turned over to someone who can.

As all reasonable people should.

As long as Israel occupies the West Bank territories the resistance is justifiable.

Yeah, the sea blockade to prevent weapons imports to Gaza. It has worked out as it planned, hasn't it?

 

[ESay]

clarification: these things would lead to a solution, or are an obstacle to a solution?

These things should have led to solution. But we both know that Israel won't agree on them.