Exactly. While you tacitly acknowledge that your side also has its racists and dumbasses, all of your totally-not-rhetorical questions and statements are functioning to attack the one side and defend yours. Your hyperpartisanship doesnt end at continuously criticizing the one side of the conflict and defending yours, it extends to crticizing supporters of one side and defending yours, constantly. To the very label of being pro palestinian you want to question whether they are really just massive haters of israel, while for pro israelis you tell us how of course - of course! - they are not on the offensive, of course - of course! - they are not haters. You extol us on the virtue of your relentless criticism of the palestinians while superficially looking bad is really just functioning to inform your policy recomendations, a charitable view you dont even suggest as a possibility for someone who is pro-palestinian. Even your examples - pro palestinians posting articles showing racisms in jews - seem hard to square with your numerous round the world tours of examples of antisemitism.

Maybe you will be able to concoct some resolution (i post these random articles to inform my policy prescription, not because i have a goal of constantly attackjng the other side in any way possible!) but putting it all together it paints a pretty consistent picture: attack the other side, attack the supporters of the other side, defend your side, defend supporters of your side. This is why we get unprompted posts detailing lists of terrible questions for pro palestinians that we would never, ever, ever find you giving to pro israelis.



You demand pro palestinians tell you what countries they compare Israel to. I challenge you to do the same, predicting you wont meet that challenge. You ignore it. I reissue the challenge. You dont provide an example of such a country and reject the notion of a single comparator, saying instead there are hundreds of countries for little details of the conflict. No idea where this point was when you asked the question. Then you demand j answer the question. Just lol. Well then, my answer is to quote yours. Happy?

The 'critics' (in quotes bec a lot of them are way beyond simple criticism) don't give a single damn about this part. Not one single damn.

Why are they so terrible? I have no problem asking those questions of "pro-Israel" posters, but I don't have to.

Lol you missed the point. Again.

Impressive.

lol. You're being particularly trollish here.

You know damn well that criticism goes to specific instances. So you know your question is disingenuous. For example, a particular airstrike, a particular policy, a particular arrest, all of which have several opportunities for comparison that - of course - never get made, because that would require using universal standards by which to judge the events in question. And, probably without fail, whatever event is being manipulated to hate on Israel would be completely benign if compared to how other countries/armies/police have handled that situation.

As a prime example, recall the criticism last year about the "Jewish State" bill. Several posters here took advantage to declare how racist Netanyahu and Likud were for trying to enshrine Jewish nature of Israel - while protecting minority rights - in the "Constitution". In this post, I showed the example of Ireland, whose constitution had much more discriminatory provisions. In this post, I pointed out how even the Palestinian constitution is more discriminatory.

Nobody gave a ****. Haters gonna hate.

Judgement without a universal standard is just hate.

Lol this is terrible. Good work.

Exactly. You COULD have asked your totally not rhetorical list of questions to your camp, but that just isnt your MO. You constantly try to put your camp in good light and compare that to the other camp you cast in bad light. When pressed, you will admit that of course there are haters and useless people on both sides, but in your posting your criticisms and defences are entirely one sided. You dont "have" to do anything, but you reveal yourself for exactly the kind of partisan you are when you do this. This is why we get the cute little soliloquy about how good pro israel people are immediately following your list of terrible questions dedicated ONLY to one side and never yours.

And if you cant figure out why "hey pro palestinians, aren't you guys really just haters?" (And i doubt even you think your questions are functionally anything but this) is a terrible question, we are beyond hope. As for the terrible countries question, outside of uttering a "no, there isnt a single other conflict that is broadly representative of this one, but yes on many little details there are many other conflicts" - ie a versuon of what you said - what else am i suppose to say? Your question was entirely generic....so how would YOU answer the same question? Give me a country! You demanded a country, so give me a country! Even if we focus more on, say, a situation comparable to OPE it isnt all that clear what we should use as a comparison....

Personally, i'm not much of a fan of universal standards, a point that has nothing to do with israel palestine. While global laws need to be deontological by nature for practical reasons, im far more utilitarian that generally finds moral proclaimations to be highly sensitive on the unique contexts on the ground. Universal standards tend to be clumsy approximations at best and often fail in highly asymmetric situations (such as this conflict). It isnt that there isnt value in consistency of judgements, there is, but there is also often something lost when the same judgement is applied to different situations unjustifiably. I see it as a balance.

I guess that makes me a hater, by your definition. Of course, someone ignoring consistency and standards may well be a hater, but it doesnt follow necessarily.

Who knows whether a pro-israeli person with a similar dissastifaction with universal standards would likewise be a hater for you, since you only address the one side. And that is the larger point, that the function of your questions is to ask if anyone calling themselves pro palestinian arent they really just haters and if they don't start listing countries and praising the value of universal standards then you are going to conclude they are haters. Does this litmus test apply to pro israeli people? Of course not. It is only the one side you target.

ALLTheCookies' last 10 contributions to this thread:

Did you just now figure out that I am partisan in this debate? Do you believe that inherently disqualifies the information I provide, or the analysis and solutions I offer?

I didn't ask that question - I am arguing, rhetorically, that no, "pro-Palestinians" are not "pro-Palestinians" because they don't give a flying **** about Palestinians except to the extent that they blame Israel for whatever suffering they endure.

There are very few actual pro-Palestinians that I've come across - namely Bassam Eid, Salaam Fayyad, Mudhar Zahran are all Palestinian Arab writers who criticize Palestinian government and society as much as they do Israel (if not more), and are all legitimately pro-Palestinian in that they want what is best for Palestinian Arabs.

In fact, I support the right of Palestinian Arabs to live in peace and security in any Arab country and in Area A and B, without discrimination. I support equal rights for Arab citizens of Israel. I support building the economy of the territories. I am very opposed to Arab discrimination against Palestinians. I condemn how Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Gulf countries treat Palestinians as second class citizens, all things that I've never read in this thread by any self-declared pro-Palestinian. By this measure, I am more pro-Palestinian than anyone in this thread.

This is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Standards can and are obviously adjusted to account for context and power imbalances. Obviously any particular Israeli policy or action should be judged against similar situations. I provided you a specific example and now you're whining. Stop being obtuse.

Hardly a new revelation, if you have been paying attention you will know it is my longest standing criticism of you. While it is true that in theory one can make a choice to unilaterally defend one side and criticize the other and restrict to only making reasoned analysis with true and not selective information, the desire of partisanship often leads people down the path of trying to defend undefendable positions and become full of fundamentally bad analysis with selective information. You are a case study in this.


I dismissed your questions as functioning precisely to rhetorically paint pro palestinians as being haters and here you just type my point out for me. Makes that easy. What is odd is that you don't see this as OBVIOUSLY HORRIBLE to go around painting pro-palestinians as just being haters of Israel while explicitly defending pro-Israel are not haters. If someone comes ITT and spews nonsense go at them, but I fundamentally reject your attempts to paint - by the name alone - the collective group of people opposed to you in this horrible way, just as I oppose NC Flounce's depition of pro-palestinians as wanting genocide of the jews. You have a more measured criticism, but the structure of trying to negatively paint your opponents - while positively painting your group - is the embarassingly similar.

I'm not denying the existence of anti-semitism or anything, but there absolutely is a wide swath of the american left that does legitimately feel for the suffering of the palestinian people, that is appalled at the horrors of protective edge and so on, and wants a lasting peace as their fundamental goal. I know this was an animating factor for me. And yes, there is a lot of criticism of Israel and a belief that Israel is exacerbating and extending this conflict wrongly, but this is far from having being a hater as the principle motivation.

Conversely, there is plenty of guttural islamophobia and hatred and blame of arabs and/or palestine, and a desire to harm them in the american right, with little giving of ****s as to the actual people of Israel who are just convenient pawns of this political fight. And there are well meaning and well reasoned people legitimately caring about the suffering of Israelis in this conflict who view Israel as far less at fault than the left might. But you ONLY talk about the worst part of the opposite side and the best part of yours. Pro-Palestinians are the haters, Pro-Israelis are great people! No. I fundamentally reject these attempts.

Oh I am sure you are VERY able to offer criticisms like this of other arab countries. And ditto all your explanations of how terrible palestinian leadership is at actually helping palestinians. Still fits into the us vs them, they are bad we are good thing you do day in and day out.



As I say, it is a balance, and this is undoubtably one side of it. But there are pretty big limits practically here, and most deontological systems - and our international codification of laws in specific - tend to fail in a wide variety of ways. For instance, just because someone like the US engages in a military action that is legal according to international law isn't going to be sufficient for me to claim that action is moral. And no, this is far from obvious: for instance, you have STILL not provided a country to compare the situation to despite demanding we tell you a country to compare it to.

But either way, the point is that being a utilitarian and not someone who kowtows to the efficacy of always appealing to universal standards doesn't make one a hater. And there is nothing pro palestinian or pro israeli about this point, yet you ONLY ask it of the one side.

I presented several examples of people who actually advocate for Palestinians instead of just against Israel. If you know of more who post here, feel free to provide one. Otherwise, you're just spewing hot air.

No doubt. Let's take you as an example. You've admittedly made your points about Hamas for having encouraged civilians to be outdoors in dangerous areas, demanded witnesses lie to journalists, threatened journalists who discovered these tactics, and used civilian hospitals as headquarters, but can you show me a post where you advocated for Palestinian rights outside the context of the Israeli conflict? Attacked the Palestinian Authority for its domestic policies? The education system? The government structure? Encouraged other countries to finally grant citizenship to their Palestinian Arab refugees? Do you have a counterexample where you advocated for anything Palestinian that does not consider Israel or Hamas to blame for it? Have you ever advocated for Palestinians in any situation other than where Israel was at fault? Anything that disproves my argument?

For someone who has dismissed my criticism of journalism and UN reports for doing exactly this (creating a story) by arguing that the conclusions are still technically true, well, lol.

That's not what I do, so lol. I have no interest in demonizing Palestinians, as I've explained to you repeatedly.

Nor should it. Would common state practice be such a standard? Would the fact that Israel undertakes measures and policies unique in the world to protect civilians (leaflets, phone calls, cancelling operations, using ground troops instead of air artillery) in a military action be "moral"? Would the fact that the civilian-military casualty ratio, even in the most biased and absurd measurements, is about the best as compared to all other wars in urban areas in human history? Or do you ignore such things because you don't like standards?

If there was a sentence that showed that you still haven't read a single thing Ive written in the last few posts, this is it. I provided you with an example and link where I previously used several countries for comparative purposes to analyze an Israeli policy. Further, I never made a demand that critics provide a single example of a country that covers the conflict.

You really should read better.

Hold on, did you just claim that "fundamentally bad analysis with selective information" is the "very nature of argument"? Wow, that explains a lot. Edit: ah I see you deleted this. Good, that was just embarassing.


Again the ridiculous standards. For pro palestinians, you demand a list of people who aren't just against Israel. For pro-israelis not a pepp about whether they are really just against palestine. You proudly and explicitly told us you were trying to rhetorically argue that pro palestinian people are really just haters in large part. Pro israelis get defended in contrast. Everything about your posting is to denigrate the other side and prop up yours.

Remember the context. NC Flounce accuse pro palestinians of wanting the genocide of the jews. He was rightly banned for this disgusting attack on the other camp. You don't provide a hint of opposition to his remarks, but segue into describing your more moderate but still ridiculous arguments about how horrible pro palestinians are, that they are really just haters, in stark contrast to your plaudits about pro israelis. The tactic of unilaterally attacking the group of your opponents is horrible. Shame on you.

Hold on, what? We are talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and partisans on both sides of that conflict. I'm not criticizing either the Israel or Palestine ****ing education systems and neither is the GOP, neither is the american pro palestinian left. I don't particularly care about Palestinian education any more or less than Pakistani, Israeli any more Irish; what is the animating factor here is the geopolitical and military conflict. That's the core of what is being debated in the Israel Palestine thread. And we are going to agree on the vast majority of nonconflict issues as members of western society (for instance that Israeli democracy is vastly superior to whatever you want to call Palestines government system).

But notice your blatant hypocrisy here. You are not attacking pro-Israeli people because they are not going around overtly talking about other aspects of Israeli society unrelated to the Israel Palestine conflict. You are not going after the GOP for seemingly being uncaring about domestic political issues in Israel and largely just going around demonizing palestine and worrying about military support to Israel. The "talk about stuff other than the conflict" point is nonsense, but you are not even fairly applying it.




Sorry, I'm confused on what you are referencing? I don't recall making a point like this about the most recent report if that is what you are talking about....


And yet over and over and over and over you are criticizing the one side and defending the others. Do you deny this behaviour? Of course your charitable "explanation" (that you only criticize palestinians to inform your policy prescriptions) is one you don't even propose as a possibility for the pro palestinians you have tried to argue are just haters.

Nor should it. Would common state practice be such a standard? Would the fact that Israel undertakes measures and policies unique in the world to protect civilians (leaflets, phone calls, cancelling operations, using ground troops instead of air artillery) in a military action be "moral"? Would the fact that the civilian-military casualty ratio, even in the most biased and absurd measurements, is about the best as compared to all other wars in urban areas in human history? Or do you ignore such things because you don't like standards?


I will remind you waht you said: "which country are you using to compare to Israel when criticizing it?". How would YOU answer that? You didn't say for a specific situation like religious language. Am I supposed to give a list of examples of specific issues and comparable questions? Am I allowed to give a similar "sometimes you can, sometimes there isn't a good comparison" type platitude?

But the important point is this: do you commonly challenge pro-Israel people in this way? This is the source of your hypocricy, more than it being a terrible question.

Incidentally, you might be interested, on the topic of religious language (which you will recalled I opposed both the Israeli and Irish examples), I have a jewish colleague who is bravely fighting legal battles to get away from having to say the Canadian citizenship oath which includes deferences to our monarch and head of the Anglican church.

I don't think this has been posted unless Gamblor and Uke snuck it in somewhere in the tldr;.

June 28, 2015 Palestinian public opinion poll.

Lot of interesting things in there, mostly showing wide division on a lot of different things among the population.

I went looking for it because an article mentioned that only 25% of Palestinians in the WB and Gaza think the Iran Nuclear deal is good for Arabs.

Of all the results the most one sided is thankfully that 84% see ISIS as a radical group that does not represent true Islam, 10% say it does.

http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/613

lol, that is not what you said, and that is not even what I said. good god you're disingenuous.

really? NC Flounce listed several who post exclusively against Israel and never have anything to say about Palestinians outside of blaming Israel. I even offered you the opportunity to show me a post where you addressed any element of Palestinian society that is not blamed on Israel. You continue to avoid doing so.

Of course I strongly believe my side, in the aggregate, is the more justified and moral actor. I do believe people whose entire position on this conflict is just criticism of Israel are haters and should be denigrated. If you want to show me "pro-Israel" posters who do the same for the Palestinians, feel free - that's how argument works. You don't get to just reply "I REJECT YOUR BIAS, SIR" and collect your points.


do you reply to every "pro-Palestinian" who says stupid things?

Is there a phrase that you use more, with less justification, than "shame on you"? Shame on you.

False. I can point to hundreds of posts of Howard Beale, microbet, PayoffWiz, and a bunch other #TeamIsrael posters who have posted all sorts of details about Israeli culture, society, education, government, laws, that make the criticisms simply false.

So go ahead and provide a counter example.

Did you see the bolded part? You have repeatedly and disingenuously asked for a general country comparator. I have insisted all along that the country comparator is criticism and situation-dependent. You have denied that. Your own quote shows you how bad a reader you are. When you criticize it, presumably some policy or detail, you ought to use a comparator for that criticism.

Of course you can give those answers. But you never do, because you said that Protective Edge was full of horrors and blamed Israel for an overreaction. But you provided zero comparator to how other countries have reacted in similar circumstances; with the elected genocidal government of a territory shooting rockets at urban population areas from embedded positions in UN compounds, hospitals, and encouraging and/or forcing civilian casualties. Can you show me any situation in which a country responded less assertively?

No you can't, because your criticism is not based on any reasonable standard of judgment - it is based entirely on some fantasy of morality that no country has followed in the history of man. But, whatever, you're not the one who takes on risk if they follow your demands, so let's criticize away.

You still don't know what hypocrisy means.

Nothing in the Jewish State law referred to religious language; being Jewish is not a religious denomination, it is a national denomination. There is no requirement to pray to a God or to fulfill Jewish religious law if you are an Israeli citizen that does not identify as Jewish. There is and has never been an official religion in Israel, and no citizen is required to say any oath to anything other than the State. So in that respect, Israel is more secular and democratic than Canada and all of those other countries.

In any event, you'll recall that I praised your argument in that conversation as reasonable and fair, even if I disagreed with it. Because I'm exactly not the kind of hypocrite you accuse me of being.

Good luck to Dror, who is obviously Israeli. Israelis don't stand for being told what to do.

this is exactly the kind of post that non-haters make and that I've never seen a single #TeamPalestine poster make itt. uke_master can prove me wrong if he wants. No criticism, just fact. Good post.

Noteworthy for the purposes of this thread:
51% support the two-state solution and 48% oppose it.
34% support the one-state solution and 64% oppose it.
54% oppose and 44% support a mutual recognition of national identity of the states of Israel and Palestine.
86% support submitting a complaint against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
67% support popular non-violent resistance and 49% support return to an armed intifada.

Thanks.

Check out my undertitle from before the software update.

Of course people believe their positions are the justified ones, nobody has a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with you denigrating people who ARE haters, and undoubtably there are some in this thread and sometimes I have joined with you calling them out and sometimes I have dissented when I don't think you are doing so fairly. What I am objecting to is the broad brush, blanket attempt to paint "pro-palestinian" advocates generally as simply being haters, which is what your rhetorical questions were arguing. I don't mind you having a bias, but I reject the hypocrisy with which you raise standards to your opponents that you don't to your own side.


I can't think of a better justification than when someone is trying to broad brush paint people following the very label of pro-palestinians as simply being haters while delibering plaudits to your side. Especially as a segue from someone who had just gotten banned from saying pro-palestinians wanted genocide, which I sure hope was unintentional but is truly horrible timing.


You are confusing the basic logic, badly. Sufficient, but not necessary. I'm sure there are plenty of people, jews in particular, who ARE genuinely interested in the culture and society of Israel. But the point is that it is not necessary to care about these various domestic issues to be on the pro Israeli camp of the dominant geopolitical and military conflict that is the Israel Palestine conflict. Most of the GOP are adament pro-Israeli supporters, but most of them neither know nor care about the inner working of the Israeli education system. One simply is not automatically a hater just because they are animated about the Israel Palestine conflict, but not by stuff like the domestic education systems of these countries. And the fact that some non-haters also care about these things just isn't a counterargument.

The problem doesn't rest, however, on your conflation of being a hater with focusing on the conflict but not domestic issues. The problem is your hypocrisy with which you apply this ludicrous standard. You didn't challenge pro-Israeli people in general with how much they care about domestic issues. You didn't make a general announcement about how people who focus on the conflict are haters. You ONLY mention it for pro palestinians.


I have asked - and you have yet to answer - for you to give what you think would be an acceptable response to your original question, but with the roles reversed. ""which country are you using to compare to Israel when supporting it?". Now if you gave a very specific issue, then maybe we could look at that. If you talked specifically about religious/ethnic/cultural codifications by the state then sure you would know to talk about Ireland. But without any indication of what the specific issue, one can't answer a general question as to what country one is comparing a totally unspecified "criticism" to. It is just a nonsensical question.

And here is the kicker: it is criticism you ONLY asked of pro-palestinians. You didn't start asking pro-Israeli people what countries they were comparing Israel or Palestine to. You ONLY did it of one side. Do you not see how this is blatantly hypocritical?

One sec, do you have a good comparison for OPE that isn't meaningfully different in a large and immediate list of ways? Can you even name one that meets everything on that short list of descriptors you just typed out? We are capable - you and I alike - of conducting our analysis of this conflict directly without just resorting to comparison to analogous situations, and I'm not sure what exactly you think the problem is other than you seem to not like my conclusions.



Applying different standards to your political opponents than you do to your own side is basically the definition of hypocrisy.

Sigh. Have you really descended to the point where you are questioning pro palestinian posters of being able to make factual posts? Seriously? That in 115 pages of this thread you have never seen a member of the opposite side make a facts based post? Seriously?

Granted, recently at least there isn't actually a currently posting regularly ITT who is a #TeamPalestine member I actually respect (but then there are like four regulars perhaps that I do across both sides). So if you want to make a comment that SenorKeeed and tripy are terrible posters, well, sure, go ahead, but to whatever degree this post is questioning pro-palestinians generally then it is just loltastically bad.

Although I'm curious: where would you put me? I'm obviously more #TeamPalestine than you. I like to think I make posts with, ya know, facts, and not just blind seething hatred of Israel. Do I qualify? Honestly, this thread was a bit of a surprise when I first came into because of exposure to the series of very bad posters. My IRL circle is canadian lefty academics. Lots of pro palestinians amongst that bunch, and I've mentioned before how I have swung back quite a bit from my early omg who is this chomsky guy must repeat everything he says days. But generally this group, for whatever their failings, are animated at their core by empathy for the very real suffering of the palestinians. They aren't just anti-semitic haters, but people who use facts and quote polls and analyze situations and do some from a good place and come to different conclusions than you do, and sometimes I do. Your bleating about the moral failings of pro palestinians just doesn't work.

Not that there were no Jews in the area before 1948, but considering just the sections where Arabs were either driven off or they fled and were not allowed to return. Considering those areas, compare Israel to the United States.

65 years ago Israel became an independent country and some people were displaced.

Wounded Knee was only 58 years before that.

The groups that controlled all the US at one time are largely on reservations in these areas:



There are 3 million Native Americans. Per capita income for Native Americans is less than half Americans in general.

As recently as 1973 there was an armed rebellion at Wounded Knee where 1200 Native Americans were arrested. Over 500 treaties were made an broken. It's not all ancient history. What do we do now? We try to put nuclear waste dumps on reservations. Yucca Mountain is sacred to the Western Shoshone. Has Israel tried to turn the Dome of the Rock into a waste dump? In 2007 the Lakota Freedom Delegation Asserted the Independence of the Lakota Nation from the US. Any chance of the UN recognizing the Lakota Nation?



I don't know about the Lakota specifically, but everyone knows that this and far more is actually right and fair and legal. But, what are the chances that we just pull out of Omaha?

But I do - and I am happy to agree where posters "on my own side" fail if you want to point it out every time. But as you note in your very next post - there simply isn't one on "your side" that comes anywhere close to reason itt. That's not unique to this forum and it certainly is representative of - though not universal to - the "pro-Palestinian" camp, in my experience and in the experiences of many. Again, all you have to do is show me a counterexample. Not hard.

It was a stupid comment. Frankly, he makes all sorts of them, some good, some bad. But iyo, is he more representative of the typical 2p2 "pro-Israel" poster or less? Is my characterization of "anti-Israel" posters here representative, as you seemingly admit in your next post?

How many of your Canadian lefty-academic friends have advocated for the rights of Palestinians in Lebanon or Syria or Jordan? Nothing you said has addressed the point - that "Pro-Palestinians", even those who do not profess to "hate" Israel, do not notice when Palestinians suffer, unless Israel is causing it. That may be a function of the selective media they consume, or a genuine hatred. It doesn't matter why - where Palestinians suffer, they only notice or care if Israel is the "cause".

Of course not - one is a hater because they blame the problems of one side exclusively on the other, and they advocate only to blame that one side. It's not hard.

Here are four "Palestinians" suffering. One suffers due to Assad's siege on Yarmuk or even IS mass-murdering. One suffers because of the stupid policies of the Hamas or Fateh government on electricity or economy. One suffers because the UNRWA deliberately blocks his repatriation or settlement and perpetuates his refugee status. And one suffers at a checkpoint during a riot. Maybe a fifth, an Israeli citizen, faces discrimination.

I consume tons of "pro-Palestinian" advocacy. electronicintifada, mondoweiss, mainstream arab news, al Jazeera. The vast, vast, vast majority is all about that fourth and fifth Palestinian. In fact, anything on the first three is typically hidden. Some write about all five.

Let's now look at GOP advocates, as you seem to prefer - is their conversation limited entirely to Israelis who suffer at Palestinian hands? When they justify Israeli actions, do they talk about how Palestinian attacks necessitate them? Of course- but they also talk about Israeli tech innovation, because they want to characterize Israel as a modern, liberal, innovative, Westernized country. That's the mainstream narrative.

Not so for "pro-Palestinians", not because "Palestine" is incapable of becoming such a country, but because its advocates have generally chosen thus far to focus entirely on how much suffering they undergo at the hands of the israelis. that's the mainstream narrative.

If you want to argue that you, or even most "pro-Palestinians" are outside that mainstream of discourse, go nuts, i'll listen to evidence. But I'd bet I'm more familiar with the mainstream "pro-Palestinian" camp than you are, and my characterizations are absolutely accurate.

You can't be serious. You're just doing horrible on this one. Give it up.

I've explained to you several times that it is a basic principle of justice that all are equal before the law. That principle is not just a detail of legal jurisprudence, it is a fundamental way of looking at the world that you really should consider. I'm fine with analyzing situations against a theoretical model of behaviour, but you didn't do that. You are not merely analyzing, you are judging. You didn't say "here was an alternative action that would yield better results". You said "here was a horrible overreaction."

If you want to say "the US did better against the uprising in Iraq" or "Assad did better against the rebel camps", or literally anything else, feel free and we can compare. If you want to say "this particular mission could have been avoided for this and that reason", okay, let's look. But you just issue blanket judgment, based on a few incidents like the kids on the beach - which, as it turns out, were playing in a closed Hamas facility.

When judging, you use a standard by which all nations are compared, not just one.

no, it's not. hypocrisy is about having standards, not applying standards.

The United States was a colonialist enterprise. Even in the "West Bank", Jews continuously inhabited the region for milllenia, suffering from the colonialist rule of the Muslims, Arabs, Ottomans, and British. So it's a fundamentally flawed comparison, but the history was interesting to read nonetheless.

To the left, the underdog is always right and the favorite always wrong. That's usually correct too.

I'm not saying it's totally wrong in I/P either, but the complication here is that a super underdog is incredibly reluctant to make peace in a war that started 67 years ago.

I don't think the Palestinians have much blame for that though. Because it is Israel, which contains holy Islamic sites, any Palestinians who want to keep fighting will find some outside support.

FYP.

Also, the importance of Islamic sites in Israel is vastly overstated by Palestinan advocates. Nobody outside the Palestinian sphere gives a **** about al Aqsa or anything else in Israel. I've seen lists of "most important Islamic sites", in Arab newspapers outside "Palestine", that don't even include it. Eretz Israel was an unimportant backwater to them before the conflict, and it will always be.

The Palestinian issue, for them, has always been a nice mix of
1 part Arab nationalism
1 part fight against perceived colonialism
1 part managing the population i.e. their problems are really caused by the "West"/Jews/etc" and not the government/themselves

imo, the Arab world hates Israel, but they also are sick and tired of the Palestinians shooting themselves in the foot, over and over, with the UN, with negotiations, with fighting a war they can't win and simultaneously demanding the rest of the Arab world support them.

Now that Iran is a much bigger problem, the taboo of talking with Israel is breaking down. The problem of Iran's meddling in the Arab world will be much worse than a few idiot Arabs who keep ****ing themselves over, so that will be ignored.

Perhaps I haven't made myself entirely clear. There are certainly pro-Palestinians out there. I named several. Some are even very critical of Israel. But the mainstream of "pro-Palestinian" discourse - the major Palestinian Arab politicians themselves, the advocates that write op-eds in major media outlets and cover events and influence "pro-Palestinian" opinion from complete nutcases like Greta Berlin, Max Blumenthal and Gilad Atzmon, to more refined haters like Rania Khalek, Diana Bhuttu, Norman Finklestein that demonstrate and draft resolutions and hold events, is decidedly not pro-Palestinian for the reasons we've been through for 24 hours now.

If you want to declare yourself outside that group, I'm open to listening. In fact, the sum total of your criticism of Israel that I've seen is your deep, robust analysis of Protective Edge: OVERREACTION.

I hadn't even considered you were "pro-Palestinian" except to the extent that you make my life (and mine alone) miserable here by having to walk you through everything.

I mentioned the holy sites especially because I was thinking about the contrast between Israel and Bosnia in regards to wars where non-Muslims were beating Muslims. But, regarding the bolded, that could also have more to do with Bosnians not being Arabs. I think Israeli victories are a huge assault to the pride of Arabs.

An interesting statistic is the percentage of people in Gaza who feel that Hamas/Gaza won the recent war. Perhaps you could construct a way in which they won because of increased support for recognition in the UN or something, but isn't it really more about pride at having caused some damage in Israel?

That's a correct analysis imo

Arab nationalism and Islam get mixed up badly in Western mainstream thought, and that's in no small part due to the efforts of Arab nationalists conflating the two (not that idiot rednecks and racists know any better).

So, then what's sort of baffling is the connection between Persian Shiites and Palestinian Arab Sunni.

And Shiite vs. Sunni seems to trump Arab nationalism in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.