You can't separate Hamas' objectives from Israel's objectives, as Israel's objectives aren't performed in a vacuum. To do so is intellectually dishonest.
Prof. Mearsheimer Lecture In Australia
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Tulsa is absolutely clear in what he thinks "should" be done. He's an "ethnic cleansing" kinda guy. I personally appreciate the forthright honesty.
Tulsa, I think you've accurately captured Israel's plan.
This is a huge condition - "I would remove the Palestinians and tell Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran they are taking them."
- Any thoughts on contingency plans?
- What is the population that would need to be expelled?
- What if Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Egypt decline the offer to take the Palestinians? Should the US take them?
- What if the Palestinians say "no thank you" and stay in their homes?
Last edited:
I agree that Hamas objectives should eventually be considered, but first let's at least attempt to decouple "what Israel doesn't want" from "what Israel does want".
Tulsa has already fully aligned with Mearshiemer's "Ethnic Cleansing" scenario and sees it as fully justified. If you're fully aligned with "Ethnic Cleansing" then you're in agreement with what Mearshiemer states as Israel's clear objective.
What do you see that Israel wants? And what are they doing to achieve these goals? What are their stated goals?
How do you see this working out for Israel in 1 year, 5 years, 15 years?
What does Israel want? Peace. Not just for a day. Not just for a year. But a lasting peace. That's their stated goal. And they are willing to fight to get it.
In an ideal world, you see a split similar to what India and Pakistan went through decades ago. The '2-state' solution. But that only works if BOTH sides are amenable. Israel can be made amenable, because they are part of the world stage. They want US trade. They want European trade. They've shown that they are satisfied with putting up a wall and calling it a day. Make the wall a border and move on? Sure. But that only works if the Palestinians would accept such a segregation. And they won't. They recognize they'd become just another Pakistan. A country led by barbaric warlords who spend half the country's miniscule GDP on weapons to attack their neighbors rather than on developing into a modern society.
@Ponca Dan
May I offer some constructive criticism?
First, instead of just linking to the video, summarize the key points you think people should get from professor Mearsheimer. I think you'll get higher quality discussions.
Second, everyone of these people you are arguing with will go on record that they are fine with every single Palestinian dying a violent death if that's what it takes to eliminate Hamas. Do you think some egghead professor telling them its ethnic cleansing is going to move them at all? There are reasonable people out there that can be reached on the issue of Palestine, you won't find them here. There are reasonable people here that you can have meaningful discussions with on a range of topics, but Gaza is not one of them. Move on.
May I offer some constructive criticism?
First, instead of just linking to the video, summarize the key points you think people should get from professor Mearsheimer. I think you'll get higher quality discussions.
Second, everyone of these people you are arguing with will go on record that they are fine with every single Palestinian dying a violent death if that's what it takes to eliminate Hamas. Do you think some egghead professor telling them its ethnic cleansing is going to move them at all? There are reasonable people out there that can be reached on the issue of Palestine, you won't find them here. There are reasonable people here that you can have meaningful discussions with on a range of topics, but Gaza is not one of them. Move on.
So here we are then. Israel is left with only one option, a completely justified option - complete Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians - a Final Solution.
How many Palestinians are there in Gaza and the West Bank?
What if US, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq all decline to facilitate Israel's Final Solution?
I disagree with your position. The logical next step will be the elimination of Hamas leadership and fighting capability which will entail a significant number of civilian casualties. Once they are eliminated, Israel will return Gazans to their apartheid status until they elect new leadership that's willing to try something other than rockets and suicide bombs as their diplomatic solution. There won't be an ethnic cleansing. That's a made up narrative intended to rile the masses, such as yourself. If Palestinians won't choose peace, then Israel will go with the 2 nation option and will turn responsibility of the Gazans from soup-to-nuts, to the UN, that way when Gazan's start firing rockets, they'll be able to say that its the UN that's attacking them, and then you'll have US and European troops (UN peacekeepers) in Gaza trying to rein in the next Hamas-like terrorist organization.
At least you admit its apartheid. What did the Palestinians in the West Bank do to deserve their apartheid?
If Israel is anti bombs and rockets as a means of diplomacy why was Netanyahu funding Hamas before Oct 7?
Most of the time, Israeli policy was to treat the Palestinian Authority as a burden and Hamas as an asset. Far-right MK Bezalel Smotrich, now the finance minister in the hardline government and leader of the Religious Zionism party, said so himself in 2015.
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
“I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of Jordan - and this is contrary to a Palestinian state,” Netanyahu said in a post on X
I watched it. Why do you think I asked, "Which plan should Israel choose going forward?" I answered that question as well. I disagree with him in that it has morphed into Genocide. Israel has earned through their own ability to militarily defend their boarders, their country. They have bled for it, and throughout history that is how you earn your own country. You can't just create a country; it has to have a purpose. You think it is genocide. He calls it ethnic cleansing. I call it forced ethnic migration. Which is how France became France (Francs). I don't think the status quo can last in the ME. There are too many power centers and power vacuums. What the US needs to do is figure out which power centers we want to help maintain, and which power vacuums we want to destroy (militarily if needs be). Israel is a power center we want to keep as an example. If you want, I can get more detailed, but I will leave it at that for now.
Israel states their objective is to have and maintain a Jewish state. This is a matter of survival at this time. Another objective would be to rebuild the Jewish Temple this goes along with the growing of their culture. This is not an actionable reality at this time, but if that changes, they will work toward it. They must have stability first. Here is an article from the University of Tel Aviv on the subject. It's from 2020 but it's still valid.
https://www.inss.org.il/strategic_a...ional-objectives-a-comprehensive-perspective/
Israel's actions are primarily wrapped up in its own survival since 1948. This is simplified a bit, but it can be summed up in that context.
Israel has traditionally given Arabs a choice. Stay and be a partial citizen or leave. Many chose to stay because they are profiting under Israeli rule. Which is ok.
I think the answer lies in this approach. Currently Jew's equal the Muslim. They should think about a number that would be acceptable to allow to stay, and number to leave. Again simplified. What that number is would be based on the militantism of the families involved.
No the US should not take them. If they decline the US should find a way to diplomatically get them to say yes. What is their price? Then if they get a number take that number to the UN and force the world to pay for it as Israel was the UN's baby.
If the Palestinian's want to stay, that goes back to the option. However, Hamas/Hezbollah and organizations like them should be wiped out, militarily if needs be. If they are not willing to abide with Israeli Jewish rule, then and wish to continue to fight, then they will get what they want, and it wont end well for them.
At this pointing going farther than 1948 can be problematic. For now, we should keep it post '48. It doesn't mean that the past going back thousands of years doesn't being context, it just means that for now, we need to focus on the immediate needs.
If I'm not mistaken you're recommending a combination of selective forced Ethnic Cleansing in phase 1, then Apartheid in phase 2.
And you're fine with Ethinic based Genocide, if belligerent starving poorly armed Palastinians resist. Resist and you die essentially.
That's going to be a very difficult sell to both the Palestinians and the nations you want to fund Israel's program.
Do you see any parallells with the Ethnic Cleansing of Native Americans her in the US?
Any parallels with the Nazis cleansing of their Jewish population?
That's because you call it things that it is not. Ethnic cleansing implies your killing people. Ethnic migration says your moving. I'm OK with apartheid meaning, but it implies to people that the minority would be the ruling culture, and in this case it would be the majority. I wouldn't use genocide but instead call it defense.
You have specifically chosen inflammatory wording that calls what I propose something that it is not.
No on the parallels. It's not even close to the Nazi's. I do wish we can stop using the Nazi as a example of things. No one knows what it is or what it means so it's kind a horrible example of anything. In this case we are not talking killing all Palestinians and then seeking them out in other countries in an attempt to anialate an entire cultural group.
The Native American example is probably the better example, but has its issues as well. There is a lot of misconception when it comes to that issue as well. For this comparison the US government tried to erase or integrate another culture that was hostile not necessarily through violence, though it was involved, but with neglect and lies. It didn't work. Again not what I'm talking about here. For some on the US side the work was there to preserve culture. Which is the example of what I am proposing. In this it was a success. The Native Americans were going to be run over one way or the other. Thier culture was going to change no matter what either side was going to do. Currently Hamas and the Palistinians have to change their culture or be run over. In the US the reasons for thier cultures to be run over are different as well.
The comparisons of both of these examples do not fit. My ideas on this situation are in some part modeled on what worked with Native Americans instead of what didn't. But the situations are not the same no matter how much anyone tries to say they are. In fact comparing them shows me there is a lack of knowledge about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the Holocaust/NAZI, and Native American story.
I find it amusing some think the conflict is all Israel's doing. while the Palestinians are merely innocent victims.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.
"Ethnic Cleansing" has been used correctly, in a non-escalatory way. If I had meant to claim Genocide, I would have used the term Genocide just as Mearschiemer clearly used Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide very specifically.
Agree with your contrast regarding Nazi Germany's Genocide. That was the Genocidal form of full on Genocide, which of course is clearly a form of Ethnic Cleansing.
Through examples I think we have shed some light on many terms that have been kicked around. And having the discussion does not demand we all reach the same recommendations or assessments.
If we rank from what most would be consider Worst to Best, we've looked at
- Genocide
- Ethnic Cleansing
- Single State Apartheid
- Two State
As an American, we normally would push for a Single State Democratic solution but sadly that doesn't work when we have two Religious/Ethnic groups locked in an Old Testament Holy War. Whether the groups want to be in the Holy War or not, they're in it.
P.S. Thanks for having a civil and intellectual discussion. It helps me to un-collapse things for myself as well. Thanks!
Last edited:
This IMO is the real cause of the conflict that everyone goes through contortion to avoid discussing.
That's because you call it things that it is not. Ethnic cleansing implies your killing people. Ethnic migration says your moving. I'm OK with apartheid meaning, but it implies to people that the minority would be the ruling culture, and in this case it would be the majority. I wouldn't use genocide but instead call it defense.
You have specifically chosen inflammatory wording that calls what I propose something that it is not.
No on the parallels. It's not even close to the Nazi's. I do wish we can stop using the Nazi as a example of things. No one knows what it is or what it means so it's kind a horrible example of anything. In this case we are not talking killing all Palestinians and then seeking them out in other countries in an attempt to anialate an entire cultural group.
The Native American example is probably the better example, but has its issues as well. There is a lot of misconception when it comes to that issue as well. For this comparison the US government tried to erase or integrate another culture that was hostile not necessarily through violence, though it was involved, but with neglect and lies. It didn't work. Again not what I'm talking about here. For some on the US side the work was there to preserve culture. Which is the example of what I am proposing. In this it was a success. The Native Americans were going to be run over one way or the other. Thier culture was going to change no matter what either side was going to do. Currently Hamas and the Palistinians have to change their culture or be run over. In the US the reasons for thier cultures to be run over are different as well.
The comparisons of both of these examples do not fit. My ideas on this situation are in some part modeled on what worked with Native Americans instead of what didn't. But the situations are not the same no matter how much anyone tries to say they are. In fact comparing them shows me there is a lack of knowledge about the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the Holocaust/NAZI, and Native American story
Sorry, no it has not: by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.
No problem on the civil discussion.
You’re in error. This is a “famously killing free *voluntary* ethnic migration.” Israeli officials say that’s what it is so that’s what it is.
For clarity, I am trying to use the least inflammatory wording that is accurate.
I am not a Leftist Relativist looking to sneak in wording for some Leftist linguistic jujitsu. Save these accusations for your Lefty jousting buddies.
Mearshiemer uses Ethnic Cleansing accurately, as do I, whether you agree or not.
Do you have a better term for systemic anti-democratic policies based on race, ethnicity, and religion than Apartheid?
You and the wonderful doctor are not using the term correctly. Ethnic Cleansing was first used in the former Yugaslavia. The element that gets you there is systemic murder and rape. You can say Hamas is trying to Ethnic cleanse from the river to the sea. That would be correct usage.
I will never agree with your usage of it or the good doctor, as I got to see it first hand in Kosovo.
What I am proposing is called Ethnic migration. The key element is that there is no rape and murder to achieve the results you want.
As a point of comparison, what my Google search on the Kosovo War shows is 7-8,000 deaths, 850K expelled, 600K displaced internally, and 10-20,000 women raped.
It's early on but looks like the Israel/Palestinian conflict is on track to exceed the Kosovo "Ethnic Cleansing", except for the rape count.
I'm not tracking with you on what seems to be a razor thin delineation between Kosovo and Israel/Palestinian actions.
But no worries as seems we've run Mearshiemer's talk for most of what it's worth.
Have a Blessed Memorial Day weekend!
Anybody who listens to American media specially the conservative ones knows nothing about what is going around the world they feel America and Israel are always right.
An old friend of mine came to attend my daughter's wedding we have done business over the years.
His opinions on Israel are amazing since he is Jewish and has dual citizenship American and Israeli.
He thinks Netanyahu has gone crazy and so has Israeli right and will be result of their total downfall.
Like Israel or not, Israel is in a real pickle now. Your friend seems to have a similar view as Mearsheimer. Not clear how they weave their way out of this one.
A couple of Speilberg Holocaust movies or "War of '67" remakes doesn't seem to be enough to turn US sentiment, much less world sentiment on this one.
Yeah we heard the same shit from you leftards about Trump when he was POTUS. He is gonna start WW3, he is insane, he is senile, he is unstable blah blah blah and yet here we are with this POS that is what you and your ilk accused Trump of.
Keep spreading your Terrorist Propaganda that only Tards and Antisemites believe.
Seems like a good place to drop this.
I see the evidence of my incorrectness is so abundant that you failed to find anything in your likely 5 minutes of Googling.
He wants you to read more because he wants you to read and believe his version of history. It's kinda like "his truth." If you say anything other than his truth it's not real.
