Israel, Palestinians, context, history, chicken and egg

[libre]

"Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians"

Admittedly I have not participated in some of the threads and have a few users on ignore.
Feel free to pull up the receipts if I am wrong, but this strikes me as misinterpreting criticism of Israeli aggression as trying to justify Hamas.

The users I have seen frequenting these threads being critical of the IDF were not defending Hamas.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My context is clear.
If a nation is killing more civilians (and more children) than enemy combatants, then that nation is doing war wrong whatever the justification of the war is.

That may well be true but, just so I'm clear, could you offer (let's say) three examples of a just war that was done right.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians".

This is a straw man, created because it's easier to
argue against than the common pro-Palestinian
view, which would be expressed instead by...
"Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians".

It's about why Hamas exists & does what it does.
Peace for all means that Israel must end the oppression,
killing, & eviction of Palestinians.

 

[icehorse]

This is a straw man, created because it's easier to
argue against than the common pro-Palestinian
view, which would be expressed instead by...
"Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians".

It's about why Hamas exists & does what it does.
Peace for all means that Israel must end the oppression,
killing, & eviction of Palestinians.

and of course, you took it out of context, good for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

and of course, you took it out of context, good for you.

What do you think the word "context" means?

 

[icehorse]

What do you think the word "context" means?

It has several related meanings. In this case you took a snippet out of a larger statement. The meaning of the larger statement is different than the meaning of the snippet standing alone.

You changed the context, as you're wont to do, sigh.

 

[Revoltingest]

You changed the context....

No.

 

[sayak83]

That may well be true but, just so I'm clear, could you offer (let's say) three examples of a just war that was done right.

I have to check which wars had more combatant casualties than civillian ones. I think most conventional wars would qualify. That was original point of you see my post....I do not want to go into just war question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It has several related meanings. In this case you took a snippet out of a larger statement. The meaning of the larger statement is different than the meaning of the snippet standing alone.

You changed the context, as you're wont to do, sigh.

No, he didn't. It's literally what you claimed people's arguments "boiled down to". It's very explicitly a strawman.

 

[icehorse]

No, he didn't. It's literally what you claimed people's arguments "boiled down to". It's very explicitly a strawman.

Here's what I said in the OP:

I see a lot of finger pointing going on in these RF discussions, and a lot of the finger pointing seems to boil down to:

"well your side started it". E.g. "Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians".

If we look at post #44 - which is AN EXAMPLE of many similar posts, we see an example of this finger pointing. This is AN EXAMPLE of the sort of chicken and egg arguments I was talking about in the OP.

So.... back to the OP,

How much historical context are posters making when they make conclusions about this conflict?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Here's what I said in the OP:

If we look at post #44 - which is AN EXAMPLE of many similar posts, we see an example of this finger pointing.

No, we don't. He doesn't say anything even remotely implying Hamas is JUSTIFIED. That very post makes the distinction very clear between saying "Hamas is justified" and "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians".

This is AN EXAMPLE of the sort of chicken and egg arguments I was talking about in the OP.

Just like the OP is an EXAMPLE of an argument that isn't being used on RF, despite you saying that it is. Hence, it's an EXAMPLE of a strawman.

 

[icehorse]

is a result of

this is a chicken and egg argument. I don't have any problem with chicken and egg arguments, I just want to know where the poster begins using history to come to his conclusions.

In other words if X is a result of Y, then what is Y a result of... Z maybe? And what's Z a result of? And how far back should we go? And how far back is the poster going?

This kind of analysis is common practice, it happens in our legal systems all the time. For example, "self defense" can be seen as a legal way to shoot someone, given the correct context.

So once again, with jazz hands, this Israel - Palestinian situation is super complex. Some posters apparently think it's not, and I'm genuinely curious to know what context they're using to make it so simple in their minds.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

this is a

You're not acknowledging the point being made, which is that your characterisation of the arguments being made in the OP is false.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the argument "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians" is NOT the same as the statement "Hamas is justified"?

 

[icehorse]

You're not acknowledging the point being made, which is that your characterisation of the arguments being made in the OP is false.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the argument "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians" is NOT the same as the statement "Hamas is justified"?

I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Do you acknowledge that both of those statements imply a context?

 

[Revoltingest]

this is a chicken and egg argument.

Bad analogy. Time means the egg is the
chicken, & the chicken is the egg. Israelis
& Palestinians don't become the other.
Better analogy...
Cheron vs Lokai

Also ran analogy....
Itchy & Scratchy

 

[icehorse]

Bad analogy. Time means the egg is the
chicken, & the chicken is the egg. Israelis
& Palestinians don't become the other.
Better analogy...
Cheron vs Lokai

Also ran analogy....
Itchy & Scratchy

Stop derailing this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop derailing this thread.

I directly addressed your post.

 

[icehorse]

I directly addressed your post.

Stop derailing this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you or do you not acknowledge that the argument "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians" is NOT the same as the statement "Hamas is justified"?

Though I was not the one asked, I certainly acknowledge it. I also believe that the first statement is awkwardly simplistic and borders on ugly victim-blaming.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you see a meaningful difference between the following two claims?

1. "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians."
2. "The continued success of Hamas is, in part, a result of Israel's treatment of Palestinians."

 

[Revoltingest]

I also believe that the first statement is awkwardly simplistic and borders on ugly victim-blaming.

That statement borders on denial of Israel's
culpability.
But I'll go further than the other poster, & say
that Israel's brutal regimes are indeed to blame
for violent rebellion against it.