[lots2learn]

It's not complicated at all. The party of this conflict which is the settler-colonizer would like everyone to believe it's complicated but it's quite simple: A people were ethnically cleansed from the lands they lived on for centuries and those people continue to be oppressed and subjugated till this day, not only denied to return back to the lands they were expelled from, but continue until now to be forcibly expelled from the small amounts they remain on.

[bawolff]

I mean, that kind of demonstrates my point though - your narrative could be applied to whichever side you prefer.

"A people were ethnically cleansed from the lands" - From context you are probably referring to the Nakba, but you could just as equally be referring to the Jews being kicked out of Arab countries in the 40's and 50's. Or any number of other events for whichever side you prefer.

There's plenty of blood to go around in this conflict.

[lots2learn]

What are the "other number of events"? Please be specific. Regarding what happened in various Arab countries in the 40s and 50s (which by the way is after the nakba so the tit-for-tat theory doesn't hold up) what does this have to do with Palestinians being ethnically cleansed? Are you justifying one for the other? It's no different than saying because of the European Holocaust or European antisemitism, the Palestinians deserve to be ethnically cleansed.

[bawolff]

> What are the "other number of events"? Please be specific.

Why? Its not relavent to my argument and a full history of the conflict wouldn't fit in a hn comment. I'm sure wikipedia has a big timeline of events of this conflict.

I'm claiming your narrative of events could fit either side. Your narrative only mentioned ethnic cleansing once so i only need a single event to make it fit. There are sadly a number of events that probably fit the bill of ethnic cleansing so i picked the most famous one in the region. It doesnt matter how many so long as its at least one.

> (which by the way is after the nakba so the tit-for-tat theory doesn't hold up)

I did not claim that it was. I only claimed that both events fit your narrative of events.

> what does this have to do with Palestinians being ethnically cleansed?

Nothing? I didn't claim that it had anything to do with that.

> Are you justifying one for the other?

No. Obviously two wrongs don't make a right.

----

My claim is that your view of the conflict as "simple" makes no sense as a way to cast judgement on which side is right as the things you mention arguably happened to both sides. So if you think that justifies one side, than logically you should say the same thing about the other.

Unless you want to say both sides are wrong, which i suppose would be logically consistent.

[lots2learn]

> Why? Its not relavent to my argument

Your argument is that my statement framing the current conflict in Palestine as "A people were ethnically cleansed from the lands they lived on for centuries and those people continue to be oppressed and subjugated till this day, not only denied to return back to the lands they were expelled from, but continue until now to be forcibly expelled from the small amounts they remain on" applies to either side. I charge that you haven't provided any evidence that it applies to the Jews. You bring an example of Jewish expulsion from other parts of the world after 1948 (which does not fit the full description of the statement anyway) but then admit that it has nothing to do with the Palestinian plight or the current conflict.

[bawolff]

Which part do you think doesn't fit?

I believe the example i gave does fit. I understand from your post that you disagree but i can't figure out what specificly about it makes you think it doesn't fit. What is the part that isn't fitting?

[lots2learn]

Everything from "..continue to be oppressed" until the end. But again, the main point is how does your example have anything to do with the framing of the current conflict in Palestine and what the Palestinian people are undergoing?

[s1artibartfast]

the reality is that past injustices can not be fixed. nothing would undo them, from an ethical or practical perspective. people need to agree on a path to move forward, taking into account the reality of the situation, and if they can, they have to accept the alternative.

Palestinians have some moral high ground with respect to the nekba, as it was a disproportionate escalation. Israel has the highground with respect to de facto power.

[lots2learn]

If we can all agree that UN resolutions and international law should allowed to be implemented, that would be a path forward better than what's currently happening.

[s1artibartfast]

There is a very long list of what would be better than the current status.

None of them can work until the Jews and Palestinians actually want to stop killing each other.

They are currently stuck in a prisoners dilemma.

Who knows, if you are an optimist, maybe the destruction of hamas will be through enough that a successor accepting of current boarders comes to power.

This is the only way I can imagine things moving forward.

[lots2learn]

This is a false portrayal of the conflict. Israel wants to finish ethnically cleansing the west bank (as they have been doing and continue to do until this day) and want to either keep Gaza as a concentration camp or ethnically cleanse it as well. Palestinians want implementation of international law and UN resolutions which require a return to 67 borders and a right for Palestinian return. There IS a right and wrong side here and portraying the conflict as both sides just wanting to kill each other is obfuscating with the intent of portraying both sides equally at fault and thus the conflict hopelessly unsolvable.