The levels of hate have gone beyond reason and strategy and reached ethnic cleansing and suicide bombing. More than anything else I want the united states to stay out. Second to that I hope that they can return to a peace process before the scale of the atrocities stain their (Israeli) flag forever and ours by abetting. (Hamas' flag has guns on it, it can't get a lot worse.)

In my opinion you shouldn't be worried about that possibility, the presence of the US in the middle east right now is probably just to deter other parties from escalating the conflict. The US has no interest and no intent for entering Gaza, Israel has the resources to deal with Hamas on it's own.

One of the most important parts of this conflict I think which most people here aren't talking about ia the geopolitics in the middle east. Most of this is still just a big old proxy war spear-headed by Iran. All the big terrorist groups and actors in the region wheather it be Gaza-based terror groups like Hamas or Lebanon's Hezbollah are funded and controlled by Iran.

There's a whole Wikipedia page on it, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Israel_proxy_co...

Israel has bombed airports in Syria only a few days ago. They seem willing to strain the American protection and could little by little provoke an escalation involving regional powers, leading to our involvement. The one thing that could make this catastrophe worse is if America is drawn in.

One need not forget that Israel too has no interest in an all out conflict. Also the syrian attack iirc was to prevent Iran's foreign minister from landing there.

Everyone's (except maybe Iran's) hope is that this conflict does not escalate any more.

Not only a few days ago, they do that on a regular basis by now because there are regular shipments of weapons by Iran. Syria in its state of civil war doesn't have much influence in the northern regions, where Iran tried to deploy the weapons against Israel.

> People on this part of the world have been killing each other for a good 3000 years or so.

This is a really nasty way to dismiss it imo. It explains nothing but just assumes the conflict is inevitable. What, is the land cursed? Are they bloodthirsty barbarians who can't do anything else?

No, there are specific grievances in the recent past and ongoing. This is not some mythical blood feud with its origins lost in history. Israel as a modern nation-state did an ethnic cleansing to get itself started a few decades ago. People are mad about that, and it's in living memory you don't need to reach back to the obscure 3000-year-old whatever.

It is a lie that Israel was founded on an ethnic cleansing hiding the fact that the Arab league wanted to wipe out all Jewish settlements. Just like it happened in other Arab countries at that time and just how they want to do it today.

War erupted which Israel won and hence their claim to the land. They did not ethnically cleanse anyone, in many cases they even bought the land, which I have never seen in a similar conflict. Usually it is just taken.

Man what do you want to call the forced removal of an ethnic group from a geographic area so they can be replaced by another one? Ethnic cleansing has been the accepted term for this for a couple generations but I'm flexible on nomenclature here as long as we agree that the forced removal happened.

If we don't agree that it did then we literally cannot have a conversation across this boundary on this subject. I also don't see how you can adequately explain the current situation in the region when you deny this part of its history but that's your problem I guess.

Any admittance of fault would be abused and very one-sided, so we cannot have a discussion on this topic indeed. I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.

If you only hold discussions where one party must confess to ethnic cleansing, conflict is inevitable.

No I hold plenty of discussions where no one has to confess to an ethnic cleansing. But only ones where neither participant has committed one.

> I stand by my statement that the accusation of ethnic cleansing is a hideous lie.

What does it mean "stand by" a statement that an assertion is a lie without attempting to refute the assertion? This is a nonsense action, it is nothing. I said I'm flexible about the vocabulary we use when we talk about what happened, so what happened? Why do so many palestinians live in gaza? Why aren't there more of them in other parts of israel?

I'm giving you an opportunity to describe it on your terms. So describe it.

You haven't put forward any argument that would allow for such a severe accusation, so I can dismiss it w.ithout comment just fine.

I am not flexible about the vocabulary of ethnic cleansing for that matter. It has a very specific meaning

I'm not making an argument, I'm making an assertion that you called a lie. So clearly you understood the point I'm making, I don't see that it requires further litigation on the details.

So, again, what happened? What is your description of the events that led to palestinians being so concentrated in gaza, and no longer living in the land they inhabited before.

Again I am giving you an opportunity to tell this story in the words you prefer. What, other than your cowardice, is preventing you from taking it?

Heh, no, it definitely doesn't need any litigation of the details at all as the case is pretty clear, your honor.

It is their own making. It is safe to be a Palestinian in Israel, while you probably don't want to be a Jew in Gaza.

You wouldn't want to be an unarmed german in an unsupervised corner of auchswitz either but that's hardly a condemnation of the prisoners is it.

https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide

That comparison doesn't fit because the Jews in Germany didn't want to exterminate Germans. That was Nazi propaganda. Perhaps that perspective survived from the closeness of Hitler with the Mufti.