> My friend, this is the reason we are unable to keep this conversation going. You are putting words in my mouth.

My apologies, I took your evasion of the homeland border issue as evidence that you didn't want to treat with the fact that it's completely unresolvable. If that's not the case, I'm happy. But you're still not giving ground here and unless you do, you're basically siding with and supporting the aims of the folks who want to ethnically cleanse the levant.

Once more, to repeat: Israel's actions in and administration of the West Bank and Gaza are terrible injustices. But they're stable injustices and just "turning off" Israeli dominance in the region, which seems to be your goal, is going to hurt things very badly.

<< My apologies, I took your evasion of the homeland border issue as evidence that you didn't want to treat with the fact that it's completely unresolvable.

No worries. It was an evasion guided by trying not to muddy the waters further. I am not sure, bringing border issue into the mix would make anything clearer. It would likely force us down the history lane along with all the distractions associated with it, discussing sources, whether they are valid, biased, accurate and so on.. and while I am sure it would be a really interesting conversation to have, I do not think I am the right person to discuss it.

<< you're basically siding with and supporting the aims of the folks who want to ethnically cleanse the levant.

I purposefully choose not to align myself with either. I am, as it were, neutral, partially because I have no direct stake in outcome ( although I am open to argumentation on this front -- would you be able to make a case for it being useful to US interests ). If it makes you feel any better, I approach question of Ukraine in roughly the same way ( and I technically have a bigger stake in outcome there ).

<< But they're stable injustices and just "turning off" Israeli dominance in the region, which seems to be your goal, is going to hurt things very badly.

I find the phrase 'stable injustices' interesting and I suppose it does speak to something deep within us when as long we know something bad is coming, it is not as bad, because it is just the way life ( currently ) is. All of a sudden, its all ok, because it is, what it is. Might as well complain about the weather really. Pointless.

Do you not find it mildly depressing that you have effectively excused 'terrible injustices' by saying they are at least stable ( and predictable I suppose )?

As for goals, I am not sure I have actual goals here. If I did, I think this conversation would be more structured. But it isn't. I chat with you in this manner precisely, because my mind is not made up and, if it helps, you do offer interesting counter-arguments.

With that in mind, can you elaborate on how 'turning off' Israeli dominance would 'hurt things very badly'? I am a sucker for balance so it is possible I am missing something.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll try.

Assume that October 7 is what Hamas and Hezbollah would do on a much larger scale if Israel were militarily weaker than them. (You could, for example, take the Hamas charter as reason to think that.)

In that process nine million people get killed or displaced, with "killed" being a significant fraction. That's orders of magnitude worse than the status quo. Note that "who's right" has nothing to do with that evaluation - it's just based on the body count.

That I think is the case that the current "stable balance" is better. Even though it is tragic, brutal, and deadly, it still is far better than what could happen if the equilibrium were destroyed.

But this argument is totally dependent on whether you believe that Hamas and Hezbollah would do that. Personally, after October 7, I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you may see it differently.

> Do you not find it mildly depressing that you have effectively excused 'terrible injustices' by saying they are at least stable ( and predictable I suppose )?

More than mildly so. But it remains the best option.

> With that in mind, can you elaborate on how 'turning off' Israeli dominance would 'hurt things very badly'? I am a sucker for balance so it is possible I am missing something.

When you want to kill someone else, but they are overwhelmingly superior, you can't. So you won't try, for the most part. When their power wanes and yours grows, there comes a point where you think you can win. And that's when you roll the tanks.

"Balance" is about stability, not equality. Fuck with Israeli dominance and eventually Iran sneaks enough weapons into Gaza that we see Hamas start to take and hold territory. How is that better?

I have to give it to you. It is not better ( defined as value of 'total amount of suffering generated' ) so it is a decent counter-argument from that perspective. I will need to digest it, but I think you can count this post as a point in your favor.