As I see it, UN at least is documenting everything as it happens to its members. Hopefully it can be kept unbiased for a long time. If you start kicking left and right, there will be no UN to overlook events.
Maybe without a UN, we would already be having a WWIII. It is impossible to weight its influence, but I very much doubt it is having any nefarious effect.
No need to sledgehammer the world until it gets better
Too much faith/credit in the UN. With the security council, not much has or can happen. Beyond that there’s also incompetence. Look up jadotville or Dag Hammarskjöld (suspected to have been assasinated)
In 1986, then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said, “Supporting Israel is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”
Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name. You'd have a better shot at dissolving the UN entirely than suspending Israel.
What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.
> Israel is a satellite state of the US in all but name.
The US is more reflexively pro-Israel than Israel is pro-US in international policy, the opposite of what you’d expect if Israel was a US vassal.
> What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council
There are lots of reasons, but one that renders all the others secondary is that the US can’t add permanent Security Council members.
> considering it is a nuclear armed state.
India, Pakistan, North Korea, and, when it was a nuclear-armed state, South Africa also are (and were) not permanent UNSC members, a set whuch hasn't expanded, though two seats have switched hands, since the UN was founded.
Russia is there because they wouldn’t even come to the table otherwise, and it’s more valuable to have a hobbled organization than one that doesn’t include significant powers. The others don’t have permanent slots because they joined when they had less power, or they never gained enough power to bargain.
Russia isn't a founding member because they're not the same as Soviet Union. Ukraine on the other hand is one of the founding members.
Just by allowing Russia to keep the permanent seat of USSR legitimizes their revanchist goals to regain the territories they controlled during the cold war
The best move UN could do is to kick Russia out of permanent seat as it was done with Republic of China, US has the mechanisms to do it but sadly they never will
We can discuss American misadventures and horrible decisions in the aftermath of 9/11, but equating the U.S. military to Russia, which effectively has rape and torture as part of its doctrine, is more than a stretch.
To be clear, I totally expected a comment like that, but I can guarantee you 1000% that no Ukrainians will be hanging on to Russian cargo plane wheels once they are booted out.
Guantanamo was and is a thing, there are literally handbooks on how to torture used by the American military. The American military also has a long, rich history of systemic sexual assault. Heck one of my friends was sexually assaulted by a service member to the point of hospitalization and he received no punishment or recourse. I also think reporting on Russian military by western media is largely propaganda, it’s hard to know what’s true and take.
Well, you can't just show your cards THAT quickly. It's so hard to know! You can see the leveled cities from space, but "everything is possible and nothing is true". Okay.
This is often repeated but is historically VERY incorrect. Yes, Israel does lobbying in the states and does influence (like every other country). The current Israeli government is indeed terrible and blatant at that.
However, Israel left Gaza in 2005 with no deal as part of US pressure (which led to the current situation). Israel offered a Palestinians a country which included east Jerusalem twice based on US pressure. Israel left Lebanon alone due to such pressure.
Israel didn't attack Lebanon for a year and tried to settle due to US pressure despite an average of 25 rockets per day towards civilian population.
Imagine a country being attacked and fired on for nearly 20 years (by Hamas) and keeping reposes "moderate". That's US pressure and influence right there. Israel delayed going into Rafah due to US pressure, it turns out Sinwar and quite a few hostages were there...
The reason it seems that US pressure isn't working is mostly because no one knows what to do exactly. Hostages are still held by Hamas. Hezbollah is still firing rockets/drones even now. I'm 100% for a hostage exchange but right now there's no deal, part of that is because of Netanyahu (who is terrible) but not all of it. The US can't fire Netanyahu (I wish they could...), and that's a problem. They want to strengthen anti-Netanyahu forces within Israel while still moderating its actions, that's a very tight rope to walk on.
Israel never left Gaza. They surrounded it. They controlled the entire land border and didn't let ships sail or planes take off from Gaza. It's as if, after a prison riot, all of the guards just said fuck 'em and decamped to a perimeter around the prison with machine guns with orders to shoot to kill. Gaza is way too small and densely populated to be remotely self-sufficient.
Now, just to short-circuit the reply chain, you're going to say that Hamas would have just used the borders to move in weapons. Sure, that's true. In fact, they dug a bunch of tunnels under the Israeli controlled border crossings and smuggled in a bunch of weapons. Normal stuff like food and medicine though were constantly blocked or delayed.
By the way, I don't know how to solve this problem well at this point. Both sides have done enough evil shit to each other that they will want to kill each other for generations. Israel though, has never withdrawn from Gaza, and Israel has never agreed to abide by the terms of UN Resolution 242 that obligates them to withdraw from the 1967 occupied territories. What I expect to happen based on the ground reality and statements from members of the Israeli government is that the Palestinians in Gaza will either die or have their lives be made so intolerable that they leave, and then Israel will annex the land, just as they have in Jerusalem and many areas of the West Bank.
Israel did withdraw from Lebanon though, this wasn't effective at all at promoting peace as we're now seeing, and same thing has happened in Gaza; Israel did uproot all the settlers from Gaza and there was no single Israeli soldier left in Gaza - you can say the Gaza withdrawal was incomplete but saying it never happened at all is incorrect.
Unfortunately Israelis only learned that withdrawals from enemies who have sworn to destroy you only make things worse for them.
Israel does not exist around Gaza. It exists on two sides of Gaza. On the Egyptian border, Israel has made an agreement with Egypt to prevent imports and exports, and on the Mediterranean, they prevent access to the sea by force.
Israel has long prevented the import of all sorts of goods. They do not provide "everything necessary." Israel also has prevented the export of almost all goods, so that the Palestinians will have no money and be completely dependent on Israel to provide for basic needs.
I'm sure you're right that if the border were opened up that Hamas would import weapons and attack Israel, which is why Israel surrounded Gaza, as I said.
As you say, "peace requires proof", but that goes both ways, and ever since Camp David collapsed, Israel has likewise proved that it does not intend to make peace by further expanding the settlements, and generally making the lives of the Palestinians intolerable, often in capricious ways that do not enhance Israeli security.
The very obvious long-term goal of Israel is to drive the Palestinians out of the occupied territories and annex them for Israeli use.
I think we're in agreement then. The current, democratically elected government of Israel intends to remove the Palestinian population and annex the territories.
When you talk about "a*holes like Netanyahu", he's the Prime Minister, and has been for something like 17 of the last 30 years. He speaks for the country. If Israelis don't support his actions, they should elect someone different.
No or not exactly. What's missing is the nuance and in this case it's everything. Netanyahu voted 4 times for the law that bans Jewish settlements in Gaza. This law is still in effect.
Yes, he has coalition members that want to repeal that law and are actively trying to resettle Gaza, but the IDF stops them because it's against the law. Yes, they want to repeal that law but even within their extreme coalition that would be tough.
Saying Israelis should elect someone different is even worse than saying Americans shouldn't elect Trump. This lacks nuance and understanding in how elections and parliamentary systems work. This is also the exact argument Israelis make about Hamas: the people of Gaza voted for them. Both are bad arguments.
Netanyahu got roughly 30% of the vote in Israel. He built a coalition based on many conflicting parties. On the one hand he has the fascist extremists. They got a large number of the votes thanks to unification within their ranks. Then he has the Hasidic Jews, they don't care about anything as long as they get paid. This coalition brings him to roughly 50% of the voting populace, he won in a landslide by a 3000 vote difference in the last election. The reason is mostly due to the collapse of the left due to electoral complexities in the way votes are tallied.
Netanyahu himself lacks ideals and is practically made of Teflon. He switched ideological sides multiple times, charged with crimes etc. Prosecution of his crimes just solidifies his base which chucks all of that to "leftist persecution". It's remarkably hard to break that cognitive bias. Guess what helps that cognitive bias?
A sense of persecution. "Everyone is against us" is his greatest slogan. The "pro-Palestinian" rallies were the biggest gift Netanyahu could receive and have bolstered his grasp over Israel. He's pointing at them as "we can't trust western countries", he isn't wrong. Every time Biden tried to pressure Israel politically or by leveraging weapon shipments this actually boosted support for Netanyahu. It's stupid, but it's a fact.
Biden understands that which is why he showed strong support to the Israeli people. Unfortunately, the leader at that time was Bibi and it's really hard to show support for Israel while attacking its elected leader directly. It is a very tight rope and I don't think Biden could have done much better. Especially given the recent claims that Trump has been calling Bibi and encouraging him to avoid a deal.
I wish people abroad would understand this nuance, but it doesn't play well on TikTok. It also doesn't have a nice slogan or rally. We need people to support both Israel and the Palestinian people while demanding their respective far-right factions get out of power.
I understand that Israeli politics is complex, but ultimately it’s a democracy, and Netanyahu is who was chosen, repeatedly. All of those far right parties that make up Netanyahu’s coalition got real votes and they represent a real slice of Israeli opinion.
If Israelis want something different they just have to vote differently in the next election.
The U.S. cannot just pretend Rabin is still in power and send money and weapons with the idea that Israel desires peace at the end of the day, because that faction is (as you say, for many reasons) no longer a majority in Israel.
As for Hamas, yes they were elected, and that does have significance, but also that was 18 years ago, and most of what would be the current electorate wasn’t even old enough to vote back then.
Ultimately as it stands though I believe both sides of the conflict wish to conquer the other, and the U.S. should just decline to support either side.
> If Israelis want something different they just have to vote differently in the next election.
So 54% of Americans (which includes a lot of Democrats) support deporting millions of Mexicans. These are law abiding non-citizens who are contributing to the economy, yet most Americans want them gone.
Is it surprising that a Trump like demagogue is successful when the people in question actually do commit mass murder and want to destroy the country?
The reaction to violence is never, OK I was wrong... Let's settle. It's always violence in response and the weaker side always suffers.
> The U.S. cannot just pretend Rabin is still in power and send money and weapons with the idea that Israel desires peace at the end of the day, because that faction is (as you say, for many reasons) no longer a majority in Israel.
The first part is 100% true. Things changed. The problem is that your base assumption is completely wrong. You need to understand why the US sends weapons to Israel and that has a complex and long history. First, it sends weapons because it gives jobs to Americans. Israel demonstrates the quality of the weapons and improves them.
Back in the day, Israel was completely embargoed. In the 60s it would buy French weapons and collect money to afford that. It developed its own industry but on the eve of war the French cut off Israel. Despite that Israel won, big time. It then started making the best weapons on earth. Guns like Uzi became the hot tool for everyone. Even its planes started selling everywhere and were pretty good. The US started selling weapons to Israel both to eliminate the competition and to improve its own. When Israel got its early shipments of US made planes it would rip out all the avionics and push in its own. US made avionics and weapons systems at the time were crap. They no longer are, guess who made that happen?
But Israel is also a powerful ally. E.g. Sadam Husain would have a Nuclear weapon were it not for Israel. So would Assad. Israel killed quite a few terrorists on the US most wanted lists and provided a lot of support in the middle east on things where the US would rather stay neutral. It enabled keeping countries like Egypt and Jordan on the western side of the fence and serves as a balancing tool/lightning rod in the region. That has value.
The more interesting thing is what would happen if the US would stop weapon shipments. This would be very bad for everyone. Most Israelis would see it as proof that they are alone again. This would mean Israel would need to show deterrence. It still has a massive security industry and still makes some of the best weapons around, it still has stocks of weapons but would now need to make them all count. It would mean a massive aggressive attack.
Why?
Without US support Israel would be concerned that this would serve as a signal for Iran or even Jordan that Israel is now "fair game". That can quickly deteriorate to nuclear war to keep deterrence clear.
Finally, look at countries like Turkey which just bombed many civilian Kurds. They are a member of Nato and no one is even talking about it... Obviously no one cares just like no one cares about Sudan, China etc. None of those causes have TikToks or advocates since they have no sponsors.
Both Turkey and Israel have similar problems. Authoritarian leaning leaders who are slowly dismantling democracy. The solution in both cases is difficult, most aggressive action can accelerate this process and make things worse for everyone. There aren't any good answers here.
> As for Hamas, yes they were elected, and that does have significance, but also that was 18 years ago, and most of what would be the current electorate wasn’t even old enough to vote back then.
As I said, I think it's a silly argument but don't expect a different result prior to the war. Hamas controlled UNRWA completely and was teaching pretty horrific stuff. If anything I'm afraid the situation is worse.
See Egypt, given democracy they instantly picked the Muslim Brotherhood which is a fanatic organization. The education in these countries is mostly comprised around religion and a pretty extreme perception of said religion.
> Ultimately as it stands though I believe both sides of the conflict wish to conquer the other, and the U.S. should just decline to support either side.
It isn't a "both sides" scenario.
Israel has a law that disallows settlements in Gaza, signed by Netanyahu. The IDF specifically stopped settlement attempts there. Yes, there are extremists in the government who want to revert that law. But they don't have the votes for that. Biden has drawn a red line related to that and to violations of Leahy. There is a status quo, it might seem more extreme than in the past and Bibi is indeed stretching the boundaries but there is a line.
The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S.
The actual reason the U.S. sends weapons to Israel is two fold. One is as a carrot to continue the peace process. The permanent allocation to Israel started when Camp David I was signed. The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote. If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist. The second reason still does which is why it continues, despite being against the interests of the U.S.
Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry. While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be. Netanyahu has always been about creating physical conditions that cause a two state solution to be politically impossible, regardless of changes in the Israeli government.
It very much is a "both sides" scenario. I'm not going to argue about exactly which side is more unreasonable, but ultimately so much water has gone under the bridge that I don't think a settlement is possible, and I'm not interested in paying taxes to supply weapons to fuel an unresolvable conflict. If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it.
> The idea that sending weapons to Israel is some sort of economic or military advantage to the U.S. is sophistry. We could simply take those same weapons and add them to our own inventory and use them in ways that actually benefit the U.S.
A huge number of US politicians disagree. It's fashionable to claim that they are all stupid but the fact is that this just isn't true. Looking at Israels success in missile defense and similar technologies it shows where the R&D collaboration with the US has made both more successful.
If the US won't send weapons Israel would just make its own and in the past made fantastic weapons. Including great fighter jets that were approaching F16 level in the 80s.
> One is as a carrot to continue the peace process.
That is true too.
> The second reason is that a lot of people that support Israel live in the U.S. and they vote.
That is also true. Today that's mostly the evangelicals though.
> If Israel no longer desires peace, the first reason doesn't exist.
This isn't true. First it assumes Israel doesn't want peace which is detached from reality. Peace exists with Egypt, Jordan etc. Israel returned territory it captured at war and signed a peace deal. All sides abide and this works well.
It can very well be argued that the current war is because of peace pressure against Israel. Israel left Gaza under US pressure to do so with no deal. Despite repeated attacks from Hamas it didn't go back in and maintained status quo. US pressure worked but created a powder-keg in Gaza that blew up eventually.
US pressure using the weapons as incentive worked very well, but you can't just wish peace to happen and force it on some people.
> Yes, Netanyahu stopped the settlements in Gaza, but again, sophistry.
Netanyahu has one ideal: Netanyahu. He has no morals, no backbone and no principals.
> While the settlements in Gaza were dismantled, the settlements in the West Bank were being expanded, as they continue to be.
As you can see from my other answers here I 100% agree that this is indeed a huge problem. The right-wing used the violence of Hamas as a means to attack the Palestinian authority for the past 3 decades. To be fair the Palestinian authority isn't great (e.g. lynching Israelis by tearing them limb from limb) but I agree that this is awful. The only way to solve this is to remove the two zero-sum entities: Hamas and the current government of Israel. The latter might not be removed in the next election, but the pendulum will eventually swing back...
Without Hamas things would hopefully calm down for a while.
> It very much is a "both sides" scenario.
No. The fact that there are bad people on both sides is true. But that simplifies the situation. Israel wants a Palestinian state and tries to achieve that. Yes, it has some lunatics but unlike Hamas even in the current government they can't do anything.
Hamas just wants to kill all Israelis. No law other than Sharia law. No civilian differentiation.
But the real horrible thing about Hamas is that they don't care how many Palestinians die as part of their Jihad. They consider the death of their own children as a bonus, they would go to heaven as they die heroes. Israel has never been like that. If Hamas had the firepower of Israel there would be no Israeli left. The reverse isn't true despite everything.
> If Israel wants to turn Gaza into rubble, leave millions of people homeless, and year after year take more land in the West Bank, I suppose we can't practically stop this, but personally I don't want want any part of it.
The thing is that Israel can do it and doesn't.
Furthermore, once the war is over it will help rebuild Gaza as it did in the past. The war isn't against the people of Gaza, it's against Hamas whose an enemy of the people of Gaza. It's a terrible organization that murders gays, believes domestic violence isn't a crime and brainwashes children to commit suicide bombings.
Yes, the war is terrible and violent. But what's the alternative?
Leaving the hostages to die?
Letting Hamas regain power and do another round of the same thing?
Violence is terrible. Always. But sometimes the avoidance of violence doesn't work. It just shoves it into a pressure cooker; it will be worse later on. We saw that with the 2005 deal. Israel left Gaza and tried to mostly ignore Hamas, that didn't work out well for anyone.
> A huge number of US politicians disagree. It's fashionable to claim that they are all stupid but the fact is that this just isn't true. Looking at Israels success in missile defense and similar technologies it shows where the R&D collaboration with the US has made both more successful.
If the US won't send weapons Israel would just make its own and in the past made fantastic weapons. Including great fighter jets that were approaching F16 level in the 80s.
I don't doubt that they would make their own weapons, and I'm sure they'd be pretty good. From a standpoint of U.S. interests though, collaborating with Israel hasn't been that great. Israel took U.S. money and tech to develop that F-16 level jet (the Lavi), and then covertly sold the design to the Chinese. Meanwhile, when the U.S. wanted to send Israeli produced, U.S. owned SPIKE missiles to Ukraine, Israel blocked the transfer.
> This isn't true. First it assumes Israel doesn't want peace which is detached from reality. Peace exists with Egypt, Jordan etc. Israel returned territory it captured at war and signed a peace deal. All sides abide and this works well.
Yes but the settlement with Egypt where land was returned was 45 years ago. Israel is not the same country it was back then.
> Israel wants a Palestinian state and tries to achieve that.
Based on Israel's actions, and the statements of Netanyahu and a couple of ministers, I don't believe this. I think that they've given up and intend to remove the Palestinians from the occupied territories.
> But the real horrible thing about Hamas is that they don't care how many Palestinians die as part of their Jihad. They consider the death of their own children as a bonus, they would go to heaven as they die heroes. Israel has never been like that. If Hamas had the firepower of Israel there would be no Israeli left. The reverse isn't true despite everything.
That's probably true, and so I also do not support sending weapons to Hamas.
We both agree that this is a very difficult problem. Personally I see no practical long-term solution, because the demographics of Israel have changed and continue to change in a direction towards more right-wing nationalism. Many peace-oriented Israelis (incl people I know personally) have left Israel over this. I don't think that if things calm down that minds will gradually change and a deal will be struck, because when things were relatively calm, Israel continued to expand the settlements and continued to oppress the Palestinians in numerous unnecessary ways. The Palestinians rightly don't believe that if they just stop attacking Israel that eventually they'll get their state.
How do you see there being a positive resolution in the long-term?
> Israel took U.S. money and tech to develop that F-16 level jet (the Lavi),
Its development was started based on prior Israeli Jets so the technology was Israeli. Funding was given to keep an eye on the project and control. Israel had far superior avionics which eventually went into US jets as a result.
> and then covertly sold the design to the Chinese.
It's unclear if it was sold or stolen. Regardless the technology is ancient by today's standards. This was 20 years after the project was disbanded and possibly had reduced classification by then.
> Meanwhile, when the U.S. wanted to send Israeli produced, U.S. owned SPIKE missiles to Ukraine, Israel blocked the transfer.
I agree that's pretty terrible. Israeli governments did a lot of shitty moves like that and still does. But it's not alone in that sense.
First, this is pretty standard stuff when selling weapons. You can't sell them to 3rd parties without permission. This is true for US weapons that are sent to Israel and any country selling weapons.
The main logic behind this is that Israel is concerned about escalating against Russia. There are many Jews in Russia which might be on the receiving end of retaliation and there is deep Russian presence in the middle east (notably Syria). I can understand that concern and we don't know all the facts since a lot of it has to do with information that isn't exposed to the public.
But I'm 100% with you that Israel should have been more helpful to Ukraine. It set up a field hospital and helped later on with some knowledge transfer but not much beyond that. At least not publicly.
Back to the main subject though. Israel is sharing a ton of information with the USA using spy networks. There's a lot of collaboration in preventing nuclear armament in Iran, Syria and Iraq.
Israel did a lot of the dirty work the USA just can't do. After Afghanistan and Iraq it is pretty clear that the USA is losing its deterrence and Israel can do the stuff the USA doesn't want to do officially. It can wag its finger publicly but approve of the result in some of these cases. E.g. the Hezbollah people that Israel killed in Lebanon had US bounties on their heads. Furthermore, the level of destruction is indeed horrible, but it's deterrence. The US can then enjoy both sides: It has the higher moral ground of avoiding the dirty work and chastising Israel. But it still gets the impact of "you mess with the west and we can get you anywhere".
> Yes but the settlement with Egypt where land was returned was 45 years ago. Israel is not the same country it was back then.
The settlement with Jordan was 30 years ago. The Oslo accord with the Palestinians is still in effect today.
Yes, I sadly agree Israel moved to the right. That is exactly what I would like to fix. The problem is that a lot of the well meaning people are doing more damage than good.
You can't stop a war by taking weapons, it will just make the war FAR more violent since you need to make every bomb count. I very much agree there should be pressure on Israel but it needs to be the right nuanced type of pressure.
> > Israel wants a Palestinian state and tries to achieve that.
>
> Based on Israel's actions, and the statements of Netanyahu and a couple of ministers, I don't believe this. I think that they've given up and intend to remove the Palestinians from the occupied territories.
Sadly that might make more sense in the past tense at the moment. Still, despite all the violence and terrible government there are still Israelis who have hope for a two state solution.
This is exactly my point. How do we change things back so Israelis will have hope again in a two state solution?
The first ingredient is time. Right now we've got a war going on. It's terrible for everyone and should end as soon as possible. If Hamas survives this war in any functional way then the Palestinians will be f*ed. It will do this all over again and things will end up worse. It's in its nature.
But if it's a shell of its former self then there is a chance. There's now a border wall which keeps Israel out as much as it keeps Palestinians in. There are offers such as the Saudi deal which can pave a way for a long term deal. Netanyahu is old by now and since he eliminated any competitor on the right, there is no heir apparent.
> the demographics of Israel have changed and continue to change in a direction towards more right-wing nationalism.
Sadly this is very true. Even worse... Due to the success of the Oslo accord young Israelis don't meet Palestinians and vice versa. It creates a detachment between the people and lets both sides develop antagonism.
Unfortunately when speaking to foreigners the opinions are either you're evil or you're 100% right. Both are the wrong answer. E.g. a friend of mine was living in Ashdod which gets lots of Hamas rockets. About a decade ago we had lunch and he was furious. He told me about the panic in his kids eyes, the started bed-wetting from the fear. They lived like that for a decade with no end in sight.
He said something along the lines of "I don't care what they bomb in Gaza, they're coming after my kids". My answer was roughly "you're right, but that would only make a father in Gaza feel the same way". That worked well.
Looking at things like US funding contributing to the war is problematic. Israelis blame the US for this whole mess. It left Gaza because of US pressure. It didn't go back in because of US pressure. Cutting funding or weapons would be the ultimate betrayal and authorization to do "anything". I think it will make everything worse.
> This is exactly my point. How do we change things back so Israelis will have hope again in a two state solution?
I have no idea. I also have no idea how you'd get the Palestinians to have hope either. Even if Israel were willing to do a two state solution, they would undoubtedly ask for a very limited sovegerenty that would require the Palestinian state to be demilitarized, which would mean that Israel would have to control ports and border crossings to check for weapons, which means they could also do things like they have done in the past like prohibit the import of concrete.
What the Palestinians see is the Israelis constantly expanding the settlements, and so they see that their only alternative to losing their land inch by inch is armed resistance, futile as that may be.
As an American, I don't really see how the U.S. is positively influencing the situation, or can positively influence it. If you look at what's happened in Gaza, yes, Israel is legitimately furious over Oct 7, but the response has killed something like 28,000 noncombatant Palestinians. For all of that, they've managed to get the release of, or rescue 60 or so hostages.
As an American and as a Dad, I don't want to buy bombs so that Israel can kill Palestinian kids. The sense in the media is that Israel expects us to view Israeli lives as being worth 1000x as much as Palestinian lives, but as a gentile American, I view them as equally valuable.
If there were some credible plan that would lead to a resolution of the issue from the Israeli side, it would be a different matter, but all I can see is endless carnage, and I do not want to be a party to it.
> I also have no idea how you'd get the Palestinians to have hope either. Even if Israel were willing to do a two state solution, they would undoubtedly ask for a very limited sovegerenty that would require the Palestinian state to be demilitarized, which would mean that Israel would have to control ports and border crossings to check for weapons, which means they could also do things like they have done in the past like prohibit the import of concrete.
I'm pretty sure a demilitarized state is the only option for everyone involved. I think that seeing the destruction in Gaza might be the incentive that lights a fire under both sides to compromise.
Israel will control border crossings regardless. The west bank can bring in products from Jordan but I'm guessing Israel would demand oversight. That would probably force Israel to tame its expectations. Also as time moves and the deal proves itself Israel could relax, I doubt Hamas will let it relax too much but I'm hopeful on that front.
I hope this can be done as part of a wide region Saudi deal. Biden has been pushing for that and it's the smart move. A Saudi peace agreement will change the region and validate Israels right to exist, it would put a huge damper on Hamas's ambitions.
> What the Palestinians see is the Israelis constantly expanding the settlements, and so they see that their only alternative to losing their land inch by inch is armed resistance, futile as that may be.
That conflates the two situations. Palestinians in Gaza don't have settlements. Palestinians in the west bank (who specifically aren't joining in the war), have settlements.
That's part of the insanity of the Israeli right wing... Hamas is evil so they get no settlements and what is effectively their own country. West bank is mostly moderate so they get settlements and restrictions. This is obviously over simplified but just bonkers.
The Palestinians in the west bank understand the violence when you're the weaker side eventually hurts them. That doesn't mean there are no attacks there (there are), but they are driven by Hamas offshoots and small forces. Palestinian resistance in the west bank is mostly political which makes a lot more sense and IMHO far more damaging to Israel in the long term. I hope Israelis will be able to climb out of their bubble and disassociate the two approaches.
Settlements in the west bank get constructed as response to violence from Hamas. That's an insane policy by an insane government. Things like that can be reverted though, most of these settlements are illegal by Israeli law.
> As an American, I don't really see how the U.S. is positively influencing the situation, or can positively influence it. If you look at what's happened in Gaza, yes, Israel is legitimately furious over Oct 7, but the response has killed something like 28,000 noncombatant Palestinians. For all of that, they've managed to get the release of, or rescue 60 or so hostages.
I see that and I mostly agree (although none of us know the exact number of noncombatant casualties but even one is tragic). That's why Biden's pressure for a hostage deal is so important. I wish pro-Palestinian protesters would march with both flags calling for a deal which is in everyone's interest at this point.
> As an American and as a Dad, I don't want to buy bombs so that Israel can kill Palestinian kids. The sense in the media is that Israel expects us to view Israeli lives as being worth 1000x as much as Palestinian lives, but as a gentile American, I view them as equally valuable.
Don't cast that as a racist war. Yes, Israel has racist just like any place. Also no one on the Israeli side is targeting kids. It's also not about balance (and the number isn't 1000x right now even based on larger estimates it's around 20-40x).
> If there were some credible plan that would lead to a resolution of the issue from the Israeli side, it would be a different matter, but all I can see is endless carnage, and I do not want to be a party to it.
That is understandable, neither do I. But picking up and going home can lead to far worse consequences as the USA saw in Afghanistan. That was tragic on a whole different level and is a continuing disaster to everyone who lives there. America broke the middle east on multiple occasions, right now the options are between bad and worse.
If the USA stops weapon shipments this will:
* Force Israel to use more less accurate armaments
* Let the right-wing claim that "Jews are abandoned again", "we can trust no one"... Then proceed to do whatever they want to do with no concequences
* If it runs out of weapons it might use nuclear weapons for deterrence
As a parent myself I always threaten my kids with punishment if they misbehave. The problem is that when you actually punish them (e.g. throwing away a toy or deleting a game), then you're fed. You no longer have the leverage of the threat and need to either move to more extreme threats or lose any control over them.
Biden is in that position. Obviously threatening Israel with war isn't on the table... But if he does anything, it can seriously backfire. Furthermore, the impact is *much* bigger. Israel is part of a proxy east/west war against Iran/Russia/China. If there's even a hint Israel isn't getting the full support of the USA it can have dire consequences to Ukraine/Taiwan.
Yes, bad people within the Israeli government are abusing that and the US elections to get away with terrible stuff. I very much liked the Biden set of sanctions against settlers. I think they can go further with action like that but it's a delicate needle to thread.
Their slogan in Arabic is "from the river to the sea Palestine will be Arab", the river and the sea are the borders of Israel and its tantamount to "kill all the Jews".
There are many variants of the slogan of course, but for some reason you're picking one of the more uncommon (and more virulent) versions. However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO) use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews, that would replace Israel, and from which nobody will be expelled.
This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
> However, he "official" versions (for example from the PLO)
The PLO recognizes that Israel has a right to exist and has abandoned official "armed resistance" approaches. They understand that this never worked and ultimately only hurt the Palestinian people.
I'm explicitly talking about Hamas and making a clear distinction between them and the Palestinian people at large.
> use the phrase to call for a single democratic state for Arabs and Jews
That was suggested in the past and has gone back in vogue for some extreme liberals but it's probably not what any side wants. I don't think it's something that's workable. See Lebanon as a case in point where three different conflicting cultures are constantly violently clashing.
> This is of course also in line (albeit in somewhat simplified form) with the version one sees almost uniformly on the streets these days, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free", and if you ask people what they mean by that, most of them will tell you something equivalent to the PLO version.
Well... What *some* people mean doesn't really mean anything. There was a Nordic Journalist who recorded pro-Palestinian demonstrations and the Arabic slogans people yelled were VERY different.
But even without that. Hamas is looking at these protests and seeing them as Israel losing support. So they keep fighting, keep holding hostages and keep sending children as carriers. Netanyahu points at these demonstrations as how the world is turning anti-semetic so Israelis MUST fight for their home. And yes, Israelis 100% hear "Palestine will be free of Jews". Trump is pointing at them as a failure of the liberals...
These protests are only helping bad people and increasing strife. If they were indeed pro-Palestinian they would carry both flags in support of a two state solution. They would also support the cause of returning the hostages. They are now for peace, they are anti-Israel protests.
> Meanwhile since 1977 Likud has used essentially the same slogan, but in reverse, minus any aspirations of democratic equality, and with racial supremacy baked in: "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."
That was not an official slogan but yes people on the more extreme right did sing it. People still do and also say worse things. There are several big problems with whataboutism... Palestinians are the weaker part of this situation, violence will always end up worse for them. That's why the PLO abandoned that approach (at least officially excluding lynch mobs), it doesn't help Palestinians to keep that rhetoric.
Also the Likud was the party that voted to leave Gaza. That included Netanyhau who signed that law. A PM who originated from the Likud offered a Palestinian state in 2008.
I'm aware of just one "official" Hamas formulation of the slogan, via the 2017 charter as quoted below. Can you point to any others? We do have that quote from Khaled Meshaal as well, but one doesn't hear it so often.
Hamas’ 2017 charter states that in principle, it “rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.” In a 2012 speech, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said, “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
Regarding the nicer-sounding variants that "nobody wants / aren't workable": That may be, but it is significant that the variant that most folks in their camp at least pretend to believe in (as an "aspiration") is at least nominally non-genocidal. And that the genuinely genocidal variants -- just aren't on display that often.
(Might get back to the other stuff you wrote later)
من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية, "from the water to the water / Palestine is Arab"
Notice that this is nitpicking since the intention is clear to Israelis/Palestinians even in the moderate version of the slogan.
This hurts Palestinians because it discourages their leaders from compromises that might have ended this conflict (see the 2000 and 2008 statehood rejections). It also strengthens the sense within Israelis that there's no partner for peace on the other side.
It's like using the N-word. Once you said that you have that label and feeling, nothing you say will matter to any side.
> As long as Hamas exists in a functioning form there can be no peace.
I think the big problem with this approach is that actions taken now, which lead to deaths, lead to the friends & family of said people becoming more radicalised and thus to more terror attacks/wars in the future.
I read recently in the FT that 60% of current Hamas fighters have lost family to previous conflicts, suggesting that this isn't going to end.
And more generally, it's basically impossible for conventional armies to defeat guerilla fighters who have the support of the population (c.f. Irish/English conflicts, Iraq, Afghanisation (multiple times) etc).
Like, fundamentally the only way this can end is through either extermination or negotiation. Given the relative power imbalances, it'll be extermination of the Palestinians, which would be terrible (and incredibly depressing given that a lot of Israeli citizens are descended from survivors of the Holocausts and the various pogroms in European history).
I used to be of that mindset and no longer am. Hamas killed more people in a single day than the IRA killed in its entire existence. The Irish conflict which is more similar to the conflict Israel has in the west bank, is mostly a territorial conflict.
If it were true that violence breeds violence then Jews would have blown up post war Germany with suicide vests. It was still filled with Nazis and their collaborators.
Hamas is a different story, there's no amount of negotiations or compromise that will placate a fanatic. They will probably keep doing these things forever just like Isis didn't fully go away. But once the leadership got cut down Isis found it much harder to pull off the same level of terror.
I agree that this needs to be a dual motion. Young frustrated people are kindle for these organizations and this won't work without a peace process that would give hope to the people. That's why I don't have any faith in the current Israeli government. I hope it can be replaced so there would be a parallel process that would help rebuild and pave a way for peace again.
I agree that the Irish conflict is more like the West Bank (but that's super super bad and has been for a long time) and that October 7th was much more destructive than anything in the Troubles.
Like, it's worth noting that the core of the nationalist and unionist terrorists still live in Ireland and engage in a bunch of criminality. These organizations don't disband, they just die off/become politicians.
The big problem with Israel making peace is that it appears a solid majority don't want that, which depresses the hell out of me.
A solid majority is for peace and has been for a while. Oct 7th might have screwed the numbers, but they will bounce back. The Oslo accords wouldn't have happened with out a solid majority. Netanyahu himself had to make a speech where he specifically supported the idea of a Palestinian state in order to get elected (see the Bar Ilan Speech).
There are many peace activists on both sides but also a lot of fatigue and disillusionment. Don't let that get you down too. I think once the dust settles things could change. The pendulum always swings to the other side, we just need patience and to set an environment receptive for that. If Trump wins this election things will probably get much worse before they get better. But I think that they will get better even in that worst case scenario.
So kind of them to offer freedom, and sovereignty, both taken by themselves. What a moral high ground they have!
Did they offer reparations too, for the ethnic cleansing in Jaffa, and Haifa, and numerous other villages and cities? I am sure they would even respawn the murdered Palestinian children.
> Most of the Palestinians who fled in 1948 did so because of Arab armies who urged them to move so they can kill the Jews more easily. That backfired. Those who stayed are Israeli citizens and always have been. Those who fled couldn't come back because the borders were sealed due to a war their leaders chose to start.
You mention 1948....but what happened in 1946, and 1947? Aren't those years also relevant? Things like the bombing of the King David Hotel (by Zionist militias) and the Deir Yassin Massacre (same militias again), precede intervention by neighboring Arab states. Palestinians were already fleeing from murder, and they couldn't return to homes which had been demolished by the Zionist militias, and with the rubble mined to prevent people returning.
Sure. Lehi and Shamir are indeed awful and that's why the Hunting Season was justified. There was no similar ability to unify against the extremist voices in the Palestinian side which is the main point I'm making here.
This isn't history. You see the same patterns happening right now. Arafat and Abu Mazen were unable to control Hamas in the same way the Jews were able to control their extremists.
You could argue that the Irish were unable to control the IRA which would be a very accurate comparison. But the scale would be different. Hamas killed in one day more than the IRA killed in its entire existence. Hamas enjoys the backing of Iran, Qatar, Turkey and others. It's used as a puppet to force a regional war that goes against the interests of the Palestinian people. At least the ones who don't want to die in a holy war.
It's good to see a contraction from "Palestinians" to Shamir and Hamas.
We can also contract Jews to IDF and perhaps discuss how they kill 10x more than Hamas by most accounts.
The killing is the extreme behaviour. The insidious cause is the constant slow creeping pushing out of the other, the dispossesions and land captures that continue unabated.
> We can also contract Jews to IDF and perhaps discuss how they kill 10x more than Hamas by most accounts.
Why is killing more of the enemy a "bad thing"?
> The killing is the extreme behaviour.
Yes. However, you fail to offer an alternative. Israel left Gaza, Israel made attempts to form a Palestinian state. Palestinians had the opportunity to end the cycle and Israel made that step...
Last time Israel left Gaza Hamas took over. It killed MANY Palestinians then started preparing for war, building rockets, tunnels etc. Israel didn't return to Gaza and tried to limit retaliation. That clearly didn't work.
> The insidious cause is the constant slow creeping pushing out of the other, the dispossesions and land captures that continue unabated.
This I actually agree with. I think the settlements in the west bank, especially the deep ones are a huge mistake. Guess what enables them...
> Some see it. Other refuse to acknowledge it.
Goes both ways sir. What do you expect Israel to do?
I wish the current conflict wasn't as violent. I wish more planning was given for "the next day". I wish Israel worked with the Palestinian authority and used this as an opportunity for that. I wish it would clear the deep settlements in the west bank instead of expanding them.
Unfortunately, Israel has a terrible government and Hamas/Iran knew that when they initiated Oct 7th. I hope that after this is all over Israel would elect a more reasonable government. It would probably still be very right-wing since violence tends to push people in that direction, but hopefully it would be reasonable. A right-wing government cleared settlements in Gaza, made peace with Egypt etc. So everything is possible.
Okay. Wow. I hadn't realised you were on board with Hamas killing more Jews.
Or are you saying all Palestinians are "the enemy"?
Currently there's a lot of legit credentialed journalists being killed with evidence that some are being specificly targetted. That's a straight up war crime .. although as unlikely to be prosecuted, just as Kissinger skated.
> However, you fail to offer an alternative.
It's on me? Perhaps act in good faith, eg:
> Israel left Gaza, Israel made attempts to form a Palestinian state.
Israel also continued displacing and taking land via settlements in defiance of International law, etc.
> Guess what enables them...
Is the answer Netanyahu and his scaly mates? They do seem to offer a lot of incentives.
> What do you expect Israel to do?
Act in accordance with the people that have acquired power .. for now I expect Israel to act in the worst way possible and it hasn't disappointed .. years of pushing limits have rebounded much as many predicted and now those that sought permission to go all out have that in spades.
It'd be nice albeit a little fanciful, if the people of Israel could put better people in power .. but that's a whole other slice of alternative history.
> Okay. Wow. I hadn't realised you were on board with Hamas killing more Jews.
That's a ridiculous strawman argument. Do I seriously need to explain how wars work?
It's fair to be a pacifist, but it's unrealistic and deadly. PLO killed many Israelis, children etc. But their goal was statehood so they stopped and moved forward. Hamas's goal is ending Israel. Wars work towards goals.
> Currently there's a lot of legit credentialed journalists being killed with evidence that some are being specificly targetted.
That is terrible. But you know what's also terrible? Hamas literally kept hostages in the house of a Journalist. Many so called Journalist were part of the October 7th attack. They used UNWRA as a puppet as part of their attacks and money laundering.
They used ambulances, hospitals etc. as cover. There's some point where using an ID as a get out of jail free card is a problem.
> That's a straight up war crime .. although as unlikely to be prosecuted, just as Kissinger skated.
That is a huge problem. Unfortunately the UN has zero credibility at this point. It came up with more resolutions against Israel than all other countries combined. More than Russia, Sudan, China, Iran etc.
That's a problem because I would like to know if Israel is committing actual war crimes and I would like an objective body to be in control of that. The UN is not objective by any stretch of the imagination.
Luckily the US has Leahy. If there is actual evidence of a war crime being committed then a lawsuit against Israel in the USA can stop financial support for Israel. Even if the lawsuit is thrown out the facts would still be out. Yet such a lawsuit isn't prosecuted.
> > Guess what enables them...
>
> Is the answer Netanyahu and his scaly mates? They do seem to offer a lot of incentives.
How did Netanyahu get into power and keep it for so long?
During the 90's Israel tried to go through with the Oslo accords. Hamas blew up busses filled with civilians in the middle of Tel Aviv. Many busses. They shot up coffee shops and did everything they could to stop the peace process.
Netanyahu used that and built his power base around it. He went to every such attack site and gained traction. Without Hamas he would have been an anonymous secondary "also ran" politician. Hamas made him. This symbiotic relationship continues to this day to such an extent that the right-wing extremists defined Hamas as an asset. Following October 7th they expanded settlements in the West Bank as "retaliation" which is stupid and evil. But again, zero-sum entities act like that.
The difference here is that Israel is the stronger side. When Palestinians pick a zero-sum approach to solving a conflict it is a suicidal death cult.
> > What do you expect Israel to do?
>
> Act in accordance with the people that have acquired power ..
That isn't an answer. Israel tried to do that. It tried to offer statehood. It tried "just leaving". You can argue that this wasn't "genuine" or wasn't enough... But baby steps are required in this case and Hamas proved the problematic nature of this approach.
> years of pushing limits have rebounded much as many predicted and now those that sought permission to go all out have that in spades.
This shows deep misunderstanding of the situation. Hamas is a zero-sum player, it wants an all out war because it wants everything from the river to the sea. It objects to the very notion of peace with Israel.
> It'd be nice albeit a little fanciful, if the people of Israel could put better people in power .. but that's a whole other slice of alternative history.
Israel did put better people in power. Notice how the whole world including Europe and the states are seeing a surge in the right-wing?
Why is that? Because unfortunately the extreme left has become delusional in its extreme stances.
There's a huge difference between wanting peace and refusing to fight a war. You're completely dismissing Israeli attempts at peace and mis-labeling Hamas attacks as territorial when they are religious, fanatic and proxy driven.
In the US the majority of people want to deport all immigrants. These are people who contribute to the economy and do nothing wrong. Is it a surprise that Israelis moved to the right as a result of Hamas attacks?
Is it a surprise that these right-wing politicians use that to further their agenda in the west-bank?
I think Israel is naturally liberal and will move back to the left when it is no longer under threat. The problem is that as long as Hamas is a threat this just can't happen. One of the reasons the settlements are expanding is to block such motion to the left, this is where US pressure could help but it's a delicate needle to thread. If the UN had any credibility it could help, unfortunately it doesn't when it comes to Israel.
In 1940s the Palestinians went to Hitler and asked him to take care of the Jews.
So you're using Amin al-Husseini as a stand-in for all Palestinians, which I suppose is about as cool as using Netanyahu as a stand-in for all Israelis. Or as the other commenter pointed out, when referring to the occasion when agents from Stern Gang met with Nazi officials to discuss the possibility of an anti-British alliance, we might as well just say simplify and say "the Jews" did so, collectively.
But never mind that. Just tell us, please: what did Amin ask Hitler to do, specifically?
Referencing the transcript we all have of their sole meeting in November 1941, of course.
> So you're using Amin al-Husseini as a stand-in for all Palestinians
Nope, not what I'm saying. I'm saying you can pick any historical point in time and show why things happened in a particular way. Palestinians bemoan that Israel exists and that Jews were "given" statehood (I quote given because there was a war and it was paid for with blood). But if you look at the history it's pretty clear why the UN felt Jews deserved a home in Israel. They were on the right side of history in this particular conflict and fought besides the allies.
This is a repeating pattern for Palestinian leadership. Unwillingness to compromise and victim-hood, that doesn't work well for them. I'm not saying they're not victims or even not saying that Israel isn't to blame for a lot of their problems. I am saying that their leadership bares a LOT of that responsibility too, the choices they made brought them to this point and they continue to make similar choices which make matters worse.
Right now it's obviously too late since the last big choice they had was in 2008 when they rejected a statehood deal. Hamas had a choice during that time of recognizing Israel and negotiating, but it's Hamas so it obviously wasn't much of a choice.
I hope there will be another such fork in the road, I doubt they will get anything remotely as good as the 2008 offer. Knowing history I doubt Palestinian leadership will take it and again they will blame Israel.
I guess we have to "snap the chalk-line" somewhere. I didn't explicitly establish this but in debates I often snap it at the end of WW2. The period 1914-1945 was full of so much chaos and bloodshed globally, I think the end of WW2 was when people REALLY tried to catch a breather and try to build a newer, better world.
> The initial Jews that came into the area were under constant attacks by Palestinians in the area so they formed militias of their own. These became very successful and split into 3 groups. Hagana which was the moderate one ended up becoming the IDF. The two others were the ones that performed those attacks and indeed performed terrorism (moderate by today's standard but still terrorism).
When you refer to Jews "coming into the area", do you mean the post-WW2 immigration, or some other timespan? Because the Irgun, at least, was actively committing terrorism against the British, even outside of Palestine ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_British_Embassy_bombing ), as early as 1946. This appears to be a mostly one-sided campaign (not targeting the Palestinian Arabs...yet) but definitely set the stage for their level of violence moving forward. Interestingly, neither Morris nor Pappe cover 1946 violence in particular detail (both focus on the Zionist leadership's planning for the following ethnic cleansing). I need to find additional sources for this period.
> Palestinians didn't have that capability of unity. They have very little in common other than hate towards Israel.
Where does that hate come from, though? It didn't coalesce in a vacuum.
> That is both unconfirmed
I'll be perfectly honest, it's really hard not to interpret that as anything other than "Holocaust denial" level delusion. Which, of course, is tragically ironic given the subject. Both authors I mentioned cite documents in IDF archives about the deliberate planning process for the destruction in this timeframe. If you are going to assert that the destruction, its specific methods, or the resulting movements of large numbers of civilians, is unconfirmed, you need to support that with some very robust evidence. I'm not sure what could be more authoritative than "primary source documents from the perpetrator".
> Then they couldn't return since there was a border.
Some of them tried to return (refugees from Huj, in one example from mid-late 1948), and were refused, after internal debates by the Israelis over whether it would "set a precedent". Those debates were documented, and are cited in Morris' book, pgs330-333. Those were deliberate decisions made by Israeli leadership.
> But Israel didn't choose that war, it was forced on them.
Actions have consequences. As an aside, I constantly see this use of the passive voice in discussing this conflict. Israel never does anything, it just has stuff happen to it. Once you notice it, it's a really obvious form of shaping the information environment to condition people to think that nothing could ever possibly be Israel's fault, that no one making decisions in Israel has ever done so with malicious intent. Things just....happen.
> Notice that Israel didn't take neither Gaza or the West Bank during that war. So why didn't the Palestinians finally have a state at that point?
> Did anyone complain to Egypt/Jordan for denying the rights of the Palestinian people?
That's a good question, I'll add it to my list of RFIs as I continue to research.
> The fact is that this is purely because Jews were involved.
I watched a man hooked up to an IV bag in a field hospital BURN ALIVE after an Israeli airstrike. The perpetual victim complex just doesn't resonate with people anymore.
> But as far as this conflict goes, Israel acted WAY better than pretty much any other country in a similar situation. E.g. Turkey which keeps blasting Israel over and over just bombed civilians for a tiny attack. Crickets from the world police...
Yeah, because Turkish airstrikes haven't killed FORTY THOUSAND PEOPLE in less than a year. What a ridiculous deflection.
-----
At any rate, I hope this discussion has provided enough material for other HNers to educate themselves. The available Israeli sources are detailed and surprisingly candid. I don't expect either of us will illuminate any further understanding.
> I think the end of WW2 was when people REALLY tried to catch a breather and try to build a newer, better world.
I think discussing history is irrelevant. None of us were around back then so blaming some ancestor for something is just stupid posturing that doesn't solve anything.
The bottom line is that there are millions of people on both sides who were born in the region. They have nowhere to go and the idea that some would "just leave" is just stupid. There's only one solution and it's a two state solution, blaming history is redundant since both sides did some bad things.
We can review history to see what we can learn from it. Here the pattern is clear: Jews unified and strengthened their moderate base. Palestinians fragmented and moved towards violent approaches which didn't work well for them. With the exception of Oslo, but even there their leadership failed to compromise.
> When you refer to Jews "coming into the area", do you mean the post-WW2 immigration, or some other timespan?
19th century when the initial Jewish militias were formed.
> > Palestinians didn't have that capability of unity. They have very little in common other than hate towards Israel.
>
> Where does that hate come from, though? It didn't coalesce in a vacuum.
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't deserve some hate. But it's much easier to blame others for your problems instead of blaming yourself. Jordan and Egypt did pretty evil things to the Palestinians and didn't give them a country when they controlled these regions. Yet you don't see the same level of hate.
> I'll be perfectly honest, it's really hard not to interpret that as anything other than "Holocaust denial" level delusion
That is nonsense. You claimed "Palestinians were already fleeing from murder, and they couldn't return to homes which had been demolished by the Zionist militias".
Were there homes destroyed during the war?
Sure. Was it by Israelis? Possibly.
Was it with the purpose to prevent people from coming back? Maybe.
But you're presenting this as if all the Palestinian refugees or a significant amount of them escaped because of such actions. That is not something anyone can claim. The common narrative on the Israeli side is that the armies of surrounding countries orchestrated a strategic retreat. No one knows because there was no actual army in 1948. It was being formed from a militia and there was no organized standard/hierarchy. Also that particular war was remarkably deadly/violent for both sides. Record keeping wasn't exactly something you can count on.
Regardless, this is irrelevant. The fact that Palestinians keep going back to 1948 is part of the toxicity that prevents them from compromising on proposals for a Palestinian state.
> Some of them tried to return (refugees from Huj, in one example from mid-late 1948), and were refused, after internal debates by the Israelis over whether it would "set a precedent".
Could Jews who had to flee Arab countries and territories within that region return? Could they get their assets back?
"Ukraine was given territory from Poland, and the Polish minorities were expelled from Ukraine. In turn, Ukrainian minorities were expelled from Poland. While the Polish had to leave Lithuania and Belarus, the Lithuanians and Belorussians had to leave Poland. Also, Poland was given land from Germany, and the Germans were expelled from Poland. Many Hungarians had to leave from the Transylvania region of Romania. The Italians were expelled from what is Croatia today. In May 1945, the President of Czechoslovakia called on his people to “eliminate the German problem.” Nearly 2 million Germans were expelled from the country, and thousands of Germans died in the process."
Wars reshape regions and demographics. Especially in the 40's. Jews were victims of that through history too. I'm not excusing it, but it's not something special or unique in any way.
> > But Israel didn't choose that war, it was forced on them.
>
> Actions have consequences. As an aside, I constantly see this use of the passive voice in discussing this conflict. Israel never does anything, it just has stuff happen to it. Once you notice it, it's a really obvious form of shaping the information environment to condition people to think that nothing could ever possibly be Israel's fault, that no one making decisions in Israel has ever done so with malicious intent. Things just....happen.
Instead of proving that something is wrong you try to twist it. When the facts don't work in the favor of your argument then obviously the argument is redundant.
The fact is that Israel did seek peace and made a great deal of effort in that direction. But the standard Israel is held to is a standard that no country on earth would be able to hold to.
> I watched a man hooked up to an IV bag in a field hospital BURN ALIVE after an Israeli airstrike. The perpetual victim complex just doesn't resonate with people anymore.
You mean the hospital to which civilian hostages were taken and murdered there? Where Hamas literally had a base of operations?
I agree, it's awful. But what is the option here?
From now on firing rockets is OK as long as you do it on top of orphanages?
By accepting that narrative you're encouraging Hamas. Every time people talk about children dying in Gaza it creates a terrible incentive for Hamas. They use children as couriers because they know the IDF doesn't want to shoot them, but if they die they also win: https://www.timesofisrael.com/encouraging-our-children-to-ki...
> Yeah, because Turkish airstrikes haven't killed FORTY THOUSAND PEOPLE in less than a year. What a ridiculous deflection.
40,000+ most of which were Hamas terrorists. This was a response to an attack that killed 5 people. This is besides all the stuff that Erdogan is doing in Syria etc.
> At any rate, I hope this discussion has provided enough material for other HNers to educate themselves. The available Israeli sources are detailed and surprisingly candid.
The fact that you're surprised that Israel is honest indicates a lot about your core bias. Israel is a liberal democracy and tries to do better all the time. Its history isn't perfect, whose is?
Try criticizing Hamas in Gaza. You might get buried alive by your brother using a spoon...
It goes on and on. Escalating conflict in the ME, such as with Israel and Lebanon, regardless of who is at fault, is not in the interest of the US. The administration feels attempts to deescalate are falling on deaf ears, but is in a politically precarious situation.
>What ive always wondered is why the US hasn't put Israel on the security council, considering it is a nuclear armed state.
That isn't the criteria for being a council member, if it were they'd need to allow India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus, pretty sure the US does not officially recognize Israel as a nuclear power, it's one of those open secret things
Besides that, how would the US benefit from another country being able to veto anything they want to do in the UN? Sure, they'd probably agree with far more things than Russia or China, but the US wouldn't gain anything from them being there.
The thing is, Israel doesn’t protect U.S. interests in the middle east. All the U.S. has really ever wanted there is oil, and because of U.S. support for Israel, we’ve been the subject of two oil embargoes.
Israel provides us zero military bases, even when Arab countries provide us dozens. Despite all of the support we give them and have given them, they have repeatedly escalated conflicts when the U.S. asked them to stop. Today, we are unable to ship goods through the Red Sea because the Houthis are upset over Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Has the US asked for a base? They do have Site 512, not a typical base but still a base.
In many ways Israel does the US' dirty work, like crippling Hezbollah which is responsible for numerous attacks against US (and other Western) personnel.
The Houthis are squarely to blame for the disruption of Red Sea shipping; Israel's military operation in a different country isn't a legitimate reason to attack (almost) random ships.
I think you’re missing the point here. The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. The only reason Hezbollah exists is because of Israel. The reason the Houthis are attacking shipping is because the U.S. supports Israel. Being an ally to Israel has imposed huge costs on the U.S. and virtually no benefits.
Many in the U.S. feel that protecting Israel is a moral cause, but it is undeniably a strategic albatross for us.
> The only reason the U.S. cares about Hezbollah is because they attack Israel. The only reason Hezbollah exists is because of Israel
You can't know that. The Iranian Islamic revolution happened not because of Israel. Iran would have probably tried to gain influence through proxies and destabilize the Middle East regardless of Israel. It would have joined forces with Russia and China. It would have probably tried acquiring nuclear weapons and it would have hated the U.S (which it calls Big Satan to this day).
In short Iran would have been a huge headache and security risk for the U.S and the West even if Israel didn't exist imo.
The U.S is definitely strong enough to deal with Iran without Israel, but its helpful to have allies in a very very unstable neighborhood.
Now go back a few years and take into account the US meddling with Iran. You'll notice some cause -> effect with our intended consequences coming back to bite us for decades.
Excellent point. But assuming you're not being facetious, the Security Council is largely a historical artifact: all five permanent members were the victors of WWII. (Why occupied France was included is something I never understood.)
While it's true nuclear proliferation began with the five permanent members, at the time the UN and Security Council were founded in 1945, only the US had the bomb.
The USSR didn't test one until 1949, the UK in 1952, France in 1960, and China (as you mentioned) in 1964. The Soviet Union had an early start because of their spies in the Manhattan Project, while the UK contributed to it during the War. 15 years would pass before another permanent member caught up.
And Russia took the USSR's seat just as China did Taiwan's.
There’s plenty of non Jewish Zionists in the US as well. And I don’t think anyone is really being secretive here. The US is taking actions that benefit Israel to the detriment of America.
This is exactly what people are saying when they are referring to 'zionists', everything else is just a red herring. Unfortunately even well intentioned people are ignorant of this.
For example, it's hard to comprehend how a country like Russia is not suspended?
A country which signed the Charter, and is member of the security council, is trying to annex a country of 40 million people, claiming they and their culture don't exist.
They don't even hide the genocide intent, and yet Guterres is visiting the BRICS conference in Russia legitimizing the regime. Despicable.
We have control over Russia. We have not fully sanctioned them and in the past the US was more than willing to trade with Russia or even give them money.
I just don't think you are aware of the scale of the event.
Do you realize that in less than 3 years Russia has caused more than 1.000.000 casualties, Russia has kidnapped more than 25.000 Children, and made 10.000.000 people into refugees some of them filtrated in Russia?
It's like the destruction of +1,500 medical facilities, deliberately, isn't much of a big deal...
Both are horrible events but at completely different scales. We're talking about a country of 40.000.000 people who was at peace, posed no threat to anyone, and never attacked any neighboring country. There are several days of +1.000 casualties - these are human beings, I don't know why you're deliberately dehumanizing Ukrainians and Russians.
Europe hasn't seen anything like this since WW2, even after we witnessed the genocide of Chechens at the hands of Russia, another one.
