Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[Shadowdweller]

Yes. If Israel had improved its treatment of the Palestinians would it have prevented this attack?

Yes.

No.

Absolutely. Treat a group of people badly and those in that group who inclined to violence will fight back.

Yeah...I don't know. And by that I mean I literally do not know. There was a sociological study a while back (that I am completely unable to reference just now) that suggested that one of the primary driving forces behind criminality was the perceived illegitimacy of the law. Certainly the more Israel appears to be corrupt, oppressive, and/or murderous (i.e. illegitimate) to a target population, the more people will be willing to act against it. And the more impoverished or strained the target population is, the less they feel like they have anything to lose by lashing out.

The problem is that there are other factors that could easily ALSO be instrumental causative elements here. Propaganda through various channels, such as religious or other indoctrination can create a false sense of grievance. It's also entirely possible that outside interests are promoting this type of violence through various means - amplifying violent rhetoric, offering funds or resources to people who are otherwise in abject, desperate poverty if they sign in to such extremism, maybe even sneaking foreign actors into Gaza despite restrictions on entry and exit. I cannot imagine that the network of individuals who funded ISIL were all conveniently slaughtered or just disappeared when ISIL fell apart for example. (To the extent that ISIL HAS fallen apart).

I have little doubt that being impoverished and having a history of grievance, justifiable or not, exacerbates violence and extremism amongst Palestinians at least.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Eagerly awaiting the day when Egypt welcomes all Gazans to freely immigrate through the Rafah Crossing Point^WP.

As I’ve said here, the surrounding Arab nations could build a gleaming “New Palestine”, possibly in Egypt, to welcome the 2 million plus Palestinians from Gaza. After all, Qatar, on its own, spent $220 billion (!) just to host the World Cup. “Make the desert bloom”, a line I often heard in my childhood referring to what Israel accomplished.

Seems like a plan to me. But stipulated the parties involved may have an outcome other than “peace in the Mideast” in mind. And that 2 million plus Palestinians within your borders might “fester” instead of “bloom”. Were I a young Palestinian, I’d jump at the chance to escape Gaza and a new start. But then again, I don’t have millennia of racial and religious hatred baked into my being.

 

[Nessie]

... But then again, I don’t have millennia of racial and religious hatred baked into my being.

That is the problem, but it was overcome in Northern Ireland, when sworn enemies who had been trying to kill each other, sat down, negotiated, disarmed and condemned any and all use of violence.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah it would take a lot of ill wind out of a lot of sails if there was somewhere decent for those Palestinians who would like to leave, to go. Like, set aside for a moment the argument over who makes things that bad or how much right people have to stay, having no real option to leave makes the entire situation that much more desperate.

It's always bad when people have to flee the places they were born to find more safety and a better chance at a better life, but it's also a standard part of human history.

 

[Aridas]

From a discussion in the Biden Presidency thread that was advised to be moved -

I'm rather tempted to answer this with an oversimplified answer. In both cases, he's siding against a terrorist state. Whatever legitimate grievances the Palestinians have, and they do have many, Hamas is quite in the wrong for the the outright terrorism that they've chosen to employ and celebrate, over and over, including against Palestinians and those who were seeking to aid them.

Also, there's real differences between collateral damage to civilians because a military is using them as shields in one way or another, i.e. what Israel's facing, and directly targeting civilians as strategy, which is what Hamas (and Russia) has done. To be clear, Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes on top of that, but Hamas' actions and tactics very much muddy the waters there.

I'm rather tempted to answer this with an oversimplified answer. In both cases, he's siding against a terrorist state. Whatever legitimate grievances the Palestinians have, and they do have many, Hamas is quite in the wrong for the the outright terrorism that they've chosen to employ and celebrate, over and over, including against Palestinians and those who were seeking to aid them.

How would Israel not qualify as a terrorist state? I'm sure Russia makes similar BS pretexts for why their bombing of non-military targets is somehow justified, just as Israel claims that they have little choice but to level apartment blocks, refugee camps, or mosques. Israel's bombing of Gaza is an obvious example of state terrorism.

To repeat the extremely relevant second part of what I said which you chose to ignore - there's real differences between collateral damage to civilians because a military is using them as shields in one way or another, i.e. what Israel's facing, and directly targeting civilians as strategy, which is what Hamas (and Russia) has done. To be clear, Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes on top of that, but Hamas' actions and tactics very much muddy the waters there. Unfortunately, Israel's current bombings in Gaza are NOT obvious examples of state terrorism, specifically because of Hamas. At least some of them may well be able to be determined to be war crimes on investigation, but bombing otherwise civilian buildings that are reasonably believed to be being used by an opposing military is not a war crime.

 

[Dr.Sid]

To repeat the extremely relevant second part of what I said which you chose to ignore - there's real differences between collateral damage to civilians because a military is using them as shields in one way or another, i.e. what Israel's facing, and directly targeting civilians as strategy, which is what Hamas (and Russia) has done. To be clear, Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes on top of that, but Hamas' actions and tactics very much muddy the waters there. Unfortunately, Israel's current bombings in Gaza are NOT obvious examples of state terrorism, specifically because of Hamas. At least some of them may well be able to be determined to be war crimes on investigation, but bombing otherwise civilian buildings that are reasonably believed to be being used by an opposing military is not a war crime.[/QUOTE]

Closing water is. And clearly whole streets were leveled.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

From a discussion in the Biden Presidency thread that was advised to be moved -





To repeat the extremely relevant second part of what I said which you chose to ignore - there's real differences between collateral damage to civilians because a military is using them as shields in one way or another, i.e. what Israel's facing, and directly targeting civilians as strategy, which is what Hamas (and Russia) has done. To be clear, Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes on top of that, but Hamas' actions and tactics very much muddy the waters there. Unfortunately, Israel's current bombings in Gaza are NOT obvious examples of state terrorism, specifically because of Hamas. At least some of them may well be able to be determined to be war crimes on investigation, but bombing otherwise civilian buildings that are reasonably believed to be being used by an opposing military is not a war crime.

You're begging the question that Israel is telling the truth that these targets have any significant military value, or that this value is at all sufficient to justify the massive amount of collateral damage that is unavoidable when bombing residential areas.

Israel terror bombs as a means of collective punishment against Gaza. Sometimes there is military value in these targets, often it's just a pretext to make such unsavory tactics seem more justified.

 

[Aridas]

Closing water is. And clearly whole streets were leveled.

Closing water may well be, yes. It's fairly certain that there's nuances in play that may well be quite relevant, though, like that a country isn't required to do business with areas controlled by hostile forces. To be clear again, I acknowledged that Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes, too, but such claims need to meet usual standards, complicated as those are.

As for whole streets being leveled? Once again, I direct you to Hamas' tactics and our lack of relevant information to determine whether these actually were legitimate military targets or not. Quite literally, Hamas made it fairly standard practice to use hospitals, mosques, and schools for military purposes and civilian buildings are routinely used for military purposes, at last check. It's not even remotely unthinkable for entire streets to have been turned into legitimate military targets by Hamas. That's not an argument to say that they necessarily were, to be clear, but rather that we're not really in a position to render judgement... because of Hamas.

 

[webfusion]

Side comment: I notice that the general media presentation of this war is all screwed-up.
They run raw footage of all kinds of stuff, and aren't even trying to provide a differentiation or captioning as to what we're being shown. Burned-out buildings. Gaza or Ashdod? Corpses (blurred out). Gaza or Kfar Be'eri? Explosions. Gaza or Tel Aviv? Testimonies of parents with dead kids. Gaza or Sderot?
It all becomes one big blur.

 

[Aridas]

You're begging the question that Israel is telling the truth that these targets have any significant military value, or that this value is at all sufficient to justify the massive amount of collateral damage that is unavoidable when bombing residential areas.

Not exactly. I'm pointing out the more objective standards of what constitutes war crimes and terrorism that are actually in play and how they apply to the general situations. I'm not aware of whether specific claims of justification have been made, so the Israel telling the truth bit is off. It's just that Hamas has quite the history of engaging in war crimes and trying to pretend that it's actually Israel in the wrong when they do so that muddies the water and prevents reasonable judgements from being made easily.

Unfortunately, that gives Israel all the more leeway to get away with committing war crimes of their own, because Hamas has made it so that we cannot jump to conclusions if we value truth and justice.

 

[Ziggurat]

Side comment: I notice that the general media presentation of this war is all screwed-up.
They run raw footage of all kinds of stuff, and aren't even trying to provide a differentiation or captioning as to what we're being shown. Burned-out buildings. Gaza or Ashdod? Corpses (blurred out). Gaza or Kfar Be'eri? Explosions. Gaza or Tel Aviv? Testimonies of parents with dead kids. Gaza or Sderot?
It all becomes one big blur.

The goal of most news organizations isn't really to inform you. It's just to get your attention. That's what advertisers pay for, and advertisers are their actual customers, not you. If they happen to inform you in the process, that's fine, but it's not the point. So nobody should be surprised when they don't actually do a good job at informing you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the Biden thread:

I get that. Raised as a Jew, the line I remember was “We offered the inhabitants a chance to live with us in peace and harmony in a multicultural, and multiethnic new nation, but instead they launched a war against us.”

I know it’s far, far more complicated and nuanced than that, but it’s how I was taught to see the conflict.

I don't want to go down this bottomless rabbit hole. I'll just say it's my understanding the offer (if there was one) was not as you imply. Like you say, "it’s far, far more complicated" than that.

My brother's first SO (they lived together but didn't marry) immigrated here when her family was evicted from their home because the Israeli military cleared an area they said they needed for security. The family was compensated with pennies on the dollar while any Jewish family who had to leave their homes were given the full value of the home. I know this was long after the country of Israel was established and missiles were being fired from Palestinian areas into Israel. So this is also more complicated but the gross racism involved in how different families were treated wasn't.

I feel for civilians on both sides of this conflict and blame is divided. But there is the problem that one side (Israel) is so much more powerful than the other side.

 

[steenkh]

As I’ve said here, the surrounding Arab nations could build a gleaming “New Palestine”, possibly in Egypt, to welcome the 2 million plus Palestinians from Gaza.

I wonder why think that Egyptians would welcome millions of impoverished Palestinians to occupy a part of their land. The Palestinians certainly did not welcome an influx of Jews into their their land.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. You may have noticed that Egypt has closed the borders to Gaza. There is not much love there.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The goal of most news organizations isn't really to inform you. It's just to get your attention. That's what advertisers pay for, and advertisers are their actual customers, not you. If they happen to inform you in the process, that's fine, but it's not the point. So nobody should be surprised when they don't actually do a good job at informing you.

Very true.
Employing actual journalist with local expertise would only make sense if they could guarantee that there will be a Hamas attack every week at the best time for placing advertisments.

 

[Ziggurat]

I feel for civilians on both sides of this conflict and blame is divided. But there is the problem that one side (Israel) is so much more powerful than the other side.

Why is that a problem? Can you imagine the bloodshed that would result if there was anything like parity in strength? Thank god Hamas is so much weaker than Israel.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This isn't a movie. The scrappy underdog isn't necessarily holding the moral high ground because that makes for a better story.

Again especially since I still say it's dishonest to frame this as "Israel Versus Palestine/Hamas" when it's "Israel Vs The Entire Muslim Dominated Middle East."

Again that doesn't make Israel right, but they aren't wrong BECAUSE they are more powerful.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jeez if only God had planned ahead and not made every important event in the Bible/Quran happen with a days walking distance of one spot in the Middle East so two thousand years later there wasn't a war crime sandwich around that one spot....

 

[TragicMonkey]

Jeez if only God had planned ahead and not made every important event in the Bible/Quran happen with a days walking distance of one spot in the Middle East so two thousand years later there wasn't a war crime sandwich around that one spot....

Don't blame this on God, he clearly spelled out his intentions for the region when he ordered the Crusades to occur. He wanted it all to be Christian city-states ruled from Europe, it's not his fault they didn't commit to excellence and stay the course.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

From a discussion in the Biden Presidency thread that was advised to be moved -





To repeat the extremely relevant second part of what I said which you chose to ignore - there's real differences between collateral damage to civilians because a military is using them as shields in one way or another, i.e. what Israel's facing, and directly targeting civilians as strategy, which is what Hamas (and Russia) has done. To be clear, Israel's almost certainly committing war crimes on top of that, but Hamas' actions and tactics very much muddy the waters there. Unfortunately, Israel's current bombings in Gaza are NOT obvious examples of state terrorism, specifically because of Hamas. At least some of them may well be able to be determined to be war crimes on investigation, but bombing otherwise civilian buildings that are reasonably believed to be being used by an opposing military is not a war crime.

Palestinian civilians aren't "collateral damage" to the IDF. That organisation murders civilians to often and in too great a number for it to be anything other than deliberate policy. The state of Israel has adopted wholesale the tactics Frank Kitson formulated for the British army in Kenya and the Six Counties, viz if there is opposition then punish the whole community collectively (and in the Six Counties the opposition was the non-violent NICRA when Kitson's vild criminality was implemented).

While what Hamas has done over the last few days is vile beyond the comprehension of anybody sane, I cannot forget that Israel has done the equivalent month after month, year after year since the1980's with no condemnation nor blowback from the international community.

 

[TomB]

As I’ve said here, the surrounding Arab nations could build a gleaming “New Palestine”, possibly in Egypt, to welcome the 2 million plus Palestinians from Gaza. After all, Qatar, on its own, spent $220 billion (!) just to host the World Cup. “Make the desert bloom”, a line I often heard in my childhood referring to what Israel accomplished.

Seems like a plan to me. But stipulated the parties involved may have an outcome other than “peace in the Mideast” in mind. And that 2 million plus Palestinians within your borders might “fester” instead of “bloom”. Were I a young Palestinian, I’d jump at the chance to escape Gaza and a new start. But then again, I don’t have millennia of racial and religious hatred baked into my being.

There's a problem with the whole "give them a new place to live" plan.

The original grievance is that this is a population that has lived in an area for hundreds of years. Another population immigrated in and was eventually given a portion of that area by an outside body.

That's the original complaint. Somewhat similar to the complaints that native American tribes have.

Your solution is similar to the trail of tears: Let these people have your ancestral lands that (for whatever reason) you consider to be valuable and desirable, and in exchange we'll give you new land over in this piece of desert that no one is using. (Because it's a desert.)

I'm not sure there is a solution to this, and I'm not sure there are any clear good guys in the broader picture of the conflict. (As opposed to the specific incidents happening now.) It's largely a major UN screwup.

Part of me suspects that what might actually work is to bring prosperity to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But I don't think current policy is conducive to that.