Ed General Israel/Palestine discussion thread - Part 3

[lobosrul5]

I would think it would have gone to Jordan. They had the most effective military, and the population is ethnically the same as in Palestine.

The west bank, likely. Gaza to Egypt would be more probable.

 

[Lplus]

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.

There's a lot of the "It's not Fair" brigade who think exactly that. It doesn't matter who the group are, what they want or what they do, the smaller and less powerful they are the more right they are assumed to be.

 

[lobosrul5]

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.

No it isn't. Trail of Tears was a forced march where most of the Native Americans perished. Theres plenty of money in the wealthier Gulf States to setup the 2 million Palestinians in opulence if they felt like it.

Analogy fail.

Probably what would work is for Egypt to annex Gaza. And then allow those that want to immigrate to other Arab states to do so. Saudi, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait etc. The ones with wealth. And those that want to stay in Gaza (for whatever reason?) can stay in Gaza as Egyptian citizens. And the UN/EU/NGO's etc can send some money to help them out... as they already are. And Israel can put a 1km wide minefield around it and be done with it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So fun fact. Easy and fun way to make a liberals head explode is to point out that the Natives took ~4,000 of their black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Well, it would be a forced march, as most people wouldn't leave voluntarily.

 

[Nessie]

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.

Closing water is. And clearly whole streets were leveled.[/QUOTE]

Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth. There is hardly any open country for Hamas to operate out of that is away from civilian populations.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

So fun fact. Easy and fun way to make a liberals head explode is to point out that the Natives took ~4,000 of their black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears.

"Oppressed peoples are observed to replicate some of the behaviors and even abuses of their oppressors."

Yes, we know how colonialism works, including the presence of inter-generational cycles of abuse.

This is not the clever "nobody is innocent" flex you think it is.

 

[Shadowdweller]

So fun fact. Easy and fun way to make a liberals head explode is to point out that the Natives took ~4,000 of their black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears.

One would tend to -imagine- that you had some actual, real-life experience talking with liberals. And yet here we are.

 

[TomB]

No it isn't. Trail of Tears was a forced march where most of the Native Americans perished. Theres plenty of money in the wealthier Gulf States to setup the 2 million Palestinians in opulence if they felt like it.

Analogy fail.

It only fails in the sense that all analogies fail because no two situations are exactly the same.

You are focusing on the parts that are different rather than the parts that are similar. The similarities are what the analogy is based on:

• Weaker party occupies land that the stronger party wants.
• Weaker party pushed to a small section of that land.
• Settlers from the stronger party encroach further on the land left to the weaker party.
• Weaker party involuntarily removed from their land, which is then given to the stronger party.
• Weaker party is given land somewhere else that is mostly uninhabited.

The removal of the Native tribes to Oklahoma was alos supposed to be "voluntary."

Probably what would work is for Egypt to annex Gaza. And then allow those that want to immigrate to other Arab states to do so. Saudi, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait etc. The ones with wealth. And those that want to stay in Gaza (for whatever reason?) can stay in Gaza as Egyptian citizens. And the UN/EU/NGO's etc can send some money to help them out... as they already are. And Israel can put a 1km wide minefield around it and be done with it.

This is assuming that all the Palestinians really want is "out" so they can lead a prosperous life as a diaspora. It ignores their historical ties to the land that has been theirs for generations. Both parties want that particular piece of land, regardless of how crappy we consider it to be.

If you relocate the Palestinians, at some point in the future there will be a movement to return to their historical homeland. Similar to Zionism. History repeats itself.

I've always thought that an effective strategy for the Palestinians would be to stop the violent resistance and instead demand to be annexed with full equal citizenship and representation in government." This, Israel absolutely does not want, but cracking down on peaceful protesters demanding equality would be extremely hard for the rest of the world to support. It may actually be hard for most Israelis to support as well.

But that assumes that getting Israel (completely) out of Gaza and the West Bank would be enough of a goal.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So fun fact. Easy and fun way to make a liberals head explode is to point out that the Natives took ~4,000 of their black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears.

Only a child insists on Noble Savage myths or requires victims of oppression to be perfect in order to be sympathetic.

 

[lobosrul5]

It only fails in the sense that all analogies fail because no two situations are exactly the same.

You are focusing on the parts that are different rather than the parts that are similar. The similarities are what the analogy is based on:

• Weaker party occupies land that the stronger party wants.
• Weaker party pushed to a small section of that land.
• Settlers from the stronger party encroach further on the land left to the weaker party.
• Weaker party involuntarily removed from their land, which is then given to the stronger party.
• Weaker party is given land somewhere else that is mostly uninhabited.

The removal of the Native tribes to Oklahoma was alos supposed to be "voluntary."


This is assuming that all the Palestinians really want is "out" so they can lead a prosperous life as a diaspora. It ignores their historical ties to the land that has been theirs for generations. Both parties want that particular piece of land, regardless of how crappy we consider it to be.



I've always thought that an effective strategy for the Palestinians would be to stop the violent resistance and instead demand to be annexed with full equal citizenship and representation in government." This, Israel absolutely does not want, but cracking down on peaceful protesters demanding equality would be extremely hard for the rest of the world to support. It may actually be hard for most Israelis to support as well.

But that assumes that getting Israel (completely) out of Gaza and the West Bank would be enough of a goal.

Except in this case the Jews were there first... then the "Palestinians" were a collection of immigrants from across various Arab lands, mostly only coming after about 1830, not there for a millennium. Its also a total mis-framing of what happened that the stronger force came in and forced the weaker out... not that NO ONE was unfairly kicked out of their home in 1948.

You've also mis-framed my argument against the analogy. Giving the Gaza's somewhere better to go would not be a rehashing of the Trail of Tears.

If you relocate the Palestinians, at some point in the future there will be a movement to return to their historical homeland. Similar to Zionism. History repeats itself.

Not necessarily. Most Palestinains are ethnically Arab, and Sunni-Muslim. Theres no reason they cannot fit in perfectly well in many Arab countries. This is not the same as the reason why Jews wanted to get out of Europe and into their own country... for some reason in the early/mid 20th century.

 

[Vixen]

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.

The thing about the Northern Ireland conflicts is that it was sectarian in nature. The problem with Hamas, is that violence and misogyny is an inherent part of their religion. It is determined that 'infidels' will suffer.

This is not open to compromise or negotiation.

The Arabic nations are extremely sectarian, too, but let them fight amongst themselves and leave civilised peoples alone.

 

[dudalb]

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.

Uh, you never had, it's worst, the level of sheer fanatacism in Ulster that you have in the Mideast.

 

[trustbutverify]

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.

I'm sure you realize that Hamas' core strategy is to maximize Palestinian civilian deaths. I'm also sure you realize they employee tactics in service of that strategy. One of the primary goals of this cowardly, brutal massacre was to provoke as brutal a reaction from Israel as possible, thereby producing the largest possible civilian death numbers for media consumption.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Presenting this as a game of 47th dimensional chess where both sides are thinking 10 steps ahead actively doing the most adjectively horrible on purpose in order to draw a response that will validate them being horrible... I mean I'm not saying its wrong but goddamn that just... damn.

The default being "Every horrible thing done is really justified because the goal is to make the other side show how horrible they are" is some ******* why even bother level of horrible.

 

[trustbutverify]

Presenting this as a game of 47th dimensional chess where both sides are thinking 10 steps ahead actively doing the most adjectively horrible on purpose in order to draw a response that will validate them being horrible... I mean I'm not saying its wrong but goddamn that just... damn.

The default being "Every horrible thing done is really justified because the goal is to make the other side show how horrible they are" is some ******* why even bother level of horrible.

This isn't 47 dimensional chess... it isn't even complicated. Hamas can't (at least for now) force Israel to surrender in battle, so the most logical alternative is to use international pressure and outrage to accomplish their goals. For them, it's a media war. They're using the weapons that are available to them.

 

[lobosrul5]

This isn't 47 dimensional chess... it isn't even complicated. Hamas can't (at least for now) force Israel to surrender in battle, so the most logical alternative is to use international pressure and outrage to accomplish their goals. For them, it's a media war. They're using the weapons that are available to them.

I do have to wonder if Hamas leadership did not intend for the mass slaughter of civilians that occurred. Like, did they just want their squads to shootup IDF outposts, and maybe kidnap some civilians?? And THEN when Israel bombed them in retaliation show all the Palestinian civilian casualties that they used as human collateral.

Because not too many people on the fence or moderate to Israel are going to be swayed to their side by a bunch of teenagers murdered at a music festival, or, as is maybe now for real and confirmed, babies decapitated.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do have to wonder if Hamas leadership did not intend for the mass slaughter of civilians that occurred.

I see nothing to suggest they didn't.

Because not too many people on the fence or moderate to Israel are going to be swayed to their side by a bunch of teenagers murdered at a music festival, or, as is maybe now for real and confirmed, babies decapitated.

I'm not sure swaying people who are on the fence is really the goal. And from Hamas's point of view, I think murdered teenagers and decapitated babies is a good thing in and of itself, regardless of how foreigners respond.

 

[crescent]

I do have to wonder if Hamas leadership did not intend for the mass slaughter of civilians that occurred. Like, did they just want their squads to shootup IDF outposts, and maybe kidnap some civilians?? And THEN when Israel bombed them in retaliation show all the Palestinian civilian casualties that they used as human collateral.

Because not too many people on the fence or moderate to Israel are going to be swayed to their side by a bunch of teenagers murdered at a music festival, or, as is maybe now for real and confirmed, babies decapitated.

Hamas does seem to be furiously deflecting and minimizing the non-combatant deaths from the raid. I've seen:

• Claims that Israeli troops and police used music festival participants as human shields, with many of those deaths being from friendly fire by incompetent police and military.
• Claims that the hostages were only taken to get them away from the battlefields - it was for their own safety!!
• Claims that the hostages are just being taken to observe conditions in Gaza so that they will (naturally) come to feel greater sympathy for Palestine. They are visitors! - not hostages.

My guess is that those sorts of denunciations are mainly for western audiences and are being expressed on social media platforms popular with westerners and in western languages. Arabic language and social media will probably get different messaging.

Then again, modern auto-translate software limits the effectiveness of such "different messages in different langauges" communication strategies.

None of that says anything about whatever Hamas actually intended for the raid. I kinda wonder if the raid was just so much more successful than Hamas expected, such that they lost control. Did they actually intend to hit the music festival? Or was it just a surprise target too good to pass up?

Hamas released a woman and child. Arabic language press got the video today, with claims that Hamas released a mother/daughter today pair as a good will gesture. Israeli sources are claiming that the release actually happened Saturday and that the woman and child are unrelated, Hamas killed the kid's mother right in front of her.

 

[Ziggurat]

My guess is that those sorts of denunciations are mainly for western audiences and are being expressed on social media platforms popular with westerners and in western languages. Arabic language and social media will probably get different messaging.

That's almost certainly the case.

Then again, modern auto-translate software limits the effectiveness of such "different messages in different langauges" communication strategies.

Not by much. Most people, including the press, aren't going to bother trying to track down what was said in other languages.