Chinahand

It is all just so fucking sad. As Rodney King put it can't we all just get along.

I find this juvenile. Every war ever fought has left multitudes of families mourning their killed family members. But wars end. Yes wars do create a desire to revenge, but also a desire to end the killing and destruction. I don't get the fixation on endless revenge. Most conflicts end. Usually with exhaustion over pointless killing. At that point the warring parties have to cooperate to gain the peace. I think the concentration should be on how to use exhaustion with the destructiveness of war to win peace than fixating on revenge, but post whatever narratives you wish.

This entire thread right from its inception is evidence of my criticisms of the idea of Greater Israel. I've repeatedly pointed out that Israeli society and politics is pluralistic and there are moderate voices within it who have sought a partner for peace from the Palestinian side and they have repeatedly had their overtures met with terrorism. That terrorism has weakened the peace camp and empowered the Greater Israel mob. In my view disastrously for the politics of the region. Palestinian terrorism has been entirely self defeating ans simply empowered their enemies and weakened their aspirations. Disastrous policies. I've no doubt BiBi's waving of a Greater Israel map with Saudi as an ally contributed to Hamas' decision to go noisy. He has sowed disaster and I suspect he will be strongly defeated in post war realignments. That is the crux of this issue finding a path to a just peace afterwards and that requires parties on both sides to take hard decisions. I know there are Israeli parties who wish this. I hope they exist on the Palestinian side but basically since Arafat they have been thin on the ground and it took a huge leap of trust for the Israeli to accept him.

And what were the results of the election which Likud fought with that manifesto? Likud, and BiBi, were defeated and ejected from office with Ehud Barak, promising peace talks and a withdrawal from Lebanon by July 2000, winning the election in a landslide victory. His peace overtures was met with a wave of suicide bus bombings from Hamas which resulted in 100,000 of Gazans losing job in Israel as security measures were introduced to stop this terrorism.

Slightly over-wrought response.

It is terrible - it is mechanized urban warfare. Just as terrible were Falluja and Mosal and Grozny and Allepo and Mariupol and as I've pointed out Caen, or Berlin or Stalingrad. This isn't particularly unique ... the 1st 4 examples were verses insurgents, the last 4 army groups. The results aren't much different - I'm sure there are webpages documenting civilian deaths in all these cities - I'm going to sadly predict Gaza will be around the average when the campaign is over. Where do you stand Teapot? Against war ... who on here wants war? We all aspire for peace? The issue is how to achieve it. I'm fascinated by Helix's Xcreet and if I've an hour or so will try to respond to it, but what is happening is war, nasty, terrible, brutal war. And Hamas started this war. There had been repeated attempts to use deterrence and confidence building to stop war breaking out. But Hamas ignored it, decided to throw the dice and rather than using diplomacy to achieve its aims chose a continuation of politics by other means. Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war. That was Hamas' anthem on October 7th. They are reaping what they sowed. A terrible terrible political judgement ... one in my view that could only be made by an organisation dominated by a philosophy of martyrdom. I wish it wasn't happening, and I am pretty certain it would not be happening if Hamas had respected Israeli deterrence and hadn't deliberately started a war. I ask anyone how can you not see what Hamas did on October 7 as anything other than an act of war? And so how can you be surprised when the result is war?

The worst thing about this terrible violence is the political vacuum that will exist after it and without a just peace afterwards violence will not end. Are there people with sufficient imagination on either side to win the peace? Very very difficult to see.

No I don't. I am well aware of the history of the middle east. The issue is what policies are going to advance the welfare of the Palestinian people and condemning and seeking a policy change when they bring them to disaster. Do you really want a continuation of conflict? Or both sides disengaging and building trust and prosperity for there people. 2 states land for peace and mutual confidence building. It is a better ideal than River to the Sea or Greater Israel extremism. I support neither of these things. How about you!

I also wish to say Hamas can end this war just as the IRA ended the Troubles. By releasing the hostages and disarming. I fervently wish they would do this. It would transform Palestinian Israeli politics. But I don't think there is a chance in hell of it happening. Helix, Teapot do you agree the best and simplest way to bring peace to Gaza would be the unconditional surrender of Hamas'?

I cannot emphasize more how sad this situation is. My main analogy is the Battle for Caen in Normandy in 1944. https://www.liberationroute.com/pois/291/the-battle-for-caen 3000 civilians died as the Allies battled the Nazis. War is a huge tragedy. My firm view is this war is only happening because of Hamas' actions on the 7 October. They proved that they cannot remain a force dedicated to violence and terrorism. I fervently wish they had not started this war, but they did. Deliberately, callously putting their political philosophy ahead of both Jewish and Palestinian lives. No country could just sit back after the cold deliberate massacre of their people. Montgomery commanding his British and Canadian divisions in the Battle for Caen didn't want to damage this historic city or kill it's civilian population, but he had to defeat an enemy. And war fighting is an terrible terrible thing. It is so so sad that the Hamas which should be responsible for bringing prosperity and protection to Gaza's people instead deliberately brings war death and destruction.

Has Hamas and the PLO before it sown terrorism into the Palestinian mainstream?

Voting isn't the issue is it. It is supporting an organisation with a political philosophy that is genocidal to Jews, which goes out and deliberately massacres them. Hamas IS in the political mainstream of Palestinian politics and was seeking to use its popularity to expand into the West Bank. You claim to be knowledgeable about Palestinian issues but can't acknowledge this?

I find this surreal, is Helix really saying that Hamas isn't in the mainstream of Palestinian politics? Blindness.

You are being a dick. This is asking people to list the most positive thing to have happened. It does not mean that the people who listed the 1st and 2nd Intifadas weren't also Hamas supporters. You have the ability to understand this and analyse it import. It is juvenile to pretend Hamas didn't have significant levels of support.

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) is a well respected polling organisation based in Ramallah in June they asked Palestinians to list the Most Positive developments since the foundation of Israel the most popular choice was the Rise of Hamas'/Islamic Jihad. Hamas has been pushing for election because they are popular. Helix don't pretend that Hamas isn't in the mainstream of Palestinian politics. https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/944

I think we're a good 30 pages past the discussion around why explanation and justification are not the same thing. Oh for fuck sake Helix. This particular to-and-fro started because you said the Palestinians did no sowing. The total blindness of that statement shows a huge gap in your explanations. ... There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is where our political philosophies diverge. My belief is that people have to take responsibility for their futures and cannot continually blame others for their predicament. The Palestinian people have made terrible terrible political choices and they have consequences. Gaza has the same population density as Singapore. There are many counterfactuals where Palestinians could have cooperated to building a shared prosperous community with Israel. Just blaming the Jews for Gaza's misery is to miss too much of the story.

No context justifies what Hamas did.

Not necessarily An almost direct analogy which could have been written in 1944-5 I think anyone who realises that it's mere luck they were born in the UK rather than Nazi Germany should probably oppose Britain's behaviour. Warfare is nasty and as I said before the British army did what the IDF is doing to basically every village hamlet town and city between Normandy and the Rhine. They didn't do this because they hated the French, Belgium and Dutch civilians living in these places. They did it to defeat Naziism. The determinants of history means I have been born into a peaceful and well ordered society. I desire peace and order to spread. That can involve defeating those who wish to spread genocide and extremism. I wish it wasn't the case but history shows it is often so and most descendants of those who endured Allied actions in WWII recognise this. I desire the Palestinians to have a peaceful well ordered society and can think of no way that will happen while Hamas has significant power.

Oh my fucking God. Sorry but no. Hamas' genocidal rhetoric against Jews is politically popular amongst Palestinians. Hamas is supported and successfully recruits willing volunteers to its cause. The only reason Gaza is subject to the current military action against it is because Hamas sent its volunteers recruited from the general population of Gaza to commit a deliberate Pogrom against Jews - defenceless babies children teenagers women elderly massacred. This was greeted with glee by many many Palestinians who celebrated their strike on the Zionist entity and by many useful idiots in the west. You are blind to the sowing of evil and Palestinian relishing of it. Listen to the phone calls boasting of killing Jews and bodycam footage of their massacres. They knew what they were doing wanted it recorded and wanted to boast of their evil. This was done by Palestinians. Do not say this evil was not sown by deliberate choices made by a major and popular force in Palestinian politics.

UN 181 gave sovereignty to two states a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. The Jews accepted this. The Palestinians did not with Egypt and Jordan annexing Palestinian sovereignty. This was all caught up in Pan-Arabism which attempted to create a single Arab super state. That was a complete failure and Palestinian nationalism emerged with Yasser Arafat and the PLO in the 1960s and 70s. Egypt and Jordan transfered Palestinian sovereignty to the PLO, but this was after 1967 and so the sovereignty was under Israeli occupation. PK if you use 181 to uphold Israeli sovereignty you need to also acknowledge Israeli occupation of Palestinian sovereignty. I've been reading Peter Hitchens of all people recently. I am always fascinated by people some of whose opinions I agree with while others I am repulsed by. He is steadfastly opposed to Israel's bombardment of Gaza firstly on Christian moral grounds, and secondly, because he accepts people disagree with his religion, on utilitarian grounds that it is ineffective and reduces support for Israel - which he a strong supporter of. My view has been that Hamas likely has to be defeated, and a just peace found. I think Hitchens is saying why not start from deterrence, restraint under provocation, and seek a just peace now. Such a response would have given Israel the moral high ground and sympathy after Hamas' genocidal pogrom. Sadly it is now too late for that counterfactual, but I can understand why Hitchens advocated for it. Pity both communities for what violence reaps.

One idea was to ask Jews to migrate to Uganda of all places! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme The one constant of Jewish communities for 1000s of years is the reality of Exile and a desire to return. How many have there been over Jewish history - I think at least 3. To maintain cultural continuity while subject to exile, discrimination and violence is pretty unique in history. Many other groups have been assimilated or subject to cultural or actual genocide. The Jews aren't leaving and until trust is built will insist on the monopoly of violence/control of the gun. These facts have to be accepted in any path forward.

https://www.wsj.com/video/video-analysis-shows-gaza-hospital-hit-by-failed-rocket-meant-for-israel/120A1C22-BA32-418E-8837-BC4141FEFB00.html Good analysis from the Wall Street Journal of the failed rocket falling on the hospital.

Many years ago, when I was just 20 I read Robert Fisk's monumental book on the Israel-Lebanon war: Pity the Nation. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pity-Nation-Lebanon-at-War/dp/0192801309/ref=sr_1_1?crid=294N98P1VTIWM&keywords=Pity+the+Nation&qid=1698082391&sprefix=pity+the+nation%2Caps%2C70&sr=8-1 I can, for some reason, vividly remember reading this section on p43-43 (I love my bookshelves!): ... [an] Israeli ... said he had himself assisted 40,000 Palestinians to re-join their families and become Israeli citizens. Yet most exiled Palestinians instinctively reject the idea of taking Israeli citizenship in order to return. ... Whatever his or her status, a Palestinian can claim compensation from the Israeli Special Committee for the Return of Absentee Property ... [but] making a claim in the Israeli courts means recognising the state of Israel. ... 'Do you really wonder,' ... asked [a PLO spokesman] why we won't claim compensation? We don't want compensation - we want our land. ... It's invidious for any Palestinian to take a cash payment from the Israelis. It undermines our demand for the return of our homes.' ... [Some land] came into the hands of the development authority and was then leased to [a government entity]. Each transaction - of which the original owners remained in ignorance - had involved the transfer of money from one Israeli government department to another. If the government expropriates land, then it must pay compensation to the office of the custodian. The custodian can then in theory pay compensation to the original owner - although the land, of course, has gone. ... Of those who left ... scarcely any had ... claimed compensation under the Israeli Absentee Property Compensation Law of 1973. Refusing to return and refusing to be compensated was a road to nowhere. And demographics has basically now closed the option of Israeli citizenship too many children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to reasonably absorb in one go. Ah the what-if game if they'd returned in the 1970s? or 80s or 90s or 00s or 10s ... too late now.