For purposes of definition, I consider Idealists as ones who put universal rights above nation, and follows globalized institutions like the UN rather than national interests. No nation is fully idealist. The more a nation is under threat, the LESS likely they will go the Idealist route for getting out of its situation. — schopenhauer1

Yea, within IR that would be the proper definition.

I probably should have used a different term to describe the ideals of the Israeli hardliners to avoid confusion.

But it seems we are mostly in agreement. :up:

I'm not sure to what extent I can agree with the characterization of Israel as an idealist nation.

My impression is that Israel has acted in a predominantly realist fashion, the exception being the nationalism/zionism at the root of its creation, which is still supported by much of the hardliners that control the Israeli government (like Netanyahu and the Likud party).

But even they are realist to the bone.

I think perhaps Rabin was close to being an idealist. Sadly he was assassinated for it.

I've argued before in this thread that Israel's position in the region is and has been precarious. Perhaps that's why it can't afford itself much idealism.

On the other hand, it's hard to see how Israel's blatant disregard for humanitarian law is benefitting it in the long-term. One could argue it's the idealism of Israel's hardline leadership that causing its ruthless policies vis-á-vis the Palestinians. A realist perhaps would sooner see the necessity of finding a modus vivendi, to avoid becoming diplomatically isolated in the region - ending up as a pariah state hated by all its neighbors.

Do note that while I am very critical of Israel, that doesn't mean that I am not also very critical of Hamas. I'd agree with Baden there. They're terrorists, and people who deliberately target innocent civilians in the way that they did deserve no protection.

The millions of innocent people who live in Gaza however do deserve protection.

And while we may imagine what atrocities Hamas would commit if they were ever to gain power (which will hopefully never happen), in the case of Israel we need not imagine. Its list of human rights violations is unending. Human rights organisations have termed its treatments of the Palestinians as apartheid - a crime against humanity.

Hamas is being punished for its wrongdoings as we speak, sadly over the backs of innocent civilians. But when will Israel be held accountable?

Israel doesn’t occupy it in the sense it doesn’t have settlements nor political rule there. — schopenhauer1

I disagree, and like I told Hanover before, the relevant rulings state exactly that:

Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (September, 2022)

The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Gaza, and the occupied Syrian Golan are currently under belligerent occupation by Israel, to which international humanitarian law applies concurrently with international human rights law.

I agree with you insofar that the other regional players haven't come to the rescue of Gaza either. But that's not their responsibility either. It's Israel's. That's why Israel has a nearly endless list of human rights violations to its name vis-á-vis the Palestinian people - human rights violations as determined by reputable international courts and organisations.

I agree that Egypt had a role in the start of this political conflict.

I remain unconvinced about Egypt's role in the humanitarian crisis, though. In my view that is between occupier and occupied - Israel and the Palestinians living in Gaza. Israel took that responsibility on itself when it annexed the land.

Whether the situation would have been any better had the Egyptians stayed in control is not all that relevant. I'm sure it wouldn't have been fantastic either. But that's hardly a ground to shift the responsibility.

That Egypt did not want Gaza back, and today refuses to let the conflict spill over into its region, is in my view entirely within its right and I see no reason why the onus would be on them to act when Israel has stubbornly refused to seek workable solutions for 50 years.

What do you believe Egypt should/could have done?

But who created whom and is it Israel in a vacuum? — schopenhauer1

A vacuum would be overstating it, but yes, I've seen no indication that Egypt bears responsibility for how the situation in Gaza developed. But maybe you know things I don't. I'm open to hearing another perspective.

"Oh I'm sorry you're to ignorant for me to explain please educate yourself". — Echarmion

Note that I didn't refuse to explain. You'll find all the explanation you need in this very thread, with links, sources and all. I've probably written about a book's worth and can't be arsed to repeat it all. If you're unaware of US involvement in Ukraine I would suggest starting at page 1.

What an absolute asshole move. — Echarmion

Sometimes being an asshole and simply being honest look very much alike.

Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off. — Tzeentch

What? I don't understand this at all. — Echarmion

So you're either unaware of the United States' deep involvement in Ukraine, or trying to deny it.

In either case there's no point in continuing this kind of discussion.

If you're genuinely interested in learning more about this conflict, feel free to read through some of the replies I've dropped here. They'll also include links and sources.

It's of course possible that Russia engaged in a major, multi-pronged offensive in order to have leverage for an independent Donbas. It's an insane amount of effort for a minor goal, but It's possible. — Echarmion

Forcing Ukraine to become neutral is far from a minor goal. It would constitute a major US defeat.

What's the evidence for this? — Echarmion

The accounts of the neutral diplomats who were present, as given to us by people like Jeffrey Sachs.

You mean apart from the actual invasion forces, the statements made by Putin and others and the leaked plans to that effect? — Echarmion

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. Russia had to force the world's most powerful nation to back off.

How is it unclear? The territories have in fact been annexed by Russia. — Echarmion

Yes, after diplomatic negotiations were blocked.

The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine. — Mikie

Probably not, but annex a substantial part of it, and probably install a satellite regime in others. — Echarmion

If we go by the peace negotiations that took place in March / April of 2022, the Russians offered peace in return for the independence of Donbas and Ukrainian neutrality.

In my opinion, this shows Russian goals in Ukraine were not primarily territorial. It's only when peace negotiations failed (blocked by the US) that they dug themselves in in Kherson and Zaporizhia, and started to prepare for a long war.

There's nothing to indicate Russia intended to turn Ukraine into a satellite, nor does that appear at all feasible to me.

It's even unclear whether Donbas would join Russia, or whether it would remain 'independent' and serve as a buffer (though in that case, 'satellite' would probably be the correct term).

You sort of got it with your brief and last mention there (of the real issue) which is they don’t want to deal with their Hamas anymore than Israel. — schopenhauer1

I suppose Israel should have thought of that before it annexed the Gaza Strip, and before it insisted on its occupation and eventual integration into Israel.

In my opinion, when the Israelis point at the Egyptians they are refusing to take responsibility by asking other nations to clean up the disaster that they created.

Taking in several million traumatized refugees and possibly thousands of Muslim radicals is not something Egypt can be expected to simply take on the chin because Israeli radicals want to be enabled in their fantasy.

Do you talk about moral ambiguity, feel the guilt of your predecessors in putting you in this place, and then set up a meeting with Hamas to discuss your displeasure at their murderous yet understandable behavior and figure out how we can go halfsies on the land so everyone will be happy? — Hanover

Yes, that is the way.

And Rabin was successful at it - finally some semblance of a start of reconciliation between Jews and Palestinians.

A little too successful. Radicals within Israel had him offed.

Can't have humanism get in the way of nationalism/zionism.

Those same radicals are in charge today, by the way.

Why isn't Egypt taking in Palestinians? Are they going to open up borders? — schopenhauer1

I think there are a few reasons. One is that opening up a corridor would basically allow Israel to go ahead with its ethnic cleansing and annexation of Gaza. Which, besides leading to a humanitarian catastrophe several times worse than the 1948 Nakba, is also something Egypt is politcally opposed to.

It's also not clear whether Egypt can even house this amount of refugees.

Further, among the refugees there are bound to be radical militants. Hamas has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt has struggled with in the past.

Personally, I feel like it's Israel's responsibility to act in ways that doesn't jeopardize millions of innocent lives.

Why didn't Egypt want (at least provisional) control of Gaza when they could have had it? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I followed the links but didn't find a clear explanation of what you mean by this.

If you believe Israel isn't occupying foreign territories in Gaza and the West Bank, then what exactly do you believe Israel is doing there? — Tzeentch

They're invading it after being attacked. — Hanover

I believe it is and was an occupation, and relevant rulings on this case seem to agree.

Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (September, 2022)

The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Gaza, and the occupied Syrian Golan are currently under belligerent occupation by Israel, to which international humanitarian law applies concurrently with international human rights law.

Then I have trouble understanding your position.

If you believe Israel isn't occupying foreign territories in Gaza and the West Bank, then what exactly do you believe Israel is doing there?

Your comment is almost symbolic for the lack of diplomatic tact that I sought to point out.

Uhhh... just how many have been killed in Ukraine compared to this little fight? And there are over 6 million refugees from Ukraine now all over the World. That's multiple times the population in Gaza. And how do the deaths compare? In the war in Ukraine 200 000 soldiers in all have perished in the war and perhaps 40 000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed. And the actual figures can be even higher, actually.

So please do notice the huge differences in scale. — ssu

That's of course terrible, however in the case of Ukraine there is a professional army capable of protecting civilians (and not using them as human shields), and a state capable of sheltering them with wide international support. That's not the case in Gaza. In Gaza there is no food, no running water, no electricity, and the civilians cannot flee even if they wanted to.

So I think it's fair to say that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is much worse - that's not necessarily a quantitative statement.

Starting with the false premise that Israel occupies a foreign land, I'm not sure what follows from there. — Hanover

Ok, so you're making a claim about Israel's annexations of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967 - places that belonged to Egypt and Jordan respectively at the time, and where there lived (and still live) primarily Palestinians.

What makes this annexation by Israel during the Six-Day War legitimate in your eyes?

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

Is something new, Tzeentch? — ssu

Well, yes and no.

The writing has been on the wall for a while, but nature of the war in Ukraine has allowed the Biden administration to play pretend for a while.

There was no real threat of escalation in Ukraine and the Russians weren't intent on pushing the Ukrainians to the brink. Also the humanitarian situation wasn't as dire as in Gaza.

However, with Israel any ideas about Washington being in control are dispelled. They are out of control. There have barely been any diplomatic conversations between Washington and players in the Middle-East - something that would be unheard of 20 years ago.

Of course the fact that the US was going to support Israel was never in question, but the US can't even really support Israel. Vacuous "we stand with Israel" statements are meaningless - in fact, makes Washington look like a bunch of stooges in the way it was presented - schoolchildren. Sending carrier battlegroups is imposing and symbolic, but in pratical terms meaningless for the type of conflict that might enfold and the players involved know that.

This might explain in part why Israel is reacting so extremely - because they realize there's no one at the wheel in Washington. No one to come and save them if the Arabs come knocking.

Honestly, up to this point I had kept the option open that Washington wasn't purely incompetent, but might be playing an extremely cynical game of 4d chess. However, given the role Israel plays in US politics, Washington can't afford incompetence or cynicism here, so what we're looking at is very real.

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this?

The administration in Washington looks like they are in way over their head. They have no one left who can with some credibility engage in diplomacy, nor does the EU.

They're probably barely on speaking terms with any of the parties involved, and they're scared of the Israelis. Blinken looked like a schoolboy next to Netanyahu.

It's truly shocking to me, and an indicator how far along we already are with regards to the geopolitical shift that is taking place. It looks like there are no adults left in western politics. No one with a cool head, with credibility or any semblance of rapport.

It's as disgraceful as it is shocking.

Also, I am not trying to score easy points against you, . :kiss:

I only sought to point out the direct link between the 1967 Six-Day War and the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank. Obviously the conflict goes further back.

Seems one can say the very same for Israel's formation in 1948, no? — schopenhauer1

In a sense, yes. But in 1948 the Israelis were very effective at ethnically cleansing the territories they annexed (Nakba). In 1967 they evidently weren't.

2) Why didn't Hamas focus on making a prosperous Gaza for their population in terms of using support money to go to operations of daily living rather than funneled into military operations? — schopenhauer1

Gaza has been under a blockade for over 15 years, and the Israelis have in other ways actively tried to prevent Gaza from developing.

Hamas didn't contribute to the prosperity of Gaza either, clearly. But there's two sides to the story.

It's even commonly accepted that at various points in the past the Israeli government low-key supported Hamas in order to reduce the influence of the PLO, and thus make a two-state solution impossible.

3) Israel's problems always stemmed from its very formation. One side did not accept any concessions to the other (this was prior to even the 1948 war, meaning even prior to the "right of return" situation). In other words, one side has always thought the other side illegitimate even in theory. — schopenhauer1

Do note the role of the Six-Day War in 1967. That is when Israel annexed the Gaza Strip and Sinai from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

A lot has been said about the Israeli claim to self-defense, since it utterly clobbered its neighbours' militaries in a matter of days and went on to annex huge swathes of land. It bit off more than it could chew, and it did so arguably on the basis of lies.

Now, over 50 years after the fact, those things are coming back to haunt them.

Israel probably isn't out of PGM's, but out of anti-air missiles for their Iron Dome.

Iron Dome was designed to intercept sporadic attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. and they may not have had stockpiles to have it operating under the conditions we see today.

Obviously they can't go around saying their Iron Dome is out of ammo.

That won't be the end of it, though. Millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank. If Israel chooses to commit a second Nakba, there will be zero chance for peace in Israel.

Meanwhile, we see several countries that were formerly neutral towards Israel putting diplomatic pressure not to go ahead with this invasion - Egypt, Russia, Türkiye, among others.

If this is happening, Gaza won't be the end of it. Gaza will be the start. I think Israel would be massively overplaying its hand (taking after its big brother, the US) and come out of this mess more vulnerable than it has ever been.

In my view, the biggest threat to Israel is if it were to become totally estranged and politically isolated from its regional neighbours. With this plan, it is coursing directly towards such a situation.

Now is not 1973. Israel's conventional army, while formiddable, will simply lose versus a large, well-coordinated unconventional threat.

Especially in an ethnic/religious conflict like this, 'war among the people', the power of conventional armies is very limited and I suspect that is something Israel is going to learn the hard way - if not in Gaza, in the conflicts that will predictably follow this disaster.

It's clearly an act of forced displacement, which is indeed a war crime. The problem is that almost all of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has a clause of 'military necessity', which is what Israel has always put forward to legitimise its actions.

Rule 129. The Act of Displacement

A. Parties to an international armed conflict may not deport or forcibly transfer the civilian population of an occupied territory, in whole or in part, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.

B. Parties to a non-international armed conflict may not order the displacement of the civilian population, in whole or in part, for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand. — IHL

Legally speaking, all Israel has to do is make a case for military necessity, and it doesn't even have to be a particularly good one.

IHL is pretty much a paper tiger anyway, but I thought it might be useful to understand how Israel covers its bases.

Yes, Israel has royally screwed up with the support of the US. I'm just saying, it's not apartheid by the definition we usually use for that. — frank

What apartheid is referring to in this case is not the situation within Israel, but the situation between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. — Legal ecyclopedia

There's a giant wall seperating Israel from the West Bank, which has been ruled illegal by to the International Court of Justice specifically because of its character of racial segregation and discrimination.

Further, Palestinians do not have the same rights as Jews within the land of Israel.
For example, Palestinians in the West Bank cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas, which results in communities becoming isolated, life being made impossible, etc.

Palestinians in the West Bank are policed by the Israeli army, while Israeli settlers are policed by the police - this results in Israeli soldiers standing idly by while Palestinians are harassed, humiliated, or sometimes violently assaulted by settlers.

Palestinians can be taken into custody without any basis, and held there indefinitely - sometimes for years.

I could go on.

The list of Israeli human rights violations with regards to discrimination of Palestinians is nearly inexhaustible, so please, when the appropriate human rights organisations like Amnesty talk about apartheid, it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. This is real apartheid.

Also reports of hostile airplanes (likely drones) in northern Israel.

Yep. This is going fully to shit.

Sadly, as many had already feared, settler violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank is now starting to flare up as well.

Three Palestinians Killed by Israeli Forces, Settlers in West Bank

CAIRO, Oct 11 (Reuters) - Three Palestinians were killed by gunfire from Israeli forces and settlers in Qusra village near the West Bank city of Nablus on Wednesday, the Palestinian official news agency said.

Eleven other Palestinians were wounded by live rounds, according to the Red Crescent.

Earlier in the day, Ghassan Daghlas, the acting governor of Nablus, told Reuters that Israeli settlers had attacked the village located south of Nablus, and fired live bullets at citizens and ambulances in the place.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea of imposing something of that magnitude and with such potential risks on Israel.

Putting pressure on Israel to stop its human rights abuses is something that is long overdue, though. (To be fair, it's not like that hasn't been tried, but alas.)

However, it is unlikely given the huge political clout Israel holds in the United States.

In many ways I agree with you, and it's not so clear whether denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination won't come back to haunt Israel.

Yet it's hard to imagine the Israeli policymakers will see it this way, and they're holding almost all the cards.

It's not clear to me how such a peace plan would address the legitimate concern about what happens if a new Palestinian state would align itself to Israel's adversaries.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the Israelis. Palestine becomes its own state and a few years after the deal it aligns itself with Iran. What happens next? Would Israel realistically ever take such a risk?

Putting the ideological nonsense from the hardliners aside, from a geopolitical view a two state solution would be complicated to say the least (I'll readily call it a pipe dream).

Israeli policymakers (or the international community, for that matter) have to ask themselves the question, what sort of state might Palestine develop into over time?

Is that going to be a state favorable to Israel, or one that is adversarial?

It doesn't take ideologically possessed hardliners to see that the answer is probably going to be the latter, given the immense historical grievances present, and no shortage of potential allies that also take an adversarial position towards Israel.

There might be a period of peace, but I think that would be short-lived, and that it would buckle under geopolitical realities and historical sentiments in no time at all.

At that point, Israel's position would be even more strategically compromised than it already is. In its current state Israel already has virtually no strategic depth - with a Palestinian state located (for example) on the West Bank, that would shrink even further.

To illustrate, at its narrowest point the distance between the West Bank and the Mediterranean is only about 15 km. A 15 minute drive.

From a military perspective it is undefendable.


So I agree with some of the sentiments that have already been shared in this thread, namely that advocating a two state solution is so unrealistic that it is basically a way politicians pretend to advocate for peace, while in fact supporting the status quo.

This idea that Israel wants to push Palestine into the sea is a projection of what Palestine wants to do to Israel. If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't. — Hanover

I'm assuming you are talking about Hamas? You don't think every Palestinian thinks like Hamas, do you? Sounds like you might be doing some projecting of your own.

You're also comparing apples to oranges. Palestine doesn't even have a functioning army or police force - they're not allowed that by Israel. Palestine as a state doesn't exist, and even as a political entity it barely exists.

Palestinians are basically powerless and without proper representation. Add a system of apartheid and a slow policy of bullying the Palestinians until they leave and you have a hotbed for hatred and extremism. Israel's policies with regards to the Palestinian territories could easily be regarded as a method of slow ethnic cleansing.

West Bank Map

Here's a quote by Amnesty:

In [February, 2022], Amnesty International released a 280-page report showing how Israel was imposing an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it exercised control over their rights, fragmenting and segregating Palestinian citizens of Israel, residents of the OPT and Palestinian refugees denied the right of return. Through massive seizures of land and property, unlawful killings, infliction of serious injuries, forcible transfers, arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement, and denial of nationality, among other inhuman or inhumane acts, Israeli officials would be responsible for the crime against humanity of apartheid, which falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Note that this abhorrent practice has been going on for decades, even during peace processes. Israel has always assumed time is on its side in this regard, and that eventually it will succeed in pushing the Palestinians out. (Rabin was the exception - hardliners had him offed)

There's a significant elite within Israel that wants a strictly Jewish state and sees no place for Palestinians. Netanyahu's party Likud represents part of that elite.

While you're trying to mind read (projecting) what the Palestinians would do if they had the capability, Israel is being actively called out by human rights organisations for actual crimes against humanity. The fact that they've not taken to outright genocide should in no way justify how you've tried to frame the two sides.

And speaking of genocide, Art 2.(c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide defines genocide as such:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

[...]

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

Israel has skirted that line vis-á-vis the Palestinians for much of its existence.

For me it looks like an attack that Palestinians could well have planned themselves. — ssu

I am skeptical. An elaborate operation like this prepared and carried out right under the noses of Mossad suggests to me that highly capable actors are involved.

As in, now Israel will never get the Muslims to care about them now that they've gone and done this? — Hanover

If Israel moves into Gaza and it turns into a giant massacre, then yes, I assume rapprochement with the Muslim world will be set back decades. Perhaps outright inflame old tensions.

And that rapprochement matters. Israel is surrounded by Muslim countries who have far greater populations than itself. Unless Israel wants to live in fear of its existence forever (as it has done for much of the past), that rapprochement matters.

Seems the strategic angle would be that the Palestinians would try to gain the affection of the Israelies, considering they have the power to destroy them. — Hanover

The hardliners in Israel, many of whom are part of Netanyahu's party Likud, want Israel to be a strictly Jewish nation state.

I'd agree with you, if it were a feasible option. But the harsh truth is that many of the people who control Israel want the Palestinians gone and have consistently managed to implement policy to try and remove them.

Israel's settlement policy, which Netanyahu has steadily increased support for, is probably the most egregious example of such policies.

With the current lock down I don't think foreign backing is relevant. — Benkei

How does that really help? — ssu

Well, I think it matters.

The scale and organisation of the attacks seem to suggest some kind of foreign backing.

The attacks, while bloody, didn't achieve anything, and harsh Israeli retaliation was basically guaranteed. So if we assume rational actors are behind this attack, we might also assume the attacks themselves weren't the goal of the operation.

So perhaps eliciting an extreme response from Israel, for which preperations may have already been made, was the goal.

In 2006 we saw that Hezbollah was capable of waging war effectively against Israel. There's no reason to assume Hamas hasn't found some way to do the same.

At any rate, if I were the Israelis I would be extremely cautious about sending 300,000 reservists into Gaza. It will be a bloodbath and I don't think it is obvious the Israelis will come out on top without resorting to indiscriminate killing.

And Hamas or the Palestinian authority don't the capability to train and arm such forces. — ssu

The assumption is that Hamas has foreign backing.

Honestly, a force of 300,000 against 2,000,000+ Palestinians (lets say 500,000 military age males) who have nowhere to run to, and are possibly quite well-armed and prepared to conduct an insurgency? I wouldn't be loving my odds if I were the Israeli general in charge. Not to mention the situation on the West Bank, the Lebanon border and with regards to outside actors like Iran.

Flawed they may be, Israel's government is quite capable and one would think (hope) they would see the foolishness of such a course of action.

And moreover, Israel has no worries as it has a nuclear deterrence. And it's neighbors don't. — ssu

I'm not sure how much those nukes count for in the modern age. If some escalation takes place, it's not going to be conventional. It will be 'war among the people', and it can hardly start nuking its own territory.

Israel has referred to the use of its nuclear arsenal as 'the Samson option' - if you understand the symbology you will understand that relying on this would certainly worry the Israelis.