Israel's defenders on this thread (and in the media) have one major play, equivocating between "Israel has the right to defend itself" and "Israel has the right to defend itself [by any means]". The former sounds reasonable but seeing as what's meant is the latter, what's presented is not only unreasonable, but obviously false. Morally speaking, there must always be a limit to the means. And where that is is what should be the basis for debate. Not acknowledging that is simply refusing to have the debate. As is focusing on Hamas, religion, and Arab culture. You can despise all the aforementioned without it being remotely relevant.

Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it.

Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war? — BitconnectCarlos

Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).

Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.

German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then.

I mostly agree. Nevertheless Israel defenders have to mention Hamas and to a less visible extent Muslims in general. Otherwise there is no possible response for the lack of proportionality, none. You have to make Hamas look like a super power.

But yes, US support has not been mentioned much here. Without US support Israel could not be getting away with as much as it does. It gets most of its weapons from the US and the US is the sole vote against the UN resolution condemning the violence. But pressure inside the US is changing rather quickly and sooner or later, this will have a strong reaction in Israel, because they will be isolated and won't be able to kill children like nothing and destroy press buildings.

Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it. — Baden

The actions how Israel defends itself and what it tries or doesn't try to solve the conflict is something surely be a topic to discuss and to be critical about. Any country should be under scrutiny if they have annexed territory with other people than themselves.

But pressure inside the US is changing rather quickly and sooner or later, this will have a strong reaction in Israel, because they will be isolated and won't be able to kill children like nothing and destroy press buildings. — Manuel

The only time Israel anticipated such a move was when the Cold War ended. After the Soviet Union wasn't a threat, they correctly understood that Washington could perhaps look at whom it supports at a new light. This happened to South Africa: suddenly the US didn't need an ally to keep in check Marxist advance in Southern Africa and the Apartheid system became the real issue. Hence Israel took the initiative with the Oslo Peace process. Unluckily the Palestinians didn't understand that this was once in a lifetime opportunity.

What the Israelis didn't then understand, but now have understood is that US supporting Israel isn't because of US Middle-Eastern foreign policy objectives, but because of highly powerful lobbyist groups as AIPAC and the Christian Evangelist movement, which the latter upholds supporting Israel as a religious duty. It hasn't anything to do with classical realpolitik: that's the crazy realpolitik here.

If people think that the new woke crowd can topple the religious right, well, good luck with that! I just assume that Americans will yell at each other and remain in separate tribes. Perhaps the military assistance will be smaller. Israel doesn't actually need it to be the dominant power in the region.

1. The fact there is no peace, can be laid fully at the feet of the Israeli government as its even greedier than the land it already stole in 1967;
2. Israel has been in breach of international law since 1948, the same legal regime it bases its own rights on (you can't have your cake and eat it);
3. As long as right-wing political zionism is effectively in control of policy, it's a policy of de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people as their presence is slowly eroded through evictions in East Jerusalem and through settler colonisation (and let's not get started on the Apartheid rule in Israel proper itself, which is another atrocity);
4. Israel therefore deserves no help or respect from the international community until such time as it enters into good faith negotiations with the people its oppressing;
5. Considering Israel's obvious bad faith approach to any form of peace, I conclude that every Israeli tragedy is of its own making and every tragedy befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies.

Sure. But the real Israel lobby is the military industrial complex including the Pentagon. They have strategic interests in Israel, they can depend on it to do dirty business for the US, including eliminating secular Arab Nationalism as they did when they defeated Nasserism.

I understand the religious right is insane. I'm just pointing to a encouraging phenomena: 15 years ago you would have not seen these protests in the US at all. I suspect it will get stronger, as it has with each Gaza massacre and I don't think it's limited to "woke" people only, thankfully. With the internet, everyone can now see how Gaza is being abused and how the West Bank is being robbed.

Everyone can see that Israel is just destroying innocent people and repeating the word "Hamas", "Hamas", "Hamas" all the time. After a while, it sounds like "support our troops", meaning hollow in content.

How this will pan out, is anybody's guess. Going to resolutions 242 would be best...

Sure. But the real Israel lobby is the military industrial complex including the Pentagon. They have strategic interests in Israel, they can depend on it to do dirty business for the US, including eliminating secular Arab Nationalism as they did when they defeated Nasserism. — Manuel

If it would be just the military industry, then I guess the US would have done the same as France: switch sides to a more profitable arms export market. This actually has happened thanks to the Peace agreements. Let's not forget that France was the major arms supplier for Israel first and only later did it become to be the US. France helped Israel with it's nuclear weapon, not the US.

And when those arms are partly paid by the US taxpayer, the reason has to be something different than just arms exports. There has to be the religious right, AIPAC, the "Judeo-Christian heritage" and all that in the end to make Israel enjoy such a position that it has.

The big bucks in arms exports are made in Saudi-Arabia:

Found this informative:




An honest account of one of the world's unsolved problems in language that's funny and yet not irreverent, serious but yet not depressing.

To add to those, the U.S. shares close geopolitical goals with Israel, to empower the Gulf States and contain Iran.

But I also wouldn’t overstate functionalist causes to policy. There is also the motivation among the U.S. Elite to not change policy trends, either out of some venal sectional interest, narcissistic deafness to criticism, ethical laziness & indifference. If people in this forum thread can act like this, what should we expect of them.

Like so many other things, one simply has to follow the money - the US provides billions in aid to Israel, which is then used to buy arms from US corporations. It's a wealth transfer of tax dollars to arms tycoons via the intermediary of the Israeli state. Those same arms dealers then fund elections which secure the politicians in their pocket to keep the cycle going. More than that, arms plants in the US are almost all typically located in industrial backwaters (incentivised by tax and IR consessions), which helps ensure the more even spread of surplus recycling within US geographical borders, helping to sustain an economy which would otherwise come apart at the seams. Capitalism in action. This all to say nothing about Israel providing a platform for American imperialism in the Middle-East more generally, providing oil security among other things. As Joe Biden once so memorably put it - Israel is an investment, one so valuable that it would have to be invented if it didn't exist (as if it wasn't indeed an invention...).

That the US is filled with religious lunatics who want to see the end times after the Palestiniams are decisively erased from their homeland is just ideological icing on a materialist cake.

*

The U.S. didn't originally support Israel much until the 1967 war after Israel helped Saudi Arabia defeat Egypt, the former who was a U.S. ally since the 1940s, and then U.S. aid to Israel shot up dramatically. And then again after 1970 when Israel intervened to prevent Syria from intervening on behalf of the Palestinians in Jordan. Clearly the timeline shows geopolitical partnership (shaped by geoeconomic concerns) outweighed ideological origins.

1948-1958 US, reluctant to alienate Arab oil producers by selling arms directly, gives economic aid only.
1961 President Kennedy authorizes first direct arms sale: Hawk missiles.
1962 First US military aid (loans) to Israel.
June 1967 Six-Day War. Israel’s main military supplier, France, imposes arms embargo.
1968 Congress increases aid to Israel 450 percent. Military aid jumps from $7 million in 1967 to $25 million in 1968. US agrees to sell Israel 50 Phantom fighter bombers.
1970 Jordan’s “Black September” crisis; US sees Israel as means to combat Soviet influence in Arab world, increases military aid from $140 million in 1968-1970 to $1.15 billion in 1971-1973.

https://merip.org/1990/05/us-aid-to-israel/

To add to those, the U.S. shares close geopolitical goals with Israel, to empower the Gulf States — Saphsin

I'm not so sure that Israel wants to "empower" the Gulf States. Just having a same threat (Iran) does go only so far.

Let's remember that Saudi-Arabia was actually in war with Israel and did send a small contingent of troops to fight Israel in 1948 and also in 1973 and has been a huge financier of Israel's enemies in the past. Quite similar is the relationship with the other Gulf States. The normalization of relations just in the past Trump administration shows how strained the relations have been.

Co-operation of Israel with Saudi-Arabia (or Turkey) is more of an unholy alliance that neither side wants to officially acknowledge. Saudi-Arabia doesn't have diplomatic relations with Israel. But let's say like with Egypt and Jordan, Israel is at least in some terms with them and doesn't communicate with them only by either making military strikes or by refraining from using military force (like with Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.).

Sure, but who does Saudi Arabia use these weapons against? Yemen. Besides being a crime of the very worst calibre in global affairs, Saudi Arabia is not going to use all those weapons against an enemy that can fight back to some degree. Like is the case with Hezbollah against Israel. Of course, Israel is vastly superior to Hezbollah by many, many magnitudes. But Hezbollah could hurt Tel Aviv.

Israel gets the best weapons. Sometimes these weapons are tested on the Palestinian population. Other countries sell weapons to Israel too. And you're correct about France back in the day.

All I'm saying is that the Israel lobby goes way beyond AIPAC, which by now, since Sanders ran in 2016 actually, has lost quite a bit of relevance. The Israel lobby includes top US planers and military strategists, since it is an ally when it comes to killing people in the Middle East. This continues to be the case to this day.

But if the US population strongly pressures the government to stop supporting Israeli crimes, this could change to some extent.

Another way of saying, yet again, stay on topic, which concerns the proportionality of Israel's military response and whether the U.S. should support it. — Baden

Can there even be a "proportional" response, in the traditional sense of the word? What I mean is, given the overall situation and the history, how could any kind of tit for tat reaction be proportional, seeing as the only plausible consequence would be more violence and more death?

This isn't aimed at you, I know you are just asking people to stay on topic. But Western politicians like nothing so much as calling for "proportional reaction", but this seems to really say nothing at all. It can never be proportional to use violence at all where other means exist, and for Israel they definetly do.

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies. — BitconnectCarlos

1. Except for the hickup that was Rabin, more or less all of them? I'll concede I'm not intimately familiar with every government of Israel, especially before Begin. But anything Likud has been terrible. Not surprising considering its goals:

• Jordan River will be the eastern border.
• The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
• The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
• Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem. The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city, while emphasizing improvements in the welfare and security of the Arab residents. Despite protests from the left, the Likud government consistently approved the continuation of Jewish living within the Old City and in 'City of David'.

And other vile nonsense which is as bad as Hamas really - or actually worse considering Hamas' statements in 2017 which accepts the 1967 borders. But Likud fundamentally does not accept a two-state solution, it does not accept its settlements are illegal and believes they should be strengthened (e.g. expanded) and will not be given back.

2. I don't think everybody has to move, Israeli settlers can decide to stay where they are but then under a common rule where they can have 1 person, 1 vote in a sovereign State that isn't Israel but will be a new Palestinian State. Whether those settlers will want to stay is up to them. Israel will have to pay reparations for the land its settlers stole of course if they do decide to stay. But it's already clear that 1967 borders will work too to achieve peace so we're not talking about the 1948 borders. I raised that point to drive home that anything Israel acquired after 1948 has been illegal and morally condemnable. And that despite that the Palestinians have already offered a huge olive branch, which Israel ignores.

3. The Zionism that has resulted in the Apartheid rule in Israel proper, that thinks settler colonialism is a good thing and to be supported by the government and that is not interested in a two state solution. Basically anything that agrees with Likud's points above.

5. Yeah, where you're armed to the teeth, taken my home, continue to oppress my family, kill my family and friends indiscriminately don't complain when I lash out. Sure, it's immoral what Hamas' military wing does but the greater crime that gave rise to Hamas even being created lies with the Israelis. There's no chicken and egg story here, Hamas wasn't created until 1987 as a reaction to the continued oppression and colonisation by Israel of land that isn't theirs. So a Hamas' rocket gets a shrug from me because WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? Israel isn't the victim here. You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out.

Sure, but who does Saudi Arabia use these weapons against? Yemen. Besides being a crime of the very worst calibre in global affairs, Saudi Arabia is not going to use all those weapons against an enemy that can fight back to some degree. — Manuel

And if there is a revolution in Saudi-Arabia and the Saudi prefix is dropped? What if Saudi-Arabia goes the way as former US allies like Iran and Pakistan? From friend and ally to an enemy or problematic partner? Just like with Egypt, there is a possibility for a potential conflict.

The place is still a powder keg.

Of course. Then again, it's hard to think of a more repressive government and mentality than the Saudi one. Maybe something like ISIS.

We can still be grateful that no other country in the Middle East has nukes aside from Israel. But Pakistan could always get involved and then it would be a world disaster.

Anything can happen.

A real threat, considering the influence of Wahhabism there.

You can't be an oppressor and then claim victimhood when the oppressed lash out. — Benkei

Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere.

A real threat, considering the influence of Wahhabism there. — Benkei

Actually poor Arabia, if the corrupt Saudi family is ousted.

That Arabia is the enemy that the US craves for: place from where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from, birthplace of Wahhabbism and Osama bin Laden.

Maybe. I've disagreed often with him but I think we're usually cordial to each other. Not sure I was everywhere in this thread but he's been so. This is just so much more emotional and closer to home for him personally.

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes.

I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. That's not attained through military control and oppression, in other words, in the long run current Israeli policies will undermine its security objectives.

I don't think that that position (the necessity argument above) is ultimately wise because I believe only lasting peace can secure safety and security. — Benkei

This is the disturbing issue: Netanyahu's policy is that there simply will be no peace, that the Palestinians and Arabs want only to destroy Israel and push them to the sea, hence giving up anything will makes things just worse. Perpetual war is the answer.

And think of it this way: Hamas just saved Bibi Netanyahu from a political mess he was in.

(AP) Now, as Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers wage their fourth war in just over a decade, Netanyahu’s fortunes have changed dramatically. His rivals’ prospects have crumbled, Netanyahu is back in his comfortable role as Mr. Security, and the country could soon be headed for yet another election campaign that would guarantee him at least several more months in office.

The stunning turn of events has raised questions about whether Netanyahu’s desperation to survive may have pushed the country into its current predicament. While opponents have stopped short of accusing him of hatching just such a conspiracy, they say the fact that these questions are being asked is disturbing enough.

A must watch! It's the opposite of the martial arts maxim of "hitting where it hurts the most."

Hit where it hurts the least - Israeli Defense Force Motto

Most people buy their land... When you find land belonging to no one, than you may occupy it. What you may not do is occupying someone else's land and take it as your own, aka conquest.

Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).

Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.

German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then. — ssu

Yes, Russia was an aggressor in WWII - my example was only in regard to the Eastern front fighting against the Germans. I completely agree with your assessment of Russia here. I was only referring to Russia in terms of their Eastern front war against the Nazis. In that context I would not describe them as the aggressor even though they went on the offensive.

That is a great picture by the way, where do you find these? And colorized.

Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere. — ssu

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. I was always taught that these territories naturally fell under Israel's control as the war played out. It's also a difficult issue because, e.g. what's Jordan's "rightful" claim to the West Bank? Commentators never question this because implicitly the Arabs are just considered the rightful owners, but Jordan annexed it in 1950 in the aftermath of the '48 war over international disapproval? Since when has the West Bank been rightfully Jordans'? I don't even think Jordan had an interest in the territory until '47-'48 where it was used as a launching point for attacks on Israel.

The debate now, as usual, (and I'm also guilty of this myself) has largely turned into "Israel is an occupying force murdering its victims" vs "Hamas are evil, so Israel can do what it likes to the Palestinians". So, it's pretty much indistinguishable from every other thread on this general topic. Might as well just call it "Israel vs. the Palestinians" and be done with it. Anyway, I'm not going to intervene much as it would be heavy handed at this point to try to keep it strictly on topic.

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

The 1967 war was complex because it is based on a pre-emptive form of self-defence that was previously not recognised as valid. But I don't think this is an issue, you can initially defend for the right reasons and have that change into a war of aggression. When Israel decided to occupy the territories, it was still ok (provided there's a sensible way to return the land, instead of an indefinite occupation), but once it took land for itself (settled it) it became an act of aggression. I guess there's some argument to make that the latter decision to settle is the act of aggression itself, leaving the argument that the 1967 war was a defensive war in tact.

A vacuum being filled by another power (Russia? China?), and U.S. national security and/or strategic interests, are usually cited as reason for the U.S. maintaining a presence in the region. If the U.S. is weaning itself off the tit of big oil (with the rape of it's own resources, and a shift to renewables), then why else is it even there? Why doesn't the U.S. just pack it's bags and go home, and quit sending money to anyone over there? "Here China, Russia: Have fun."

I saw a picture on FB from Michael Moore's page. It had an elderly Palestinian couple out on the sidewalk looking up at the home they used to live in. Staring (smugly?) back down at them was a couple from Brooklyn, NY who was now occupying the home. WTF? I did not vet the photo, but it moved me. Realizing my helplessness, and the fact I live on Ute, Cheyenne, and Arapaho land (and I see their ghosts looking at me in the same way), makes me want to quit caring.

I remember when I was young, guys would say: "Turn the whole place into a glass bead and call it peace." But why even do that? Surely there is something worth saving over there? Mountain gazelles, wild boar, foxes, jungle cats, Nubian ibex and the rarely seen leopards, hyenas, jackals and wolves. Now them there is some good people, every one. And the real underdogs.

Another question: If you took DNA samples, who over there has more Neandertal blood?

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes. — Benkei

First sentence - Yes, Israel is extremely important to the Jewish people and the country will defend itself to its last breath.

Second sentence - I agree as well and I don't deny Israeli crimes, although I think we may disagree on the scope of these crimes. Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who writes on this subject who has never shied away from the more brutal details of the wars. We can talk about war crimes on both sides, but rehashing this constantly isn't going to lead us anywhere good in the peace process. We should be forward-looking.

Third sentence - I deny that Israeli is an apartheid state. Israel in the past has definitely been a victim that has faced annihilation on several occasions and that continues to influence the Israeli mindset, as it should (seriously, if your people were almost annihilated on several occasions in the past 80 years would that not change you?) Additionally, Israeli citizens are frequently killed which is considered by Jews everywhere as Israel being attacked. So, Israeli citizen killed = Israel victimized. You are not in a position to tell the Israelis that their suffering is very small/negligible or that when a crazed Hamas killer runs through the streets stabbing people that it's "their fault" for "driving him to this." And then what's even more insane is that there are people who refuse to condemn that *cough 180proof* because how dare you criticize a victim! It is only David using his lowly slingshot to try to hit bloodthirsty Goliath.

I understand that this victim mindset can be counter-productive, but you can't exactly blame the Israeli Jews for it. You can try to work with it, and it's less present among the younger generation, but it's a cultural trauma that you can't just yell at the Jews or Israelis for having. And I 100% agree that Israel has committed atrocities in the past so I agree with you there that we should be condemning those who deny any Israeli war crimes and try to paint Israel as a perfect angel. We may disagree on the scope however.