:up: :up:

I'm not jeering. I was thinking about being in one of those hospitals realizing the Israelis could supply fuel for the generators and knowing they won't do it because they want all the patients to die.

You answered me like I was just doing a liberal butt-post. — frank

I think at some point Hanover will realize we are not "jeering from the sidelines" but expressing sane moral arguments that can only be made from the sidelines. That time is not now though. I'm out.

we are not "jeering from the sidelines" but expressing sane moral arguments that can only be made from the sidelines. — Baden

What does it mean to glory in arguments that can "only be made from the sidelines"? Isn't that the objection? The problem? You've swallowed the critique whole without batting an eye. ...I'm impressed. :grin:

Eliminate Hamas :fire:
Remove Likud.
Evict All Settlers.
Free Palestine :flower:

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. — Tzeentch

There were times pre and post 1967 where Egypt could have kept or took control back of Gaza.

You may have missed my broader point regarding Egypt and Hamas. 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. In fact, they never wanted to have Gaza “free” it seems being they had control of it and never did anything with it, free it or otherwise.

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.

I have been trying to find information on the background to this situation. This entire situation has thrown the issue into the world spotlight, and everyone needs to get the most information on this.

The DW interview of former Prime Minister Olmert was quite revealing of some of the alternate views.

There is a documentary about the 2014 Gaza war, needs to be fact-checked, but I think some of it is true.

https://www.journeyman.tv/film/4486/when-saturday-came

I watched the entire video which is Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s address to the UCD Philosophy Society, University College Dublin, on the current state of the occupied territories. Tuesday 10 Feb 2015. ( Note the date.) His final solution is some sort of world-wide non-violent resistance. He says that there was an attempt to intimidate and break the will of the Palestinians in the Gaza strip by the bombing campaign.
I am in line with peaceful resistance, but that does not seem to be a realistic possibility at this stage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjoCBBHec8

From the transcript at about 21:12:

and of course the very last thing Netanyahu wants is a reasonable Hamas
that's a disaster for Israel because the moment Hamas starts to behave reasonably then
the pressure begins to be exerted on Israel well they're being reasonable why
don't you negotiate and end the conflict which is the one thing Israel doesn't
want not that it doesn't want to end the conflict it doesn't want to end the
occupation that's the problem and it needs an irrational
it needs a quote-unquote extremist Hamas in order to justify its gradual
absorption its incremental annexation of the occupied Palestinian territories

DW interview of former Israeli Prime Minister Olmertss video, posted earlier, has some very interesting things he says, which bear repeating. Here is the DW summary of the video:

"Netanyahu is history, he's done," Ehud Olmert told DW. He called the current Israeli leaders "violent, messianic thugs" and said that long term, Palestinians must be able to "exercise their right to self-determination."

Ehud Olmert DW Interview 10/11/2023October 11, 2023

Some may say that the terrorists who killed Israeli men women and children, these terrorists should be lined up against a wall and executed. Those who planned the attacks must be killed. Then what? Those who are members of the Hamas militant wing should also be executed because they belonged to Hamas military wing? Or is belonging to Hamas reason enough?

If we follow that reasoning, if an Israeli soldier willful shoots and kills a Palestinian father and child, what should be done to him and the organization to which he belongs?

If the Hamas terrorists had bombed the settlements from their motor-gliders, would that have made it more acceptable?

I am not advocating what 'some say' is correct, but if we are to reason, then we have to be willing to go where reason leads us. These questions must be asked.

Everyone attacking civilians should be brought to justice, that is my view.

I am against attacking civilians, and totally disappointed with governments that cannot protect their civilians and ensure peace between them and the other side. Unless it is totally out of their hands.

Evict Settlers. — 180 Proof

Israel has actually evicted settlers. From Gaza and from Sinai too. The following pictures are from settlers in Sinai being evicted in 1982 after the peace agreement with Egypt.





And Egypt could give Israel also what it wanted: safety. No muslim zealots are firing rockets from Sinai into Israel now or ever. The Egyptian army can take care of that. The real problem is that either Lebanon or the Palestine Authority are now so weak that they could not guarantee this. Let's remember that even if Hamas did win elections, the PA couldn't take care of Gaza. Just like the government of Lebanon can do nothing about Hezbollah. Which all just works fine for Netanyahu. He can now say that it's impossible to make peace now.

And let's remember that there are about 600 000 Jewish zealots settlers in the West Bank. As a Finn, I can honestly say what is the situation a country does accept the forceful removal of hundreds of thousands (440 000 out of 3,9 million in fact) and the handing over large parts of it's territory: when it's either that or losing sovereignty altogether and foreign occupation.

And unfortunately that's the case too here: only if faced with utter defeat and dramatically worse situation would any Israeli government evict over half a million people from the West Bank.

Who you rather have won WW2, the Allies or Axis? It's a really easy question to answer, is it not? — RogueAI

I don't find it easy. I know roughly where we are, but I have little idea of where we would be if everything was different. Probably none of "us" would have been born, but a lot of other people would, because all the acts of procreation since would have been different. Counterfactual history is so much a work of the imagination, that it cannot be a reliable guide to action. And that basically fucks the utilitarian calculation altogether. The defeat of Europe would have seemed bad to "us", but the defeat of Russia, might have seemed preferable to what we have - nobody knows.

Has anyone noticed that analysis in terms of of goodies and baddies is a recipe for continued conflict? Everyone is always a reluctant justified sinner, who will become a saint as soon as circumstance allows, but has a duty to protect the innocent by whatever means necessary, even by the slaughter of enemy innocents.

One ought not to judge from the sidelines, as @Hanover says. But since he is also on the sidelines, he really ought not to judge the Palestinian regime either. We can judge each other though as to our posts. The UK suffered sporadic terrorist acts from the IRA for years, and the government was not full of moral scruple in dealing with them. Governments like to be seen to be doing something in a crisis, but prefer to do nothing when public opinion is divided. All their effort goes into manipulating opinion and then following it, and the rationality and morality that results is negligible.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a man with nothing left to lose, who sees his way to a justice of leaving others in the same place. It would be a brave pacifist that stood in his way. But if you want peace, you have to give the man who has nothing something of what he wants, that he stands to lose in the next fight. Or else kill him. But leaving a million people on your border with nothing is a recipe for trouble.

The West is experiencing an on-going collapse of moral legitimacy. It has been for many years. Many of our elites use support for Israel as a proxy for an unambiguous moral good: preventing another Holocaust. This is why our elites are generally leaping to near-genocidal support of Israel over Palestine.

However, support for Israel is actually not that unambiguous due to the power it exerts over Palestine, and this greatly complicates the moral equation. This would normally preclude full-throated support for any cause, but in the special case of Israel, our elites are completely captured and, in a sense, view themselves (at least project the attitude) of fighting the new Nazis and preventing another genocide.

This full-throated support in favour of an ambiguous cause naturally creates a (large) constitutency who recognise the inherent unfairness in only one side being properly represented in political discussion, especially when it appears that the people this constituency views itself as defending is facing an impending bloodbath.

I would guess that this is radicalising the Islamic world, and shows us to be, in their view, morally backwards and worthy of fighting; more worthy, in fact, of fighting one another. The main problem this presents to the current Western (American) world order is that it is predicated on consent. The West claims to desire a peaceful and stable world in which "human rights" are protected and nations may prosper as long as they respect certain rules. The implication that underpins the legitimacy of said rules is that they are fair and any party should be able to find adequate redress given any wrongs done to them.

When it is demonstrated that the rule of human rights is actually a fiction that is used to keep the rest of the world quiet, then this system comes to an end.

The erosion of this system has, of course, been happening for many years now. Various pretexts have been used many times to justify a breach of the doctrine of human rights, and this has been grudgingly accepted because the benefits of the Western world order have outweighed the damage done by these exercises of power disguised as moral crusades.

However, we have arrived at a position where, in fact, the United States has been economically attacking other states, after deliberately and systematically attempting to erode their standing in the world, based on our own perceived moral superiority. This has created a massive upset in the global economic order and forced the disparate opponents of the West into an economic coalition with one another, whilst massively weakening America's allies.

The short-sightedness of this can surely not be overstated, as the plan to judo-flip the various economies of the opposition to bring them to their knees simply hasn't worked; it has been decades for some of these regimes and they still persist, and have been laying the groundwork for a parallel world economy.

Needless to say, as the world's economic hegemon, the United States can't allow this to happen. However, it seems that it is happening and it probably cannot be stopped at this point.

I think this is really why the political class is gripped with war fervour over a tiny terrorist-run strip of land. It isn't that there is an existential threat to Israel from Gaza, it is that we are looking at the potential to set off a chain of events that shows the West to not have the moral legitimacy it claims to have, which will unravel its own political alliances and put all its enemies into a righteous coaltion against us, whilst destroying the global economic system and throw everything into chaos. The West will need to fight or the Western elites will lose everything.

At this point, I think a world war is inevitable.

The West's lack of moral legitimacy is seen in its own countries; a very large percentage of the population of almost all of them has severe doubts about the legitimacy of the governments and institutions of those countries because the fifth columns that have been allowed to proliferate within our societies have done their work of making said governments and institutions unreliable, immoral, and degraded. The point of the left has been to weaken us from within by sowing moral discord, and they have done a very good job. They have, in fact, undermined our very claims to nationhood, family, and imperium. We do not view ourselves as the legitimate rulers of anything, and the major institutions of every country spend a large amount of their time attacking the majority population groups of that country.

It is well-known that Western militaries have serious trouble recruiting, and that we are struggling economically. To say we are being poorly governed is an understatement and a half and everyone knows it. There is simply no passion to fight for a civilisation that appears to be in collapse, appears to hate itself, and appears to be vindictive to other states on the world stage. Say what you like about Trump, but he actually seemed to be able to respect the nations ranged against the US. This goes a long way.

Now, that time appears to have passed. It seems that, in their desperate bid for moral legitimacy, the dominate faction of Western elites are at once going to drive us into a war, whilst the subversive faction of elites are going to stoke the fires of civil war in our own countries while we do it.

Personally, I think we're in a position of profound weakness. It isn't that our enemies are strong, it is that we are vulnerable and we don't really know what we stand for or why we should do what we do. So we will use Israel as a proxy for the expansion of our power and this will become an intolerable nightmare for our opponents, and they will probably decide that the best opportunity they will get to escape Western dominance has arrived. It is going to be painful, bloody, and ruinous, but if ever it could be done, now seems like the time.

I do hope I am wrong.

Say what you like about Trump, — Chisholm

Alas, there is nothing I like about Trump. But your analysis of the situation is otherwise about right. The moral vacuum gets filled with poisonous nonsense of various sorts. I think it is no coincidence though, that this global belligerence and stupidity coincides with the birth pangs of a fully automated economy with little need of human labour. The invisible hand is wielding the scythe.

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. — Tzeentch

And this is the narrative you had. But who created whom and is it Israel in a vacuum?

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.

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. — Tzeentch

Look at the greater history of the region. Palestinians are not generally welcomed in other Arab countries for a variety of reasons. One reason in the past, as far as territory, it was always seen as a concession to not gaining all of Israel/Palestine. Pre Oslo it was Arab nations against Israel. Post Oslo, the sticking points have been more than mere trifles. Hamas represents a destabilizing force in the region to secular (even if authoritarian) regimes. It would want nothing less than complete destruction if given the means to do so.

What do you believe Egypt should/could have done?

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.

Egypt conquered Gaza in 1948. They took control of it, ostensibly to "protect and further the interests," of the people there. Their goal was to annex land in 1948 and they did it.

Some of the people in Gaza were refugees from within Israel's 1948 borders. But many also were already in Gaza, conquered by Egypt.

So what did Egypt do when it ruled over Gaza? It didn't set up self governance. It didn't give them citizenship. It didn't let people freely leave. They forced them into squalid camps and said "good, you helped us annex some land. No help us destroy Israel and annex more and maybe after you can have some degree of freedom."

Egypt is deeply responsible, it is also partially their mess. Before Gaza was sealed by Israel it was sealed by Egypt for decades. If anything, Egypt's position is even less supportable because they were always claiming to fight "for" the people they then treated horribly.

And how did Israel end up with Gaza? Could it be Egyptian politicians giving speech after speech about immanent war with the total destruction of Israel as its explicit aim? Could it be that Israel said a naval blockade would be considered the start of an active war and then Egypt put that blockade into effect and began announcing the immanent invasion of Israel?

So, they did to Gazans many of the same things Israel has and they were the main party that precipitated the war in which Israel ended up with Gaza. That seems pretty involved to me. One might ask, planning for immanent war, did Egypt evacuate Gaza, right on the front lines? Oh, but they did evacuate the "real Egyptians?"

And they have to be part of any peace. If Israel declared Gaza independent tomorrow, what does it fix? Gaza's borders are all with two nations that want to restrict access to their country. So what changes? That's why it can't be simple independence, because it leaves the situation unchanged, and indeed Gaza had no settlers and administers itself, so independence would have more to do with aid flows than anything else. The solution has to involve how Egypt and Israel police their border, allowing more into Gaza and more out of it. But at the same time, I get why Egypt does what it does. Who makes a move for open borders with a state whose government is openly supportive of terrorism in your land?

What do you believe Egypt should/could have done? — Tzeentch

As with the surrounding Arab nations, they should not have used the territories and Palestinians as a pawn. Accepted immigrants/refugees as full citizens and encouraged the formation of Palestine under Gaza and the West Bank. After the 1967 war, they should have agreed to take back the territories for greater peace.

Not ethnically cleansing their Palestinian population as "punishment for the PLO considering a two state peace," would have been nice too. Or not ethnically cleansing them out of their lands in general.

Or not ethnically cleansing all their Jews from communities millennia old and thus creating an extremely bitter electoral bloc in Israel who has consistently voted for more hardline politicians. And of course, in stealing all their wealth on the way out, this was in no way put towards any sort of "reparations for Palestine," but pocketed.

Well put.

Egypt ethnically cleansed their Palestinian population?

No, I was referring to Libya, where Gaddafi was calling for all the Arab countries to expell their Palestinians too, since obviously by accepting negotiations on independence they were giving up on absolute victory and thus betraying "the cause."

Kuwait also expelled 400,000+ Palestinians in the 90s. In Lebanon, there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, although this was in the context of the broader civil war and Palestinian massacres of Lebanese civilians as well, making it less one sided.

Egypt just denied their Palestinians basic rights and refused to accept them back after a war they precipitated ended up with them behind an Israeli truce line during a week of fighting. There was bargaining over this, but Egypt not taking back the people they had ostensibly annexed Gaza "on behalf of" was a major sticking point for Egypt.

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.

Free Palestine — 180 Proof

You mean free from Hamas and other terrorist organizations. What the world does not need is more Lebanons.

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. — Tzeentch

But Gaza borders Egypt, not just Israel. Israel doesn’t occupy it in the sense it doesn’t have settlements nor political rule there. Rather, Israel made moves to constrict aid and funding to Hamas. I totally agree though that in an ideal world they would aid the citizens whilst constructing Hamas though.

My greater point is Gaza is not in a vacuum, and the region is fraught with RealPolitik over idealism, perhaps due to the precariousness of the region and the various religious, ethnic, and political interests.

What I do know too is that after WW2 and general European colonialism, all of its hopes and dreams for Idealism over Realpolitik is heaped on Israel. Its (Europes) failure in the 20th century to be imbued upon Israel, perhaps as a symbol of what could be, and what they never did. However, the Middle East has never been about some “shining city on a hill” where human rights are more important than nations, territory, resources, and cultural preservation. It’s a vision wide of the reality. And Israel acting in the interests of a nation that was attacked, whatever reasons you want to provide, will act in a way that shows it is doing something about situation. In realist fashion, it will retaliate and declare war on its enemy who attacked them.

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 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. — Tzeentch

See the rest of my post, as I think this was addressed.

That being said, I joined this thread to root out biases on both sides. The Middle East/Israel is probably the most one-sided debates I see on these forums (and pretty much any forum). On this forum, the bias is certainly against Israel, so I provided considerations. I originally was engaging with @Baden on this, and he actually had a reasoned response here:

Yes, Hamas are extremists and I'd put nothing past them. Thankfully, they are not and will never be in that position. — Baden

So I stopped there regarding Baden, as I saw that he at least saw that reality (if Hamas was in power over Israel/Palestine rather than Israel). The broader point there is that Hamas' goals are not merely "justice for its people". Rather, "justice" for Hamas is utterly destroying Israel and cancelling any peace process, making it impossible for moderate Pals (especially in the West Bank). And of course, they don't allow Pals to vote them out. Don't forget, the main (realpolitik) reason Hamas did this was to stall peace talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia. They want to derail that, as they wanted to derail Oslo Accords with suicide bombings, etc.

At the same time, it is obviously clear that Israel has utterly ignored its larger existential question under Netanyahu's regime. He completely lost any thread of Idealism, thinking that if you ignore the issue, it just goes away. He has utterly fucked up the West Bank, emboldened settlers/crazies on his side, and thus, has weakened any moderates on Pals side. As far as Gaza, he should have tried to convince the Gazans against their extremism by providing direct aid and trying a campaign of hearts and minds of the (few) moderates there. That being said, being that the citizens would be shot under Hamas rule if they even so much as blinked towards Israel, perhaps they should have thought of ways to form a coup against Hamas.. Not sure how viable that was in any way shape or form.

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?

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. — Tzeentch

:up:

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? — Tzeentch

I guess my response is this:

What I do know too is that after WW2 and general European colonialism, all of its hopes and dreams for Idealism over Realpolitik is heaped on Israel. Its (Europes) failure in the 20th century to be imbued upon Israel, perhaps as a symbol of what could be, and what they never did. However, the Middle East has never been about some “shining city on a hill” where human rights are more important than nations, territory, resources, and cultural preservation. It’s a vision wide of the reality. And Israel acting in the interests of a nation that was attacked, whatever reasons you want to provide, will act in a way that shows it is doing something about situation. In realist fashion, it will retaliate and declare war on its enemy who attacked them. — schopenhauer1

That being said, yeah absolutely humanitarian relief into Gaza should have been part of Israeli policy in the form of food, water, services, etc. Don't forget though, Hamas would try to interfere with any of that. Israel blockaded the region so Hamas wouldn't smuggle larger weapons, as Hamas' main goal is to destroy Israel, which earlier, you agreed is what it is trying to do. So I agree, Israel has not properly balanced its security with humanitarian concerns. That is all on Israel's move away from any Idealist tendencies in the past 20 years (after the collapse of any deal under Arafat).

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.