What is impressive is that as Netanyahu's Likud party had as it's party platform "River to the Sea" and also the platform "No two state solution ever", hence all the later part would have worked just fine if you would change the Palestinians and the Jews, like the "Jewhaul", to "Arabhaul". Of course the part:

5:55
As my friend, Dr. Phil says, "How's that working for you?"

The answer would be: it's working quite well!

Yes, Hamas and Likud share quite a lot together — ssu

:up:

It would make sense if it was symmetrical but the point he was making isn't symmetrical. His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals, even when they lost over and over in armed conflict and were in a position where if they took it, they would have gotten much of what they wanted — schopenhauer1

This is simply a lie. I don't want to go into the full history how things actually went but basically every "peace" deal involved the Palestinians having no to little self-determination and was only concerned with Israeli security. It also meant making demands before negotiations even started, which isn't a negotiation but blackmail. And finally, Israel always wanted to carve up the land in such a way and control Palestinian movement that it would not result in a viable state for the Palestinians.

Then the PLO gave away self determination indefinitely - the closest we got to "peace" according to every dunce with a microphone - which a majority of Palestinians rejected at the time and why Hamas became popular. Peace where you subjugate yourself to your oppressor simply isn't peace.

But then, you actually should read the proposals ("insults" is a better term) instead of pursuing statements that fit your pre-conceived notions of what's going on.

involved the Palestinians having no to little self-determination and was only concerned with Israeli security. — Benkei

Wonder why :rofl: you make that sound like it was not relevant to be concerned about security. Take a deal and build on it. As Maher said, how’s the other way working?

And finally, Israel always wanted to carve up the land in such a way and control Palestinian movement that it would not result in a viable state for the Palestinians. — Benkei

They were given large tracts of land but not 100%. It’s called compromise.

You’re so biased you would want perpetual warfare. You’d at least want Jews to be in a position where they can live precariously at the whims of their violent neighbors.

Sucks that they got pushed to the right as they did but getting blown up constantly during that process didn’t help matters. The pals moderate failure led to Hamas pushing a stronger case for Likud.

Wonder why :rofl: you make that sound like it was not relevant to be concerned about security. Take a deal and build on it. As Maher said, how’s the other way working? — schopenhauer1

It's dumb shit like this that's tiresome. It's not Israelis that regularly get massacred en masse. Palestinian security is just as relevant but has never been on the table in any proposal. To then subsequently accuse me of bias would be funny if idiots like you didn't make the world such a tragic place.

They were given large tracts of land but not 100%. It’s called compromise. — schopenhauer1

Why should an oppressed people give up land that Israel has no right to? There's a UN partition plan. There are even the borders of 1967 where Israel has stolen land, a crime of aggression that was punished with hanging at Nuremberg, that the Palestinians are willing to accept. Which is already a huge concession.

It is Israel, especially under Likud, that refuses to compromise and has been slowly strangling the Palestinians. Once they are done with Gaza - and they will be done when they fully occupy it and it basically doesn't exist anymore because all infrastructure is gone then they will turn to the West Bank and eat and eat away. But you know, keep writing dumb shit. It's entertaining at least.

As pointed out time and again, Israel as client state of the US, can do whatever it wants and has been doing exactly that and will continue to do that until people realise the Palestinians actually have rights. That some of those rights are actually inalienable and not subject to compromise, that having a fucking moral backbone requires you to not tell victims to give in to the demands of their aggressors. But sure, it's all the fault of the Palestinians that Israel is ruled by genocidal thugs. Jesus fucking christ, talk about blaming the victim. You're a pathetic excuse for a human being. It's no wonder you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think anti-natalism makes sense because looking in the mirror must suck for you.

So I knew you were going to bring up the Likud part there.. — schopenhauer1

His point was that for most of those 75 years one side (the Israeli side) made overtures for peace and the other side never took any deals — schopenhauer1

So I knew that again @schopenhauer1 would again totally sideline the crucial factor of just who is in power in Israel (or in Gaza, for that matter).

If we are able to make a distinction between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party and understand that they have their differences in US politics, why then act as if "Israel" is one entity here?

It's Likud and it's right-wing allies that is in power, not the Labour party, not the Kadima party.

It was the Labour party that made the Oslo accords happen (with Rabin, who later was assassinated).

It was Labour party that withdrew from Lebanon (with Ehud Barak as prime minister).

It was the Kadima party that tried to attempted later a political resolution (with Ehud Olmert as prime minister).

And yes, the ex-terrorist Menachem Begin, the founder of Likud, did make the peace deal with Egypt. Hence even possibly Netanyahu could make a peace deal. If he it would be beneficial policy to him. Or basically if the not accepting it would be disastrous.

What is also very typical to (people like Maher etc.), is to sideline the Arab side peace initiatives.

There was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative , reindorsed 2007 and 2017, which was immediately embraced by the Palestinians, by Arafat (and later by Abbas). And notable, included in the 57 Arab and Muslim states is also Iran. The Arab states, those that are still technically at war with Israel (like Kuwait etc) would normalize their relations if Israel withdrew from the 1967 occupied territories and accepted the two-state solution. Distribution of territory could also be discussed.

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel.

The fact is that it's the moderate lines that aren't tolerated. Israel has killed for example those Palestinian leaders that have been promoting the two state solution. And let's not forget that Bibi supported Hamas first (in order to weaken the PA). Non-compromising zealots just love if the other side is also made of non-compromising zealots: pretty easy to explain then why a negotiated settlement isn't possible.

It's dumb shit like this that's tiresome. It's not Israelis that regularly get massacred en masse. — Benkei

Do you mean like the suicide bombings that regularly occurred in Israel prior to them building that wall in the West Bank? Do you mean the reason why billions dollars were put into the Iron Dome so Israel didn't have thousands of people dying since Hamas sends rockets in a quarter-yearly basis (or whatever frequency it was). Do you mean the brutal rapes, murders, and indiscriminate killings that were showcased with glee on social media by Hamas and their supporters?

Why should an oppressed people give up land that Israel has no right to? There's a UN partition plan. — Benkei

You mean the plan that Israel agreed to and the Arab nations (there wasn't even a Palestine yet), decided to call for an all out war to wipe Israel out completely?

There are even the borders of 1967 where Israel has stolen land, a crime of aggression that was punished with hanging at Nuremberg, that the Palestinians are willing to accept. Which is already a huge concession. — Benkei

Just wondering, are you aware the borders are not given from on high, but are negotiated things, right? This idea that everything has to be fixed or nothing happens and no other factors (yes like security) can come into play? Europe has shifted its borders numerous times in history, sometimes in conflict, but sometimes not. The fact is, the Pals were given almost all of that 1967 territory but there were some contingencies that Israel, security-wise, and politically wanted to maintain. Being they had the position of power, the Pals had a chance to take a deal and then build on it and create their own X society they wanted, working with Israel on security measures etc. But nope. Because of the all-or-nothing notions that you represent here, this continues.

It is Israel, especially under Likud, that refuses to compromise and has been slowly strangling the Palestinians. Once they are done with Gaza - and they will be done when they fully occupy it and it basically doesn't exist anymore because all infrastructure is gone then they will turn to the West Bank and eat and eat away. But you know, keep writing dumb shit. It's entertaining at least. — Benkei

Gaza was given a huge number of greenhouses that could have helped sustain their food supply. Israel also offered to help build the ports. But nope, they didn't want to take "Jewish money". No, instead, Hamas was voted in, violent attitudes reigned, and then Hamas decided to take money from international organizations, funneling billions of dollars to the leadership and building a huge tunnel system and weapons.

I hope that Gaza could be reconstructed into something that is a peaceful enclave that is part of a peaceful state that can compromise with its neighbors.

That some of those rights are actually inalienable and not subject to compromise, that having a fucking moral backbone requires you to not tell victims to give in to the demands of their aggressors. — Benkei

But Israelis would say that this is the case regarding them in 10/7 and that left to their devices, Hamas would just continue this. Rather than "take it on the chin", Israel probably doesn't want that threat looming and growing for the next attack. In your ideal world, Hamas is able to do a thousand 10/7s until the Jews are pushed to the sea. Then perhaps you might switch over to supporting the Jews (perhaps not, depending on how far the hate goes), because then the Jews would be the "underdogs" and "victims". Of course, I don't even see it in this way. Rather, I see it as a set of bad decisions that were made and are continued to be made. Unlike you, who seems to have no scrupples regarding the Palestinian violence, I do think that Israel needs to moderate as much as possible, and that Netanyahu and the Likud and rightwing policies should be voted out. But then, if I say that, you think it's an opening.

As for the ad homs, I'm just ignoring.

Operation Prosperity Guardian would be an interesting thread on it's own, but as it's firmly linked to the war in Gaza, I think this thread is enough.

So the Houthis have now expanded their strikes to Western shipping in general, which has a huge impact on world trade and global logistic chains. Already Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and BP have routed their shipping around Africa. This increases shipping times by 7 to 14 days and has already increased insurance fees for anyone going through the Bab el Mandeb. The USN Destroyer Carney shot down 14 drones (using very costly 2,5 million dollar Standard missiles at the far cheaper drones) some days ago. Also the Royal Navy (see HMS Diamond: British warship shoots down suspected attack drone in Red Sea) and the French navy have shot down drones (see French frigate downs drones over Red Sea in 'legitimate defence'). The USN aircraft carrier Eisenhower has moved from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

Hence the Western powers are ALREADY engaged in a naval war protecting one of the most crucial sea lanes in the World. And just like the Ukrainian Navy has shown that the mix of drones and missiles can do the job, that you don't need to have ships yourself, so are Iran's proxy showing this in the Middle East.

Now this naval operation has become Operation Prosperity Guardian (not much info on the Wikipedia page yet, but I'm sure there will be more).



The next question is how will the West respond to this? Merchant shipping has already reacted to the threat, and this is a mission that basically the US Navy was created for in the first place. Will it strike at possible launching sites in Houthi controlled Yemen? Will it start convoys through the Red Sea or form a picket defense? Are ships going to be reflagged?

(Stay tuned...)

So I knew that again schopenhauer1 would again totally sideline the crucial factor of just who is in power in Israel (or in Gaza, for that matter). — ssu

No, you see, I already acknowledged who I'd prefer to be in power, and voted in. However, in this debate where it's heavily one-sided I choose not to muddle that point with the broader debate which heavily overlooks Palestinian violence and poor decision-making that led to this. That Maher video is especially pertinent on that point as it is as much psychological than anything else. A grievance is a grievance as long as you hold on to it.

It's Likud and it's right-wing allies that is in power, not the Labour party, not the Kadima party. — ssu

And if you look at the posts before this, I explained how that happened. It didn't happen over night.

It was the Labour party that made the Oslo accords happen (with Rabin, who later was assassinated).

It was Labour party that withdrew from Lebanon (with Ehud Barak as prime minister). — ssu

Yes it was. Wasn't that nice (and then got punished with Hezbollah). But anyways, the moderate Pals did not take a deal when they had the chance.

There was the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative , reindorsed 2007 and 2017, which was immediately embraced by the Palestinians, by Arafat (and later by Abbas). And notable, included in the 57 Arab and Muslim states is also Iran. The Arab states, those that are still technically at war with Israel (like Kuwait etc) would normalize their relations if Israel withdrew from the 1967 occupied territories and accepted the two-state solution. Distribution of territory could also be discussed.

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel. — ssu

You mean the "offer" accompanied by a Hamas terror attack on Passover?

Hence it's the typical bias to say that Israel has here being offering peace, which has been rejected by Palestinians... as if it hasn't also happened the other way around. And naturally that basically even Iran would be OK with the 1967 borders is sidelined because they are the "Mad Mullahs" wanting to destroy all of Israel.

The fact is that it's the moderate lines that aren't tolerated. Israel has killed for example those Palestinian leaders that have been promoting the two state solution. And let's not forget that Bibi supported Hamas first (in order to weaken the PA). Non-compromising zealots just love if the other side is also made of non-compromising zealots: pretty easy to explain then why a negotiated settlement isn't possible. — ssu

I mean, now we are just treading over the same ground, where we forget why someone like Netanyahu started getting more support.

You mean the "offer" accompanied by a Hamas terror attack on Passover? — schopenhauer1

Accompanied? You think the peace initiative and the Hamas Passover attack were coordinated?

I think that attack was simply to derail any peace initiative! This is what Hamas (and Likud) do. Their worst enemies are the moderates wanting a two state solution. That's my whole point! I think it was @Baden (if I remember correctly) that pointed out that when the North Ireland peace agreement (the Good Friday agreement) was negotiated, the extremists made their last bomb attacks hoping to stop the process and continue the circle of violence.

And notice that the Arab peace inititative hadn't been forgotten! Not even this autumn 2023.

RAMALLAH, West Bank Sept 26 (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's first ambassador to the Palestinians described a decades-old Arab land-for-peace offer on Tuesday as a pillar of any normalization of ties with Israel, an apparent attempt to signal that Riyadh has not abandoned the Palestinian cause.

The ambassador, Nayef Al-Sudairi, told reporters in Ramallah his visit "reaffirms that the Palestinian cause and Palestine and the people of Palestine are of high and important status and that in the coming days there will be a chance for a bigger cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the state of Palestine".

Referring to the prospect of normalisation with Israel, Al-Sudairi said: "It is the normal thing among nations to have peace and stability." "The Arab initiative, which Saudi Arabia presented in 2002, is a fundamental pillar of any upcoming agreement," he added.

That was PRIOR to the Hamas attacks in October: Saudi Arabia was still holding on to the Arab peace initiative. So your wrong to argue that this "offer" was something in the distant past.

I mean, now we are just treading over the same ground, where we forget why someone like Netanyahu started getting more support. — schopenhauer1

Same reason why Hamas is starting to get more support.

That was PRIOR to the Hamas attacks in October: Saudi Arabia was still holding on to the Arab peace initiative. So your wrong to argue that this "offer" was something in the distant past. — ssu

I'm just wondering, is there a strategy here, cynical one? Perhaps you can reference articles why Israel didn't take it...

Same reason why Hamas is starting to get more support. — ssu

Started? Unlike Likud, Hamas acts on violence and terrorism outside of government when it's not in power, and then got into actual governmental power over control of territory which is why this awful mess is how it is. Israel thought there was a chance they might act differently. Nope.

It was 12 midnight and I had an important meeting the next morning. Should I spend more time trying to convince someone on here that a comedian was wrong about some of the basic history of my country when they just don't want to believe that? I mean this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale is all anyone would need, but then I'd just be inviting more off-topic conversation. — Baden

Fair point. Allow me to retract my reference to you.

I'm just wondering, is there a strategy here, cynical one? Perhaps you can reference articles why Israel didn't take it... — schopenhauer1

Ariel Sharon rejected the Arab initiative as a "non-starter" because it required Israel to withdraw to pre-June 1967 borders. Simple as that.

And perhaps I should then add to you that solving these issues through negotiation and an international settlement isn't believed on the other side also: Hamas has s very low opinion about an international settlement on the issue. They say these are a waste of time, actually have written so in their charter. From their 1988 Charter:

Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

(see here)

Right, it's not just the rhetoric, but the actions that makes it seem like people are doing a false equivalency when we compare Hamas with say, Likud. One wants the 600s it seems all over again, and has shown that they don't mind ending things all around them in that goal. But, they sure don't mind that billions of dollars and living large in Qatar and places like that either...

One wants the 600s it seems all over again, and has shown that they don't mind ending things all around them in that goal. — schopenhauer1

Hamas isn't Isis.

As I stated with the Israeli political parties, don't generalize everything. It would be as silly as me saying that every American in this forum thinks about political issues the same way, because they're Americans. We know that isn't the case.

but the actions that makes it seem like people are doing a false equivalency when we compare Hamas with say, Likud. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.

Both can talk about their people having the right for everything between the River and the Sea, but only one has the ability potentially to go through with that.

(The New York Times, Nov 5th, 2023 )Israel has quietly tried to build international support in recent weeks for the transfer of several hundred thousand civilians from Gaza to Egypt for the duration of its war in the territory, according to six senior foreign diplomats.

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

(Times of Israel, Nov 14th, 2023) Two Israeli lawmakers, one from the ruling Likud party and the other from the opposition Yesh Atid party, have urged the international community to take in Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip

In a rare display of cross-party solidarity, Danny Danon (Likud) and Ram Ben-Barak (Yesh Atid) published an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, calling for “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.”

Of course, the smaller political parties are quite open about their demands on expelling the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria too.

Gaza Deaths Surpass Any Arab Loss in Wars With Israel in Past 40 Years

The death toll reported in Gaza has reached roughly 20,000, according to officials in the territory, the heaviest loss on the Arab side in any war with Israel since the 1982 Lebanon invasion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-palestinians.html

A massacre of innocent people and large scale collective punishment, all unfolding right in front of us.

Let’s hope the Arab countries don’t start bombing innocent Israelis for the actions of their government. Even though that would be just, according to genocide apologists on the philosophy forum. (As long as the 20,000 were claimed to be killed by accident — or with good intentions, of course.)

I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.

Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.

— Some Hamas-like extremist. Oh wait, no…the Israeli defense minister.

Hamas isn't Isis. — ssu

So are you splitting hairs on who is more barbaric? Are they for the 800s? Again this looks kind of 600s to me:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation."

Calling for a Jihad and then actually thinking today's world is like the 600s seems close to Isis-like thinking.

But as far as the beheadings and rapings and such, what should we then compare it to? I mean, Genghis Khan works for me. The social media aspect adds the modern part to it I guess.

But to equivocate Likud with that, eh, bit of a stretch. I know, I know, the response to such attacks is somehow the equivalent, and that we are just going to disagree. Civilians dying alone doesn't make a Genghis Kahn. And then we inevitably will discuss just wars and all that.

(The New York Times, Nov 5th, 2023 )Israel has quietly tried to build international support in recent weeks for the transfer of several hundred thousand civilians from Gaza to Egypt for the duration of its war in the territory, according to six senior foreign diplomats.

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

(Times of Israel, Nov 14th, 2023) Two Israeli lawmakers, one from the ruling Likud party and the other from the opposition Yesh Atid party, have urged the international community to take in Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip

In a rare display of cross-party solidarity, Danny Danon (Likud) and Ram Ben-Barak (Yesh Atid) published an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, calling for “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.”

Of course, the smaller political parties are quite open about their demands on expelling the Palestinians out of Judea and Samaria too. — ssu

Um, that can be interpreted to protect civilians, as their dear Arab friend neighbors don't let them in.

Hamas can give up the hostages and give up the fight too. That is an option, is it not? Yes or no? You can sidestep the answer by not answering it, but I'd like a yes or no whether in theory and in practicality, they can literally give up this fight.

This fellow is not a comedian and he has a series of videos in which he says interesting things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNf40sBcvKk

So are you splitting hairs on who is more barbaric? Are they for the 800s? Again this looks kind of 600s to me: — schopenhauer1

Seems like for you they are all just one bunch.

Who cares to sort them out? Isis, Fatah, Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria... whatever.

Hamas can give up the hostages and give up the fight too. That is an option, is it not? Yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes, Palestians can go to Jordan, Egypt and all other places in the Middle East. Why are they making it so difficult for themselves?

Just deal with it, as your favorite Bill Maher says.

Yes, Palestians can go to Jordan, Egypt and all other places in the Middle East. Why are they making it so difficult for themselves? — ssu

So now it if you who are not differentiating?

On a side note, this was one of the better conversations I have seen in regards to what is happening and where it might be going. @ssu, you might find Thomas Friedman's analysis pretty insightful. Robert Wright does a good job framing the questions as well. Wright actually has conducted a fair amount of interviews with philosophers (like Chalmers and Dennett I believe), and he has some decently detailed books regarding the history and philosophy of religion and evolution. Friedman of course has been a long time New York Times writer on foreign affairs, specifically the Middle East.

Being sarcastic, as you are the one asking if islamist resistance group will just give up the fight.

So similarly, You think the Irgun would just have given up too at the British and "come to their senses", had just "dealt with it" and "moved on" (as your favorite Bill Maher says)? As if at some point they would understand that there couldn't be an Israel as an homeland for Jews, but they simply have to coexist with the Arabs in Palestine under the benevolent leadership of the British Mandate?

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point.

On a side note, this was one of the better conversations I have seen in regards to what is happening and where it might be going. — schopenhauer1

I've listened a lot to Robert Wright on various issues, it's good listening. I'll listen to it and comment it.

Thomas Friedman made quite rational remarks. 'Bibism', as he coined, has been now a disaster. And it should be understood that this will go on, if the assumption is that Israel can continue a perpetual low-intensity war with the occasional "mowing of the lawn". Advocates of the perpetual war won't give safety they say they are so in favor of. And any "final solution" type of policy will just alienate Israel.

Just to give another insightful interview, here is one former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy (former advisor for Ehud Barak). What is interesting to here is just how close the negotiations came and how the situation has developed. I think it also shows just how clearheaded and open Israelis can be about the situation. I think one of the most informative explanations of the current situation and how we got here.



(If I've already referred to this, well, I'm getting then old. But worth wile to watch or listen to.)

Thanks for the vids. :up:

Being sarcastic, as you are the one asking if islamist resistance group will just give up the fight. — ssu

So, I guess they can give up the fight by sending back the hostages leaving to Qatar or something and have the Israelis let them for now do that. They can exit the region to their mansions and hotel rooms in Qatar or whatnot, and try to hide wherever, but vacate the place.

So similarly, You think the Irgun would just have given up too at the British and "come to their senses", had just "dealt with it" and "moved on" (as your favorite Bill Maher says)? As if at some point they would understand that there couldn't be an Israel as an homeland for Jews, but they simply have to coexist with the Arabs in Palestine under the benevolent leadership of the British Mandate? — ssu

So this is where there are false equivalencies in terms of means and ends- in this case more ends. Israel wanted a nation but they were willing to live peacefully with an Arab neighbor, something where they could have some political autonomy but yet coexist with an Arab autonomous state as well. That wasn't the same sentiment by Arab neighbors. Hamas wants what? Oh that's right, to wipe off the Israeli state from the map. This seems very cynical to not see that Hamas has been trying to screw up a peace deal from day 1. They aren't reformed (obviously), and they aren't looking to simply govern a peaceful state next door, "Bibism" aside. Never was, and in fact is one of the contributors to derailing a number of peace attempts in the past.

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point. — ssu

So, this does make me question the motives of the posters here, to be fair. So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". And of course, this doesn't look great, but I don't know how else to make of these sentiments other than it seems acceptable for a certain contingent to see Jewry as victims, or perpetually some underdog, but not gain any agency without getting tremendous hatred. There was no winning. I can understand European Jewry wanting a national state, whatever their thoughts before that. Simply, "Ah, come on back, it won't be as bad this time!" seems a bit off there. Anyways, it just makes me wonder what the actual feelings of some posters are on matters like this. To be completely ambivalent or even hostile sort of would make me wonder. Maybe after a horrific world war where a lot of European countries collaborated (willingly or unwillingly), it feels cathartic to then say, "But see! They are X, Y, Z!".

Thomas Friedman made quite rational remarks. 'Bibism', as he coined, has been now a disaster. And it should be understood that this will go on, if the assumption is that Israel can continue a perpetual low-intensity war with the occasional "mowing of the lawn". Advocates of the perpetual war won't give safety they say they are so in favor of. And any "final solution" type of policy will just alienate Israel. — ssu

I agree with his assessment, and probably politically align more with his thoughts on the matter. But the way the forum here is framing the debates, it's as if Hamas has no part they have played in this, and thus has forced me to explain their role in this. They still have hostages. They still want Israel gone, etc. etc. I do agree that Israel seems to have had no other contingencies and simply followed a siege plan rather than other ideas, but I can't even get to that point when there doesn't seem to be good faith on the other side on how they regard Israel in the first place.

Thanks for the vids. — Baden

I'll look at the one from SSU. Yeah, I thought the Wright/Friedman interview was actually one where realistic situations and assessments were being discussed.

So the Jews experienced a Holocaust in Europe with many displaced persons, many times the Jews going back were faced with continued hostilities from populations, etc. But don't worry, if they try to make a state of it in Israel, the same Europeans will call foul and say, "You better not do that either, or we will root for the Palestinians to push you into the sea there as well!". — schopenhauer1

Straw man. Nobody has argued for this.

Straw man. Nobody has argued for this. — Benkei

So what is your position? We all hate Bibi-ism, so we don't even need to debate that. Do you think Israel has a fundamental right to exist?

But besides your personal point, it's this weird insinuation by equivocating Hamas attacks and Israel as an existing state. Thus when @ssu used this equivalency:

A zionist terrorist like Menachem Begim wouldn't have done that. He would have continued the fight, even if the UK had made Mandatory Palestine priority number one and sent additional 100 000 troops more to deal with the Jewish insurgency. He would have kept trying, knowing well that there was the Balfour declaration, there was the Holocaust and that they can be successful at some point. — ssu

I pointed out that in one case it was simply to exist. In the other it was to banish and derail any two state solutions, as if this whole time Hamas hasn't been trying to continually kill people as talks were happening. And currently, their Isis version of how they operate...

During the first six weeks of the war in Gaza, Israel routinely used one of its biggest and most destructive bombs in areas it designated safe for civilians, according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

The video investigation focuses on the use of 2,000-pound bombs in an area of southern Gaza where Israel had ordered civilians to move for safety. While bombs of that size are used by several Western militaries, munitions experts say they are almost never dropped by U.S. forces in densely populated areas anymore.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/21/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-bomb-investigation.html

What a shocker.

according to an analysis of visual evidence by The New York Times.

:yawn: Blahblahblah. NYT has no credibility.