Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[DarkTZeratul]

Criticizing Jews and Israel is not the same as being antisemitic.

I never said it was. I said there's been a steep rise in antisemitism these past few months, and I meant just that. This includes people calling out non-Israeli Jews over the actions of Israel, antisemites feeling emboldened to openly step up their rhetoric, and a fair amount of the latter using the former as a smokescreen.

[Flarelaine]

"Educating yourself just makes you dumber." -tehdang

Well... the more you know the more you know you don't know.

[Jessicka]

I'm comforted by the current polling of Netanyahu + right wing allies. I saw that his pre-war coalition would have ~30% less seats if the election would be held today. That's necessary to look into the failures in intelligence, and help fire all the intelligence-related senior officials that allowed October 7th to happen. And all the military senior officials that allowed them to tramp around a significant part of Israel for so many total hours.

Activists are just going to repeat genocide and apartheid until they get their opposing party to shut up. The reachable left is just operating on what they've picked up from activists, including their professors, and don't know anything. They're acting on the presumption that this is a one-sided oppression, end of issue, so they're marching against oppression in their own eyes. By "reachable," I just want Israel to do a better job of publicizing, for an international audience, all the important counterexamples to the misinformation of activists. They've been doing a better job on publicizing tunnels, but not on publicizing holding the misbehavior of their own soldiers accountable.

And, fair enough, the number one priority is to defeat Hamas and secure Israel against their future rocket attacks. The Israeli public should demand that. And it's ultimately fine to put everything on post-war investigation like Israel already did for stuff like 1973 with the Agranat Commission. As long as such soldiers as are acting indefensibly are currently sitting in the brig, preferably, or in non-combat roles away from the front pending the investigation results. Israel has a war to win and it's manpower-intense given the foreign pressure to wrap up the major military operations in Rafah etc.

I agree with you on Hamas staying in Gaza. Despite all the idiocy regarding Hamas 2.0, Hamas 1.0 still needs to be gone. (Twitter rage is mostly ignorance and circular arguments. Twitter has always amplified the far-left beyond their actual number.) Hamas should be exiled in case they can negotiate a release of all alive hostages and the bodies of the dead, or killed and driven out by force in case they're committed to fighting until the last man.

Colour me surprised, letting the mask slip with an anti-intellectual conspiracy theory.



You’ve actually ticked a few of these boxes so far. Source: Holocaust museum.

- - - Updated - - -

Did . . . did you just try and describe Israel as "peaceniks"? One of the most violent and militarised nations on Planet Earth?

To be specific he described colonialist settlers as such. The same type who’ve literally been sanctioned by western powers for their violence, intimidation and theft around the West Bank. “But there are some good eggs among them”.

- - - Updated - - -
@tehdang your whole idea is that Palestinians get to live in a walled up camp until they learn to live in peace. If you can’t understand that is collective punishment at the very least, never mind what it describes at the worst then honestly you need to take a look at yourself. What you’re describing is monstrously horrific and just solidifies the argument that Gaza and the West Bank are indeed open air prisons.

[Gaidax]

To be specific he described colonialist settlers as such. The same type who’ve literally been sanctioned by western powers for their violence, intimidation and theft around the West Bank. “But there are some good eggs among them”.

You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

People who were raped and slaughtered in Be'eri and other surrounding collectives were dominantly members of Israeli left, members of Labour party living in the collectives. Those were the people who were actually aiding Gazans for many years, whether it's arranging medical treatments in Israel or delivering direct and indirect aid.

When Hamas came, they knew each and every house, who lived there down to the details, thanks to Gazan workers these people welcomed for decades.

But hey, don't let these details stop you.

[Jessicka]

You literally have no clue what you're talking about.

People who were raped and slaughtered in Be'eri and other surrounding collectives were dominantly members of Israeli left, members of Labour party living in the collectives. Those were the people who were actually aiding Gazans for many years, whether it's arranging medical treatments in Israel or delivering direct and indirect aid.

When Hamas came, they knew each and every house, who lived there down to the details, thanks to Gazan workers these people welcomed for decades.

But hey, don't let these details stop you.

I’m quite sure many did and still do. It seems there are also plenty though who are intent on blocking the border crossings to prevent aid trucks getting in.

I’ll admit I don’t know which are the majority. But there’s enough bad eggs there that we don’t hear much from the good ones anymore, from the outside they seem a very fringe group, which are ridiculed for their calls for a ceasefire when it’s their families held hostage.

[Gaidax]

I’m quite sure many did and still do. It seems there are also plenty though who are intent on blocking the border crossings to prevent aid trucks getting in.

I’ll admit I don’t know which are the majority. But there’s enough bad eggs there that we don’t hear much from the good ones anymore, from the outside they seem a very fringe group, which are ridiculed for their calls for a ceasefire when it’s their families held hostage.

Both are equally fringe. The extremist right is on the rise thanks to Hamas practically playing into their agenda - now they can just proudly announce "we told you so", while the Left is reeling.

Does not help that out of 1000 civilians that were slaughtered, many represented the backbone of said Left in their socialist style collective communities that got burned to the ground.

So, don't go ahead and try to paint us with the same brush, it's like I'd go ahead and paint all the "'muricans" as gun totting rednecks or all the English citizens - colonists who are keeping Northern Ireland under their boot.

[Gestopft]

To be specific he described colonialist settlers as such. The same type who’ve literally been sanctioned by western powers for their violence, intimidation and theft around the West Bank. “But there are some good eggs among them”.

I don't think this is accurate. I was under the impression that he was talking specifically about Israelis living in kibbutzim within Israel near the Gaza border; those that were the closest by when Hamas came through and attacked.

@tehdang your whole idea is that Palestinians get to live in a walled up camp until they learn to live in peace. If you can’t understand that is collective punishment at the very least, never mind what it describes at the worst then honestly you need to take a look at yourself. What you’re describing is monstrously horrific and just solidifies the argument that Gaza and the West Bank are indeed open air prisons.

This seems spot on accurate though.

[Elegiac]

I’m quite sure many did and still do. It seems there are also plenty though who are intent on blocking the border crossings to prevent aid trucks getting in.

I’ll admit I don’t know which are the majority. But there’s enough bad eggs there that we don’t hear much from the good ones anymore, from the outside they seem a very fringe group, which are ridiculed for their calls for a ceasefire when it’s their families held hostage.

It’s also not relevant. Bringing up the existence of Palestinian sympathizers in Israel as evidence that Israel isn’t an apartheid colony is meaningless for the same reason the existence of abolitionists in the antebellum US didn’t make the US less of a racist empire.

It’s called a systemic problem for a reason.

[Ivanstone]

The extremist right is on the rise thanks to….

A career criminal trying to avoid corruption charges.

Meanwhile the last time the Israeli left had some in charge for any length of time he was assassinated by the Israeli right.

[Mayhem]

The extremist right is on the rise thanks to Hamas practically playing into their agenda

How incredibly convenient that people flock to fascists thanks to other fascists. But in the next election the people will just vote them out, ez, no problem, the fascists will just accept democracy and leave, mhm, mhm sure. Good luck.

[Gaidax]

How incredibly convenient that people flock to fascists thanks to other fascists. But in the next election the people will just vote them out, ez, no problem, the fascists will just accept democracy and leave, mhm, mhm sure. Good luck.

Extremism feeds extremism. Nothing new. War on Terror anyone?

Other than that - they aren't really going to have a choice, if they won't be a part of the coalition - then all they can do is just trying to dump gasoline on fire, just like their Hamas friends on the other side do.

Now, dumping gasoline on fire is effective round these parts, but ultimately they existed for decades and they were always a fringe group just like every country ever pretty much have these one way or another, especially if that country is in a perpetual state of conflict of varying intensity.

They were there when we signed Oslo accords too, it's just that the general public is much larger and outvote them more than 1 to 10.

- - - Updated - - -

A career criminal trying to avoid corruption charges.

That too, but ultimately - nothing advances their cause like what happened Oct 7th.

[Mayhem]

Extremism feeds extremism. Nothing new. War on Terror anyone?

Other than that - they aren't really going to have a choice, if they won't be a part of the coalition - then all they can do is just trying to dump gasoline on fire, just like their Hamas friends on the other side do.

Now, dumping gasoline on fire is effective round these parts, but ultimately they existed for decades and they were always a fringe group just like every country ever pretty much have these one way or another, especially if that country is in a perpetual state of conflict of varying intensity.

They were there when we signed Oslo accords too, it's just that the general public is much larger and outvote them more than 1 to 10.

Yeah, and now they are a plausible choice, congrats. I would be surprised if you ever get rid of them again or struggle like every other country does with fascists in their government.

We're still in the process of figuring out all the wrongs they did last time they were part of the government.

You might want to think again why Hamas are where they are, because extremism feeds extremism.

[Gaidax]

Yeah, and now they are a plausible choice, congrats. I would be surprised if you ever get rid of them again or struggle like every other country does with fascists in their government.

We're still in the process of figuring out all the wrongs they did last time they were part of the government.

Define "plausible choice".

They were always a "plausible choice" in one political form or another, the name's on the ballot - does not mean it's the mainstream choice, however. Democracy be like that, you have parties who are far right and you have parties who are far left. The "far" part usually also signifies they are a fringe option, which ultimately they are.

Violence like this helps far right party, but they are still far too small to really do anything aside the usual troublemaking. And the next elections they will probably be back to the opposition, simply because given the numbers the next prime minister won't need them at all to make a coalition.

- - - Updated - - -

You might want to think again why Hamas are where they are, because extremism feeds extremism.

Hamas was like that for decades, they were like that back when we were hugging each other at the height of Oslo accords. They were the ones who sent busses packed with people flying while Oslo accords were in force.

Some people want to see everything burn, the unlucky part for Palestinians, however is that Hamas has no issue literally killing the opposition and dissidents, so they just govern by force, rather than any sort of real democratic process.

[tehdang]

If I'm painting Israelis with a broad brush, you are painting Palestinians with one equally broad. I realize that both camps have a variety of factions with differing views and approaches. And it's awful that very accepting people were some of the first in the way when Hamas rolled through the border. My point however, which you failed to engage with, is that Gazans weren't actually living in peace before 10/7. It's great that there are Israelis that want to be the peaceful solution, but they are not the Israeli government that creates the conditions in Gaza just as Gazans that want peace are not Hamas. Mutual peace, however, cannot be demonstrated as long as violence is being continually imposed on Gaza. This isn't ignoring anything, it's contextualizing.

The Gazans had a period of peace (and separation) between the self-eviction of Israel from Gaza in August/September 2005 and the election then takeover of Hamas (even then a terrorist institution) in 2006-07. Gazans couldn't be living in peace because of their overlords, Hamas, waging war upon Israel even before October 7th.

I mean, sure, but once again you're failing to engage with the point. I'm still curious as to how bombing the crap out of Gaza and killing a disproportionate amount of people is going to lead to Israeli security in the future, seeing as they a) have no intentions of alleviating the conditions that are more likely to radicalize people into terrorism to begin with, and b) their indiscriminate retaliation is proving highly damaging to their standing in the international community.

The point is that you have no basis to discuss "disproportionate" given the lack of verifiable and independent reports on the war, and you shouldn't beclown yourself by your former post about "returning death in multiples of 20 or more." I could assert that Israel was doing a historically exceptional good job given the urban environment and advanced tunnel system, and have the same footing as you. Which is to say, very little.

For the physical infrastructure, I'm afraid that urban fighting and deep tunnel networks don't fare well for the buildings. We've seen the videos of Hamas scurrying down alleys and onto the second stories of buildings to fire on Israeli tanks and troops. The tunnel entrances and exits must be closed for the safety of advancing troops. I'm very sorry that urban warfare is so destructive, but Hamas chose their battlefield to maximize the destruction of Gazan society and loss of Gazan civilian life. Maybe the world will be wiser next time to not let it get to this point.

Considering that before 10/7, Israel was on its way to normalizing relations with other Arab countries, they were essentially in the process of sidestepping this issue altogether. They also don't need Palestinian permission to exist, seeing as they are more than capable of defending themselves. However, there's a massive difference between self-defense against an unruly neighbor, and the current realities that Palestinians are living through.

Securing recognition and agreements with other Arab nations was a great break from the previous reality. In the pre-Trump US state department, it was presumed that normalization ran through Palestinian demands and the two-state solution. The Abraham Accords broke through the unreality. It still didn't force Palestinians to acknowledge that Israel would continue to exist.

I wouldn't consider hundreds and thousands of rocket attacks over inflated or imagined slights to actually be Israel showing it was "more than capable of defending themselves." They're more than capable of minimizing civilian casualties. And then the existing state of minimizing civilian casualties led to such a false feeling of security, that October 7th wasn't discovered and prevented. Over a thousand dead and terrorists killing civilians as they advanced to Netivot and Ofakim. I'd say you're failing to appreciate the post-October 7th reality of "self-defense against an unruly neighbor."

Strangely, this doesn't seem to indicate to you that they don't actually see Palestinians as that much of a threat, no matter how much they complain about Hamas? It's almost as though one side has significantly more power than the other, and can- as they have- impose their will on the other.

If they had a second homeland to retreat to, like the French leaving Algeria, then I expect they'd be gone. Some portion, and perhaps the major portion depending on whom you believe on opinions from the Arab Street, think that it's possible for violent terrorism to force an end to the state of Israel and Jews in Palestine.

This means absolutely fucking nothing. If you actually believe that they should have the land because their distant ancestors lived there, then you should also be a vocal advocate for Native American land rights. Let me just look up your posts on that topic...*crickets* While we're at it, it's funny how often we on the pro-Palestinian rights side get accused of holding Israel to a uniquely high standard, and yet here you are making an allowance for Israelis that I sincerely doubt you would make for any other group on the planet. Are there any other groups that you argue land rights for based on "it was their homeland almost 1500 years ago?" Go ahead and prove me wrong on this one...

Now of course it's true that there have been Jews living in that land ever since then, but as a reminder: the Zionism that created the state of Israel was a product of the European Jewry that migrated there, not those that had already peaceably been living with their Muslim and Christian neighbors in the region for centuries.

You paint a very pretty picture of Jews under Ottoman Rule. Muslim Ottoman subjects could throw stones at Jews at their leisure; the Jew would forfeit his life if he retaliated. Travel diaries and contemporary historians spoke of the mistreatment of Jews throughout the Ottoman world. "Peace" was dearly bought. And, as I'm discovering in the post-October 7th world, the Jews need a better PR department, because people just assume that the pre-Balfour middle eastern Jewry "had peaceably been living with their Muslim and Christian neighbors." I only wish you would hold the same standard on subjection and oppression and call it "peaceably," so we could both invent many decades of peaceable interactions in the 20th and 21st centuries!

I should've expected a Native American dodge on defending a cohesive people group that both derived their name and identity from that area, and continued to exist there through oppression for centuries. Yes, it wasn't until the very late 1800s and early 1900s, and with the diaspora in Europe and Asia (lest I, like you, ignore Russian Jews), that there was the organized purchasing of land and expansion of settled areas. No, that isn't a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card" that lets you neglect that the Jews were originally there, and a sequence of foreign conquerors drove them out. You have made a very feeble attempt to deny their indigeneity. The British plan and later UN declaration stand as one of the biggest if not the biggest success of an anti-colonial project through the whole of history. Conquered and scattered, they retained their identity and eventually returned.

If the Arabs could get used to sharing the land with a different indigenous group, they could've had their neighboring state at multiple times in the last 100 years. (It appears to be true that they will never accept a Jewish ruler, so I say a separate state). Like we see today, they haven't accepted that they must divide the land to have separate rule, and rejected winning a war and ruling the entire region over a defeated enemy. I would recommend reading Dr. Einat Wilf and Benny Morris for more information on it.

Agree in part. But I will add that neither can there be peace while situations in Gaza and the West Bank persist. Again, Israel has magnitudes more power to change that situation than the Palestinians do, and improving the situation for Palestinians rather than continue oppressing them would go miles towards a peaceful resolution. I know neither wants to blink first, but Israel is more than capable of doing so, as long as their military/intelligence apparatus have their priorities in order.

And again, it's telling the way you failed to engage with the point I was making there: Israel has a lot more power to change the reality, and they also lack the incentives to do so on their own because they are the side that has more concessions to give, whereas the Palestinians have basically nothing- apart from a promise not to launch cheap homemade rockets and a begrudging admission that Israel isn't going anywhere. Palestine can offer mostly mere words, while Israel can offer material conditions and human rights. There's a big difference there.

Palestinians can hope for a period of peace followed by new Camp David accords, but not succeeded by rejection of peace and initiation of violent struggle. Israel is powerless to force the idea of peace on a neighbor determined to reject it. Now, the historical reality of rejection of peace and initiation/resumption of terrorism does not have to be the future. Israel itself can't go miles towards a peaceful resolution until the other party, which they can't control, allows for peaceful coexistence. The biggest driver of terrorism is the continued existence of the state of Israel, no matter who rules it or how amicably they compose their foreign policy. The minor players are West Bank settler conflicts, and abrasive rhetoric from the Israeli far right. Other obstacles to peace are the Fatah "Pay To Slay" program, rewarding the families of successful terrorists for their terrorism.

Make no mistake, I reject your narrative that Israel posses a "lot more power to change the reality." They can't change the biggest barrier to peace no matter their generic power in other areas, and that is the idea on the Arab Street that the Jews can be forced out with enough violence against their civilians (and enough pressure from their international fellow travelers and allies). That's the historical reality way back to before Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, through to Arafat and today. Left-wing Israeli governments and right-wing Israeli governments can't change the largest obstacle to peace, no matter what other powers they may possess.

Seeing as Israel has been illegally stealing land for over 50 years, I'm curious as to what is being 'exchanged' for what here...

The template is Israel forcibly ejecting thousands of Israelis from Gaza in '05. The Israeli military forcibly removed Israeli settlers who did not wish to leave, including cutting through barbed wire and suffering injuries.

Any realistic peace settlement, and I refer you to previous posts on what I think are the real barriers, will involve conflicts like somebody's great grandfather having a house on land which is now 4 giant multi-story apartment blocks. That should give you an idea of the need for land exchanges.

I'm pretty sure Palestinians understand that they aren't actually going to send Israel away, regardless of their rhetoric. In terms of what will actually happen, it's all just meaningless words. As long as the international community (particularly the USA) defends Israel, the 'revanchist dreams' amount to diddly squat. Israel's position is secure now, but they are losing Europe, and based on polling of the younger generations, US policy is going to shift in the not-too-distant future. Seems to me that Israel's efforts in the interest of their long-term security would be better spent remaining in the good graces of the international community than igniting their reputation on a pyre built of dead Palestinian children, but hey, that's just me.

I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong on this entire thing. The international community has a history of trying to explain what Palestinians actually mean, when they've been telling the world what they actually mean. Some combination of old pan-Arab nationalism, religious fundamentalism, indoctrination from childhood, and stories told through generations have resulted in their belief in the one state, free from river to the sea, without what they regard (wrongly) as foreign occupiers. You'll have to read some translated UNRWA schoolbooks or MEMRI translated broadcasts of Arabic news channels to arrive here. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

Obviously 10/7 put a major wrench in any sort of process. But again, you avoid the point. Tell me, please: if, in the event, that Palestinians were 100% peaceful for an extended period of time, what incentive would Israel have to alter the status quo absent international pressure to do so?

Relegating the violence to past history is an unbelievably huge incentive. The prospect of never having to invade a territory that's digging tunnels or launching rockets? There's no need for import restrictions; they aren't being used to shelter terrorism against their civilians. They can have some fucking unity against the fringe settler movement (and I hope someone like Benny Gantz ushers that into a Knesset coalition majority policy).

How about a Nova music festival for peace where there is peace and not massacre? Israelis and foreign friends went there for peace and dancing. How about kite-flying festival in Kfar Aza again, without the organizers murdered before it was held that year?

All of this amounts to "Palestinians should unilaterally assent to the status quo while Israel has no responsibility to ameliorate the conditions they are subjecting the Palestinians to." Under your scenario, how much of the West Bank does Palestine roll over and allow settlers to take while Israel is deciding whether or not Palestinians have been peaceful enough to start making a deal with? How long does Gaza docilely accept suffering and starvation under a blockade before Israel deigns to alleviate their suffering? Why is the onus only on Palestinians to change their behavior in your book?

Or maybe you can provide a serious answer: if Palestinians have a responsibility to give peace a chance, what responsibility do the Israelis have in coming to the table?

I can fire back a gross mischaracterization, if you like. "Israelis should unilaterally degrade their own security, because their terrorist enemies were only responding to provocations, and were lying about all the "Islam will obliterate it [Israel]" and "Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day."

Palestinians should give up their support for terrorist war against Israel. Israel should see this, through some future Gaza and West Bank government, and negotiate towards dismantling settlements in the West Bank (October 7th has delayed this, but you can hypothesize October 6th for this if you want). There can be no forward progress without an abandonment of terrorist violence, because recent history demonstrates that there is no limit to brutality against civilians in Israel. The security of Israel cannot be abandoned given the security risk, and this necessarily involves a disarmed Gaza and restriction and inspection of imports. The proper view of "suffering and starvation" of Gaza is a relic of terrorist violence, and will not continue unless a future kleptocratic regime steals all the abundance of aid that's continually pouring in (Hamas currently steals it). The proper view of "ameliorate the conditions they are subjecting the Palestinians to" is instead "plan on meeting terrorism disengagement with less trade restrictions, and verification that imports and industry are not being used by hostile terrorist actors for terrorism" (I'd include ending the Pay To Slay program in this). The current war and October 7th disaster pushes Israel's responsibility to announce decreases in import restrictions to pair with divestment from terrorism years out (If we were to theorize on an October 6th scenario, I'd say on the order of a year after the last rocket barrage is launched at Israel, and the last state-sponsored/coordinated suicide bomber attacks a bus station. In the current world, violence against Israel is the historical reality, and the delay is necessary to ensure that October 7th isn't permanently celebrated as the Jewish Slaughter that Created Palestinian Statehood.

[Elegiac]

It's kinda funny how a gentile thinks he's being supportive of Jewish people by *checks notes* reducing a highly diverse and often conflicting group of people to a singular entity in order to better fit a political narrative that benefits oppression. (Mind you I'm not even talking about the oppression of Palestinians, I'm talking about how badly Israel historically and presently treats Jewish people that aren't of Western European extraction including those indigenous to Palestine before this nonsense Zionist project kicked off.)

Then again it's not really feasible to expect a reactionary in the West to even remotely question nationalism being a political default. Even people who are sympathetic to Palestinian suffering still get tripped up when it comes to actually condemning Israel's actions simply because it would necessitate them taking another look at similar actions being done elsewhere.

[PACOX]

Mirrored link so you dont have to go to reddit, but the IDF even stomps its own citizens. Great group they have there

https://beta.archivevideomirror.com/library/post/2894

[Gestopft]

The point is that you have no basis to discuss "disproportionate" given the lack of verifiable and independent reports on the war, and you shouldn't beclown yourself by your former post about "returning death in multiples of 20 or more." I could assert that Israel was doing a historically exceptional good job given the urban environment and advanced tunnel system, and have the same footing as you. Which is to say, very little.

The "multiples of 20 or more" was based on civilian deaths in the period between the 08-09 Gaza war and the current assault, where the numbers have far better verification, so I actually do have some footing there. As for the current invasion of Gaza, it's true that we can't exactly trust the numbers we're getting at the moment, but are you suggesting that all of the organizations currently attempting to count the fatalities right now are going to have overcounted by more than 10,000 or something? If you think that when all is said and done we aren't going to have a massively disproportionate number of Palestinians killed (reasonably close to what has been estimated) you're simply deluding yourself.

And again, you have no answer as to how this OBVIOUSLY disproportionate killing of Gazans (not to mention displacement and starvation) is supposed to help Israeli security in the future. Are you under the impression that the current catastrophe isn't going to radicalize people in Gaza against Israel even more? Do you deny that the way Israel has been conducting the war is hurting their international standing? You can deflect the morality of the death count by muttering about 'the unfortunate realities of urban warfare' or something all you want, but really- how on Earth is this good for the nation in the long term?

I'm very sorry that urban warfare is so destructive, but Hamas chose their battlefield to maximize the destruction of Gazan society and loss of Gazan civilian life. Maybe the world will be wiser next time to not let it get to this point.

And maybe the Israeli government shouldn't have been propping up Hamas either. It unfortunately seems to have come back to bite them. If only the Israeli government wasn't actively trying to prevent a unified Palestinian governing authority with united wants and goals...

Securing recognition and agreements with other Arab nations was a great break from the previous reality. In the pre-Trump US state department, it was presumed that normalization ran through Palestinian demands and the two-state solution. The Abraham Accords broke through the unreality. It still didn't force Palestinians to acknowledge that Israel would continue to exist.

Gotta point out that this may have been a precipitating factor in the attack. Normalizing relations between Israel and the rest of the Arab world is a good thing in terms of moving towards regional stability, but I can't imagine the Palestinians appreciate the idea that their condition can simply be ignored and moved on from.

And as you have agreed with me, Israel doesn't actually need the acceptance of the Palestinians because the Palestinians can't actually do anything about whether or not Israel is a neighboring state or not. It only reinforces my point that Israel can do a lot more to break the cycle than the Palestinians can- after all, if the region is willing to start normalization, the Palestinians have very little to offer in terms of a deal, making Israel less likely to need to consider one.

I wouldn't consider hundreds and thousands of rocket attacks over inflated or imagined slights to actually be Israel showing it was "more than capable of defending themselves." They're more than capable of minimizing civilian casualties. And then the existing state of minimizing civilian casualties led to such a false feeling of security, that October 7th wasn't discovered and prevented. Over a thousand dead and terrorists killing civilians as they advanced to Netivot and Ofakim. I'd say you're failing to appreciate the post-October 7th reality of "self-defense against an unruly neighbor."

Yes, I was basing that on a pre-10/7 world, before Israeli's sense of security had a major hole punctured in it. The status quo with Hamas was obviously not optimal, but clearly the Netanyahu government had decided that 'minimizing civilian casualties' was acceptable enough that it was preferable to...you know...allowing a united Palestinian front that might actually result in Palestinians being granted rights and autonomy. Until it wasn't. It will indeed be very interesting to see what the first post-Netanyahu government's approach is.

You paint a very pretty picture of Jews under Ottoman Rule. Muslim Ottoman subjects could throw stones at Jews at their leisure; the Jew would forfeit his life if he retaliated. Travel diaries and contemporary historians spoke of the mistreatment of Jews throughout the Ottoman world. "Peace" was dearly bought. And, as I'm discovering in the post-October 7th world, the Jews need a better PR department, because people just assume that the pre-Balfour middle eastern Jewry "had peaceably been living with their Muslim and Christian neighbors." I only wish you would hold the same standard on subjection and oppression and call it "peaceably," so we could both invent many decades of peaceable interactions in the 20th and 21st centuries!

Fair enough; it's never been great for Jews anywhere ever. Antisemitism is truly one of the oldest and greatest sins of humanity. But my point still stands that it was European Jews (by which I have always included Russian Jews, who are generally considered Eastern European culturally speaking...sheesh...) not the indigenous Jewry of the Ottoman world, that developed the Zionist ideology, migrated in large numbers to Mandatory Palestine, and eventually formed the nation of Israel. I reiterate that "my ancestors from hundreds of years ago lived here" isn't a legitimization of a claim to land, especially when people are displaced in the claiming of it.

I should've expected a Native American dodge on defending a cohesive people group that both derived their name and identity from that area, and continued to exist there through oppression for centuries. Yes, it wasn't until the very late 1800s and early 1900s, and with the diaspora in Europe and Asia (lest I, like you, ignore Russian Jews), that there was the organized purchasing of land and expansion of settled areas. No, that isn't a "Get Out Of Jail Free Card" that lets you neglect that the Jews were originally there, and a sequence of foreign conquerors drove them out. You have made a very feeble attempt to deny their indigeneity. The British plan and later UN declaration stand as one of the biggest if not the biggest success of an anti-colonial project through the whole of history. Conquered and scattered, they retained their identity and eventually returned.

It's not a 'dodge,' it was me pointing out that you apply a standard to Israeli Jews that you don't apply to anyone else. And, again, something tells me that if the Native American tribes forced west of the Mississippi (conquered and scattered) were to try to return and claim their land in the US Southeast, you might have a different opinion about it...

I've already mentioned that there have been Jews in the region since...basically ever. But Jews are a large and varied group, spanning across multiple continents, and it doesn't stand to reason that since the broader religion/culture is associated with this particular land, and that since some Jews have remained there, that all Jews have a natural right to it.

It's also amazing to me that the same people that assert that it was legitimate for Israel to expand its borders by conquest because 'that's how war works' also think that "my ancestors lived here more than a thousand years ago" is a basis for a claim to indigenousness.

Make no mistake, I reject your narrative that Israel posses a "lot more power to change the reality." They can't change the biggest barrier to peace no matter their generic power in other areas, and that is the idea on the Arab Street that the Jews can be forced out with enough violence against their civilians (and enough pressure from their international fellow travelers and allies).

Again, the issue here is that Palestinians have a lot of negative words against Israel that they can't actually act on whereas Israel imposes material conditions on Palestinians that they can change. Lots of people have impotent words. There are white nationalists in the US that want us to be an ethnostate, and like the Palestinians they have no actual power to effect the change they want. Unlike the Palestinians, however, they have all the benefits and rights of citizenship, despite their deplorable goals that will never be reality. "You can have human rights when you change your mind and stop expressing bad opinions" isn't actually how human rights are supposed to work, though.

And again: despite your musings to the contrary, I'm rather skeptical that even if Palestinians unanimously decided that Israel was hunky-dory, that Israel would have the incentives to ensure that they had equal rights to them, or a state of their own- especially since Israeli normalization in the region is becoming disconnected from the issue of Palestine, and the Palestinians thus have very little to give.

The template is Israel forcibly ejecting thousands of Israelis from Gaza in '05. The Israeli military forcibly removed Israeli settlers who did not wish to leave, including cutting through barbed wire and suffering injuries.

Any realistic peace settlement, and I refer you to previous posts on what I think are the real barriers, will involve conflicts like somebody's great grandfather having a house on land which is now 4 giant multi-story apartment blocks. That should give you an idea of the need for land exchanges.

So you agree then that most land transfers would be going to Palestinians, right? And yet you are skeptical of my position that Israel has little incentive towards a deal, despite them having a lot more land to lose...

I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong on this entire thing. The international community has a history of trying to explain what Palestinians actually mean, when they've been telling the world what they actually mean. Some combination of old pan-Arab nationalism, religious fundamentalism, indoctrination from childhood, and stories told through generations have resulted in their belief in the one state, free from river to the sea, without what they regard (wrongly) as foreign occupiers. You'll have to read some translated UNRWA schoolbooks or MEMRI translated broadcasts of Arabic news channels to arrive here. I don't expect you to take my word for it.

I said what they understand, not what they mean. I don't doubt that some Palestinians believe that the nation of Israel should be dismantled, but it's pretty hard to live in reality and actually think that such a thing is going to happen (particularly when Israel has US backing). What someone can do is far more important to me than what they want, and again, holding reasonable political opinions isn't a precondition for having access to basic human rights.

If Israel were to make an unqualified allowance for a Palestinian state and cede all territory (pre-1967) and control over the regions of Gaza and the West Bank, allowing a decidedly hostile Palestinian state next door, I would be all for the US stepping up to defend Israel's territorial integrity. As it is, I think the US should condition all aid to Israel, because I care far more about what is done than what is thought. I also happen to think that if Israel were to improve the conditions of the Palestinians, they would also find more overall favorability from them too, but perhaps it's naively Marxist of me to think that material conditions could possibly have an effect on people's dispositions...

There can be no forward progress without an abandonment of terrorist violence, because recent history demonstrates that there is no limit to brutality against civilians in Israel.

Just out of curiosity, how are Palestinians to reasonably feel about what the Israeli government has done to them- even if you limit it to the last (nearly) five months? 9/11 badly battered the American psyche so badly that it took more than 20 years to leave the country we invaded in response. 10/7 has driven Israel to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza (at least according to organizations that apparently aren't as rationally skeptical as tehdang), displace the vast majority of the population, and turn half of the cities into rubble. How are Gazans supposed to not feel a seething hatred for Israel? If Israel's 'reasonable' response to Hamas's attack on 10/7 is the utter catastrophe we've seen unfold in the past several months, what would a 'reasonable' response to that be from Palestine?

I bring this up not because I support hatred (I don't), but because what you are asking of the Palestinians seems rather impossible given the circumstances they are facing. I think you know this, and I also think you don't care, because I don't think you actually care what happens to Palestinians.

[PACOX]

Sunday news feed was plastered with the image of the US dropping aid into Gaza. But there's no (sane) reason why the trucks shouldn't be allowed safely into Gaza. Why can civilians distribute aid better than the IDF could? There's US cities larger than Gaza, and the trucks can't get in? Most people are now in Rafah, the border.

All im saying is the IDF is lacking.

[Mayhem]

Define "plausible choice".

They were always a "plausible choice" in one political form or another, the name's on the ballot - does not mean it's the mainstream choice, however. Democracy be like that, you have parties who are far right and you have parties who are far left. The "far" part usually also signifies they are a fringe option, which ultimately they are.

Violence like this helps far right party, but they are still far too small to really do anything aside the usual troublemaking. And the next elections they will probably be back to the opposition, simply because given the numbers the next prime minister won't need them at all to make a coalition.

Them achieving something would legitimize them, would make them more of a reasonable choice rather than a fringe one. Good luck with getting rid of them.

Hamas was like that for decades, they were like that back when we were hugging each other at the height of Oslo accords. They were the ones who sent busses packed with people flying while Oslo accords were in force.

Am I missing something? Hamas was like that for decades? As far as I am aware they came into existence during the first intifada which predated the Oslo accords only by a few years and was sparked because of Israel violence and settlement policies.

Some people want to see everything burn, the unlucky part for Palestinians, however is that Hamas has no issue literally killing the opposition and dissidents, so they just govern by force, rather than any sort of real democratic process.

They're double unlucky because Israel helps Hamas kill the opposition despite them having literally all the cards in their hands to help them.

[PgStckr]

I've been told by beatiful people with smart faces that, usa is *the* World Police, the Country of Democracy, the Freedom Fighters, the Protectors and peace brokers.

I've one question, though:
why usa doesn't broker peace between israel and Palestine?
why there are no *actions* to stop the bloodshed?
why does usa send bombs and money to israel, but doesn't send diplomatic forces and efforts?