I think there can be a distinction between saying that how the state of Israel was created was problematic and saying that Jewish people need to live in Nazi Germany or under the rule of Hamas....
Because it is. Telling Jewish people they can't exist or have to give up their country to live under the ruler-ship of people who want them dead, is antisemitism. I don't see how you can say it isn't?
I think there can be a distinction between saying that how the state of Israel was created was problematic and saying that Jewish people need to live in Nazi Germany or under the rule of Hamas. They are two different things. We are where we are and I think a great many of us are sad that we are here. Outside of some pretty extreme radicals, the vast majority of us are hoping for, and in some cases working towards, Jewish Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live and thrive exactly where they are. I'm still optimistic that we can have that, we have methods within our own history (such as the Marshall Plan) to use as examples.
I agree and this will be my last thought on it. I think we share a pretty similar perspective. I don't think there is a way to dislodge Hamas without providing Palestinians in Gaza with some...
For Palestine to move forward, they need to get rid of Hamas, which won't be easy or bloodless.... I think I'm done with this topic. This shits too depressing and there's no good solution.
I agree and this will be my last thought on it. I think we share a pretty similar perspective. I don't think there is a way to dislodge Hamas without providing Palestinians in Gaza with some measure of hope or some ability to organize/thrive outside of Hamas. There need to be carrots and sticks, and right now all I see are sticks.
Palestine isn't going to move anywhere with or without Hamas. Israel has been eating away at their rights and land long before this latest incident. They werent doing that because of Hamas. It was...
For Palestine to move forward, they need to get rid of Hamas.
Palestine isn't going to move anywhere with or without Hamas. Israel has been eating away at their rights and land long before this latest incident. They werent doing that because of Hamas. It was happening because Israel wants their land. Unless that changes, they're just going to eventually "disappear".
I see value in it as far as situating the issue in history, providing context, and hopefully moving towards understanding, even if not agreement.
Many countries today, have problematic histories and creations. From an academic standpoint, it's a good quandary. But in terms of practical outcomes and solutions, I don't see value in it.
I see value in it as far as situating the issue in history, providing context, and hopefully moving towards understanding, even if not agreement.
There's simply no point in playing the "who's more right" game. The jews have plenty of claim over the land just as the muslims do. Bringing it up does nothing but stoke pointless arguments unless...
There's simply no point in playing the "who's more right" game. The jews have plenty of claim over the land just as the muslims do. Bringing it up does nothing but stoke pointless arguments unless you're trying to write a historical dissertation for your Doctoral thesis.
The facts are there's a lot of Jews and a lot of Muslims in the region. They've got a long history of killing each other in ever growing revenge attacks. The current status wasn't reached by "evil jews" coming in and imprisoning the "helpless muslims". It's a region that's probably seen more war than any other in the world. The jews hate and fear the muslims with plenty of valid examples to back it up. The muslims are in the same position with the jews. Hamas and PLO have declared that Isreal will be destroyed and the jews slaughtered. The ultra orthodox Jews have similar calls for the murder of every Palestinian and have worked to worsen the lives of muslims living in Isreal. Neither side is in any position to shake hands and figure it out. Neither side can trust the other for very very valid reasons. There's also no way to separate them for 100 years and let emotions cool off.
It's sad, but there doesn't appear to be any path forward but for them to bloody each other up until they either lose the taste for war or one side wins over the other. 70 years of talking hasn't seen a single ounce of improvement. It's hard to imagine anything could be said now that will change that trend.
I'm not sure where you saw the "who's more" right from my comment. I think there can be a way out and I do think Israel needs to lead the way. The have the resources, both financial and tangible,...
I'm not sure where you saw the "who's more" right from my comment. I think there can be a way out and I do think Israel needs to lead the way. The have the resources, both financial and tangible, and the maintain control of the region.
It's sad, but there doesn't appear to be any path forward but for them to bloody each other up until they either lose the taste for war or one side wins over the other.
I've said this a lot in the number of thread that have cropped up since the first attack. I think repeating and repeating that point will make it true. Collectively we spend so many resources on this conflict, if we were able to tap just a fraction for something other than weapons or defenses I think we could find a way out of the crisis. Violence comes from fear, hopelessness, and hate. It'll take quite a bit to temper the last one, but the first two can be solved with access to necessities and investment. I know most are going to call this naive, but it's not like additional violence is getting us any closer to a resolution.
Can you give an even mildly plausible solution to Hamas then that doesn't start with a gun to their head nor leads to Isreal just suffering their merciless vengeance? Dropping the defenses has...
Can you give an even mildly plausible solution to Hamas then that doesn't start with a gun to their head nor leads to Isreal just suffering their merciless vengeance?
Dropping the defenses has only lead to terrorist attacks.
Giving resources and aid results in those being turned into bombs.
Talking has shown no progress.
So how exactly would you propose getting Hamas to the table and achieving peace without removing the Jews from Isreal?
I'm not sure how to say this without things escalating, but it doesn't sound like anything I present will be considered in good faith. If you're up for thinking about this with me I do have some...
I'm not sure how to say this without things escalating, but it doesn't sound like anything I present will be considered in good faith. If you're up for thinking about this with me I do have some ideas on how things could change.
I think we'll need a third party broker that both parties trust. The UN is probably a good place to start, and partnerships with multi-national non-profits like doctors without borders, the red cross (taking into account the huge irony of suggesting a foundationally Christian non-profit), universities, and groups that focus specifically on education, health, food and basic necessities. For Palestine to become peaceful it has to be able to maintain itself at a stable level independently. That means there needs to be Palestinian doctors, Palestinian farmers, and Palestinian engineers. Right now that isn't possible. We need well funded programs to direct Palestinians into foreign universities with the explicit outcome of them returning to help rebuild Gaza. We don't want to brain drain the country. We need foreign companies to invest in manufacturing in country with strict oversight on labor rights and compensation. It doesn't need to be things that can be "turned into bombs", it can be textiles or furniture. I can hear the reply of "more money in Palestine means more money for bombs/guns/etc." And honestly, I think that's partially unavoidable. But Israel will still control the boarder, so getting things in will still need to pass through their security operations and there can be strict stipulations around violence that would limit, pause, or altogether cut support. In the meantime the lives of the general population will improve. If their lives improve, support of extremist groups will fall. Eventually a moderate government will take its place and then we can start talking about removing Israel's control over their borders, giving them actual freedom over international trade and travel, and even validating their country status with the UN and trade alliances. Until that point the IDF is still functioning as they have been for decades, but hopefully with less inflammatory tactics.
I really don't think I can state enough how much I think this is core to the problem. We saw it post WW1. We saw it in Afghanistan in the 80-90s. We saw it in Iraqi following the quintessentially ironically named operation Iraqi Freedom. We see it domestically in the US within our inner cities. If there is no hope of improvement or trust in the systems that provide support, embitterment and hate will fester into violence.
I wish I could believe it would be so easy as wrapping them in a warm hug. It's such a stupid conflict overall. Really, neither side needs a religious government. What they really need is an...
I wish I could believe it would be so easy as wrapping them in a warm hug. It's such a stupid conflict overall. Really, neither side needs a religious government. What they really need is an extremely strong secular government that bends over backwards to keep religion out of politics while striving hard to maintain the freedom to practice what you wish. But I don't see that happening in a lifetime.
Pouring money in is also tricky. Not only due to the ability to create bombs from materials (seriously, they're making bombs out of water pipes, there doesn't appear to be anything they won't try to turn into a shiv), but also from the immense amount of corruption and dependence it can cause. You can get this perverse side effect where they don't want to improve and lose out on the freebies, but pulling funds as a punishment for lack of improvement doesn't help either. This is all assuming there was a way to begin this rebuilding without Hamas going apeshit.
Afghanistan is different too. We actually did do a ton over the years to build up infrastructure and tried to train up the populace. Unfortunately, they were hell bent on maintaining their tribalism and thus never built a sense of unity or country. So when the Taliban swooped in, they all noped out back to their villages, leaving everything that was built to be burned to ashes.
Overall, I do believe that reconstruction is the best path forward, but I don't think it's possible to start while Hamas exists. The West Bank is probably in a decent position to start rebuilding though.
I spent some time in the countrysides of Afghanistan and Pakistan before our final departure in 2020/2021. I think so many people have a misunderstanding of what the "Taliban" is. It's mostly just...
Afghanistan is different too. We actually did do a ton over the years to build up infrastructure and tried to train up the populace. Unfortunately, they were hell bent on maintaining their tribalism and thus never built a sense of unity or country. So when the Taliban swooped in, they all noped out back to their villages, leaving everything that was built to be burned to ashes.
I spent some time in the countrysides of Afghanistan and Pakistan before our final departure in 2020/2021. I think so many people have a misunderstanding of what the "Taliban" is. It's mostly just folks who live in the area who don't have particularly strong feelings about things one way or another. Some have lost relatives in the fighting, but even those folks were welcoming when they found out I was American. Many called themselves "Good Taliban" which I found hilarious. So many didn't have a grasp on what had happened in the US - nearly none knew about 9/11 - and their understanding of the conflict was based solely around the areas that they lived. Some of these guys, and I say guys because I never spoke with women in the Taliban controlled areas, fought in the conflict but had no ill will against us. It was more conscription than jihad.
The support we gave them during the hilariously ironically named, Operation Enduring Freedom, was majority military with some infrastructure. We never held enough of the country to actually implement nation wide infrastructure improvements so they were focused in places like Kabul. I'm not surprised they fought us on infrastructure improvements as we used the infrastructure we built to forward our campaigns. The support I'm talking about is after we initially "freed" Afghanistan following our support of the Taliban against Russia. Charlie Wilson's War does a decent job highlighting Senator Wilson's interest in dumping money in to create a modern, progressive society in the region. We didn't and they fell back into a conservative theocracy.
As an odd parallel for what I'm currently proposing, in many parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan foreigners at large are called "Chinas" because the majority of the people they interact without side of conflict are from China. Through their belt and road initiatives, China has worked to expand roadways and provide housing/food/medical infrastructure. It made me think that even these radicalized areas with theocratic governments will work with third parties that they aren't are war with or at odds with. In China's case, those roadways are being built for the benefit of China. Any benefit to the local area is just a knock on that allows them to justify them to the regional government and population, and yet they are still onboard with it and allowing the work of the Chinese to go on unhindered. This is why I think a third party taking on this project could work.
Overall, I do believe that reconstruction is the best path forward, but I don't think it's possible to start while Hamas exists. The West Bank is probably in a decent position to start rebuilding though.
I'm glad to hear it! I agree we should focus on West Bank as well and may make greater ground there. I'd be interested to see how a pilot program runs with a Hamas government. I think the risk of trying it out would at worst do little more damage than the current policy and at least it would be something different.
There's no reason to support Hamas whatsoever. If anything, they sealed the fate of the Palestinian people with this attack. That place got its independence, then proceeded to elect Hamas, no more...
There's no reason to support Hamas whatsoever. If anything, they sealed the fate of the Palestinian people with this attack.
That place got its independence, then proceeded to elect Hamas, no more elections since. Then Hamas turned humanitarian aid into weapons.
That government doesn't care about civilians at all. Nothing more than a human shield, and it shows.
This does not, however, mean Israel is free from criticism. Their current president is an ass, to put it lightly.
The atmosphere around this whole thing is already so bad that unless you point at either side people assume you're shilling.
Really good point. The problem with it is that nobody fucking listens to each other because in depth talks or opinions or analyses do not fit into a short story on Instagram, into clickbait news...
The atmosphere around this whole thing is already so bad that unless you point at either side people assume you're shilling.
Really good point.
The problem with it is that nobody fucking listens to each other because in depth talks or opinions or analyses do not fit into a short story on Instagram, into clickbait news headlines, tweets, gotcha comments on reddit, etc. etc.
It's aggravating seeing friends post frankly stupid regurgitated memes or images immediately, especially when it's about something that they have no way to confirm, like the bombing at the hospital*. They don't really care to understand the conflict because they already have their preconceived notions (as did I, but then I read up on it, and now I feel a lot better informed) and made up their minds before anything even happened anyway.
And they of course won't go back and edit their story nor post an update once it comes out that things like the hospital bombing was wildly exaggerated even though that's what this round of fog-of-war propaganda, won by Hamas*, would have them believe.
* it was the parking lot and not the hospital itself, and the Hamas claim of 500 lives isn't confirmed, and it was probably IJ that did it and not Israel (according to not only IDF, but also OSINT the US president)
Do you also call apartheid apartheid when it occurs - as defined by the Rome Statute - as at present in Australia? Or every time you think of China, do you mention textbook the textbook,...
Do you also call apartheid apartheid when it occurs - as defined by the Rome Statute - as at present in Australia? Or every time you think of China, do you mention textbook the textbook, systematic apartheid as is occurring right now?
Or does that exclusively occur to you when talking about Israel?
I think there can be a distinction between saying that how the state of Israel was created was problematic and saying that Jewish people need to live in Nazi Germany or under the rule of Hamas. They are two different things. We are where we are and I think a great many of us are sad that we are here. Outside of some pretty extreme radicals, the vast majority of us are hoping for, and in some cases working towards, Jewish Israelis and Palestinians to be able to live and thrive exactly where they are. I'm still optimistic that we can have that, we have methods within our own history (such as the Marshall Plan) to use as examples.
I agree and this will be my last thought on it. I think we share a pretty similar perspective. I don't think there is a way to dislodge Hamas without providing Palestinians in Gaza with some measure of hope or some ability to organize/thrive outside of Hamas. There need to be carrots and sticks, and right now all I see are sticks.
Palestine isn't going to move anywhere with or without Hamas. Israel has been eating away at their rights and land long before this latest incident. They werent doing that because of Hamas. It was happening because Israel wants their land. Unless that changes, they're just going to eventually "disappear".
I see value in it as far as situating the issue in history, providing context, and hopefully moving towards understanding, even if not agreement.
There's simply no point in playing the "who's more right" game. The jews have plenty of claim over the land just as the muslims do. Bringing it up does nothing but stoke pointless arguments unless you're trying to write a historical dissertation for your Doctoral thesis.
The facts are there's a lot of Jews and a lot of Muslims in the region. They've got a long history of killing each other in ever growing revenge attacks. The current status wasn't reached by "evil jews" coming in and imprisoning the "helpless muslims". It's a region that's probably seen more war than any other in the world. The jews hate and fear the muslims with plenty of valid examples to back it up. The muslims are in the same position with the jews. Hamas and PLO have declared that Isreal will be destroyed and the jews slaughtered. The ultra orthodox Jews have similar calls for the murder of every Palestinian and have worked to worsen the lives of muslims living in Isreal. Neither side is in any position to shake hands and figure it out. Neither side can trust the other for very very valid reasons. There's also no way to separate them for 100 years and let emotions cool off.
It's sad, but there doesn't appear to be any path forward but for them to bloody each other up until they either lose the taste for war or one side wins over the other. 70 years of talking hasn't seen a single ounce of improvement. It's hard to imagine anything could be said now that will change that trend.
I'm not sure where you saw the "who's more" right from my comment. I think there can be a way out and I do think Israel needs to lead the way. The have the resources, both financial and tangible, and the maintain control of the region.
I've said this a lot in the number of thread that have cropped up since the first attack. I think repeating and repeating that point will make it true. Collectively we spend so many resources on this conflict, if we were able to tap just a fraction for something other than weapons or defenses I think we could find a way out of the crisis. Violence comes from fear, hopelessness, and hate. It'll take quite a bit to temper the last one, but the first two can be solved with access to necessities and investment. I know most are going to call this naive, but it's not like additional violence is getting us any closer to a resolution.
Can you give an even mildly plausible solution to Hamas then that doesn't start with a gun to their head nor leads to Isreal just suffering their merciless vengeance?
Dropping the defenses has only lead to terrorist attacks.
Giving resources and aid results in those being turned into bombs.
Talking has shown no progress.
So how exactly would you propose getting Hamas to the table and achieving peace without removing the Jews from Isreal?
I'm not sure how to say this without things escalating, but it doesn't sound like anything I present will be considered in good faith. If you're up for thinking about this with me I do have some ideas on how things could change.
I think we'll need a third party broker that both parties trust. The UN is probably a good place to start, and partnerships with multi-national non-profits like doctors without borders, the red cross (taking into account the huge irony of suggesting a foundationally Christian non-profit), universities, and groups that focus specifically on education, health, food and basic necessities. For Palestine to become peaceful it has to be able to maintain itself at a stable level independently. That means there needs to be Palestinian doctors, Palestinian farmers, and Palestinian engineers. Right now that isn't possible. We need well funded programs to direct Palestinians into foreign universities with the explicit outcome of them returning to help rebuild Gaza. We don't want to brain drain the country. We need foreign companies to invest in manufacturing in country with strict oversight on labor rights and compensation. It doesn't need to be things that can be "turned into bombs", it can be textiles or furniture. I can hear the reply of "more money in Palestine means more money for bombs/guns/etc." And honestly, I think that's partially unavoidable. But Israel will still control the boarder, so getting things in will still need to pass through their security operations and there can be strict stipulations around violence that would limit, pause, or altogether cut support. In the meantime the lives of the general population will improve. If their lives improve, support of extremist groups will fall. Eventually a moderate government will take its place and then we can start talking about removing Israel's control over their borders, giving them actual freedom over international trade and travel, and even validating their country status with the UN and trade alliances. Until that point the IDF is still functioning as they have been for decades, but hopefully with less inflammatory tactics.
I really don't think I can state enough how much I think this is core to the problem. We saw it post WW1. We saw it in Afghanistan in the 80-90s. We saw it in Iraqi following the quintessentially ironically named operation Iraqi Freedom. We see it domestically in the US within our inner cities. If there is no hope of improvement or trust in the systems that provide support, embitterment and hate will fester into violence.
I wish I could believe it would be so easy as wrapping them in a warm hug. It's such a stupid conflict overall. Really, neither side needs a religious government. What they really need is an extremely strong secular government that bends over backwards to keep religion out of politics while striving hard to maintain the freedom to practice what you wish. But I don't see that happening in a lifetime.
Pouring money in is also tricky. Not only due to the ability to create bombs from materials (seriously, they're making bombs out of water pipes, there doesn't appear to be anything they won't try to turn into a shiv), but also from the immense amount of corruption and dependence it can cause. You can get this perverse side effect where they don't want to improve and lose out on the freebies, but pulling funds as a punishment for lack of improvement doesn't help either. This is all assuming there was a way to begin this rebuilding without Hamas going apeshit.
Afghanistan is different too. We actually did do a ton over the years to build up infrastructure and tried to train up the populace. Unfortunately, they were hell bent on maintaining their tribalism and thus never built a sense of unity or country. So when the Taliban swooped in, they all noped out back to their villages, leaving everything that was built to be burned to ashes.
Overall, I do believe that reconstruction is the best path forward, but I don't think it's possible to start while Hamas exists. The West Bank is probably in a decent position to start rebuilding though.
I spent some time in the countrysides of Afghanistan and Pakistan before our final departure in 2020/2021. I think so many people have a misunderstanding of what the "Taliban" is. It's mostly just folks who live in the area who don't have particularly strong feelings about things one way or another. Some have lost relatives in the fighting, but even those folks were welcoming when they found out I was American. Many called themselves "Good Taliban" which I found hilarious. So many didn't have a grasp on what had happened in the US - nearly none knew about 9/11 - and their understanding of the conflict was based solely around the areas that they lived. Some of these guys, and I say guys because I never spoke with women in the Taliban controlled areas, fought in the conflict but had no ill will against us. It was more conscription than jihad.
The support we gave them during the hilariously ironically named, Operation Enduring Freedom, was majority military with some infrastructure. We never held enough of the country to actually implement nation wide infrastructure improvements so they were focused in places like Kabul. I'm not surprised they fought us on infrastructure improvements as we used the infrastructure we built to forward our campaigns. The support I'm talking about is after we initially "freed" Afghanistan following our support of the Taliban against Russia. Charlie Wilson's War does a decent job highlighting Senator Wilson's interest in dumping money in to create a modern, progressive society in the region. We didn't and they fell back into a conservative theocracy.
As an odd parallel for what I'm currently proposing, in many parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan foreigners at large are called "Chinas" because the majority of the people they interact without side of conflict are from China. Through their belt and road initiatives, China has worked to expand roadways and provide housing/food/medical infrastructure. It made me think that even these radicalized areas with theocratic governments will work with third parties that they aren't are war with or at odds with. In China's case, those roadways are being built for the benefit of China. Any benefit to the local area is just a knock on that allows them to justify them to the regional government and population, and yet they are still onboard with it and allowing the work of the Chinese to go on unhindered. This is why I think a third party taking on this project could work.
I'm glad to hear it! I agree we should focus on West Bank as well and may make greater ground there. I'd be interested to see how a pilot program runs with a Hamas government. I think the risk of trying it out would at worst do little more damage than the current policy and at least it would be something different.
There's no reason to support Hamas whatsoever. If anything, they sealed the fate of the Palestinian people with this attack.
That place got its independence, then proceeded to elect Hamas, no more elections since. Then Hamas turned humanitarian aid into weapons.
That government doesn't care about civilians at all. Nothing more than a human shield, and it shows.
This does not, however, mean Israel is free from criticism. Their current president is an ass, to put it lightly.
The atmosphere around this whole thing is already so bad that unless you point at either side people assume you're shilling.
Really good point.
The problem with it is that nobody fucking listens to each other because in depth talks or opinions or analyses do not fit into a short story on Instagram, into clickbait news headlines, tweets, gotcha comments on reddit, etc. etc.
It's aggravating seeing friends post frankly stupid regurgitated memes or images immediately, especially when it's about something that they have no way to confirm, like the bombing at the hospital*. They don't really care to understand the conflict because they already have their preconceived notions (as did I, but then I read up on it, and now I feel a lot better informed) and made up their minds before anything even happened anyway.
And they of course won't go back and edit their story nor post an update once it comes out that things like the hospital bombing was wildly exaggerated even though that's what this round of fog-of-war propaganda, won by Hamas*, would have them believe.
* it was the parking lot and not the hospital itself, and the Hamas claim of 500 lives isn't confirmed, and it was probably IJ that did it and not Israel (according to not only IDF, but also OSINT the US president)
I see tons of all of those things without people being called antisemitic. Hell, tons of Jews do all those things.
Do you also call apartheid apartheid when it occurs - as defined by the Rome Statute - as at present in Australia? Or every time you think of China, do you mention textbook the textbook, systematic apartheid as is occurring right now?
Or does that exclusively occur to you when talking about Israel?