101
votes
Israel-Gaza Conflict Discussion Thread
There wasn’t a single dedicated thread, and this is a major ongoing conflict, so it seemed prudent to make one. Let’s try to be as civil as possible, the last two threads related to this got locked.
You provide great context and make good points throughout, however I really question why you conclude that even hard-right Israeli leadership would commit genocide like you describe by forcing them out at gunpoint. I also have to say that most of what you end the write-up with is unrealistic at best. Germany and Europe aren't going to take that many more Middle Eastern refugees. And Germany paying their final due for the Holocaust... huh? What? Germany is already imploding from the last wave of refugees with AfD gaining scary amounts of ground in polls and they will definitely increase their influence in the coming election.
And bout Israel forcefully pushing people into Egypt is also never going to happen on account of the border between Gaza and Egypt being even more tightly controlled than the border between Gaza and Israel itself.
Neighboring countries taking two million refugees? Jordan already has almost a million Syrian refugees and Saudi Arabia really aren't going to accept all of these Palestinians because the thing is that nobody wants them, not even other Arab states.
You said it yourself, that years of this conflict has caused a significant percentage of Palestinians in the Gaza strip to become radicalized. Why do you think Egypt has such a strict border? Because when they open up, it becomes violent. Keep in mind that while Hamas has removed the charter about war on Jews, they are still openly stating that "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." Giving them free reign to live wherever they want in the world and giving them stipends and free rent etc. would frankly be naive to think that it won't go horribly wrong.
I have no good proposals or ways to solve this. But I do agree with you that it is unlikely to end in any other way than the forceful displacement of thousands of Palestinians - like I said in another thread, Armenians in Artsakh are a good example because while they have had to leave their homes, at least they have their lives. And while still technically a genocide, that still seems to me to have been the best solution although we will of course have to see how it goes in the coming years.
In my humble opinion, I think you are brushing over a number of elements a little too easy
I think Jordan and Lebanon would strongly disagree with you. After the six-day war in 1967, PLO militia (led by Yasser Arafat), moved from the by Israel captured West-Bank to Jordan. Within Jordan, the PLO acted by themselves, disregarding authority from Jordan. Within three years this led to 'civil' war (Black September) in Jordan. The PLO lost and moved to the South of Lebanon, where the exact same thing happened. To this day, Hezbollah still controls the South of Lebanon as it is their own state.
There won't be any Arabic country taking on Palestinians. If countries with similar cultures and religion won't adopt Palestinians in fear of civil unrest, why would you think placing them in Europe will solve all the things?
You write about Europe as you don't live there. Europe has a major problem with integration of other cultures and religions that have come forth out of 70 years of migration. Adding a few million more people, mostly radicalized, is going to create a lot more civil unrest.
Yesterday, in several major European cities, hundreds of Palestinians and Palestine-supporters went to the streets with flags, celebrating the attack on Israel that has cost hundreds, if not thousands of civil lives, including western foreigners, such as Germans and Canadians. Tensions are already high.
How long would you like to have Germany pay its 'debt' for? Have not learned anything about the ending of the First World War and the major impact the Treaty of Versailles had on the start of the Second World War?
Lets displace millions of Germans and create an Islamic state with millions of radicalized people in the middle of Europe. What could possibly go wrong?
I think some answer to this question would reasonably contend with the argument that there's nothing that can be done with Israel now. If there's no turning back the clock, why should Germany of today be paying for Germany of nearly a century ago? It seemingly doesn't serve much of a purpose in terms of responsibility, any people alive today were nothing more than small children, babies or didn't even exist then. I realize that it's a totally different proposition to turn back the clock on Israel versus Germany taking more refugees, but at some point what is done is done regardless of what you're asking. You even called it a "final payment" of moral debt, but what would be final about it? What's to say there won't be something more to ask of them later?
If we are going to go back to assign blame, at that point, wouldn't any powers that contributed to the creation of what is now the modern state of Israel share in the responsibility of taking in refugees under the proposed solution? Germany didn't create Israel. The existence of Israel today should to some extent should be viewed as an action independent of Germany and the Holocaust. I realize that it cannot fully be separated due to the extreme depravity and scale of actions of the Holocaust nor should it be separated in most cases, of course any subsequent decisions made to deal with the fallout are made under terrible conditions, but within this context I think it has some merit. If we're trying to assign blame to countries that are consisting almost entirely of representatives and people that didn't even exist 80 years ago, why shouldn't there be more responsibility for those who made the subsequent decisions after WWII, especially if as you stated, they made a grave mistake in not carving out land from Germany back then.
I found this to be a bit unfair to characterize their response considering how you described the situation initially. I agree with you that people who want out and have no ties to acts of terrorism already being committed should be able to get out and would not likely be anymore of a problem than pretty much any other people from other places, but you previously described a situation which generalized the effects to the population and in response someone else took that generalization to a different point. You described it like a gas under pressure. I don't know what might people specifically relate this to when reading it, but to me I might think of it as a carbonated beverage in a bottle being shaken and I take the cap off. Even if I wait a few minutes before I open it, there may still be some pressure built up. I need to wait a little longer before I can open without the risk of it expelling its contents on me. You could see how if you describe something in such a way, someone might view this as a lingering pressure that doesn't dissipate instantly simply by moving them? That to me is how I read their response. Rather than assuming that the people were inherently violent or flawed, the person responding was probably taking your pressure analogy a bit further.
I really dislike this line of reasoning. Like, no shit, the kids of today have nothing to do with the Holocaust. But so what? Just commit some awful thing and wait long enough for the line "the kids of today weren't the culprits" to be thrown as the defense? What? That's like any other colonial superpower in the past literally just pillaging indigenous territories and then going all "statute of limitations". Complete and utter disregard for any moral decency.
But that's why your reasoning is besides the point. The point is to make up for the ongoing crisis as a nation. It's not "particular kids that has nothing to do with Holocaust" than it is "as a nation that has inextricably intertwined itself with the Israel-Palestine conflict".
And you are right. Nations that have had a hand in causing this conflict should have a hand in helping fix it. Not only Britain.
OK, and every single piece of land today was fought over and someone won and someone lost, and someone probably had a more legitimate claim from an ethical standpoint and some of those people lost, and then there were probably additional fights and those lost.
There's clearly a line, or a "statute of limitations" otherwise there's a never-ending line of every single person who exists today owing someone else for the horrors of the past. If you're not willing to try to define what this line is, and also not acknowledge the fact that it is the case that goes back more than just 80 years or 300 years that somewhere along the way people were wronged and it was never made right, then you're criticizing those who would even attempt to draw a line without doing so yourself. It's hypocritical.
The point is to find solutions to the problem, not play the blame game. The moment fingers get pointed, it becomes more about who can blame who than it is about finding solutions.
What's wrong going back that far, past 300 years even? I didn't say we shouldn't do that. In fact, I highly encourage it! There are plenty of historians who can point us in the right direction, but the reasoning given (similar to reasonings given in your comments) are what hinders progress on this front.
"Blame game" is one way of putting it. "Acknowledging the role of each nation in the creation of this crisis" is another. You have to both acknowledge and solve. To only solve is to diminish roles, and it's usually done by people who are guilty. Furthermore, it is usually the opposite that happens. Those who do not admit or acknowledge are those who just want to wash their hands clean off anything. Admission is so hard for them because that means taking responsibility.
How does it benefit anyone if people that committed no evil apologize for things their possible ancestors did, to people who never experienced any wrongdoing, but possibly someone in their family tree did?
That’s just vendetta, or an endless revenge-cycle, strangely forced into a “positive”.
Adding on, to those that ask "why not move the Jews", well they have the upper hand. Should the entire middle east unite in genocide of the Jews, then yeah, they'd start to accept such a proposal. But as long as the Israeli government is strong, they will never accept a retreat. And if that confuses you, just ask yourself if your country would be willing to dissolve and relocate somewhere they have no power.
That sort of happened already, with Israel winning easily, expanding their territory.
The problem is, that it is not just a territory carved out by the winners in WW2, it is a territory that protected itself against its neighbors multiple times. Sure, one may argue that it is “easy” to win with a Western-backing, but as mentioned by the parent post, there are now entire generations that grown up there. How is that different to basically any other country on Earth? No country has a bloodless history.
I'm not going to entertain more of your hypotheticals when you simply call me a bigot and racist. Not once did I say that certain ethnic groups are more violent than others. That is extremely offensive.
When talking about this topic, one has to cover their bases which I why I will very clearly state that I believe that the Israeli government, the IDF, Israeli apartheid politics, etc. etc. are horrible and unjustifiable, and Palestinians deserve the right to self determination. But if we trust polls, even if they are only halfway correct, there is just absolutely no way that millions of emigrating Palestinians would not go horribly wrong. It's up to you if you want to pretend like everything will be fine if only they got to live somewhere else. To that, I can only give you these numbers and say that as it is right now, a very significant amount of Palestinians support Hamas, an unequivocal terrorist organisation.
From June 2021:
A different poll from March 2023:
Yet another poll, June 2023::
An excellent summary, this is very close to what I've been thinking for over a decade. My options for resolving were just "glass desert after nuclear war" and "Jesus reincarnates and tells them to stop it", yours was a lot more nuanced.
The forced/encouraged evacuation of Palestine seems like the only viable solution. It's not a good solution by any means, but better than any alternative, which most likely includes genocide.
Most European countries (and many countries worldwide) are experiencing some form of demographic collapse - too many old people, not enough young people, and it is likely to be fatal to their current economic systems within two decades at the latest. A wave of immigrants is one possible solution to that problem, though having that many immigrants (and especially, then treating them as second class citizens, making them angry and desperate) brings its own problems like we see in Sweden right now. Long term it's probably the right move for everyone involved, but I'm not optimistic about that being acknowledged or handled very well if it does happen. Most humans have a visceral negative reaction to having new neighbors down the street who don't speak their language or subscribe to the same form of mysticism and common legal standards that they themselves do.
Frankly, America isn't even a third full yet. We've got plenty of room. We've got plenty of Muslims already - even where I live in the middle of nowhere, there are mosques, and I don't see anyone treating them as second class citizens here either... or at least, no worse than any other immigrants. Keep right on sending those busses to NYC. Maybe we should give lady liberty a fix up and a fresh paint job to encourage it.
Do you really think a full genocide of that nature can be fully carried out that simply? I'm not being facetious, I'm legitimately asking. A naked genocide of 2 million people is no easy feat, and it'll make the recent events pale in comparison to what the response from militants would be when it's all their lives in the line. It might even draw Hezbollah and Iran in. If they force them to the border of Egypt, it might draw them in as well. It might also tear Israeli society apart; not everyone will countenance open genocide.
Israel withdrew from Gaza because occupying Gaza was hard. This would be much harder, and last much longer.
Something like 6 million people have fled Ukraine, mostly concentrated from the Russian speaking East. More recently about 120,000 Armenians have fled Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unfortunately, recent history tells us that forcing hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes is all too possible.
Though might I add that cultural differences really matter here - Europe didn’t/doesn’t have too much problem accepting Ukrainians because they came from a similar background (and unfortunately it also has a racist undertone, I’m afraid).
Easy? No. It's certainly not something that would happen in a single night. But again, there's not much surrounding countries can really do. What are they going to do, invade Israel? Because that's what it would take to stop them.
It's important not to confuse organized military actions with counter-insurgency. Compare the US taking of Iraq with the years of counter-insurgency fighting after. The US captured the country quite quickly. Winning hearts and minds was the hard part, and what the US ultimately failed at. But the US also didn't want to level Baghdad. In this scenario, there wouldn't be the opportunity for Hamas to have much of an impact. Israel would just slowly sweep across Gaza with a wave of artillery, flattening the entire thing from one end to the other. The civilian population would either have to flee or die.
Terrorist groups work when one side isn't willing to engage in total warfare. Look at WW2 on the Eastern front. Yes, there were partisan groups all over the place, but ultimately it wasn't the partisans at drove out the Wehrmacht, it was the Red Army. Insurgent or terrorist groups are effective when they can hide among the population. When the other side is willing to drive out the population entirely, they don't work so well.
If it takes longer than a single night, there's a real risk of intervention from the international community. A Trump administration would cheer it, but a future AOC one would probably send troops. We have no idea what politics in the US, Europe and Israel are going to look like. But an open, televised, premeditated bloodbath has real risks for Israel.
Historically speaking, that “enemy” didn’t cause a problem to Israel formerly. I am absolutely a laymen about modern warfare, so not sure how they would fair nowadays, but with their special bond with the US, and their high tech military, it might not be that uncomfortable a situation for Israel. (One might even draw a parallel with the Ukrainian situation, where a smaller, but high-tech due to Western donations country manages to hold their ground against the low-tech, but high number Russian enemy)
Both with Ukraine and Israel, I think you're underestimating how close those two countries came to being wiped off the map. They weren't, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a risk.
I don't think Israel loses a war. But does Israel want a permanent quagmire in Gaza, and the West Bank, and internal strife, and a slide into fascism, and external attacks from both state and non state actors at the same time? Because that's the risk.
Also should add that Iran provides political and military support to Hamas. Iran uses Hamas to the south and Hezbollah to north as proxies against Israel. The latest attack was the direct result of Iran's machinations.
So the resolution of the Palestine question also hinges on the resolution of the Iran question, as well as the broader acceptance by the Islamic world of Israel's existence as a fait accompli.
And it's not just Iran's proxy war against Israel, it's also against the Saudis: the Israel-Saudi deal would have enormous consequences for Iran and its allies as the House of Saud and its allies all fell in line with Israel and the west. It's so frustrating to see people calling Hamas "based freedom fighters," rather than people who have been blinded by religious fervor to fight Iran's battles for them. I've seen so many people who readily acknowledge the proxy wars the US has fought over resources like oil intentionally turn a blind eye to the long-standing conflict between the Saudis and Iran and all the proxy wars they've fought, preferring to act like this is Palestine fighting back in isolation, with nobody pulling the strings behind the curtain.
Iran ordered this attack not because it was the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur war, that was just coincidental timing: they wanted to disrupt the Israel-Saudi deal because they know the House of Saud, despite being a monarchy, is very much aware that they cannot completely ignore their citizens, and the invasion of a Muslim-majority country by one who has historically been their oppressors would place massive public pressure on the Saudis to back out.
And their predictions were correct, the Saudis have pulled out: Potentially historic deal to normalize Saudi-Israel relations is ‘off the table’ after this weekend’s 9/11-scale attack, top political analyst says
Whatever happens to Palestine now, Hamas' leaders (who do not care about the fate of the Palestinian people because they live in Qatar) and Iran won.
Edit: For the record, I very much disapprove of Israel's expansionist policies, but I also believe that, like any geopolitical situation, this situation requires a holistic understanding of Middle East relations, and there is always more to the situation that meets the eye. Once you understand the Saudi-Iran conflict, you will understand so much about the middle east: Syria, Iraq, and Yemen's civil wars, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the military overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, etc.
If you aren't familiar with the conflict, you might be wondering why Yemen and Iraq are threatening the US to stay out of the conflict or why Lebanon and Syria are now firing rockets into Israel while Egypt and Jordan remains staunchly neutral, but look at who they're allied with and it will explain everything: Egypt and Jordan are with Saudi Arabia while Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen are with Iran.
It's all a massive proxy war.
Edit 2: In case anyone still doubts who's really calling the shots here: Israel-Hamas live: Iran says new fronts may open if Gaza bombing continues
That’s a pretty bold statement. Is there real evidence for that?
Both sides said it was.
https://www.politico.eu/article/iran-hamas-attacks-against-israel-palestine-jerusalem/
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25?mod=e2tw
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-hamas-gaza-rockets-attack-palestinians/card/hamas-says-attacks-on-israel-were-backed-by-iran-kb2ySPwSyBrYpQVUPyM9
https://archive.ph/cCKjx - paywall bypass
Voicing support is a long way from “direct machinations”, which is the bold claim I am questioning.
Read the article at the wsj, it’s pretty explicit that the IRG planned, supplied and greenlit it.
The article only cites Hamas officials as sources, I don’t consider that solid evidence, although I do consider the WSJ reasonably credible. However, without confirmation from Iran, we’re still a long ways fron “direct machinations.”
Also from the article
That contradicts the claim that Iran was behind the attack.
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/iran-israel-hamas-strike-planning-bbe07b25
I should now update my statement in light of reports to the contrary, though it is still early and there is much fog of war.
NYT: "Early Intelligence Shows Hamas Attack Surprised Iranian Leaders, U.S. Says"
But it still stands that historically Iran has provided material support to Hamas and uses Hamas as their proxies.
First, great work and thank you for such a well thought out comment. This is exactly the type of content Tildes, and the internet in general, needs.
I do have to say, however, that your entire argument is highly problematic (which you already acknowledge) and heavily contradictory. I won't rebut the finer points of what you've written as others already have and I unfortunately don't have the time today but there are three bigger critiques I'd like to give as to why this line of thinking has major holes:
You acknowledge that Israel is one of the last vestiges of the great colonial projects but your solution to the problem is yet another great colonial project which ignores very real-world problems that colonialism and reverse-colonialism alike will breed. The Palestinians are not culturally Arab, they will always be marginalized and displaced if moved to other Arab countries this will have effects for generations and is not a durable solution. Further, the large influx of refugees into Western nations, in this case Germany, is breeding right-wing resurgence and destabilizing societies. Both proposals fail as they are only further shortsighted colonial planning with no thought of the drastic effects that will occur decades from now.
Israel's lack of defensible borders is the same justification used as a major point for Russia to invade Ukraine, also a case of a nuclear armed state attempting to shore up its border situation. In one situation the world arms the defenders while in the other your proposal would have the world appease Israel and we already know from history that appeasement rarely works. In the age of long-range nuclear warfare, securing geographic security is less and less an argument for nuclear armed states to attack their neighbors. No country in the Middle East could invade Israel without facing utter destruction borders be damned.
Dystopian visions of ethnic cleansing and the impossibility of either systematic reproachment or a two-state solution are incredible leaps of thinking, sure, all are distinct possibilities, but the logic has simply been carried too far and ignores other significant factors. Just because right-wing parties in Israel hold sway right now does not mean that they will in another ten years and we've already seen Hamas moderating their stances, who is to say that the party does not take a more nuanced and softer stance or fails completely in the future. While outright reproachment or a true two-state solution may be current political impossibilities, and I am not personally ready to endorse that argument, systematic hybrid approaches could be used to stabilize and normalize both people's conditions to enable further progress to an enduring solution. Not all possible solutions have yet been explored, it's simply too soon to call it quits. As US relations with the Arab world normalize, reliance on Israel becomes less critical. The world once imposed harsh restrictions on an Apartheid South Africa that helped to ultimately lead to change, this could happen again here.
More short-sighted colonialism is not an answer to short sighted colonialism. Appeasement has been shown to almost always enable bad actors and should not reenter the field of political discourse, a united front can continue to stand against it - just as Palestine should not be excused for its actions, neither should Israel for its violations of international consensus. The peace process should continue to be explored and supported while recognizing that both Palestine and Israel will ultimately have to be the ones to carry the dialogue and come to a solution, any other path will only lead to calamity later - both sides will need to own the solution for it to ultimately be digested.
I agree with pretty much everything in this post, except:
If the events of the past week have shown anything, it is that that moderation was a fiction from the beginning, and the political possibility of Israel negotiating anything with Hamas is at this point basically 0 and I cannot see that changing. I cannot see the political appetite for anything resembling negotiations with Hamas from anyone of a mature age in Israel today, i.e. anyone that really remembers this week. Other Palestinians entities maybe and hopefully, but the idea that there is a "going back" to negotiating with Hamas after this is simply unrealistic. This is a 9/11 moment for Israel, and we all remember what that did to US politics.
I think in the context of now that you are absolutely right but twenty years on we negotiated a peace with the Taliban and allowed them to return to power, albeit in a haphazard manner. Today Vietnam is not only still a communist country but also one of the US greatest trading partners. Time really does heal all wounds and as unthinkable as it is right now, this could happen with Hamas as well
If we are talking on the scale of generations, then I agree completely, but by that time so many political realities will be different that it is hard to even really think about. As for the Taliban example, I think a more direct example would be if we had negotiated a ceasefire with al-Qaeda, i.e. the organization directly responsible for 9/11.
Definitely agree that in the long term anything can happen, but as I said above I do think it would take a completely different generation with no firsthand memory of today to even stomach it on either side. And I would bet that Hamas ceases to exist long before then.
See, the issue I have with this is that while it would clearly be the best solution if it were possible, do you honestly think this is an actionable solution? Neither Hamas nor the PNA have been particularly interested in two (or three) state solutions. What actually would happen is that this stalemate continues, the terror acts continue, and Israel, as the overall more dominant player, continues slowly encroaching (probably mostly in the West Bank, where it’s not as fortified) with settlers and effectively ethnically cleansing that area.
I suppose all that being said I think that’s what’s probably going to happen. There will be no great evacuation of Palestinians for the reasons you stated. There will also be no two or three state solution. Israel, as the more dominant of the parties, will slowly “win”, if it could called that. This Gordian Knot is far too messy for any international voices, at least in the West, to intervene unless things escalate with neighboring countries.
There are so many wild conjectures here, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea how you came up with this dystopian fiction, but I think it is very irresponsible to weave this atrocious tale for people who have no deep understanding of the conflict and take what you say at face value.
This is not the first time I'm seeing this idea floated around. One side of my family is holocaust survivors and
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that they would never have moved to German territory to build a life. Do you honestly believe that the people who just saw their families being slaughtered by their neighbors will be willing to stay next door to the people that decimated them?! Would you?
This is partially true. Borders aren't the main reason for the two state solution never came to be. The Palestinian position (at least the one that doesn't call for reclaiming the whole of Israel) doesn't ask for a contiguous state. The previous plan offered by Israel included the return of all of the occupied territories with the exception of 6.3% of the West Bank with significant jewish population, for which they offered to exchange for 5.8% palestinian-majority population as well as a corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza, of course, was fully evacuated in the disengagement plan 3 years prior. The main reason it was rejected was not borders, it was the Law of Return.
This is untrue. The massive protests that are rocking Israel and Tel Aviv almost daily for the past 40 some weeks and call for the resignation of Netanyahu, call at the same breath for a two state solution, for going back to negotiations, for pulling out of the occupied territories. Additionally, international pressure on Israel has been mounting in the past couple of decades and before these recent round of atrocities, would have pushed Netanyahu to go back to negotiations. Now, of course, all bets are off.
The most irresponsible claim you make are that this inevitably leads to ethnic cleansing of Israelis pushing Gazans into Egypt to die. I don't know what to say to that other than that this is complete conjecture. It is akin to postulating that following the recent civil rights riots around the US and the meteoric rise of the right and white supremacy, black people will inevitably be forced into concentration camps in Mexico to die. Creating this false dichotomy that for Israel it's a choice between defensible borders or ethnic cleansing is reprehensible.
There is no chance that any such voluntary migration plan will happen, but I otherwise agree with most of your analysis. I think that some form of mass ethnic cleansing is probably inevitable.
Truly one of the most exemplary of content I’ve ever read online.
I don’t know how much of this is true as I am quite foreign to the topic. But comparing this to other sources online I feel like it makes the most sense.
An unfortunate situation by any measure, and not easily untangled. Intractable even? Sad for everyone affected and involved.
That's it! I'm startin' a substack.
Only tangentially related, but I unfortunately still use Twitter/X as it's useful for staying informed on research.
My entire "for you" feed is just pro-israel sentiment from accounts I don't follow. I don't need twitter to tell me how to feel about something.
Anyway, I'm of course not condoning civilian deaths, but the international community doesn't care about Israel slowly occupying more and more land over time. What are the Palestinian people supposed to do, just let themselves disappear?
I don't see how the actions of Hamas help anyone but this conflict is extremely complex and anyone trying to simplify it is tricking you. Read about it, learn the history.
I've lived through this conflict my entire life. I think the only way this ever gets resolved is by going back to the negotiating table and hammering out an agreement like they tried to do in 2008 and multiple other times during the 90s and early 00s. What's changed in 2009 is that Netanyahu rose to power and stayed there more or less for a decade and a half. Israel's parliamentary alliances are very complex but for various reasons, the only person that could get enough parties into a coalition was Netanyahu, despite consistently getting ~1/4 of the votes. Under Netanyahu, Israel, like the rest of the world, had gone through an accelerated process of de-democratization with the right increasing its power.
While from the outside it might be easy to believe the idea that Israelis are ignoring the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza, the last 40 weeks of almost daily protests in Israel trying to oust Netanyahu also protest against the occupation and call for a two state solution. The two are linked.
This recent conflict is only going to serve as a tool for him to gain more public support both from within Israel and from the world. If in the past we were seeing strong international (and even American!) pressure on Israel to return to the negotiating table, this attack will allow Netanyahu to safely scoff at that, and the international community is going to stand behind him.
There is never going to be a long term resolution. Palestinians are never going to be happy being penned into small areas that have some of the highest population densities in the world. There is no feasible one state solution because that require both sides to create a government that gives equal power and protection, something neither side will agree to. This is a process that started after WWI and the eventually genocide of at least one side, if not both, is the most likely and unfortunate outcome.
May you all stay safe. Best wishes.
My hope is that you all can find a better resolution than the fate of our indigenous populations here in the US.
The cases are of course not a perfect analogy, but there are very few ways to guarantee that a people completely accept military defeat.
Our settlers also suffered from reprisals and atrocities against civilians, but the vice squeezing the native americans into smaller territories was inexorable. Over the last several years in particular, the stories from the West Bank have reminded me of US history of settling native american territory.
I wish that the allied governments in 1945 had offered the secular Jews of Europe a section of nazi territory to call their own. The religious Zionists of course want Israel proper, but the Palestinians had nothing to do with Hitler's atrocities or the previous history of pogroms. There is a long history of small states succeeding in Europe. But it is too late now. The UK and the US did what imperial powers do and we do our best with the aftermath.
Minor quibble: It was only inevitable insofar that the USA didn't respect a single treaty they ever signed with the natives. As soon as a resource was found on land previously negotiated by treaty, the Americans moved in illegally, swiftly. Then would use their court system to rule their invasion legal.
I do find it an apt comparison between Israel and Palestine in that regard. Palistine (as it exists now) is to Israel what the reservations are to the USA. And Israel, as a state, is treating Palestine with the same level of contempt and animosity as the USA did to natives.
I truely think there is a path to peace, but I think the only one that gets there is if Israel-the-state is relocated out of the land which 3 religions see as their holy land. The only state that could peaceably exist in that location is a fully secular one which has a proper wall between religion and state.
I don’t think it has to be a complete firewall, but I suspect a one-state solution will feature a “secular, multiethnic state with Jewish characteristics” rather than being a Jewish state. Basically, a Constitutional acknowledgment of the state being a Jewish homeland while maintaining the Jewish Law of Return. It would introduce a Palestinian right of return for those who left after 1945-1947, along with some form of monetary compensation. The new constitution would have civil rights and due process clauses entrenched, with other amendments requiring a 2/3 majority. It would also introduce civil marriage.
I suspect that Aliyah from Europe would be heavily encouraged, both in view of the rising anti-semitism there, and as a way of maintaining demographic balance in the new state.
Equally pedantic quibble, inexorable is not inevitable.
They're pretty damn close to synonyms, so point taken.
But not quite. An avalanche or a lava flow can be inexorable, but it was not inevitable that that flow happened here and not there. Pitiless and implacable are not the same as certain to occur. Specifically, I intended pitiless or merciless.
Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.
I think the comparisons to native americans are not without merit. There is a lot of social injustice to go around here, but the situation is nuanced and complex. Keep in mind that the jewish people themselves were escaping centuries of hate and genocide which culminated in the final solution. They needed a home and self-determination. This is not a case (as I read all too often) of strong, powerful nations colonizing natives as the case was in the Americas.
It's important to know that jews have immigrated to Israel long before 1945 and some lived in Israel for centuries. The pogroms and antisemitism in modern-day Russia, Ukraine and Poland had driven jews to Israel in mid 19th century. Those arrived in Ottoman Palestine, bought lands from the Ottomans and directly from Palestinian farmers and settled them. And as you point out, they were not religious in the least (Zionism and religious judaism are two very different, often conflicting ideas). Between WWI and WW2 many others have joined them during the British mandate - suggesting that these people would be willing to settle in a section of Germany (most European jewry was Polish) - a country that had just decimated them - is frankly a little naive. Germany had already thrice before invaded countries it regarded as German territories - who could promise they wouldn't do it a third time and finish the job? Would the world protect them? Would you have been willing to move to the land, live next door to the people who slaughtered your entire family?
I mean many peoples settled the Americas, including jews, and the irish who were most definitely persecuted. My father's home town has a significant population of people of Armenian descent who arrived during or after the Turkish persecution and genocide.
But I hear you about the complexity of the Israeli Palestinian situation. I am aware of the long history of persecution of jews by the Christian governments and peoples.
Sorry if this was confusing, I use twitter to follow actual researchers in my field, to stay up to date on recent papers published in legitimate journals. There's been a small migration over to blue sky, but unfortunately twitter is still more active and useful for networking.
I’m just one dumb guy. I don’t know history or geography very well. Where’s a good start to get educated here
Wikipedia is an okay place to start. But ultimately you are talking about around 80 years of history. There’s a lot of context and nuance that will be missed. r/AskHistorians might be another useful resource.
Can you recommend some unbiased sources? I ask because the people who spout the "do your own research" mantra without any evidence of their own are annoying.
An unbiased source to learn about this conflict is a hard ask. There exist two apparently irreconcilable narratives neither of which is false depending on the perspective from which it is viewed. If you want a quick overview of it, I doubt you could find anything better than the various Wikipedia pages. But if you want a deeper understanding I think it is necessary to read sources from both sides, I have yet to read an arbitrer of facts who has been able to successfully unpack the long history.
I really like the Martyr Made podcast for a relatively
unbiasedbalanced representation of the history of the conflict.Good luck finding "unbiased sources" on a topic like this.
I would honestly recommend just reading this Wikipedia page to start. You might find Wikipedia laughable but I can't think of a better way to approach the topic.
There are of course scholars who have commented on the conflict extensively, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, but no these aren't "unbiased" they both argue in favour of the Palestinian people. But at a minimum they're Jewish if that makes a difference to you.
In light of the recent massacres by Hamas I think it is necessary to understand that Hamas are not the sole representatives of the Palestinian people, and you should read about the PLO, or how the PLC operates.
I posted about this podcast series about The History of Modern Palestine
on American Prestige earlier today and it got moved over to ~humanities.history. It is definitely biased (pro-Palestine), but I found it informative.
I don't know how unbiased you can say it is, in my opinion though it is as historical of an understanding as you can get, but I guess one could argue that the author is biased, it is just hard to say biased towards humanity? Anyways I digress, the book Palestine, Israel, and the U.S. Empire is a great primer on the matter.
Citizens always lose :/
Waking up to explosions in the northern border.
A lot of people are scared of a northern front, but me personally, I'm scared of what's going to happen when the real numbers start coming through from Gaza. Casualties and hostages on both sides are undercounted right now - it's only going to get more horrific, and who knows if a lot of them are going home.
Stay safe out there 🫂
I won't comment on whether I think Israel is bad or not, or whether either side is more right than the other. I know no where near enough to make such a judgment.
However, I just learned about the attack on the Re'im Music Festival. "Disgusted" is too light of a word for how I feel. All war is horrible, but this particular attack hits differently. That festival is an event for civilians—more than that, it's a festival about peace of all things. As far as I'm aware there were no military benefits to attack that festival as part of an opening move, no strategic advantage from gunning down hundreds of non-combatants and parading their bodies online. They can use the hostages, sure, but...
I absolutely, positively, cannot help but loathe Hamas and anyone who supports them in light of this attack. Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives have been ended or ruined on what should have been a normal night. These were civilians, these people had NOTHING to do with the war. As far as opening moves go, this one is the most disgusting.
The shock is the point. Hamas' goal was to hurt Israel. If there had been a hospital for babies nearby, they would've gone for that instead. If it had been a human chain of Israeli Jews and Arabs praying for peace in Palestine, more the better.
Hamas cannot win a conventional battle with the IDF. Moreover, killing Israeli soldiers isn't really going to shock and awe. Soldiers die, it's sad but people expect it. Hamas' goal was to let Israel know that it wasn't safe. The softer the target, the better.
This forces the Israeli government into a response. If the response is a ground invasion, Hamas draws Israeli forces into horrible, grinding, drawn out urban combat into a place where every man, woman and child despises them. Every further innocent Palestinian casualty will create a family of martyrs for the next generation.
Arguably, that just made Palestine’s stance all the worse - I think the slowly built up sympathy of the Western world for their case evaporated overnight (see the immediate stoppage of donations) seeing the brutal videos surfacing, and that’s not an easy thing to gain.
Which is unfair against the actual Palestinian people living there peacefully, but it’s not like a terrorist organization infamous for deliberately installing their rocket launchers at their own schools/hospitals would care about “their people” at all.
What does it matter? Has the world's sympathy helped end apartheid? Yeah, less money will come in. Now the regular Gaza person can go from slight starvation to moderate starvation.
Palestinians see the world's sympathy the way most of us see thoughts and prayers after a gun shooting in the US. Who cares? Is anyone going to do anything? No? Marvelous.
There are many horrible things about the attack, but losing the world's sympathy isn't one of them. It's worthless.
Do you have any source for the claim that the rave was a "peace festival"? I heard people on Twitter claiming that without stating evidence, but frankly it sounds to me like some kind of scaremongering line like "if you support peace with Palestine you deserve what you get." Not saying that's what you're doing, but I'd like to know the origin of this claim.
I can't find any language online that direct, but it's Brazilian psy-trance techno music. These festivals often have a psychedelic peace-loving hippy vibe to them. Here's a bit from their announcement page (translated from Hebrew):
It's a peace festival in the sense that all these gigs are.
Originally I saw it mentioned as dedicated to peace in some articles such as this one. Seems other articles have dropped that part since then. Fair possibility it's a case of reporters repeating things they heard mentioned online, particularly with the translation barrier in regards to finding direct sources.
Either way, I'm still deeply disgusted that civilians were attacked as part of the opening move for this war. It's just plain terrorism, and will only incite further violence and outrage. It's going to directly cause a cycle of vicious revenge by incentivizing Israeli forces to show no mercy to Palestinian civilians, which makes Palestinian civilians support the war further and the soldiers to be more vicious to any Israeli civilians they encounter, and so on. This cycle was most likely the intent, which is part of why I'm so disgusted.
As an outsider looking in, what are Israel’s next steps? From my reading of the current and historical conflict, it seems that once militants are expelled from southern Israel, the IDF will occupy Gaza, securing sections (and going block-by block if needed), to remove all potential weapons, leaving no stones unturned. They will fight Hamas until it is eradicated within Gaza. Do we know what they will do in the West Bank?
None of us know what's going to happen in the west bank - when things like this start OpSec gets a lot tighter. But I don't expect anything good. Anger is through the roof right now, worse than I've ever seen.
I don't normally participate in discussions about Israel-Palestine, since they tend to get out of hand real quick (like this morning's post which got locked).
It's gonna be a dangerous gambit for the IDF to go stone by stone in Gaza. Dangerous for the local civilians, as well. It's dense urban environment, especially in Gaza City and other cities. It's not gonna quick or easy, to say the least. And even then, it's not like this fixes the weapons problem forever. In a way, it just kicks the can down the road.
And who even knows that Hezbollah up north via Lebanon might try to do.
That's the problem with all of this; there's no good solution that's acceptable to both sides. IIRC, even the two-state solution has issues, especially for Palestinians. Neither side is willing to give anything up, so this just continues.
Can Israel even occupy Gaza? They withdrew last time after not doing a great job at it, and it's only bigger and angrier now.
Israel withrow because it wanted to secure the safety of civilians and to allow the Palestinian people their own authority.
Unfortunately they decided to elect a terrorist organization to lead them, which has only served to make everything worse
This is precisely right. It would be suicide (both politically and morally) for Israel to enter Gaza. It will be like Iraq. And it will result is so many senseless casualties. But if the numbers of kidnapped civilians Hamas is quoting are true, I'm afraid it will result in just that. It'll just be awful. And it will play exactly into the hands of extremists on birth sides. The two state solution, or any solution, is going to get even further away.
Not sure what you mean there. In the last round of talks both sides were willing to make extensive concessions on the matter.
Ah, I didn't know that. Would you happen to have any articles that might provide some info? In not participating in these discussions, I've also kinda kept my distance from the topic altogether. Though this current war is hard to ignore.
Certainly. It is an explosive topic. Both sides have done atrocious things. I will absolutely admit that Israel (Netanyahu mostly) has failed to present a reasonable negotiation position in recent years. But like many others it requires honest willingness to looking at the nuance of it. To really be well versed in the history of it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/
This isn't preemptive. According to Hamas sources there are ~200 kidnapped civilians, women and children who were dragged back to Gaza. What will any country do in such a situation?
Israel had already offered the two state solution three times under Rabin, Barak and Olmert. The Palestinians were the ones who rejected.
From the Hamas charter:
"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. [...] renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion of Islam" and it includes calls for genocide.
See this in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/what-would-hamas-do-if-it-could-do-whatever-it-wanted/375545/
I think they may have been referring to the GP comment instead. But I’ve known @Algernon_Asimov for awhile now, and I don’t think they want Hamas to genocide the Jews. Instead, they are frustrated by the short end of the stick the Palestinians have gotten since the early 20th century.
I think @yosayoran was commenting about @Algernon. For what it's worth I think your words were really well said and based on understanding of some of the historical events that got us here. It would be a shame for the rest of us if you self censored yourself because of a few bad apples
This is not true..?
Israel has made multiple proposals of it - but it has always been rejected by Palestine. Arafat even worked towards it in the 90's.
Besides, what do you expect Israel to do? Do you not think they should be able to defend themselves?
Yeah of course it isn't true. I'm not sure why the admins allow such obvious lies in here.
This site has a single admin who also has a day job elsewhere so it sometimes takes awhile for any bad discussions to get pruned. From my understanding, he also loathes threads like theses because they are difficult and time consuming to moderate. Looks like he came through here with his shears though.
I'm really not sure why you insist to paint such a blatantly black and white picture.
Israeli extremism is bad, and Palestinian extremism is also bad. Both extremists believe the entirety of Israel is theirs, but the average person doesn't care and would love a two state solution, Palestinian or Israeli.
So I'll ask bluntly, why do you feel it's okay to represent Israeli and Jewish people as refusing a two state solution when that is blatantly not the case and only the ideals of the hard right? Do you genuinely think that most people here want the entire country and refuse to live alongside Arab people?
Firstly the Israeli left no longer really exists for practical political purposes – there is only the far right and the very far right.
Sure, we can't paint a black and white picture – but it's also not as dismally grey as some people like to imagine. In my opinion it is in the same moral category as other anti-colonial movements such as the LFN in Algeria or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa. There is lots of moral complexity here but I do think that these movements are justified in pushing for their right to self determination.
I think a lot of Israelis do want this – see for example the settlement program which the state has always implicitly supported in direct violation of international law and human rights and is now actively supporting. Looking at voting patterns I don't think it would be unreasonable to say a majority.
FWIW, which I suspect ain’t much, the UN’s perspective, un.org is that Israel is perpetrating an illegal occupation. This would mean Hamas actions are potentially justified, and is a sign of at least a majority of the world’s agreement.
Also, according to Democracy Now, the Israeli government is illegally, and in contradiction to its international treaties including the nonvisa reciprocity, treating Palestinians with apartheid tactics, even when those Palestianians are US citizens.
The problem with a two state solution is it requires the relocation of many currently living in Israel.
Which two state solution? There were many proposed. The last of which included the near-total withdrawal from the West Bank - proposing that Israel retain 6.3 percent of the territory in order to keep control of major Jewish settlements in exchange for Israeli land equivalent to 5.8 percent of the West Bank, along with a link to the Gaza Strip.
That solution required the relocation of some (not many) people - the vast majority of which are Jewish.
This is already following the Disengagement Plan in 2005 in which Israel had unilaterally relocated its Jewish population out of Gaza.
I’m referring to all the Palestinians (of origin) and Muslims who live inside Israel. They are already second class as per treatment (by report of Democracy Now); if they stayed they would likely be treated worse still.
I'm not sure I'm following. What does the Arab Israelis have to do with the two state solution?
If a two state solution is formed, those folks will risk truly awful apartheid* conditions if they don’t relocate to the Palestinian state.
As smarter folks have pointed out elsewhere, a two state solution is extremely unlikely, so the point is probably moot.
Edit:*I have done a little reading since making this comment. Apartheid has an official international crime status. I don't understand all the intricacies, but at least one Jewish Israeli organization says the Israeli government's actions, both with its citizenry and occupied territories, meets the elements. B'Tselem.org.
I think there's definitely discrimination of Arab Israelis, not unlike the bigotry POC Americans experience, but to call it apartheid is going way too far. As someone with Arab Israeli friends, there is absolutely no way in a million years they would relocate to the Palestinian state should that be formed.
As for the non viability of the two state solution - I wholly disagree with that sentiment just as I disagree with the sentiment that the Israeli left no longer exists.
It seems unlikely to me that if two states were created that Arabs and Palestinians living inside Israel would retain even their current reduced status.
I’m not the only one to call the situation in Palestine apartheid, so does Democracy Now and others. And it’s not far fetched, a lot of what Israel (government) does in Palestinian regions, and to those within its borders, are atrocious.
I think you're conflating the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories and Arab Israelis. The two are very different. Arab Israelis have full rights, have (pretty significant) representation in the parliament, some of them are doctors and nurses and lawyers, and are relatively less religious than the Palestinians in the occupied territories. As I said, there is definitely discrimination against them, and that is absolutely wrong, but calling their situation apartheid is a wild exaggeration. Thinking that they'll be stripped off their rights should a two state solution form is ridiculous. But you are of course free to hold to those opinions, I'm just trying to provide some reality check.
You are correct, I am conflating the occupation (which includes East Jerusalem) with the treatment of Arab and palestinian Israeli residents and citizens, which as far as my research indicates, is worse than you suggest, and trending worse yet( e.g. CFR. That that treatment would deteriorate even more as a result of a two state solution is largely my own opinion I'll concede. I sincerely hope I'm wrong. But I do not think it is reasonable to separate the two issues.
With regard to apartheid, which I have just learned as a part of thinking about this comment is now an actual international crime, as I have stated before, I am not the only one to hold this opinion. Even Israel's own Jewish B'Tselem calls it legal apartheid. But the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others all hold similar view.
I have friends on all sides of this issue, from Chabad to the Gaza Strip. I really wish they could all find a way to get along. A good start might be to extend the Law of Return to all people from the region.
Since I'm seeing this idea repeated many times in discussions, I thought I would provide some clarification. This is not a religious conflict. There are certainly some religious elements to it but this is predominantly a political and ideological conflict. "Secularization" of the region or creating an atheist state (however this is achieved) isn't going to resolve it.
Judaism is in this weird state of being both a religion and an ethnic group. This often confuses people who are used to think about it only in terms of religion. A big chunk of Israel (and of Jews) is completely secular and doesn't care for god or his promises to Abraham. But they do believe in a home and self-determination for the Jewish people (i.e. ethnic group).
It's not that weird. Many of the Eastern and Oriental variants of Christianity and other minority religions operate that way too (cf the Copts, St Thomas Christians, Assyrians, Sikhs, Mandaeans, Armenians etc). While theologically some of these are parts of ostensibly universalist religions, in practice they've tended to operate as ethnoreligious groups.
Learning something new. Thank you!
I was never very well-read on the history of Israel, Palestine, etc. - but, in general, I was pro-Palestinian - or, at least, very against the treatment of Palestine by Israel. The last few days of Palestinian terror destroyed any ounce of sympathy or credibility left for them, and probably for any pro-Palestine movement. Watching demonstrations in the USA, Germany, etc. celebrating this is absolutely insane to see. It's not even just "protests" in support of Palestine but actively celebrating the recent events of killing innocent civilians - and that's not even getting to the kidnappings and beheadings and parading these dead civilians around.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but if you admit you haven’t educated yourself about the history of this conflict and are basing your entire opinion of an entire nation on the events of the last couple days, that seems like a perfect opportunity to actually read up on it. As observers who can’t really affect what happens or stop the violence, the least we can do is learn and understand why this is happening.
(Also, as stated elsewhere, I’ve seen no evidence that this was a “concert for peace” supposedly deserving karmic retribution for their naïveté and not just some random rave that Hamas shot up.)
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Not sure why you feel the need to dismiss this person's reaction to the recent events.
To be clear, I’m not dismissing the reaction itself of being horrified by what’s going on.
I find it mind-boggling that people feel they need to pick a side like this is some sort of sports game?!? Palestinians and Hamas are not the same, the history of conflict in the region is incredibly complex, and most people who are “pro-Palestine” have not read a single article about the geopolitical ramifications of the conflict, and YET these people feel the need to declare an opinion on who they support.
this seems like an impossibly broad over-generalization. do you have some kind of source for it? (such as, I guess, a survey that asked people to rate themselves on a pro-Palestine vs. pro-Israel spectrum and then self-report how many articles they've read about the conflict?)
I don't understand what this attack was supposed to accomplish. It won't improve Israel's policies and killing civilians hurts any international good will.
I remember reading a few articles that claimed this to be some sort of multinational call to arms among Israel's enemies, but this hardly seems like a military operation. It's just widespread terrorism, which isn't going to motivate Israel to back down at all, so far it's just motivated a massive retaliation.
For how much coordination this attack required, I fail to see the goal.
I think this is definitely a good chunk of the reasoning. To add my own (very cynical) interpretation - I think Hamas is looking to provoke Israel to overreact, just like they did in the previous flare up. And Israel is going to play the part expertly. It's like a sick coordinated dance. At the end of which Hamas is hoping the Israeli overreaction will hurt its standing in the world and earn itself European and American condemnation. The only losers of which are the poor Palestinian and Israeli civilians.
an interesting look at misinformation and how it quickly it can be spread:
Biden says he saw photos of 'terrorists beheading children' in Israel-Hamas war
A White House spokesperson later clarified that the president had based his comments on claims from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's spokesman
the source in the Washington Post is on their "live blog" coverage, where it confusingly gets buried within a "read more" link about a speech given by Netanyahu.
“Beheaded babies” report spread wide and fast - but Israel military won't confirm it
is there a Museum of Bullshit? a spokesperson saying "We cannot confirm it officially, but you can assume it happened" should be framed and hung there.
I debated about whether to post this here or as a new post, but didn't want to spam the topics list.
Spencer Ackerman did a great long-form piece in The Nation on what forthcoming normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, brokered by the US, means for Palestine.
He posted some further interview material on his newsletter later today.
Task & Purpose channel has put out a status / breakdown video of what is known so far (as of Oct 7 end of day approximately).
Given how little time he had to put it together in order to get it out today, it is amazingly informative.
I've basically seen propaganda on the events this week.
Sound bites about Hamas firing 200 rockets, but nothing about why they are doing this.
I've usually followed the "Israel bad" mantra and an extension of American backed imperialism in the region, but the articles this week gave me pause. It's obviously an extremely complex situation, born most recently out of the post war carve up of land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel_(1948%E2%80%93present))
The reason you don't hear about the "why" is that it's not a short term cause and effect. This is the ultimate result of all the tension that's built up since 1973. The Gazan population has, regardless of political justification or right/wrongs, suffered so much pain. This is, in their eyes, appropriate retribution.
Despite the complicated history, if one were inclined to look for a proximate cause, there is one available. Saudi Arabia and Israel have recently been in very serious talks to normalize relations. This would've been a serious blow to Hamas, but the inevitable Israeli retaliation for this attack could spike the deal.
As someone who hasn't followed the conflict closely. Can someone explain what's the catalyst of such massive scale of conflict?
I've been hearing all the same comments about Israel and Palestine for a lifetime. Literally since I was a child.
Why won't Jake Paul get on the phone with Netanyahu and Haniyeh and tell them "it's time to stop"?