This is a colossal, colossal failure on the part of the Israeli government. Reading this story is insane. The Israeli intelligence community had access to several iterations of detailed plans that...
This is a colossal, colossal failure on the part of the Israeli government. Reading this story is insane. The Israeli intelligence community had access to several iterations of detailed plans that ended up being pretty close to what actually happened on Oct 7, and what's more, they actually observed Hamas training rehearsals for the day. And they did nothing about it.
Look, I'm no military expert, but if you expect Hamas to attack southern Israel and don't want the world to blame you for shooting Palestinians, why not station military units in the areas you...
Look, I'm no military expert, but if you expect Hamas to attack southern Israel and don't want the world to blame you for shooting Palestinians, why not station military units in the areas you think are going to be attacked on the Israeli side of the border? There's a whole gamut of options between doing nothing and invading Gaza before the attack. Like, if Hamas is training to overwhelm the fortifications at the border, beef up the fortifications then?
They do have military stationed on the border continuously. Part of Hamas plan involved overwhelming them and disabling their technology - using drones to take out surveillance and communications....
They do have military stationed on the border continuously. Part of Hamas plan involved overwhelming them and disabling their technology - using drones to take out surveillance and communications.
However, that border security has been weakened in the past couple of years, primarily due to the actions of Netanyahu, and it's yet another area he's going to face a reckoning. Troops that were supposed to be stationed in the south were moved to instead defend hardline Zionist settlements that were being established in the north as part of Bibi's pact with the far right to form his coalition government.
Fuck. The exact argument against the settlements is that they overstretch and weaken the state, because of course they do. I really hope that fact sinks in.
Fuck. The exact argument against the settlements is that they overstretch and weaken the state, because of course they do. I really hope that fact sinks in.
This is one of those lines that has me wondering if people like you are even seeing the same world that I am. Almost everyone I know and follow is disgusted with the Israeli government's actions...
The world would be screaming for Israeli blood
This is one of those lines that has me wondering if people like you are even seeing the same world that I am. Almost everyone I know and follow is disgusted with the Israeli government's actions and rightfully calling it the genocide that it is, but virtually nobody is calling for Israel to burn, or even advocating for retaliation to begin with.
They don't want Israeli citizens to die any more than they want Palestinian ones to die, especially considering the not-insignificant contingent of Israeli citizenry that is just as horrified by their government's actions as we are. They just want the atrocities to stop.
You seem to believe that Hamas and Palestine are one and the same, and that in turn, being pro-Palestine means being pro-Hamas. This is patently false. So, to answer you: You don’t. I certainly...
You seem to believe that Hamas and Palestine are one and the same, and that in turn, being pro-Palestine means being pro-Hamas. This is patently false. So, to answer you:
How can I possibly support that?
You don’t. I certainly won’t. But a free Palestine is not a massacre of Israel or of Jews, and conflating the two is obscene.
As for genocide, I will not debate that. I do not believe we will see eye-to-eye here, so I will simply say that after hearing Palestinians referred to as “human animals,” after watching the IDF blockade or destroy humanitarian aid, and after watching them kill doctors, journalists and children, all while chasing out those left by way of forced evacuation, only to then sometimes bomb evacuees anyway — I can’t see it as anything else.
Of note, this is the last reply I’ll be making here, as I find this comment chain too upsetting to read any further.
The harassment and worse in the US based on things going on in a faraway land is one of the terrible things about worldwide obsession with Israel and Palestine. Stuff happening elsewhere shouldn't...
The harassment and worse in the US based on things going on in a faraway land is one of the terrible things about worldwide obsession with Israel and Palestine. Stuff happening elsewhere shouldn't affect how people behave towards each other in the US, but it does. (Social media probably makes it worse, but it happened before.) People seem to think they need to participate, somehow, often with symbolic actions, when the read about something horrible? They look for local scapegoats.
(By contrast, we don't see this happening for the terrible things happening in Sudan, I don't think?)
How can I possibly support that?
Seems like you don't have to identify with or support either side. You're being harassed, but does that mean it's part of the same war?
(Personally, I relate the most to people trying to leave, which seems sensible but is often very difficult.)
Thinking about what it's like from a participant's point of view is sometimes helpful, but it's an imaginative act fraught with error, particularly when you don't know very much. The outside view is often rather limited, but it it's the one we have. And there are some things better seen from the point of view of a foreign observer.
What's Israel suppose to do when Palestine and Hamas put a metaphorical gun to their head and say "You or me".
This is a terrible metaphor. The best thing to do is to stop thinking about it like that, because it's not like that. There are more choices. Binary thinking is not necessary.
But this war and defending themselves
This isn't defense, though? Just like it wasn't defense when the US attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, or invaded Iraq. Defense is what Israel should have done and failed at. What we're seeing here is a successful attack being treated as justification for another attack.
Direct attacks are a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, it's the time to do it, because the people will support the government. (Especially important in a democracy. A democracy that's fully committed to war is scary.) But just because that's how it works doesn't mean it's right. Governments have choices about how to respond.
I can go so far as to say that I'm confused about what the Israeli military is trying to accomplish. One generally assumes that the Israelis aren't idiots, but this latest report calls that into question, as do their subsequent actions.
Whatever those intentions might be, the damage looks pretty severe. It's visible by satellite.
It would require a deeper investigation than I'm willing to put in, but I'm wondering how the invasion of Gaza compares to Mariupol. Russian-level amounts of devastation only go so far for Russia. I don't see it working here either?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/irans-parliament-chants-death-to-israel-after-bloody-hamas-invasion/ar-AA1hQufe Just so we're clear, some folks definitely are calling for Israel to burn.
There's some real vitriol in pro-palestinian protests, even in European countries, aimed towards Israel. I'm not trying to pick a side here, but this jumped out at me because I've seen some...
There's some real vitriol in pro-palestinian protests, even in European countries, aimed towards Israel.
I'm not trying to pick a side here, but this jumped out at me because I've seen some incredible and quite frankly shocking hatred flung both ways.
Palestinian positions vary, but 1948 is still living memory for some. There are people in Gaza and worldwide whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were displaced in the 40s who want their...
Palestinian positions vary, but 1948 is still living memory for some. There are people in Gaza and worldwide whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were displaced in the 40s who want their specific family land back, just like there are Cubanos in Miami who want to return and have land and businesses restored.
There are also many many Israelis who were displaced from Middle Eastern countries in response to the existence of Israel and have no home to return to.
It reminds me in some ways of the Balkans, in some ways of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and I am sure there are other comparable geopolitical socioethnic situations worldwide. I hope it doesn't turn into what we Americans did to the Native Americans, but that seems to be on the table for some Israelis.
I just want to contrast this a bit: If this kind of "revanchism"(for lack of a better term) was alive and well in Europe today, it would be a shit show. The WW2 and immediate post-WW2 era saw so...
There are people in Gaza and worldwide whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were displaced in the 40s who want their specific family land back
I just want to contrast this a bit:
If this kind of "revanchism"(for lack of a better term) was alive and well in Europe today, it would be a shit show. The WW2 and immediate post-WW2 era saw so many moved borders and displaced people, I don't think we'd have seen a single year of peace since 1939 in Europe if people still insisted on this. By this logic, large parts of many European countries would be refugees with axes to grind with one or another neighboring country. Moving borders to where they previously were involves moving borders, which creates more displaced people. Somewhere between 2000 years ago and yesterday, there's a cutoff where we just have to accept existing borders, because moving them to account for an old injustice will create a new one.
I'm not sure what to conclude from this. "Palestinians should just man up and stop whining because we're not whining either" obviously isn't it, but going back to the situation of the middle east before Israel existed strikes me as extremely unviable. I'm not speaking of the settlements of course here. I guess the better conclusion would be to accept borders at the latest once living memory of a previous status quo dies out, and simply support those displaced, but that doesn't feel fair as it does somewhat open the door to expansionists and warmongers. Also leaves open where that support will come from.
International relations is not primarily governed by law, but in law we have the concept of Statute of Limitations which apparently in civil law systems is called prescriptive period. I am not...
International relations is not primarily governed by law, but in law we have the concept of Statute of Limitations which apparently in civil law systems is called prescriptive period.
I am not advocating for the destruction of Israel, at all. I am pointing to the fact that extreme positions on both sides are extreme and there are a not insignificant number of people who hold onto those positions.
Oh, absolutely. I don't think you of all people call for that. I'm pointing out an example where these kinds of border changes worked out alright, in case someone wants to study the differences...
Oh, absolutely. I don't think you of all people call for that. I'm pointing out an example where these kinds of border changes worked out alright, in case someone wants to study the differences between post-WW2 europe and post-WW2 middle east. And I guess I also call, in a way, the palestinian position of wanting 80-year old land claims back extremist. I'm certainly not charging into Poland to reconquer my ancestral farmland, and I think it would be utterly ridiculous to do so.
See, that's the kind of narrative that I'm not sure what to think of. If I'm not mistaken, the descendants of the displaced are still counted as refugees, apparently in perpetuity. They live in...
See, that's the kind of narrative that I'm not sure what to think of. If I'm not mistaken, the descendants of the displaced are still counted as refugees, apparently in perpetuity. They live in regular old apartment blocks in Gaza, but because their granny used to live in what is now Israel, they're refugees. By that same logic, half of Europe are refugees. I want my piece of Poland back, goddamnit! (No I don't, and after 80 years it's a tad silly to ask.)
As for Europe, some of those border changes were "peaceful", or at least as peaceful as they ever get. The winners of a war redistributing land as they see fit, when everyone has the good sense of not fighting anymore, is "peaceful". But that's not even my point. The border changes were violent or at least forced by the threat of violence, but we've figured out a way to live with them. After 80 years, the notion that we should return to old borders is basically completely dead. Of course there were tensions, and some of those borders have led to a war or two. But by and large there was a similarly massive displacement of people in Europe, and Europe just kind of got over it within 80 years. No one here is asking for their right to return to their ancestral land, because that just causes an endless cycle of violence.
I think the difference here is (assuming you're German?), you actually have a country though. Patrolled by German troops, run by German politicians, with an embassy in Poland. The country is...
I think the difference here is (assuming you're German?), you actually have a country though. Patrolled by German troops, run by German politicians, with an embassy in Poland. The country is contiguous, prosperous and sovereign. You can accept that, probably.
It might be silly for Palestinians to have maximalist goals, but they're also down to two disconnected enclaves, no sovereignty and active colonisation. I think that puts you in a different state of mind.
Right, completely agreed. The issue isn't so much anymore that Palestinians were displaced 80 years ago. Lots of people were, some ended up elsewhere in their own countries, some fled to other...
Right, completely agreed. The issue isn't so much anymore that Palestinians were displaced 80 years ago. Lots of people were, some ended up elsewhere in their own countries, some fled to other countries and put down roots there, and some even got to return to where they originally lived. Either way, there's kind of a "statute of limitations" as BDD put it, and eventually you stop being a refugee. In my mind, calling the offspring of palestinians who were displaced 75 years ago refugees is at least stretching the definition, and would entitle lots of people to that label. The problem the palestinians face isn't that they're refugees - lots of people's ancestors were, if you look back far enough. It's that their country or region isn't sovereign. But that's a plight many other nations face too (which isn't a problem by itself either if you look at e.g. the European part of that list). So calling them refugees feels somewhere between misleading and unproductive to me.
None of which is intended to minimize the suffering of the Palestinian people, of course. But the terminology we use to describe that suffering frames the space of solutions we consider, and I feel like "refugee" is guiding us in the wrong direction.
And in case it wasn't abundantly clear: I don't for one second think of myself as refugee, nor do I want to annex parts of Poland into Germany or otherwise want that land back. It's gone. A generation of poles have lived and died there in the interim.
I think part of the problem is that the right to return does exist, but for Jews. An American Jew whose ancestors were displaced by Emperor Hadrian almost two thousand years ago has the de facto...
I think part of the problem is that the right to return does exist, but for Jews. An American Jew whose ancestors were displaced by Emperor Hadrian almost two thousand years ago has the de facto right to go to the West Bank and dispossess a random Palestinian family that has been there for a millennium. No statute of limitations. Conversely, a Palestinian whose parents had to flee to Jordan the last time Israel bombed the shit out of their country has the right to go fuck himself.
If Israel respected the internationally recognised borders, there's at least something to hold on to. But how is any Palestinian meant to compromise their worldview when it doesn't make a single difference? Israel will colonise the areas it wants, even if it's illegal by its own laws.
Does your answer change if I tell you the relevant ancestor is ethnically German? I don't think a 'return' to Poland would have been possible, nevermind that the land was German for at least 400...
Does your answer change if I tell you the relevant ancestor is ethnically German? I don't think a 'return' to Poland would have been possible, nevermind that the land was German for at least 400 years.
this seemed apparent to me from day 1 - Netanyahu wanted the attack to happen to justify razing Gaza and occupying it "indefinitely" (his word). i just don't understand how the Mossad misses an...
this seemed apparent to me from day 1 - Netanyahu wanted the attack to happen to justify razing Gaza and occupying it "indefinitely" (his word). i just don't understand how the Mossad misses an attack like that.
This is a massive intelligence failure, but massive intelligence failures really aren't that uncommon. What that doesn't mean is that Israeli leadership wanted these attacks to happen. Here are...
Exemplary
This is a massive intelligence failure, but massive intelligence failures really aren't that uncommon. What that doesn't mean is that Israeli leadership wanted these attacks to happen.
Here are some key lines from the article.
The document circulated widely among Israeli military and intelligence leaders, but experts determined that an attack of that scale and ambition was beyond Hamas’s capabilities, according to documents and officials. It is unclear whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or other top political leaders saw the document, as well.
The Times comes back to this point over and over. The plan was widely known to military leadership and it was the military leadership who repeatedly discounted it. Note that if this were a conspiracy, you'd expect to see the exact opposite - the plan being hidden by Netanyahu, or perhaps a situation like the judicial "reforms" earlier this year in which military officials were privately telling Netanyahu something and he was overruling them. That's what you'd see if this was something Netanyahu wanted to happen. But we see the opposite: everybody knew, but nobody believed it. And that's because...
The audacity of the blueprint, officials said, made it easy to underestimate. All militaries write plans that they never use, and Israeli officials assessed that, even if Hamas invaded, it might muster a force of a few dozen, not the hundreds who ultimately attacked.
They failed. They will live with the guilt forever. But hindsight is 20/20. It's not completely crazy to think "this is an aspirational plan - they're not actually going to do this."
Was that the wrong thing to assess? Clearly. Does that mean that this was a secret plot by Netanyahu? No.
Separately, let's think this through logically. If this was Netanyahu's secret master plan, it's a terrible plan. He built his entire image as Israel's safety guarantor. This shatters that image. His polling numbers have cratered to less than four percent trust and will never recover. This is, I will note, exactly what happened to the leadership who presided over the Yom kippur war, and Netanyahu would've known that.
So it's like... You have this guy who's such a criminal mastermind that he can predict the Hamas attack better than his own generals, but he doesn't foresee the obvious secondary effects, which had historical precedent? That doesn't track.
Look, I get it. The world is complicated, the Intel agencies seem like they're infinitely powerful, and so it's an appealing heuristic to assume that this was all actually according to someone's plan. But the sadder truth is that sometimes horrible things happen for no good reason.
Well Hamas being horrific terrorists for one... Ideally a peaceful Palestine would just, you know, be peaceful and build a country and an economy without fighting and trying to displace Israel, to...
horrible things happen for no good reason
Well Hamas being horrific terrorists for one...
Ideally a peaceful Palestine would just, you know, be peaceful and build a country and an economy without fighting and trying to displace Israel, to get back land that was fucked about with by the British 70 years ago.
The reality today is for better or worse Israel is there to stay, and several other Arab states would totally destroy them if they could, but they can't. It's unstoppable force meets immovable object stuff.
Since the start of the war the Gazan economy has basically collapsed and the UN recently said it's basically 2m people relying on international food aid. The place is not a functional country. (No thanks to Israel, but also Hamas).
But Arab countries and many Palestinians also suspect Israel might use this opportunity to force permanent demographic changes to wreck Palestinian demands for statehood in Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem, which was also captured by Israel in 1967.
Well good, set up a demilitarised zone, keep the Israeli border out of range of missiles, and have a good long distance so they can see Hamas coming next time they try to sneak across the border to murder and kidnap.
The west naturally 'support the underdog' and think 'poor Palestine' but the situation is more complex than basically any other humanitarian or geopolitical crises (hence it's been unsolved for 70 years). Knee jerk instagram and twitter just hashtags #freepalastine so they can call themselves (armchair) activists.
I agree with you re Gaza but Palestinians trying that strategy in the West Bank are not getting to peacefully enjoy their olive orchards and pastures either. The situation is fucked
I agree with you re Gaza but Palestinians trying that strategy in the West Bank are not getting to peacefully enjoy their olive orchards and pastures either.
Good luck with that. Last I checked, Hamas' "missiles" can reach Tel Aviv, and I'm sure once the blockade is lifted Hamas suddenly finds themselves in the possession of missiles that can reach all...
Well good, set up a demilitarised zone, keep the Israeli border out of range of missiles, and have a good long distance so they can see Hamas coming next time they try to sneak across the border to murder and kidnap.
Good luck with that. Last I checked, Hamas' "missiles" can reach Tel Aviv, and I'm sure once the blockade is lifted Hamas suddenly finds themselves in the possession of missiles that can reach all of Israel. Enjoy evacuating the entire country.
Alternatively, if you intend to keep the DMZ on the Gaza side of the border, enjoy clearing out all of Gaza, no shady SRBM imports needed. Either it's an outright depopulated zone, or someone has to go in and monitor that Hamas isn't in fact militarizing it.
(I'm assuming you're being somewhat sarcastic here and replying in kind. Don't read my post as an attack.)
Snark (at the situation, not you) aside, no amount of DMZs will fix this mess. There's not enough space for the amount of animosity we're dealing with.
Didn't say it's a secret plot, but I am asserting that the Israeli regime needs Hamas to continue attacking so that the cycle of oppression and settlement expansion can continue. Israel has to...
secret plot by Netanyahu? No.
Didn't say it's a secret plot, but I am asserting that the Israeli regime needs Hamas to continue attacking so that the cycle of oppression and settlement expansion can continue. Israel has to grab as much land as possible before any peace deals are reached.
This is a colossal, colossal failure on the part of the Israeli government. Reading this story is insane. The Israeli intelligence community had access to several iterations of detailed plans that ended up being pretty close to what actually happened on Oct 7, and what's more, they actually observed Hamas training rehearsals for the day. And they did nothing about it.
Look, I'm no military expert, but if you expect Hamas to attack southern Israel and don't want the world to blame you for shooting Palestinians, why not station military units in the areas you think are going to be attacked on the Israeli side of the border? There's a whole gamut of options between doing nothing and invading Gaza before the attack. Like, if Hamas is training to overwhelm the fortifications at the border, beef up the fortifications then?
They do have military stationed on the border continuously. Part of Hamas plan involved overwhelming them and disabling their technology - using drones to take out surveillance and communications.
However, that border security has been weakened in the past couple of years, primarily due to the actions of Netanyahu, and it's yet another area he's going to face a reckoning. Troops that were supposed to be stationed in the south were moved to instead defend hardline Zionist settlements that were being established in the north as part of Bibi's pact with the far right to form his coalition government.
Fuck. The exact argument against the settlements is that they overstretch and weaken the state, because of course they do. I really hope that fact sinks in.
This is one of those lines that has me wondering if people like you are even seeing the same world that I am. Almost everyone I know and follow is disgusted with the Israeli government's actions and rightfully calling it the genocide that it is, but virtually nobody is calling for Israel to burn, or even advocating for retaliation to begin with.
They don't want Israeli citizens to die any more than they want Palestinian ones to die, especially considering the not-insignificant contingent of Israeli citizenry that is just as horrified by their government's actions as we are. They just want the atrocities to stop.
You seem to believe that Hamas and Palestine are one and the same, and that in turn, being pro-Palestine means being pro-Hamas. This is patently false. So, to answer you:
You don’t. I certainly won’t. But a free Palestine is not a massacre of Israel or of Jews, and conflating the two is obscene.
As for genocide, I will not debate that. I do not believe we will see eye-to-eye here, so I will simply say that after hearing Palestinians referred to as “human animals,” after watching the IDF blockade or destroy humanitarian aid, and after watching them kill doctors, journalists and children, all while chasing out those left by way of forced evacuation, only to then sometimes bomb evacuees anyway — I can’t see it as anything else.
Of note, this is the last reply I’ll be making here, as I find this comment chain too upsetting to read any further.
The harassment and worse in the US based on things going on in a faraway land is one of the terrible things about worldwide obsession with Israel and Palestine. Stuff happening elsewhere shouldn't affect how people behave towards each other in the US, but it does. (Social media probably makes it worse, but it happened before.) People seem to think they need to participate, somehow, often with symbolic actions, when the read about something horrible? They look for local scapegoats.
(By contrast, we don't see this happening for the terrible things happening in Sudan, I don't think?)
Seems like you don't have to identify with or support either side. You're being harassed, but does that mean it's part of the same war?
(Personally, I relate the most to people trying to leave, which seems sensible but is often very difficult.)
Thinking about what it's like from a participant's point of view is sometimes helpful, but it's an imaginative act fraught with error, particularly when you don't know very much. The outside view is often rather limited, but it it's the one we have. And there are some things better seen from the point of view of a foreign observer.
This is a terrible metaphor. The best thing to do is to stop thinking about it like that, because it's not like that. There are more choices. Binary thinking is not necessary.
This isn't defense, though? Just like it wasn't defense when the US attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11, or invaded Iraq. Defense is what Israel should have done and failed at. What we're seeing here is a successful attack being treated as justification for another attack.
Direct attacks are a traditional justification for war. If a government wants to go to war, it's the time to do it, because the people will support the government. (Especially important in a democracy. A democracy that's fully committed to war is scary.) But just because that's how it works doesn't mean it's right. Governments have choices about how to respond.
I can go so far as to say that I'm confused about what the Israeli military is trying to accomplish. One generally assumes that the Israelis aren't idiots, but this latest report calls that into question, as do their subsequent actions.
Whatever those intentions might be, the damage looks pretty severe. It's visible by satellite.
It would require a deeper investigation than I'm willing to put in, but I'm wondering how the invasion of Gaza compares to Mariupol. Russian-level amounts of devastation only go so far for Russia. I don't see it working here either?
I don't know where you're getting that from, and I think you shouldn't make such accusations lightly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/irans-parliament-chants-death-to-israel-after-bloody-hamas-invasion/ar-AA1hQufe
Just so we're clear, some folks definitely are calling for Israel to burn.
While I agree with your point, to be fair that's Iran.
There's some real vitriol in pro-palestinian protests, even in European countries, aimed towards Israel.
I'm not trying to pick a side here, but this jumped out at me because I've seen some incredible and quite frankly shocking hatred flung both ways.
Palestinian positions vary, but 1948 is still living memory for some. There are people in Gaza and worldwide whose grandparents or greatgrandparents were displaced in the 40s who want their specific family land back, just like there are Cubanos in Miami who want to return and have land and businesses restored.
There are also many many Israelis who were displaced from Middle Eastern countries in response to the existence of Israel and have no home to return to.
It reminds me in some ways of the Balkans, in some ways of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh and I am sure there are other comparable geopolitical socioethnic situations worldwide. I hope it doesn't turn into what we Americans did to the Native Americans, but that seems to be on the table for some Israelis.
I just want to contrast this a bit:
If this kind of "revanchism"(for lack of a better term) was alive and well in Europe today, it would be a shit show. The WW2 and immediate post-WW2 era saw so many moved borders and displaced people, I don't think we'd have seen a single year of peace since 1939 in Europe if people still insisted on this. By this logic, large parts of many European countries would be refugees with axes to grind with one or another neighboring country. Moving borders to where they previously were involves moving borders, which creates more displaced people. Somewhere between 2000 years ago and yesterday, there's a cutoff where we just have to accept existing borders, because moving them to account for an old injustice will create a new one.
I'm not sure what to conclude from this. "Palestinians should just man up and stop whining because we're not whining either" obviously isn't it, but going back to the situation of the middle east before Israel existed strikes me as extremely unviable. I'm not speaking of the settlements of course here. I guess the better conclusion would be to accept borders at the latest once living memory of a previous status quo dies out, and simply support those displaced, but that doesn't feel fair as it does somewhat open the door to expansionists and warmongers. Also leaves open where that support will come from.
International relations is not primarily governed by law, but in law we have the concept of Statute of Limitations which apparently in civil law systems is called prescriptive period.
I am not advocating for the destruction of Israel, at all. I am pointing to the fact that extreme positions on both sides are extreme and there are a not insignificant number of people who hold onto those positions.
Oh, absolutely. I don't think you of all people call for that. I'm pointing out an example where these kinds of border changes worked out alright, in case someone wants to study the differences between post-WW2 europe and post-WW2 middle east. And I guess I also call, in a way, the palestinian position of wanting 80-year old land claims back extremist. I'm certainly not charging into Poland to reconquer my ancestral farmland, and I think it would be utterly ridiculous to do so.
See, that's the kind of narrative that I'm not sure what to think of. If I'm not mistaken, the descendants of the displaced are still counted as refugees, apparently in perpetuity. They live in regular old apartment blocks in Gaza, but because their granny used to live in what is now Israel, they're refugees. By that same logic, half of Europe are refugees. I want my piece of Poland back, goddamnit! (No I don't, and after 80 years it's a tad silly to ask.)
As for Europe, some of those border changes were "peaceful", or at least as peaceful as they ever get. The winners of a war redistributing land as they see fit, when everyone has the good sense of not fighting anymore, is "peaceful". But that's not even my point. The border changes were violent or at least forced by the threat of violence, but we've figured out a way to live with them. After 80 years, the notion that we should return to old borders is basically completely dead. Of course there were tensions, and some of those borders have led to a war or two. But by and large there was a similarly massive displacement of people in Europe, and Europe just kind of got over it within 80 years. No one here is asking for their right to return to their ancestral land, because that just causes an endless cycle of violence.
I think the difference here is (assuming you're German?), you actually have a country though. Patrolled by German troops, run by German politicians, with an embassy in Poland. The country is contiguous, prosperous and sovereign. You can accept that, probably.
It might be silly for Palestinians to have maximalist goals, but they're also down to two disconnected enclaves, no sovereignty and active colonisation. I think that puts you in a different state of mind.
Right, completely agreed. The issue isn't so much anymore that Palestinians were displaced 80 years ago. Lots of people were, some ended up elsewhere in their own countries, some fled to other countries and put down roots there, and some even got to return to where they originally lived. Either way, there's kind of a "statute of limitations" as BDD put it, and eventually you stop being a refugee. In my mind, calling the offspring of palestinians who were displaced 75 years ago refugees is at least stretching the definition, and would entitle lots of people to that label. The problem the palestinians face isn't that they're refugees - lots of people's ancestors were, if you look back far enough. It's that their country or region isn't sovereign. But that's a plight many other nations face too (which isn't a problem by itself either if you look at e.g. the European part of that list). So calling them refugees feels somewhere between misleading and unproductive to me.
None of which is intended to minimize the suffering of the Palestinian people, of course. But the terminology we use to describe that suffering frames the space of solutions we consider, and I feel like "refugee" is guiding us in the wrong direction.
And in case it wasn't abundantly clear: I don't for one second think of myself as refugee, nor do I want to annex parts of Poland into Germany or otherwise want that land back. It's gone. A generation of poles have lived and died there in the interim.
I think part of the problem is that the right to return does exist, but for Jews. An American Jew whose ancestors were displaced by Emperor Hadrian almost two thousand years ago has the de facto right to go to the West Bank and dispossess a random Palestinian family that has been there for a millennium. No statute of limitations. Conversely, a Palestinian whose parents had to flee to Jordan the last time Israel bombed the shit out of their country has the right to go fuck himself.
If Israel respected the internationally recognised borders, there's at least something to hold on to. But how is any Palestinian meant to compromise their worldview when it doesn't make a single difference? Israel will colonise the areas it wants, even if it's illegal by its own laws.
Does your answer change if I tell you the relevant ancestor is ethnically German? I don't think a 'return' to Poland would have been possible, nevermind that the land was German for at least 400 years.
Never have been, or just stopped being refugees? If so, when?
I read that the music festival was scheduled to end but got extended at the last minute. If true, then the music festival was an unexpected target.
this seemed apparent to me from day 1 - Netanyahu wanted the attack to happen to justify razing Gaza and occupying it "indefinitely" (his word). i just don't understand how the Mossad misses an attack like that.
This is a massive intelligence failure, but massive intelligence failures really aren't that uncommon. What that doesn't mean is that Israeli leadership wanted these attacks to happen.
Here are some key lines from the article.
The Times comes back to this point over and over. The plan was widely known to military leadership and it was the military leadership who repeatedly discounted it. Note that if this were a conspiracy, you'd expect to see the exact opposite - the plan being hidden by Netanyahu, or perhaps a situation like the judicial "reforms" earlier this year in which military officials were privately telling Netanyahu something and he was overruling them. That's what you'd see if this was something Netanyahu wanted to happen. But we see the opposite: everybody knew, but nobody believed it. And that's because...
They failed. They will live with the guilt forever. But hindsight is 20/20. It's not completely crazy to think "this is an aspirational plan - they're not actually going to do this."
Was that the wrong thing to assess? Clearly. Does that mean that this was a secret plot by Netanyahu? No.
Separately, let's think this through logically. If this was Netanyahu's secret master plan, it's a terrible plan. He built his entire image as Israel's safety guarantor. This shatters that image. His polling numbers have cratered to less than four percent trust and will never recover. This is, I will note, exactly what happened to the leadership who presided over the Yom kippur war, and Netanyahu would've known that.
So it's like... You have this guy who's such a criminal mastermind that he can predict the Hamas attack better than his own generals, but he doesn't foresee the obvious secondary effects, which had historical precedent? That doesn't track.
Look, I get it. The world is complicated, the Intel agencies seem like they're infinitely powerful, and so it's an appealing heuristic to assume that this was all actually according to someone's plan. But the sadder truth is that sometimes horrible things happen for no good reason.
Well Hamas being horrific terrorists for one...
Ideally a peaceful Palestine would just, you know, be peaceful and build a country and an economy without fighting and trying to displace Israel, to get back land that was fucked about with by the British 70 years ago.
The reality today is for better or worse Israel is there to stay, and several other Arab states would totally destroy them if they could, but they can't. It's unstoppable force meets immovable object stuff.
Since the start of the war the Gazan economy has basically collapsed and the UN recently said it's basically 2m people relying on international food aid. The place is not a functional country. (No thanks to Israel, but also Hamas).
From:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-egypt-and-other-arab-nations-are-hesitant-to-take-in-palestinian-refugees
Well good, set up a demilitarised zone, keep the Israeli border out of range of missiles, and have a good long distance so they can see Hamas coming next time they try to sneak across the border to murder and kidnap.
The west naturally 'support the underdog' and think 'poor Palestine' but the situation is more complex than basically any other humanitarian or geopolitical crises (hence it's been unsolved for 70 years). Knee jerk instagram and twitter just hashtags #freepalastine so they can call themselves (armchair) activists.
I agree with you re Gaza but Palestinians trying that strategy in the West Bank are not getting to peacefully enjoy their olive orchards and pastures either.
The situation is fucked
Good luck with that. Last I checked, Hamas' "missiles" can reach Tel Aviv, and I'm sure once the blockade is lifted Hamas suddenly finds themselves in the possession of missiles that can reach all of Israel. Enjoy evacuating the entire country.
Alternatively, if you intend to keep the DMZ on the Gaza side of the border, enjoy clearing out all of Gaza, no shady SRBM imports needed. Either it's an outright depopulated zone, or someone has to go in and monitor that Hamas isn't in fact militarizing it.
(I'm assuming you're being somewhat sarcastic here and replying in kind. Don't read my post as an attack.)
Snark (at the situation, not you) aside, no amount of DMZs will fix this mess. There's not enough space for the amount of animosity we're dealing with.
Didn't say it's a secret plot, but I am asserting that the Israeli regime needs Hamas to continue attacking so that the cycle of oppression and settlement expansion can continue. Israel has to grab as much land as possible before any peace deals are reached.