Israel/Hamas conflict

[Just a Reader]

Make, or cite to, one.



No.



No. That isn’t remotely how the principal of proportionality works. The law is somewhat, but not hugely, complex. Read up on the details of the law. Other links I have posted in this thread have the details.




What’s the point?

On a happier note, here is a good way to combat protestors in support of rape jihadists.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1784992227401380128

You seem to have missed Israel's programs Lavender and Where's Daddy:

"We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity," one of the officers told +972 and Local Call.
"On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations," they added.

Israel's 'Where's Daddy?' AI system helps target suspected Hamas militants when they're at home with their families, report says

Israeli forces have relied heavily on two AI systems, "Lavender" and "Where's Daddy," to identify and target suspected Hamas militants, says report.

www.businessinsider.com

As to Israel's human rights violations, I suggest reading the report by the UN's special Rapporteur as a starting point:

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session55/advance-versions/a-hrc-55-73-auv.pdf

Despite the usual and predictable claims by Israel that the Rapporteur is an antisemite, she has far more credibility than the statements made by Israeli officials.
It's also telling that you are dead silent on the links posted above which show that even the State Department believes that Israel is guilty of serious human rights violations and that its assertions lack credibility. Even a staunch supporter of Israel like Joe Biden obviously doesn't believe any longer that Israel's actions are justifiable.

It's revealing that you condescendingly recommend others to read the stuff that you have linked here, yet you are unwilling to do the same in reverse.
As to that film by an Israeli filmmaker, sponsored by a Jewish US billionaire, I wonder what you don't understand: Hamas is a terror organisation, yet its crimes don't absolve Israel from its obligation to abide by International Law.

 

[Jigglypuff]

Ultimately we have to believe someone about somethings because we can't check everything out for ourselves firsthand.

True, but this is why, historically, we have had some trusted journalistic sources. Journalism is now in a sorry state, thanks to the internet's forced enshitification.

 

[Bouba]

True, but this is why, historically, we have had some trusted journalistic sources. Journalism is now in a sorry state, thanks to the internet's forced enshitification.

To be honest I think the opposite....the internet is probably the only thing that keeps the last few honest journalists honest. The world’s journalists have been anti-West anti-Israel since the sixties....those kids on the lawn (and their predecessors) dream of being journalists...although most will settle for being teachers.
Britain is probably unique in that while all the tv journalists are leftists, there is still a print industry that is centre and to the right...but newspapers are dying

 

[Electroman]

"What is the way forward for the Gazans to live in peace"?

Here is a simple, straightforward and sure way to achieve long lasting independence, peace and prosperity for Gaza:

Immediate:
- Release all the remaining hostages. Every last one of them who are still alive.
- Force Hamas to surrender. Everyone who actively participated, aided and abetted in the Oct 7th heinous crime.
- Lay down arms. The arms you have are no match to IDF . So it is not going to help you anyway. And remember not a single Muslim country is going to help you anyway. No one wants you even as refugees. Not even your Muslim brethren. Compare this to how Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms all over Europe.

Over the next 20 years:
- Remove any semblance of Jewish hate from your minds, your education curriculum to the kids, in your day to day activities.
- Stop building missiles and firing them over Israel. Israel is not going to be cowed down by your celebratory rocket fire. STOP IT.
- Stop building those useless tunnels. Instead channelize your energy on more productive stuff.
- Give unlimited, unfettered access to Israel for any inspections at any time.
- The west and Israel will pour aid into your region. That is a certainty. Equally certain you will be ignored by the Muslim world. Use that aid for the intended purposes only, not to build crude bombs, tunnels and missiles.
- Drop your violent ideology. I know it is hard, because Islam's foundation is built on the premise of destroying other faiths. But you need to work hard on that.

Bottom line:
- Learn to live in peace with your neighbor (this advice is pertinent for Muslims all over the world)
- Build trust. It takes a generational period to build trust. Work hard on that. Allow the Jews to live in peace, and mind your own business.

Now, there is a precedent to this. Japan after WW2. Bombed and destroyed, Japan surrendered to US. They did everything mentioned above. For two decades, Japan was almost like a colony to the US. They had self rule, but they allowed overseeing and governance and unfettered access to US military. Did not focus on rebuilding their army, but they put all the effort to rebuild their country. Once US was convinced that Japan is not a threat to US or its neighbors, Japan got most of it independence with a token US military presence. In three decades after WW2, Japan became a powerhouse. Gazans can learn from that.

 

[Crutonius]

I haven't seen this mentioned here. I thought it might be interesting to the discussion.

“We’ve Become Addicted to Explosions” The IDF Unit Responsible for Demolishing Homes Across Gaza - bellingcat

Bellingcat investigates the demolitions carried out by the IDF in Gaza.

www.bellingcat.com

It's a piece tracking controlled demolition by the IDF in Gaza. I saw it brought up by this guy;

He tries pretty hard to be neutral and accurate in his coverage. Several times he's openly chided other youtube channels for jumping to conclude that Israel is committing war crimes. So him scratching his head a little at this story is interesting.

 

[indysurfer]

I haven't seen this mentioned here. I thought it might be interesting to the discussion.

It's a rough business urban fighting. Especially a group like Hamas that purposefully uses civilians as shields and spent the last 15+ years turning Gaza into a fighting fortress. The IDF can go house to house and tunnel to tunnel (as they have been doing) and destroying buildings and tunnels along the way that are used as fighting structures, or they can simply just bomb everything from the air or use artillery and use infantry to mop up.

Even using Hamas' absurd and unverified casualty numbers, the IDF is fighting one of the most surgical urban battles in modern times based on UN reported civilian to combattant death ratios from other wars.

It is an absolute terrible situation Hamas CONTINUES to put the people of Gaza and Israel through.

 

[bhzmark]

We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity," one of the officers told +972 and Local Call.
"On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations," they added.

That is not inconsistent with applicable international law. Summarized below:

1. Are armed forces permitted to attack civilians under international law?

Armed forces must distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks targeting civilians are prohibited. However, attacks targeting enemy combatants are permitted even if civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects are expected, provided:

The attacks are not indiscriminate (see question 5)
The expected civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects are not disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage (see section B) and
All feasible precautions are taken to avoid and minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects (see section C)

2. Are armed forces permitted to attack civilian buildings and other civilian objects?

Armed forces must distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks targeting civilian objects are prohibited unless they have become military objectives. An object is a military objective if

it makes an effective contribution to military action by its nature, location, purpose or use and
its partial or total destruction, capture or neutralisation offers a definite military advantage.
For example, an ambulance may become a military objective if it is used to transport able-bodied combatants.

Attacks targeting military objectives are permitted subject to the conditions mentioned in answer 1.

dead silent on the links posted above which show that even the State Department believes that Israel

I didn’t just post links, I posted the actual text too, as above.

Quote whatever State Department text you think makes your point.

Meanwhile here is this:

“15. Has Israel taken the precautions required by international law in its attacks on targets in the Gaza Strip since 7 October?

It is impossible to assess this without having full information about the targets, the information known to the IDF commanders at the time, the information available to them, alternative means and methods of warfare, alternative targets, etc. However, the IDF has processes for assessing before and during missions whether targets are military objectives, the anticipated military advantages, the expected civilian casualties and damage; and for selecting targets, means and methods to achieve military objectives while minimising civilian casualties and damage; and for aborting attacks in the light of further information obtained during the mission. Proposed strikes are reviewed by lawyers who are not part of the command structure.

The IDF has taken extensive precautions to minimise civilian casualties despite the difficulty of reaching an enemy operating in, around and underneath civilian buildings. These precautions have included advising civilians to evacuate military targets and areas of likely military action before attacks by phone calls, text messages and leaflets, and by providing evacuation routes and pauses in its military action to enable civilians to escape. “

More info at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14#title-4

and Q&A on International Law of Armed Conflict and Gaza

 

[Just a Reader]

"What is the way forward for the Gazans to live in peace"?

Here is a simple, straightforward and sure way to achieve long lasting independence, peace and prosperity for Gaza:

Immediate:
- Release all the remaining hostages. Every last one of them who are still alive.
- Force Hamas to surrender. Everyone who actively participated, aided and abetted in the Oct 7th heinous crime.
- Lay down arms. The arms you have are no match to IDF . So it is not going to help you anyway. And remember not a single Muslim country is going to help you anyway. No one wants you even as refugees. Not even your Muslim brethren. Compare this to how Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms all over Europe.

Over the next 20 years:
- Remove any semblance of Jewish hate from your minds, your education curriculum to the kids, in your day to day activities.
- Stop building missiles and firing them over Israel. Israel is not going to be cowed down by your celebratory rocket fire. STOP IT.
- Stop building those useless tunnels. Instead channelize your energy on more productive stuff.
- Give unlimited, unfettered access to Israel for any inspections at any time.
- The west and Israel will pour aid into your region. That is a certainty. Equally certain you will be ignored by the Muslim world. Use that aid for the intended purposes only, not to build crude bombs, tunnels and missiles.
- Drop your violent ideology. I know it is hard, because Islam's foundation is built on the premise of destroying other faiths. But you need to work hard on that.

Bottom line:
- Learn to live in peace with your neighbor (this advice is pertinent for Muslims all over the world)
- Build trust. It takes a generational period to build trust. Work hard on that. Allow the Jews to live in peace, and mind your own business.

Now, there is a precedent to this. Japan after WW2. Bombed and destroyed, Japan surrendered to US. They did everything mentioned above. For two decades, Japan was almost like a colony to the US. They had self rule, but they allowed overseeing and governance and unfettered access to US military. Did not focus on rebuilding their army, but they put all the effort to rebuild their country. Once US was convinced that Japan is not a threat to US or its neighbors, Japan got most of it independence with a token US military presence. In three decades after WW2, Japan became a powerhouse. Gazans can learn from that.

(moderator edit)
As to "Israel pouring aid into the region", it really doesn't get more risible than that. Israel isn't giving any aid at all. Instead it's expecting huge handouts from Western taxpayers for itself and it expects others to provide the money to rebuild Gaza.

 

[Just a Reader]

That is not inconsistent with applicable international law. Summarized below:

1. Are armed forces permitted to attack civilians under international law?

Armed forces must distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks targeting civilians are prohibited. However, attacks targeting enemy combatants are permitted even if civilian casualties or damage to civilian objects are expected, provided:

The attacks are not indiscriminate (see question 5)
The expected civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects are not disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage (see section B) and
All feasible precautions are taken to avoid and minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects (see section C)

2. Are armed forces permitted to attack civilian buildings and other civilian objects?

Armed forces must distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks targeting civilian objects are prohibited unless they have become military objectives. An object is a military objective if

it makes an effective contribution to military action by its nature, location, purpose or use and
its partial or total destruction, capture or neutralisation offers a definite military advantage.
For example, an ambulance may become a military objective if it is used to transport able-bodied combatants.

Attacks targeting military objectives are permitted subject to the conditions mentioned in answer 1.



I didn’t just post links, I posted the actual text too, as above.

Quote whatever State Department text you think makes your point.

Meanwhile here is this:

“15. Has Israel taken the precautions required by international law in its attacks on targets in the Gaza Strip since 7 October?

It is impossible to assess this without having full information about the targets, the information known to the IDF commanders at the time, the information available to them, alternative means and methods of warfare, alternative targets, etc. However, the IDF has processes for assessing before and during missions whether targets are military objectives, the anticipated military advantages, the expected civilian casualties and damage; and for selecting targets, means and methods to achieve military objectives while minimising civilian casualties and damage; and for aborting attacks in the light of further information obtained during the mission. Proposed strikes are reviewed by lawyers who are not part of the command structure.

The IDF has taken extensive precautions to minimise civilian casualties despite the difficulty of reaching an enemy operating in, around and underneath civilian buildings. These precautions have included advising civilians to evacuate military targets and areas of likely military action before attacks by phone calls, text messages and leaflets, and by providing evacuation routes and pauses in its military action to enable civilians to escape. “

More info at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14#title-4

and Q&A on International Law of Armed Conflict and Gaza

Seriously, your argument collapses at the very first question: no, you aren't minimising civilian casualties when your preferred and prime method of attacking members of Hamas is hitting them at home, while accepting to destroy the whole apartment block by doing so. Any attack on Israel could be considered as being equally permissable if that counts as "minimising civilian casualties".

 

[wdolson]

"What is the way forward for the Gazans to live in peace"?

Here is a simple, straightforward and sure way to achieve long lasting independence, peace and prosperity for Gaza:

Immediate:
- Release all the remaining hostages. Every last one of them who are still alive.
- Force Hamas to surrender. Everyone who actively participated, aided and abetted in the Oct 7th heinous crime.
- Lay down arms. The arms you have are no match to IDF . So it is not going to help you anyway. And remember not a single Muslim country is going to help you anyway. No one wants you even as refugees. Not even your Muslim brethren. Compare this to how Ukrainians were welcomed with open arms all over Europe.

Over the next 20 years:
- Remove any semblance of Jewish hate from your minds, your education curriculum to the kids, in your day to day activities.
- Stop building missiles and firing them over Israel. Israel is not going to be cowed down by your celebratory rocket fire. STOP IT.
- Stop building those useless tunnels. Instead channelize your energy on more productive stuff.
- Give unlimited, unfettered access to Israel for any inspections at any time.
- The west and Israel will pour aid into your region. That is a certainty. Equally certain you will be ignored by the Muslim world. Use that aid for the intended purposes only, not to build crude bombs, tunnels and missiles.
- Drop your violent ideology. I know it is hard, because Islam's foundation is built on the premise of destroying other faiths. But you need to work hard on that.

Bottom line:
- Learn to live in peace with your neighbor (this advice is pertinent for Muslims all over the world)
- Build trust. It takes a generational period to build trust. Work hard on that. Allow the Jews to live in peace, and mind your own business.

Now, there is a precedent to this. Japan after WW2. Bombed and destroyed, Japan surrendered to US. They did everything mentioned above. For two decades, Japan was almost like a colony to the US. They had self rule, but they allowed overseeing and governance and unfettered access to US military. Did not focus on rebuilding their army, but they put all the effort to rebuild their country. Once US was convinced that Japan is not a threat to US or its neighbors, Japan got most of it independence with a token US military presence. In three decades after WW2, Japan became a powerhouse. Gazans can learn from that.

Japan has a lot of differences with Gaza. Japan was a sovereign nation before the war with a long history of being an independent entity. They both had a strong cultural identity and experience managing themselves. The country had a fairly high level of basic education too.

Culturally the Japanese were very respectful of the wished of the emperor and the country fell into line completely when he told them to lay down arms and surrender. In the entire era of modern warfare every occupation that included 20 troops per 1000 population succeeded and every one that fell below that threshold failed with one exception: the occupation of Japan. The ratio in Japan fell to 6 per 1000 shortly after the occupation began because the Japanese were intent on pleasing the emperor and keeping the peace. Japanese police made it clear from the start they would work hand in hand with the Americans to keep the peace.

The Americans also were quick to bury the hatchet and work for a lasting peace. The American occupiers were very quick to come down hard on any of their own who did anything to carry out any grudges. It was a concerted effort from the top to make Japan into an ally and keep the peace and that has been bipartisan foreign policy of the US for nearly 80 years. The US also had a larger interest in turning Germany, Japan, and Italy into allies: the cold war. There was another enemy everyone could rally against.

Culturally the situation in Gaza is about as polar opposite in almost every way. There are a lot of grudges on both sides and the current Israeli government is showing no signs of wanting to curb that in any way. The US could afford to be magnanimous with Japan. A screw up would not put the US at risk in any significant way. The US had the world's largest military by a huge margin and could crush any insurgency if it started, plus the US homeland was 6000 miles away.

Israel sees itself as in constant existential threat. They are a small nation surrounded by semi-hostile or overtly hostile neighbors. A major military screw up could result in the country ceasing to exist. This drives the Israelis scorched earth strategy. It isn't really needed in Gaza, but armies tend to always fight the same way. It's based on what they train to do.

The fighting in Gaza has created a lot of survivors who hate Israel more than ever. Hamas' current fighting force may be mostly spent, but they have a much larger potential force ready to join up for the next war.

The Palestinians have no central leader like Japan did. A call to lay down arms from any leader would likely be ignored by most. And there is nothing preventing more from taking up arms. The Palestinians don't have the cultural traditions and organization that Japan did in the 1940s. They never have.

Because Israel feels like it is always facing existential threat, there is no reason they will uphold their end of a peace treaty either. The current government could fall and a more liberal minded government could take its place and actually make a treaty with the Palestinians, but the next time the conservatives get power, they could tear up the agreement and go back to the old ways.

The picture you paint is a nice one. With players on both sides who were willing to play fair and effectively police their own who might want to break a treaty, it might work, but neither side is anywhere near the place they would need to be to make such a treaty work.

Pacifying Japan as well as Germany and Italy were also spurred on by the external threat of the USSR which doesn't exist. There is no external threat to encourage Palestinians and Israelis to try and get along.

 

[Electroman]

Japan has a lot of differences with Gaza. Japan was a sovereign nation before the war with a long history of being an independent entity. They both had a strong cultural identity and experience managing themselves. The country had a fairly high level of basic education too.

Culturally the Japanese were very respectful of the wished of the emperor and the country fell into line completely when he told them to lay down arms and surrender. In the entire era of modern warfare every occupation that included 20 troops per 1000 population succeeded and every one that fell below that threshold failed with one exception: the occupation of Japan. The ratio in Japan fell to 6 per 1000 shortly after the occupation began because the Japanese were intent on pleasing the emperor and keeping the peace. Japanese police made it clear from the start they would work hand in hand with the Americans to keep the peace.

The Americans also were quick to bury the hatchet and work for a lasting peace. The American occupiers were very quick to come down hard on any of their own who did anything to carry out any grudges. It was a concerted effort from the top to make Japan into an ally and keep the peace and that has been bipartisan foreign policy of the US for nearly 80 years. The US also had a larger interest in turning Germany, Japan, and Italy into allies: the cold war. There was another enemy everyone could rally against.

Culturally the situation in Gaza is about as polar opposite in almost every way. There are a lot of grudges on both sides and the current Israeli government is showing no signs of wanting to curb that in any way. The US could afford to be magnanimous with Japan. A screw up would not put the US at risk in any significant way. The US had the world's largest military by a huge margin and could crush any insurgency if it started, plus the US homeland was 6000 miles away.

Israel sees itself as in constant existential threat. They are a small nation surrounded by semi-hostile or overtly hostile neighbors. A major military screw up could result in the country ceasing to exist. This drives the Israelis scorched earth strategy. It isn't really needed in Gaza, but armies tend to always fight the same way. It's based on what they train to do.

The fighting in Gaza has created a lot of survivors who hate Israel more than ever. Hamas' current fighting force may be mostly spent, but they have a much larger potential force ready to join up for the next war.

The Palestinians have no central leader like Japan did. A call to lay down arms from any leader would likely be ignored by most. And there is nothing preventing more from taking up arms. The Palestinians don't have the cultural traditions and organization that Japan did in the 1940s. They never have.

Because Israel feels like it is always facing existential threat, there is no reason they will uphold their end of a peace treaty either. The current government could fall and a more liberal minded government could take its place and actually make a treaty with the Palestinians, but the next time the conservatives get power, they could tear up the agreement and go back to the old ways.

The picture you paint is a nice one. With players on both sides who were willing to play fair and effectively police their own who might want to break a treaty, it might work, but neither side is anywhere near the place they would need to be to make such a treaty work.

Pacifying Japan as well as Germany and Italy were also spurred on by the external threat of the USSR which doesn't exist. There is no external threat to encourage Palestinians and Israelis to try and get along.

All excellent points. Can't disagree with most of what you said. I gave Japan as an example of what one can look up to, not necessarily a complete match in history and circumstances.

But hypothetically if you replace the current Muslim population with any other non-Muslim society or ethnicity in Gaza - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, you name it - peace would be restored in an instant.

What I outlined is a surest way forward for peace and prosperity. Israel is not interested in occupying and annexing the strip. Israel is not interested in colonizing and ruling over Gaza. They want to be left alone and live in peace. And Gazans can make that happen and bring prosperity to themselves.

But I would bet my first born, there is zero probability of that happening. It is not in their DNA. Never in the history have Muslim societies lived in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

 

[Crutonius]

Japan has a lot of differences with Gaza. Japan was a sovereign nation before the war with a long history of being an independent entity. They both had a strong cultural identity and experience managing themselves. The country had a fairly high level of basic education too.

Culturally the Japanese were very respectful of the wished of the emperor and the country fell into line completely when he told them to lay down arms and surrender. In the entire era of modern warfare every occupation that included 20 troops per 1000 population succeeded and every one that fell below that threshold failed with one exception: the occupation of Japan. The ratio in Japan fell to 6 per 1000 shortly after the occupation began because the Japanese were intent on pleasing the emperor and keeping the peace. Japanese police made it clear from the start they would work hand in hand with the Americans to keep the peace.

The Americans also were quick to bury the hatchet and work for a lasting peace. The American occupiers were very quick to come down hard on any of their own who did anything to carry out any grudges. It was a concerted effort from the top to make Japan into an ally and keep the peace and that has been bipartisan foreign policy of the US for nearly 80 years. The US also had a larger interest in turning Germany, Japan, and Italy into allies: the cold war. There was another enemy everyone could rally against.

Culturally the situation in Gaza is about as polar opposite in almost every way. There are a lot of grudges on both sides and the current Israeli government is showing no signs of wanting to curb that in any way. The US could afford to be magnanimous with Japan. A screw up would not put the US at risk in any significant way. The US had the world's largest military by a huge margin and could crush any insurgency if it started, plus the US homeland was 6000 miles away.

Israel sees itself as in constant existential threat. They are a small nation surrounded by semi-hostile or overtly hostile neighbors. A major military screw up could result in the country ceasing to exist. This drives the Israelis scorched earth strategy. It isn't really needed in Gaza, but armies tend to always fight the same way. It's based on what they train to do.

The fighting in Gaza has created a lot of survivors who hate Israel more than ever. Hamas' current fighting force may be mostly spent, but they have a much larger potential force ready to join up for the next war.

The Palestinians have no central leader like Japan did. A call to lay down arms from any leader would likely be ignored by most. And there is nothing preventing more from taking up arms. The Palestinians don't have the cultural traditions and organization that Japan did in the 1940s. They never have.

Because Israel feels like it is always facing existential threat, there is no reason they will uphold their end of a peace treaty either. The current government could fall and a more liberal minded government could take its place and actually make a treaty with the Palestinians, but the next time the conservatives get power, they could tear up the agreement and go back to the old ways.

The picture you paint is a nice one. With players on both sides who were willing to play fair and effectively police their own who might want to break a treaty, it might work, but neither side is anywhere near the place they would need to be to make such a treaty work.

Pacifying Japan as well as Germany and Italy were also spurred on by the external threat of the USSR which doesn't exist. There is no external threat to encourage Palestinians and Israelis to try and get along.

Interesting. Maybe it's true. But there's a problem with this course of action. It's incompatible with American law and sensibilities. Hence all the protests. If they believe that they have to be barbaric to fight barbarians that's a choice but as an American taxpayer I want no part of it.

 

[Zaddy Daddy]

Interesting. Maybe it's true. But there's a problem with this course of action. It's incompatible with American law and sensibilities. Hence all the protests. If they believe that they have to be barbaric to fight barbarians that's a choice but as an American taxpayer I want no part of it.

If you legitimately don't America to be part of it, then you would also support defunding UNRWA. Hamas siphons "aid" money which should be enough reason alone, but there are also dubious aspects of UNRWA itself like it teaching material, complicit knowledge of Hamas building tunnels under them, and allowing Palestinian descendents to be referred to as refugees (unlike any other displaced group in the world).

All destabilizing actions in this conflict.

Also, "divesting" from Israel may action unexpected reactions. Israel perceives Hamas / Hezbelloah / Iran as existential threats. Constantly attacking and unreported in the media. If Israel doesn't have access to, say, weapons needed for their Iron Dome - do you think they would just sit there an take a barrage of missiles? No, they will go to even greater lengths for survival.

Do we really want Israel to think it has to use nukes?

 

[wdolson]

All excellent points. Can't disagree with most of what you said. I gave Japan as an example of what one can look up to, not necessarily a complete match in history and circumstances.

But hypothetically if you replace the current Muslim population with any other non-Muslim society or ethnicity in Gaza - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, you name it - peace would be restored in an instant.

What I outlined is a surest way forward for peace and prosperity. Israel is not interested in occupying and annexing the strip. Israel is not interested in colonizing and ruling over Gaza. They want to be left alone and live in peace. And Gazans can make that happen and bring prosperity to themselves.

But I would bet my first born, there is zero probability of that happening. It is not in their DNA. Never in the history have Muslim societies lived in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

The Middle East was relatively peaceful when the Ottomans controlled it. But it takes time and a lot of effort for long standing, sworn enemies to settle their differences and live in peace. The tensions we are seeing today go back about 100 years to when the Zionist movement was picking up speed and enough Jewish people were moving into Palestine to be a "problem" for the Arabs who had been there for 2000 years.

When a new group moves into an area. The first people to move in are a curiosity and nobody has much of a problem with them, but when that new group grows and becomes a more significant percentage of the population, the dominant group will start seeing the newcomers as a problem and they will start to resist the newcomers.

This was true in many European countries when they tried to make up for the low birthrate among the native population by allowing immigration to non-Europeans. Initially the native Europeans were OK with it, but as the non-white population grew, resistance to them grew too. The minority of racists who were against it from the start begin to make up stories about how the immigrants are destroying the country and more and more white people buy into the xenophobia until it becomes a majority or near majority meme.

It's almost like an immune reaction. The immune system ignores a small amount of a pathogen, but if the pathogen builds up in the bloodstream, the immune system will kick into gear. Allergies happen when the immune system has a response to something that is pretty much harmless like pollen or sometimes beneficial such as an antibiotic.

Much of the Arab world has learned to tolerate the Israeli presence in what was once all Arab controlled territory. The Palestinians have to deal with it everyday. At this point the Palestinians should give up trying to claim the territory that is Israel proper. The Israelis are there and aren't going to be going anywhere any time soon, but Gaza and the West Bank are territories that are administered by Israel.

Israel has allowed them some autonomy and the West Bank has a government that more or less works, but they still need to answer to Israeli government all the time. They have no control to conduct their own foreign relations (at least other than covert relations) and they are dependent on Israel for other things.

Because of all the terrorist attacks the Israelis are paranoid and moving across any borders requires horrendous security checks. The Israelis need Palestinian labor and the laborers need the money provided from working in Israel, but the poor workers need to go through daily hell getting into Israel to work. At least that was the case before the war. Most travel into Israel for Palestinians is probably virtually impossible now.

I understand why the Israelis are paranoid. I also feel for the innocent Palestinians have to go through a lot of indignities dealing with all the security and limitations Israel places on them. Corruption by Palestinian groups like Hamas don't help anything either. Netanyahu's government has been pouring petrol on the fire too.

Both sides have done wrong, and both sides have reasons for their issues with the other side. Nothing going on is deescalating the tensions. The only direction is the other way. Unfortunately we are a long ways from any kind of lasting peace.

If you legitimately don't America to be part of it, then you would also support defunding UNRWA. Hamas siphons "aid" money which should be enough reason alone, but there are also dubious aspects of UNRWA itself like it teaching material, complicit knowledge of Hamas building tunnels under them, and allowing Palestinian descendents to be referred to as refugees (unlike any other displaced group in the world).

All destabilizing actions in this conflict.

Also, "divesting" from Israel may action unexpected reactions. Israel perceives Hamas / Hezbelloah / Iran as existential threats. Constantly attacking and unreported in the media. If Israel doesn't have access to, say, weapons needed for their Iron Dome - do you think they would just sit there an take a barrage of missiles? No, they will go to even greater lengths for survival.

Do we really want Israel to think it has to use nukes?

It is a good point. The US is more likely to be able to exert some influence on Israel and get them to change course if they want something we can provide them. It's easier to coerce an ally who gets stuff from you than an enemy.

 

[Crutonius]

If you legitimately don't America to be part of it, then you would also support defunding UNRWA. Hamas siphons "aid" money which should be enough reason alone, but there are also dubious aspects of UNRWA itself like it teaching material, complicit knowledge of Hamas building tunnels under them, and allowing Palestinian descendents to be referred to as refugees (unlike any other displaced group in the world).

All destabilizing actions in this conflict.

Also, "divesting" from Israel may action unexpected reactions. Israel perceives Hamas / Hezbelloah / Iran as existential threats. Constantly attacking and unreported in the media. If Israel doesn't have access to, say, weapons needed for their Iron Dome - do you think they would just sit there an take a barrage of missiles? No, they will go to even greater lengths for survival.

Do we really want Israel to think it has to use nukes?

Well first off the whole UNRWA thing, the jury's still out on that one. Israel says they're a part of Hamas yet, as far as I know, they haven't actually provided proof of that.

An abrupt divestment might have these side effects, I agree. But if Biden would act like it was an option unless Israel tightens up it's methods then I think it would help.

Second, are you sure belligerence is the only way here? Maybe bulldozing houses in the West Bank is probably not helping the situation. Maybe if they abided by the UN resolutions then the world in general would start to respect their resolutions.

Also, I assure you the media is very good at reporting that Israel takes fire from these improvised sugar rockets. The media has done a great job beating it into my heads that Oct 7 happen. Terrible. Horrible. Most definitely I want to see those terrorists brought to justice. By all means take Hamas down. You're not going to see me defending Hamas here. I'm happy to lend Israel some precision rockets. But butchering Palestinian civilians doesn't make them even. It just makes them as bad as the monsters they fight.

 

[Just a Reader]

All excellent points. Can't disagree with most of what you said. I gave Japan as an example of what one can look up to, not necessarily a complete match in history and circumstances.

But hypothetically if you replace the current Muslim population with any other non-Muslim society or ethnicity in Gaza - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, you name it - peace would be restored in an instant.

What I outlined is a surest way forward for peace and prosperity. Israel is not interested in occupying and annexing the strip. Israel is not interested in colonizing and ruling over Gaza. They want to be left alone and live in peace. And Gazans can make that happen and bring prosperity to themselves.

But I would bet my first born, there is zero probability of that happening. It is not in their DNA. Never in the history have Muslim societies lived in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

But hypothetically if you replace the current Muslim population with any other non-Muslim society or ethnicity in Gaza - Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, you name it - peace would be restored in an instant.
What I outlined is a surest way forward for peace and prosperity. Israel is not interested in occupying and annexing the strip. Israel is not interested in colonizing and ruling over Gaza. They want to be left alone and live in peace. And Gazans can make that happen and bring prosperity to themselves.
But I would bet my first born, there is zero probability of that happening. It is not in their DNA. Never in the history have Muslim societies lived in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

It's really impressive how you can vent Islamophobia and openly racist statements here without suffering any consequences. It's quite comparable to the situation at US universities, where you obviously do enjoy freedom of speech, just as long as you voice the opnions that politicians, administrators and donors want to hear.
It's not even worth it to enter into a rational debate wirh someone who holds such opinions. .

 

[Just a Reader]

Japan has a lot of differences with Gaza. Japan was a sovereign nation before the war with a long history of being an independent entity. They both had a strong cultural identity and experience managing themselves. The country had a fairly high level of basic education too.

Culturally the Japanese were very respectful of the wished of the emperor and the country fell into line completely when he told them to lay down arms and surrender. In the entire era of modern warfare every occupation that included 20 troops per 1000 population succeeded and every one that fell below that threshold failed with one exception: the occupation of Japan. The ratio in Japan fell to 6 per 1000 shortly after the occupation began because the Japanese were intent on pleasing the emperor and keeping the peace. Japanese police made it clear from the start they would work hand in hand with the Americans to keep the peace.

The Americans also were quick to bury the hatchet and work for a lasting peace. The American occupiers were very quick to come down hard on any of their own who did anything to carry out any grudges. It was a concerted effort from the top to make Japan into an ally and keep the peace and that has been bipartisan foreign policy of the US for nearly 80 years. The US also had a larger interest in turning Germany, Japan, and Italy into allies: the cold war. There was another enemy everyone could rally against.

Culturally the situation in Gaza is about as polar opposite in almost every way. There are a lot of grudges on both sides and the current Israeli government is showing no signs of wanting to curb that in any way. The US could afford to be magnanimous with Japan. A screw up would not put the US at risk in any significant way. The US had the world's largest military by a huge margin and could crush any insurgency if it started, plus the US homeland was 6000 miles away.

Israel sees itself as in constant existential threat. They are a small nation surrounded by semi-hostile or overtly hostile neighbors. A major military screw up could result in the country ceasing to exist. This drives the Israelis scorched earth strategy. It isn't really needed in Gaza, but armies tend to always fight the same way. It's based on what they train to do.

The fighting in Gaza has created a lot of survivors who hate Israel more than ever. Hamas' current fighting force may be mostly spent, but they have a much larger potential force ready to join up for the next war.

The Palestinians have no central leader like Japan did. A call to lay down arms from any leader would likely be ignored by most. And there is nothing preventing more from taking up arms. The Palestinians don't have the cultural traditions and organization that Japan did in the 1940s. They never have.

Because Israel feels like it is always facing existential threat, there is no reason they will uphold their end of a peace treaty either. The current government could fall and a more liberal minded government could take its place and actually make a treaty with the Palestinians, but the next time the conservatives get power, they could tear up the agreement and go back to the old ways.

The picture you paint is a nice one. With players on both sides who were willing to play fair and effectively police their own who might want to break a treaty, it might work, but neither side is anywhere near the place they would need to be to make such a treaty work.

Pacifying Japan as well as Germany and Italy were also spurred on by the external threat of the USSR which doesn't exist. There is no external threat to encourage Palestinians and Israelis to try and get along.

The current government could fall and a more liberal minded government could take its place and actually make a treaty with the Palestinians, but the next time the conservatives get power, they could tear up the agreement and go back to the old ways.

Where is that "more liberal minded government" supposed to come from? I read that interview with Yair Lapid in the NY Times a couple of days ago. Basically all that he is willing to offer the Paalestinians is some bantustan, a demilitarised client state that has been proposed by the Israelis previously. Who is supposed to accept that?

Israel has allowed them some autonomy and the West Bank has a government that more or less works, but they still need to answer to Israeli government all the time. They have no control to conduct their own foreign relations (at least other than covert relations) and they are dependent on Israel for other things.

I have a very hard time to see any real advantages the Palestinians in the West Bank have gained from being cooperative. They still have no control over their borders, no airport, no control over their water supplies, etc. etc., but instead they have to accept hundreds of thousands of extremist and often violent settlers. Who wouldn't want to consider that as a perfect roadmap towards a a peaceful solution?

 

[indysurfer]

I have a very hard time to see any real advantages the Palestinians in the West Bank have gained from being cooperative

I dunno - after witnessing over half a century of Palestinians starting and failing numerous terrorist campaigns now bringing absolute ruin to places like Gaza, I have a hard time seeing any real advantages of Arabs in the West Bank continuing to refuse to negotiate.

Sure sounds like you are encouraging more futile fighting and violence from the safety of Germany.

 

[Zaddy Daddy]

Well first off the whole UNRWA thing, the jury's still out on that one. Israel says they're a part of Hamas yet, as far as I know, they haven't actually provided proof of that.

An abrupt divestment might have these side effects, I agree. But if Biden would act like it was an option unless Israel tightens up it's methods then I think it would help.

Second, are you sure belligerence is the only way here? Maybe bulldozing houses in the West Bank is probably not helping the situation. Maybe if they abided by the UN resolutions then the world in general would start to respect their resolutions.

Also, I assure you the media is very good at reporting that Israel takes fire from these improvised sugar rockets. The media has done a great job beating it into my heads that Oct 7 happen. Terrible. Horrible. Most definitely I want to see those terrorists brought to justice. By all means take Hamas down. You're not going to see me defending Hamas here. I'm happy to lend Israel some precision rockets. But butchering Palestinian civilians doesn't make them even. It just makes them as bad as the monsters they fight.

1) UNRWA doesn't have to be part of Hamas to have negative effects. Hamas is siphoning money / materials off them either way.

2) As for belligerence...I don't know. The false premise I think most westerners operate is thinking that Palestinians would leave peacefully if Israel just left them alone...meanwhile Palestinians and Arabs in neighboring countries don't say that.

For decades people could travel between Israel and the territories and there was some "peace". I could agree the first Intifada bore out of frustration with being occupied. But "land for peace" never seemed to suffice. Palestinians, IMO did not have leverage to deem any of the various peace dealings as "unfair". Now they are just in a worse spot.

Israel removed settlements from Gaza in 2005 as an incremental display of what they could do nonviolently and the response was anything but positive. Sure there was still a blockade to ensure dangerous weapons weren't imported...but again there was an incremental attempt to show a non-violent path and it was squashed.

This is not to say Israel is blamless - far from it. The original plan of occupying those territories to eventually trade for peace was a failure. All the settler violence and IDF aggressiveness need to stop and are hurting any chance of peace.

But fundamentally, Palestinians have not accepted any moves toward peace. This is a much bigger thorn in the conflict. If Palestinians don't first accept their future country is going to be basicallly be the borders they currently have, nothing else can change this downward spiral.

 

[Just a Reader]

I dunno - after witnessing over half a century of Palestinians starting and failing numerous terrorist campaigns now bringing absolute ruin to places like Gaza, I have a hard time seeing any real advantages of Arabs in the West Bank continuing to refuse to negotiate.

Sure sounds like you are encouraging more futile fighting and violence from the safety of Germany.

What's there to negotiate? The Palestinian Authority has been so cooperative that the Palestinians see it as a collaborator, and what did the Palestinians get out of that? Nothing at all. Radical settlers. You seem to have missed that Netanyahu has admitted that he wouldn't allow a Palestinian state no matter what.