Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu

:up:

Nicely put. :up:

I'm sure Hamas expected retaliation. But starving the whole of Gaza? That's genocidal.

The people of Gaza are fucked no matter what they do. Do nothing, keep getting land stolen, people killed, prisoners taken, no job prospects, can't even escape by land or sea.

If they fight back, they are called terrorists.

The first time that Hamas initiates combat, it's called an "unprovoked attack" - which, again, if this is unprovoked, I do not know how provocation looks like.

100% agree that killing civilians is wrong. This reply from Israel is utterly disgusting.

Let's hope it doesn't escalate to include other countries.

Exactly. Of course I would say that the leadership of Hamas thinks far more like Bibi Netanyahu. That with talk you won't achieve peace. Appeasement is failure. Hence the stand of Hamas that Israel shouldn't exist. — ssu

I don't think Hamas' rejection of an appeasement strategy is based upon its perceived futility. I think it's based upon their belief they shouldn't have to appease an occupier. I don't think there's ever been a Palestinian leader who was truly ready to recognize Israel's right to exist or who thought they could survive politically if they agreed to a two state solution.

There was a time when the two state solution was very close to being a reality, with Israel agreeing to over 90% of the Palestinian demands, only to have it rejected. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

This idea that Israel wants to push Palestine into the sea is a projection of what Palestine wants to do to Israel. If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't.

To the question of whether Hamas could make headway with a conciliatory approach that fully denounced terrorism and advocated a real push to peace, I think they could. It would certainly be a game changer if they approached with an olive branch. That will not happen, not because Hamas doesn't think it won't work, but because they think Israel is satan and not worthy of such kind consideration. In fact, if Hamas went down such a path, I'd expect their political power to drop to zero and they'd get a new terroristic organization in charge.

:up:

As @Count Timothy von Icarus pointed out, eventually the cause of today's violence is yesterday's funeral. That's it.

Palestinians don't want to dehumanize Israelis.

The situation in Lebanon is still very, very dangerous. It will be difficult to show restraint if both sides keep shooting rockets at each other.

I, for one, don't trust the United States government when it comes to talking about peace. It's just not what we're good at.

Now war? That's what we're good at. Recent USian handiwork in this area can be seen with Iraq and Afghanistan where we handily won the war, but were terrible at brokering peace after winning. Why on earth would I believe that the US is in Israel for peace among sectarian conflicts, given the outcomes there? And, even if we were, given the outcomes of Iraq and Afghanistan, what reason would I have to believe that we're even able to achieve it?

Seems to me that if peace is the actual objective then we're wasting billions of dollars on a failed project.

But my suspicion is that peace is not the objective, but rather is something which we'd like to have -- but it's not why we're there.

But my suspicion is that peace is not the objective, but rather is something which we'd like to have -- but it's not why we're there. — Moliere

I agree. Look at it from the viewpoint of a Palestinian mother, though. She has a son in Hebrew U, and he has good prospects in Israel, one of the world's technological dynamos. The US, whatever its interests may be, is a stabilizing force in the region. No country in the Middle East would try to destroy Israel. They would destroy themselves in the process. This Palestinian mother can plan for her son's wedding instead of arranging his funeral, as would likely be the case if the US became entirely isolationist and let what happened to Syria happen in Israel.

I guess I'm just saying it's always been this way, whether it's the British, the Mongols, the Romans, the Phoenicians, the Sumerians, etc. Without a power center, civilization falls apart. Every time.

That's to play a rhetorical game rather than engage philosophically though, isn't it? — Baden

Yes, I think we're beyond morality for some time already but it's taken me until this latest bullshit to realise it. That probably happened around the time when Rabin was murdered.

I have to apologise to @Hanover in particular but I'm devastated by what's going on (both ways) and it's turned me totally cynical on the whole issue. I probably should just shut up on this subject for the foreseeable future.

:up:

True. I was referring to tit for tat between Republican and Loyalist paramilitary groups actually. But I should have made that clearer. — Baden

Yes, I think there is an agreement that one motivation for Hamas to do this was the warming or Saudi-Israeli ties. If Saudi-Arabia would recognize Israel, there wouldn't be any major players vouching for the Palestinians.

If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't. — Hanover

That could be the Israelis' main fear/driver. The Palestinians want the Israelis gone, the Israelis don't want the Palestinians gone (to put it in simplistic terms). By and large, the Israelis are surrounded by hostile neighbors (except Saudi Arabia perhaps).

On the other hand, the WW2-goodwill has roughly been spent by now, with what they've been doing. There are plenty of credible reports — gross and disgusting. Sort of a "victims has become victimizers" type story I guess.

I'll just suggest a multinational UN force (again), serving multiple purposes, less warring, more transparency, less apartheid, more safety for everyone, ... It's been going on long enough already, over a generation. With a dampened situation, civilians have a chance to get on with life, send kids to school, talks can be accommodated, etc. And any criminals can be summoned to court for all to see in due time. It's just that both parties seem to plainly reject (even considering) that. "Swallow your dumb pride, you've had long enough now."

I don't think there's ever been a Palestinian leader who was truly ready to recognize Israel's right to exist or who thought they could survive politically if they agreed to a two state solution. — Hanover

Wrong, Hannover.

Mahmud Abbas of Fatah (the guy succeeding Jasser Arafat) has consistently made the case for the two-state solution.

Abbas:

Only a two-State solution, living side by side and in peace and security, and with Jerusalem as a capital of both, will bring a just and lasting peace to Israelis and Palestinians and to the entire region.

And why this isn't possible?


Hannover, here Bibi and Hamas are the ones who don't want a two state solution. "Strongmen" want war.

And why this isn't possible? — ssu

Majority of Palestinians don't seem to want it.

Majority of Palestinians don't seem to want it. — flannel jesus

Again in my opinion, wrong.

I think the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians would want peace and accept a two state solution. Especially surprisingly many Israelis have totally clear and reasonable understanding of the conflict.

But on both sides have religious zealots that are against it. So against, that one Israeli Prime Minister was killed for making peace. Just as the Egyptian president was gunned down for the same reason. And not only them, but then there are the crazy Christian idiots, who believe that Israel is somehow this holy enchanted nation that has to be supported. And because of them, the US is a staunch ally of Israel. Yet for Bibi and the Hamas terrorist leaders the perpetual war is actually how they stay in power.

Bibi on the two-state solution:

Netanyahu has never been a full-throated supporter of a two-state solution, weaving in and out of different definitions of what that would mean. But in recent years he’s settled on the idea that he’d be open to a Palestinian state - as long as it has no military or security power, an arrangement that would have no parallel among modern sovereign states.

And then he continues to settle the occupied territories, just like with "Trump Heights" on the Golan Heights.

Again in my opinion, wrong.

I think the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians would want peace and accept a two state solution. Especially surprisingly many Israelis have totally clear and reasonable understanding of the conflict. — ssu

Majority of Palestinians support Hamas, which lists in its charter a goal of eradicating the Jews entirely.

This idea that Israel wants to push Palestine into the sea is a projection of what Palestine wants to do to Israel. If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't. — Hanover

I'm assuming you are talking about Hamas? You don't think every Palestinian thinks like Hamas, do you? Sounds like you might be doing some projecting of your own.

You're also comparing apples to oranges. Palestine doesn't even have a functioning army or police force - they're not allowed that by Israel. Palestine as a state doesn't exist, and even as a political entity it barely exists.

Palestinians are basically powerless and without proper representation. Add a system of apartheid and a slow policy of bullying the Palestinians until they leave and you have a hotbed for hatred and extremism. Israel's policies with regards to the Palestinian territories could easily be regarded as a method of slow ethnic cleansing.

West Bank Map

Here's a quote by Amnesty:

In [February, 2022], Amnesty International released a 280-page report showing how Israel was imposing an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it exercised control over their rights, fragmenting and segregating Palestinian citizens of Israel, residents of the OPT and Palestinian refugees denied the right of return. Through massive seizures of land and property, unlawful killings, infliction of serious injuries, forcible transfers, arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement, and denial of nationality, among other inhuman or inhumane acts, Israeli officials would be responsible for the crime against humanity of apartheid, which falls under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Note that this abhorrent practice has been going on for decades, even during peace processes. Israel has always assumed time is on its side in this regard, and that eventually it will succeed in pushing the Palestinians out. (Rabin was the exception - hardliners had him offed)

There's a significant elite within Israel that wants a strictly Jewish state and sees no place for Palestinians. Netanyahu's party Likud represents part of that elite.

While you're trying to mind read (projecting) what the Palestinians would do if they had the capability, Israel is being actively called out by human rights organisations for actual crimes against humanity. The fact that they've not taken to outright genocide should in no way justify how you've tried to frame the two sides.

And speaking of genocide, Art 2.(c) Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide defines genocide as such:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:

[...]

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;

Israel has skirted that line vis-á-vis the Palestinians for much of its existence.

Majority of Palestinians support Hamas, which lists in its charter a goal of eradicating the Jews entirely. — flannel jesus

If that would be true, how would Fatah then have power in the West Bank? Ought to have been overthrown, if the Palestinians so ardently believe in Hamas and the delusional dream of them destroying Israel.

https://coopwb.in/info/how-many-palestinians-support-hamas/

What is the current Palestinian sentiment towards Hamas?
According to a PCPSR survey, 58% in Gaza and 42% in the West Bank support Hamas.

So low?

I mean, too bad for the 42% that now have fear for their lives and their family, as the terrorists have achieved in making a terrorist attack and they have to pay for it. And in the West Bank the majority seem to be supportive of al Fatah.

A lot of Americans also support Trump, but I wouldn't go so far that American = Trump supporter.

Just as many Israelis don't like Bibi's policies either.

So low? — ssu

No. That's high. How in the world do you interpret those numbers as low?

https://apnews.com/article/hamas-middle-east-science-32095d8e1323fc1cad819c34da08fd87

Fatah, the party you're comparing it to, has 14% support. So no, not low.

No. That's high. How in the world do you interpret those numbers as low? — flannel jesus

In war people rally around their politicians, at the start, typically. And likely Fatah approval is very low: after all, they have had to run a country, not just fight another one now.

But here just as naturally as Israelis want their politicians to give hell to the evil city and the human animals after the terrorist attacks, so will Palestinians support anybody that makes any opposition to Israel. Palestinians were big fans of Saddam Hussein when he lobbed Scuds into Israel when his army was annihilated in the Kuwaiti desert.

Finally, some Finkelstein background, from yesterday, quite long but worth listening to part of it:

https://normanfinkelstein.substack.com/p/video-recording-and-transcript-special

Also includes a transcript below, for quicker reading.

This idea that Israel wants to push Palestine into the sea is a projection of what Palestine wants to do to Israel. If Israel wanted to fully annihilated Palestine, they could, but they don't. On the other hand, if Palestine could annihilate Israel, they would, but they can't. — Hanover

This is a typical argument whereby Palestine is being penalized for what they hypothetically could do, (regardless of any actual objective) while the Israeli government is excused for what they actually do. The Israeli government (and dutiful citizens) has been systemically cutting off population centers in the West Bank by creating illegal settlements that are off limits to Palestinians. Is this not a form of "annihilation" by kosher means?

Majority of Palestinians support Hamas, which lists in its charter a goal of eradicating the Jews entirely. — flannel jesus

40% of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are 14 years old and under. 60% are 24 and under. The oldest of this cohort would have been seven years old when Hamas came to power. Besides the fact that supporting a political organization shouldn't warrant death sentence or justify depriving an individual of fundamental human rights or any other form of dehumanization, as I stated early in this thread, what precisely is the onus of responsibility assumed by a territory comprised primarily of minors and young adults?

An element of the Hamas attack that supports the idea that it was home-grown in Gaza (and not cooked up in Tehran) is the use of motorized hang-gliders. This is the sort of ingenious idea that comes out of severely straitened means. A military with ready access to conventional weapons and vehicles just wouldn't consider using something as weird--as untried--as unheard of--as an armed man on a paraglider powered by a small engine and a large fan.

Granted, that wasn't the sum total of the means of attack. Most of the Hamas soldiers / gunmen arrived on foot. Out of fashion but still effective.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8rVmbbH/

I never said it should be a death sentence. I brought up the statistics to support my statement that a really, really large percentage of Palestinians do not want a two state solution. Obviously children and infants aren't counted in that, because they don't vote and they can't decide anyway.

For a two state solution to be viable, Palestinians have to want it.

Even the political wing of Hamas is in favour of a two State solution but refuses to recognise the Israeli state as a fact in law. Recognising the state of Israel to them means recognising sovereignty over land that they believe ought to be subject of negotiations in its entirety.

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus. — Hamas

In my view Likud is the singlemost largest obstacle to peace. Their original party program:

a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace. — Likud

The 1999 version:

a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel.
The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” — Likud

Now for some reason I cannot access the knesset.gov.il website at all (I get 403 errors) to get the latest but the rejection of a two-state solution is still there.

Then there was Netanyahu saying this that was heralded as being open to a two-state solution by media:

I think the Israeli people understand now what I always say: that there cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we relinquish security control of the territory west of the River Jordan. — Netanyahu

But as David Horovitz wrote in The Times of Israel:

He wasn’t saying that he doesn’t support a two-state solution. He was saying that it’s impossible. This was not a new, dramatic change of stance by the prime minister. It was a new, dramatic exposition of his long-held stance. — Horovitz

No Palestinian State. Ever. Period. There's nothing to gain but more death as long as Israelis continue to vote in Likud.