So this is interesting again: US envoy talks about attack against Jews

If I'd say Jews are oppressing Palestinians or say they're complicit in the murders of innocents then I'm an anti-semite (even though Israel defines itself as the nation-state for Jews but whatever). So critics have to constantly tiptoe around making sure they're nuanced.

But when I'd confuse a vicious attack on Israeli citizens with an attack on Jews I can drag in the holocaust and play the massive victim cum holocaust industry card and everything is fine and dandy. No nuance needed to approve whatever Jews do to Palestinians, but every nuance needed to criticise the crimes the state of Israel perpetrates against them.

It's another example of another disruption of a level playing field.

Hamas is in a large part a creation of the Israeli state, as a means to weaken and divide the Palestinian opposition and undermine the PLO. — Manuel

I'd say a creation of the overall development.

The crucial issue here is that when the Cold War ended, Israel thought that it ought to make changes as there was no Soviet Union backing the Arab states. Hence the Oslo peace process. Yet for the US Israel wasn't just a regional an ally in the Cold War. The support for Israel was extremely important domestically. It wasn't only the strength of AIPAC, but especially the evangelist Christian support of Israel that drove the US to be a supporter of Israel.

Once Israel's right wing administrations understood this, why not build new settlements on the West Bank? Above all, the situation had dramatically improved from 1960's and 1970's. With peace with Egypt the Arab neighbours weren't an existential threat to Israel. And Israel enjoyed military superiority in the region, especially when enjoying a nuclear deterrent and with the nuclear programs of Iraq and Syria destroyed (in Libya Ghaddafi couldn't get program anywhere). There was no need adapt an other stance once the US gave support to Israel.

And when PLO went from a military force to the Palestinian Authority, it had the problem of going with the Oslo accords, actually running an administration with meager resources and with much interference from Israel limiting everything. And the PLO was secular. Hence in a time when religion surfaced to be an important factor again in the Middle East, Hamas, which is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya “Islamic Resistance Movement”, took the role of the "active fighting" force for the Palestinian cause. Once elected to power in Gaza, it took control of Gaza.

And hence, we are here.

I can see where you're coming from but I don't think the analogy works because in the wardrobe I'm not actively contributing to the situation why the murderer is in my house. For this analogy to work, it's not my house and I stole it from him and now he's back to kill me so he can get his house back. I might think about offering to give the house back instead of calling 911 but not doing anything will result in one of us dead eventually.

The Israeli government announced it's effectively taking all of Gaza hostage until it's civilians are returned, meanwhile starving the place.

I'm honestly surprised the media reaction to this, across the spectrum, is so muted. Hamas atrocities are extensively covered, but not one headline piece discussing the murderous rhetoric and actions from the Israeli government?

I guess Netanjahu will try to drown his failure to prevent the attack on blood.

https://www.tiktok.com/@menilek27872/video/7288444630201290027

maybe I'm just disagreeing with how you're stating it as a general principle, rather than stating it just specifically as what you think about this specific situation. In general, I don't think he principle works.

In this specific situation, it might of course be that doing nothing is clearly not the correct answer, but not because of your general principle.

There is a deeper question here in that is he depraved or simply not competent in leading Israel into the nation he wants it to be? Assuming that the security of Israel is his goal, then weren't there better ways to ensure it? At best he may be well - intentioned, but enveloped in a sort of a moral and intellectual fog.

Why not attempt to get back the hostages? That does not rule out later options? Judging by his words, he seems to be a man who feels rather than thinks.

A related, and equally clear trait is Netanyahu’sdifficulty in appreciating perspectives other than his own (Benziman, 1993). Netanyahu’sbooks and speeches presented no examples of attempts to understand or present perspectives other than his own
— ResearchGate (see link)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235330077_The_psychological_profile_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu_using_behavior_analysis

There is more, this is not good. Regardless of the situation, when you mix a personality like this, assuming this all accurate, into the equation, it might make it worse.

Hamas atrocities are extensively covered, but not one headline piece discussing the murderous rhetoric and actions from the Israeli government? — Echarmion

It doesn't seam to me:
https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-10/israel-hamas-war-netanyahu-mideast-policies
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/opinion/israel-hamas-.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/11/netanyahu-populism-weakened-israeli-security/

Why not attempt to get back the hostages? That does not rule out later options? Judging by his words, he seems to be a man who feels rather than thinks. — FreeEmotion

We have to notice that now Israel has a wartime unity government now, hence anything from this on isn't just about Bibi Netanyahu and the Likud. There is no denying that Israel is now committed to this war.

Now the aim is quite simple: the total destruction of the military capability of Hamas. There is no other objective now.

And I would to emphasize the following: this is what Hamas wanted, an all out attack on Gaza.

Hamas is an islamist organization and martyrdom is something that they take very seriously. As they can realistically anticipate that everybody in Gaza won't be killed, they can assume that there will be a new generation of fighters coming, even if they take a severe hit now. We can talk about the politics in attempting to stall warmer relations between Israel and Saudi-Arabia or the competition between PLO and Hamas, but thinking as if these are the driving causes for Hamas is simply Western thinking. What Hamas tells to it's fighters and supporters is crucial.

Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh on Saturday described the operation against Israel a "heroic epic" in response to aggression against Al-Aqsa Mosque.

“In these historical moments, we are engaged in a heroic epic for the sake of Al-Aqsa Mosque, our sanctities, and our prisoners,” Haniyeh said in a statement.

He said "the Zionist aggression reached its peak during the past days, as thousands of settlers desecrated the Al-Aqsa,” adding that Israel also continues its aggression in West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Well, they got their heroic epic. Fighting first and foremost, for a Mosque.

Hamas atrocities are extensively covered, but not one headline piece discussing the murderous rhetoric and actions from the Israeli government?
— Echarmion
It doesn't seam to me:
https://www.vox.com/23910085/netanyahu-israel-right-hamas-gaza-war-history
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-10/israel-hamas-war-netanyahu-mideast-policies
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/opinion/israel-hamas-.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/11/netanyahu-populism-weakened-israeli-security/ — neomac

And it is also the culmination of a systematic policy of apartheid, which was described in this 2022 study by Amnesty International.

It's not really apartheid, though. Jews and Muslims go to school and work together in Israel. The Dome of the Rock is a sacred spot for all three Abrahamic religions, and Israel respects that.

Israel respects that. — frank

I guess it depends on your definition of "respects." I haven't read the entire 260 page apartheid study, but Chomsky goes into a lot of detail about how the media has long ignored Israeli atrocities in the book "Necessary Illusions".

Those links support what many seem to be saying: the 'politics' has not worked, ethical considerations aside. A failure of intelligence - military intelligence or political?

but Chomsky goes into a lot of detail about how the media has long ignored Israeli atrocities in the book "Manufacturing Consent". — Pantagruel

You have to dig for it, yes. I haven't read Chomsky's book, but the information is available elsewhere. They've systematically made survival difficult for the Palestinians who left Jerusalem to live in Gaza. Whatever the Palestinians did, the Israelis would undermine. If they tried to grow lemons, the Israelis would divert the water supply. If they tried to open small shops, the Israelis would increase taxes until they went out of business. Palestinians would end up in refugee camps and the Israelis seemed to think there would never be a price to pay for that.

Yes, Israel has royally screwed up with the support of the US. I'm just saying, it's not apartheid by the definition we usually use for that.

Yes, a rose by any other name. By the way, I corrected the book from "Manufacturing Consent" (which I haven't read) to "Necessary Illusions" (which I just did). The appendices of which are filled with documentary evidence.

That seems to be the cold blooded logic behind it.
Any reports about who funds Hamas and how? A recent PBD podcast mentioned an incentive system of some sort, for Hamas fighters.

So I search "Hamas incentive scheme" and come up with this.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-01/the-palestinian-incentive-program-for-killing-jews

This may the reason for 1,500 Hamas fighters to embark on a one-way suicide mission (for most of them). There is precedent for this.

The deeper you go, the worse it gets.

Yes, a rose by any other name. — Pantagruel

OK. Using that word is bound to result in the wrong impression for Americans who use it to talk about what happened in South Africa, but if it's useful for you, :up:

By the way, I corrected the book from "Manufacturing Consent" (which I haven't read) to "Necessary Illusions" (which I just did). The appendices of which are filled with documentary evidence. — Pantagruel

:up: My source was an article from some guy who used to work for the State Dept.

:up:

I think the real question here is if (or when) Israel and US make the conclusion that Iran was behind this (because Palestinians of course cannot do something as complex as this). The outcry after the terrorist attacks does give this window to attack other sites than Gaza.

The threat of the war escalating would isn't a possibility. Already we saw an Israeli attack on Syria now:

Israel has launched missile strikes on Syria’s two main airports in Damascus and the northern city of Aleppo, knocking both out of service, Syrian state media has said.

Yes, Israel has royally screwed up with the support of the US. I'm just saying, it's not apartheid by the definition we usually use for that. — frank

What apartheid is referring to in this case is not the situation within Israel, but the situation between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Apartheid refers to the implementation and maintenance of a system of legalized racial segregation in which one racial group is deprived of political and civil rights. Apartheid is a crime against humanity punishable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. — Legal ecyclopedia

There's a giant wall seperating Israel from the West Bank, which has been ruled illegal by to the International Court of Justice specifically because of its character of racial segregation and discrimination.

Further, Palestinians do not have the same rights as Jews within the land of Israel.
For example, Palestinians in the West Bank cannot freely traverse Israeli-controlled areas, which results in communities becoming isolated, life being made impossible, etc.

Palestinians in the West Bank are policed by the Israeli army, while Israeli settlers are policed by the police - this results in Israeli soldiers standing idly by while Palestinians are harassed, humiliated, or sometimes violently assaulted by settlers.

Palestinians can be taken into custody without any basis, and held there indefinitely - sometimes for years.

I could go on.

The list of Israeli human rights violations with regards to discrimination of Palestinians is nearly inexhaustible, so please, when the appropriate human rights organisations like Amnesty talk about apartheid, it shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. This is real apartheid.

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. — flannel jesus

The Israeli's have long abandoned the idea of a two-state solution, the Israeli government including Netanyahu, explicitly so. The idea of a two-state solution has not been serious for decades.

looks like less than half of Israelis support a 2 state solution. Looks like a huge portion of them recently were in support of the "status quo", which... is nonsense. Sure, you're prospering under the status quo, but you can't possibly think Palestinians are going to accept things as they are permanently.

Seems like a lot of Israelis don't want to solve the problem - as long as they're happy, everyone else can go suck a lemon. Very disappointing mindset from them.

After this attack, though, I wonder if the number that support the status quo has decreased. It probably has, but not in a way where they want to find a solution that also works for the Palestinians. Really unfortunate.

Seems like it's just unbridled hate on both sides. People suck.

Putin blames failure of US policy for Mideast conflict, Russia says talking to both sides:
https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-says-violence-israel-palestine-shows-us-failure-middle-east-2023-10-10/

Of course Putin the peace keeping expert can teach them how to achieve peace.

Seems like a lot of Israelis don't want to solve the problem - as long as they're happy, everyone else can go suck a lemon. Very disappointing mindset from them. — flannel jesus

Disappointing maybe, but also probably the mindset of most people everywhere. "I'm all for helping the poor and destitute so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle".

Of course Putin the peace keeping expert can teach them how to achieve peace. — flannel jesus

:lol:

What apartheid is referring to in this case is not the situation within Israel, but the situation between Israel and the Palestinian territories. — Tzeentch

:up:

Of course Putin the peace keeping expert can teach them how to achieve peace. — flannel jesus

Did you read what he said at least? He hasn't said any stupidity:

Putin took the opportunity, during talks with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani, to blame the sharp escalation on years of U.S. policy in the region.

"I think that many people will agree with me that this is a vivid example of the failure of United States policy in the Middle East," Putin said.

Putin said Washington had sought to "monopolise" efforts at forging peace, and accused it of failing to seek workable compromises. The United States, he said, had ignored the interests of Palestinians, including their need for their own independent Palestinian state.

Whether you like it or not, he is right in this case. It is impossible to reach peace if 'we' - NATO members and the rest of the Western mates - don't recognise the sovereignty of Palestinians.

Whether you like it or not, he is right in this case. It is impossible to reach peace if 'we' - NATO members and the rest of the Western mates - don't recognise the sovereignty of Palestinians. — javi2541997

When was the last time the region was at peace?

If I'd say Jews are oppressing Palestinians or say they're complicit in the murders of innocents then I'm an anti-semite (even though Israel defines itself as the nation-state for Jews but whatever). So critics have to constantly tiptoe around making sure they're nuanced.

Wouldn't the correct solution be to be nuanced in both directions?

"We reject the practices of killing civilians or abusing them on both sides because they contravene morals, religion and international law," was how Abbas put it on Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

But, to your point, it is worth pointing out that the median Israeli voter is better represented by their state than your median inhabitant of Gaza likely is by Hamas. Hamas isn't exactly known for their "please, let's have a debate, feel free to oust us and let Fatah or some new group rule Gaza if you no longer want us here," style. So, in that sense it's even worse to conflate Hamas/Gazans. This is especially true for their military operations, which they carry out in secret, divorced from any form of public discourse.