“Where else do they force a little child to crawl with a backpack on his back? When Hamas treats its children like this, Israeli parents tut-tut with disgust: Look at these beasts.”

Oh, we do it here. Prep for our weekly/monthly mass shootings... :confused:

In other news: this video on Young Turks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBLjOXkKAnE

Quoting the video:

Obama: What the Palestinians are going through is 'unbearable'.

Remember that supposed to be private exchange between the then French president
3:25 and Obama in 2011, Sarkozy saying, I cannot bear Netanyahu. He's a liar. Obama responding.
But I have to deal with them even more often than you.

Trump:

Now the world and me, before I met with both of them, 4:56 I thought it was the exact opposite. I thought the Palestinians were impossible and the Israelis would do anything to make peace and a deal. I found that not to be true.

Then there is Jared Kushner. This is after October 7th, by the way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcAwqIZoxeU

So the attacks were absolutely vicious, terrible that occurred.

But the end state has to look something like this and it has to have two
elements. Number one, Israel has to have the security to not be threatened by its neighbors and to be able to protect its citizens. That is absolutely crucial, has is non-negotiable. And I do think a lot of the world agrees that that's something that should exist. The second element is that the Palestinian people have to have the opportunity to live a better life. And I think that if you go through the element, it's not just saying let's create a state. It has to be a state that can function and thrive, because if you don't create that, then the people will again find ways to blame other people instead of the leadership that's putting it there.

Jared Kushner, speaking after October 7th, wants a "Palestinian state that can function and thrive".

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister.

So the question is, whom is he working for, apart from himself? The Wikipedia article makes for some interesting reading.

After the 2022 election, Netanyahu was sworn in as Prime Minister again as the leader of a hardline coalition.[238] He officially started his sixth term on 29 December 2022

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

Apparently there are no term limits, which some countries think is a good thing.

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister. — FreeEmotion

For a long time the Prime Ministers of Likud have wanted simply to push the Palestinians somewhere else:

(Oct 1988) Then, as recently as 1982, Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir wrote that, “reduced to its true proportions, the problem is clearly not the lack of a homeland for the Palestinian Arabs. That homeland is Trans-Jordan or Eastern Palestine. . . . A second Palestinian state to the west of the river is a prescription for anarchy.”

Ariel Sharon, another minister has followed this idea that for Palestinians do have a land where to go to: Jordan. Naturally the king of Jordan and Jordanians didn't think so and the Oslo peace accord made some problems to this kind of thinking, but I guess it's still popular in the right-wing circles.

Then there's the strategy of "mowing of the lawn". I think that this strategy, basically that the Palestinian insurgency can be contained at such level that only once a decade or so one has to have a bigger military operation (mowing the lawn) and otherwise this doesn't effect too much Israeli economy and the living of Jewish, has been around for quite some time especially when Likud has been in power. And many of the smaller parties of Bibi's administration are simply against any two state solution.

Naturally they want peace. But that peace isn't what Palestinians, or people in general, would accept as peace to this conflict.

Naturally they want peace. But that peace isn't what Palestinians, or people in general, would accept as peace to this conflict. — ssu

I think this is absolutely the crux of the problem. Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure. The PA is to a large extent a failure as well in terms of trying for peace. Perhaps I am not reading it right and that it is just assumed the Palestinian leadership is a failure, but I am not sure. It certainly isn't Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. level leadership over there anywhere. SSU, it would be interesting to discuss Palestinian failures and missed opportunities in the same breath, but I fear that side won't be told. I am sure, in a response there will be some strafing at Israel once again for why this is the reason, but sometimes you surprise me.

Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). — schopenhauer1

Hold it there. But that is the reality in the framework here. Israel conquered Gaza and West Bank in 1967. Palestinians there are under occupation: they aren't treated as normal Israeli citizens, but are under a different law. And yes, the PLO did use terrorist attacks outside to attack Israel, which lead to fighting between Jordan and the PLO and Lebanon and the PLO. And then to the occupation of Southern Lebanon by Israel.

Yet that there has been a PLO working outside from Israel doesn't erase somehow the fact that the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967.

Then that this civilian population fights an insurgency is again something that everybody understands here.

So what according to you, is here the wrong in describing the situation as occupier and occupied?

However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure. The PA is to a large extent a failure as well in terms of trying for peace. — schopenhauer1

Their most abysmal failure was to lose the war, I guess. Once when you lose a war, you are on the mercy of your enemy. And of course as they think of themselves as Palestinians, it's convenient for both Egypt and Jordan then to agree that they indeed aren't either former Egyptians or former Jordanians (as both countries had only a brief stay either in Gaza and the West Bank).

It certainly isn't Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. level leadership over there anywhere. — schopenhauer1

Gandhi and MLK type leaders using the pacifism might work especially if the focus would be on non-Jewish citizens of Israel of the pre-1967 borders. And the non-violence approach obviously would mean that there wouldn't an active violent insurgency against Israel. That's hard, because Palestinians have been represented by those who have believed in the military solution. Bibi and the far right simply need the bloodshed, need the attacks. And the repression works for Hamas. As I've said, Bibi and the hardliners and Hamas simply embrace each other: both get strength from the violence and hate. And of course, Bibi and the hardliners have literally supported Hamas.

For them the perfect representative of the Palestinians is Hamas.

Sure, we can imagine an alternative reality, but the violence, bloodshed fear and hatred is there. That cannot be changed. A leader like MLK worked with a Civil Rights Movement, but that Civil Rights Movement wasn't looking for a separate country from the US. And the Black Panthers didn't commit such terrorist attacks against white people as PLO did (and later Hamas) against Israel.

SSU, it would be interesting to discuss Palestinian failures and missed opportunities in the same breath, but I fear that side won't be told. — schopenhauer1

We can totally discuss this too. The idea that one has to have the good guys and the bad guys here is naive (or well, typical). My view is that extremists have hijacked the conflict.

Jasser Arafat surely did errors and could have perhaps reached a better solution. The representative of the Palestinians was (is?) the PLO and Fatah's leader Jasser Arafat dominated that position. So it is a quite undemocratic organization. Fatah was formed in 1959 by the Palestinian diaspora and PLO in the 1960's.

And of course there were those on the Palestinian side who opposed the Oslo accords. And surely they did their part alongside Bibi in derailing the Oslo accords.

As I've stated, is see no peaceful resolution to this conflict.

Yet that there has been a PLO working outside from Israel doesn't erase somehow the fact that the civilian population in Gaza and the West Bank came under Israeli control in 1967.

Then that this civilian population fights an insurgency is again something that everybody understands here.

So what according to you, is here the wrong in describing the situation as occupier and occupied? — ssu

I said "oppressor/oppressed", there is a difference. This means a very specific cliched framework used in this conflict whereby the "underdog" is supposedly blameless for their plight, when you (should) know that isn't the full story (by a long shot). It would only be if one already knew which side they wanted to favor for that kind of distortion to proliferate. You are sometimes on the cusp of something, but then it seems you want knee-jerk resort to that hackneyed (over-represented in this forum but not by a long shot in other venues). The more violence used, the less compromise made, the less the "victim" is really the victim anymore. It turns into something else- a festering hatred. It is an identity defined by its grievance rather than its ideals. It's an identity of purely what has been lost or not gained, and not what one can do for a future stabilization.

That's hard, because Palestinians have been represented by those who have believed in the military solution. Bibi and the far right simply need the bloodshed, need the attacks. And the repression works for Hamas. As I've said, Bibi and the hardliners and Hamas simply embrace each other: both get strength from the violence and hate. And of course, Bibi and the hardliners have literally supported Hamas. — ssu

Yep. You couldn't do it. You couldn't talk about Palestinian failure without Bibi in there. I have seen you ONLY talk of Israeli failure without talking about Pals, but haven't seen the other way. I wonder why...

Sure, we can imagine an alternative reality, but the violence, bloodshed fear and hatred is there. That cannot be changed. A leader like MLK worked with a Civil Rights Movement, but that Civil Rights Movement wasn't looking for a separate country from the US. And the Black Panthers didn't commit such terrorist attacks against white people as PLO did (and later Hamas) against Israel. — ssu

I mean, but you did think of the Black Panthers as a counterpoint. Some people thought MLK was too soft. But he wasn't. Strength in peace and non-violence. That is harder, and therefore braver, more courageous. It's also more effective. The other divides, causes friction, causes bad blood. MLK was also proud, so you can't use that argument either. Being proud, doesn't mean being violent.

Jasser Arafat surely did errors and could have perhaps reached a better solution. The representative of the Palestinians was (is?) the PLO and Fatah's leader Jasser Arafat dominated that position. So it is a quite undemocratic organization. Fatah was formed in 1959 by the Palestinian diaspora and PLO in the 1960's.

And of course there were those on the Palestinian side who opposed the Oslo accords. And surely they did their part alongside Bibi in derailing the Oslo accords.

As I've stated, is see no peaceful resolution to this conflict. — ssu

Again, you almost did it. But not quite. You either find someone or you don't. Peace is not aggressive, it's transgressive. The ultimate kind :).

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up? — RogueAI

Yes, it follows. This is an emotional argument. So let me ask you, is it wrong for Hamas to kill Israeli military, like they did on October 7th? If they had confined their attacks to military targets only, then what? Would you support Hamas on that?

If there were chances to compromise, and you didn't like the terms of the other side, this doesn't mean you get to mow down civilians and such because you are unhappy that you didn't get what you wanted. — schopenhauer1

What we know for sure is that one side, or both sides, did not take the 'chance to compromise'. In an ideal world, no-one should mow the lawn, but in a world that is not ideal, the less people get killed the better, but there are those who do not share that opinion either. Its up in the air.

What we know for sure is that one side, or both sides, did not take the 'chance to compromise'. In an ideal world, no-one should mow the lawn, but in a world that is not ideal, the less people get killed the better, but there are those who do not share that opinion either. Its up in the air. — FreeEmotion

You took that out of context ti make an irrelevant point with it and clearly didn’t see my last post which actually goes more to your peace point. That is to say, massacring people and sending rockets isn’t excused, period.

Jesus said, "You should turn the other cheek." He didn't say Israel should, or Rome should, or Persia should, or any other nation should. — BC

Indeed, that same Bible justifies self-defense. I believe in self-defense, if that contravenes pacifism then I can't help that. I can take the stand against violent rebellion: any of these positions taken can be challenged by any number of counter-examples, that is not the point here. If one has to take a stand, one can only take one.

Israel did not defend itself on October 7th. That was wrong. If Hamas has chosen a fight with Israel, then the tacit agreement is that both sides will fight to the death. I take the stand that civilians should not be killed as far as possible, even if they support the IDF or Hamas. You can take the stand that Hamas is illegitimate, well, then that destroys the case for their existence, which Israel allowed all these years, why? Didn't they have the moral obligation to destroy them earlier?

In any case, the more information we get on this and other conflicts the more useful in preventing them.

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up?
— RogueAI

Yes, it follows. This is an emotional argument. — FreeEmotion

If you think Nazi death camp inmates are wrong to rise up against their exterminators, I don't know what to tell you. Your moral compass is so off from mine, we probably won't agree on much.

So let me ask you, is it wrong for Hamas to kill Israeli military, like they did on October 7th? If they had confined their attacks to military targets only, then what? Would you support Hamas on that?

I would have more respect for Hamas if they only targeted soldiers, but I would still side with Israel. When Jews have power, they establish a democratic state like Israel, that respects women and LGBTQ people. When Hamas is given power, they establish a shithole.

Naturally the king of Jordan and Jordanians didn't think so and the Oslo peace accord made some problems to this kind of thinking, but I guess it's still popular in the right-wing circles. — ssu

The Oslo peace agreement, agreed by both sides, allowed for a two-state solution. So if any side broke the agreement, and I don't care which, then they are responsible for the current state of affairs. This is not the Palestinians fault. Hamas was 'allowed' to contest in the 2015 election, so whoever allowed the initial selection affected the outcome of the election.

I think this is absolutely the crux of the problem. Because of the "oppressor/oppressed" framework people seem to be working on in this forum, the focus is on Netanyahu's failure(s) (along with the Israeli right-wing in general). However, what is not discussed is Hamas, representing some portion of Palestinian attitudes, is an obvious abysmal failure — schopenhauer1

I take the point of view that both the Israelis and Palestinians are the oppressed, both refugees in their own time frames. My guess is, and this is an unsupported assumption, the players who are playing both sides are still playing. They should throw off the shackles of their patrons, if this is the case, and make peace with each other. Again, my unsupported guess is that some entities do not want a peaceful and economically strong middle east. Hence, destroy it or tame it, domesticate it, or both.

I would have more respect for Hamas if they only targeted soldiers, but I would still side with Israel. — RogueAI

Well this confirms your bias. I regret every IDF and every Hamas fighter killed. As Jared Kushner suggests, these people should be given economic opportunities, and they won't join Hamas. That is what he says.

If you think Nazi death camp inmates are wrong to rise up against their exterminators, I don't know what to tell you. Your moral compass is so off from mine, we probably won't agree on much. — RogueAI

There is the right to armed resistance, the right to violent resistance, and there is a time and a place for that. I am all for death camp inmates rising up and taking over, but if there is no possibility of success, then I wonder about the morality of a suicidal action. That was the basis for my objection.

In this specific case, though, I believe that the action taken by Hamas, the violent resistance, was neither wise nor productive, and my moral compass points away from that.

There is a question of agency here also: who is responsible for the existence of Hamas? Who is responsible for the existence of Israel? By extension, are they responsible for their actions?

That is to say, massacring people and sending rockets isn’t excused, period. — schopenhauer1

Sorry I missed the point, but do you accept the UN stance on the right to violent resistance? I don't.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43 removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/20/palestinians-have-a-legal-right-to-armed-struggle/

Everyone wants a solution, and wants peace. All except the current Israeli Prime Minister. — FreeEmotion

Except Hamas and other extremists. The sad truth is there are extremist elements on both sides driven by fear and fuelled by hatred. This has been the case ever since I started breathing.

I honestly see no real peaceful solution for another generation at least.

It took a long, long time to solve the Irish issue. Even now it could still boil over as tensions still exist. The middle east is far, far, far more volatile due to drastically different cultures being thrown together (both internally and externally).

The US can impose upon Israel, but the leadership will not. Maybe once Biden has gone whoever comes in will start pushing a little. I won’t hold my breath though.

In any case, the more information we get on this and other conflicts the more useful in preventing them. — FreeEmotion

I hope that is the case. We'll see.

I find it very irksome that demonstrators in Europe and the US have marched down the street chanting "From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free." What do these people--who do not send money to Isis, Al Qaeda, or Hamas and who almost certainly do not want to be in anybody's army--think that slogan means? IF the establishment of Israel involved ethnic cleansing, so would the dis-establishment of Israel.

It isn't the Israeli government's fault that Hamas launched an attack in southern Israel. It IS their fault--on numerous levels--that their substantial intelligence and military resources were not on duty, October 7. Netanyahu's all-out attack on Hamas will blunt the search for culpability in Israel.

I take the stand that civilians should not be killed as far as possible — FreeEmotion

Sure; everybody is nominally against killing innocent civilians. It's just that, unfortunately, "as far as possible" isn't much of a barrier, whether it involves blowing up people on an Israeli bus or in a restaurant in Tel Aviv, or dropping a bomb on an apartment building.

I hope that is the case. We'll see. — BC

Yes

I find it very irksome that demonstrators in Europe and the US have marched down the street chanting "From the ocean to the sea, Palestine will be free." — BC

Yes, I find it irksome and also very insensitive. They could chant 'free Palestine', instead. We know the meaning that people attach to those words, they would do well to refrain from using those words. It is their responsibility to avoid being misunderstood, and cast in a negative light. The river to the sea geographically spans an area that includes the State of Israel, and if they want to appear to be Hamas supporters, best not to use these words. Don't they have good PR firms in those countries, or good advisors? Or is this part of the plan?

It isn't the Israeli government's fault that Hamas launched an attack in southern Israel. — BC

There is the question of agency here. To put it in another way, if the security of Israel was sub contracted to a company, and this happened, they would have a huge lawsuit on its hands. This has nothing to do with Hamas or Israel, just the responsibility for protection against a known threat. So Hamas is responsible for attacking, the IDF for failing to reasonably defend.

What is the driving time across Israel? Tel Aviv to Sderot : 1 hour, Jerusalem to Sderot: 1 hr 30 minutes. Depending on traffic I guess. Never been there.

One should also consider the technology both the United States and Israel have access to, and unlikely it seems that all these technologies could have failed.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210326996/one-week-into-israels-ground-war-in-gaza-satellites-and-socialf-media-give-hints

Sure; everybody is nominally against killing innocent civilians. It's just that, unfortunately, "as far as possible" isn't much of a barrier, whether it involves blowing up people on an Israeli bus or in a restaurant in Tel Aviv, or dropping a bomb on an apartment building. — BC

These actions could be shown to be self-defeating, or having the risk of being self-defeating, damaging to their own cause, in which the actions could be said to be irrational. I think we can at least figure that out?

Don't they have good PR firms in those countries, or good advisors? — FreeEmotion

Of course they do, but people who organize demonstrations generally do not employ PR firms to make sure all of their messages are 'on point' and unambiguous. If you bring 10,000, 100,000, or 1,000,000 people together for a massive demonstration, there are limits on how finely you can direct the groupthink. Small groups can control small demonstrations -- 200-300 people at most -- much better.

Today the PBS reporter on the ground in Gaza said the IDF said that about 43% of the housing in Gaza had been destroyed, so far. The IDF has quite a ways to go yet, what with the many miles of tunnels running under civilian infrastructure. By the time they are finished destroying the tunnels, it wouldn't be surprising if 60% of the housing was rubble.

There are about 2,000,000 people "living" in Gaza; if 800,000 are now homeless, over 1 million will be without housing in a few months. No house, no kitchen, no bed, no pot to piss in. Nothing, Who is going to rebuild Gaza? Who is going to buy the building materials to house 1,200,000 homeless, never mind repairing the houses that are still habitable? Who's going to rebuild the water/sewer/sanitation system? Who's going to rebuild the electrical/telecom system? Schools, mosques, hospitals, food distribution system, etc?

Gaza will be ungovernable, alright -- the was one of Israel's stated goals, right? Make it impossible for Hamas to govern.

I don't know which nations are going to take on the large job of rebuilding Gaza. If civilians shouldn't be killed, they also shouldn't be left to rot amid the rubble, either. The place will need intensive therapy -- lots of concrete, lots of reconstruction, lots of psycho-social support. If there is no physical and psychological recovery in Gaza, then there will be no peace in the area either, just a lot of very bitter, angry, revenge-minded people.

:up:

I said "oppressor/oppressed", there is a difference. — schopenhauer1

You or someone else might push this "oppressor/oppressed" and think there's some moral competition going around here of blameless underdogs and justified defense. This is basically about a conflict, which both sides have their victims, their reasons and their justifications.

The pre-1967 borders aren't actually disputed here by either the PA or the World in general. You might see the militant group going for the whole of Israel, but this is nonsense as Israel has a nuclear deterrent and militarily dominates it's Arab neighbors.

The issue is about what Israel gained in the Six Day war.

Hence one side is the occupier here. We don't talk of the English occupying Scotland and Wales for a reason. This was just some time ago shown by the Scots voting to stay in the union. Yet Palestine hasn't been integrated to Israel and the annexation hasn't been accepted. Hence the maps we generally use and what Israel uses are different about Israel.

. It turns into something else- a festering hatred. It is an identity defined by its grievance rather than its ideals. — schopenhauer1

Festering hatred is apt to use here. For Palestinians, the Nakba is a central part of their identity. And so is that Israel should be the home for Jews, a Jewish Israel, is also central to many Israelis.

Hence I'm firmly in the view that this conflict has no peaceful solution anywhere near.

I mean, but you did think of the Black Panthers as a counterpoint. Some people thought MLK was too soft. But he wasn't. Strength in peace and non-violence. That is harder, and therefore braver, more courageous. It's also more effective. The other divides, causes friction, causes bad blood. MLK was also proud, so you can't use that argument either. Being proud, doesn't mean being violent. — schopenhauer1

Yet here's the issue: MLK wasn't demanding a new state, he basically was demanding that the people should be treated as the constitution says. Gandhi had the advantage that Britain simply couldn't go on and occupy such large nation. With Israel/Palestine it's different. You are talking about Israelis and Palestinians in the first place, not "Israeli citizens". Who wants to integrate the Palestinians? Do they want to be integrated as Israelis??? Not at all.

And furthermore, assume then the Black Panthers had gone around and killed white people in the US. Do you think that would have made white Americans in the South less racist? Hell no, they would have flocked around the KKK. The US would be really, really ugly. This is what fear and hatred does.

If you think that peace can be obtained easily in the Middle East, I simply disagree. Basically a lot more people should have to be killed. It took two World Wars to pacify the Europeans, and such amounts of blood hasn't been spilled in the Middle East this or the last Century.

there are limits on how finely you can direct the groupthink. Small groups can control small demonstrations -- 200-300 people at most -- much better. — BC

Good point. So when a news head says 'but some of them were shouting bad things' then of course you realize that a small minority does no represent the majority here. The majority in any case should know not to chant self - defeating slogans, but then maybe it is all planned in some way.

If there is no physical and psychological recovery in Gaza, then there will be no peace in the area either, just a lot of very bitter, angry, revenge-minded people. — BC

You forgot to mention powerless. By many accounts, billions has already been invested in Gaza to this date.

For the countries and governments and people that 'support Israel' this is a solution, this is the right thing. The final result, according to Scott Ritter, is a Palestinian state, so we can see if he is right, or just propaganda.

It is time to pull out your moral compass and do some judging of the right and wrong here.

What upsets me is that bombing of civilians has been going on for years all over the world, in wars, civil wars, but without the news media attention that this has got. Where were the protests? 1 million Iraqis? 3 million Vietnamese?

There used to be that awful song protesters used to chant:

“Hey, Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” —A protest chant that first became popular in late 1967.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/vietnam-war-forty-quotes

1967. What has changed?

We need to teach peace in schools, really, not war. History, not distortions.

Lets start with this:

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

Of course we need to add Russia, China, France, UK.... search for it.

“Hey, Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” —A protest chant that first became popular in late 1967. — FreeEmotion

Oh yes, I remember chanting that, and others like

ho ho Ho Chi Minh
the NLF is gonna win

or

US out of Viet Nam
Japan and Okinawa

and

one two three four
we don't want your fucking war

The National Liberation Front did win, as it happens, and we are out of Vietnam, at least.

What upsets me is that bombing of civilians has been going on for years all over the world, in wars, civil wars, but without the news media attention that this has got. Where were the protests? 1 million Iraqis? 3 million Vietnamese? — FreeEmotion

According to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, there were 15,000,000 military personnel killed in WWII, and 38,000,000 civilian deaths. Armies don't fight the way they did in the 19th century and earlier, where battlefields were at least somewhat isolated. Henry V's famous victory over the French at Agincourt took place on a battlefield 1000 yards wide. The French force of 20,000 greatly outnumbered the English who arrived at the battle already exhausted. Rather than engage in hand to hand battle, the English unleashed between 125,000 and 500,000 arrows from longbows and crossbows into the French troops. This was in 1415.

In the middle of the 19th century, there was the famous charge of the British light brigade during the battle of Balaclava in the Crimea. You remember (of course you do) Tennyson's lines,

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

Point is, civilians were not involved--just the uniformed cannon fodder.

Technology changed, of course, and by WWII armies were not necessarily making finicky distinctions between civilians and soldiers, economic forces and military forces. The allies fire-bombed a number of cities, -- Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo for example. Cities are where civilians live. The US nuclear bombs made no distinction in Nagasaki and Hiroshima -- indeed, the military wanted to nuke an intact city, the better to measure the effect.

At this stage of the game, we can expect civilians to be targeted in war--probably not as the explicit target (very bad PR) but as "unfortunate collateral damage". Civilians are not so respected that they even make good human shields, these days. In some military thinking, there isn't all that big a difference between a civilian and a soldier.

I don't approve military policy and practice; my disapproval and 50¢ won't buy me a cup of coffee.

It is time to pull out your moral compass and do some judging of the right and wrong here. — FreeEmotion

In these times, my moral compass spins a lot, trying to locate the moral pole.

Reported yesterday in the Dutch newspapers (Google translate) :

Israel uses “disproportionate force” in Gaza and deliberately attacks “civilian infrastructure” such as bridges, roads and residential complexes. This approach explains the “high number of deaths in Gaza” and, according to critics, “constitutes a violation of international treaties and the laws of war.”

This is stated in a confidential memo from the Dutch embassy in Tel Aviv, which has been seen by NRC .

The memo was drawn up by the Defense Attaché at the embassy, ​​who is intensively monitoring the situation around Gaza with a military team. According to the report, the Israeli political and military leadership has no clear strategy and the Israeli desire to finally deal with Hamas is "a military goal that is virtually impossible to achieve."

The findings in the confidential report are in stark contrast to public statements by the Israeli army in recent weeks, which claims to be doing as much as possible to prevent Palestinian civilian deaths. More than 11,000 people have been killed in Gaza since the war began, according to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Health Ministry. Just this weekend, Israel came under intense international criticism for air and ground strikes around Al-Shifa Hospital.

Outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) said last Wednesday after a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel "must show that what they do is also proportionate" and must act within the limits of international law. Rutte, unlike French President Macron , for example , does not want to call for a ceasefire.

The memo shows that the Netherlands knows that Israel consciously opts for a ruthless military approach that leads to large numbers of civilian casualties. Yet the Israeli actions are not publicly condemned by Rutte and outgoing Foreign Minister Hanke Bruins Slot (CDA).

D66 party leader and outgoing Minister for Climate and Energy Rob Jetten said on Sunday in Buitenhof that he believes that Rutte should now call for a ceasefire, but D66 appears to be alone in this within the outgoing cabinet.

According to the official memo, the decisions of the Israeli war cabinet and army leadership are motivated by feelings of revenge. “The emotion and anger are echoed in IDF [Israeli army] briefings,” the message said. These emotions would play a role in expanding the instructions for use of force for the Israeli military and in the Israeli interpretation of the laws of war.

Dahiya-doctrine
The IDF, the embassy writes, tries to limit losses on its own side as much as possible during the ground offensive (" zero risk ") and therefore uses lethal force more quickly (" shoot to kill "). Moreover, the embassy sees that the IDF applies "elements" of the so-called Dahiya doctrine. This strategy, which was first used in the 2006 war in Lebanon, "intends to deliberately cause massive destruction to infrastructure and civilian centers" while taking large numbers of civilian casualties for granted. The deliberate destruction of civilian targets is contrary to the laws of war, the memo states.

The use of brute force should restore the deterrence of Israel, which appeared militarily vulnerable to the Hamas attack. According to the memo, Israel wants to "display credible military force with its offensive in Gaza to show Iran and its proxies [such as Hezbollah] that they will stop at nothing." This attitude increases rather than decreases the chance of regional escalation, the Defense Attaché fears.

Embassy does take reports about Israeli plans to move Palestinians to the Sinai desert seriously.
Because the Israelis feel little explicit support from allies other than the United States, this could lead "to more extreme actions and the possible targeting of the northern front [a preventive Israeli war against Hezbollah]. then to hoped-for peace negotiations.”

At the end of October, Rutte said in a parliamentary debate that Israel has the right to eliminate the terrorist threat: “Hamas' ability to carry out attacks must disappear.” However, according to the embassy, ​​"a clear military victory over Hamas" cannot be achieved. Moreover, there is no agreement on the Israeli side about the end goal of Operation Swords of Iron. “The current action is first and foremost motivated by the need to deliver a final blow to Hamas,” the memo states: “The prevailing feeling is that we will look further afterward.”

Even if Hamas is almost completely eliminated, the fundamentalist movement's ideology will live on, the memo said. “There is no military answer to this, this is a political issue.”

Saudi Arabia and Qatar
The Dutch Defense Attaché is also concerned about leaked Israeli plans to forcibly relocate the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza, temporarily or otherwise, to Egypt's Sinai desert. Israeli media recently wrote about a policy document mentioning this option, sparking fears among Palestinians of ethnic cleansing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the plan "hypothetical", but the Dutch embassy is taking it seriously. Under the heading ' Thinking the unthinkable ' it says that in Israel "several people – including parliamentarians, advisors and soldiers – do not dismiss this option as extreme, but as real."

The memo states that one of the scenarios for a Gaza without Hamas is that an international force will control the coastal strip. It could consist mainly of Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The memo states: “The question is what is left of Gaza after the military offensive and what this force will oversee.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not want to respond substantively to the memo, but emphasizes that it is only one of a "multiple of sources" that are used in drawing up policy advice to the minister. “The Netherlands is very concerned about the severity and scale of the conflict,” the ministry said: “Further civilian casualties on both sides must be prevented as much as possible.”

including Saudi Arabia and Qatar — Benkei

Saudi want in on the killing too? Is Yemen not enough fun for them?

I think that part refers to the memo of the Defense Attache and not the Israeli memo - so it would be a peace keeping force.

Hence I'm firmly in the view that this conflict has no peaceful solution anywhere near.

Yes, there is no chance of a peaceful solution which both sides accept on the horizon*.

For either side the other side would need to accept what they will never accept and even if they did reach a compromise, which is impossible, it would be impossible to keep the peace in the long term.


*I don’t like to talk in these blunt terms and would prefer to believe that this could return to the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times.

the 2 state solution as has been outlined numerous times. — Punshhh

Any idea how many right wing settlers will have to move to make that a realistic option? Because currently it's simply not physically viable.

It was tongue in cheek. Was just pointing out how some military assaults are paid more attention than others.

People are quick to call out Israeli assaults yet when Saudi does something similar there appears to be less of an outcry. Not really surprising given the history of the conflict … it almost bores me. It does sicken me that I am ‘bored’ by this, but hey, still bored.

Growing up with this conflict on the news every couple of yeast with the same old story does not exactly instill hope.

The ‘solution’ will almost certainly involve one state. No way can these peoples live side by side in two separate states anytime within the next couple if generations. The strange thing is the manner in which the country was created. No war, just people settling there. If it was an invasion that allowed Israel to exist I have a horrible feeling it would be more or less ‘justified’. Maybe the cultist connotations of Zionism are somehow more horrific?

Tired of it. Bored of it. Likely to cu,minate with an invasion of Iran within the next decade.

People are quick to call out Israeli assaults yet when Saudi does something similar there appears to be less of an outcry. — I like sushi

I don't think the whataboutism is particularly helpful. People don't know everything happening in every conflict in the world. If Israel did something terrible, and someone says "that's terrible", you saying "but what about when Saudi Arabia did it!?" isn't helpful at all. Either what they're doing is terrible, it's terrible regardless of what Saudi Arabia does. If it's not terrible, it's not terrible regardless of what Saudi Arabia does.

If people aren't also criticizing Saudi Arabia for the same thing, they probably don't know about Saudi Arabia or the context in which they're doing the same thing.

That was not my point. Not interested in the conflict really. Was trying to point out that media/propaganda drives the agenda (if there is one?).

It is a mess and will remain so. I could not help if I wanted to other than by actively pointing how ludicrous it is to act as if we know what is going on or really care all that much.

The simple truth is we ‘feel like’ we should care but likely are just content to live distanced and remote from the realities of war and suffering. I guess we want to feel like we can have some impact somehow … truth is few to none are willing to really commit.

I have no immediate commitment to nonsense created by stupidity. I am neither proud nor ashamed of this fact.

Maybe I am just in a particularly bitter mood today? Who knows :D

Yes, I know. That’s why I can’t see a solution which is acceptable to both sides.
As we are all I can see is the Palestinians being entirely removed from the land which Israel deems part of Israel. With the backing of the US and an international coalition.

There is another outcome which is less likely, that Israel becomes a failed state like Syria, or Iraq. But even then, the Palestinians will still likely be removed.