Yes Israel didn’t offer a defence. They seem to think that 7th October is relevant. It isn’t.

It's relevant in "the end justifies the means" thinking prevalent in typical right wing thinking.

It's pretty normal to use behaviour and words as evidence of intention, as we don't have mind-reading machines. — bert1

Yes also breathing air as we are not breathless machines, I guess.

Hate is in all of those objective commandments. Detailing how one must live. — Vaskane

Jesus believed in commandments... if one sought eternal life (Matthew 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30). Commandments like "thou shall not murder" make up the foundation of any civilized people, but by all means reject them. Who needs a society where people heed strict rules like that?

Jesus born a Jew and within such a shitty way of life and tradition rejected the whole of the Jewish tradition and faith by representing God's undying love and faithfulness. — Vaskane

"You must be careful to do everything [the teachers of the law and the Pharisees] tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (Matthew 23:30).

Yeah, totally seems like Jesus rejected the whole of Judaism. :roll:

In fact, the Jews apparently treated Jesus like dirt because he rejected Judaism. — Vaskane

Or because he essentially claimed to be God? He speaks with absolute certainty. Cult leader.

Blacks never popularized an objective us vs them morality. One that infected the globe because it says the weak alone are the good. — Vaskane

The weak alone are good? Then why do Jews lionize King David? Or the Maccabees at Hanukkah? The Hebrew Bible praises military victory. Jews are hard-nose realists; try actually talking with one. They are more aware than any of the problems with weakness. Closer to this idea is Jesus.

EU isn't at all contacted,

The EU was contacted and was going to use resources already dedicated to Operation Atlanta, but Spain vetoed it. But it seems like all the ships in the original package are going anyhow.

Reflagging ships isn't a solution. Look at the targets, Indian-operated/Liberian flagged, a Gabon flagged ship. The ballistic missiles attacks haven't come close to any ships, but I believe there were 26 ships in the area in the first incident, 50 in the second. They just targeted a Russian ship (obviously this would probably be an accident). The fact is they lack capabilities for target discrimination and so the general strategy seems to be to try to hit anything as a means of disrupting global trade.

India

One of the ships attacked had an Indian crew. India already has ships in the area, they just stopped an attack by unrelated pirates recently and they are sending several more ships.

The problem is more one of willingness to put ships under a consolidated command, not willingness to send ships to the region to intercept attacks.

A very welcomed articulated post (BTW kudos for the mod title!). A few comments:
- Proportionality “needs quantifying” to offer actual military and legal guidance (an example of this is the “non-combatant casualty cutoff value”) wrt military necessity (at operational, tactic and strategic level) in the course of the war. Indeed, proportionality “prohibits the attack only if the attacker concludes the incidental or collateral consequences will be excessive to the anticipated concrete military advantage”. The problem is that the equation would still be very sensitive to the context (e.g. “non-combatant casualty cutoff value” is assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the conflicts and operations, would vary from 0 to 30 acceptable civilian deaths per strike), the available information (i.e. no matter if the result turned out to contradict the expectation at the time it was launched), how valuable the military target (i.e. a legitimate military objective, not civilians!), the measures taken to minimise the non-combatants casualties, the risk for one’s own soldiers, the overall military doctrine (which may vary country by country). The military calculus is more relevant to assess proportionality than the entity of the outcome per se. It’s the military calculus that needs interpreting and the interpretative benchmark of military calculus is offered by the military expertise and practice, not by ordinary people. In other words, “a legitimate critique must ultimately focus on the attack decision, and not the attack outcome. As a result, it is near impossible to conclude an attack violated the wartime proportionality rule without considering the situation that informed the attack decision at the time it was made. This does not mean attack effects are irrelevant. Instead, it means they are only one aspect of a much more complex legality assessment. This may be frustrating, as the full context of an attack decision is often difficult to access or replicate” (https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2023/10/26/geoff-corn-on-the-disproportionate-confusion-about-proportionality/).
- To assess proportionality and war crimes lawfully authorities (which ones?) need to run proper investigations (per strike) and feed them to an authoritative tribunal. It’s not enough to establish proportionality by popular outcry over whatever people take to be evidence of war crimes or guidance from general legal principles. Not to mention that, on general principles, it would be much easier to pin MOST of the responsibility for the current war crimes on Hamas, INCLUDING the ones allegedly and repeatedly committed by Israel, why? Because International humanitarian law is based on the separation of combatants from civilians: 1. armed forces cannot target civilians (which Hamas did in attacking Israeli civilians - as main target not as collateral damage! - and taking hostages) 2. they must separate their own military assets from the civilian population (which Hamas doesn’t do hiding its combatants, arsenals, infrastructure among civilians, in buildings and places with high-density population, in hospitals and schools) exposing civilians to Israeli attacks. Who wants to sanction Israel for Israel’s war crimes should sanction Palestine roughly twice as much for Hamas’ war crimes.
- But the problem of “proportionality” is much worse though: international legal institutions even if meant for humanitarian purposes still serve states not the other way around. The compliance to international legal institutions by states inevitably depend on power balance and systems of alliance, with all implied security dilemmas. NO major geopolitical actor is in the position to lecture Israel on how to react in case of existential threats or severe human rights violations or war crimes. Indeed, war crimes have been attributed to Syria (against the Syrian rebels), Turkey (e.g. against the Kurds), Saudi Arabia (e.g. against Yemen), Iran (e.g. by supporting war crimes of Hamas), Russia (e.g. against Ukraine), the US (e.g. in Afghanistan and Iraq). So the international reactions to Israel’s military intervention in Gaza are more useful to assess the degree of convergence of interests in the geopolitical arena, than to pin down Israel’s responsibilities based on violations of international laws. So, as far as I’m concerned, if the international arena is taken as a morality contest, better to assess performances based more on how perceivably far we are from the principle “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” than on how legally close we are to “the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience”.

Concerning your point “the issue would be destroying all the infrastructure and relying on powerful munitions in an urban area against an enemy that seems to have been largely militarily defeated already. Where is the proportionality?”, I take it to mean that ambiguities remain in the Israeli strategic end-game which may exceed the purpose of defeating Hamas as political/military organization rooted in Gaza (hence the suspicion of wanting to expel Palestinians, annex Gaza or part of it, puppetize Palestine, etc.) and hang on the moral hazards of Netanyahu’s political predicament. That sounds plausible to me.

Jesus born a Jew and within such a shitty way of life and tradition rejected the whole of the Jewish tradition and faith by representing God's undying love and faithfulness. — Vaskane

In Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus clearly states that you should obey all the laws of the Old testament:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I mean, can we just take a moment to reflect on these fucking rules to begin with. ”Oh, it's okay for states to negligently kill people but individuals aren't allowed to.” WTF? Well if I assess it would be good for the country to say, assassinate a state official who is a corrupt piece of shit, then why the fuck can't I? It's okay for THE STATE to do so. It's okay for a state to send hundreds of thousands or millions to their death over exploitation rights the next business queer can get rich off of. — Vaskane

If you are talking to me, I never made any such claim, nor presupposed it, nor implied it, nor meant to suggest it.

Law of proportionality is exactly how Israel utilizes its civilians as human shields. — Vaskane

Not sure to understand what you are claiming here: do you mean that on the 7th October there were Israeli combatants hiding among the civilians and preparing a terrorist attack on non-combatant Palestinian civilians to murder/decapitate/torture/rape them and take hostages, so Hamas attacked them first?

Oh, and yet, in the account of the lives of Jesus Christ, the Gospels, there is no such thing as sin, guilt, punishment and reward, merely Jesus and the Glad Tidings. It's the disciples who introduce ever aspect of Judaism back into Christianity. — Vaskane

Jesus cannot sin if he is God. His disciples can sin because they are fully human and 0% God.

For us/his disciples/his audience there is definitely sin, guilt, punishment and reward. Jesus reminds us again and again that we can be thrown into hellfire, aka Gehinnom, an idea present in second temple era Judaism.

it states those who do not follow the ways of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgment, under the Judaic tradition — Vaskane

Happy to go to the text.

not the Judaic dogma of slavish hate and resentment towards objective values. — Vaskane

What are you talking about? Jews are monotheists and believers in objective values. One God. One set of rules; some binding towards all of humanity, others binding only for Israel.

No, the problem is that the law of proportionality allows wonton mass murder under the guise of legitimate military conduct. — Vaskane

If the “proportionality” requirement is so loose, why do you think Israel (and all countries accused of committing war crimes for that matter) would be so reluctant to accept related foreign investigations? On the other side, if the “proportionality” requirement was as strict as you wish, what are the chances that such strict requirement would be integrated and applied in international law, if a lighter version of it is already hardly tolerated and applied?
For any legal system, the issue is not just the content of the law and how to interpret it in various circumstances but also the means to enforce them. Laws, not matter how just, that can’t be enforced risk to be nothing more than flatus vocis.

If Israel believes that all it has to do to defend land from being attacked is move Israeli occupants into illegally claimed lands, then Israel uses human bodies to protect the land from being taken back. Which, by the way, is breaking International Humanitarian Law. And still using human non-combatants to protect your land from the dangers of war. Thus since Israel believes that land is protected by the humans they funnel into an area to claim it for Greater Israel, Israel technically, uses human shielding, albeit by skirting the law, and breaking it even, by moving Israeli civilians into non Israeli lands. — Vaskane

But the legal notion of “human shields” I was referring to concerns legitimate military targets (legitimate according to the laws of war) hidden behind civilians and civilian infrastructures/facilities/properties as it is claimed to be the case for Hamas in Gaza. Besides, Hamas attacks on the 7th October didn’t target Israeli settlements considered illegal under international law, as far as I can tell.

"legitimate military target" is the target of a direct strike. On the 7th October Hamas didn't attack civilian infrastructures with military value (like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets), even less of illegitimate settlements under international law. They directly killed civilians and made hostages. There is no need to muddle semantics of international law (as far as I've understood it, of course) to make your point.

I'm using the law as it's stated within the law. — Vaskane

Do you have anything compelling to support such a claim?

That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of — Vaskane

feeling compelled by claims made without a good argument or evidence to support them.

So far the Houthi don't appear to be backing down.

Honestly, I get the feeling the US and allies are falling for a trap here. Bombing campaigns are the NATO's bread and butter, and it was the predictable reaction to the Houthi attacks.

Since US diplomacy has completely failed, the "hammer" is the only tool in the West's tool box. Simultaneously the US is spread so thin that it can't afford to commit anywhere, greatly diminishing the impact of said hammer and making it almost bound to end in a dud.

Meanwhile, judging by the way Hamas has managed to mitigate the damage done by Israeli bombing strikes it appears that such actors aren't as vulnerable to this type of warfare as they once were.

How so?

It's relevant in "the end justifies the means" thinking prevalent in typical right wing thinking.

Interesting, but I assumed that Genocide was so grave a crime that nothing excused it, no excuse was sufficient to justify committing it.

The Israeli’s claim that the attack on 7th October was a genocidal act, therefore they are justified in committing genocide as a response(they vehemently deny they are committing genocide, while insisting that 7th October was a genocide).

It looks like they are engaging in cakism, (having your cake and eating it), which we are familiar with in U.K. re’ Boris Johnson.

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue. — Manuel

As others have said here, time really seem to be changing. Far away are the times when a tiny Israel faced a collection of Arab country armed to teeth by the Soviet Union, the Israel which likely Biden is thinking about.

And also Israel has changed too: I think it too has become more polarized just as other Western countries, but here decades of low intensity conflict, terrorism has made it worse.

It's not my fault if you require an answer I am unable to give.

A proportionate response.

Do with that what you will. I am also, extremely tired of people who think they have the answers to geopolitical issues like this :)

↪neomac
I'm using the law as it's stated within the law. That you can't fathom that shows you're incapable of decent analysis. Israel inadvertently makes its population human shields by assuming the law of proportionality protects the area from military operations in which it moves civilians. — Vaskane

Land is a legitimate military target. Or do you feel there's no military advantage to controlling land? It's why Israel breaks IHL 51-7

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

"SHALL NOT BE USED TO RENDER CERTAIN POINTS OR AREAS IMMUNE FROM MILITARY OPERATIONS."

Again analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point. Not sure wtf you think Area means? Surface area of the human body? No, area means environment. — Vaskane

Dude, focus, I already made my point that question such argument of yours:
1. On the 7th October Hamas didn’t target points or areas as legitimate military objectives like rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications that can be used by the military for communications or transporting assets. And the civilians that were killed and made hostage weren’t collateral damage of a strike against such legitimate military objectives, they were the illegitimate military objective: Hamas directly massacred civilians and made hostages. And as in IHL 51-6: Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51). So, by my understanding, there is no room to claim that those citizens of October massacre were used as human shield by Israel.
2. One might want to argue that Israel may use illegal settlers (ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW) as “human shields”. I doubt that even in this case the accusation would hold unless it is proven that the principle of distinction (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/distinction) has been intentionally violated by Israel as Hamas has been accused to do (https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/amnesty-international-breach-principle-distinction). In any case, the point is that the civilian targets in the attack of Hamas weren’t illegal settlers under international law.

Besides I doubt that if you use the adverb “inadvertently” you are making stronger your already weak argument.

How many Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since? — Vaskane

Irrelevant, since I’m talking about law of proportionality in jus in bello: ”The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” (https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality).
As it has been clarified also by others in this thread, the comparison of “Jews died on October 7th vs Palestinians since” is not pertinent when assessing proportionality in jus in bello.

"Tyranny of Context" by Michael Schmidt does a fair job at detailing Israel's targeting practices. — Vaskane

If that’s the article you are talking about (https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1905&context=jil) by “one of West Point leading scholars”, as far as I read it (very quickly, so correct me if I’m wrong), NOWHERE Michael Schmidt made the claim that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine. He is always talking about the usage of human shields by Israeli’s enemies, namely Hamas, see examples [1]. So this article offers no evidence to support the truth of your conditional: “Since Israel disregards 51-7 and feels the land is protected by the people they funnel into it. Then Israel uses people as human shields”.
But feel free to cite others “West Point leading scholars” arguing that Israel has used its citizens as human shield in the conflict with Hamas/Palestine or, to stay more on topic, in the massacre of October. You made me curious.

And within it shows that Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL. — Vaskane

So Israel purposefully ignores 51-7 of IHL but inadvertently makes its population human shields? I doubt your beliefs on the subject are consistent.

Interestingly enough apparently the US and Israel aren't actually bound to IHL. — Vaskane

Interesting indeed, because if they are not bound, is it reasonable to expect that Israel would feel compelled to comply with the IHL, just because IHL prohibits this or that?



[1]
Hamas’ tactics and strategy in the recent Gaza conflict were
dramatically different, but also calculated to create asymmetry. The
Gaza Strip is an almost entirely urban battlefield. Only 40
kilometers long and 10 deep, Gaza is densely packed with civilians
and civilian objects.55 Hamas exploits this reality intentionally.
During every round of hostilities in Gaza since Israel’s unilateral
disengagement, Hamas has fought almost exclusively from among
the civilian population. It employs both voluntary and involuntary
(those taken to the target area or forced to remain there) human
shields, conducts command and control from civilian homes, caches
weapons in civilian property, often fails to wear uniforms or
otherwise distinguish its fighters from civilians, prohibits or deters
civilians from leaving areas likely to be targeted, and fires rockets
from schools, mosques, United Nations facilities, and civilian
residences.56 It seeks to create asymmetry by using the law, which it
Like Hezbollah, Hamas appreciates the enormous value Israel
places on its civilian population and soldiers. To leverage these
concerns to its benefit, for example, it fires rockets indiscriminately
at Israeli civilian population centers to terrorize civilians and
provoke an Israel military response, which the international
community may perceive as heavy-handed.58 Hamas also
increasingly relies on an elaborate tunnel network. Designed to
offset the IDF’s reliance on air power and its employment of UAVs
for observation, the group has increasingly gone underground.59
Some tunnels are used to infiltrate into Israel to conduct attacks or
to overwhelm isolated IDF positions and, in particular, take
prisoners. Others are filled with explosives and detonated under
IDF positions or used as “bait”, that is, designed to be discovered by
the IDF and then detonated while its forces are inside. Still others
are used to move personnel and material within, to, and from Gaza.


78 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. [Vol. 37:1
warheads detonate in such a way as to contain and direct the blast,
and the effects of weather and other variables.
Finally, the IDF has adapted to fight under the particular
circumstances it faces – combat in urban terrain against an
adversary that routinely fails to distinguish itself from the civilian
population and uses that population and civilian objects to shield its
forces and operations from attack. Since the IDF is not
expeditionary, the IDF has been able to develop a deep
understanding of the most likely theaters of operations—Gaza,
Lebanon and the West Bank. For instance, its planners have a
granular appreciation of such critical targeting matters as the usual
pattern of civilian life in the target area, construction materials used
to build homes and other structures, and the load-bearing capacity
of roads and bridges. It is therefore especially well equipped to
precisely identify the required destructive capacity of the weapons
it employs against particular targets and the likely collateral damage
that will result from an attack.


2015] TYRANNY OF CONTEXT 115
strike. This position is styled by proponents as analogous to the
generally accepted view that workers in a munitions factory are
civilians who continue to enjoy their protected status despite an
activity that plainly contributes to the conflict. Along the same lines,
if members of an organized armed group carry them out, the
activities do not amount to a continuous combat function that would
permit targeting the individuals based solely on membership in the
group.
Israel and the Authors view such activity as direct participation
in hostilities. This is both a principled position and a practical one
in light of the fact that rockets pose a threat to Israel’s civilian
population, are built in or near the battle area, and are the weapon
with the greatest potential for bringing those who use it success in
the conflict (however success might be defined). To conclude
otherwise would ignore the military necessity element underlying
the LOAC and, quite simply, be illogical in light of the reality of the
conflicts Israel faces. Interestingly, the MAG officers asked would
not offer an opinion on whether individuals transporting weapons
through the tunnels into Gaza are directly participating in
hostilities. Both of the Authors would readily conclude they are so
participating on the basis of the proximity to the area of combat and
the immediacy of the use of the weapons.

5.4. Human Shields
The IDF regularly confronts the use of human shields by its
enemies.172 According to Additional Protocol I, Article 57(7),
“[T]he presence or movements of the civilian population or
individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points
or areas immune from military operations, in particular in
attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to
shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to
the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian”
Although most States, including the United States and Israel,174
accept these provisions as reflecting customary law, the
interpretation thereof has been the source of significant controversy
since it was highlighted during the Interpretive Guidance project.175
The project’s debate surrounded the distinction between individuals
who voluntarily shield a target, as when individuals go to a target
in order to shield it from attack, and those who shield involuntarily,
as in the case of weapons placed in a school occupied by students
and teachers unaware of the presence of the weapons. Israel has
faced both situations. For instance, the IDF often warns individuals
in a building to be attacked to leave the facility. In some cases,
Hamas responds by urging people to come to the target area in order
to deter the Israeli attack. More commonly used is the practice of
conducting military activities, such as launching rockets, from the
top of, or next to, inhabited buildings, like apartment complexes and
schools




This is especially the case with respect to urban areas such as Gaza
where civilians and civilian objects are collocated with fighters and
military objectives. Moreover, Israel’s opponents, as described
earlier, have adopted a strategy of operating near civilians and
civilian objects and using civilians as human shields, both
voluntarily and involuntarily. This further enhances the degree of
uncertainty attendant to IDF strikes.


As an example, given the propensity of Israel’s
enemies to use human shields, it is unsurprising that Israel has taken
the position that individuals voluntarily acting in this manner are to
be treated as direct participants in hostilities. In light of its enemies’
frequent failure to distinguish itself from the civilian population, it
is equally unsurprising that Israel has embraced the principle of
reasonableness with respect to target identification. Perhaps most
noteworthy is the high value Israel places on the safety of its soldiers
and its civilian population.

It's not my fault if you require an answer I am unable to give. — AmadeusD

Do you really not have a preference over who should have won WW2, the Allies or Japan and Nazi Germany? I find that hard to believe.

You may find it so. But I don't know enough to make a call. The current situation seems fine, but i have no basis for comparison.

A preference is very different from who should have won, by the way. I'd be happy to give a preferential call based on what I know, but i couldn't in good conscience say that's who should have won.

I'm sure as white, European male i'd have done alright had it gone another way; I just plum dont knoiw

A proportionate response. — AmadeusD

So, like, kill 1200 Hamas?

I mean, that's one thing which would come under that banner, imo.

Unsure what you're intimating though, so will refrain from comment beyond that.

preference is very different from who should have won, by the way. I'd be happy to give a preferential call based on what I know, but i couldn't in good conscience say that's who should have won. — AmadeusD

OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis?

You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it. — Vaskane

You might even have a point here. But keep in mind several things:
1) The conflict has been going on since 1947, with the first move being the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181. From then on, no one cared what the UN resolved, it seems. But what did "rejection" mean? It meant the Israeli war of Independence (lasted over 9 months), whereby Israel had to fight to even maintain not being pushed into the sea. It won and the borders that are now the position of the Oslo Accords (or thereabouts), was where that armistice line ended up being.

2) However, instead of creating a Palestinian state (that wasn't even conceived yet until the PLO in 1964), the goal was again to wipe out Israel instead of form a "two state solution", and thus Israel had to defend itself from annihilation again in 1967. They won that as well, now holding Gaza from Egypt, West Bank from Jordan (being that it was the "West Bank" of the Jordan River), and the Saini peninsula from Egypt.

3) Right after 1967, there was a plea made from Israel that the Arab nations had to disavow their destruction of Israel goal, and make peace and they would give back the newly obtained land. The Arab countries responded with the three No's.. (No peace with Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No recognition of Israel).

4) Eventually Egypt did recognize and negotiate with Israel, as they wanted the Saini back. Jordan also normalized relations in 1994. Black September and the killing of the Jordanian prime minister in the 70s didn't help much with Jordan's relations with Palestinians, etc.

5) After a protracted war with the PLO in Jordan and then in Lebanon in the 80s, there was a movement to recruit the retired Arafat from Tunisia back into Palestine to negotiate a two state solution. This was around 1988. So here we have the first "intifada" and then shortly after the Oslo Accords.

6) The West Bank and Gaza were given 95% of what they wanted, with considerations that Israel had for security, as it was impossible after the previous wars for them to consider absolutely NO security measures. Besides which, Hamas was bombing Israel throughout the 90s and early 2000s, and it was CLEAR that security HAD to be part of the negotiations, lest they become even more weakened at a future point. Arafat could not except it, because, as someone else in this thread alluded to, "making peace in the Middle East is deadly". Rabin was shot, but the negotiations eventually continued with Ehud Barak. Didn't happen, second intifada ensued with even more Hamas bombings of cafes, busses, street corners, etc. Sharon responded by putting up the wall. He also pulled settlers out of Gaza.

7) Gazans voted IN Hamas, the very organization who was responsible for most of the deadly suicide bombings throughout the whole peace process, showing the "Fuck you" to the move to self-rule.

8) After 2008, Israel moved to the right as Hamas sent rockets over.. and then led to opportunists like Netanyahu and Smotrich etc. to use Hamas as proof that they could run roughshod in the West Bank with more settlements, and ignoring Abbas (who also didn't make it easy basically being afraid to make concessions himself.. but needed to hold power because Hamas would have been voted in the West Bank too.. Which would have widened this war and probably had it come sooner had they won the West Bank)..

Anyways, all of this is to show that none of this took place in vacuum, and it didn't JUST start with Netanyahu's policies. But was also pushed along, mainly, by Palestinian overtures against any negotiation, moderation, or peace. This led the opportunity for Netanyahu to enact his agenda, which was also not good. But legitimized it the more Hamas acted. That is to say, cause-and-effect is a thing when it comes to security matters and state formation. All the moves of Arab countries and then Palestinian independence (a very recent thing really not evolving to its current formation until Oslo Accords), led Israel down a rightward move towards downplaying peace. To many Israelis, it seems, the more they got towards peace, the more Hamas et al, would ramp up suicide bombings, attacks, and the like. Then a common quote would be "We just can't negotiate with them.. They say one thing and their terrorist wing does another thing. They aren't committed to peace"). And then they become hardened that containment is better than opening the lid to the container.

Actually it's been ongoing since WWI. — Vaskane

Sure we can go back even to 1937's Peele Commission recommendation which would have made Israel a tiny enclave near the Galilee.. The Arab neighbors, wouldn't even accept this (and the impetus prior to the Holocaust, was not there for Western nations to care enough).

And today's Israel has always been stolen land — Vaskane

So right. Being that this is first and foremost in your thought-process it seems, the rest of your arguments I honestly don't think matters as it is from this initial perspective that you arguing from (i.e. Israel shouldn't EVEN exist).

You provide the solution FIRST dumb ass, not cause the conflict first. — Vaskane

I don't know what you mean. The solution for Arabs was no Jewish state, period. Clearly, that wasn't a solution for Jews. So that outcome was rejected by Jews. That caused the Jews to seek independence, and they held their ground.

Perhaps, but you certainly don't just dump a million people from what they had to nothing and be like. "Yeah, we're God's Chosen bruh, da fuqs 0usta h3r3! — Vaskane

Well, being that there was never going to be some peaceful negotiation from the start, this seemed to be inevitable being the interest of the two groups.

You American? — Vaskane

Why is that pertinent?

Give your home to a Native American, and make a video for us all to see. If you wont then I see how you really feel about Israel too. — Vaskane

I'd be for a Native American state that is completely independent and not just reservations. If you remember, the Middle East was largely just districts within the Ottoman Empire, not their own nations. Nationalism, was instilled by Westerners. But if we were to inject the same 19th century notion of "nation for a state", just like Liberia was created for ex-slaves by the US prior to the Civil War, if there was a "Nation of First Nations of the American Continent", taken from public lands (there's plenty of that in the US and much more fertile than anything Israel was given in the Negev), then sure why not.

Differences of course are that the Middle East, being occupied by the Arabs since the Arab Conquest in the 600-700s, could be representative of the Americans.. Just like Israel was willing to accept at one point, even the tiny Peele Commission enclave, being that they are not going back to perfectly aligned ancient lands (like "Judea and Samaria" which is technically in the West Bank), and knowing that it is reconstituted, for modern notions of nationalism, sure, why not? Not sure if that would be something the Native American tribal nations would want per se.