Interesting piece by a good journalist on the IDF campaign.
https://lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n03/tom-stevenson/rubble-from-bone

I don’t find this image particularly enlightening.

My analogy was to illustrate that the U.S. is the senior party here, not wise, but in the position of a power broker in the Middle East. Israel is perceived by her neighbours as a U.S. outpost in the Middle East. Now Israel is showing highly aggressive behaviour and the U.S. is trying to keep a lid on it. That’s all.
Yes I see the strength of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and the political sensitivity. It places the administration between a rock and a hard place. They are scared to enrage the lobby while wanting to tell Israel to show restraint. Biden, like Sunak and Starmer in the U.K. and leaders in the EU don’t want to be labelled as anti-Semite. This renders them powerless to stop Netanyahu running riot.

Netanyahu finds himself in the position of having great power, in that he has the backing of the Western powers, who are scared to step out of line. He could singlehanded initiate a wider regional war and draw in the Western powers. He can eliminate the Palestinians, which he has dreamt of for decades and be given cover by the West. Alternatively he could now extend the hand of friendship to the Palestinians and Arab neighbours from this position of great power and bring a period of peace and prosperity to the region.

This also puts Netanyahu in a vulnerable position in his own country. The competing political forces in Israel will be imploring him to go this way, or that. They may already have him in a stranglehold.

Yes Isreal is in the crossroads between East and West, and in antiquity between Africa, Europe and Asia. Between Christendom and Islam. All the more reason for her to become a mediator and broker of peace in the region. Instead the psychological trauma, I fear, of their past won’t allow it. It might in the end drag the Jewish people back into exile.

But this problem may also depend on some implicit assumptions that mislead our understanding of the problem itself.

Yes there is a risk of that, although provided these contradictions are understood one can reach a balanced reading of the situation.

For example I am deeply critical of some foreign policy strategy and choices made by the US (the command and administration working through these crises in partnership). While at the same time would dearly love the international peace and order maintained by US hegemony to continue.
It’s true there is a facade of “a free and fair society for all” while behind the scenes there is a more complex geopolitical struggle going on. In which the rules are bent and the history whitewashed. But what is the alternative?

I often think what a China hegemony might be like. I think there would probably be much less war and more prosperity on the good side, while behind the scenes it could be a 1984 (George Orwell) scenario. We have the example of the reintegration of Hong Kong into China as an example.

Going back to the issue at hand, I see the problem as Israel not abiding by anything reasonable and within the bounds of the US hegemony. Israel is an unruly child of the US, poking their neighbours in the eye and stamping their feet. While the parent (the US) is trying to calm the situation and avoid a row between the parents.

Now we have a contradiction at the heart of the US policy. They want to avoid a war while at the same time thinking strategically how they could have war with Iran, take Iran out. Without upsetting the apple cart, using Israel’s plight as an excuse. Presumably they would whitewash the genocide of the Gazan people, as an unfortunate consequence of bigger goals. More important regional strategic interests and stability.

And it seems to me the Israeli claim for the well-being and return of the hostages is even more valid, and they may very well "rake" for them.

They’ll be raking for them in the soil, for that is all that will be left of Gaza.

Please don’t feel you will be rejected if you bring up eastern philosophy on this site. There are a handful of people here with an interest. I am one of the resident mystics, one might say.

Although if you start a thread, unless you find some like minded people to respond, it often stalls as the majority of posters tend to lose interest.

Yes I see that and agree. There is a situation where the absence of freedom due to obstacles can be challenged. It requires action for there to be an encounter with an obstacle.

For example, someone who meditates seeks to disengage with obstacles. To achieve a state in which he/she is free of obstacles. When they achieve this state they are entirely free of obstacles and no less free than they were before they began meditating. A state of samadhi is entirely free of obstacles.

So stillness is entirely free of obstacles and therefore entirely free.

"There is no such thing as absolute freedom"

That’s quite a claim, if the definition is “absence of obstacles”.

Surely you mean to say, I, or philosophy, can’t conceive of absolute freedom.

Ummm.... just who has crossed the Rubicon? Or have both crossed the Rubicon? :shade:

I mean Israel has now crossed the Rubicon. In the future even if they are able to have good relations with their neighbours, they will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Because their action will spawn many anti-Israel terrorists.

How so?

I did say if the ICJ verdict is genocide and the ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine people has happened.
I’m thinking in terms of terrorist action. I don’t doubt that eventually the Arab League would be able to reach some sort of peace with Israel. But I think the rubicon has been crossed when it comes to terrorist action.

Israel would be condemned to a future of repeated suicide bombings and other terrorist action. I’m not sure the Israeli people would put up with this, so would become isolated.

A very powerful talk by Chris Hedges. He pulls no punches.

Good speech, sums it up nicely.

All right. I would still add that for both Palestinians and Israelis the problem is not just the idea of being historically wronged and dispossessed but also the pursuit of a political status, that of a nation state (very much a Western idea). And nation state formation has been historically proven to be very bloody, if not genocidal. Besides there is the clash of religious factions that is complicating things from biblical times, so not strictly related to the wrongs that the Jewish people suffered in their recent history or Palestinians suffered from the recent history of the Zionist project.

Yes it’s a very complex situation, but not at all unique and inevitable when territory is invaded/colonised and the existing population expelled and treated as second class citizens, through some form of apartheid.
Indeed there is another similar conflict in Myanmar happening now. In which the Rohingya ethnic minority for example are suffering a brutal ethic cleansing.

I suppose what is different here is that the ethnic cleansing is being carried out and endorsed by Western forces who are bound by human rights protocols and live by, or so they proclaim the morality of free and fair societies. Or in other words by the US via its client state Isreal and fully endorsed by the U.K. the previous colonial power in the region. Following promises and treaties guaranteeing to a degree autonomy and territory to the population now being cleansed. (I realise that the U.K. has done this before in other territories in the 19th century).

So what has gone wrong in this case?

Well there are two sides, attacks have been going on from both sides for decades, so it didn’t start on 7th October. That was just a point of escalation. The situation has become gradually worse over decades in a situation of apartheid rule by one side. So it would seem to me that the blame, or root of this crisis lies in the rule of the ruling side. The ruling side insists always that it is it’s oppressed population which is the root of the problem. Again this narrative is a symptom of what’s wrong in the rule of the ruling side.

This leaves me in the position where there is a crisis caused by a problem in the rule of Israel. What is going on in Israel which finds itself unable to live in peace and deescalate relations with its oppressed population.

One possibility is that apartheid states always fail. But if this is the case, surely the rulers of Israel would have realised by now that their apartheid rule will eventually fail. But rather than realise this, they have just increased the oppression, in a cycle of repeated conflict and greater increases in oppression. Accompanied by a gradually more extreme politics. With extreme meaning less rational and more oppressive.

So in conclusion I reach the point where the entire responsibility for the situation lies in the psyche of the ruling elites in Israel. With a side order of some osmosis with the US.

A failed attempt at nation building perhaps?

One thing we have to remember is that Israel's neighbors are Third World countries, and so is Iran too. They simply don't have the economy to really compete with Israel. That they end up like Iraq or Syria is a far likely possibility than them becoming so powerful to really take on (again) Israel.

But the biggest attack on the US since WW2 was carried out with a camping knife. Yes in terms of conventional weaponry Isreal is far more powerful. But if they are defiant against their neighbours then they will have to be an isolated fortress. A sitting duck bristling with weapons. Any interaction with their neighbours would compromise their security.

Going back to the umbilical chord, is this really what the US wants to be tied to? Especially if the ICJ verdict is that genocide and ethnic cleansing has happened. Look at the power brokers involved, Trump and Netanyahu, Biden is a rational actor in this, but the US political situation is on a precipice and helpless to correct it. Even a civil war may not be far off in the US.

I heard a U.S. general on the radio just yesterday saying that this is our chance to take Iran out. We should go in hard now. Presumably taking their eye off the ball in Ukraine.

I agree that the risk of the Middle East becoming a collection of failed states is high. But then Israel becomes even more isolated and perhaps paranoid (they seem to be paranoid now).

Yes I see this. But I also see an arms race in the Middle East though (on the assumption that Israel continues with the ethnic cleansing and remains defiant). They would become a fortress bristling with weapons. Presumably they would want US bases in Israel too.

I’m not looking to make a formal moral argument, rather to seek a cause for the Israel Palestine conflict. I see the reality of the Jewish Diaspora over the last 2,000yrs or so having to live as immigrants in other countries, exiled from their homeland with no homeland of their own as a possible cause.
There are examples of other ethnic groups where something similar has happened, including the Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli’s after the formation of Israel. I could list these disposed peoples, but I expect you already know.
It is human nature to feel wronged when dispossessed of their home and often they feel resentful, or seek to regain their home. On other occasions they might internalise the trauma and try to live with it, make the best of it. But what if it were to keep happening every few hundred years for 2,000yrs, culminating in the Holocaust. That would inevitably become internalised and cause those people to behave in a different way to peoples who had not been dispossessed. Even to visit what they experienced on some other group.

I see what you were saying now, it was about the US withdrawing their bases from the Middle East. I was thinking more in terms of the US retreating in their support for Israel if there is a wider war.

Anyway, I don’t see a fortress, a defiant Israel feeling secure in the Middle East having ethnically cleansed Palestine. They would be dependent on an umbilical cord to the US and judging by the state of politics in the US at the moment that cord could be severed at some point in the future.

It may be so that in the end the US will have to withdraw like France did from the Sahel.

And Israel too, presumably?

What you are describing is the inevitable result of having an enquiring mind.
Enquiring minds have contemplated this conundrum for millennia and what they came up with are scientific, religious, philosophical and mystical explanations.

Presumably you have already read much of the literature and are enquiring a bit deeper. So what in particular are you looking for an answer to?

Yes, I can’t see a global coalition forming at the moment, although it might not be necessary. A coalition of Middle Eastern leaders might be able to get somewhere.

I don’t hold out much hope though as the US, U.K. and EU are holding the line of supporting the side with overwhelming power. And as you say this is not going to help Israel in the long run.

If Israel fails and even evacuates, the trauma on the Jewish people will compound the previous trauma of exile.

The BRICS grouping is evidence of an alternative to US hegemony. However I doubt it will result in much turmoil. I see us moving into a period of three great powers, or fortresses, the US, the EU and China. Who will cooperate to maintain some stability for their members and close allies. With many failed states struggling outside. With climate change becoming the big crisis on people’s minds.

I'm well aware that this is a problem - perhaps the central problem. Equal rights for Palestinians is not compatible with the idea of a Jewish nation state.

Yes, I agree with your analysis, my pessimism might be slightly greater than yours though.

I come back to the moral argument I laid out a couple of days ago. That the Jewish people have been wronged, exiled for 2,900yrs. The trauma and modification in their culture to adapt to this runs deep.
Somehow they are transferring some of this pain onto the Palestinian people.

Also I refer to my point about the human condition. Human frailty, that we like to think ourselves as moral thinking actors, but so often find ourselves falling back into tribal and survival behaviours which we have evolved in us over millions of years.

In a sense we have reached a pivotal point here in the development of civilisation. Do we finally grow up and act as a global community to help these people out and build a stronger United Nations. Or do we fail again, remain divided, tribal, to sit by and watch the continual spread of failed states across the world.

What’s the failure?

Simply The West can only see barbarians and the Arab world can only see infidels. Your own description of Hamas portrays them as barbarians, understandably. To Hamas Israel are imperial colonisers, understandably.

There is a massive cultural divide which has been there and reinforced for over a thousand years.

The UN continues to beclown itself.

This is inevitable in such a caldron of apartheid and oppression. To characterise this as the UN as a sympathiser, or colluding with Hamas is a distortion which plays into Israel’s hands.

Now the UN is compromised, a coalition of international funders of aid has pulled out. Who just happen to be Israel’s main Western supporters.

And 2 million Palestinians face imminent starvation.

Israel will be bellicose in its cries blaming others for the genocide now.

So in this morality of the Thunderdome,

I think we can see what you’re saying here.
This is what is going to have to be dealt with though. There seems to be a failure by “The West” and by extension Israel to understand Arabic culture and morality. This isn’t confined to this arena, it applies to all Middle Eastern situations. Also there is likely an analogous failure on the other side too.

As I've argued before, I believe the only way forward is to give Palestinians equal rights, forget the two-state solution, and turn Israel as it is now into a nation where both peoples can live together.

The Israeli’s won’t agree to this because it will result in Palestinians (Arabs) becoming elected into government at some stage. Due to the Palestinian population growing faster than the Jewish population.

I’m quite skeptical about your last claim. Whom/what is “modern civilisation” referring to? Why does “modern civilisation” have a duty “for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians”?

It’s a moral argument. An argument about the concept that the Jewish people have been wronged by the world (civilisation). That the current conflict is a symptom of this wrong and that to resolve this crisis this wrong will need to be put right in some way.

“Modern civilisation” for me is the human world of the last 2000yrs or so. Or perhaps from the point of the exile of the Jews in 800 BC, or thereabouts*. This whole period of civilisation was involved in the wrong and the evolution of the psychology and narrative of the state, or geopolitics of this time.

If one doesn’t accept this moral argument then we are not anymore addressing the moral argument applicable to this crisis. That’s fine, but we will be ignoring an important facet of the issue.

As far as I'm concerned, my understanding is that the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has to do with state-nation formation over the same piece of land, by two competing nations historically bent on preserving their national identity and security at the expense of the rival nation.

Well I would agree that this is what we see before us now. However we can’t ignore the way this formation was handled by the powers at the time. Not to forget the moral argument and the history of the peoples involved.

So either the feud continues forever or one succeeds in being genocidal against the other, i.e. it expels or exterminates the rival nation, or one nation dominates the other by assimilation or partial citizenship (Jews have historically experienced all these solutions on their skin).

The implications of any of these outcomes for the wider region, or world security may be complex, or unforeseen .

Other powerful states can intervene to impose a solution which is convenient to them (because the instability of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is detrimental to their interests),

Well we are witnessing the US hegemony at the moment. Which is only deepening the crisis and will likely have either of three outcomes. An unstable fortress Israel state. The failure of the Israeli state, or some wider conflagration.

The problem I would focus on is not the horror of zillions of Palestinian kids exploding under Israeli bombs or the historical traumas of the Israelis, but why we are powerless over this conflict.

Quite, and what do you put it down to?

* I accept that civilisation over the last 2000yrs or so is complex with a dynamic geopolitics and is not confined to The West. However I would argue that this whole period is involved in the development of the current global zeitgeist.

Here's a two-state solution and how to get there:

Yes, I agree, but it’s not happening any time soon. Unless it’s imposed from outside, that is.

Thanks for the confirmation that it was a fake video.

Yes, I agree about the achievements of Jewish people over the millennia and how the Diaspora has played an important formative role in modern civilisation. I welcome this and the continued contribution. It pains me that their exile has not yet ended as they don’t as yet have a secure homeland.
The Middle East has not been treated well by empire and before that the crusades and before that Rome etc. The Jewish Diaspora has been passed from pillar to post for millennia. Exile and persecution inevitably repeated over the centuries.
I fear that this rift, this trauma is deepening and when human frailty is taken into consideration (what I was saying about the trauma of the realisation of the human condition). The world and geopolitics of this time is not equipped to put this right through conventional diplomatic, or other means.

I agree with what Gershon Baskin said in an interview with Matt Frei yesterday (UK channel4 news at 7pm, 23/01/24). Unfortunately I was unable to link to the interview, here is a brief summary of what he said.

“ What is happening imposes a danger to regional and international security.
Time for UK, US, European nations to recognise the state of Palestine. Remove the veto on Palestinian statehood from Israel. International community needs to work with Israel, Palestine, and neighbours to work out regional architecture for security, stability and economic development.
“Israel will not have security if Palestinians don’t have freedom and dignity, and Palestinians won’t have freedom and dignity if Israel doesn’t have security.”

Basically a global effort (UN) to put Israel and Palestine into special measures until a solution can be found and worked towards. This would need to be maintained indefinitely, for generations until something concrete is established.

Our modern civilisation has a duty here, for global security and to right the wrong of the exile of the Jews and the subsequent exile of the Palestinians.

All these core assumptions deserve to be investigated and questioned as applied also to the conflict we are discussing. They all are potential sources of mystification.

I’m thinking more of anthropology rather than mysticism here. A study of human nature and how humanity and civilisation come to terms with human nature.

These terms include the trauma of this realisation and the post traumatic psychological effects.

Regarding the Jewish people they have struggled with exile for at least 2,900 years. This trauma has been repeated and reinforced numerous times since.

In terms of civilisation ‘a people’ is associated with a homeland. A land where their identity and sense of belonging in a world of people’s is rooted.

Something is happening, has happened, in which the Jewish people are repeatedly exiled, without roots, persecuted.

What is going on here?

What is missing for the Jewish people?

In the literature it's known as "the hard problem of calling the Jews".

Yes, are we getting to the nub of the issue here?

Are we dealing with a traumatised psyche, not just of the Jewish people, but of civilisation as a whole. Why is the concept of genocide so worrying? It must have happened many times in prehistory, prior to modern civilisation.

And how does it happen that listening to both sides - or trying to - attending to the news, and thinking about it, is crap?

We have to wade through propaganda, vested interests, media control and bias and try to remain unbiased ourselves.

I suspect that the Israeli government is looking to reduce the number of children in Gaza. By dropping mines that resemble cans of food on a starving population.

https://x.com/ShaykhSulaiman/status/1749801408566583732?s=20

Yes, but if we refer to the diaspora of the Jews across the world, we are talking about the ethno-religious group,

Yes this is the group I was referring to. The Jewish people as a whole, an ethno-religious group. If I were referring to the aggressors in Israel I would likely say Zionist, or Netanyahu’s government.

Zionists

No that doesn’t work. Because it refers to people involved in establishing the Jewish homeland in Israel. This leaves out the wider Jewish diaspora across the world.

And yet Netanyahu’s words and actions do impact the lives of everyone in the world who identifies as a Jew, or of Jewish heritage.

When I speak of these people, how would I refer to them without using the word Jew?

What I think is important most of all, is to stop talking about "the Jews" as though it is some monolithic entity.

Yes, I see this. How do you suggest we describe these people and groups of people?
I would use alternative terminology, but don’t know any other.

I am aware of the circumstance where there are a large number of people of the Jewish diaspora around the world who would distance themselves from actions of the Israeli state. But how would I refer to them?

I agree. There is a problem here though. Israel is in a hole and by default all Jews are in a compromised position.

There is a peculiar feature of racism and accusations of racism. They are very sticky, even to use the word taints one with racism, (it’s not so sticky on a philosophy forum because it is treated as a sociological concept). Every time the accusation of anti-semite is used, it brings along a whole juggernaut of baggage, disrespect, contempt, distrust and taints the speaker with racism.

So to an extent, using the phrase anti-semite is counterproductive and deepens the rift between Jews and everyone else.

This raises the issue of the fate of the Jews and how they adjust to and are treated by and in civilisation as a whole. (I may start a thread about this as it is the elephant in the room)

It gives lots of wriggle room and lets apologists etc off the hook. While shutting down any discussion of the predicament Israel and therefore the Jewish diaspora find themselves in.

Who is the leader of your race/religion? Who do I go to if I need to speak to, e.g., the leader of the black people? Take me to your leader so you can become blameworthy through him.

That’s a weak and nebulous response.

Let’s turn that around, say I’m a concerned Jew who is the representative leader of my people who I can go to and implore him/her to show restraint in Gaza?

Judaism is an ethnicity... it's an ethno-religion. It accepts converts but does not actively seek them out. There are many different sects.

Then why the equivocation?
When I said the Jewish people I was referring to the ethnic group. Which should have been obvious to you.
This equivocation is used widely to accuse people critical of Israeli action of anti-semitism. The Jewish lobby around the world is using it as a smokescreen, a sleight of hand to excuse the Jewish people of accountability for the reckless behaviour of Netanyahu.

Cakeism again.

Would be Assad or Raisi be representative for Arabs? When Assad kills 500,000 of his own people does that represent Arabs around the world? Netanyahu is the head of state in Israel and nothing more. He is not a rabbi. He holds no religious post. Jews are not blameworthy through his actions.

Blah blah blah…. Netanyahu is nothing to do with the Jewish people. He’s just some despot in the Middle East, nothing to do with us.

Cakeism.

And yet we are left with a vacuum of leadership of the Jewish people. A people spread across the world, devoid of a homeland. A people who do now have a homeland thanks to it being accepted and recognised by the international community. But when it, the state of Isreal breaks international law, becomes an international pariah and indiscriminately slaughters a captive people of another ethnicity intending to annex their land.

Oh, it’s nothing to do with us, that land over there in the Middle East. That’s just some despot. Oh and by the way don’t criticise me for feeling insecure when someone points out I’m Jewish, or links me to this despot. You’re an anti-Semite.

Cakeism all the way.

Judaism is both a religion and a people, but not a race. One can't convert to a race, but one can convert to Judaism.

The difference here is that Judaism is an ideology, a lifestyle. The Jewish people are a genealogical group, a biological lineage.
It’s not complicated, this equivocation is often encountered in relation to Jews.

Who speaks for black people? Who speaks for the Arabs? No one has appointed Netanyahu "spokesperson for the Jews."

A black, or Arabic leader from a black, or Arabic country would step forward and speak.

Who speaks for the Jewish people, who is leading now that a Country of Jewish people is under threat and has been taken to the International Criminal court?