I think the German people have had a good and thorough discussion of this.

Might be good to look at that.

It’s not a counterfactual (I’m still arguing for a past possibility). And if there was no such a time, then I don’t know why I should assume that Palestinians would “opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck”. To me, it makes sense to assess possibilities for agents to determine their fate only in their given historical circumstances. So if the Palestinians couldn’t profit from that opportunity back then due to their historical grievances (which I do not need to question), I have even less reasons to believe that they would act otherwise later on when their historical grievances, say, doubled. — neomac

If you are talking about 1948, isn't it obvious that it wasn't just an issue of the Palestinians somehow being here the culprits? Don't forget that when the British left, it was the neighboring Arab nations going on the attack NOT to liberate the Palestinians and create a Palestinian country, but simply to take land for themselves. It was free land for them to take...and perhaps kick back the Jewish Europeans, right? Palestinians came to be the focus when they couldn't get that land.

And then don't forget the other side also. Ask yourself, who killed Folke Bernadotte? As you should notice, at that time also the Israeli side wasn't some unified actor benevolently hoping to share the land with the Palestinians. So your alternative reasoning simply doesn't add up.

There's simply too much of a lure to use violence as the answer to the underlying problem.

No I didn’t forget it but the Oslo accords came from vulnerable political leaders with little backing from the people they were supposed to represent, indeed they couldn’t stop Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli settlement expansions in the interim period of negotiations. — neomac

Exactly, now those political leaders could have prevailed if it genuinely would have brought peace. The real question is if really even with a written peace deal on paper celebrated on the White House lawn, would it have been carried through by the "River-to-the-Sea" Likud party and the "River-to-the-Sea" Palestine militant factions? Because all it takes is a small cabal of terrorists blowing up something... or one ultra-zionist assassin to shoot an Israeli prime minister.

Too many people are delighted that the conflict endures and too easily the fear, anger and will for revenge can be instilled.

Especially when you kill the Israeli prime minister, the settlements expanding (as you said) and the terrorist attacks happen. And then you have the intifada. As I've stated again, on both sides there have been those against a peace process. And they now hold de facto power. Just look at what has come of the Israeli Labor party and how weak the PLO that laid down it's arms and is acts as the PA (when the original idea was that the authority would be for a short time and end in 1999).

I wouldn't be too surprised if some Israeli administration in the future decides to demolish the Dome of the Rock (built by Muslims over the holy site) and Al-Aqsa mosque and built a new Jewish temple there. As the spokesmen for an organization hoping this would done said in an interview of former Knesset member Yehuda Glick admitted earlier those purposing this were considered zealots, lunatics, fringe and now they are mainstream.

I have seen some ultrafinitists go so far as to challenge the existence of 2 100 2 100 as a natural number, in the sense of there being a series of “points” of that length
— Harvey Friedman, Philosophical Problems in Logic

That reminds me of intuitionists or at the very least of psychologists in the ontology of mathematics, where the number 2^100 does not exist until it is thought up. — Lionino

This reminds me of the axiomatic systems that perhaps some animals (or people) have: nothing, 1, 2,3,4, many. When you think of it, it's quite useful for up to a point.

You get the same effect when you take a boat on a reservoir, up toward the dam, the higher the dam the better. It's like empirical proof that the earth is flat, and you're at the edge of the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I've always pondered how few people go to a port or to the seashore and simply look at how large ships simply "sink" into the horizon far earlier than they become tiny specs. But I guess flat Earthers just have this habit of going with the crazy and being against the tyrannical science & math we "sheeple" so blindly accept and follow. It makes them special.



And because the math is extremely hard:

And note it's called a theorem.

Exactly. But that's irrelevant for those who push the insane idea that this war could have been prevented if the West would have done things differently. NATO expansion is naturally one reason, but Crimea itself and the role that Ukraine has had in the Russian Empire is a greater reason. NATO membership would be off the table just by the show of force.

And this fact that Russia has been an Empire (if for some time called Soviet Union) is the basic reason just why the countries wanted so much into NATO. Even now Finland and Sweden too.

The Putin interview. Just like Trump on Fox. Only that Putin is a smarter politician than Trump.

But do notice one important fact: where Putin starts. He starts from history from the creation of Rus, hence for the long term here is something really important for Putin. Westerners typically don't give a shit about history or anything that happened a decade ago, but for Putin history (and his role in Russian history) means a lot. He isn't focused much in the next elections, but the long run. Hence the importance to what for example Putin has written about Ukraine and Russia is very important in understanding this war. And that simply refutes any idea that this was just about NATO expansion (and if that hadn't happened, Russia/Putin wouldn't care about Ukraine).

Infinity pools can indeed be awesome: :starstruck:

The promise wasn't to the Palestinians nor explicitly/specifically about Palestine, if you are referring to the Hussein-McMahon agreements (whose actual content is still disputed given its critical textual ambiguities). — neomac

That's true. And you can see from the example of Iraq how difficult these countries are to manage, when borders are drawn by actually thinking about the people living there.

What came after concerning Palestine were the decisions of a colonial power and the UN. — neomac

With the UN we are already talking about post-WW2 era. Then the conflict between the Jewish and the Palestinians was already in full swing.

“Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place” refers to a counterfactual situation and a rather farfetched one since it is construed on the premise that colonial powers wouldn’t rule over their foreign territories the way they want if they can. — neomac

Of course it's an counterfactual, but your question was already a counterfactual!

But similar "control" didn't happen when Austro-Hungary and the Russian Empire collapsed. Yes, that got us wars in and after WW1, but there was no incentive to create Mandate control. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, the West had even more grand ideas how to partition the Empire, but the Turks simply fought back. And perpetrated a genocide, actually.

My question is about a time in the Palestinian history as it actually enfolded in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state — neomac

But that's totally counterfactual. There hasn't been such time. Or there may have been, but it's on the counterfactual. That possible time ended when Yigal Amir killed Yitzhak Rabin. Then it was over. And then you got the vicious circle of attacks and counterattacks which the hawks enjoyed on both sides. The hawks enjoyed each other so much, that actually Bibi supported Hamas by funding them! It makes perfect sense for Bibi.

And it seems that you totally forget or ignore that PLO actually stopped it's fight against Israel and did recognize it. Or that isn't enough of "show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity along with Israelis as an independent state"? Oh but they didn't finalize the peace process... well, because those who celebrated that Rabin was dead came to power.

So let's assume that we would have gotten a peace deal with Labor party and the PLO. Would Bibi have been OK with it? Would it have made the settlements not to grow? I think it could easily have been a piece of paper, which time would have passed. That's my point about you talking about a counterfactual.

The Oslo peace process is dead and a note in history. And it's dead because the US is totally fine with the present government doing what it is doing. Israel doesn't need anything else than the backing of the US. They worried about this backing when the Cold War ended, but not anymore. Why?

I've over and over again: the religious zealots are now in control. And it's not only those in Hamas who see dead Palestinians as martyrs that go to heaven and those Ultra-Zionists who dream of larger Israel without Palestinians, it's also those totally insane Evangelists in the US, for whom supporting Israel hasn't anything to do with foreign policy. For them supporting Israel is for them an issue of faith. Because Israel is the Holy Land. And when those Evangelists outnumber Jewish-Americans (of whom many are critical to the actions of the Netanyahu administration), it's a slam dunk. To win votes in the US, you have to favor Israel. Doesn't matter if few "leftist hippies" are angry about it, it's the culture war, baby! The US will support Israel no matter what.

This war will likely escalate.

The UNWRA case seems to have worked as you describe. For instance my country was among those who decided this, unlike other Nordic countries. Seems that after bowing to the Soviet Union (which is called Finlandization), this administration feels the urge to bow to the US. And there's hardly any media coverage in the mainstream media than a few recounts of October 7th.

October 7th was the first realistic chance they had to go full-on genocide. They couldn't have done that under the gaze of the rest of the world without a really good bit of provocation. And they got it. — bert1

This is actually the real tragedy here. Because if it would have been another administration, then yes, naturally we would have had the war... but perhaps no ICJ ruling. No Israeli Cabinet members celebrating on a conference how they will put up new settlements in Gaza and no talk of 'voluntary' moving of Palestinians from Gaza. That would be just the "ordinary" political rhetoric going around in Israel which we wouldn't have to take seriously.

And in truth, less Palestinians killed, even if it likely would be many thousands. These body counts are really and end effect of political leadership. Prior IDF used to alarm people when they bombed some building. Tha'ts ancient history now. And that is a political decision.

Naturally the discourse would be similar. And actually THIS THREAD ITSELF is very telling. It was started three years ago and until page 74 everything is three years old. Until page 83 it was two years old, but I resurrected this thread then as I'm fond of long threads of same subject matters. Then it was just happening, so in the first comments there was no information on just how large the breach had been and only later it started dripping in that the billion dollar wall had been so effectively breached.

But notice the numbers from previous operations compared to this (from @Maw's post on page 74):


As one can note from the above figure, there were diffirent ways to fight this war.

I said back then, when this round of the conflict had just started in early October:

Bibi and the Israeli leadership understands that for now they will have the support of those that will support them, but that can change if some "final solution" type razing to the ground is implemented. One thing is rhetoric, another thing is implementin strategies that the Roman Army or the Soviet Army in Afghanistan implemented. They do understand that in the prison camp called Gaza, people don't have anywhere to go in the end. Yet you have a 300 000 strong force, which the majority is land forces. Gaza is small: it's 40 kilometers wide and only 6 kilometers deep. Yes, even 100 000 troops are a large force on that kind of area.

You can go literally check every building and shed there and then have the forces quite close. With a force of 100 000 you have basically one soldier watching over 20 Palestinians. Naturally it doesn't go like this, but it just shows the contrast here. (For example to Ukraine).

Because at some death toll that support that people have for Israelis will turn if the death toll of Palestinians goes very much up. — ssu

Now I think the worst fears are indeed coming out. Joe Biden warned Bibi of not making the same mistakes that Americans did on 9/11. Yet Bibi is exactly making them, just like a Dick Cheney, he sees this as an opportunity. And thus it will escalate to fighting Hezbollah. Perhaps in a month, perhaps sooner or later. The Biden administration has opposed this, but as it finds itself making strikes here and there, it's pleas are becoming very hollow. Thus it is unlikely that we won't see a war against Hezbollah too and an attempt to destroy those over 100 000 rockets they have. Hopefully I'm wrong here.

So what do people think what happens next, besides Palestinians die in Gaza?

I think Israel will attack Southern Lebanon and Hezbollah... at some time, but soon. And it hopes to get the US fully entangled in this war.

I was referring to the kind of grievances the Arabs/Palestinians were voicing against the British since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. — neomac

They naturally wanted independence, like was promised to them, but that came then after some lost uprisings and WW2. Needless to say they weren't consulted.

was there any better time in which Arabs/Palestinians could show their good will to pursue peace and prosperity than at the end of the British mandate? — neomac

Of course! Don't set up Mandates and colonies in the first place, but simply let the prior Ottoman provinces be independent. Like ummm.... Finland and the Baltic States and Poland after Russia lost them. Finland hadn't been independent prior. But you think we would have liked to be then under the Mandate of some other country or Sweden?

And likely they would have squabbled it out just like the former colonies of Spain and Portugal did. Like, well, they actually have sometimes done. Or then they could have surprised everybody and made Pan-Arabism really to work.

Prussia was abolished in 1947, deemed a "bearer of militarism and reaction" by the Allies. Could this be genocide? Genocide of the focal point of German militarism? — BitconnectCarlos

German militarism didn't end by a decree by the Allies. It died because of a persistent drive by West German officials to create a new Citizen-soldier army (Bundeswehr) and simply because the people saw what an epic fail it all had been. In fact the East German army represented far more the older Wehrmacht because they simply declared that they hadn't anything to do with Nazism.

Actually now days the US would want that Germany wasn't so passive and anti-military!

Have you not read a single math book? If you read any math book, it will have Exercises and Examples after or in the middle of a chapter. The answers for the Exercises will be either at the back of the book, or as a separate Answer Book that you must acquire, if you needed it. — Corvus

Umm... that's a school math book. Have you even studied a math course in the University? They are a bit different.

And if you study philosophy, you will similarly (hopefully) be given a exam where you have to answer too.

I assume that true math is more about giving proofs.

Math and Science pursues the answers in the answer book. — Corvus

What answer book?

I think mathematics is especially interested in logic. I would dare to say that math is part of logic.

The starting foundations of Science accepts that we cannot find some ultimate truth, hence things are theories, not laws. We can in the find out something new that alters our present views. And mathematicians do understand that especially when you look at the foundations of mathematics, there are philosophical arguments and philosophical schools. Hence you have the philosophy of Mathematics.

Just look at wrote above. Now I don't know if he is a mathematician, but at least he totally understands that philosophy is part of mathematics.

Do you think a culture can ever be so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed? — BitconnectCarlos

It's usually the other way around: those people who think some culture is so wicked that it deserves to be destroyed... deserve to be destroyed themselves, or at least contained so not to spread their vitriol.

Philosophers don't care about the truths and falsity as the answers in the answer sheets. Philosophers are more concerned with the truth and falsity in the concepts, propositions, and logic. — Corvus

? :yikes:

I don't get your point here.

I will likely make a thread about the Grundlagenkrise in the coming weeks. — Lionino

Great! Like to see that one...

But as a non-mathematician, try to keep it as simple and understandable, because the paradoxes are interesting. After all, it's everything to do with infinity.

In Philosophy, they tend to analyse concepts and propositions for truth or falsity. That's what they do. End of the story.

But maybe the mathematicians and scientists do things differently — Corvus

I think you got it a bit wrong. Those who are obsessed about truth or falsity are mathematicians. Even if they sometimes have different axiomatic systems, then it's about right or wrong in that formal system.

It's the Philosophers who are interested about a lot more. Things like morals or aesthetics, which obviously aren't about truth or falsity.

This isn't really the place to come to get people to agree with you. I think the math boys really did give you a good amount of feedback that would be hard to get anywhere else. So if you want to run something past us we'll tell you what we think and you can react accordingly. Most of what you say really irks a formally trained mathematician. — Mark Nyquist

Here's actually some advice to all non-mathematicians (from a non-mathematician):

If you really can ask an interesting foundational question that isn't illogical or doesn't lacks basic understanding, you actually won't get an answer... because it really is an interesting foundational question!

Yet if the answer is, please start from reading "Elementary Set Theory" or something similar then yes, you do have faulty reasoning.

You can build any sort of mathematics (if you wanna call it that) depending on what axioms you choose, the matter is whether it is useful to do and whether it matches at least something in reality. — Lionino

That's actually a philosophical view in mathematics. And thus quite well fits a Philosophy Forum.

But of course you can argue that the most permissive math is simply the one where we start with an axiom of 0=1.

Anything goes. Wee! :razz:

Sorry about that! Nowdays being ironic or satirical is actually very difficult to do.

Not only because of trolls and trolling, but also because people can just live in their bubble totally separated from reality.

Yet, I’m not sure what we have to do with such information. — neomac

It's not a grievance: WW1 happened and the Ottoman Empire took part. It wasn't the only Empire to be cut into pieces, Austria-Hungary was also chopped and fell in bits too (Russia before that).

And when it ended, did the Palestinians/Arabs pursue peace, stability and prosperity? — neomac

What peace and prosperity was there to pursue when Mandate Palestine ended? The British had been fighting the Zionist terrorists already and the Zionists and the Palestinians were already engaged in hostilities. The end was just the Brits pulling out and leaving the locals to fight, which then invited neighbors to join in.

Wanted terrorists in Mandate Palestine, starting with Menachem Begin:


This place is where former terrorists became later honorable politicians. Both Arab and Jewish.

And I’m certainly not underestimating or dodging the issue of American historical hegemonic ambitions: the very existence of Israel can be a way of containing regional powers to become more ambitious in a very strategic place for world balance, as much as an independent and military strong Ukraine (with which he US has no military alliance either) can support the containment of Russian imperial ambitions. — neomac

This is the strategic containment bullshit that just wrecks everything. At least Russia is one state and actually a real former empire, but what is then this Arab-Muslim entity to be confined? What just is wanted to be "contained"?

During the idea of Israel as the bulwark against Soviet Union was at least logical. But so threat of Soviet Union to Iran was too extremely real: Soviet troops had occupied the northern parts of Iran in WW2 and had created a communist satellite there, which the Iranian army had to squash afterward. So the hostility of the Soviet Union wasn't something theoretical for Imperial Iran either. And Soviet Union armed Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, so the alliance is far more tactical for Iran than people think. Saudi-Arabia didn't either like the Soviet Union and Arab socialism.

So then the reason is now what "bulwark" is now Israel? It simply doesn't make any sense. The only thing that makes sense is the Israel is using the US, it's that way around.

If we are talking about civilian casualties, as far as I’ve understood, IDF can still play the card of proportionality of their military operation over collateral civilian casualties because they still can claim to follow the principle of distinction which Hamas doesn’t — neomac

Which principle distinction? Of Bibi's reference to Amalek? Well, if Hamas was OK with 1967 border some time ago, perhaps the principle is different from Bibi's principles...

Nope sorry, both Hamas and IDF have done what earlier were called warcrimes. But that's now something irrelevant, I guess.

All those idiots protesting and pushing for nuclear disarmament for all those decades, screaming about how a nuclear war would be the “end of humanity.” Did it happen?? No! Just more doomerism/alarmism. — Mikie

Doomerism and alarmism has always been trendy. But note that it's not all exaggeration or nonsense, far from it.

We were just very lucky in that we avoided nuclear war during the Cuban Crisis and in events like in the Able Archer exercise 1983 and others. When it came to few persons that simply didn't believe the surprise nuclear attack was on the way and didn't order a counterstrike which they actually had the ability to do, there indeed truly was a reason for alarmism. Yes, nukes have made us to avoid WW3... that's the paradox.

And there still is the case for alarm, for the matter. As they are still around... and you have strategies like "Escalate to De-escalate". That the real Cold War warriors like McNamara later in their life preached how dangerous nuclear weapons are and how close we got to using them wasn't just a ploy to improve their image. They were actually talking from real experience.

if there are infinite whole numbers, and there are infinite decimals between 0 and 1, and there are infinite decimals between 0.1 and 0.12, and there are infinite decimals between 0.1111111 and 0.1111112, and (etc.) does that mean that there are infinitely infinite infinitely infinite infinitely infinite infinitely infinite infinitely… (etc.) infinities? — an-salad

Georg Cantor thought so ... — 180 Proof

As @180 Proof said, set theory goes like that. And since you gave in the example of just rational numbers (0,1111111 and 0,1111112,..) then this is equivalent to the infinity of natural numbers, a countable infinity. With real numbers we get into the more interesting questions.

And @TonesInDeepFreeze correctly asked you just what you mean by "infinitely infinite...". We are puzzled what you mean by this. But before you answer that, please read the following:

You see, it comes down to if can you have a way to count, at least theoretically, those infinities themselves, then they can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the Natural Numbers. Then it's easy. Just how different the math is, you can see for instance from the example of Hilbert's Hotel.

Here's an easy primer on this short video:

If all those countries would just opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck, why did they end up in this clusterfuck in the first place? — neomac

One reason, which should be trendy, old white European men with moustaches:

Misters Sykes and Picot:


Mr Balfour:


Or perhaps WW1 in general and it's aftermath, which basically started modern Zionism and the inherent instability of countries like Iraq etc.

Indeed, why would Iran even care about the fate of Palestinians? — neomac

It is as interesting question like as why is US treating Israel so differently than any other of it's allies. (No wait, Israel isn't actually an ally of the US, meaning there is no actual defense treaty, hence Israel doesn't have to come to the aid of the US.)

But anyway, why is Iran so eager to be against the Israelis?

Well, it maybe hard for Christians to understand that the Muslim community, the Ummah, means a lot for Muslims if Christendom is now days totally meaningless for us. That's the first reason. Secondly, not only is the cause of Palestine popular in the Arab street (remember Pan-Arabism etc), but also there are the Shiias in Lebanon, which formed and fought against Israel after it attacked and occupied Southern Lebanon. Not only are they defending Muslims, but also fellow Shiites. And since Iran is an revolutionary state that wants to promote it's Islamic revolution and islamic values like revolutionary states typically do (just like, well, the US), this is a perfect way for Iran to show it's the vanguard of the Ummah against the West and that all these Monarchies or Arab republics close to the West and US aren't doing anything about the genocide against Palestinians.

Thirdly, when the US has made Iran part of the Axis of Evil and Americans talk of attacking Iran and how a threat it is to everybody, then it's far more better to have the conflict been played out somewhere else than in Iran. Create the quagmire for Americans somewhere else than in your own country. Far more better to have the US fight somewhere else, like in Lebanon, Yemen or Iraq and Syria.

Israel and Saudi Arabia were trying to overcome historical conflicts and that might have favoured peace, stability and prosperity, but Hamas and Iranians (at least) messed it up because not convenient to them. — neomac

Trump's Abraham records was basically an attempt to bribe the countries in normalizing relations with Israel and simply to sideline the troublesome question of the Palestinians. This was indeed the worry of Hamas, and it thus went with the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, something that likely had been planned for years. I think it came as a surprise to Iran what Hamas did.

I’m afraid the is no recipe to get out of this mess, which nobody fully understand or dominate. — neomac

Actually, you can understand it. And the more you understand it, the less hopeful you are of a negotiated peace deal.

I find it very hard to be optimistic about it, though. — neomac

I feel the same way. What would be the reason why a two state solution would be reached? Perhaps that Bibi really fucks up and we aren't going to be talking about tens of thousands of killed Palestinians, but perhaps a hundred thousand killed. Or two hundred thousand. When does Israel loose the "beacon of democracy" role in the eyes of Americans? Americans don't like what is happening in Gaza, yet how about when it's even worse? And how after that will gentile Americans and Europeans feel towards Jews in general when Israel is in the international arena like white South Africa? Then some Benny Gantz has to do something to improve the image after "Mr. Security" Bibi Netanyahu.

Hamas has actually come out and admitted that things got a bit out of control in October 7th:

The group said that avoiding harming civilians “is a religious and moral commitment” by fighters of Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades. “If there was any case of targeting civilians; it happened accidentally and in the course of the confrontation with the occupation forces,” read the report.

It added that “maybe some faults happened” during the attack “due to the rapid collapse of the Israeli security and military system, and the chaos caused along the areas near Gaza.

(See Hamas says October 7 attack was a ‘necessary step’, admits to ‘some faults’)

Well, I guess that statement of "Oops, partly sorry about that!" above puts Hamas in honesty in the same category of the "most moral" army in the Middle East, the IDF.

Maybe states can’t easily skip historical stages: Nordic countries evolved to nation-state status through all the bloody wars of the Middle Ages. — neomac

Actually the last war between the Nordic states happened between Sweden and Norway in 1814, which was the last war Sweden has fought (and actually was victorious). And just think what needed to happen in Europe for Europeans to want integrate and be so peaceful. We had to have WW1 and WW2 where millions of died.

So perhaps both sides have to have the Polish experience of WW2, a war where at least EVERY SIXTH POLISH DIED. After that kind of Holocaust/Nakba, I think the survivors won't care a fuck about just who controls the Temple Mount and just where the border goes, but want peace.

So yeah, I'm really not an optimist here.

And what is likely happen is that perhaps next month the northern front will be opened by Israel and Bibi will try to deal with Hezbollah. The simple fact that 100 000 civilians have evacuated Northern areas of Israel will likely draw the Netanyahu government to do something about it. Yes, there's a very twisted logic that the anticipation of fighting that caused people to flee might be the reason for the attack. Perhaps the attack will be done simply by increasing the level of current operations and to get Hezbollah hopefully to launch an full scale retaliatory attack. Such an attack would likely get the US to assist Israel.

As the US troops all around Syria and Iraq are there basically because of the past operations on ISIS, they do pose an easy and actually vulnerable target, which doesn't make the situation good for the US. That of course plays well into Bibi's hands. Bibi is already portraying this fight a war Israel is fighting on the "behalf of the West".

:smile:

One could argue that deporting people from a country that they don't live in, but want to live, is a bit different from deporting people from a country (or let's say a physical place) that they have lived all their lives and do want to continue to live.

Israel does not bomb neighborhoods because the residents are sympathetic to Hamas; it bombs them because they contain military infrastructure. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah right, seems to be then a lot of military infrastructure in Gaza, when now half of the buildings have already "contained military infrastructure":



And then there's the talk that simply is a / the Nazi solution:

(Times of Israel, Jan 1st 2024) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s two senior far-right partners endorsed the rebuilding of settlements in the Gaza Strip and the encouraging of “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians on Monday, while hawkish opposition MK Avigdor Liberman called for Israel to reoccupy southern Lebanon.

Speaking during their parties’ respective faction meetings in the Knesset, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich presented the migration of Palestinian civilians as a solution to the long-running conflict and as a prerequisite for securing the stability necessary to allow residents of southern Israel to return to their homes.

The war presents an “opportunity to concentrate on encouraging the migration of the residents of Gaza,” Ben Gvir told reporters and members of his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, calling such a policy “a correct, just, moral and humane solution.”

“We cannot withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing,” he said.

The “correct solution” to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “to encourage the voluntary migration of Gaza’s residents to countries that will agree to take in the refugees,” Smotrich told members of his Religious Zionism party, predicting that “Israel will permanently control the territory of the Gaza Strip,” including through the establishment of settlements.

"Correct, just moral and humane" solution, it seems? A final solution? Close to it...

Didn't the Germans at first think about relocating Jews to Africa?

(Times of Israel, 3rd January 2024) The “voluntary” resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza is slowly becoming a key official policy of the government, with a senior official saying that Israel has held talks with several countries for their potential absorption.

Zman Israel, The Times of Israel’s Hebrew sister site, has learned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition is conducting secret contacts for accepting thousands of immigrants from Gaza with Congo, in addition to other nations.

“Congo will be willing to take in migrants, and we’re in talks with others,” a senior source in the security cabinet said.

That above clearly gives a reason just why demolishing everything and making Gaza totally unlivable is a great objective. So I guess every building is part of the military infrastructure, right?

This is entirely true and which is why a staggered approach is necessary. What's particularly troublesome is, is that neither party can be trusted (the IDF least of all) to adhere to any ceasefire. So the conditions for building trust while you negotiate all the various points aren't there and that way you'll never reach the end goal. — Benkei

Exactly. And let's look how difficult it is even them to take a peace process seriously. Both sides have actually genuinely thought about peace when there has been the fear of losing their main backers: PLO chose to seek the peace process after Arafat had angered the Gulf States by backing Saddam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. Israel on the other hand thought that after the Cold War had ended and the Soviet Union dissolved, the US wouldn't need it around anymore so it took quite seriously the peace proposals and the Madrid process started by the US. Only afterwards Bibi understood that American Evangelists are diehard supporters of Israel, hence he really can go for greater Israel because no American politician will ever stand against him and the Zionist cause (because of the crazy religious people waiting for the rupture, supporting Israel isn't a foreign policy issue, it's a faith issue).

Besides Israel bears a big weight on its shoulder given its geopolitical environment: being in a very strategic position between the mediterranean and the Middle East, and in potential competition with 3 hegemonic powers Turkey (cradle of the Ottoman empire), Iran (cradle of Persian empire), Saudi Arabia (cradle of the Islamic empire). — neomac

This attitude just shows how fucked up this is.

You really think that these countries wouldn't opt for peace, stability and prosperity in the region with good relations around to the present clusterfuck? They just really want to fight or what?

Why is a perpetual war and insecurity here beneficial for anybody? Was South East Asia better in the 1960's and 70's when they were killing each other in the millions and with the US fighting there in Vietnam and bombing other places? Now the warfighting is basically confined to Myanmar, which is still a similar cauldron which it has been right from it's independence. But a lot of countries: Vietnam, Malesia, Indonesia, Cambodia and hopefully the Phillipines have moved away from fighting insurgencies.

So I don't understand this whole bullshit about somehow Israel doing anything else but giving a reason for various parties to have this war around. There are other problems, like the Kurds, but still, this is the conflict what really gets the place wild.

The Middle East is something that the Nordic countries were in the Middle Ages, the South American countries in the 19th Century. So I don't understand what the benefit truly is to have the Middle East as this cauldron of violence.

Another good interview from a British general. His conclusion is logical and well reasoned: there is no military solution. Any military "solution" will simply end the war perhaps in a few months and then the conflict will erupt again in three years or so. Military victory, if something like it can be portrayed to happen, will be just temporary and won't solve the conflict. Israel's wars show this over and over again.



Major-general Charlie Herbert also makes an interesting point about the British conflict in Northern Ireland: there was no military solution and in the end quite little was achieved militarily. This coming from a British general. The solution was political, but this also meant that the UK had to really tackle the social, economic and legal problems that the Catholics in Ireland had.

This shows just how difficult the two state solution is: it's not only an issue about dividing land, it's also how viable the Palestinian State would be. The Palestine Authority has, especially in the eyes of Palestinians, become a sidekick of the Israelis. The Palestinian conflict isn't as easy as making a peace treaty with a neighboring country.

Yes. Isolationism has been a goal of the US conservatives for a long time now. We're tired of transplanting our ideals of democracy to ungrateful foreign lands. — magritte

Ungrateful? I think here it's necessary just to compare the US and Europe and the cooperation what has be produced to how the US acts on other continents and how the cooperation with other countries has gone.

First and foremost, the US helped Western Europe after WW2 with things like the Marshal aid. It made a huge contributions the Berlin airlift, which didn't go unnoticed by the West Germans. Then, above all, it was favored European integration which itself was an European process. It didn't oppose European integration, even if the typical Great Power strategy would have been rule and divide, not let others integrate. That is one of the most awesome choices the US has ever done: it listened to it's allies, understood that this could be beneficial for both sides of the Atlantic, it accepted European integration. Hence the US created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which many European countries truly founding their defense policies on cooperative defense.

Then look at the failures everywhere else. CENTO failed. SEATO failed. Iran, the most powerful ally of the US is now it's most bitter enemy there. Pakistan, another former ally, simply burnt the candle from both end and "worked with" the US and also backed it's enemy and then won Afghanistan back.

At least in Latin America the US isn't stuck in some mindless war, but the economies and security situation of especially the Central American countries aren't so good, thus the flood of migrants. Yet many Latin countries have rather cool relations with the US. We shouldn't forget where BRICS gets the "B".

And now you have your "Pivot"-people in Washington DC demanding a pivot to Asia (to be against China). And what there? You have countries that don't share any military cooperation, just bilateral treaties with the US. Japan and South Korea, the two most powerful nations there don't work together. Australia is separate from the other countries and with New Zealand, who cares about the small Canada.

American isolationism happens, because the US doesn't care about leading other countries, doesn't try to coordinate actions with other countries. It's actually an end result: there is no enthusiasm for the "Free World" as there was earlier. Not in the US. Isolationism takes root because of the failures of US policy. The US doesn't believe itself anymore in the international order it had created after WW2. Hence the UN is bad actor in the eyes of the US. The US just reacts and then looks who is with it. Last example of this is Operation Prosperity Guardian, to protect international shipping in the Bab el Mandeb. But in it's inabilty, the US couldn't get even the French to join and likely didn't even bother to ask India about the issue! Thus these two countries have now warships doing exactly the same thing, but not with the US (thus the Houthis and Iran can be happy about that).

The MRGA crowd, sorry, I meant MAGA will likely sweep the elections here. Trump will gain dictatorial powers and align us with the Kremlin. This might prevent a world war but at a very high cost (we're sorry, Ukraine). — magritte

Actually, likely no. What I think that a Trump administration will eagerly promote is simply that "Europeans should defend themselves Europe more and not totally rely on the US" and that US will take a more passive role. That's the most likely outcome. You see, Trump's tweets and Trump's rhetoric is a bit different what actually the Trump administration will end up doing. Trump is an orator, not a leader. And foreign policy is a bigger process than a speech or a remark from the POTUS.

In fact, when you look at it from outside the US, the policies of Biden and Trump are in the end frighteningly similar. For example, for Afghanistan to fall so quickly to the Taleban, you really needed both Trump and Biden.

Yes denazification and Russian-speacking population, and blah blah blah from Putin were cosmetic, political seasoning. But such Russian propaganda arguments to dupe the masses were the ones you cared so much to regurgitate in this thread. Just neutrality was fine for Putin to have peace, go figure. — neomac

Was Putin also ready to hold hands with Zelenskyi and sing Kumbayah? :snicker:

Again, a bit crazy Putinist apologetics from you, but that's you...

If all that Putin had wanted is Ukrainian neutrality, all it would have taken is for those troops to stay on the border and never invade Ukraine. And oh wait, he actually did get those promises from Germany that Ukraine won't be in NATO.

Yet Ukraine was ready to fall in a few days, just like Crimea had been taken. Without a shot, or just a few.

But that fact isn't your line. Nope, bad boy US had it's evil intensions. :smirk:

After 165 attacks on US installations or so, president Joe Biden gave the OK for attacks on 85 targets in Syria and Iraq. This from the country that in Biden's words "does not seek conflict in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world".

OK, we really should stop and think what is going on here and what will the future bring. First the military logic behind these attacks. So unfortunately when a US drone was landing on the US base "Tower 22", an attack drone sweeped in and three African-American reservist engineers were killed alonside many wounded. Hence after a huge barrage of attacks that the US has endured since October 7th, the US felt the need to respond with a "proportional" response so that the US "doesn't look weak". So not only was this inevitable (after 165 attacks), but also the response seems "inevitable" too.

And that's it, really.

Even if Joe left open that the US will respond "on it's own time and choosing", to say that the US isn't seeking conflict is quite similar to the stupidity of Obama declaring a surge and then immediately declaring that time when the troops are withdrawn: you clearly state that you aren't committed, really. Only for short duration.

Before Tower 22 got hit (before it was over 100 attacks), the map looked like this:


First let's think just why the US has bases sprinkled all over Syria and Iraq and also in Jordania. Few recollect the Global War on Terror, but this is the result of that especially after the campaign to fight ISIS, which is the reason the troops are there. And of course, Iranians and Iranian backed militias aren't ISIS, so there you have your first problem. Those bases sprinkled all over Iraq and Syria were intended to work with either allies or the government forces in the area. Now in this case it's hardly the case anymore. And this takes us to the next fundamental problem:

1.) The US is lacking a mandate and an real objective to be in Iraq and Syria.

US troops in Syria happen only because the country is mired in a catastrophic civil war. This basically isn't anything new: when countries collapse into chaos because of a civil war, Great Powers swoop down like vultures and play their games against each other. When Finland got it's independence, there were British and French forces doing their stuff in Northern Finland obviously in response of the German army in Finland (as WW1 was still going on). They went away, just like the Marines went away from Siberia. And if (actually a big if) Assad gets the country under control, those American forces will leave Syria.

Iraq is another matter. Iraqi officials have and military spokespersons have made it quite clear they don't tolerate what the US is doing and basically state that the US with it's actions is creating insecurity, not security. This has gone on a long time and seems like the US response is simply to not notice what Iraq says.

2.) The US is lacking a mission, an objective for what it is doing in the Middle East, especially in Iraq.

Yet this is a genuine problem for the US. The US is finding itself in a situation where France found itself last year in the Sahel: no country wanted it anymore there, hence it had to leave. As there simply was no appetite at all in Paris to stay there anyway, it was a case closed: no war happened, no overthrowing attempts. And this might actually be the future for US forces in Iraq: neither Biden (or later Trump) have no desire to now attack the regime the US has created itself in Iraq. Remember, it's all about the "Pivot to Asia", as the saying goes.

Hence likely at some time the US will finally get out of Iraq and likely at some time from Syria too. If someone will say to this "Good! Never should have been there." one has to remember just who comes and collects the place: Iran. Basically what is happening is that Iran is getting the US off it's own borders.

The Houthis already have shown that they don't mind about US bombings, they are quite fine to continue the fight. And as the fight is now in Iraq, Syria (and Jordania), I think Iran can be quite happy how things are going.

The purpose is to draw world sympathy away from the State of Israel and to direct sympathy to the Palestinian people who endure but still support Hamas. — magritte

And I've stated from the start that then fight as the US did in Iraq. Do understand that killing a lot of civilians will refute and squash any victory you get from killing the terrorists. Stop with the genocidal rhetoric. The US would at the same time fight Sunni fighters and then take care of the civilian population. The saddest thing is that it actually beat the Al Qaeda, but then went away.

No, this isn't what is on mind of people. Revenge is in the mind of people. Make the Palestinians pay! They deserve it!

Nevermind it was the US President saying to Israel of not making the same mistakes as the US did after 9/11.

Some of these groups are nationalities, others are religions -- can one not question an ideology? Or should we just immediately accept it if it's a religion? I'm wary of any religion which seeks to convert the world to its creed. — BitconnectCarlos

Do not even attempt to find any logic in the racist/anti-racist narrative. There isn't any. For example being "white" is as changing as ever.

I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but Netanyahu, while certainly right wing, does not strike me as a religious extremist. I would question his level of observance/religious outlook and I do not group him in with e.g Kach although I understand the relationship between the two groups is nuanced and do share some common goals. — BitconnectCarlos

Likely he isn't. But just as he knows how to play the game with the Americans, so can he do with the religious fanatics. Yet once the administration itself depends on the participation of smaller parties, then you get into the bind that Bibi is in now.

I dislike comparisons between the IRA conflict with Britain and the Israel-Palestine conflict. When 1200 are murdered I'm fine with shelling. I'm fine with air strikes.

Catholics and Protestants are the same religion. — BitconnectCarlos

Stop here.

So just what you earlier said means that if the IRA had killed 1200, then you would have been totally OK with air strikes! Thus religion thus doesn't matter here. Hence if IRA had not just attempted to kill Thatcher by bombing a hotel in Brighton (which killed five and Thatcher narrowly escaped the assassination attempt), but would have gone bomb and collapsed the arena where the Conservative Party conference was staged and then also attacked and killed British soldiers, then according to you, it would have been an OK response to use the Royal Air Force to bomb villages that support IRA in Northern Ireland. Because likely killing all participating in the conference and some military garrisons could easily have gotten to that number that justifies for you starting a war.

Do you understand that your response can be the intent of the perpetrator? To provoke the government to shed it's legal limitations, go full berserk on the terrorists and hence increase the actual support for their cause. Because you genuinely think that using the Royal Air Force or the artillery of the British army in fighting the IRA would be a winning solution in Northern Ireland? You really think that would have cowed IRA supporters not to do anything anymore?

What would you think would have been the response by other European countries?

How do you think that the Irish had felt about your actions?

Actually, do you think that the British military leadership would have gone with your idea of artillery strikes and air strikes?

I think no. It would have been the most disastrous thing that the British and the British armed forces would have done!!! It would be just getting revenge for a shocked nation, yet digging further into the rabbit hole. And totally having no respect for laws and the rights of individuals.

Do note what Maggie did after the actual bombing: she continued the conference and declared: ""this attack has failed. All attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail."

So, that Palestine this or that, or that Palestinians this or that, then, is of abstract interest now. And a failure to rigorously account for any significance now allows for people now to claim benefit for an offense committed against someone else long ago, that might not even have been an offense, was not committed against them, and that they use and ground and warrant - their excuse - to murder without scruple or responsibility for their actions. This being in part what i call above a kind of professional victimhood. — tim wood

I would get your point if this would be about something that has happened some time ago. Unfortunately the war is going on right now. It isn't at all abstract now, hasn't been abstract for a long time. This isn't just a thing with the Palestinian diaspora, this is a thing with those people now there. That it has gone for 75 years is the sad part. This problem ought to have solved when the Cold War was over, but it didn't.

I see it as an early sign of things to come especially if this remains unchecked. — BitconnectCarlos

And it's not helpful that this issue becomes part of the moronic culture war, and isn't being able to be talked as an foreign policy issue.

DEI has ignored Jews for decades, portraying them as white oppressors. — BitconnectCarlos

Just shows how absolutely crazy these "anti-racism" racists are. But naturally there's no logic to these stupidities, it is only a matter of convenience what the present hated or feared group is by the haters, be they the Jews, the Irish, the Muslims, the Japanese, the Chinese, whoever and whatever.

Many if not most of the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on 10/7 were some of the most left-leaning, pro-integrationist settlements in Israel. They would employ Palestinians, drive them to hospitals, etc. It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power. — BitconnectCarlos

That is true. And that makes my point that religious zealots have hijacked the situation on both sides. I still would think that the majority of people would be OK if there would negotiated two-state solution and then actual peace. But that majority is silenced and naturally takes the side.

It was those Palestinians who gave Hamas the intel it needed to successfully attack. — BitconnectCarlos

No. The success of the October 7th attacks lies on the false assumption that a high tech wall can make Israel safe. The falsehood was here that the wall was intended for minor breakthrough attempts, not a large-scale well planned operation similar to a military operation. The wall was simply not built for that. They simply didn't anticipate this kind of attack. Yet likely Hamas had been for years thinking of this while digging all those tunnels.

And we wonder why people like Ben Gvir rise to power. — BitconnectCarlos

That rise only shows the failure of "Mr. Security", prime minister Netanyahu. Because to assume that people like Ben Gvir will fix the problem is simply delusional. (Far more worse than thinking that Trump is the God-Emperor saviour for the US.) As if the "voluntary removal" of 2 million Palestinians and the building of new settlements in a Palestinian free-Gaza (forgot what the Jewish name for the place is) will be the success story you can dance about. Nope, this is just going to be one disaster among the many disasters that the Jewish people have endured. And so for the Palestinians too.

Israel actually shows how ugly Western democracies can become if you think that perpetual low-intensity conflict with a minor war flare up every decade is something "normal". One can imagine if the UK would have used similar force in Northern Ireland and bombed IRA sympathizing Catholic villages there by the RAF and shelled them with artillery fire. Yep, guess what the response would have been by the IRA? You think they would have less volunteers? It isn't hard to understand that in that kind of ugly UK there would come a politician that would simply talk about "voluntarily" moving all the Catholics and those who want to join Ireland to be moved to Ireland proper. They are simply so nasty and that's what they want, right?

But for sheer possibility, let's look at the post war history of the Axis powers of WWII. They had defeat forced upon them and then they undertook the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitation, with appropriate rewards at every step. And they have done pretty well. Not a possibility for the Palestinians? Who says? — tim wood

Being a citizen of a country that survived WW2 and is seen as being part of the Axis (even if we fought the Germans later), you really should think twice when countries have to do "the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitiation, with appropriate rewards at every step."

Germany had to do it. Even if East Germany, being all Marxist-Leninists and so, would hypocritically declare itself having nothing to do with the Holocaust. They, East-Germany, are the example of how people and nations avoid true guilt when it should be faced. Yet West Germany has done a lot to confront it's actual past. As the saying goes, if you are losing an argument to a (West) German, then you can always grab the "Hitler card"! Aber Sie haben die Juden geschlachtet. Then the German will be as hapless as an white American after uttering accidentally the N-word in the presence of other Americans. The German has to acknowledge that yes, they indeed killed all those Jews.

But for my country, we simply don't see it that way. We didn't attack anyone. Period. The diplomatically inconvenient moment of joining the 1941 offensive was cleared by the Soviet Air Force instantly bombing us even Finland had taken any action. The armed forces that joined NATO last year is the same armed forces that fought the Soviet Union first by itself, then alongside Germany and then gave the true "Dolchstoss" to it's former brothers in arms, The Third Reich, which just had assisted the country to fight the Soviet offensive to a standstill.. We have the same political parties around that were present prior to WW2, and also the same constitution. Hence when a Finnish general who had fought in WW2 was in the post-war era confronted by Westerners making the accusation "You fought with Hitler", he snapped back "And you fought with Stalin!". What remorse he had to show? Perhaps for the

And I think you should understand that Palestinians simply won't see any problem with themselves. The history is too clear here: European Jews came to the country they were living in and formed a country where they were living. That narrative is too simple, too clear, for them to have any issues about themselves being here the culprits. What really have the Palestinians done wrong? And what kind of option is this Israeli administration giving them?

This is why I say this is a conflict which I don't see any peaceful or negotiated solution to. A lot of things would have to change in order for that to happen.

Or is Netanyahu actually Meir Kahane in disguise, back from the dead? — BitconnectCarlos

Bibi needs his coalition partners, who actually are quite close to Meir Kahane. That's the problem here. They really are former terrorists... or terrorists that got free and to positions to further their agenda now.

It very well can be; it depends on the scale. Are we talking just the IDF vs Hamas? Then obviously no. But what if it's Israel versus the muslim world/those who strive to spread Islam? Then it does start to look a bit like that. — BitconnectCarlos

So what's your argument for the reason of Indonesia and Malesia wanting to attack Israel? :snicker:

Israel's survival should not be taken as a given. — BitconnectCarlos

Survival of the Palestinians in Gaza shouldn't be taken as a given!

Israel is far more powerful than any of it's neighbors and it has nuclear weapons which they don't have. And then it has the obedient and totally loyal backing of the sole Superpower. Just what country wants to start a war with the US? (Which btw. has given weapons and assistance both to Egypt and Saudi-Arabia etc.) European countries don't want to irritate the US, for which Israel is close to heart, hence the silence about what is happening.

Ideas of the state of Israel being on being possibly wiped off are in truth quite delusional and basically a desperate way to give some reasoning just how the current Israel administration is handling the situation now. The last time Israel faced truly the possibility of being wiped off the map was during the 1948 war. Even the name of the Six Day War tells how this wasn't a war that could end up with Israel being wiped off the map, so crushing was the defeat for the Arabs.

Regarding anti-semitism, the scale of it is shocking if you look at the stats. Cultural factors have me worried as well. Jews are the canary in the coal mine. — BitconnectCarlos

Personally I don't have anything against Jews or Israeli Jews. I've met few, they were very smart people and actually didn't like how politics were going in their country, but naturally were very patriotic. Yes, the truth is that those lunatics dancing around in meetings and purposing new settlements in Gaza with the "voluntary removal" of Palestinians won't create empathy for the Jewish cause.

Yes, it will also increase anti-semitism as there are those that are prone to hate all people of certain group for the actions of either governments or some people (like terrorists). Hatred of Russians is another perfect example of this. But many Russians here were shocked by what Putin had done when attacking Ukraine. Hence I'm not going to for example ban Russian restaurants... they don't have President Putin's photo or the orange-black colours or "Z" up on their walls.

And what "Canary in the coal mine" are you talking about?

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well. — AmadeusD

Ability to do something is important also. And naturally with the Palestinians, the PA has been quite well sidelined and the message hammered to the Palestinians that they are going to be pushed out (in Gaza now, but perhaps in the West Bank later too), so only way is to fight.

As I've said, the religious zealots are in control on both sides, even if not all from both sides are religious zealots.

This has been my point for nearly a decade because of what Likud stands for and Herut before that. This is just accelerating due to the 7 October attack and now obvious but it's been the game plan for them for decades now. — Benkei

It's telling how Israel has changed.

When you have a perpetual low-intensity war for decades that isn't fought somewhere away, this is the end result, I guess. The settler movement naturally is as old (and actually older) than the state of Israel, however the stances and rhetoric have hardened to such level that it's very worrisome. Or at least, it's totally acceptable now to say them in public. Israel is still a democracy in the way Apartheid Sou th Africa was a democracy for the whites, but the perpetual war has changed it.

Why Netanyahu and the right have been so successful comes basically also down to the US. Having lived for a long time in the US, Bibi is understands the US and knows how to speak to the American audience. In this way he is different from the earlier Israeli politicians.

Why the US has changed to being totally loyal and obedient to Israel without making any actual criticism is because of the Evangelist support of Israel in the US. The Jewish-American support wouldn't do this as there are only seven million or so Jewish Americans. Besides, many of the Jewish-Americans can be critical of the politics playing out in Israel, just like Israelis can be. But for the millions of Evangelists supporting Israel is an issue of faith, not about foreign policy in any traditional sense. Hence total devotion to everything that Bibi wants. The rest happens because of the US political system: if a lobby gets a powerful position in US politics, American politicians will bow to the lobby and take on their agenda fearing the votes they would lose in doing otherwise.

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. — Punshhh

Yes. I would add that this is the result when both sides, actually, approach the issue really from a religious position with religious determination. For Hamas the Palestinians killed are martyrs, for the religious right in Israel this war is an opportunity, which you can celebrate by dancing.



Politics going back to the 1930's... at least in a way it rhymes.

Is there a correct size for government to be?
How would you determine the right size? By population? By complexity? By economy? — Vera Mont

I would emphasis the importance of history of a society here, which defines also government culture. Past history is something that has made us what we are now and the political situation in the present.

I understand that the question is only about size. Yet minimal government means simply that there has to be institutions that do take care of the things that somewhere else would be done by the government.

Is the country a tiny nation state or a larger confederation or federation with autonomic regions? Autonomy brings in usually a lot more size, but sometimes this might be a very good thing. If the country is small, then centralization works well. In fact, some tiny places like Monaco can quite easily go with the monarch having a very large role: if the citizens can when in need simply have an audience with the monarch, many of themselves will support the monarchy and be against democratic representation. Why would you need democratic representation, when you can meet the leader yourself if you want and he or she really will listen to you?

More specifically:
What is the minimum function and authority that a national government must have? — Vera Mont

This one is simple: to have recognition from it's peers, other sovereign states.

You, Vera, and your friends can claim to establish a country of your own and hence not have to pay taxes or follow the rules of the country you live in. Yet if "Vera Mont's land" would be recognized by the majority of other sovereign countries, your existence might be a pain in the ass for your former country. Or perhaps not, your independence could be used as an example of just how benevolent your former country was when granting your independence along other states. Obviously "Vera Mont's land" ought to have good relations with the country that surrounds it (or hopefully you live on the seashore).

What is the maximum it should be allowed to have? — Vera Mont

More difficult. Perhaps I'd resort to something like Max Weber and say if the citizens are happy with the control, then it's OK.

What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

That optimality depends quite a lot of the history of the country, the governance culture, the geostrategic situation of the country. Things like that. Not an easy issue to optimize.