Kuwait also expelled 400,000+ Palestinians in the 90s. In Lebanon, there was ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, although this was in the context of the broader civil war and Palestinian massacres of Lebanese civilians as well, making it less one sided. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, when the Palestinians were ardently in favour of Saddam Hussein, they could have anticipated what would be the result when Kuwait and Kuwaitis were liberated.

When Israel launched it's operation "Peace for Galilee", you have footage of local Lebanese civilian clapping there hands and cheering when Israeli tanks roll into Lebanon. So unwelcome the PLO had made itself in Lebanon. However, the IDF would quickly show it's disregard towards the Lebanese and hence we are in the situation we are in now.

I think the real problem is that the mutual hatred is quite persistent and basically something that is nearly part of the people's identity. It's rather telling to hear the stories of Finnish peacekeepers that have been in deployed to Lebanon (for a long time, not anymore). One fellow student in my university had been as a peacekeeper in Lebanon and firmly held the view that there will never be any peace, ever, and there will be certainly more wars. And he was correct as this happened in the 1990's. Peacekeepers from my country usually truly don't have any prior attitudes towards the conflict and tell a sober and honest view of the conflict. He wasn't alone with that conviction.

One story I remember is quite typical:

As IDF want to prevent from being ambushed, in any potential ambush locations (or basically place with limited visibility due to foliage or trees), the patrols simply drove through while shooting their machine guns wildly at the bushes and trees. In one unfortunate case a five year old girl was playing in her home's orchard and was killed due to machine gun fire. Later the IDF claimed that they had killed a terrorist that day in Southern Lebanon.

Of course, many people simply cannot fathom the fact that in this conflict both sides are victims and perpetrators. As if one as an outsider one has to choose one side, support them and denounce the other one.

If there is someone to blame it's the politicians on both side that do think that the only solution is war, because the other side is what it is.

Exactly. But what does it help if the body lives, if the soul, the spirit is crushed? — baker

Oh there's a natural cure for that.

If people would live to be on average 200 years, I am totally sure that "we" would be far more conservative, far more religious with a far lot memories of the past. Perhaps just now the last soldiers that fought the Napoleonic Wars would have died, and people who fought the WW1 and WW2 likely would be the politicians ruling over us.

Hence renewal happens when generations die and new ones replace them. You certainly remember what happened to you and you remember what your parents and grandparents have told you. But few have much interaction with their great grandparents, hence their time is really just in the history books. Assuming that history isn't kept up as part of your identity.

Ask yourself, what is so precious, so valuable in your culture for you from the 19th Century and earlier, that without it you will feel your spirit is crushed? Is it unbearable for you when things have changed from that time?

The nostalgia that writers like Mishima crave for are viewed with rose tainted glasses: It's one thing to preserve good values and customs from the past and another thing to attempt a revolution to go back to the good old days.

And you think *that* is "Japanese culture"?? — baker

It's the part of Japanese my daughter likes. Just to make the case that Japanese culture, as any culture, isn't just the old, the conservative part of culture. That cultures do evolve and do take influences from other cultures too.

The idea of "national" culture, which depicts something else as "unamerican", "ungerman" or "unjapanese" is typical for people holding very distinct and narrow views on culture in general.

When has Putin stated he intends to turn Ukraine into a satellite?

Yes, there was a massive invasion. — Tzeentch

Hilarious.

You should learn yourself too about Russia's involvement in Ukrainian affairs before lecturing others.

I also think that the statements Putin has published - and considering influences such as Dugin - it is likely that Putin does really believe Russia needs to be a world superpower. And this, in his thinking, includes it's right to an economic zone of control and territorial buffer. — Echarmion

Yes. Russia needs to be an Empire. It cannot be anything else, or it ceases to exist! That is what the present leadership of Russia thinks.

If NATO enlargement would be truly the most important issue here, then you wouldn't go annexing territories and stating that your neighboring countries are "artificial".

Mishima even stated in some essays that 'corruption' and 'representatives' in a Parliament are just a Western thing and Japan was poisoned with these elements. He had nostalgia about living in a Samurai era where honour and loyalty were the pillars of Japan: 'Bushidō' He was right in terms that, after Japan becoming a 'modern' nation, they had to face big social problems: the middle-class way of life - capitalism - and, yes, corruption. — javi2541997

Nostalgia,

Muslim extremists have that nostalgia too: everything bad that is happening in their society is the product of the West and people mimicking the West. Everything good and pure was then when you had the actual Caliphate, or when Muhammad himself was ruling the Ummah. How could it have been anything than paradise then? Hence to show their devotion an piety, some extremists use only small pieces of wood toothpicks to brush their teeth because at the time of the Prophet, they used them.

Not only are these kinds of nostalgia silly, but as in the muslim example simply ruinous and deadly for many countries. I would consider it populist nostalgia. Not only were things better in the past, but thanks to the evil leaders and their diabolical agenda against us (the people), we are forced to give away that better past.

Yet I guess many in the West are excited about critique of the West given by non-western people like Mishima. Yet the majority of Japanese, just like the soldiers that mocked Mishima, understand how this kind of nostalgia paints a fantasy picture. And the idea that Mishima and other nostalgic conservative paint of the "true" culture of a nation or it's people dismisses just how creative culture is. Cultures have always taken influences from other cultures.

I have a daughter that has put all over her room pictures of Japanese cartoons, Manga, of cute puppies and always wants to go to the store with Japanese merchandise. So don't say to me that Japanese culture is somehow dead. It's very alive and influential. And if Samurai warriors don't walk around armed to the teeth in Japanese cities anymore, it hardly isn't an example of cultural decadence.

Do you know what is the worst? That a great part of modern Japanese society feel ashamed of their past and values for not letting them win the war, and post-changes were necessary to become a 'Western' alike modern nation... — javi2541997

And some Germans think highly of mr Hitler too. But I wouldn't say that there's really many of them.

I think many Japanese are proud of what they have made of their Island nation compared to other Asian nations. As usually, many of us have that nostalgia for a time when everything was more simple, yet our rosy ideas usually forget the negative aspects of life which were present.

Evict Settlers. — 180 Proof

Israel has actually evicted settlers. From Gaza and from Sinai too. The following pictures are from settlers in Sinai being evicted in 1982 after the peace agreement with Egypt.





And Egypt could give Israel also what it wanted: safety. No muslim zealots are firing rockets from Sinai into Israel now or ever. The Egyptian army can take care of that. The real problem is that either Lebanon or the Palestine Authority are now so weak that they could not guarantee this. Let's remember that even if Hamas did win elections, the PA couldn't take care of Gaza. Just like the government of Lebanon can do nothing about Hezbollah. Which all just works fine for Netanyahu. He can now say that it's impossible to make peace now.

And let's remember that there are about 600 000 Jewish zealots settlers in the West Bank. As a Finn, I can honestly say what is the situation a country does accept the forceful removal of hundreds of thousands (440 000 out of 3,9 million in fact) and the handing over large parts of it's territory: when it's either that or losing sovereignty altogether and foreign occupation.

And unfortunately that's the case too here: only if faced with utter defeat and dramatically worse situation would any Israeli government evict over half a million people from the West Bank.

One could even argue that Putin had played his hand quite well, given that he had gotten Crimea and neutralised both Georgia and Ukraine for a relatively small cost, especially in terms of international relations. — Echarmion

And just think how different the whole situation would be if Putin wouldn't have taken Crimea and the Revolution of Dignity would have been one in just a line of revolutions in Ukraine? As hard it is for Sweden to join NATO, it would have been a lot harder for Ukraine to join. It's membership would have been as remote as Turkey joining the EU. What US Presidents declare don't matter, they come and go every four to eight years.

Without the annexation that went too far (Crimea), Russia could have easily been "the adult in the room". Germany would have continued to rely on cheap Russian energy and basically the West would have continued it's de facto dearmament it had started since the end of the Cold War. Russia's actions in Georgia and overall in the Caucasus would have been forgotten (because it's Caucasus, a Wild East just like the Middle East).

He only then would have had to face the problems in Russian economic growth... which he doesn't have an answer.

Hence a reason for the "Make Russia Great Again" campaign: wars have always worked for Putin!

It is obvious that Japan would have won against the US if Truman hadn't dropped the atomic bombs. — javi2541997

Uh...how on Earth???

Besides, the atomic bombs weren't that different to the fire bombings: it doesn't matter actually for you on the ground if it's one bomber or three hundred of bombers. The 9th-10th of March 1945 bombing of Tokyo killed 100 000 people and left one million homeless. When you have those hundreds of Superfortresses, what's the difficulty even without an atomic bomb?

(remains of people in Tokyo after the fire bombing)

The kamikaze ('kami' God/ 'kaze' air) were considered martyrs of the glorious Japanese Empire. Yukio Mishima and Shintaro Ishihara wrote a lot of this. — javi2541997

Yukio Mishima is the perfect example here. He made his "coup" and tried to get Japanese soldiers of the Self Defence Forces to stage a revolution. They mocked him. Mishima stopped after few minutes and then took his own life.

Both Japan and Germany are example just how thin in the end the layer of fanaticism is. Total defeat makes it impossible to live in denial. Some in an society can be ardent believers, but the majority simply adapts to the prevailing situation. And the majority will also adapt when the situation changes.

The Germans didn't commit mass suicide after their Third Reich lost. And the "Werwolf" units designated to continue an insurgency simply didn't come to be. Yet even to this day the whole chapter has had a profound effect of the German psyche and you have the occasional "Hitler-Welle" in Germany asking how it all was possible. Japan changed dramatically it's policies too. Perhaps it has now Hiroshima to reflect the worst guilt of WW2 and can picture itself as a victim too.

The logic behind bombing of the civilian population was argued a lot before WW2. The argument for this is that a devastating bombardment would make wars shorter, and hence save lives more.

Italian general Giulio Douhet was one of the most famous air power theorists of the time and he fervently believed in the effect that aerial bombing would have on an enemy population. Hence the war wouldn't drag on like WW1 and actually the death toll would be smaller. People would demand an end to the war when they would be bombed.



The American dilemma and thinking goes quite on the same lines, especially when they already had ample evidence just how stubborn the Japanese would be in defense. The estimates for casualties in Operation Downfall and it's smalle operations, Olympic and Coronet, was to be close to one million. Hence the estimation was about a quarter million US soldiers killed and the war go on perhaps until 1947. With those kinds of estimates, it's not hard to choose an other option like "on the other hand, we have this extremely powerful bomb". If the other choice is quarter of a million dead American soldiers.

Yet Douhet's argument doesn't seem so good when compared to reality in WW2. Usually bombings of civilians didn't brake the will of the people as aerial bombings weren't so effective. The "Blitz" on England made British more willing to see the war to the end and not negotiate a peace (like in 1918). Yet the total war aspect of Douhet's ideas were correct. Bombing is important.

(One famous slogan in Germany during WW2: Our walls will break, but not our hearts.)


For Japan the new bomb simply made it obvious there wouldn't be any way out. The Americans had already killed a lot more with the fire bombing campaign than with the nuclear bombs, yet assuming they could mass produce these weapons, the USAAF could with basically impunity bomb everything in Japan.

Philosophically nuclear weapons are problematic, because what they have been is extremely good at deterrence. And they haven't been used again. There simply hasn't been WW3. But as WW3 hasn't happened, it's impossible say if this has been a product of the "Mutual Assured Destruction" of nuclear weapons or not. If it has been so and if we would have had devastating wars without people being afraid of nuclear weapons, would they have been good?

It's similar with the question of Japan's surrender. Would the war have dragged to 1947 and would have quarter of a million US servicemen died? Who knows.

Anyway, it goes like this: The will to live is amoral. What you do on behalf of your own survival can't be judged as long as you thought you had no alternative. — frank

Well, just imagine yourself in the shoes of President Truman, when he is told about this new bomb alternative.

Both sides are consumed with bloodlust. What I object to are attempts to dress this up in an ''ethical'' disguise. — Baden

Spot on. Why is it difficult to be critical about the actions of both sides? Religious extremists have hijacked the stage and people on both sides who would want peace are pushed aside as nearly traitors.

In Europe this bloodlust and militarism got a dent after WW1 and WW2. You simply have to have that amount of blood flowing before people truly start to question things that were unquestionable and have a very negative view about war. Even then a truly long and awful war wouldn't perhaps make it go away. This is because for both Jews and for the Palestinians fighting for existence and the suffering is an important part of their identity. For the Jews it's the Holocaust and for the Palestinians it's the Nakba. So it's really difficult just to "move on".

The way I understand the international law, Gaza is territory of Israel. Unless it's still considered Egypt, but then Egypt doesn't seem interested. — Echarmion

Then your understanding of international law is different from others. Gaza is simply territory that is military occupied by Israel.

Hence the reason why we use maps of Israel like this:


The above one from the US state department. Notice that Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights aren't drawn as part of Israel.

The Israeli gains from the Six Day war haven't been recognized. Just like we don't make maps with Western Sahara being part of Morocco.

I believe it is and was an occupation, and relevant rulings on this case seem to agree. — Tzeentch

Exactly. To argue that Israel hasn't a claim on the West Bank or Gaza is hypocrisy and basically false.

A lot of Israeli maps show just how Israelis think themselves what constitutes Israel.




Above all, Netanyahu wants the West Bank, or should we say Judea and Samaria. He wants to annex them and perhaps this war will give him the opportunity to do so.

(2020) in a television address after US President Donald Trump’s announcement of the [UAE] deal, Netanyahu said he had only agreed to “delay” the annexation, and that he would “never give up our rights to our land”.

“There is no change to my plan to extend sovereignty, our sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, in full coordination with the United States,” Netanyahu said in Jerusalem, using the biblical name for the occupied West Bank.[/qoute]

I'm not laying an Israeli claim to Gaza or the West Bank. That is a Palestinian territory, controlled by Hamas and Hezzbolah respectfully. — Hanover

You mean the PLO. Hezzbollah is in Lebanon, remember?

Also the humanitarian situation wasn't as dire as in Gaza. — Tzeentch

Uhhh... just how many have been killed in Ukraine compared to this little fight? And there are over 6 million refugees from Ukraine now all over the World. That's multiple times the population in Gaza. And how do the deaths compare? In the war in Ukraine 200 000 soldiers in all have perished in the war and perhaps 40 000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed. And the actual figures can be even higher, actually.

So please do notice the huge differences in scale.

According to my reading it was more complex than that, but my point was that this is less like WW2 and more like 9-11. — frank

Of course. Yet if we look at WW2 anything that would resemble the current situation, the Warsaw Uprising is most similar.

Granted, Israel does have a right to defend itself. But, if they occupy foreign land, do they have a right to steal, kill and murder the owners of that land? Is that even "defense"? — Manuel

Problem here is the "foreign land" and the historical legal position of the Palestinians.

The problem is, just like with the Kurds, that there was no sovereign state of Palestine to start with. That in World politics matters hugely: Russia's attack on Ukraine is different of it fighting two wars in Chechnya, even if annexing Chechnya was an imperialist land grab done in the 19th Century. And if you look at what dire situation the Kurds are, it's quite similar. Stateless people are in difficult position in a World where the rules are made for sovereign nation states.

The sad fact, which ought to be brought up here, is that when the neighboring Arab Nations started their war with Israel in 1948, they weren't fighting for the Palestinians or for an independent Palestine. They were they to do a land grab for themselves. And that's why there wasn't much coordination with the Arab states. The only really successful country was Jordan, which had a small, but professional and effective army trained and lead command by a British general, which could secure the West Bank for Jordan.

(The Jordanian king with his British general, Glubb Pasha)


Then Jordan lost the West Bank in the Six Day War and hasn't fought Israel since then. (It has had to fight the PLO later btw.) Now it isn't claiming anymore the West Bank and has announced that the Palestinians in the West Bank are Palestinians, not Jordanian citizens.

Hence the semi-recognized Palestinian state is something that has happened basically only after the Oslo peace process.

(Let's have a Palestinian Authority! Not a sovereign state, but it's a start...)

Did your know Albert Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel? He refused.
Could he have done something? — FreeEmotion

Do note that the President of Israel is largely a ceremonial role. Would the Israeli politicians listened to him? Not likely.

Has anyone else noticed the shocking state of US(/western) diplomacy amidst all of this? — Tzeentch

Is something new, @Tzeentch?

The US is the ally of Israel. It comes to help Israel when Israel needs it. (Not the other way around, actually.) Hence the "diplomacy" of the US has always been biased towards the Israeli cause and at anytime when Israel has been attacked or has made one of it's famous "pre-emptive attacks", the US has been there to stand aside it and support it. And that's the role it has now too.

Long have gone the days when some military officer called Nasser asked Kermit Roosevelt (from the CIA) if it's OK to do a military coup against the Egyptian monarch.

If you haven't noticed, the US isn't running the show anymore in the Middle East: all the countries are totally active on their own and not listening to the US.

Maybe a comparison would be the US after 9-11. Got punched in the nose, things will have to change to keep this from happening again. — frank

American response: now when have people's desire for revenge, go after anybody, everywhere and make every conflict with muslims part of the fight. That' war on Terror in a nutshell.

Remember just how Cheney was going around right after 9-11 happened that the US ought to attack Iraq, even everyone informed knew it was Al Qaeda.

Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point. — Mikie

I think the point is if Putin would have wanted Crimea and the parts of Ukraine if there wouldn't be any NATO, if it would have been disbanded after the Cold War.

I say to that hypothetical question yes! He likely would have taken the Baltic states too. Too important! Too close to St. Petersburg, his home town. And "realists" would totally understand and accept this.

There is no overcoming the fact that Putin see's Ukraine as an artificial state and the collapse of the Soviet Union as the biggest tragedy of these times. Hence his "make Russia great again" policy would have happened even without NATO. And that makes the NATO argument very questionable.

And people who doubt this, well, there's country called Moldavia, with Russian "peacekeepers" and a proxy state called Transnistria and a frozen conflict. And Moldavia isn't wanting to join NATO.

Less than you'd think. Germany almost collapsed into a war ending rout in 1944 but Western logistics just weren't quite good enough to keep the momentum going. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Discussion of WW2 would be interesting, but perhaps not for this thread. Count von Icarus: the failure of Market Garden and the Ardennes Offensive was actually only a logistics problem for the the Western allies. (Let's stop here) But let's take something a bit actually similar.

So they're more similar than they look at first glance because the Axis was militarily defeated a long time before their cities stopped being destroyed wholesale, largely by the United States and to a lesser extent by the UK. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Look, the only relatively similar situation to what is now taken place in Gaza in WW2 was the Warsaw Uprising done by the Polish Home Army.



- What is similar that just like the Soviet Union had no intention of helping the Polish Home Army, this battle is as onesided as the Polish Home Army was to be finished. For Stalin an independent large Polish armed entity was the last thing he wanted.


-Similarly here there is absolutely no love for Hamas with the Egyptian regime. Hamas started as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and the current Egyptian regime is made up of a junta that deposed the elected Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Yet naturally Sisi isn't fighting Israel as the two countries have a peace agreement. The fact is that only Iran is making a fuss about the issue while the Arab League is asking for the sides to cease hostilities.


- The fighting is in a confined to a similar urban environment, where for example sewers in Warsaw and tunnels in Gaza have an important role. Warsaw was also a city with over million people. Gaza strip (made up of many cities) has more people.

- In brutality (from the German side, for instance using units like Gruppe Dirlewanger made up of convicts) and in destructiveness of an urban fighting there can be similarities. At least Hamas has showed already brutality towards Israeli civilians that is similar to SS and other German forces when dealing with untermenschen.


-So let's put into context Gaza and Warsaw in 1944: The Warsaw Uprising held for 63 days. The Home Army had about 20000-49000 fighters (about similar actually to Hamas). That the Uprising did happen and was so successful is a feat, especially when Hitler was planning Warsaw to be one of the "fortress cities" to fight off the impending Red Army. The Germans deployed about 50000 troops to destroy the uprising. The Germans lost perhaps over 10 000 killed, the Home Army everything in killed, wounded and in prisoners.



And the population of Warsaw was . It lost about 150 000 - 200 000 civilians killed and 700 000 people were expelled from the city.

Or let's look at what the Warsaw Uprising looked like.

August 1, 1944 saw the beginning of another uprising in Warsaw. This time, the soldiers of the Polish Underground State rose up against Nazi rule. Despite being largely outnumbered by the Germans, the Poles fiercely resisted the occupying forces for 63 days. It was one of the most brutal urban battles to date. Upon learning about the revolt in Warsaw, Hitler and Himmler issued the flagitious order to kill all the inhabitants and have the city totally flattened. This total eradication of the city was supposed to deter other nations of occupied Europe from resistance. The order was executed accordingly and started in the early days of the uprising. Captured insurgents and civilians were executed throughout the city. Each district regained by the Nazis was pacified which meant that murders, rapes, and arsons were widespread. The most appalling crimes were committed in the western parts of the city, in the Wola and Ochota districts, where approximately 50,000 men, women and children were murdered within a few days. Overall, it is estimated that 130.000–150.000 civilians were killed in Warsaw. The losses sustained by the insurgents were considerably smaller, with estimated 18.000 deaths. As a result of the heavy bombings and artillery shellings, nearly 25% of the city was destroyed.

The process of Warsaw’s complete eradication was completed soon after the uprising failed. According to the cease-fire, the Home Army was to lay down weapons and surrender. The civilians were banned from Warsaw as well. Within the few days following the collapse of the uprising, columns of people marched down the suburban roads, carrying the remainder of their belongings, leaving the annihilated city behind. The city was about to go through one of the most dramatic periods in its history. In total, the Nazis displaced over 500,000 civilians, often confining them to death, hunger and aimless wander. 350.000 Varsovians deemed unfit for work were displaced within occupied Poland, the remaining 150.000 were sent to forced labor in the Third Reich and around 60.000 were deported to concentration camps. Warsaw was to be razed down to the ground and become a mere transfer point for Wehrmacht after it was carefully cleared of all material goods.

Following the displacement of Warsaw’s inhabitants, special units looted whatever was left in the city. These tasks were divided between three independent departments: the military, the civil department and the SS joined by police forces. Each specialized in a specific area. The Wehrmacht was responsible for disassembling and taking factory machinery, appliances, commodities, food, textiles, cables, electrical wires, etc. The SS plundered in search of textiles, furs, carpets, money and other valuables. Ludwig Fischer, the governor of the Warsaw district, and Artur Greiser, the governor of Wartheland, were even involved in a dispute over who was entitled to take furniture from Warsaw. One researcher, Marian Chlewski, estimates that during that period alone, the Nazis transported 45.000 train cars of looted goods from Warsaw.

And of course the Warsaw Uprising is very important to Poles even today. Americans typically have only heard of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which can annoy Polish people. The "9/11" of Israel might be so for future Israel too. Naturally for the Palestinians, it's one chapter in the Nakba.

The Allies massacred civilians on a level Israel can only dream of in WW2. Yet that did not create a moral equivalence between the Allied and Axis powers. — RogueAI

Well, Germany had nearly 80 million inhabitants to bomb and let's say, for the time and even now Adolf's gang was a bit more better armed than the Hamas.

Sure, but Israel is at risk of running low on PGMs in the short turn, not "all munitions." — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Israel probably isn't out of PGM's, but out of anti-air missiles for their Iron Dome. — Tzeentch

Here's a perfect example how peacetime policy goes out of the window once a war starts. Israel can look at the past statistics of how many rockets has it had to shoot down, and then make the calculation how much it needs lets say for the next five years. I'm pretty confident that at no time did they acquire an arsenal of missile for "what if Hamas shoots 1/3 or half of it's rockets in a couple of days". But now they basically ought to have such an arsenal. And do note that this arsenal of expensive missiles has an expiry date, when you simply have to destroy them and make new ones.

(Did you bring the popcorn? Israelis watching the bombardment of Gaza: )

However there is another side to this, what we have quite well seen in the war in Ukraine and is an obvious fact:

If the stocks of missiles, guided munitions and overall ammo supply gets low, armies you them less frequently. If they are plentiful, then you can use them far often and not only when the most urgent need arises.

The case for giving Israel PGMs at this point would be:
1. To deter Iran. The idea is that, if Iran thinks Israel isn't being resupplied, they might think they are low on munitions and decide now is a "window of vulnerability." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Uh, I'm really not sure about that, apart from weapon systems that can hit Iran itself. Israel isn't facing a conventional enemy, hence it's not fighting a conventional war. Just look at the videos and photos that come from Southern Israel: it can park equipment next to each other and mass the troops who walk in large groups. This would be absolute suicide in Ukraine... if Israel would be facing an enemy like the Russian armed forces.

In a conventional war you truly get to be short in all kinds of ammo as you have the urgent need to destroy the conventional enemy before it's artillery and aircraft destroy you. Hence the wars against Egypt and Syria were actually quick with the Arab side being the one that had gone through it's ammo and vulnerable to Israel marching to the Capital, basically.

. It reminds me of the conspiracy theory of the hidden nuclear weapons in Bagdad. Bush said back then: "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

The presumption that it always rings a bell... — javi2541997

That has been surprisingly not only debunked, acknowledged to have been wrong, but also accepted to have been a part of a campaign to have the war with Iraq. And actually the change in the discourse happened thanks to Trump, actually. Before there where even here in PF people that saw as their duty to defend President Bush with the half-truth "the intelligence given was faulty".

But the "we-are-in-Afghanistan-because-otherwise-it-will-become-a-terrorist-safe-have" absurdity was the official mantra given. In my view it is far more absurd and illogical than the domino theory during the Cold War.

It really, really made no sense. Even when they interviewed the very rare and few foreign fighters that actually had gone into Afghanistan and made it to fight alongside the Taleban, their answer to the question of what would they do if the Americans left was "We then would go home".

I am not angry about the indifference by the US to the new Caliphate - or whatever it is Afghanistan nowadays - but on the citizens and collaborators who helped us once. The fact that they are abandoned in the randomness of destiny is mithering me. They could be killed by the Taliban or by a natural disaster. An Afghan person is forced to live in continuous uncertainty. — javi2541997

Well, ask how the South Vietnamese feel.

The US isn't yet ready to have a discussion of how it basically lost the War in Afghanistan in the similar fashion as it lost South Vietnam.

After all, both reasons for the war were utterly bogus: After the fall of South Vietnam there was no "Domino Effect". Actually united Vietnam ended up being attacked by China! And with Afghanistan, where are those safe havens for terrorists planning to attack the US?

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

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

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

Since we all left - spontaneously - it seems that this country doesn't exist any more. — javi2541997

"We" meaning NATO and the West left once the US decided to leave. Not that the issue was discussed with us, actually.

Yet, Afghanistan hasn't provided a safe haven for terrorists to plan and make attacks on the US.

Remember:

That was the reason given for the longest war in US history. Because if the US wouldn't be there, it would become a safe haven for terrorists.

All we can say, that the Taliban, sorry, now the Islamic Caliphate of Afghanistan has kept it's part of the peace deal with the US.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say a creation of the overall development.

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

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

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

And hence, we are here.

Yes. :smile:

To be perfectly clear, Dawkins does not claim that "Science disproves God." — praxis

Didn't think he would have had said that. But what Dawkins says that there's no need for religion, and simply those questions on ethics that science cannot answer can be vaguely answered by general "humanity". Don't have a direct quote, but his general idea is this I think.

Ok, now I got your point.

Well, there's a lot to say about Dawkins view. I think in a nutshell it is that you don't have an objective answer to subjective questions.

These are Americans thinking of the situation!

Remember it's not the AIPAC or the Jewish living in the US. Many of them who follow politics in Israel might actually not like so much the Likud. It's the Christian evangelist crazies for whom Israel isn't an ordinary country, but has in their heart this special place, because to be good Christians they have to support Israel. And if Israel is attacked, it's end times. The rupture. Everything as crazy like that.

Both parties just love them. And AIPAC.

It's not hollow but logically consistent. What rings hollow is your "might makes right" argument as a reason to ignore their position. — Benkei

How is it logical consistent?

Is it logical to crave for a country that hasn't existed and before the present was a British Mandate and before that part of the Ottoman Empire?

You do understand that logic and ethics are two different branches of philosophy. And they are here too.

If "might makes right" is hollow for you, then you should now live under Spanish rule. Because your ancestors did fight a long war for independence, so "might made right" then.

Given what I just quoted as their official position since 2017 this is simply a gross mischaracterization. — Benkei

That Hamas has killed children and decapitated women? The terror attacks were made to a) spread fear, b) seek revenge and give that feeling of revenge for Palestinians and c) make the IDF to launch a large full-scale attack on Gaza.

First their are official positions and then there are the ways how people fight wars.

What is the likelihood Bibi ignored it on purpose considering all the flack he's gotten in the past year? — Benkei

Or hoped it would happen... not perhaps with so many Israelis being killed, but still. A terror attack is what you need for this kind of operation that they are now starting, which is likely to be the total occupation of Gaza, going through all the parts of it. Too bad if your a military aged man in Gaza then.

The sickening issue here is that Hamas in my view is in the same boat with Bibi and Likud. Neither Hamas or Likud are secular, and base their justification on religion. Above all, Hamas opposed the secularity of the PLO. You can surely try to defend one group of religious zealots and then condemn other religious zealots. I simply hate them both.

Fiasco for sure. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That fiasco is now seen when the US should react to the situation in Israel. (Yes, Israel needs more weapons and ammo for Gaza!)

Men who were incredibly influential in science like Roger Bacon were active participants of the church. — Isaiasb

Just to mention from the OP. In Bacon's time people were religious. Rarely were people atheist. That science and atheism would hold hands came only far later.

Science disproves God. — praxis

How?

Science is objective. Religion is subjective. I think even in Antiquity people made the difference of the Mind and reasoning and the heart and issues of belief. The Bible (just to give one example of how one religion approaches this) is pretty clear about this difference. Or is it that to find Jesus you have to use your brain and think?

Something that makes Israelis angry: Egyptian intelligence services warned about Hamas being up to no good.

(The Times of Israel) Mounting questions over Israel’s massive intelligence failure to anticipate and prepare for a surprise Hamas assault were compounded Monday when an Egyptian intelligence official said that Jerusalem had ignored repeated warnings that the Gaza-based terror group was planning “something big” — which included an apparent direct notice from Cairo’s intelligence minister to the prime minister.

The Egyptian official said Egypt, which often serves as a mediator between Israel and Hamas, had spoken repeatedly with the Israelis about “something big,” without elaborating.

He said Israeli officials were focused on the West Bank and played down the threat from Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is made up of supporters of West Bank settlers who have demanded a security crackdown there in the face of a rising tide of violence over the last 18 months.

Recognising the state of Israel to them means recognising sovereignty over land that they believe ought to be subject of negotiations in its entirety. — Benkei

You understand how hollow that sounds. Perhaps Hamas destroys the Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons deterrence totally and defeats militarily the IDF, then they could start negotiations about all of the borders, not just what about West Bank and Gaza based on the UN decisions done on the subject or the Oslo Accords.

In my view Likud is the singlemost largest obstacle to peace. — Benkei

I think the kill-all-Isrealites-including-the-babies Hamas fighters have done their share to raise support for Likud. Both get strength from each other.

I personally despise both Bibi and the Hamas leadership. Neither are for peace and both are a result of the development. We have come a long way from the Oslo peace process that started after the Cold War ended.

BTW, what would Putin, the "Russian security concerns" whiner, suggest to address Israeli security concerns? — neomac

I think he won't be able to stay quiet, hence we will hear about it.

No. That's high. How in the world do you interpret those numbers as low? — flannel jesus

In war people rally around their politicians, at the start, typically. And likely Fatah approval is very low: after all, they have had to run a country, not just fight another one now.

But here just as naturally as Israelis want their politicians to give hell to the evil city and the human animals after the terrorist attacks, so will Palestinians support anybody that makes any opposition to Israel. Palestinians were big fans of Saddam Hussein when he lobbed Scuds into Israel when his army was annihilated in the Kuwaiti desert.