Our latest Israeli-Palestinian war has me more depressed than I would have expected.
Longtime readers with good memories will recall that I long ago lost all sympathy for Israel. I won't bother spelling out the entire list of their appalling behavior, but it's long and damning.
But if it's possible to have negative sympathy for someone, that's what I have for the Palestinians and their Arab enablers. It's more than that, though; it's the unending inanity of their behavior. Israel's enemies have launched war after war over the past 50 years and they've been crushed Every. Single. Time. The result has been uniformly disastrous: settlements, walls, blockades, checkpoints, and massive oppression of Israeli Arabs. You don't have to approve of any of this to recognize that it's the easily foreseeable response of a nation under siege.
The same thing will happen this time. Thousands of Palestinians will die and Israeli retaliation will make the rest worse off than before. But I doubt that matters to the lunatics who run Hamas.
Is this simplistic? Sure. But sometimes it's best to just clear the fog. The only remotely reasonable course for the Palestinians—though it may be too late even for this—is to stop fighting and surrender on Israeli terms. There is literally no other option open to them aside from endless war and brutal poverty.
This was an interesting take:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/youre-not-going-to-like-what-comes
“Interesting?” Perhaps it is, in an unrealistic naive sort of simplistic attempt to distill a complex world into a single phrase.
But look at this summary sentence, and see if it sounds true to you:
“ But even if an Israel-Saudi deal eventually goes through, this attack is a demonstration of America’s decreasing ability to deter conflict throughout the world.”
America’s inability??? Get serious! Does anybody—anywhere in the entire world—believe for one deluded moment that America has the slightest influence over the fanatical terrorists in that corner of the world?
Egypt was once a seemingly implacable enemy of Israel. US influence was a major contributor to ending that disastrous standoff. Similarly with other of the Arab nations who no longer believe it is their Allah-given mandate to destroy Israel.
US influence has brought a degree of stability to that naturally unstable corner of the world. But expect our influence to affect the manic terrorists? Dream on.
agreed. I find him simply dreadful on foreign policy.
He's simply dreadful, full stop. And childish in his conversations to boot.
To dismiss the agency of others is worse than any other crime in world - it is to reduce another to an object that only certain humans may act upon. It is to make another person a rock to hew. If only America acts or doesn't act and that is the history of the world....
Granted, giants crush much in their paths, but ants slay each other over the corpse of a bee.
Hard indeed to see how USA can "deter" the Hamas militias in Gaza. It is not as if they were not already expecting massize direct Israeli retaliation. What on earth does one expect extra for deterence? The US or Israeli nuking Gaza?
(and only real enabler of Hamas is Iran [non-Arab....], where again, barring nuclear exchange, hard to see what more - at some point when an entity is willing to absorb the pain there is no "deterence"
When I was a kid, I thought that the Israelis were the best thing that happened to that area. I thought that they brought western values and modern technology to the region. I didn't know much, if anything about the Palestinians, so I could view the Israelis in an entirely positive light.
However, over the years, I've seen that the Israelis are acting a lot like the Nazis who drove them to form that nation.
I don't know if the idea that "you are surrounded by enemies who want to destroy you" (as the Gestapo claimed) inevitably leads you to oppress your neighbors, but the record isn't looking good on this one.
Hurt people hurt people.
The problem is that the region itself degrades those who live there because of its long history of violence.
It wasn’t particularly violent during the long reign of the Ottomans.
Hmmm, what changed in Palestine after that empire collapsed during WWI?
What changed was the Turks were gone but before anyone could do anything the European colonial powers moved in. Other than that nothing at all had changed because everyone in the Ottoman territories had been thinking about what to do when the Empire collapsed for at least forty years. What they'd been thinking about specifically was how to make their own territory as large as possible and for the Arabs of Palestine that meant getting rid of the Jews.
Not sure your account is that accurate. In 1822, there were 24,000 Jews in the general area of Palestine according to Jewish sources. By the mid century there were roughly 30,000. By 1922, there were 83,794 Jews out of a population of 757,182. In addition, before the war the Jewish population was concentrated in four cities: Safed, Tiberiias, Hebron, and Jerusalem. Not sure why the Arabs of Palestine were much different than those of Lebanon and Syria when the Jewish populations in those regions were comparable in the time frame you are alleging.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zvo6KRkRTvUC&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Jews#:~:text=Prior%20to%20dismemberment%20of%20the,around%205%25%20of%20the%20population.
No, the problem was a Zionist movement which was a colonization movement, and the subsequent 1947 partition which gave the Jewish population 55% of the land when their Arab neighbors made up almost 70% of the population. Then Israel ended up with 70% of the land after 1948 war.
You are leaving out quite a lot.
The question was what happened after WWI. Are you denying that Arabs tried to evict Jews en masse at that point?
And you very conveniently neglect to mention that the original area of Palestine included current day Jordan. That was about 70% of the territory, which was given to Arabs. The 55% you mention is the 55% of the 30% left over. And that 55% was largely desert, so just area is not the best measurement.
And Israel gained territory in a war that they did not start. Do you think we ought to give back land won in a defensive war? So that the aggressors can just keep trying with minimal penalties until the defender is eliminated?
Tell me you've never read the Balfour Declaration without telling tells me you've never read the Balfour Declaration.
I've read the Balfour Declaration. Which particular part of that sentence are you referring to, and how does it relate to my comment?
You say you've read the Balfour Declaration, eh? Then of course you can tell me which parts of it the Zionists violated and when, right?
Put up or shut up.
"Are you denying that Arabs tried to evict Jews en masse at that point?"
I'll deny it.
I think the first time there was any significant anti-Jewish effort in Palestine was after a group of Jews held a demonstration basically proclaiming their ownership of Jerusalem.
Your history is very wrong.
My claim was that Arabs tried to evict Jews en masse shortly after WWI.
You are correct, they did not just try to evict them, they also tried to kill them.
I don't know when "a group of Jews held a demonstration basically proclaiming their ownership of Jerusalem." occurred. If you provide a date, I can address it. A more thorough description would be helpful as well.
But here are the sources to back up my claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Nebi_Musa_riots
From Wikipedia, but the original sources are noted on the site.
"On 7 and 8 March [1920], demonstrations took place in all cities of Palestine, shops were closed and many Jews were attacked. Attackers carried slogans such as "Death to Jews" or "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs!"
[On 4 April, 1920]
The crowd reportedly shouted "Independence! Independence!" and "Palestine is our land, the Jews are our dogs!"[1] Arab police joined in applause, and violence started.[15] The local Arab population ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. The Torath Chaim Yeshiva was raided, and Torah scrolls were torn and thrown on the floor, and the building then set alight.[1] During the next three hours, 160 Jews were injured.[15]
And there is much more evidence during the Mandate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine
I'd like to see your date of the Jewish demonstration. If it is after March of 1920, then you are wrong. And if it was a few Jews making a statement, I'd like to know if that justifies the violence described above, in your mind.
You seem to be very biased about all this. Are you Israeli? Jewish?
Not that that diminishes the value of your perspective; I'd just like to have a better idea of where you're coming from.
I reject your assertion that your couple of incidents prior to 1920 negate my position. The Balfour Declaration was in 1917, and it betrayed earlier assurances to Arabs. Most Palestinian Arabs were unaware of any of this, but some of the more cosmopolitan of them were, and I suspect that your incidents were largely directed by these elites.
The incident I referred to is the "Palestine Riots" of 1929 from your link, and this was really the first incident that had a lot of general support from the Arab population.
Also, the whole area had a background of violence at the time: tribes and families very often in violent conflict with each other; banditry; etc. You can't take an violent event where Jews were attacked and offer it as proof of general victimization of Jews; the Armenians in particular might not find that very convincing.
And in any case, by the time of the incidents you note, it was already becoming clear at least to some that the Zionist Jews had designs on the territory.
I congratulate you for being civil whereas I've given up. I consider what you wrote to be the baseline, the minimal amount of history you should know before you join the conversation.
The fact that they don't tells me they don't want to know, or at the least find doing primary research too hard, despite their obvious passion.
This started with a post that ignored any negative Arab behavior. I pointed out that there was significant negative Arab behavior.
I then proved it.
If you want to quibble about when it happened, or whether racist riots killing hundreds is justified by "Zionist Jews having designs on the territory", have at it.
And where did the Jewish populations of those other regions end up?
The Zionist movement only begins in Europe after the mass expulsions of Jews, and millions of others, from Ottoman territories conquered by Russian expansion.
It's the standard Russian method maximizing brutal savagery to create terror and force huge masses of refugees into the region they're attacking to overwhelm them their capacity. They did exactly the same thing in Ukraine.
It was the Turks who began moving Jewish refugees into the region around Jerusalem because it seemed the logical place for them.
You are almost completely clueless about the history of the situation.
Nothing you think you know is real, but enjoy the romance.
I am going to make a suggestion, with the intent of making discussion here a little less contentious, and a little more rewarding for those who want to challenge perceptions of others and themselves.
When you post, add some information. Don't just say the other person is wrong without any specifics of what was wrong, or why it was wrong. Having actual facts and reasons, and ideally sources to prove the facts, is really the only way to resolve many of these disagreements.
Even worse are ad hominem attacks. Please don't expect anyone to listen to you once you start with that.
And in case you wanted to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, I will clarify. I am criticizing your posts, not you. I have suggested people learn a little more before making broad, disprovable and offensive generalizations. But I have not told anyone to FOAD, or called them a troll, or clueless, or a fool. Those are ad hominem attacks because they attack the person, not the comment.
If this sounds condescending, I apologize, but given some of the comments, I don't know how to get my point across without sounding that way. And condescending is a far cry from abusive.
cld's comment was so disjointed and so wrong there was nothing obvious to address about it other than that it was clueless.
You, Steve C, seem to put a little effort into your comments, even if I ultimately disagree with whatever argument you make.
I can't say that of cld.
Simple answers to complicated questions will get you on the Joe Rogan show.
And that's your goal? The Joe Rogan show?
Good luck.
Weird that you can't read but you can type, how do you do it?
But some people have a lot of trouble with context.
To illustrate - my reply above was to your reply above that and is meant to imply that you're being incompetent with a complex narrative and that your incompetence in this regard would make you an excellent guest on Joe Rogan's moronic program.
He gets $100 million for that show! If you're glib and chatty enough he could have you on twice! Who know what could happen.
Then respond productively. Or don't respond. But your response above only reduces the level of discourse.
I believe I was responding positively.
cld posted some largely false nonsense, and I pointed out that it was largely false nonsense.
Think of it as a "CAUTION: WET FLOOR" sign: it doesn't dry the floor, but it does help people avoid slipping and falling.
If you could say where or why any of that was false you would but you won't because you know nothing at all about any part of this topic.
Haha, starting the 1800s when Ottoman power began to weaken it was. And as it happens you're wrong in terms of challenges to the Sultans power after they took it over in the 1500s.
The Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks would disagree
?
You mean compared to ever peaceful Europe -- ?
You may want to have a better handle on history before you start waving around the Nazi label here, friend.
Granted, Gaza is not the Warsaw Ghetto, and Israel is not exterminating the Palestinians on an industrial level, but there are some surprising similarities.
There is a large Palestinian population in the Detroit area, and while life in Detroit isn't all sweetness and light, neither is it Gaza. So, what's the difference?
At the risk of being glib, the Palestinians in Detroit are not shooting rockets into Ann Arbor.
Are Israelis treating Palestinians badly? I don't deny that. Is there a history that explains, if not justifies that? Absolutely.
But this is not simple, and comparing Israelis to Nazis does not help understanding in any meaningful way.
Rashida Tlaib has said NOTHING on this event. Even Omar condemned it by lunch time yesterday.
Pathetic but is it because she knows her constituents?
The Palestinians in Detroit are American citizens. Or, each at least has the rights of an American citizen.
Gaza is pretty close to the Warsaw Ghetto, actually.
Comparing it to Buchenwald is bullshit, but "Warsaw Ghetto" is pretty close.
And the difference between Detroit and Gaza, about which I hope you're being ironic, is that Detroit doesn't have one of the world's most advanced militaries feeling it can stroll through in force at any time for any reason, and frequently doing so. And enforcing a pretty severe blockade for 17 years.
I was being glib.
Detroit is different for both reasons. They are related.
I acknowledge that being embargoed and having travel restricted will incite you to fight against those constraints.
Do you acknowledge that years of terrorism and attacks, and constant threats might cause the victims of those efforts to restrain the attackers? Not kill them, or evict them, but restrain them? If you do, please say so, because so far I have not seen any indication that you put any blame on Hamas, a terrorist organization.
Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto, except in Warsaw, the inhabitants were all killed intentionally. And they never used the ghetto as a base of attacks on Polish civilians. They just finally attacked the Germans when they came to collect the last Jews to go to the gas chambers. An average daily food ration in 1941 for Jews in Warsaw was limited to 184 calories.
And I'm sorry, but when you are shooting lethal weapons at civilians and you get someone coming to your house to stop you from doing it, it is not "strolling in for any reason"
You do acknowledge there is a valid reason for going into Gaza, don't you?
Do you think the police have a right to go into a house that is shooting at police? They have a valid reason to shoot at police - they keep breaking into their house? The police are totally at fault, even though innocent bystanders are being shot at from the house as well?
Can you understand my point? The situation should have been avoided, but right now, the police have a right to go in and stop the killing of innocent people.
The inhabitants of the Warsaw Ghetto were for several years not intentionally killed.
And now Israel has added food and water to what it embargoes from Gaza.
So they are very much alike.
I acknowledge there are valid reasons, in the short term, for the Israeli military to act in Gaza.
What sort of validity do you recognize for Palestinian actions in response to Israel's land seizures, destruction of infrastructure, and generally racist policies in the West Bank?
You may want to get a better handle on the situation in Israel as it actually exists and not in your uninformed opinion before you lecture others here, friend.
“‘Israel’s Government Has neo-Nazi Ministers. It Really Does Recall Germany in 1933’
Holocaust historian Daniel Blatman says he is astounded at how quickly Israel is hurtling toward fascism. ‘The moment the judicial reform passes, we will be in another reality,’ he says.”
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-10/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/israels-government-has-neo-nazi-ministers-it-really-does-recall-germany-in-1933/00000186-3a49-d80f-abff-7ac9c7ff0000
There are startling and disturbing similarities unfortunately to those who actually study the situation and have a much better handle on history than you show in your condescending response.
First of all, what have I said that demonstrates an inadequate handle on the history? I disagreed with a flat statement that shows a lack of historical understanding. The person who made the statement backed off somewhat, proving my point.
What specific statement did I make that caused you to question my understanding?
The statement I pushed back on was "the Israelis are acting a lot like the Nazis"
Your link has a single scholar claiming "there are neo-Nazi ministers in the government today" without any real backup or further discussion.
Are those ministers dangerous, revolting, and disturbing? Of course they are.
Do they prove that "the Israelis are acting a lot like the Nazis". Nope. No more than Stephen Miller or Michael Flynn proves anything about "the Americans"
If you have any better evidence, I would be happy to see it.
You have weird definition of 'backed off', because I sure didn't see any. You also don't seem to get the subtle distinction (rolls eyes) between 'act a lot like' and 'are' so no, no throwing the labeil 'Nazi' around. I could go on with '... shows a lack of historical understanding' have proved zero cites that I can see while badgering others to provide them, etc. I could go on but what I've already alluded indicates a clear pattern of abusive behaviour. I advise you stop it and play nicely with the others.
If you can show me any cites being requested, I would concede the point.
If you can't show me any cites requested, then I guess it shows how much you care about the truth.
What have I done that you consider abusive? Have I called anyone a fool? How about a troll? Have I told anyone to FOAD?
No, ScentOfViolets, I have done none of these things.
Those are your words to me. Then you call me abusive.
I think, regardless of how people feel about the situation in Gaza, there is pretty universal agreement on how you conduct yourself.
You've written a lot of things that demonstrates a poor -- and probably biased -- understanding of the history.
And you should most definitely have a better handle on history before dismissing someone else's opinion out of hand, Pilgrim.
Typical anti-Semitic trope comparing Israelis to Nazis.
Needless to say, Germany was not surrounded by enemies that wanted to destroy it (and the Gestapo made no such ludicrous claims) until Germany attacked it's neighbors. Meanwhile, Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Syria, and Iran all do want to destroy Israel and make no secret of that.
You were brought up on the very typical propaganda that has been fed to Americans about the situation.
I can understand both sides of the argument about returning the West Bank”. No easy answer, but since Gaza, Israeli conservatives need only say- “Why give back the West Bank? How much peace did giving back Gaza get us?”
I’ve often thought (naively i guess 🙂 if the Gaza residents could have achieved political stability, investment from wealthy countries would have poured in. But then Israel would have an Arab “non-enemy” and Hamas no purpose. So now the Hamas strategy assures no-one will invest in that hell hole, exactly what they want.
Why give back the West Bank? How much peace did giving back Gaza get us?”
1) Gaza wasn't "given back" in any meaningful sense of that term, which would require full national sovereignty.
2) It's impossible in any event (at least based on current Palestinian politics) for Israeli to grant full sovereignty (that, is true, independent Palestinian nationhood) to only Gaza and not the West Bank (or the other way around).
The aftermath of an independent Palestinian state won't necessarily be an immediate, pristine level of peace between this new state and its neighbor, Israel. But it's not hard to imagine relations normalizing (and violence receding) over time. After all, Palestinian leadership will lose their ability to blame all their problems on Israel, and they'll eventually need to deliver decent governance (this is all the more true if the government of Israel is committed to making the new state work).
A just outcome for Palestinians leading to full independence doesn't guarantee peace, but lack of such an outcome guarantees war.
"A just outcome for Palestinians leading to full independence doesn't guarantee peace, but lack of such an outcome guarantees war."
Quite true, but let's dig a little deeper.
Starting at the end, a lack of a Palestinian state guarantees war. I agree. But right now the size and effects of that war, on a concrete security level, are understood and acceptable to Israel. (The moral aspects are another story, and I think equally dangerous, but I digress)
An independent Palestine means
-they can import as many weapons as they want from Iran
-they can amass an army to invade Israel
-they can send thousands of independent terrorists into Israel
And Israel has no means, short of outright acts of war, to stop them.
I think the recent history, the education system, the propaganda, and the overall culture of Palestinians indicates that all of these things are not at all unlikely.
If you were sworn to protect Israel, which would you choose?
-An unending, but understood war
-Or something that has a small potential to end the war, but a big potential to escalate?
However, if there were some reasonable belief that the Palestinians would be peaceful neighbors, the calculus would change significantly. Maybe not for the hardliners, but for the rest of the people on both sides.
That is the crux. I understand the desire for Palestinians to fight for a state. But I have seen very little to indicate they would stop fighting once they have a State. I would love to see some evidence of that.
What you're missing is this: the main reason the Palestinians are fighting is that they're currently occupied by a hostile imperialist power. I see zero prospect they'll maintain the same appetite for war if they actually get their own country. Sure, a redentist element angry about Israel's very existence will have some influence at the outset, but they're likely to be undermined as people get on with the business of living their own secure and prosperous lives in their own independent country. Moreover, I think there's zero prospect of a two state solution that doesn't include some degree of cooperation between Israel and Palestine on security issues, so, I don't foresee the free-for-all in terms of imported arms you cite. But sure, in the early going things could be bumpy. That's why any new Palestinian state would need ample economic aid and support.
Anyway, it's all rather moot now because such a deal looks decades away. But I honestly think if this isn't in the cards, eventually Israel is likely to be a binational state: some estimates suggest Jews are now a minority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Demographics are the elephant in the room that keeps the two state solution a viable (if barely) concept. Do Jewish Israelis really want to tempt the loss of a national Jewish homeland?
"I see zero prospect they'll maintain the same appetite for war if they actually get their own country. "
If it were your children living just across the border, would you be willing to bet their lives that the "appetite for war" is low enough?
That is the relevant question.
The fact that you say "zero" means you have not done enough research or thinking on this.
If it were your children living just across the border, would you be willing to bet their lives that the "appetite for war" is low enough?
If my children were living near that border, I: A) would want the IDF to deal with the immediate crisis and then B) I would want my government to deliver a just, two-state solution so my country could finally start working toward longterm security and peace.
Understood.
Yet you did not answer my question. I will clarify it, and hope you answer the question.
Your children are living just across the border, in Israel, and the Palestinians state had just been formed, and armed, and has made no promises about refraining from attacks.
Would you trust that the Palestinians would never think of doing anything to Israelis just across the border?
New question: What evidence would justify that trust?
Now you're just making a clown out of yourself. You've made it quite obvious over several comments that you're incapable of a serious converstion on this subject.
And the fact that your're more than willing to give an argument by authority by claiming credentials you don't have tells me something about your character as well.
🙂
So please tell me where I used "argument by authority", specifically.
And, specifically, what credentials have I claimed? Whatever credentials you think I claimed, how do you know I do not have them?
I would appreciate a reply.
You mean I imagined all those comments you made about people not knowing or misunderstanding history without no supporting cites or links? Comments like:
Couldn't possibly be claiming greater knowledge on the subject than the person you responded two, amirite. I won't bother to comb through the many times you have something along the same lines to several different comments, but what would be the point? The fact that other commentors on _your_ apparent like of historical knowledge should tell you something too.
I think it is clear to anyone what is going on here.
I really don't think a direct response will add anything. If there is another poster here besides ScentofViolets who has a question, I would be happy to answer.
Social conservatives always require an existential threat, for Palestinians that will always be Israel.
What would happen if the US were divided and wingnuts were able to have their own governments just the way they like them?
It would be a basket case and every step of the way they'd be carrying on about how we, liberals, the Deep State, the US, are clandestinely undermining them and conspiring against them --you know, exactly as they are now, except there would be nothing to ameliorate it. If US wingnuts had their own country, or, more likely, countries, it wouldn't be two years before they declared war on us.
Palestine would be exactly the same except they're at that point now.
So then how do your explain Hezbollah and Iran?
< >
Disagree. I think even without complete sovereignty, had peace prevailed, Arab investment into Gaza would have followed. But with Hamas influence, all moot now.
Hamas is the 3rd party to the Mideast conflict that George Mitchell couldn’t overcome. I think he succeeded in Ireland because in spite of the hatred between Protestants and Catholics, both sides wanted peace. I believe that’s the case for both Gaza and Israel “residents”. But in spite of their 1992 pledge, I just don’t see Hamas benefiting from any peace. They are the best investment Iran ever made. jmho
If Israel isn't going to give back the West Bank, then the people living there should be citizens with full rights.
If they want to both keep the West Bank, but make the non-Israeli's living there third-class citizens with no rights who can be abused at will... there are words for that, and the most polite one is "apartheid."
Kevin is right, and you could say exactly the same thing about Russia --if they just stopped acting like they're at war with an existential threat they could be a great place, and they could be, but then they'd have the rule of law and everyone with any money and power now would be in jail or dead.
The only remotely reasonable course for the out group is to stop fighting and surrender on the in group's terms.
Just curious ... how often do you think that's happened in the last hundred centuries? I'm thinking Judea during the Roman occupation, for example.
This time feels very different. This isn't just another mini war between Israel and Palestinians. Hamas made a wide-scale incursion into Israel and killed a few hundred Israelis including civilians. So whereas prior actions created a split of the Jewish diaspora, this event has unified them and coalesced support from across the political spectrum. Netanyahu now has a mandate and I think Jews will not stop until Hamas has been wiped out and Iran dealt with.
Also, the taking of hostages (both civilians and soldiers) paints a big target on Hamas and Iran. There are no good reasons for taking civilians hostage.
Israelis will recall 1972 Munich. This is not just going to stop after a few thousand Palestinians are dead. This is going to end when Hamas is wiped out and Iran is taken care of.
Why do you think that Hamas is any more eradicable than any other guerilla group with popular support on its home turf?
How many Al Qaeda are left?
Enough that we continue to have forces around the globe trying to deal with them.
The original Al Qaeda group does not exist in a form that is recognizable as a militant force. Its offshoot affiliates exist, but the group headed by Bin Laden is dispersed and appears to have very limited control and influence of anything.
Yes. Terrorism doesn't count if it's undertaken by a successor organization. I'm sure that Israel's goal is to be attacked by a group that grows out of the parts of Hamas they don't manage to destroy.
There well may be successors to Hamas, but Hamas will be targeted for annihilation. Answer my question at the bottom: If you were PM of Israel, what would you do after this attack by Hamas?
Who is going to ‘take care of’ Iran, and how?
I don't know what exactly they'll do, but this has clearly pushed Israel towards a big response and not just against Hamas.
As Josh Marshall wrote:
I can't stress enough, what Hamas did crossed a lot of red lines from which cannot be undone.
"There are no good reasons for taking civilians hostage."
Not true.
Israel has imprisoned thousands of Palestinians, many of them without any charges. And Israel has often been willing to release many of them in exchange for Israeli hostages.
I wonder, although I have no real evidence for it one way or the other, if some of this is part of the very ancient Middle Eastern tradition of tribes taking hostages from each other. I think that, historically, it was much more benign: one tribe would have a grievance against another, and they'd take a hostage ... whom they would treat very well until the other tribe came to negotiate the release, they'd talk over their disagreements, and have a big celebratory feast.
And I strongly doubt that the Israeli military and the militant squatters will bother to distinguish between Hamas and non-Hamas Palestinians. As I keep harping, this gives Netanyahu his rationale for doing a "Final Solution."
With our help, of course.
I think there will be lots of civilian casualties, but the Palestinians are far more than just the Gaza Strip.
The question to ask: Does Israel intend to seize control of Gaza as part of its own territory or does it intend to hand it over to the PLA?
It should be clearer now, Israel intends to wipe out Hamas. They officially declared war on Hamas at the UN.
Netanyahu has proclaimed his intent to blockade even food from entering Gaza.
Israel has stated that they want to rub Palestinians' noses in "the fact that they are a defeated people." Israel believes Palestine and Palestinians have "no right to exist." Mr Drum seems to be saying that's the way it's got to be! Basically, completing the genocide started in 1947.
Is it any wonder that the Palestinan people don't just roll over and accept their own extinction? No matter what the odds, they refuse to give up?
There was a time when Americans would have appreciated and supported this kind of thing. Now, we support the oppressors and supply them with state of the art weaponry.
You say "Israel has stated" and "Israel believes". Israel, like pretty much any group, is not monolithic.
Do you have sources for your quoted text? If not, you really ought not be putting quotes around it.
I'm sure I could look up some sources, and won't use quote signs in future unless I do. However, that's one of the quotes that tends to stick in one's memory. And it's so totally hypocritical. Did the Jews of Europe roll over and admit they as a people were defeated?
Plus, these "Palestinians" are their own ancestors. They just switched to more modern religions (per Juan Cole).
If you don't mind finding the sources, I would appreciate it. If they are valid, and reflect something more than the most fringe opinion, I will update my opinions.
If they reflect fringe opinions, I hope you will update your opinions and not attribute those quotes to "Israel", but rather the fringe.
Why didn't you just say he should have used tic marks (which indicates a paraphrase) rather than quotes? Instead deliberately misunderstanding the intent so you could go on the attack over a petty detail?
Surrender on Israel terms? Isn’t that what he have now? Gaza is basically a prison run by the inmates with the acquiescence of the Israeli government. Ideally the Israeli government would set shop inside the territories and weed out the terrorist (and create a functioning government) but it is obvious they prefer the current state of affairs.
Concur in the depression. It's almost unbearably tragic, not least because the people who will suffer the worst are the non-Hamas non-militant Palestinian residents of Gaza. There will be carnage, and the world will largely accept -- even concur in -- Netanyahu's pronouncements that "they" deserved it.
One of the more plausible comments I've seen is that this is a desperation move: Hamas started this now because they see Saudi / Arab support for Palestinians dwindling indefinitely, so better now than later, and if it amounts to suicide, better to have tried. They might be right about the politics, but again the cost will be borne by the Palestinian people of Gaza.
I agree. Of course, I can't say I "like" it...
One example of Chutzpah is the son who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court, claiming he is an orphan. This was matched after the Six Day War, when Israel instead of pursuing a long term peace, allowed Jewish militants to assassinate a whole generation of young moderate West Bank Arab mayors and local leaders. The Israeli militants then complained there were no moderate Arab leaders to negotiate with.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Israel attempted negotiations after the Six Day War, and Arab nations refused to even talk.
Do you have sources for your claims about allowing "Jewish militants to assassinate a *whole generation* of young moderate West Bank Arab mayors and local leaders."
Emphasis added.
Israel has never engaged in good faith negotiations, nor ever offered more than pennies on the dollar deals.
Zionism was wrong at its foundation and inevitably led to war. By 1900 or so, Zionist leaders were clear on this point and knew there was no way to get their country in a foreign land without force.
During the Clinton administration, Israel definitely entered into serious negotiations with Palestinians. They came close to a settlement, but Ariel Sharon won the Israeli election, and Arafat had refused to accept the Taba negotiations until another year and a half went by, at which time Sharon had taken it off the table, partly due to the Second Intifada, which had started about a year before the Taba agreement.
Both sides have failed at various times. It's an ugly war between two sides, each of which believes they will ultimately defeat the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit
Blanket statement with no backup or sources.
Duly noted.
FOAD, troll.
Your comment has been given the attention it deserves. In future, you may find it useful to post something besides profanity and ad hominem attacks if you are trying to make an actual point.
No, you have no intention of giving my comment the attention it deserves and you will not modify your shiity abusive behaviour by one iota.
No referenced sources, just news reports from back at the time. There were elements within the Israeli government, including Moshe Dayan, who supported a peace agreement, but the militants acted extralegally to render their efforts irrelevant. The Israeli right wing reserves the right to assassinate any Israeli head of state who is perceived as too supportive of a peace agreement, of course they would have no problem supporting the assassination of Arab leaders.
Assassinations:
https://israeled.org/jewish-underground-bombs-palestinian-officials/
This is why I didn't criticize Trump moving the embassy. The Pslestinians lost the war in 1948 and have refused to act like it. Well too fucking bad. Should Israel be kicking them in the face? No. But losing a war means you don't get what you want. Stupid arabs and their stupid pride.
Might makes right? That’s a terrible argument.
Earth history suggests it's the only thing that matters.
Without might, right can accomplish little.
Strength through monopoly of violence is always the bedrock prerequisite to civilization.
So, you're saying that the Jews should have forever given up thoughts of their own state after the Romans kicked their ass in 70?
Yes. Many other minor peoples did and became romans.
It’s not as if Israel has been kind and helpful to the people of GAZA over the last 20 or 30 years. It became little more than a prison area with people who had rights and who were constantly being moved out of their homes by infiltrating Israeli colonists.
Yeah they will lose this battle again but by raising the issue now it puts the Saudi, the UAE and QATARi negotiations with Israel into limbo….. i think.
I think you missed the part where Israel withdrew from Gaza and forcibly required Israelis to abandon the settlements.
Israel has done some terrible things. But your comments are oversimplification.
"We're not going to have an active military occupation anymore, we're just gonna turn this place into a huge open-air prison" is a kind of withdrawal, sure.
Gaza shares a border with Egypt too.
The Palestinians are plenty angry at the Egyptians and other Arab states. But they recognize that the ultimate source of the problems is Israel.
The ultimate source of the Palestinians problems is Palestinian leadership. Just pointing out the obvious. Best Wishes, Traveller
PS "Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.[44]"
Is is difficult for Israel to accede to this demand.
Marwan Abu Ras, a Hamas MP, who is also a member of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, stated:
"The Jews are behind each and every catastrophe on the face of the Earth. This is not open to debate. This is not a temporal thing, but goes back to days of yore. They concocted so many conspiracies and betrayed rulers and nations so many times that the people harbor hatred towards them. ... Throughout history—from Nebuchadnezzar until modern times. ... They slayed the prophets, and so on. ... Any catastrophe on the face of this Earth—the Jews must be behind it."
This is tough to swallow even for a non-Jew such as myself...but I watched in horror as Hamas was elected to be the government in Gaza.
Gaza is a prison by the choice of the People of Gaza.
Your first thinking test is to know who to blame. Traveller
Keep in mind that the only alternative to Hamas was the Fatah, which was hopelessly corrupt and useless. If you actually dig into the polling prior to the 2006 election, Gazans primarily were not voting based upon relations with Israel at all. They were fed up with the Fatah, and voted for the only alternative they had, mostly for internal reasons. They overwhelmingly supported a two state peace plan. You can argue that they should have paid more attention to Hamas's position on Israel, but any analysis that omits the reasons why they opted for anyone other than Fatah is dishonest.
And the fact that those were the only two choices they had were as much the fault of Israel as anyone else. The Israelis always opposed actual democracy among the Palestinians.
Someone confronted you with the fact that Hamas literally blames every catastrophe in the history of the world on Jews.
And your response is to...
blame the election of Hamas on Jews.
The Jews would sooner "work" with Hamas rather than Fatah. Just be careful what you wish for.
Hamas was the creation of Isreal, you ahistorical fool. Look it up for yourself. And no, I'm not going to waste my time with providing links and quotes when it's pretty damn obvious that you won't make any conscessions.
Doubling down on blaming the Jews for everything. Duly noted.
Uh, you got a cite for "the fact that Hamas literally blames every catastrophe in the history of the world on Jews"? I mean, that's what you've asked other to do, right. So either provide the cite or back down.
What would have happened if Gazans were good neighbors when Israel withdrew, at great economic and political cost?
What do you think should have happened when Gazans started attacking Israel?
The point is that Israel, at great cost, withdrew, giving Gazans a chance to make something for themselves. That is context that was ignored.
The current situation has at least as much to do with what Gazans did when Israel withdrew as what Israel did.
This isn't what happened. The Israeli's withdrew and turned Gaza into a giant open-air prison under extreme blockade. That's the opposite of "giving them a chance to make something of themselves."
You are also wrong about "at great cost." Israeli was an imperial occupier. They impose that cost on themselves, it is not imposed on them.
First, even if I stipulate that Israel imposed the cost on themselves, it is in fact great cost. Which was my point.
It would have been easier for Israel to maintain what was going on before they disengaged.
It would have been easier for Israel not to pay settlers $200,000 to leave.
It would have been easier for Israel not to literally drag Israeli citizens out of Gaza, after handcuffing them.
Those are fact, which support my statement.
What happened is that within weeks of Israel disengaging, the rocket attacks from Gaza increased. Gazans destroyed many buildings left for them, and also chose to desecrate synagogues that were not already destroyed due to fear of desecration.
The disengagement was clearly a positive step for Gazans. Was it everything the Gazans wanted, or perhaps deserved? No. Was it still a terrible life? Absolutely. But their response to a positive gesture did not make it more likely that they would get what they wanted or deserved.
I am not excusing Israel. I am pointing out that Israel made a gesture, and we see how Gaza responded. That context is missing from many posts here.
Reminds me of the man accused of rape who used in his defense the fact that his victim had asked him to wear a condom, and he did.
So: consensual sex!
Israel withdrew from direct occupation of Gaza, but they never gave up controls on its border. They have continuously maintained most of the powers of sovereignty over Gaza.
As worded, that sounds like you think there should have been an open border between Gaza and Israel. That matter aside, Israel presumably never gave up controls on Israel's border with Gaza. There is also the small matter of Gaza's border with Egypt.
But that's the point. Israel has pressured Egypt to keep the border between Gaza and Egypt tightly controlled. Gazans can't take a weekend trip to Cairo on a whim. [Assuming of course they could afford it]
They also keep the sea lanes blockaded. There's an argument that Israel has a right to control its own border and Egypt likewise, but NO argument about the seaward side blockade.
The argument that Gazans could (and in fact did) attempt to bring in shiploads of weapons from Iran with which to attack Israel.
Uh, you do know who said 'I want to put the Palestinians on a diet', right? Actually no, no you don't.
We are down to the the Ripley Gambit, it's unacceptable but what is?
Telling people "you should be slaves in your own land; this is the only reasonable course" doesn't have a great track record of getting them to accept that statement in modern times.
Because those are Israel's terms; that the Palestinians either leave, or exist as third-class citizens in bantustans. The Armenians of Ngorno-Karabakh at least had somewhere to go; the Palestinians don't even have that.
That's not what KD's saying. Almost all of us were broadly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. BUT what Hamas just did crossed a lot of red lines. You don't take women and children hostage. You don't go door to door killing people. Those are Russian tactics in Ukraine.
You mean that you forfeit your rights to struggle if you impose a sixteen year blockade that kills civilians?
BUT what Hamas just did crossed a lot of red lines. You don't take women and children hostage. You don't go door to door killing people.
The US (and most countries, for that matter) has killed many civilians, including many women and children, in all the wars it has ever fought. Look at Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, Iraq...
Israel will now kill many women and children, too, in its strike back.
The main difference is Israel is a US-backed nuclear power with a $25 billion military budget, so the women and children it is now killing will be called collateral damage.
As a measure of the percentage of Israelis just killed over the weekend relative to its population size, we're talking on the order of 21K Americans in a single weekend.
In what context is that not a red line? Surely if you were in charge of the US, you would not proffer a equivalence argument.
"My fellow Americans, we've done worse to others! Let it go!"
The main difference is that Hamas puts its missile launchers on top of hospitals and schools.
You mean Israel hasn't? And for literally decades to boot. Oh my.
Israel has previously taken women and children hostages? Where? When?
Do tell, SoV, the scion of knowledge of all things.
No, I'm not the scion of all knowledge. Like you, I was once a big supporter of Israel. But unlike you, I read a lot from reputable sources with differering viewpoints, often in direct oppostion to the other. Start with the wki:
Now do your own damn research; it's not only easy but in this internet age, for free. I'm guessing that unlike you, I read a lot in bed in preference to watching videos or gaming. You'll get over it once your older.
How can you lose all sympathy for Israel? They are, perhaps, the most sympathetic nation in the history of the world. Not saying they are perfect and you can’t disagree with many things they have done, but being totally unsympathetic is ridiculous.
I'm totally unsympathetic. The whole problem started when a bunch of people ideologically committed to the creation of a state that definitionally excluded the local inhabitants immigrated to Palestine. Modern Israelis refuse to grasp the nature of what really occurred. The British get a large share of the blame for allowing such large scale immigration of people intent on stealing the land, but the Zionists caused all of this.
Creation of a state that definitionally excluded the local inhabitants.
Funny, the Declaration of Independence said this:
"it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
People don't usually put things in their founding documents that are diametrically opposed to there ideological commitments.
And Arabs are members of the Knesset.
You mean they -- Gasp! -- lied? Like the U.S. did with their own native populace? Oh my stars and garters?
What should I take more seriously? The pretty words they wrote down, or the actual reality of the ethnic cleansing that was the Nakba?
Israel can allow a right of return for those they ethnically cleansed or their descendants and grant them full citizenship rights. That would literally be the least they could do.
I think you know that's bullshit.
Look at what the American Declaration of Independence held while we were over eighty years from abolishing slavery.
He definitely does know it's bullshit.
Just like he knows the once-popular slogan, "A land without people for a people without a land."
Wow. Just wow. So basically, they regarded the people already living there as non-persons. Trust me, I know from personal experience they exist, and in large numbers. They also tended to be educated and informed; they cannot with a straight face plead ignorance. Check out Scott Aaronson's blog posts on the subject over at Shtetl-Optimized. They're a real hoot.
You severely misused "sympathetic" in the phrase "most sympathetic nation in history". You meant to say "the nation MOST DESERVING OF SYMPATHY in history".
Many people would find fault with that statement, but at least it makes sense. Countries aren't "sympathetic". They're legal entities without emotions or the capability of having any outside those of their citizens.
The Palestinians have had NUMEROUS chances to create an independent state:
-1937 Peel Commission proposed the creation of a Jewish and Arab state
- 1939 British While Paper proposed a Arab state
- 1947 UN Plan offered the Palestinians a state. They selected war rather than a country
- 1948 - 1967 Palenstinians likely could have created a state in Jordan.
- 1979 Isreal Egypt peace accord offered the Palestinians autonomy over land with a path to a state
- Oslo agreements had a path to a Palestinian state
- 2008 Isreal offered to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank and divide Jerusalem
- Perhaps there are others that I don't recall
It seems the Palestinians, under Arafat and now Hamas, are unable to accept a compromise and thus prefer to fight to have all the land.
https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
https://besacenter.org/palestinian-rejectionism/
So, you're saying that people are obligated to allow foreign powers to give away large parts of their land in proceedings in which the inhabitants are not given representation?
All this brave anti-colonialism...seldom applied to the United States itself...The Mohawks weren't happy with white settlers stealing their land, no the Seminoles in Spanish Florida, or the French in Louisiana, the Mexicans with Texas or all of the South West...when I was trying to teach law in St Petersberg, very-very briefly,some Russian students raged at me for the loss of Alaska and California down to Fort Ross.
There are grievances everywhere. Best Wishes, Traveller
TheMelancholyDonkey - when offered reasonable compromises (such as 97% of the West Bank etc) the Palestinians said no. Thus, I conclude the many Palestinians believe, as is stated in Hamas' charter, in the destruction of Israel or prefer war to a negotiated peace.
If I take over your home, would that be completely acceptable if I let you keep a room or two for yourself?
Where do you live, just out of curiosity?
This war makes some sense for Hamas in that it establishes them as the only Arab military force to have had success against Israel since 50 years ago. Which might kind of been the point; the Egyptian attack in 1973 ended in military victory for Israel but it broke the deadlock and eventually led to Egypt getting back the Sinai.
However, the attack might have been TOO successful --- I suspect that Israel is going to go deep and long into Gaza and really try to rip up Hamas permanently. After an attack like this, Israel will demand it and be willing to make the sacrifices in blood and treasure to make it happen. I don't know if they will succeed entirely but they are going to hurt Hamas very, very, very badly.
The Bible describes the consequences to a nation of refusing to understand, or empathize with, the people of other nations.
God’s command to the prophet Isaiah, circa 8th century BC, region of Judah:
9
He said, "Go and tell this to the people: " ‘You will be ever hearing, but never understanding; you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
10
This people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.”
11
Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?" And he answered: "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12
until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.
The short form is, “Until you view others as you view yourselves, you will be fighting forever.”
Saying, "It is folly for the Palestinians to attack Israel, because it will only makes things worse for them," is to utterly fail to understand human nature. There is a level of immiseration beyond which people conclude that things cannot become meaningfully worse. While we can total up the data points and conclude that things have, in fact, gotten worse, that is not the way that it feels to those on the ground.
The inhabitants of Gaza are well past this point. From their perspective, there is nothing more that Israel can do that will make their lives any worse. There is no downside to an attack on Israel, just more of the same. Justifiably, they don't see any prospect that Israel will allow things to get better, no matter what actions they take.
So, attacking the Israelis seems to them like a no cost way of striking back at oppression. It is the only method of exercising agency that they believe that they have. They can die fighting, or they can just die.
Approaching the problem rationally reveals plenty of holes in this mindset. But if human beings approached these questions rationally, we wouldn't be human beings.
This is the fundamental problem (or one of them) with the Israeli approach to the Palestinians. They believe that if they just keep tightening the screws, the Palestinians will eventually offer unconditional surrender. To believe this, they have to ignore human history. Specifically, they have to ignore some of the fundamental lessons of Jewish history. The people that revere the Masada have hopelessly failed to recognize its meaning.
You're going to stone me already, how could it get any worse? Jehova! Jehova! Jehova!
"...It's more than that, though; it's the unending inanity of their behavior. Israel's enemies have launched war after war over the past 50 years and they've been crushed Every. Single. Time. The result has been uniformly disastrous: ..."
Egypt did okay. Eventually got their land back.
Egypt understood the importance of being the first to take a deal. By cutting a deal with Egypt, Israel reduced the number of fronts in any future war, and so Egypt's offer was invaluable to Israel.
Zelenskyy condemns Hamas as terrorists, which they are; You're Not Allowed To Kill Civilians. The Russians equivocate.
Some of the informed comment lays the blame on Netanyahu for the Israeli armed forces not only being taken by surprise, but for their laggardly response. Will the government fall? We can only hope.
It's hard for me, as an atheist, to consider this as anything but as an indictment of two intractable religious orthodoxies. Israel's long secular tradition is scarcely in evidence these days, and it's nearly indiscernible in Islamic nations now.
Robert Farley at LG&M:
"perhaps the most massive failure of any intelligence apparatus this century"
Perhaps, but in a 10 x 25 mile strip of land that one KNOWS is being evesdropped electronically every moment, it isn't out of the question to do command and control by courier.
Now yes, the "physical evidence" -- that is, Hamas' supply of rockets deployed around that strip of land -- is hard to miss, but it's a threat every day of every week of every month of every year. What was different yesterday?
In many instances, including this one, an ostensibly religious conflict is, in fact, an ethnic conflict.
Religious orthodoxies have about f-all to do with this, all the parties could be in fact athiests in the end.
Well, given that Allah is the One God, as is JHWH, the other side is ipso facto all atheists. Jes' sayin'
Behind the war between two peoples lies the war of extremists from both peoples against their own more commonsensical majorities. Hamas is not trying to destroy Israel since it can't; it's destroying hope of any solution and its rival Fatah. Netanyahu will destroy some of Hamas but not all; he will, his hands now freed, continue to destroy judicial independence in his country, any dovish opposition, and of course Fatah. He will probably also try to draw the US into a war with Iran and may well succeed this time around.
But recall that Palestinian terrorism in the 1970s ultimately did put Palestine back on the map. While calm periods led to Palestine being forgotten by the world and expropriations being increased by Israel. So this may also be a Hamas consideration.
Indeed, behind the scenes the Netanyahu extremist faction and Hamas factions are mutually useful to each other, one reinforcing the other.
Hamas may be thinking to derail more Gulf deals with Israel, that timing more than the (failed in end) 50 yr war anniversary would seem more of a practical trigger. Of course this is non-exclusive...
Drum cites "Arab enablers" but really this is outdated. One is hard pressed to think of any Arab government sympathetic to Hamas or actually doing anything in support.
Certainly Jordan and Egypt, while not having any genuine love or like of Israel toe the line laid down by USA in return for their regime subsidies, but regardless have not since the early 80s at best really shown any national appetite for repeating the disasters of the 70s.
Iran, non-Arab and non-neighbour is the sole real enabler (from a State PoV). Then there is of course Hezbullah, the Shia militia-sub-state of Lebanon (one can't really say there is an actual functional Lebanese state nowadays)... but saying Arab enablers is repeating an out-of-date 70s-80s trope that hasn't really been true for a few decades, certainly not since the Soviet backing option disappeared (and since the Saddam regime was toppled certainly at latest).
But sometimes it's best to just clear the fog. The only remotely reasonable course for the Palestinians—though it may be too late even for this—is to stop fighting and surrender on Israeli terms.
This presupposes Israeli politics will never be amenable to a just end to the current, illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It's not amenable now, that's true. But there's also no decent offer ("Israeli terms") on the table now.
There never has been a decent offer that Israel has put on the table. They have never offered the Palestinians a state that controls its own borders. They have never offered the Palestinians a state that controls its own foreign and security policies. They have never offered the Palestinians a state that would have the rights to the water on and under its territory. In short, the Israelis have never offered the Palestinians an actual state, just a dependency.
A bit of chicken and egg at this point but nonetheless
Would you offer a state that controls its own border to a people that swear to destroy you?
And as mentioned above, the partition on 1948 would have given a Palestinian state all of these. But the Arabs started a war instead.
Similarly, Jordan could have made the West Bank into a Palestinian state from 1948 to 1967. But they did not, and started a war instead.
Would you offer a state that controls its own border to a people that swear to destroy you?
Not if 100% of them thought this way. But A) not all Palestinians want to "destroy" Israel, and B) lack of an independent, secure Palestine is what empowers the extremists in the first place.
The rational move is separation via two independent, sovereign states.
TheMelancholyDonkey - as I detail above, on MANY occasions the Palenstinians, including at the formation of Israel in 1947, could have had a state. Rather than select peace and an imperfect division of land, the Palenstinians always select war.
You are correct, 97% of the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem, is not perfect. But do you honestly think this current attack will yield an offer better than that? Or do you hold out for the destruction of Israel ?
They came very close in the Taba negotiations in 2001. They offered 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, but the country would have to be demilitarized. Given the location of the West Bank, Israel would never have accepted an armed potentially hostile state in the West Bank.
Arafat even accepted the agreement, but he waited until 18 months later, when Ariel Sharon was Israeli PM, to do so, at which time the offer was no longer on the table.
Looking back at history is a terrible way to view this conflict: there's a subset of events that shows the Israelis have been desperate for peace, but were thwarted and attacked by Arabs since Israel's founding. There's another subset that shows the Palestinians are oppressed by Israeli occupation and only yearn to be free. Unfortunately, neither side is willing to accept an offer the other might make.
Partly, this is because in recent times, Israel cynically (and deliberately) gave Palestinian extremists a veto over any peace deal: for quite a few years, the Israeli right said they'd only negotiate with the Palestinians if all attacks on Israelis stopped, essentially giving Palestinian extremists a veto over any deal. And I don't doubt for a minute that the Israeli leadership recognized this: they didn't want a deal, and were looking for a way to blame the Palestinians for the failure.
But fundamentally, the Palestinians aren't going anywhere, and neither are the Israelis. There are only two stable final states for this mess, and we're not close to either:
1 -- Israel grants the Palestinians a reasonably contiguous state whose area is close to the original occupied territories. This will require either evacuating a bunch of settlements or having them continue under Palestinian rule. Israel will only go down this road if relations between Israel and Palestine have warmed over decades.
But AFAICT, only negative progress in that dimension has occurred in the last 25 years. The blame for that lies with both sides: Israel won't stop pushing Palestinians around in the West Bank, continuing to steal land there for more settlements, and the Palestinians launched Second Intifada from 2000-2005 in the middle of negotiations where the Israelis were offering significant concessions, convincing the Israelis that the Palestinians will never accept Israel's existence. It seemed to me at the time that that's when Israel changed from negotiations to simply trying to bottle up the Palestinians.
What could have worked here would have been Israel granting Palestinians increasing autonomy, with increasing trade, until Israelis would believe that an independent Palestinian state wouldn't be a security threat. That was the original idea and it's obvious that the Israelis and Palestinians are nowhere near that goal.
2 -- Palestinians become citizens of a greater Israel with enough guarantees to make Israeli Jews feel secure in this new state. I used to think this was a possibility, but there are 7 million Jews and 2.45 million non-Jews in Israel, and 5 million Palestinians in the West bank and Gaza. Jews wouldn't be a majority in this new Israel, so this is almost certainly less likely to be a long term stable state.
In a nutshell, this is going to be ugly for a long time. State #1 above is the only stable peaceful state, and neither side is interested in moving in that direction.
"What could have worked here would have been Israel granting Palestinians increasing autonomy, with increasing trade, until Israelis would believe that an independent Palestinian state wouldn't be a security threat."
That was the Oslo Accords
When that did not provide progress quickly enough, the Palestinians started the Second Intifada.
"for quite a few years, the Israeli right said they'd only negotiate with the Palestinians if all attacks on Israelis stopped, essentially giving Palestinian extremists a veto over any deal. "
That's an interesting way to phrase it. I would have said "Before entering negotiations, Israel wanted to make sure that a negotiating partner could actually provide the one thing Israel wanted, namely security"
I'm going to sell the land next to my house to a family, but their kids hav a history of vandalism. Do those kids have veto power over the sale? Or am I just expecting the parents to keep their kids under control before I sell it to them?
@SteveC wrote: "I would have said "Before entering negotiations, Israel wanted to make sure that a negotiating partner could actually provide the one thing Israel wanted, namely security"
I'm not sure that the Palestinian Authority ever had a chance of delivering absolutely zero attacks, and Sharon, IIRC, used every attack as a reason to delay negotiations with the PS. The Settler population rose from 280K to 375K in the 7 years between the Oslo accords being signed in 1993 and the start of the Second Intifada, which sure made it look like Sharon was negotiating in bad faith, just stalling for time while grabbing more and more of the West Bank.
That being said, the Second Intifada was a moral and strategic disaster for the Palestinians. It made the Taba negotiations much harder, and likely was the reason they failed in the end.
My view, FWIW is that Israel wasted the 7 years between Oslo and the Second Intifada by never really stopping settlement building, and the Palestinians wasted the years from 2000-2005 with their Second Intifada.
At that point, Israel just decided to unilaterally give up on working with the Palestinians, withdrew from Gaza and built separation barriers to keep Palestinians away from Israelis. This effectively killed Oslo, but of course, that didn't make the Palestinians go away.
I'm not defending Hamas *at all*: launching a multi-pronged attack on innocent civilians is a horrible crime. I'm not even defending the Palestinian Authority, who essentially started the Second Intifada, again targeting civilians.
But I will say that the Israeli right wing needs Palestinian extremists to justify their unilateral settlement building project, and the Palestinian extremists need those settlements to make the argument internally that Israel will never let the Palestinians live freely. This cycle will only end with some good faith efforts to create a Palestinian state, and that looks as far away today as it ever has.
History shows that violence improves the station of religious zealots on both sides.
Pingback: Israel Will Win the War Against Hamas. But What Happens When the Shooting Stops? - updatem
One problem with Drum's suggestion is that Israel does not have surrender terms. I think Abbas should have done what Drum suggests, but not so much to end the conflict as to put Israel on the spot where they have to say what they want. What they want is to control the West Bank and Gaza and to not have the Palestinians live there. Or possibly they want the Palestinians to accept that they can live in Israel only without citizenship or basic rights. Israel has followed a policy of ambiguity in a number of domains, but one of them is what they see as an end state to the conflict because the only moral end states are a two state solution with a Palestinian state or a one state solution in which everybody has equal rigths. And Israel doesn't want either of things.
My brother-in-Law, who is actually quite a nice guy, actually pointed to Tibet as a model for what the Palestinians should be. But Tibet is a country under perpetual occupation while its culture is obliterated. And my brother-in Law would actually support a two state solution, putting him in the minority there. He just has his excuses for why that isn't feasible, which like most Israelis, pretends that the settlements in the West Bank have nothing to do with why peace can't be reached.
I think this is right on target: Israel has proposed no terms that the Palestinians can actually agree to. Today, Israel offers a Palestinian state at a potentially infinitely distant time, with no rights for people in the Occupied Territories until then. I'm not sure how the Palestinian leadership can sign up for no political rights, possibly forever.
The Palestinian leadership has made it very clear that the reoccupation of Israel is the goal and anything less is unacceptable. The Palestinian people, as far as I can see, are in agreement. As many here have already documented, the Palestinians have refused to compromise on their central demand. Everything else flows from this. Hard to negotiate when the other side offers nothing. Kind of like the Republicans.
Not true, though it took too long. Quoting from Wikipedia:
"In 2011 Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to the Dutch Parliament that the Palestinian people recognise Israel's right to exist and they hope the Israeli government will respond by "recognizing the Palestinian state on the borders of the land occupied in 1967." (from the "Right to Exist" section).
Before that as recently as 2009, the PA refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. And certainly Hamas views Israel as an unlawful state that must be destroyed.
Doesn’t the PA also insist on right of return? Also, if all the entities that represent the Palestinians aren’t on board, then a deal isn’t possible. That’s never happened and probably won’t.
It’s hard to say who represents Palestinians; there hasn’t been a general election in 17 years.
Totally OT: several days back I was asked where I got a 5 year CD with a 5.7% interest rate. I dropped the ball back then, but here's info on such a CD:
https://digital.fidelity.com/ftgw/digital/bondrsch/?securityId=DSNA60494&ordersystem=AORD