Since it's been a while since we had an Israel/Palestine thread...

[maxi]

it's like chomsky, he will advocate for the rights of every state in the world under international law, even though he believes that all states are illegitimate on a more fundamental level. but he understands that he exists in the world as it is, and waving a placard saying 'down with states' would be a complete waste of time. there's no inconsistency there.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Anything to say about Israel being, quite frankly, the friend of its enemy?

A brief history of the Netanyahu-Hamas alliance | Opinion

***

www.haaretz.com

You mean the terrorist attack was organised by Israel? That's quite a conspiracy theory.

 

[Clinamenic]

it's like chomsky, he will advocate for the rights of every state in the world under international law, even though he believes that all states are illegitimate on a more fundamental level. but he understands that he exists in the world as it is, and waving a placard saying 'down with states' would be a complete waste of time. there's no inconsistency there.

Yeah plenty of this kind of dissonance in the "network state" movement too - many of the ideals of which I align with, but it also seems to be out of touch (and thats coming from me) with a sort of political reality in a realpolitik sense.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

it's like chomsky, he will advocate for the rights of every state in the world under international law, even though he believes that all states are illegitimate on a more fundamental level. but he understands that he exists in the world as it is, and waving a placard saying 'down with states' would be a complete waste of time. there's no inconsistency there.

There is inconsistency if their principles are applied inconsistently...why even problematise ownership if this problematisation is to have no practical use or relevance? Even within a conventional frame the most wronged people whose land was originally arrogated are all dead now. And if they took the land from some Palestinian farmers, I dare say those farmers had taken it from someone else before then. Maybe other Palestinian farmers most recently - same difference. Where could they have put the Jews where there would have been no territorial claim: Antarctica? Bracknell? Even the Mariana's Trench some country would complain about them knocking into their Bathyscaphe.

In any case, there would be no natural justice to Palestine drawing any political advantage from the hostilities given that it was their/Hamas wrongdoing that has unleashed them. The fine-tooth comb analysis of countless treaties is for the time before Hamas attack.

P.S. are Palestinians really at all liberal? A quarter of the population supported Hamas last year and the other parties are about as likely to be headed by Caroline Lucas as OPEC is.

P.P.S. Have Arabs grown to hate Jews over time since Israel's inception or were they anti-immigration right from the start? Were they ever like 'let's cut these guys some slack. They've been through a lot'?

 

[Mr. Tea]

You mean the terrorist attack was organised by Israel? That's quite a conspiracy theory.

No, but it was partially funded by them.

If opposing Hamas is your main priority, what do you have to say about the Israeli government supporting them for the last 15 years?

 

[maxi]

There is inconsistency if their principles are applied inconsistently...why even problematise ownership if this problematisation is to have no practical use or relevance?

I don't think most people on the left spend much time doing that. certainly not those who are supporting palestinians. not really an important question either way. if they want to talk about their views on the fundamental principles of land ownership, that's fine. but has no real bearing here.

Even within a conventional frame the most wronged people whose land was originally arrogated are all dead now.

No, some are still alive. Plus, the descendants of refugees are counted as refugees too.
https://www.unrwa.org/transfer-refugee-status-descendants-unique-unrwa-0
They're the people who would be living there now if it wasn't for the expulsion. 70% of gazans are refugees or descdendants of refugees https://www.ochaopt.org/sites/default/files/gaza_thematic_6_0.pdf

but the point is it's not about private land ownership. it's about the fact that the population has no citizenship within Israel and has also been repeatedly prevented by Israel from forming a state of their own, which they are entitled to under international law. it's not that complicated

And if they took the land from some Palestinian farmers, I dare say those farmers had taken it from someone else before then. Maybe other Palestinian farmers most recently - same difference.

that's not true and you're stuck on this private land ownership thing. that's not the issue. we're talking about state power and military occupation and annexation here- what's that got to do with farmers lol

Where could they have put the Jews where there would have been no territorial claim: Antarctica? Bracknell? Even the Mariana's Trench some country would complain about them knocking into their Bathyscaphe.

that's why it's a difficult thing to just set up an ethnic state somewhere and probably shouldn't have happened to begin with. but once it was established, it's part of the international system and has rights like any other state. the problem is then Israel started illegally acquiring land in 1967 that was allocated to the indigenous population. so you're conflating legitimacy of Israel itself, which has international support, with its occupation of Gaza/West Bank, which has no legal justification and plenty of international opposition. two separate issues

In any case, there would be no natural justice to Palestine drawing any political advantage from the hostilities given that it was their/Hamas wrongdoing that has unleashed them. The fine-tooth comb analysis of countless treaties is for the time before Hamas attack.

don't understand this part

P.S. are Palestinians really at all liberal? A quarter of the population supported Hamas last year and the other parties are about as likely to be headed by Caroline Lucas as OPEC is.

whether or not they're liberal has no relevance. people don't deserve to be killed or denied human or civil rights for having the wrong political opinion, I'm sure you'd agree. just like americans who supported their goverment when it engaged in massive state terror in Iraq far beyond anything hamas could dream of, also don't deserve to have their rights limited. plus, 50% of the population are children so political views don't even come into the picture there.

besides, supporting hamas doesn't mean supporting the Oct 7 attacks. even parts of hamas were unaware it was going to happen, supposedly. hamas has many different factions

P.P.S. Have Arabs grown to hate Jews over time since Israel's inception or were they anti-immigration right from the start? Were they ever like 'let's cut these guys some slack. They've been through a lot'?

prior to the establishment of Israel there were already 600,000 jews in Israel. as the yishuvs (jewish settlments) grew in the preceding decades, it was fair enough for the indigenous population to have concerns, particularly if the stated aim of much of the zionist movement was to set up a state for jews and claim the whole country. there was some cooperation between arabs and jews during that time, but there was also conflict, including acts of jewish terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

as it happens, some zionists were anti-state and wanted arab and jewish working class cooperation in a non-state entity (e.g. chomsky, a zionist youth leader - and that's where the principles of his that I mentioned actually do come into it). He said that, as a zionist, the establishment of the state in 1948 was a day of mourning. those zionists were a smaller part of the movement though and disappeared after 48.

but palestinians were right to have concerns weren't they, cos then hundreds of thousands were forcibly expelled, many killed, those who stayed were denied equal rights, and the refugees have languished in terrible conditions without basic rights for decades. and in gaza they're essentially imprisoned with major deprivation as a direct result of an unambiguously illegal blockade, while being bombed every few years. and shot if they protest peacefully, as happened in 2018-19 https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/2018_unlawful_gunfire_against_protesters_in_return_marches

if me, my family and everyone I knew were treated like that by a gov that claims to represent an entire group, I might have an irrational hatred of that group too. If you ask holocaust survivors how they felt about poles or germans they often wouldn't have kind words to say. I think it's holding people to an extremely high standard to expect otherwise. (that's even allowing for your suggestion that they hate jews generally, which isn't clear to me anyway and certainly not the whole picture. im sure there is widespread animosity towards israelis, but that's different)

 

[mixed_biscuits]

No, but it was partially funded by them.

If opposing Hamas is your main priority, what do you have to say about the Israeli government supporting them for the last 15 years?

re this and @maxi 's informative comments, Israel presumaby think that the establishment of a Palestinian state is a credible existential threat and have been forced to employ these kinds of stratagems to try to prevent that happening. If they deemed the creation of that state a negligible risk then presumably they would permit it.

 

[maxi]

re this and @maxi 's informative comments, Israel presumaby think that the establishment of a Palestinian state is a credible existential threat and have been forced to employ these kinds of stratagems to try to prevent that happening. If they deemed the creation of that state a negligible risk then presumably they would permit it.

That's their claim, but it has no validity and they know that. In 1971 they were offered a full peace treaty by Sadat of Egypt in exchange for return of the Sinai peninsula (which it had no right to be occupying anyway). Israel turned it down, trading security for land. This directly led to war with Egypt which could have easily been prevented. This is essentially the policy it has consistently followed since 67 when it started occupying territory beyond its legal boundary.

as with virtually any state, safety and security of its own population isn't a priority.

the terror inflicted on Israelis since is borne out of the gov's inhumane oppression of the palestinians, and will probably never stop as long as they insist on denying people their rights. so the argument that if Palestinians finally had a state they would suddenly attack Israel makes no sense. as we speak Israel is fostering more and more desire for vengeance by killing more people every day. the only way to scale that back is to reach a diplomatic solution. So its current round of attacks are a threat to its own security. I mean it might even lead to war with Lebanon and Iran, how is that good for Israel's security?

there won't be peace until there's some kind of resolution that satisfies Palestinians. when people can live their lives in dignity, most people will just want to get on with their lives and there will be far less support for any attacks.

over the last few decades, when Palestinian leadership has shown willingness to engage in peace talks, Israel has panicked and responded violently (or by turning the peace talks into a farce by not offering palestinians anything and/or claiming they are not negotiating e.g. Oslo Accords 1993, and Camp David 2000). It doesn't want a Palestinian state because it wants the land and resources, not because of security concerns.

e.g. when the PLO started renouncing violence and moving towards support for a two-state settlement in the late 70s/early 80s, Israel recognised this as a threat (a "peace offensive") and responded by launching the Lebanon War in which it killed 15-20,000 lebanese and palestinian civilians, putting an end to talk about peace.

I think one of Israel's goals is to encourage and direct Palestinians towards violent resistance, which it considers advantageous politically as it then has an excuse not to conduct genuine peace talks which would result in a Palestinian state. 'we dont negotiate with terrorists' etc.

and even if security was a genuine concern, it doesn't matter. Israel still has no right to flagrantly violate international law by denying Palestinians the ability to set up a state just because it's worried about the future. It would be like a school bully having a much weaker kid in a headlock and refusing to let go for 50 years because he claims the kid might then hit him back.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

That's their claim, but it has no validity and they know that. In 1971 they were offered a full peace treaty by Sadat of Egypt in exchange for return of the Sinai peninsula (which it had no right to be occupying anyway). Israel turned it down, trading security for land. This directly led to war with Egypt which could have easily been prevented. This is essentially the policy it has consistently followed since 67 when it started occupying territory beyond its legal boundary.

as with virtually any state, safety and security of its own population isn't a priority.

the terror inflicted on Israelis since is borne out of the gov's inhumane oppression of the palestinians, and will probably never stop as long as they insist on denying people their rights. so the argument that if Palestinians finally had a state they would suddenly attack Israel makes no sense. as we speak Israel is fostering more and more desire for vengeance by killing more people every day. the only way to scale that back is to reach a diplomatic solution. So its current round of attacks are a threat to its own security. I mean it might even lead to war with Lebanon and Iran, how is that good for Israel's security?

there won't be peace until there's some kind of resolution that satisfies Palestinians. when people can live their lives in dignity, most people will just want to get on with their lives and there will be far less support for any attacks.

over the last few decades, when Palestinian leadership has shown willingness to engage in peace talks, Israel has panicked and responded violently (or by turning the peace talks into a farce by not offering palestinians anything and/or claiming they are not negotiating e.g. Oslo Accords 1993, and Camp David 2000). It doesn't want a Palestinian state because it wants the land and resources, not because of security concerns.

e.g. when the PLO started renouncing violence and moving towards support for a two-state settlement in the late 70s/early 80s, Israel recognised this as a threat (a "peace offensive") and responded by launching the Lebanon War in which it killed 15-20,000 lebanese and palestinian civilians, putting an end to talk about peace.

I think one of Israel's goals is to encourage and direct Palestinians towards violent resistance, which it considers advantageous politically as it then has an excuse not to conduct genuine peace talks which would result in a Palestinian state. 'we dont negotiate with terrorists' etc.

and even if security was a genuine concern, it doesn't matter. Israel still has no right to flagrantly violate international law by denying Palestinians the ability to set up a state just because it's worried about the future. It would be like a school bully having a much weaker kid in a headlock and refusing to let go for 50 years because he claims the kid might then hit him back.

But the kid would hit him back. Israel may well be flouting international law, and from our point of view that's wrong, but the government's point of view is inevitably partial, prioritising Israel. Furthermore, what is legally correct is not necessarily what is morally correct and, given partiality, even less likely to be so from particular actors' perspectives.

Peace resolutions which pretend to be stable forever and a day Israel probably expects not to be, especially since these resolutions entail a gain in material for its opposition. It's like being offered a draw over a chess board by an opponent who is losing but on the condition that the opponent is returned some of their pieces and may restart the game at some later point in time. It's not obvious that taking the draw is best to say the least.

I'd be interested to learn whether anyone has done a game theoretic analysis of the situation.

 

[Mr. Tea]

re this and @maxi 's informative comments, Israel presumaby think that the establishment of a Palestinian state is a credible existential threat and have been forced to employ these kinds of stratagems to try to prevent that happening. If they deemed the creation of that state a negligible risk then presumably they would permit it.

If the mere existence of an independent Palestine of *any* size is a "credible existential threat" to Israel, then Palestinians are entitled to feel the same way about the Israeli state, no?

Well done, you just made an argument in favour of the position outlined in Hamas's founding charter, namely that the only accepted solution is the total destruction of Israel.

 

[Mr. Tea]

@maxi I appreciate your patience with friend Biscuits, but I fear he's about five minutes away from resorting, yet again, to "yea but u can b gay in Israel but not Gaza, checkmate liberals" and then doing a face like this.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

If the mere existence of an independent Palestine of *any* size is a "credible existential threat" to Israel, then Palestinians are entitled to feel the same way about the Israeli state, no?

Well done, you just made an argument in favour of the position outlined in Hamas's founding charter, namely that the only accepted solution is the total destruction of Israel.

Yes, they both have positions that make sense to them and are locally ethical in a non-utilitarian way. However, Hamas may have the capacity to slaughter defenceless women and children but it doesn't have the means to get anywhere near to destroying Israel as a whole. So either their foray is a huge strategic error or they are indeed stooges. Israel is justified to retaliate despite the fact Hamas are not an immediate threat to its existence purely because the nature of their attack was beyond the pale. Had Hamas attacked a military target an Israeli attempt to obliterate them might be less than fully justified (in at least Israeli terms).

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, they both have positions that make sense to them and are locally ethical in a non-utilitarian way. However, Hamas may have the capacity to slaughter defenceless women and children but it doesn't have the means to get anywhere near to destroying Israel as a whole. So either their foray is a huge strategic error or they are indeed stooges. Israel is justified to retaliate despite the fact Hamas are not an immediate threat to its existence purely because the nature of their attack was beyond the pale. Had Hamas attacked a military target an Israeli attempt to obliterate them might be less than fully justified (in at least Israeli terms).

Are the ten thousand (and counting) Palestinians killed by Israel in the last few weeks "military targets"?

And right on cue: But, but, but huuuman shiiiieeeelds!!!

 

[droid]

They bombed another hospital. This time they hit a convoy of Ambulances containing wounded Palestinians bound for the Rafah crossing for medical treatment in Egypt. Israel was informed of the convoy in advance. Thats the third hospital attacked today.

 

[version]

Predictably, they're claiming Hamas uses ambulances to transport weapons and fighters... If they had a weapon which destroyed the atmosphere, they'd claim Hamas uses it to breathe.

 

[version]

Insight: How Hamas aims to trap Israel in Gaza quagmire

Hamas has prepared for a long, drawn-out war in the Gaza Strip and believes it can hold up Israel's advance long enough to force a ceasefire.

www.reuters.com

 

[version]

I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to the talk of colossal tunnel networks under Gaza. Obviously there are tunnels as there are clips of people popping out of them, photos, and both sides discuss them in some form, but the scale and descriptions vary.

The Hamas tunnel city beneath Gaza - a hidden frontline for Israel

What lies in wait for Israeli ground troops in Gaza, security sources say, is a Hamas tunnel network hundreds of kilometres long and up to 80 metres deep, described by one freed hostage as "a spider's web" and by one expert as the "Viet Cong times 10".

www.reuters.com

 

[william_kent]

I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to the talk of colossal tunnel networks under Gaza. Obviously there are tunnels as there are clips of people popping out of them, photos, and both sides discuss them in some form, but the scale and descriptions vary.

The Hamas tunnel city beneath Gaza - a hidden frontline for Israel

What lies in wait for Israeli ground troops in Gaza, security sources say, is a Hamas tunnel network hundreds of kilometres long and up to 80 metres deep, described by one freed hostage as "a spider's web" and by one expert as the "Viet Cong times 10".

www.reuters.com

Vietnam all over again

one of those books you lend out and never returned

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Are the ten thousand (and counting) Palestinians killed by Israel in the last few weeks "military targets"?

And right on cue: But, but, but huuuman shiiiieeeelds!!!

Israel has a right to try to eliminate Hamas given what they did and the clear implication that they would do it again...it can't be permitted to happen again is the bottom line. If Israel are picking on completely uninvolved defenceless then I would say they are wasting the time and energy that they should be devoting to their primary aim. So I don't see why they would be doing a lot of that.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Whatever events happen you need a full intel on them from every side. You are not going to have this intel, so everything at our end is fundamentally speculative.