Israel, Palestinians, context, history, chicken and egg

[Jayhawker Soule]

How much context is required to have the opinion that this is terrible and should not be so terrible?

Very little context should be required.

But, having recognized this, could you very briefly suggest what aspects you find terrible, how they should be addressed, and with what consequences.

 

[Quagmire]

Can you point to examples of people on this forum saying that?

Fetching posts from other threads without the posters permission is against the rules.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fetching posts from other threads without the posters permission is against the rules.

Sadly ... in my opinion.

 

[Yerda]

Very little context should be required.

But, having recognized this, could you very briefly suggest what aspects you find terrible, how they should be addressed, and with what consequences.

The violence. People killing other people as if they don't matter and aren't actual human beings - just objects in the way or a means to an end. On both sides.

I suppose I think that for this to get better both parties will have to take some difficult medicine. The Palestinians will probably have to renounce armed rebellion and accept Israel for what it is - a Jewish homeland with as much right to exist as any other state. Israel will probably have to dismantle every settlement and end the occupation. Israel will most likely have to negotiate with Hamas. Hamas will likely have to cooperate with Israel.

In the long run, I can't see how peace can come (and last) without elements of both sides being routed politically and certain ideas driven out. No people can coexist with a powerful neighbour while led by sectarian lunatics calling for the other side's destruction. The Islamists, the antisemites, they have to go. While Israeli politics is dominated by xenophobes and violent warriors it is hard to see how it can exist peacefully with the people they see as enemies. People who openly call for the Palestinians to be killed or removed, or who think they have an "ancestral" claim on a place because of an old book, they are poison.

Edit: Also, as corny as it sounds, let's not forget that love for others can be cultivated in anyone and the joy of seeing others flourish is one of life's sweetest gifts. The peace movement on both sides has the power to bring about a good deal of healing, imo.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The violence. People killing other people as if they don't matter and aren't actual human beings - just objects in the way or a means to an end. On both sides.

Yep.

I suppose I think that for this to get better both parties will have to take some difficult medicine. The Palestinians will probably have to renounce armed rebellion and accept Israel for what it is - a Jewish homeland with as much right to exist as any other state. Israel will probably have to dismantle every settlement and end the occupation. Israel will most likely have to negotiate with Hamas. Hamas will likely have to cooperate with Israel.

And a hora version of the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy will break out throughout the lands as Hamas shelves it's commitment to eradicate Israel and repudiates, not a strategy that is too dismissive of civilian collateral damage, but a strategy that seeks to maximize the impact of its depravity by intentionally targeting the most vulnerable non-combatants with the most vicious treatment -- all to ensure an overreaction despite the predictable impact of that overreaction on the population it oppresses.

In the long run, I can't see how peace can come (and last) without elements of both sides being routed politically and certain ideas driven out. No people can coexist with a powerful neighbour while led by sectarian lunatics calling for the other side's destruction. The Islamists, the antisemites, they have to go. While Israeli politics is dominated by xenophobes and violent warriors it is hard to see how it can exist peacefully with the people they see as enemies.

Yep.

People who openly call for the Palestinians to be killed or removed, or who think they have an "ancestral" claim on a place because of an old book, they are poison.

You demonstrate a childishly ignorant and uninformed picture of the country. These people are, indeed, a disgusting cancer used by Netanyahu to sustain his rule. Nevertheless, they are a small sliver of the population who in no way typifies Israel's political leadership, its military, or its people.

Edit: Also, as corny as it sounds, let's not forget that love for others can be cultivated in anyone and the joy of seeing others flourish is one of life's sweetest gifts. The peace movement on both sides has the power to bring about a good deal of healing, imo.

Not Vivian Silver.

 

[metis]

If you have an opinion about this war, as clearly many people on RF do, how did you come to this opinion?

As one who strongly dislikes Netanyahu and his Likud coalition, I don't think he had much of a choice but to strongly respond to the massacre and kidnapping by Hamas on Oct. 7th. Hamas must be destroyed or all we are going to see in the future is constant repeats. OTOH, it's the military strategy that should be questioned, but doing as such is highly complex and beyond my expertise.

I've spent time in Israel in 1991 and 1998, and two of my granddaughters have been there twice. My oldest granddaughter and the group she was in were in the vicinity of Eilat in the south and had to be bussed out while under rocket fire from Hamas about 6-7 years ago.

 

[Yerda]

And a hora version of the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy will break out throughout the lands as Hamas shelves it's commitment to eradicate Israel and repudiates, not a strategy that is too dismissive of civilian collateral damage, but a strategy that seeks to maximize the impact of its depravity by intentionally targeting the most vulnerable non-combatants with the most vicious treatment -- all to ensure an overreaction despite the predictable impact of that overreaction on the population it oppresses.

Well, I'd say we agree on how likely peace is at the moment and on the motives of Hamas.

Don't you think that the renunciation of armed rebellion is crucial if there is to be peace?

You demonstrate a childishly ignorant and uninformed picture of the country. These people are, indeed, a disgusting cancer used by Netanyahu to sustain his rule. Nevertheless, they are a small sliver of the population who in no way typifies Israel's political leadership, its military, or its people.

You know, it's kinda rude asking for someone's opinion and then insulting them for having one.

For the record, my picture of the country is that it is a mostly liberal society much like the one I live in. I don't know a lot of Israelis but as far as I can tell they're exactly the same as everybody else. Most are fine, some are incredible human beings, some are total psychos.

Not Vivian Silver.

That is tragic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Israel's kill ratio is approaching 11:1 today.
Many more children bombed to death.

 

[icehorse]

Israel's kill ration is approaching 11:1 today.
Many more children bombed to death.

this data seems important to you. what's your context for posting it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You do understand that in the OP that was used merely as an example?

And, fwiw, I can find posts that echo that meaning, if not word for word. But that's not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss / debate different CONTEXTS that posters might be using to understand this conflict.

You explicitly said this:

"I see a lot of finger pointing going on in these RF discussions, and a lot of the finger pointing seems to boil down to:"

You're implying that this argument is being made here on RF. You don't have to show it in those exact words, I would just like an example of it being made because context is important, and implying that the other side are using arguments that "boil down to" saying that "Hamas was justified" is dishonest if such a thing is not happening and they are not justifying Hamas

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Fetching posts from other threads without the posters permission is against the rules.

I didn't ask them to do that. I just asked to point to examples of those kinds of arguments being made, as that is explicitly what is implied to be happening in the OP. If you're not allowed to fetch posts from other posters without permission, you shouldn't be allowed to claim other posters are saying things you can't confirm.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't you think that the renunciation of armed rebellion is crucial if there is to be peace?

Could you tell us whose armed rebellion must be renounced and by whom?

 

[Yerda]

Could you tell us whose armed rebellion must be renounced and by whom?

Sure. I think that we need armed rebellion among the Palestinain people to be renounced by the Palestinians.

 

[sayak83]

Lots of threads on RF about the war in Gaza.

I've put some time into studying the last couple of hundred years into studying Israel. I'm no expert, but if we just take the last hundred years the history is incredibly complex. I see a lot of finger pointing going on in these RF discussions, and a lot of the finger pointing seems to boil down to:

"well your side started it". E.g. "Hamas is justified, because Israel oppresses Palestinians".

From a logic perspective, if you make a claim like the above, you ARE using some context in your claim. Your argument is dependent on the idea that - at least in recent history - you think Israel has been oppressing Palestinians. If recent history was different and Gaza was paradise on earth, you probably wouldn't think that Hamas's attacks on Oct. 7th were justified.

From my perspective, CONTEXT ALMOST ALWAYS MATTERS. So it's fine that you use some historical context to draw your conclusions, that's often how we sort out ethical and moral dilemmas. Context is often key in legal situations.

== How much context is the correct context?

To me, that's the hard question. When we look at this war in Gaza and try to make sense of it, how much context should we be using? Should we use only the last 2 months? That seems insufficient. How about the last 20 years? How about if we start our analysis at the beginning of the 1967 war? Or maybe it should be started in the weeks leading up to the 1967 war? Or maybe we need to go back further and start in 1947-48? Or maybe further and start with the Balfour declaration? Or maybe go back a couple hundred years and look at how the Ottoman's were ruling this area of land?

== The mistake is to avoid considering context

If you have an opinion about this war, as clearly many people on RF do, how did you come to this opinion? How much historical context do you think should be a part of your thinking?

My context is clear.
If a nation is killing more civilians (and more children) than enemy combatants, then that nation is doing war wrong whatever the justification of the war is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure. I think that we need armed rebellion among the Palestinain people to be renounced by the Palestinians.

Thanks for the response.

I see the issue as being more complicated.

1. First and foremost, what needs to be renounced is not armed Palestinian rebellion but the strategy of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi terrorism.
2. That said, the history of Palestinian political violence is troubling, as is the extent to which it is supported by the Palestinian population as a whole. The Wikipedia section on Palestinian attitudes is particularly worrisome, and it's a sure bet that support for terrorism has markedly increased since Israel's response to October 7th.
3. The problem is that the only acceptable and, in fact, viable, way to effectively address violence against the occupation is to effectively address the occupation.
4. Sadly, even in the midst of the wide spread expectation that the Netanyahu coalition is doomed, I see no reason to expect an end to the mistreatment of Palestinians as an inevitable outcome.

Perhaps a week ago, I heard someone being interviewed on CNN say something like:

If there was a vote today the Palestinians in Gaza would vote against Hamas and those in the rest of Israel would vote for it. ​

I don't know if it's true, but it certainly makes sense.

 

[icehorse]

My context is clear.
If a nation is killing more civilians (and more children) than enemy combatants, then that nation is doing war wrong whatever the justification of the war is.

Then how do you fight against an enemy that uses guerilla warfare tactics?

I also wonder whether it's fair to characterize Palestinians as civilians, given their attitudes as mentioned in post #36.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I also wonder whether it's fair to characterize Palestinians as civilians, given their attitudes as mentioned in post #36.

What, exactly, in that post indicates that it may not be "fair" to characterise Palestinians as civilians?

Do you seriously believe that there may not be such a thing as a "Palestinian civilian"?

 

[sayak83]

Then how do you fight against an enemy that uses guerilla warfare tactics?

I also wonder whether it's fair to characterize Palestinians as civilians, given their attitudes as mentioned in post #36.

If somebody is not fighting you with guns or bombs, he is a civillian.
After all Russia can say the same about Ukranian civillians in Russian occupied Ukraine. You expect civillians of occupied territories to be hostile and trying to resist the occupiers.

 

[Orbit]

Then how do you fight against an enemy that uses guerilla warfare tactics?

I also wonder whether it's fair to characterize Palestinians as civilians, given their attitudes as mentioned in post #36.

You do what they did in Fallujah. Early in this conflict several commentators made this point; it's not easy, but it can be done.

The Lesson Israel Must Learn From America's Fight in Fallujah

Congressman Seth Moulton on the vital lesson that the Israeli military must learn from the U.S. marines in Iraq.

time.com

 

[icehorse]

You do what they did in Fallujah. Early in this conflict several commentators made this point; it's not easy, but it can be done.

The Lesson Israel Must Learn From America's Fight in Fallujah

Congressman Seth Moulton on the vital lesson that the Israeli military must learn from the U.S. marines in Iraq.

time.com

This is an interesting perspective. I wonder if the Iraqi's hated Americans more or less than the Palestinians hate Israelis?