Venturing A Prediction

[sun rise]

Here’s a counter prediction. Eventually, the vast mass of the human population in the region, Arab and Israeli, gets sick of all the killing, and refuses to listen anymore to the siren voices calling for more bloodshed. Courageous leadership arises among all the disparate religious, political and national identities, and a peaceful resolution is finally arrived at.

You echo Meher Baba "The wave of destruction must rise still higher, must spread still further. But when, from the depths of his heart, man desires something more lasting than wealth and something more real than material power, the wave will recede. Then peace will come, joy will come, light will come."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

They mean little to me also.

You must've missed it.
I've posted what I think Hamas was trying to achieve.
But that too is just speculation, although with higher
confidence.

Perhaps Hamas wants to scuttle normalization.

Perhaps Hamas wants Palestinians to resist
more. And in doing so, show how brutal
Israel is.
You've criticized Hamas for their brutal
murders, but Israel has killed even more.
Does it get a pass because its killings are
less up close & personal, eg, missiles, bombs?
Israel's approach is more sanitary...done at
a distance, & with less barbarism.
As I see it, the relative death toll is more
significant than the means to kill.

I'm not a supporter of either side in this. I don't wish to see Palestinians killed any more than I want to see Israelis killed. I'm not wedded to the idea of Israel as a "holy land."

Israel is 44 days younger than I am. And one thing I do know, with great clarity, is that it has been surrounded for the 75 years I've been alive with an implacable enemy that just wants it to not exist. How would you react -- or maybe how would your community react -- if you were in such a situation?

Has Israel been brutal? Yes, I concede that it has. Have any of Israel's enemies who wish it pushed into the Mediterranian been equally brutal? I think so, but maybe you do not. But the question I'm trying to ask you is "does Israel have the same right as any other nation to try to survive?" And I grant that the question applies equally to the Palestinians.

Look, I don't know how to resolve this conflict any more than anyone does. But I remember back to when Israel and Egypt were fighting over the Sinai Penninsula after the 6-day war in 1967. Israel held Sinai for 15 years, but it was resolved -- in favour of Egypt -- when Egypt agreed to 2 very simple things: the right of Israel to exist as a nation, and that Egypt would not arm or fortify Sinai.

In other words, each nation recognized the needs of the other. Strange, eh?

I would not want it forgotten, by the way, that prior to 1948, there

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not a supporter of either side in this. I don't wish to see Palestinians killed any more than I want to see Israelis killed. I'm not wedded to the idea of Israel as a "holy land."

....it has been surrounded for the 75 years I've been alive with an implacable enemy that just wants it to not exist

There ya go...giving up because they're implacable.

How would you react -- or maybe how would your community react -- if you were in such a situation?

Is the issue how I'd react?
Or how to change things for the better?

Has Israel been brutal? Yes, I concede that it has. Have any of Israel's enemies who wish it pushed into the Mediterranian been equally brutal? I think so, but maybe you do not. But the question I'm trying to ask you is "does Israel have the same right as any other nation to try to survive?" And I grant that the question applies equally to the Palestinians.

I don't challenge Israel's right to exist.
That right is always trotted out to justify doing
the same failed brutal oppression over & over.
It's highly unlikely to start working.

Look, I don't know how to resolve this conflict any more than anyone does.

My plan is better than yours.

But I remember back to when Israel and Egypt were fighting over the Sinai Penninsula after the 6-day war in 1967. Israel held Sinai for 15 years, but it was resolved -- in favour of Egypt -- when Egypt agreed to 2 very simple things: the right of Israel to exist as a nation, and that Egypt would not arm or fortify Sinai.

In other words, each nation recognized the needs of the other. Strange, eh?

I would not want it forgotten, by the way, that prior to 1948, there

Should it be that until Hamas recognizes Israel's
right to exist, Israel should continue as it has?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There ya go...giving up because they're implacable.

How did I "give up?" Hamas is, I think even you would have to admit, implacable. But just because they are, I do not think that entails that Israel ought to simply evaporate itself.

Is the issue how I'd react?
Or how to change things for the better?

Both. I rather suspect that your reaction to someone who denied your right to exist would not be to agree and cease to be.

Nor do I see your actual program for changing things for the better. (This is the same thing we see with arguments over religion every single day here -- it is very hard to get people to change their minds on entrenched positions.)

I don't challenge Israel's right to exist.
That right is always trotted out to justify doing
the same failed brutal oppression over & over.
It's highly unlikely to start working.

But then what do you suggest Israel do against Hamas, which will not -- even in principle -- grant that right? Say "pretty please, with sugar on it?"

My plan is better than yours.

I don't recall seeing your "plan." Could you explain it to me?

Should it be that until Hamas recognizes Israel's
right to exist, Israel should continue as it has?

Well, what would you suggest?

 

[Watchmen]

I'm bad at predicting anything but general trends.
But I'm going out on a limb here.
Treat it as a speculation.

Israel is using the Hamas attack as an opportunity.
A) Rid Gaza of all Palestinians by capture, exile, or death.
B) Cement authoritarian control in Israel.
C) Expand into & settle Gaza.
D) Use political power in USA to thwart any country
that threatens the plan.

It explains how some occurrences could be related.
1) The monumental failure to detect Hamas's attack..
2) Cutting off Gaza's food & utilities.
3) Warning Gazans to leave or die.
4) Giving them inadequate time to do it.
5) Destroying escape routes.

I've low confidence that #1 was intentional....merely possible.
But #2 thru #4 appear more likely to be inspired by Rahm
Emanuel, ie, "never let a crisis go to waste".

Caution:
This might be controversial.
Play nice, people.

It’s a nice conspiracy theory primarily driven by American university students. I think if we truly step back and look at the whole situation, it’s clear Israel has the moral high ground over Hamas. If Hamas put its guns down then Israel and the Palestinians could co-exist peacefully. If Israel put its guns down, there’d be no more Jews. Tell me with a straight face that I’m wrong.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm bad at predicting anything but general trends.
But I'm going out on a limb here.
Treat it as a speculation.

Israel is using the Hamas attack as an opportunity.
A) Rid Gaza of all Palestinians by capture, exile, or death.
B) Cement authoritarian control in Israel.
C) Expand into & settle Gaza.
D) Use political power in USA to thwart any country
that threatens the plan.

It explains how some occurrences could be related.
1) The monumental failure to detect Hamas's attack..
2) Cutting off Gaza's food & utilities.
3) Warning Gazans to leave or die.
4) Giving them inadequate time to do it.
5) Destroying escape routes.

I've low confidence that #1 was intentional....merely possible.
But #2 thru #4 appear more likely to be inspired by Rahm
Emanuel, ie, "never let a crisis go to waste".

Caution:
This might be controversial.
Play nice, people.

***DOUBLE POST***

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As I see it, the relative death toll is more
significant than the means to kill.

That's where I think you are completely incorrect. Our modern civilization is based at the foundational level, I believe, on recognizing intention as a dynamic indication of the level of heinousness in such an action. A policeman who acts inappropriately in our country can cause a mass protest, or one of our soldiers who acts such in such a way, can be ostracized. In contrast, the hamas action displayed a group of individuals who acted with no obvious self-restraint, and even glee. That is something that our civilization does not understand, or left behind many generations ago

As Sam Harris talked about in his recent little podcast on all of this, western civilization, for whatever flaws it has a had, has seemed to have developed the very concept of a 'war crime.' It is not obvious at all that the hamas attackers had even considered the concept to exist, if we are to triangulate from what they were apparently capable of doing. Western military action, for whatever its flaws, is filled with contemplation of what the justification of it means. It is not obvious at all that the hamas attackers spent any time with an idea that they had to 'justify' anything. It seemed to involve inentional non-just action

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm bad at predicting anything but general trends.
But I'm going out on a limb here.
Treat it as a speculation.

Israel is using the Hamas attack as an opportunity.
A) Rid Gaza of all Palestinians by capture, exile, or death.
B) Cement authoritarian control in Israel.
C) Expand into & settle Gaza.
D) Use political power in USA to thwart any country
that threatens the plan.

It explains how some occurrences could be related.
1) The monumental failure to detect Hamas's attack..
2) Cutting off Gaza's food & utilities.
3) Warning Gazans to leave or die.
4) Giving them inadequate time to do it.
5) Destroying escape routes.

I've low confidence that #1 was intentional....merely possible.
But #2 thru #4 appear more likely to be inspired by Rahm
Emanuel, ie, "never let a crisis go to waste".

Caution:
This might be controversial.
Play nice, people.

To take a break from posing questions at the mid-macro moral / ethical level, I will zoom out for a second to the larger macro. At this level, I have series of different questions, but at a systematic-based level that I believe envelops any of the items you pose here. At this level, my questions involve regional economics, and I wonder about the carrying capacity of all the lands involved, and how much imports are relied on. I intuit that all of the people involved, embrace strongly growth-based models. Anywhere that this occurs, the possibility of conflict probably increases

How fertile is the soil in that region generally, for growing food, and how much of the land is actually fit for housing? Do weather conditions increase infrastructure costs? How many supplies are imported? Those are the kinds of questions that will butt up against break-neck growth. Add in social disagreement among different groups as well. What has the birthrate been, during different decades in these areas?

In contradistinction, I as a college-dropout American, who works in manual labor, am not projected in my context, to have any offspring. I think it seems more recognized here, that my doing that would come too close to a stress limit on the resource base

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know it wouldn't be an ideal solution, but perhaps Egypt and Sudan could allow Palestinians to settle Bir Tawil since neither wish to claim it.

It is more than twice as large as the Gaza strip, but it would need massive infrastructure added to it.

 

[England my lionheart]

I reject the notion that it's up to Egypt, Syria, & other Islamic
countries to cure the problem resulting from Israel's brutal
treatment of Palestinians. Hams is they symptom, not the
problem. Israel is the source...the 500 pound gorilla in the
region, so I give them responsibility to cure their own
behavior for the betterment of everyone, including
their own country.

After 6 wars and infitadas which Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria made against Israel and lost they are very much part of the problem,Palestinian has been used as by them for a proxy war for years.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did I "give up?"

To declare them...

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

....is to ignore why Hamas exists & acts as it does.

This is not justification.
It's about understanding reality.

Both. I rather suspect that your reaction to someone who denied your right to exist would not be to agree and cease to be.

You misunderstand what I propose.

Nor do I see your actual program for changing things for the better. (This is the same thing we see with arguments over religion every single day here -- it is very hard to get people to change their minds on entrenched positions.)

But then what do you suggest Israel do against Hamas, which will not -- even in principle -- grant that right? Say "pretty please, with sugar on it?"

You're entirely missing the idea that Hamas exists
only in response to Israeli oppression of Palsetinians.

I don't recall seeing your "plan." Could you explain it to me?
Well, what would you suggest?

Israel must end the oppression of Palestinians.
End the torture, group punishment, violence
by Jewish settlers, taking of land, destruction
of homes, etc.
Israel is the major power & the oppressor.
So the responsibility for the initiative to fix
the problem falls to it.

You can't solve anything by expecting the
weak & oppresses to stop chafing under
the boots on their necks. Would you
blame slaves for attacking the owner
who whips them?

 

[Revoltingest]

It’s a nice conspiracy theory primarily driven by American university students.

Oh, you fanatical servants of Israel...
I've no connection to university students.
I haven't been one in half a century.

I think if we truly step back and look at the whole situation,

That's always said before stepping forward
to look at a tree, & miss the forest.

it’s clear Israel has the moral high ground over Hamas.

I'm largely ignoring morality of the players
in this drama, other than the goal that all
sides ultimately need to find peaceful
co-existence.
Judging which is worse....Israel or Hamas.
How would it be done...why which has killed
more civilians?

If Hamas put its guns down then Israel and the Palestinians could co-exist peacefully.

As long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians,
if Hamas did that, it would be replaced by
another group with the same agenda.

If Israel put its guns down, there’d be no more Jews. Tell me with a straight face that I’m wrong.

Straw man.
I never said Israel should put its guns down.
Moreover, it's a problem that so many
Israeli civilians are unarmed.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's where I think you are completely incorrect. Our modern civilization is based at the foundational level, I believe, on recognizing intention as a dynamic indication of the level of heinousness in such an action. A policeman who acts inappropriately in our country can cause a mass riot, or one of our soldiers who acts such in such a way, can be ostracized. In contrast, the hamas action displayed a group of individuals who acted with no obvious self-restraint, and even glee. That is something that our civilization does not understand, or left behind many generations ago

As Sam Harris talked about in his recent little podcast on all of this, western civilization, for whatever flaws it has a had, has seemed to have developed the very concept of a 'war crime.' It is not obvious at all that the hamas attackers had even considered the concept to exist, if we are to triangulate from what they were apparently capable of doing. Western military action, for whatever its flaws, is filled with contemplation of what the justification of it means. It is not obvious at all that the hamas attackers spent any time with an idea that they had to 'justify' anything. It seemed to involve inentional non-just action

If Hamas kills x civilians using grisly offensive means
(eg, decapitation) is this really worse than Israel killing
2x civilians using impersonal means (eg, missiles)?

This is where I find Israel's apologists are deceived by
propaganda, ie, inflaming emotions by presenting
only suffering of Israelis. Even more Palestinian are
killed by "sanatiary" means, eg, weapons launched
at a distance that cover the victims' bodies in rubble.
That crime doesn't tug at heart strings...& isn't
broadcast over & over on media.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If Hamas kills x civilians using grisly offensive means
(eg, decapitation) is this really worse than Israel killing
2x civilians using impersonal means (eg, missiles)?

This is where I find Israel's apologists are deceived by
propaganda, ie, inflaming emotions by presenting
only suffering of Israelis. Even more Palestinian are
killed by "sanatiary" means, eg, weapons launched
at a distance that cover the victims' bodies in rubble.
That crime doesn't tug at heart strings...& isn't
broadcast over & over on media.

In terms of what is actually happening right now, and what may soon happen, to go back to a few positions I had already posted elsewhere, I do think that there is a moral trap in responding, specifically with a ground invasion, but the missiles also probably represent a logistic nightmare. If the presumption is that they are not actually intentionally targeting civilians, and since Israel appears to represent values that are ostensibly a bit more like ours, I presume they would not, then my assumption is that the dense urban nature of gaza would make it a logistic nightmare to target the terrorists specifically. Also there is the human shield problem that Sam Harris mentioned in his show, so that distorts the equation

My greater point however, was that yes, things like intention and the eschewing of brutality do matter, and our efforts in surpassing them is an extremely important historical accomplishment. It seems abstract, but it's real. A misbehaving policeman did cause a mass protest here. However, in other places there is something within people, some idea that descends into them, that does not recognize that intentions matter, apparently. And from behind that seemingly abstract red-line, apparently groups can emerge that put no limit or justification to back up the use of force

 

[Mock Turtle]

If Hamas kills x civilians using grisly offensive means
(eg, decapitation) is this really worse than Israel killing
2x civilians using impersonal means (eg, missiles)?

This is where I find Israel's apologists are deceived by
propaganda, ie, inflaming emotions by presenting
only suffering of Israelis. Even more Palestinian are
killed by "sanatiary" means, eg, weapons launched
at a distance that cover the victims' bodies in rubble.
That crime doesn't tug at heart strings...& isn't
broadcast over & over on media.

Not what I have seen on UK news. There is much emphasis on Palestinian deaths and their suffering, and just as horrible as any others, but the direct cause of this piece of stupidity/cynical action is Hamas. So why aren't Palestinians expressing this?

 

[Revoltingest]

In terms of what is actually happening right now, and what may soon happen, to go back to a few positions I had already posted elsewhere, I do think that there is a moral trap in responding, specifically with a ground invasion, but the missiles also probably represent a logistic nightmare. If the presumption is that they are not actually intentionally targeting civilians, and since Israel appears to represent values that are ostensibly a bit more like ours, I presume they would not, then my assumption is that the dense urban nature of gaza would make it a logistic nightmare to target the terrorists specifically. Also there is the human shield problem that Sam Harris mentioned in his show, so that distorts the equation

My greater point however, was that yes, things like intention and the eschewing of brutality do matter, and our efforts in surpassing them is an extremely important historical accomplishment. It seems abstract, but it's real. A misbehaving policeman did cause a mass protest here. However, in other places there is something within people, some idea that descends into them, that does not recognize that intentions matter, apparently. And from behind that seemingly abstract red-line, apparently groups can emerge that put no limit or justification to back up the use of force

Israel's intention of targeting civilians hides behind
plausible deniability, ie, they claim missiles attack
Hamas suspected locations knowing full well that
imperfect information inexorably kills many civilians.

Is this killing at a distance of many more civilians
really more moral than Hamas' more personally
intentional killing of fewer civilians?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not what I have seen on UK news. There is much emphasis on Palestinian deaths and their suffering, and just as horrible as any others, but the direct cause of this piece of stupidity/cynical action is Hamas.

Coverage does vary, eh.
I'm hearing interviews with Israelis about their
suffering & lost loved ones. Palestinian victims
are largely held incommunicado in Gaza.

So why aren't Palestinians expressing this?

Who says they aren't?
In the news, we hear only what is presented.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Israel's intention of targeting civilians hides behind
plausible deniability, ie, they claim missiles attack
Hamas suspected locations knowing full well that
imperfect information inexorably kills many civilians.

Is this killing at a distance of many more civilians
really more moral than Hamas' more personally
intentional killing of fewer civilians?

But do you have any comment about what it is they would actually have to do, to get the bad guys, who obviously hide in dense infrastructure? I never said that I thought it was very feasible, based on that. I mean what is all this about tunnels? Do they have a base below a hospital? Do they use human shields? I mean, you can probably easily guess that they may, if only you based that guess on the way that they carried out their attack

 

[Revoltingest]

But do you have any comment about what it is they would actually have to do, to get the bad guys, who obviously hide in dense infrastructure?

I've been addressing the larger issue of Hamas
existing because of oppression of Palestinians,
not specific military tactics. But it would make
more sense to use personnel rather than WMDs.

I never said that I thought it was very feasible, based on that. I mean what is all this about tunnels? Do they have a base below a hospital? Do they use human shields? I mean, you can probably easily guess that they may, if only you based that guess on the way that they carried out their attack

Hamas will use available tools, nasty as they are.
Israel has the luxury of planes & missiles...& has
even threatened nukes.
I prefer pursuing a solution to, rather than pursuit
of war.
BTW, It will be neither easy nor overnight.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Coverage does vary, eh.
I'm hearing interviews with Israelis about their
suffering & lost loved ones. Palestinian victims
are largely held incommunicado in Gaza.

Perhaps that is the USA, but we tend to get as much from the Gaza side as to Israeli experiences.

Who says they aren't?
In the news, we hear only what is presented.

I've not seen any such regrets - and understandable - but that is war, and which Hamas declared upon Israel in the most stupid way (being completely dumb as to what response would be forthcoming), unless they see the expected multitude of deaths in Gaza as 'acceptable' (and hence being rather cynical). I wonder what the Palestinians really think of this.