War in the Middle East, again

[Ares Land]

Let me preface this by saying: I have family in Israel. The Jewish community here, including myself, is shocked to the core by the sheer terror which has been shown in the past few days. Thank you everyone in this thread so far for condemning Hamas’s actions — alas, not everyone has.

I won't contribute here much, because I don't have any particular insights on what's going on; but you have my support (for whatever it's worth).

[bradrn]

Perhaps not alternatively, if we're feeling conspirational, nothing unites a country under a conservative president better than a "terrorist" attack [whatever terrorist means, i wonder if the word is more than a way to say "bad"]. wasn't israel lately experiencing protests and significant internal opposition to Netanyahu's regime? (sheesh, it feels like that guy has been king of Israel as long as Putin's been king of Russia sometimes).

I can believe a lot about Netanyahu, but not this.

The only way it would be remotely plausible is if you postulated some sort of Fargo situation where he just wanted the hired guns to "give 'em a good scare" and things got out of hand. But even that is extremely far-fetched. Reports from the field are giving shocking accounts of military unpreparedness. In one account I read, a family was only saved because they called the husband's father, a retired army officer, from their safe room and he literally drove down from Tel Aviv and joined a house-to-house search for survivors in their kibbutz.

There are a lot of stories like this coming out of Israel. I just heard that a brother of an acquaintance of ours had to barricade themselves in a room for 20 hours while terrorists destroyed their house outside.

A number of analysts have speculated that Hamas struck now in order to take of advantage of the disarray caused by Bibi's heavy-handed moves against the judiciary. But I'm also reading that an attack of this size and complexity would have had to have been planned a year to a year-and-a-half out, which well predates the current crisis. (A year ago he was still in opposition.)

Indeed, Hamas has reported they’ve been planning this for a long time, though of course it’s hard to know whether they’re telling the truth.

Let me preface this by saying: I have family in Israel. The Jewish community here, including myself, is shocked to the core by the sheer terror which has been shown in the past few days. Thank you everyone in this thread so far for condemning Hamas’s actions — alas, not everyone has.

I won't contribute here much, because I don't have any particular insights on what's going on; but you have my support (for whatever it's worth).

Thank you; this means a lot to me.

[Man in Space]

So one of my Facebook friends posted something about Palestine, and one of her friends chimed in in the comments with comments including the following:

- "distorting facts and history is a huge Zionist effort"
- (in response to being called out for anti-Semitism) "I'm an Arab—which means I'm a Semite ! So educate yourself."
- A multipartite travesty:
-- "That's just a way to shut down any valid argument against Israel ...let's scream antisemitism -even when not warranted"
-- (in response, quotes from the Hamas charter explicitly targeting Jews) "I'm sorry have I been posting about Hamas ? I believe I've been saying Palestinians ? Do you need to scroll up? Read slower? Want me to use smaller words ?"
-- (asked point-blank who elected Hamas) "Israel created it"
-- (it's pointed out that Ahmed Yassin was Palestinian and that Hamas was split from the Muslim Brotherhood, with cited sources) "dude get off Wikipedia -Israel controls everything"

[bradrn]

- (in response to being called out for anti-Semitism) "I'm an Arab—which means I'm a Semite ! So educate yourself."

Oh god. I’ve been seeing this one a lot lately, even in places which are edited and should surely know better.

[Man in Space]

- (in response to being called out for anti-Semitism) "I'm an Arab—which means I'm a Semite ! So educate yourself."

Oh god. I’ve been seeing this one a lot lately, even in places which are edited and should surely know better.

Our common friend seems to support the quoted individual. A shame, because I was rather close with her (another former coworker).

[rotting bones]

I'm willing to endure abuse to oppose Hamas. They kill Palestinians too. Annoyingly, their position is that they didn't deliberately attack ANY non-settlers. I mean, of course they did a jailbreak and attacked everyone in sight. You can't reason with escaped prisoners.

Having said that, the "civilized" discourse is starting to seriously tick me off. Israel kills Palestinian citizens in much greater numbers every single year: https://youtu.be/Zkvx5oBxpao https://youtu.be/bZq7tOGAkfA Yet, it never seems to trigger life-changing attacks of conscience in anyone except various religious fundamentalists.

I'm not blaming anyone. I just happen to think the human conscience is largely shaped by flows of money. Maybe we'd all be better off if we were less human and more animalistic:

My best case scenario is Hamas being wiped out without a remnant. This is not because I think Hamas is immoral. It's because I don't want their activities to propagate in the same world as me, and I can't think of a convenient way to get them to change their position.

This is a position I can live with: The international Far Right network built up Hamas, and now they have to be torn down because they are inconvenient, not because they are immoral.

[zompist]

Having said that, the "civilized" discourse is starting to seriously tick me off. Israel kills Palestinian citizens in much greater numbers every single year:

No it doesn't. In the last 24 years Israeli forces have killed about 440 Palestinians per year. 1200 is much more than 440.

Yet, it never seems to trigger life-changing attacks of conscience in anyone except various religious fundamentalists.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. People have been criticizing Israel for seventy years. The UN has condemned Israel 45 times-- more than any other nation. There's a huge movement to punish Israelis for the sins of their government.

At the same time, the Palestinians have been treated absolutely abominably. By this time both sides have long lists of atrocities, and both sides are adding to the list. No one deserves to suffer atrocities; and atrocities do not justify counter-atrocities.

It's really not hard to condemn atrocities on both sides, to condemn Israeli's apartheid and obstructionism, and also condemn Hamas's useless track record.

My best case scenario is Hamas being wiped out without a remnant.

Everybody's emotions are high right now, but no, that is not sensible or possible. You are (unwittingly, I'm sure) just echoing the mindset of the Israeli far right: with enough violence, the problem "goes away." No, that approach hasn't worked for 70 years. Astonishingly, if you "wipe out" an oppressed group's political faction, you do not make that group friendly.

How the people involved get past their lists of atrocities, I don't know. But committing more atrocities has never worked and won't work now.

[bradrn]

Israeli's apartheid

sigh…

I’ve just been arguing elsewhere online about this wrong use of ‘apartheid’. It’s something I take particular offense at, because (a) it doesn’t reflect the actual state of affairs in Israel, and (b) as someone whose parents both grew up in apartheid-era South Africa, it trivialises what happened there.

The best I can do is to repeat what I just wrote outside the ZBB (with minor edits for comprehensibility):

In South Africa, apartheid was defined by two major elements: ‘petty apartheid’, where all elements of society were segregated by law; and ‘grand apartheid’, where black people were moved into designated so-called ‘homelands’. Israel has neither of these, nor ever had.

There’s also the question of who is supposedly segregated in Israel. It can’t be Jews and Arabs, because those are legally equal in Israel proper (even if there is still discrimination). And it can’t be Israelis and Palestinians, because every country treats citizens differently to non-citizens when it comes to entry/exit/property/legal rights/etc. At most, you could say that Palestinians are systemically denied citizenship — which is understandable, considering what they think of Israel.

Israel does, however, currently have some deeply worrying similarities with aspects of apartheid-era South Africa. It is my fervent hope that these will be removed if Likud is kicked out of power (which may well happen after the current war is over).

[zompist]

This stuff always goes the same way... I've seen it all before and I'm sure you have too.

Really, if you can't look at this map and see the resemblance... you're playing games with yourself.

At most, you could say that Palestinians are systemically denied citizenship — which is understandable, considering what they think of Israel.

No it's not. It's really not. Ruling people but not allowing them citizenship, as a policy that's gone on for fifty years and which there are no plans to change, is not just some kind of unfortunate blemish. It's dictatorial ethnonationalism. And when people do that, they do not get to complain that the people they are oppressing are not sufficiently docile.

And please do not try any whataboutism with me. Oppression is always bad, whoever does it, and supporters of Israel's Palestinian policy (I don't say that you are one) need to think hard about what kind of company they keep.

It is my fervent hope that these will be removed if Likud is kicked out of power (which may well happen after the current war is over).

That we can agree on.

[bradrn]

Really, if you can't look at this map and see the resemblance... you're playing games with yourself.

Sad to say, there is a resemblance, and I can see it. But I already said as much:

Israel does, however, currently have some deeply worrying similarities with aspects of apartheid-era South Africa.

However, this doesn’t make it ‘apartheid’. Not, mind you, that this makes it any better — ‘similar to apartheid-era South Africa’ is quite horrific enough.

I consider this situation similar to the use of the word ‘fascism’. People tend to use that word for anything they don’t like, which ends up rendering it meaningless. Similarly, ‘apartheid’ has a specific meaning, and using it loosely devalues the term.

At most, you could say that Palestinians are systemically denied citizenship — which is understandable, considering what they think of Israel.

No it's not. It's really not. Ruling people but not allowing them citizenship, as a policy that's gone on for fifty years and which there are no plans to change, is not just some kind of unfortunate blemish. It's dictatorial ethnonationalism.

It’s not quite as simple as that, though. The very map you linked above marks a substantial area as being under ‘Palestinian control’ — including such populous cities as Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus and Jericho. How much control does Israel have over these areas? I’m not actually sure, but I suspect it doesn’t have much.

In theory, there is no reason why Israeli citizenship could not be extended to the Palestinians. That’s effectively one way of implementing a ‘one-state solution’. But, in practice, such a solution is probably unworkable, which is why most people don’t seriously consider it.

That is to say: it’s not a matter of ‘ruling people but not allowing them citizenship’. It’s more like, ‘not really ruling people, and giving them citizenship being practically difficult’. This is the whole reason why the two-state solution is the most commonly suggested one.

And when people do that, they do not get to complain that the people they are oppressing are not sufficiently docile.

As for this… well, it’s also not that simple, because the fact is that peace does help. Just look at the Gaza strip — it’s been widely reported that it has recently pretended to be more peaceful, as a result of which Israel decided to make travel easier between Gaza and Israel. Of course, Hamas scuppered any hope of this happening soon. But what if Gaza had continued to be (relatively) peaceful? I could easily imagine Israeli restrictions being considerably loosened after a few years, if they show a commitment to continued peace.

And please do not try any whataboutism with me. Oppression is always bad, whoever does it, and supporters of Israel's Palestinian policy (I don't say that you are one) need to think hard about what kind of company they keep.

I’m not trying any whataboutism. I completely agree with you on this. I hate it when Palestine does it, and I hate it when Israel does it.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that the Israeli state could always annex both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, give the Palestinians citizenship and equal rights, and give the Palestinians the right to return, and if they had done this we would probably not be at the point that we are at right now. Of course, they won't do this because it would diminish the idea of Israel being a "Jewish state".

Failing that, they could evict the settlers from the Palestinian territories, pull back their own forces from them, end their encirclement, and permit the Palestinians to claim full sovereignty over them within the 1967 boundaries. Had they done this in the past we might not be seeing what we are seeing now. But the people in power in Israel are against the idea of a Palestinian state, and continue to do all they can to undermine it.

[WeepingElf]

The key thing is that the Israeli state could always annex both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, give the Palestinians citizenship and equal rights, and give the Palestinians the right to return, and if they had done this we would probably not be at the point that we are at right now. Of course, they won't do this because it would diminish the idea of Israel being a "Jewish state".

Hardly a realistic solution.

Failing that, they could evict the settlers from the Palestinian territories, pull back their own forces from them, end their encirclement, and permit the Palestinians to claim full sovereignty over them within the 1967 boundaries. Had they done this in the past we might not be seeing what we are seeing now. But the people in power in Israel are against the idea of a Palestinian state, and continue to do all they can to undermine it.

Probably the only way to achieve peace in the region.

[rotting bones]

No it doesn't. In the last 24 years Israeli forces have killed about 440 Palestinians per year. 1200 is much more than 440.

What's 1200? Did you even watch the videos? For each year, the number of Palestinian civilians that Israel kills is greater than the number of Israeli civilians that Hamas kills. This is an argument in favor of Hamas, against the argument that Hamas did anything more immoral than Israel.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. People have been criticizing Israel for seventy years. The UN has condemned Israel 45 times-- more than any other nation. There's a huge movement to punish Israelis for the sins of their government.

The UN is not a nation, and UN resolutions accomplish nothing.

At the same time, the Palestinians have been treated absolutely abominably. By this time both sides have long lists of atrocities, and both sides are adding to the list. No one deserves to suffer atrocities; and atrocities do not justify counter-atrocities.

It's really not hard to condemn atrocities on both sides, to condemn Israeli's apartheid and obstructionism, and also condemn Hamas's useless track record.

But condemning atrocities on both sides accomplishes nothing. I think that if Hamas wins, then that will be a victory for justice. But if justice wins, then Islamists will be emboldened all over the world. A victory for justice is a loss for me personally. This is why I'm advocating for injustice.

Everybody's emotions are high right now, but no, that is not sensible or possible. You are (unwittingly, I'm sure) just echoing the mindset of the Israeli far right: with enough violence, the problem "goes away." No, that approach hasn't worked for 70 years. Astonishingly, if you "wipe out" an oppressed group's political faction, you do not make that group friendly.

How the people involved get past their lists of atrocities, I don't know. But committing more atrocities has never worked and won't work now.

I do not think that wiping out Hamas will be a good outcome for Israel. Israel will be fucked afterwards. That is also a desirable outcome.

[Linguoboy]

Having said that, the "civilized" discourse is starting to seriously tick me off. Israel kills Palestinian citizens in much greater numbers every single year:

No it doesn't. In the last 24 years Israeli forces have killed about 440 Palestinians per year. 1200 is much more than 440.

Just to be clear here: When you say "Israeli forces" you mean specifically "security forces". That is, you're only counting people who were shot to death or otherwise directly killed by members of the IDF and similar units (formal and informal) and not those who died as a result of the blockade of Gaza?

[rotting bones]

What data are you guys looking at? Here's a chart from 2000 to 2014: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/c ... ict-deaths

I'd be very interested to know what data shows Israeli deaths as higher than Palestinian deaths, as that would fly in the face of Israeli propaganda.

PS. Found the civilian deaths by year I was thinking of: https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties

[zompist]

What data are you guys looking at? Here's a chart from 2000 to 2014: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/c ... ict-deaths

That article, from 2014, gets its data from B'Tselem. That's the source I used too, with up-to-date data, though for some reason I could get the charts to display last night but not today.

I'd be very interested to know what data shows Israeli deaths as higher than Palestinian deaths, as that would fly in the face of Israeli propaganda.

Over the last 24 years, Palestinian deaths have been way higher than Israeli. Hamas has killed 1200 Israelis in the last few days-- about as much as all Israeli deaths in the previous 23 years. As of last night, Israel was quickly catching up.

Just to be clear here: When you say "Israeli forces" you mean specifically "security forces".

Again, I can't get the B'Tselem page to work today. But I was using their numbers, which are direct killings only. The vast majority are by the IDF, not by civilians.

not those who died as a result of the blockade of Gaza?

I don't think the B'Tselem numbers count those. Though really, the blockade is maintained by Egypt too, and Hamas is siphoning off aid money.

[zompist]

It’s not quite as simple as that, though. The very map you linked above marks a substantial area as being under ‘Palestinian control’ — including such populous cities as Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus and Jericho. How much control does Israel have over these areas? I’m not actually sure, but I suspect it doesn’t have much.

In theory, there is no reason why Israeli citizenship could not be extended to the Palestinians. That’s effectively one way of implementing a ‘one-state solution’. But, in practice, such a solution is probably unworkable, which is why most people don’t seriously consider it.

That is to say: it’s not a matter of ‘ruling people but not allowing them citizenship’. It’s more like, ‘not really ruling people, and giving them citizenship being practically difficult’. This is the whole reason why the two-state solution is the most commonly suggested one.

The problem is that the Israeli right has made a two-state solution impossible in practice, and a one-state solution impossible ideologically.

You can't have a Palestinian "state" divided into noncontiguous enclaves like that. No nation can operate without control over its own roads and defense. But it didn't start out that way; it's 50 years of Israeli policy that made it into an absurd patchwork. (Admittedly complicated by the stupidity of one Mr. Arafat, who had the mentality of a thug. But there was never a point where changing his approach would have appreciably changed the results.)

That leaves one state as the only practical answer-- but to address universal norms of human rights, the Palestinians would have to have at least the legal status of Israeli Arabs. If Likud didn't want that result, they shouldn't have pushed settlement policies.

(Gaza is a special case... without getting too far into speculating about long-term peace prospects, I'd just note that since it isn't an unmanageable patchwork, it's much easier to deal with.)

[WeepingElf]

The best solution is perhaps a confederacy, modelled on the European Union, of Israel, a Palestinian state consisting of the Gaza strip and the whole West Bank (the Jewish settlements in the West Bank would have to be abandoned), and Jordan. The inclusion of Jordan is (1) to better balance the economic overweight of Israel and (2) to account for the strong familial and economic ties between the Palestinians and Jordan. This would be something of a middle road between a one-state and a two-state solution.

[Linguoboy]

not those who died as a result of the blockade of Gaza?

I don't think the B'Tselem numbers count those. Though really, the blockade is maintained by Egypt too, and Hamas is siphoning off aid money.

That's fair, though currently Egypt is trying to suspend the blockade at the only entry point it controls, the Rafah Border Crossing, and is being prevented by Israel's unwillingness to stop its bombing runs long enough to allow aid workers into Gaza. So it's not clear to me that Egypt has complete freedom of action in this area.

[bradrn]

It’s not quite as simple as that, though. The very map you linked above marks a substantial area as being under ‘Palestinian control’ — including such populous cities as Ramallah, Jenin, Nablus and Jericho. How much control does Israel have over these areas? I’m not actually sure, but I suspect it doesn’t have much.

In theory, there is no reason why Israeli citizenship could not be extended to the Palestinians. That’s effectively one way of implementing a ‘one-state solution’. But, in practice, such a solution is probably unworkable, which is why most people don’t seriously consider it.

That is to say: it’s not a matter of ‘ruling people but not allowing them citizenship’. It’s more like, ‘not really ruling people, and giving them citizenship being practically difficult’. This is the whole reason why the two-state solution is the most commonly suggested one.

The problem is that the Israeli right has made a two-state solution impossible in practice, and a one-state solution impossible ideologically.

Other way round. In my mind, a one-state solution is impossible practically: there is just so much accumulated mistrust built up between the two sides that they will not be able to coexist easily any time soon.

Meanwhile, the blocker for a two-state solution is ideological. There is no practical reason why Israel could not withdraw unilaterally from at least some of the settlements — the IDF is certainly capable of ‘persuading’ anyone who doesn’t want to go. But Likud will never, ever countenance that.

(Gaza is a special case... without getting too far into speculating about long-term peace prospects, I'd just note that since it isn't an unmanageable patchwork, it's much easier to deal with.)

It used to belong to Egypt, and that may well be the most workable solution in the future.