Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

[Kaos]

Nukes are definitely a threat - not just because they exist, but also because their existence could result in the technology falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. The Israelis are obviously not going to take that chance. So in the end, they are definitely a threat because if they weren't, existing nuclear powers wouldn't object to more nations getting them.

I'd say that's more down to there being a shift in power in the region. Having a nuclear state that isn't aligned with the US-Israeli-Gulf hegemonic core upsets the status quo.

But all of this nuclear talk is irrelevant, I'm not sure how it justifies Israel's military heavy-handedness with the Palestinians nor the sponsoring of illegal settlements, which in turn lead to driving more Palestinians into the arms of Hamas. The whole self-defence argument falls apart when that's put into perspective.

 

[maniak]

Both sides justify their need to take military actions based on their own set of perceived set threats. See Sinwari's recent Vice interview.

Sure, but an independent observer knows it's bullshit, so it's strange to have presumably neutral analysts in other countries referring to it that way.

 

[Foxbatt]

Sure, but an independent observer knows it's bullshit, so it's strange to have presumably neutral analysts in other countries referring to it that way.

Of course it's bullshit.

 

[neverdie]

I'd say that's more down to there being a shift in power in the region. Having a nuclear state that isn't aligned with the US-Israeli-Gulf hegemonic core upsets the status quo.

Also need to take into account that Saudi and Gulf states are largely US proxies. So too are Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All either do the US's bidding indirectly or have large/significant presence of US military.

Within the region, Iran is isolated and that isn't a coincidence but a result of US strategy since 1979. Only Russia and various militias have considerable ties, which is probably also why Russia had so much at stake in the Syrian civil war.

Israel is not under threat from Iran except in the most abstract terms you could think of. It's also a distraction from the actual point, that the Israeli state is a state of apartheid.

 

[2cents]

It doesn't have to be but Israel make it so, you just have to listen to how their leaders justify their crimes.

Maybe if Israel’s enemies stopped going on about it...

Yahya Sinwar - “We support the eradication of Israel through armed Jihad and struggle. This is our doctrine.”

Hassan Nasrallah - “Israel's life will soon reach its end...if they do not leave Palestine, they will be returned to their native countries by force or other means.”

Ali Khamenei - “The Zionist regime is a deadly, cancerous growth and a detriment to this region...It will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.”

 

[Raoul]

Also need to take into account that Saudi and Gulf states are largely US proxies. So too are Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. All either do the US's bidding indirectly or have large/significant presence of US military.

Within the region, Iran is isolated and that isn't a coincidence but a result of US strategy since 1979. Only Russia and various militias have considerable ties, which is probably also why Russia had so much at stake in the Syrian civil war.

Israel is not under threat from Iran except in the most abstract terms you could think of. It's also a distraction from the actual point, that the Israeli state is a state of apartheid.

The Saudi issue with Iran has nothing to do with the US. Its purely a sectarian matter that has in the past decade morphed into a regional power struggle between both nations. MBS clearly views an expansionist Tehran as an impediment towards his own regional ambitions.

 

[maniak]

Maybe if Israel’s enemies stopped going on about it...

Yahya Sinwar - “We support the eradication of Israel through armed Jihad and struggle. This is our doctrine.”

Hassan Nasrallah - “Israel's life will soon reach its end...if they do not leave Palestine, they will be returned to their native countries by force or other means.”

Ali Khamenei - “The Zionist regime is a deadly, cancerous growth and a detriment to this region...It will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.”

That's like saying north korea is an existential threat to the US because of their ridiculous claims regarding their military. Threats or propaganda don't make something a fact, especially if you're a neutral analyst and not a party involved. I understand those statements from Israel and its enemies, not from political commentators or random joes on redcafe.

 

[neverdie]

TR
The Saudi issue with Iran has nothing to do with the US. Its purely a sectarian matter that has in the past decade morphed into a regional power struggle between both nations. MBS clearly views an expansionist Tehran as an impediment towards his own regional ambitions.

I agree with you about MBS and SA's regional ambitions, but the context for that is also the US-Saudi geopolitical partnership which goes back nearly eighty years. Also arm sales and the Abraham Accords need to be taken into account. SA would have problems with Iran regardless for a whole host of other issues, but the US uses preexisting hostilities to its advantage.

Iran is very isolated within the region. Only Russia and some militias in practical terms offer some "hard" support which is very indirect with regard to the Russians. China offers soft support in terms of direct foreign investment.

 

[Amir]

I may be wrong but it seems that some high ups in the IDF may be a bit more sensible than most politicians?

You're not wrong. I guess that when you have to focus on the job in hand as an army officer, not just talk big but also do things, and set aside the politics, you see things clearer.

Once they retire from the army, go back to civilian lives and sometimes try their hand in politics, they also tend to find their place more in the center, left or soft right.

 

[2cents]

That's like saying north korea is an existential threat to the US because of their ridiculous claims regarding their military. Threats or propaganda don't make something a fact, especially if you're a neutral analyst and not a party involved. I understand those statements from Israel and its enemies, not from political commentators or random joes on redcafe.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be implying that the question of Israel’s continued existence only gets raised because of Israeli propaganda. Whereas I would argue it gets raised because others keep going on about it, and have been for 70+ years.

On the question itself, I don’t think it’s analogous to North Korea and America, or as straightforward as is being made out in this discussion. Israel currently has a major military, economic, and diplomatic advantage over the Palestinian factions and their supporters in Tehran. However these are all transient qualities likely to shift in unforeseen ways with the ebb and flow of history. On the other hand, the type of coalition Iran is looking to build against Israel has unassailable advantages of strategic depth and demography. In those terms Israel is North Korea whereas a potential Iranian-led Islamic coalition would be America. Iran alone has these advantages over Israel in abundance, which is why despite Tehran’s lousy military, economic dysfunction, and diplomatic isolation, the only superpower is extremely reluctant to become embroiled in a war on Iranian territory.

These advantages I would argue are not transient, and I think the players involved on all sides are very conscious of them. They’re not enough to tip the balance against Israel right now (nowhere near close enough), but they’re enough to give Tehran and the movements it supports the impetus to continue the struggle until the ebb and flow of history negate Israel’s advantages - hence the confidence underlying the quotes I posted.

 

[berbatrick]

Maybe I misunderstood you, but you seemed to be implying that the question of Israel’s continued existence only gets raised because of Israeli propaganda. Whereas I would argue it gets raised because others keep going on about it, and have been for 70+ years.

On the question itself, I don’t think it’s analogous to North Korea and America, or as straightforward as is being made out in this discussion. Israel currently has a major military, economic, and diplomatic advantage over the Palestinian factions and their supporters in Tehran. However these are all transient qualities likely to shift in unforeseen ways with the ebb and flow of history. On the other hand, the type of coalition Iran is looking to build against Israel has unassailable advantages of strategic depth and demography. In those terms Israel is North Korea whereas a potential Iranian-led Islamic coalition would be America. Iran alone has these advantages over Israel in abundance, which is why despite Tehran’s lousy military, economic dysfunction, and diplomatic isolation, the only superpower is extremely reluctant to become embroiled in a war on Iranian territory.

These advantages I would argue are not transient, and I think the players involved on all sides are very conscious of them. They’re not enough to tip the balance against Israel right now (nowhere near close enough), but they’re enough to give Tehran and the movements it supports the impetus to continue the struggle until the ebb and flow of history negate Israel’s advantages - hence the confidence underlying the quotes I posted.

Israel has a coalition too, besides the US, there is also SA and the Gulf and Egypt. The proxies of these powers are doing battle with Iran's proxy in Syria, so it's not like they're new to this. Is there any reason this coalition should weaken over time? Pelosi has literally said that the US will stand by Israel even if DC is in ruins, and I don't see their proxies in the Middle East going against them on this.

Push comes to shove, I can't imagine China or Russia taking a strong side either way. So I'm a little skeptical of the Iranian coalition (and its own internal durability, with no nuclear deterrent and an economy being torn apart from a decade of sanctions).

 

[Super Hans]

Firing rockets at civilian populations (some of which actually do land and kill people) is more than enough to be considered a threat by the Israelis, especially when they know they don't have to tolerate it and have the means to respond with overwhelming force. This is why Hamas' rocket strategy has not yielded them anything since they started doing it, beyond simply hardening the resolve of Israeli politicians to securitize further and respond with even greater force.

Hardly a strategy. It is simply Hamas' sole option behind harsh language when Israel behaves the way it did with Sheikh Jarrah and then at Al Aqsa.

 

[Raoul]

Hardly a strategy. It is simply Hamas' sole option behind harsh language when Israel behaves the way it did with Sheikh Jarrah and then at Al Aqsa.

Its an incredibly self-destructive strategy given that they are severely outgunned. Unless of course they are aiming to leverage Israeli actions as a propaganda win with international audiences. Either way, its a losing strategy since they don't any power to affect positive change.

 

[berbatrick]

Its an incredibly self-destructive strategy given that they are severely outgunned. Unless of course they are aiming to leverage Israeli actions as a propaganda win with international audiences. Either way, its a losing strategy since they don't any power to affect positive change.

In 2018, an unarmed march to the Gaza border was met with bullets killing 223 killed in total in exchange for 0 Israeli deaths.
This time, 256 people were killed in exchange for 13 killed by rockets.
Seems like they crunched the numbers and decided one ratio is better than the other idk.

 

[Super Hans]

Its an incredibly self-destructive strategy given that they are severely outgunned. Unless of course they are aiming to leverage Israeli actions as a propaganda win with international audiences. Either way, its a losing strategy since they don't any power to affect positive change.

That's why Hamas hardly ever fires rockets (and by Israel's own admission actively tries to prevent other armed groups from doing it). But Hamas has its limits. Hamas actually warned Israel to leave Sheikh Jarrah alone or it would retaliate. Fair enough. And as Sinwar said, once they had made their point, they were immediately open to a ceasefire. Obviously they know Israel's response will be disproportionate, and are prepared to tolerate it to some degree. It should be noted that a disproportionate attack is just as much a war crime as if Israel was to deliberately target civilians (although people clearly don't see it that way).

 

[Super Hans]

In 2018, an unarmed march to the Gaza border was met with bullets killing 223 killed in total in exchange for 0 Israeli deaths.
This time, 256 people were killed in exchange for 13 killed by rockets.
Seems like they crunched the numbers and decided one ratio is better than the other idk.

It's important to remember that Israel had a policy of shooting to permanently maim at the border, so the damage was indescribably higher than that number. And of course, the independent commission of inquiry found that in almost every case of 6000+ shootings with live ammo, they were civilians that were unarmed and posing no immediate threat to an Israeli.

 

[2cents]

Israel has a coalition too, besides the US, there is also SA and the Gulf and Egypt. The proxies of these powers are doing battle with Iran's proxy in Syria, so it's not like they're new to this. Is there any reason this coalition should weaken over time?

Yes. Israel’s ‘partners’ in the region, old and new, are unelected autocrats. The people of the region remain anti-Israel and are consistently polled as seeing Israel as a greater threat than Iran. Wherever/whenever these regimes are replaced by governments with a more representative or populist composition, there is a possibility that they will jump ship. This is what happened with Iran in 1979. To a lesser degree it has also happened with Turkey and Tunisia in recent years. There are certainly limits to how far such a government can go - e.g. the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo was far too economically beholden to Washington to do what it would have liked to do.

Iran certainly faces barriers as well, mainly because it’s not Arab and/or Sunni, and it doesn’t share a direct border with Israel. In Gaza at least all those barriers have been crossed, but I’d agree they are quite formidable. An Iranian nuclear bomb, however, may go some way to overcoming these issues.

As for America, they will eventually decline and fade away like every superpower before them. At least, that is a widespread belief in the Middle East.

 

[berbatrick]

Yes. Israel’s ‘partners’ in the region, old and new, are unelected autocrats. The people of the region remain anti-Israel and are consistently polled as seeing Israel as a greater threat than Iran. Wherever/whenever these regimes are replaced by governments with a more representative or populist composition, there is a possibility that they will jump ship. This is what happened with Iran in 1979. To a lesser degree it has also happened with Turkey and Tunisia in recent years. There are certainly limits to how far such a government can go - e.g. the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo was far too economically beholden to Washington to do what it would have liked to do.

Iran certainly faces barriers as well, mainly because it’s not Arab and/or Sunni, and it doesn’t share a direct border with Israel. In Gaza at least all those barriers have been crossed, but I’d agree they are quite formidable. An Iranian nuclear bomb, however, may go some way to overcoming these issues.

As for America, they will eventually decline and fade away like every superpower before them. At least, that is a widespread belief in the Middle East.

Ya, I'm obviously not an expert but from reading the news it seems there's equal chance of the Islamic Republic falling as of any of these events.

 

[Raoul]

That's why Hamas hardly ever fires rockets (and by Israel's own admission actively tries to prevent other armed groups from doing it). But Hamas has its limits. Hamas actually warned Israel to leave Sheikh Jarrah alone or it would retaliate. Fair enough. And as Sinwar said, once they had made their point, they were immediately open to a ceasefire. Obviously they know Israel's response will be disproportionate, and are prepared to tolerate it to some degree. It should be noted that a disproportionate attack is just as much a war crime as if Israel was to deliberately target civilians (although people clearly don't see it that way).

The rocket attacks were a unilateral move by Hamas "out of solidarity" to protest Israeli actions in a neighborhood in Jerusalem that has nothing to do with Hamas or its area of remit. Therefore Sinwar basically decided to take an action that he surely knew would result in extensive death and destruction of his own (mostly civilian) people once the Israelis retaliated.

It was an incredibly self-destructive move that resulted in a lot more deaths of Palestinians in Gaza than would've happened had he simply verbally protested what was happening in the West Bank. He claims he simply wanted to "make his point" then have a ceasefire. Well that's not entirely how it works when you don't have the military leverage to procure a ceasefire. The stronger side are going to keep shooting until they're comfortable they've made their point as well.

 

[Foxbatt]

The public in any majority Muslim country is against Israel and only because of the Palestinian issue. Sort it out and it will disappear among the majority. The issue with Saudi and Iran was there from the time of Shah. It has everything to do with regional hegemony. The Shah was westernized and drank while the Saudis were not and officially very strict and conservative. The Iranians had the biggest Navy in the Gulf and had fighter aircraft etc. There were lot of tensions even then. The Iranian navy used to go on tours to other countries in Asia too. I mean outside the Gulf countries. The Ayatollahs obviously made it much worse because during the time of The Shah at least the Americans can control both countries from doing something stupid. The Iranians could not care less about Israel. It is the clergy that keeps Israel in the spotlight to boost up their legitimacy.

 

[Super Hans]

The rocket attacks were a unilateral move by Hamas "out of solidarity" to protest Israeli actions in a neighborhood in Jerusalem that has nothing to do with Hamas or its area of remit. Therefore Sinwar basically decided to take an action that he surely knew would result in extensive death and destruction of his own (mostly civilian) people once the Israelis retaliated.

It was an incredibly self-destructive move that resulted in a lot more deaths of Palestinians in Gaza than would've happened had he simply verbally protested what was happening in the West Bank. He claims he simply wanted to "make his point" then have a ceasefire. Well that's not entirely how it works when you don't have the military leverage to procure a ceasefire. The stronger side are going to keep shooting until they're comfortable they've made their point as well.

You think Jerusalem has "nothing to do with Hamas or its area of remit"? According to the Oslo Accords, "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" is "a single territorial unit". From the Palestinian perspective that includes East Jerusalem of course. The last time there were elections, Hamas won. One could argue they should have jurisdiction over the whole of said territorial unit. It's hard to argue they should keep their nose out of it when Israel is committing war crimes in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. But you think they should have left it at a verbal protest.

I wonder, would you have criticised Gandhi in the same way for his tactic of provoking a much more powerful oppressor into extreme violence against helpless civilians? He actively sought it out. Gandhi would have preferred his followers had used violence than simple "verbal protest". According to Gandhi, "You’re supposed to march into the line of fire, smilingly and cheerfully, and get yourself blown to bits.”

I simply ask that you keep that in mind when you, quite obviously, defend Israel's disproportionate response as justified and dismiss Hamas' actions as simply "incredibly self-destructive".

 

[The Corinthian]

Maybe if Israel’s enemies stopped going on about it...

Yahya Sinwar - “We support the eradication of Israel through armed Jihad and struggle. This is our doctrine.”

Hassan Nasrallah - “Israel's life will soon reach its end...if they do not leave Palestine, they will be returned to their native countries by force or other means.”

Ali Khamenei - “The Zionist regime is a deadly, cancerous growth and a detriment to this region...It will undoubtedly be uprooted and destroyed.”

That's like saying north korea is an existential threat to the US because of their ridiculous claims regarding their military. Threats or propaganda don't make something a fact, especially if you're a neutral analyst and not a party involved. I understand those statements from Israel and its enemies, not from political commentators or random joes on redcafe.

Agree largely with maniak here.

Also the rhetoric is about Zionism. If you remove the ideology of Zionism from the land, would it remove the animosity? It’d be a bumpy road but if anything it'd diminish it at least.

Should there be a Jewish presence in the region? Absolutely. Should it come at the expense of non Jews? Absolutely not. In my mind a pluralistic society which gives a seat at the table for Jews, Muslims and Christians should be the ideal. Working towards that should be the goal. When you have far right Zionist fascist parties ruling the land and creating an apartheid like state, the natural by product is what you see now. But again, and I've mentioned it before, we keep on treating the symptoms and not the underlying illness. The illness is a racist, classist and exclusive ideology.

 

[africanspur]

The rocket attacks were a unilateral move by Hamas "out of solidarity" to protest Israeli actions in a neighborhood in Jerusalem that has nothing to do with Hamas or its area of remit. Therefore Sinwar basically decided to take an action that he surely knew would result in extensive death and destruction of his own (mostly civilian) people once the Israelis retaliated.

It was an incredibly self-destructive move that resulted in a lot more deaths of Palestinians in Gaza than would've happened had he simply verbally protested what was happening in the West Bank. He claims he simply wanted to "make his point" then have a ceasefire. Well that's not entirely how it works when you don't have the military leverage to procure a ceasefire. The stronger side are going to keep shooting until they're comfortable they've made their point as well.

What exactly is a unilateral move in this context? And how is an East Jerusalem neighbourhood not in the remit of one of the Palestinian political parties?

 

[UweBein]

......

I simply ask that you keep that in mind when you, quite obviously, defend Israel's disproportionate response as justified and dismiss Hamas' actions as simply "incredibly self-destructive".

Come on - did you expect Israel to attack back with axes and forks?
If you attack a country, they will attack back with what they have got. They will not attack you and create a level playing field at the same time.

But, that's okay for Hamas actually. They are happy for every Palestinian drop of blood that is spilled, because they can blame someone else for the situation in Gaza. It's their only way to cover their incompetence. The ultimate goal of Hamas has to be to kill as many Palestinians as possible (either by Hamas' own rockets who hit targets in Gaza - around 15% of all rockets apparently that they shot towards Israel - I am sure they are calling it friendly fire) or directly by Israeli forces. For them that's good, they can pretend to be the protectors of Gaza and they can celebrate the martyrdorm of their own people. A lot of blood leads to a lot of tears which lead to a desperate population (the people then accept the rule by Hamas even more) and it delivers great grapic content for the anti-Israeli social media campaigns. In a way, Hamas and Isreal won this conflict - but not the Palestinian people.

 

[Super Hans]

Come on - did you expect Israel to attack back with axes and forks?
If you attack a country, they will attack back with what they have got. They will not attack you and create a level playing field at the same time.

But, that's okay for Hamas actually. They are happy for every Palestinian drop of blood that is spilled, because they can blame someone else for the situation in Gaza. It's their only way to cover their incompetence. The ultimate goal of Hamas has to be to kill as many Palestinians as possible (either by Hamas' own rockets who hit targets in Gaza - around 15% of all rockets apparently that they shot towards Israel - I am sure they are calling it friendly fire) or directly by Israeli forces. For them that's good, they can pretend to be the protectors of Gaza and they can celebrate the martyrdorm of their own people. A lot of blood leads to a lot of tears which lead to a desperate population (the people then accept the rule by Hamas even more) and it delivers great grapic content for the anti-Israeli social media campaigns. In a way, Hamas and Isreal won this conflict - but not the Palestinian people.

It’s almost as if your brain blocked out the entirety of what I just explained about Gandhi’s approach to the struggle for freedom.

Furthermore, which is the more disproportionate response do you think? Hamas’ feeble response to 54 years of Israeli war crimes (every minute of every day)? Or Israel’s subsequent response to Hamas’ retaliation?

 

[Raoul]

You think Jerusalem has "nothing to do with Hamas or its area of remit"? According to the Oslo Accords, "the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" is "a single territorial unit". From the Palestinian perspective that includes East Jerusalem of course. The last time there were elections, Hamas won. One could argue they should have jurisdiction over the whole of said territorial unit. It's hard to argue they should keep their nose out of it when Israel is committing war crimes in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. But you think they should have left it at a verbal protest.

I wonder, would you have criticised Gandhi in the same way for his tactic of provoking a much more powerful oppressor into extreme violence against helpless civilians? He actively sought it out. Gandhi would have preferred his followers had used violence than simple "verbal protest". According to Gandhi, "You’re supposed to march into the line of fire, smilingly and cheerfully, and get yourself blown to bits.”

I simply ask that you keep that in mind when you, quite obviously, defend Israel's disproportionate response as justified and dismiss Hamas' actions as simply "incredibly self-destructive".

Hamas only have control over Gaza as a result of their 15 year power struggle with Fatah, which is a widely accepted norm in the conflict. One group controls Gaza and the other the Palestinian West Bank areas. Therefore Hamas - a Gaza organization - are only setting themselves up to get clobbered by a massive Israeli retaliation for firing rockets into Israel about an area that they themselves do not control, which strategically and tactically, makes no sense at all imo.

 

[Roane]

Come on - did you expect Israel to attack back with axes and forks?
If you attack a country, they will attack back with what they have got. They will not attack you and create a level playing field at the same time.

But, that's okay for Hamas actually. They are happy for every Palestinian drop of blood that is spilled, because they can blame someone else for the situation in Gaza. It's their only way to cover their incompetence. The ultimate goal of Hamas has to be to kill as many Palestinians as possible (either by Hamas' own rockets who hit targets in Gaza - around 15% of all rockets apparently that they shot towards Israel - I am sure they are calling it friendly fire) or directly by Israeli forces. For them that's good, they can pretend to be the protectors of Gaza and they can celebrate the martyrdorm of their own people. A lot of blood leads to a lot of tears which lead to a desperate population (the people then accept the rule by Hamas even more) and it delivers great grapic content for the anti-Israeli social media campaigns. In a way, Hamas and Isreal won this conflict - but not the Palestinian people.

Israel is the perpetrator in the current situation and attacks Palestinians regardless if Hamas actions or any other.

Let's not make it sound like Hamas are instigate Israeli aggression.

So take your point above is it ok for Hamas to attack using missiles or should they sit back?

 

[UweBein]

It’s almost as if your brain blocked out the entirety of what I just explained about Gandhi’s approach to the struggle for freedom....

Okay, I did not get the Gandhi point - even after reading it three times.

Furthermore, which is the more disproportionate response do you think? Hamas’ feeble response to 54 years of Israeli war crimes (every minute of every day)? Or Israel’s subsequent response to Hamas’ retaliation?

It's not an interesting question for me. At the end... success is the final judge that determines right or wrong.

But, if you are interested in that... I honestly think that Hamas firing rockets was the thing that escalated the conflict - you do not react to the eviction of people by firing rockets. It's simple (from a western European point of view - unless you are left leaning).

But, for me, I think that this has actually strengthened Israel's position again. A repeating tune since 1948. It has - also again - strengthened the position by Hamas in Gaza. Israel and Hamas can be very happy with the outcome.

 

[UweBein]

Israel is the perpetrator in the current situation and attacks Palestinians regardless if Hamas actions or any other.

Maybe from a certain point of view.
But there are certainly other perspectives in which Hamas is the actual perpetrator.

Let's not make it sound like Hamas are instigate Israeli aggression.

Again, from my point of view. Hamas are the main culprits here.

So take your point above is it ok for Hamas to attack using missiles or should they sit back?

It's disproportionate from my point of view. But, hey, what do I know, I do not live there!
However, if they attack with missiles they can not complain (I mean they can but it's from a morally low vantage point) that Israel is killing children, because that's what rockets have done and will always do.

 

[Raoul]

Let's not make it sound like Hamas are instigate Israeli aggression.

I believe Hamas were the ones who began firing rockets after which Israel retaliated. Sinwar's own words in the Vice News interview suggest they did it to 'send a message', then have an immediate ceasefire, which generally only works if you have some degree of military parity with the opposition. If you don't, you are simply inviting them to inflict a disproportionate amount of destruction onto your own people and infrastructure. This is doubly the case when you have a right wing desperado like Bibi in charge - where he views it as an opportunity to advance his domestic political interests in light of potentially losing his job.

 

[Roane]

Maybe from a certain point of view.
But there are certainly other perspectives in which Hamas is the actual perpetrator.


Again, from my point of view. Hamas are the main culprits here.


It's disproportionate from my point of view. But, hey, what do I know, I do not live there!
However, if they attack with missiles they can not complain (I mean they can but it's from a morally low vantage point) that Israel is killing children, because that's what rockets have done and will always do.

Hamas has been in place since the late 80's. Israel has been an aggressor for a lot longer. The incidences if shooting Innocents has been relayed throughout this thread.

In this latest incident Israel was the clear instigator. Hamas was the one retaliating not Israel.

If Hamas didn't exist Israel would still be killing those kids, plenty of evidence for that.

 

[Roane]

I believe Hamas were the ones who began firing rockets after which Israel retaliated. Sinwar's own words in the Vice News interview suggest they did it to 'send a message', then have an immediate ceasefire, which generally only works if you have some degree of military parity with the opposition. If you don't, you are simply inviting them to inflict a disproportionate amount of destruction onto your own people and infrastructure. This is doubly the case when you have a right wing desperado like Bibi in charge - where he views it as an opportunity to advance his domestic political interests in light of potentially losing his job.

You believe wrong, as has been pointed out many times in this thread Israel instigated and Hamas retaliated.

For what it's worth I think Hamas aid Israel in creating a narrative. It plays out too many times for it to be anything else. Israel land grabs and starts some crap, Hamas launched rockets that don't do a lot, Israel goes to town and kills Innocents for more land grabbing.

 

[The Corinthian]

Maybe from a certain point of view.
But there are certainly other perspectives in which Hamas is the actual perpetrator.


Again, from my point of view. Hamas are the main culprits here.


It's disproportionate from my point of view. But, hey, what do I know, I do not live there!
However, if they attack with missiles they can not complain (I mean they can but it's from a morally low vantage point) that Israel is killing children, because that's what rockets have done and will always do.

I believe Hamas were the ones who began firing rockets after which Israel retaliated. Sinwar's own words in the Vice News interview suggest they did it to 'send a message', then have an immediate ceasefire, which generally only works if you have some degree of military parity with the opposition. If you don't, you are simply inviting them to inflict a disproportionate amount of destruction onto your own people and infrastructure. This is doubly the case when you have a right wing desperado like Bibi in charge - where he views it as an opportunity to advance his domestic political interests in light of potentially losing his job.

Let's be clear on the timeline of events here.

The Israelis began by forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. The Israeli people also took to the streets chanting 'Death to Arabs' as they felt emboldened by this.

Worshippers in Al Aqsa mosque were attacked and brutalised by the IDF. They were shot at with rubber coated steel bullets, stun grenades were thrown, they were covered in skunk water and they were your usual street harassments and arrests.

This all occurred before a single rocket was fired by Hamas (hence the 'send a message' comment).

Israel is clearly the instigator here and any belief in otherwise belongs in a fantasy realm.

 

[Gehrman]

Yes. Israel’s ‘partners’ in the region, old and new, are unelected autocrats. The people of the region remain anti-Israel and are consistently polled as seeing Israel as a greater threat than Iran. Wherever/whenever these regimes are replaced by governments with a more representative or populist composition, there is a possibility that they will jump ship. This is what happened with Iran in 1979. To a lesser degree it has also happened with Turkey and Tunisia in recent years. There are certainly limits to how far such a government can go - e.g. the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo was far too economically beholden to Washington to do what it would have liked to do.

Iran certainly faces barriers as well, mainly because it’s not Arab and/or Sunni, and it doesn’t share a direct border with Israel. In Gaza at least all those barriers have been crossed, but I’d agree they are quite formidable. An Iranian nuclear bomb, however, may go some way to overcoming these issues.

As for America, they will eventually decline and fade away like every superpower before them. At least, that is a widespread belief in the Middle East.

To be honest I think Israel will strike at Iran if they ever get close to developing a nuclear bomb. Of course a lot can happen in 50-100 years time, but I don't see it happening unless as you say the military capabilites of Israel and the US decline massively.

 

[Raoul]

Let's be clear on the timeline of events here.

The Israelis began by forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. The Israeli people also took to the streets chanting 'Death to Arabs' as they felt emboldened by this.

Worshippers in Al Aqsa mosque were attacked and brutalised by the IDF. They were shot at with rubber coated steel bullets, stun grenades were thrown, they were covered in skunk water and they were your usual street harassments and arrests.

This all occurred before a single rocket was fired by Hamas (hence the 'send a message' comment).

Israel is clearly the instigator here and any belief in otherwise belongs in a fantasy realm.

None of these actions had anything to do with Hamas though. They made a conscious decision to start firing rockets. Once you do that in a construct in which you are severely outgunned, you then don't have the luxury of saying "we're just doing it to make our point, we would like to have a ceasefire now". You now have to endure a massive retaliation. So in the end, it was obviously not worth it since countless Palestinians needlessly died.

 

[Raoul]

You believe wrong, as has been pointed out many times in this thread Israel instigated and Hamas retaliated.

For what it's worth I think Hamas aid Israel in creating a narrative. It plays out too many times for it to be anything else. Israel land grabs and starts some crap, Hamas launched rockets that don't do a lot, Israel goes to town and kills Innocents for more land grabbing.

Israel took West Bank actions for which Hamas - who have nothing to do with the West Bank (as per their 14 year ongoing dispute with Fatah), then fired rockets at Israeli civilian areas. Had they not done this, over 250 Palestinians in Gaza (many of them children) would still be alive today.

 

[Roane]

Israel took West Bank actions for which Hamas - who have nothing to do with the West Bank (as per their 14 year ongoing dispute with Fatah), then fired rockets at Israeli civilian areas. Had they not done this, over 250 Palestinians in Gaza (many of them children) would still be alive today.

West bank actions? You mean firing in mosques as people prayed and grabbing land right?

For which Hamas took Israel actions?

 

[Roane]

Let's be clear on the timeline of events here.

The Israelis began by forcibly evicting Palestinians from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah. The Israeli people also took to the streets chanting 'Death to Arabs' as they felt emboldened by this.

Worshippers in Al Aqsa mosque were attacked and brutalised by the IDF. They were shot at with rubber coated steel bullets, stun grenades were thrown, they were covered in skunk water and they were your usual street harassments and arrests.

This all occurred before a single rocket was fired by Hamas (hence the 'send a message' comment).

Israel is clearly the instigator here and any belief in otherwise belongs in a fantasy realm.

Interesting narrative being created don't you think?

West bank actions v Hamas terrorism

 

[UweBein]

.....

Israel is clearly the instigator here and any belief in otherwise belongs in a fantasy realm.

Everything you said is true and I agree with that - except for the last sentence. Because all that in no way, shape and form does allow for firing rockets. That is an action (or a reaction if you insist on it) on a completely another level and not justified by Israel's previous actions - again speaking from my cosy home in Germany.

So, in my opinion, irrespective of Israel did in the previous week or in the previous 40 years - in this case the only instigator is Hamas (and that's the opinion of the majority in Germany).

 

[The Corinthian]

Interesting narrative being created don't you think?

West bank actions v Hamas terrorism

It's bizarre.