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

[glazed]

And using the same logic it was well within Egypt's right to close a strait within their territory especially against a belligerent country. So neither was closing the strait an out of blue action.

I think it's generally accepted that General Nasir was building up to a ground attack and Israel had to strike first if it wanted to win. The idea that the peace loving arab pan-nationalists got mugged off by a psychotic colonialist Israel is one for the fantasists.

https://providencemag.com/2017/08/the-seventh-day-and-counting-the-elusive-peace-of-the-six-day-war/

Nasser boasted that “[t]he armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation.” And he warned that if war came, “Our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” Would it come? Egypt’s main official newspaper, Al Ahram, said it was “inevitable.” Likewise, other Arab officials made similar boasts; for example, Iraq’s President Abdul Salam Arif said, “Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.” Ahmed Shuqairy, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, echoed this phrase, adding piquantly, “no Jew will be left alive.”

 

[The Corinthian]

There are plenty of available stats on that, we talked about this closer to October 7th. Roughly off the top of my head, Israel were directly responsible for the deaths of around 5k or so Gazans in that UN report from 2008? I think the average since the last big escalation in 2014 was around 75 per year. Obviously horrible, yes.

But in terms of impact, geopolitically, killing c. 1,500 civilians in an afternoon just is a different phenomeom. I don't think that's a controversial statement? It makes headlines, it becomes the number one story in the world's zeigeist.

That for me shapes the narrative through which the world views the conflict. That was the question that was raised: why did/does the world not view Gazans and Ukrainians as equally put upon in these current wars. The explanation for me is really obvious.

It's also obvious that if the Israeli's had responded by killing, say, 100 Gazans, then the world woudl have continued to pretty supportive. But as they murder countless thousands, every political leader is having to start every political interview with a more and more desperate plea for Israel to stop committing genocide.

I don't agree with the presupposition that this conflict can be viewed from a starting point of Oct 7th though. These events didn't happen in a vacuum, Hamas didn't appear overnight, and the Palestinian issue isn't something recent. There's a long continuous thread of incidents that led to Oct 7th, and I have no doubt that that date itself will be considered another flashpoint over the next however many years.

It's why I think framing discussion from a "on Oct 7th" is disingenuous. The circumstances that predate Oct 7th, (illegal occupation, blockade, subjugation and dehumanisation) led to October 7th, and not the other way round (again this isn't justifying it, but just explaining it before I'm misquoted). I said in an earlier post that Hamas could become obsolete, almost overnight, if Israel were to agree to a 2 state solution with the PA for the West Bank...think about the optics and wider political implications for Gazans if that were to happen. But we know Israel don't care about a 2 state solution, and instead want to atomise the West Bank, as well as brutalising, murdering and removing any Palestinian presence in the land.

Also your figure of 1,500 is inaccurate - the Israeli side still haven't confirmed it but best present estimates have it at the ~1,200 range.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/media-hamas-gaza/

 

[glazed]

I said in an earlier post that Hamas could become obsolete, almost overnight, if Israel were to agree to a 2 state solution with the PA for the West Bank...think about the optics and wider political implications for Gazans if that were to happen. But we know Israel don't care about a 2 state solution, and instead want to atomise the West Bank, as well as brutalising, murdering and removing any Palestinian presence in the land.

The problem with this analysis is that the Israelis did agree to a two state solution (not for the first time) and Arafat turned it down. It's been downhill from there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

If you're looking for a starting point to the conflict it was of course not October 7. The conflict started in its modern form in 1948 when the Arab countries on behalf of the Palestinians rejected the UN's two state solution and opted for war.

 

[Raoul]

So just to clarify it's ok to criticise their posts. I can say @The Corinthian 's post contains a thinly concealed anti-semitic trope (which he may or may not have been aware of - who knows) so long as I don't say @The Corinthian himself is anti-semitic?

As it states at the bottom, if anyone sees something objectionable, use the report feature.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Sorry. My bad. I thought antisemitism (drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to the Nazis is a form of Holocaust inversion and Holocaust distortion) is an objectionable content. Apparently it is not.

Maybe you should provide us with a list of historical analogies that are antisemitic and a list of historical analogies that are appropriate.

 

[VivaObertan]

I don't agree with the presupposition that this conflict can be viewed from a starting point of Oct 7th though. These events didn't happen in a vacuum, Hamas didn't appear overnight, and the Palestinian issue isn't something recent. There's a long continuous thread of incidents that led to Oct 7th, and I have no doubt that that date itself will be considered another flashpoint over the next however many years.

It's why I think framing discussion from a "on Oct 7th" is disingenuous. The circumstances that predate Oct 7th, (illegal occupation, blockade, subjugation and dehumanisation) led to October 7th, and not the other way round (again this isn't justifying it, but just explaining it before I'm misquoted). I said in an earlier post that Hamas could become obsolete, almost overnight, if Israel were to agree to a 2 state solution with the PA for the West Bank...think about the optics and wider political implications for Gazans if that were to happen. But we know Israel don't care about a 2 state solution, and instead want to atomise the West Bank, as well as brutalising, murdering and removing any Palestinian presence in the land.

Also your figure of 1,500 is inaccurate - the Israeli side still haven't confirmed it but best present estimates have it at the ~1,200 range.

@Beachryan I was going to respond to your post but @The Corinthian captured everything I wanted to say in a much more coherent matter, specifically the parts bolded.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

The two things have zero to do with each other. You might as well pick out a UK hospital scandal like Lucy Letby and thirty years later say it's proof that the British army are killing babies in whatever war they happen to be involved in in the year 2053. The original allegation suggested that the Israelis were doing this to Palestinians. The reality was they were doing it to Israelis too. Eventually the person responsible was fired.

The point is that the 2023 accusations are a ridiculous fantasy. Apart from anything else you can't dig up dead and buried bodies and extract usable body parts from them. That's not how bodies work. But the obvious implication of your post is that the Israelis were digging up people at the al-Shifa hospital for body parts. That's a blood libel and therefore anti-semitic. Squirm all you like. Call it unhinged, barmy, embarrassing, whatever you want. But that's what it is.



I simply asked the poster what he meant by martyr, since religious martyr is a reasonable and normal meaning in the context of a war with religious fundamentalists. He has not replied so will not explain why the Doctor is a martyr rather than merely a victim.

I don't know where you get the 90% figure from, but yes some of the posts here are anti-semitic, as I've pointed out. Attributing hyperbole to distort an argument you wish to dismiss is a poor response. Calling me a fool instead of addressing what I say is a bit of a red flag for a certain kind of poster who just knows they are right but can't explain why.

There have been accusations about this in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Secondly your comparison between Lucy Letby and the British state is so misguided I'm now fully aware of why you post the way you do.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Because almost every time it is used it is used as an emotive term that prevents rather than promotes reasonable discussion.

Because it seems it's wheeled out solely to stop any discussion on a particular subject.

 

[glazed]

There have been accusations about this in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Secondly your comparison between Lucy Letby and the British state is so misguided I'm now fully aware of why you post the way you do.

Your vague statements are meaningless. Clearly if you had anything concrete to say to make your points or defend yourself you would have said it. But you have not because you cannot.

Because it seems it's wheeled out solely to stop any discussion on a particular subject.

I agree there is some truth to the suggestion that Israel supporters sometimes use allegations of anti-semitism as a way of deflecting legitimate criticism. But that does not mean the phenomenon is not real or that it should not be called out when it manifests its ugly face.

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Maybe you should provide us with a list of historical analogies that are antisemitic and a list of historical analogies that are appropriate.

As I observed earlier, conflating Israel with Jewish people is one but seems that is OK in the inverse when trying to make a point

 

[Murder on Zidanes Floor]

Your vague statements are meaningless. Clearly if you had anything concrete to say to make your points or defend yourself you would have said it. But you have not because you cannot.



I agree there is some truth to the suggestion that Israel supporters sometimes use allegations of anti-semitism as a way of deflecting legitimate criticism. But that does not mean the phenomenon is not real or that it should not be called out when it manifests its ugly face.

I've shared plenty with you, you haven't read or engaged at all in good faith. Feel free to use Google and see the reports and articles discussing allegations of returned bodies missing organs in 2015, 2017 and 2019.

Are these true? Don't know but given the context and historical actions of this EXACT thing happening, it's not a "wild, blood libel trope rearing it's ugly head"

 

[Beachryan]

I don't agree with the presupposition that this conflict can be viewed from a starting point of Oct 7th though. These events didn't happen in a vacuum, Hamas didn't appear overnight, and the Palestinian issue isn't something recent. There's a long continuous thread of incidents that led to Oct 7th, and I have no doubt that that date itself will be considered another flashpoint over the next however many years.

It's why I think framing discussion from a "on Oct 7th" is disingenuous. The circumstances that predate Oct 7th, (illegal occupation, blockade, subjugation and dehumanisation) led to October 7th, and not the other way round (again this isn't justifying it, but just explaining it before I'm misquoted). I said in an earlier post that Hamas could become obsolete, almost overnight, if Israel were to agree to a 2 state solution with the PA for the West Bank...think about the optics and wider political implications for Gazans if that were to happen. But we know Israel don't care about a 2 state solution, and instead want to atomise the West Bank, as well as brutalising, murdering and removing any Palestinian presence in the land.

Also your figure of 1,500 is inaccurate - the Israeli side still haven't confirmed it but best present estimates have it at the ~1,200 range.

Tbh your final 'correction' there somewhat belies your position, but fine let's not point out if 300 people is the answer to any real question.

The question was and is why this conflict is treated differently to the Ukranian situation. I don't get the feeling you want to address that, so I'll park it. I think it's fairly obvious why they're viewed differently, at least initially, though who knows where this ends up.

I think it's admirable that you and other posters were focussed on the Gazan issue before October. I actually studied the 1967 conflict at Uni a long time ago, so was not completely unawares of the history of the region, and at the time there was huge hope amongst the profs in my department that the peace talks really were the ones to work. Then of course it all fell apart. At that time, it was daily news, Arafat was a household name.

On October 6th, I'd be shocked if more than 25% of Americans, or British could tell you the difference between Hamas and the PLO. Or even if Israel was still occupying Gaza. I'd be shocked if 1% could tell you the leader of Hamas, or the Israeli defene minister for that matter. The conflict was not in the public zeigeist. Now it is, hence why the whole situation, imo, can be viewed in context of this escalation, in terms of how the world perceives it. Largely that's down to ignorance and divided focus, but is what it is.

 

[Beachryan]

@Beachryan I was going to respond to your post but @The Corinthian captured everything I wanted to say in a much more coherent matter, specifically the parts bolded.

As below, I never argued or intended to that the conflict 'began' on October 7th. It did, however, enter the public narrative for the first time in essentially a generation, and hence will be considered in context of the events of that day. Much like the six-day war etc.

It's obviously a forever-bubbling conflict, but this 'spike' is defined by October 7th, and more and moreso each day by the Israeli overreaction to it.

 

[2mufc0]

The idea that the peace loving arab pan-nationalists got mugged off by a psychotic colonialist Israel is one for the fantasists.

I mean no one ever claimed them to be peace loving nationalists, it's just a natural reaction to the grave injustice of the nakba and subsequent land grabs. But that's the past and the Arabs and particularly the Palestinians paid the heaviest price. Some of this injustice can be undone by allowing right of return and dismantling the settlements and returning lands that have been usurped which allows both states to exist peacefully.

 

[The Corinthian]

Tbh your final 'correction' there somewhat belies your position, but fine let's not point out if 300 people is the answer to any real question.

It really doesn't - it's the arbitrary inflating of numbers which I'm calling out - I see it happen time and time again, and it's an attempt to paint an already shit situation as worse than it already is. It's why I was so pedantic on various lies that came from an Israeli mouth such as 40 beheaded babies, women being raped next to dead bodies etc - there's enough atrocity using facts without needing to artificially inflate or make things up to make the situation any worse.

The question was and is why this conflict is treated differently to the Ukranian situation. I don't get the feeling you want to address that, so I'll park it. I think it's fairly obvious why they're viewed differently, at least initially, though who knows where this ends up.

I don't think it's analogous other than considering them side by side in broad strokes. Both Ukraine and Palestine are fighting off an illegal occupier that use quite brutal and underhanded tactics, as well as fake news / misrepresentations as their strategem. When you get into the detail they're pretty different.

I think it's admirable that you and other posters were focussed on the Gazan issue before October. I actually studied the 1967 conflict at Uni a long time ago, so was not completely unawares of the history of the region, and at the time there was huge hope amongst the profs in my department that the peace talks really were the ones to work. Then of course it all fell apart. At that time, it was daily news, Arafat was a household name.

On October 6th, I'd be shocked if more than 25% of Americans, or British could tell you the difference between Hamas and the PLO. Or even if Israel was still occupying Gaza. I'd be shocked if 1% could tell you the leader of Hamas, or the Israeli defene minister for that matter. The conflict was not in the public zeigeist. Now it is, hence why the whole situation, imo, can be viewed in context of this escalation, in terms of how the world perceives it. Largely that's down to ignorance and divided focus, but is what it is.

It's a hard thing to prove either way with the wider public. However - considering you and I are here discussing this here and now, my point that framing it from an 'Oct 7th' lens still stands in that it's a disingenuous way to frame this whole issue, and I'll continue making that point.

 

[2cents]

I think it's generally accepted that General Nasir was building up to a ground attack and Israel had to strike first if it wanted to win. The idea that the peace loving arab pan-nationalists got mugged off by a psychotic colonialist Israel is one for the fantasists.

https://providencemag.com/2017/08/the-seventh-day-and-counting-the-elusive-peace-of-the-six-day-war/

Nasser boasted that “[t]he armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation.” And he warned that if war came, “Our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” Would it come? Egypt’s main official newspaper, Al Ahram, said it was “inevitable.” Likewise, other Arab officials made similar boasts; for example, Iraq’s President Abdul Salam Arif said, “Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.” Ahmed Shuqairy, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, echoed this phrase, adding piquantly, “no Jew will be left alive.”

The general scholarly consensus today - if we can speak of such a thing - proposes that Nasser wasn’t seeking an all-out conflict with Israel that summer, but was gradually drawn into a confrontation due to regional and international pressures, most notably the failure of his war in Yemen, the goading of the new radical wing of the Ba’thist regime in Syria, and whatever the Soviets were doing when they warned Damascus and Cairo of non-existent Israeli military buildup in the Galilee and plans to invade Syria (many theories, nothing confirmed).

Israel certainly feared a first strike from Egypt, but also saw an opportunity to settle post-Suez affairs with Cairo, and were confident throughout in their ability to do so, even on the understanding (and some might say desire) that a strike on Egypt would draw Jordan and Syria into the war.

 

[glazed]

The general scholarly consensus today - if we can speak of such a thing - proposes that Nasser wasn’t seeking an all-out conflict with Israel that summer, but was gradually drawn into a confrontation due to regional and international pressures, most notably the failure of his war in Yemen, the goading of the new radical wing of the Ba’thist regime in Syria, and whatever the Soviets were doing when they warned Damascus and Cairo of non-existent Israeli military buildup in the Galilee and plans to invade Syria (many theories, nothing confirmed).

That's certainly a possibility. His public rhetoric and actions would have made the rather straightforward thinking Israelis reasonably think otherwise though by the time it came to the attack. What was in his head leading up to it, history cannot know.

I mean no one ever claimed them to be peace loving nationalists, it's just a natural reaction to the grave injustice of the nakba and subsequent land grabs. But that's the past and the Arabs and particularly the Palestinians paid the heaviest price. Some of this injustice can be undone by allowing right of return and dismantling the settlements and returning lands that have been usurped which allows both states to exist peacefully.

It's to be hoped for. But I don't see it happening if I'm honest. Both sides are too radicalised at this point.

 

[ExoduS]

So how much civilian death Israel needs to cause so ICC issues arrest warrant for Israeli leaders?

 

[Raoul]

So how much civilian death Israel needs to cause so ICC issues arrest warrant for Israeli leaders?

Once Putin is arrested it will be a template to begin the process of arresting others. Until then, the ICC is irrelevant since nothing it does or says in enforceable as long as the US are involved.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Watching on daily basis this shit and i am shocked by the level of hypocrisy from the west. We have ethnic cleansing, bombing civilians, women and kids, destroying hospitals and......nothing. Not just that west is doing nothing to stop this, some of them (UK and USA) is repeating how Israel has their full support. I feel sick.
Kids getting killed and wounded every day, losing their parent and houses and other side just keep saying; "We will continue in doing it".

If any other country would doing this, it would be hit by sanctions (or even worse) already. But it pays off to have mighty friends to watch your back

 

[Raven]

Well that will naturally happen with any thread about a state that embarks on a bombing campaign that kills thousands of innocent civilians including thousands of children.

God forbid that people be unified in the notion that the mass murder of kids isn't good.

 

[Andycoleno9]

God forbid that people be unified in the notion that the mass murder of kids isn't good.

But but but behind those kids was one terrorist.

 

[2cents]

Video of the Huthis hijacking that ship:

 

[Raven]

But but but behind those kids was one terrorist.

Ah feck it, that's grand then.

 

[2cents]

That's certainly a possibility. His public rhetoric and actions would have made the rather straightforward thinking Israelis reasonably think otherwise though by the time it came to the attack. What was in his head leading up to it, history cannot know.

In regards to the bolded, historians are fortunate that Mohamed Hassanein Heikal was present with Nasser before and during the war, and being the prolific author that he was, left behind some accounts of his impression of Nasser’s thinking throughout. It seems that Nasser genuinely, and naively, believed that the superpowers and the UN would ultimately intervene to prevent an Israeli first-strike. He seems to have misunderstood how the Israelis perceived the closing of the straits and ejection of the UN force, and underestimated their military capabilities, believing that in the event war did break out the Egyptians would be able to hold defensive lines deep in the Sinai.

 

[RedTiger]

Shame as she was one of the few European officials with some guts.

 

[Giggsyking]

Very even-handed.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

Shame as she was one of the few European officials with some guts.

The reasons aren't so unknown they just don't want Podemos as part of the coalition.

 

[ExoduS]

Once Putin is arrested it will be a template to begin the process of arresting others. Until then, the ICC is irrelevant since nothing it does or says in enforceable as long as the US are involved.

Thus I’m only asking when the arrest warrants will be “issued”, not when arrests will be made. I don’t have such high expectations.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Ah feck it, that's grand then.

Maybe it is said earlier so apologies if it is; by the reports 5000 children died already (who knows how many are wounded). In comparison; 500 are killed in Ukraine (in a war which lasts nearly 2 years).

 

[That_Bloke]

@Dirty Schwein

Here's an interview of Pr. Avi Shlaim (professor of Internation Relations, author of the "Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Word"), his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and why the Hamas attack happened.





Also a good Ezra Klein Show with Spencer Ackerman and Peter Beinart on the Hamas attack, its impact on Jews in and out of Israel, why unarmed resistance has been abandoned by the Palestinians, and Israel's current military response.

 

[Stack]

The problem with this analysis is that the Israelis did agree to a two state solution (not for the first time) and Arafat turned it down. It's been downhill from there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

If you're looking for a starting point to the conflict it was of course not October 7. The conflict started in its modern form in 1948 when the Arab countries on behalf of the Palestinians rejected the UN's two state solution and opted for war.

Oh come on man.
Stop with the simplistic statements

The way you phrase your first sentence is that because Arafat turned the offered solution down that its all been downhill since then infers it was Arafat and the palestinians fault.
You completely fail to address why the deal was turned down. Im not saying he was right to turn it down but your framing of everything is completely one eyed.

Also your statement about looking for the starting point of the conflict being when Arab countries attacked Israel is also incredibly simplistic and frames the blame completely to one side. It completely ignores the history and warnings given well before Israel was created in its modern form. Again Im not saying the Arab nations were right but pointing out how you are framing your points so as to it all being the fault of one side. Simplistic and lacking in any level of depth or good faith.

It would be interesting to see you try and look at things from the Palestinian and Arab point of view. Im not saying they are right but if you made an effort to do that you might stop with the bad faith arguments you use.

 

[That_Bloke]

The problem with this analysis is that the Israelis did agree to a two state solution (not for the first time) and Arafat turned it down. It's been downhill from there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/23/israel3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

If you're looking for a starting point to the conflict it was of course not October 7. The conflict started in its modern form in 1948 when the Arab countries on behalf of the Palestinians rejected the UN's two state solution and opted for war.

Have you read what was offered to the Palestinians in Camp David and then say with a straight face that he shouldn't have turned it down? It's actually in the link that you've given. The article also debates about the shared responsibility in Camp David's failure. You should read that too.

I won't even comment on your ludicrous second point.

 

[VorZakone]

 

[The Corinthian]

 

[VorZakone]

 

[gaffs]

IDF leveling Gaza...

 

[Dirty Schwein]

@Dirty Schwein

Here's an interview of Pr. Avi Shlaim (professor of Internation Relations, author of the "Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Word"), his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and why the Hamas attack happened.





Also a good Ezra Klein Show with Spencer Ackerman and Peter Beinart on the Hamas attack, its impact on Jews in and out of Israel, why unarmed resistance has been abandoned by the Palestinians, and Israel's current military response.

Thank you very much, I'll be watching these tomorrow during lunch at work but as I'm in the office, I'll have to watch on my phone under my coat. It's crazy how I work at a prominent media company and news source but gotta hide any political topics.

Have you read what was offered to the Palestinians in Camp David and then say with a straight face that he shouldn't have turned it down? It's actually in the link that you've given. The article also debates about the shared responsibility in Camp David's failure. You should read that too.

I won't even comment on your ludicrous second point.

I've looked into Camp David Summit a lot and I don't know why many pro-israel point to this rejection of the two state solution as some sort of proof that Israel were offering the greatest deal of all time and the Palestinians were complete idiots to reject it.

 

[Raven]

If this is true then it's incomprehensibly evil. Surely the average age can't actually be 5?