Israel at war

[squeezer]

 

[Klatuu]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720630550720057602

 

[Klatuu]

Why the attack occurred. The fictional withdrawal from Gaza for peace.

“In 2005, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to remove Israeli ground forces and settlers from Gaza, it was billed by many as a concession toward achieving peace, but, as his advisor Dov Weisglass explained in a 2004 interview, it was a move designed to do the exact opposite.

By keeping Gaza separate from the West Bank and ensuring Palestinian political fragmentation and a failed statelet in Gaza, Israel was creating an excuse to never make peace that it knew would be accepted. This “no-one-to-talk-to certificate,” which Weisglass said would be approved by Washington, says: “(1) There is no one to talk to. (2) As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3) The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens—when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom.” This approach, Weisglass added, “supplies the amount of formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” Netanyahu, according to the Jerusalem Post, told his associates in 2019 that propping up Hamas in Gaza would keep Palestinians divided and that “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” it.”

Can Our Leaders Avoid the Terrorism Trap?

For Israel and Palestine, the only way to break the cycle of violence is to understand the difference between justice and vengeance.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Butler1000]

Why the attack occurred. The fictional withdrawal from Gaza for peace.

“In 2005, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to remove Israeli ground forces and settlers from Gaza, it was billed by many as a concession toward achieving peace, but, as his advisor Dov Weisglass explained in a 2004 interview, it was a move designed to do the exact opposite.

By keeping Gaza separate from the West Bank and ensuring Palestinian political fragmentation and a failed statelet in Gaza, Israel was creating an excuse to never make peace that it knew would be accepted. This “no-one-to-talk-to certificate,” which Weisglass said would be approved by Washington, says: “(1) There is no one to talk to. (2) As long as there is no one to talk to, the geographic status quo remains intact. (3) The certificate will be revoked only when this-and-this happens—when Palestine becomes Finland. (4) See you then, and shalom.” This approach, Weisglass added, “supplies the amount of formaldehyde that’s necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.” Netanyahu, according to the Jerusalem Post, told his associates in 2019 that propping up Hamas in Gaza would keep Palestinians divided and that “whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for” it.”

Can Our Leaders Avoid the Terrorism Trap?

For Israel and Palestine, the only way to break the cycle of violence is to understand the difference between justice and vengeance.

foreignpolicy.com

Ever think there was no one to talk to because Palestinians are too fractious and stupid to get along long enough to sort themselves out? Cripes Hamas isn't even a cohesive entity but several factions cobbled together. Add in a leadership with a long tradition of corruption and theft of aid, denying the people a chance at improvement. And a history of trying to overthrow host nations governments.

Thats why no one likes, them, wants them, or is giving a single life for them.

 

[Klatuu]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720758119951741374

 

[Frankfooter]

Let's me be very clear here. I've spoken before about how widespread antisemitism was and how extensive Western eugenics programs were before and during the war. I'm not trying to claim there was no Jewish discrimination outside the axis powers or that antisemitism wasn't a problem everywhere. It was. What I am saying is that many people cared. Millions definitely cared. They may have not been a majority, but many people still cared.

Its worth pointing out that antisemitism wasn't the only racism at play during that time. The Brits didn't want to take in Jewish refugees so were very happy to give them Palestine because they thought even less of Palestinians.

Churchill:

 

[Valcazar]

I'm sure they will be hanged after a fair trial. But I expect them to come out of their holes guns blazing and suicide vests set up.

But if some want to cooperate with maps and intel, that would no doubt be taken in to account.

What do you think will happen?

It isn't about what I think would happen.
It is about you saying that you wanted no quarter given.
That has a meaning, and it means they can't surrender, you have promised to just kill them all no matter what.
That doesn't mean "hang them after a fair trial" either.

Not sure why you're changing your tune now, but anything that means you are backing off the "all war crimes all the time" attitude of yours is good.

I asked for the names of people you think, on both sides, who could negotiate a good peace treaty. The leadership of Hamas is in Quatar. Start there.

And yes, something must be done. In this case kill Hamas. How would you have dealt with it?

Well, that sounds like we're back to "War crimes are easier, let's do that".
So much for my brief moment of hope for you.

I object to the notion that its possible to engage in an urban warfare campaign, and not commit a single war crime, under its definition.

That says a hell of a lot about you, doesn't it?

What you think the war commanders on both sides will meet at dawn, set terms, go to the agreed open field and exchange volleys?

No. And why do you think that's the only way not to commit war crimes?
You really are going out of your way to say that the only proper way to win a war is by committing war crimes and that's just the right thing to do.
You're way out here out-hawking Hilary, hell, you may be out-hawking the Cheneys at this point.

When Hamas uses their own people as human shields, places bases under civilian infrastructure, and creates a tynnel system for the express purpose of inflicting mass casualties both on the IDF AND their own civilian population for clickbait, this is the result.

Life is cheap to them. Get your head out of the sand. You are demanding the IDF fight with one hand tied behind their back.

Ahh.
"We need to commit war crimes because otherwise we are fighting with one hand behind our back."

Nice.

So are there any war crimes you are against?
Just curious.

 

[Valcazar]

Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth again. Here you are grudgingly accepting war crimes as a neccessary step. "Regrettably " right. You going to send "Thoughts and prayers" too? Maybe wring your hands a bit, purse your lips, shed a crocodile tear?

Butler.
Pointing out that not getting younger's argument is different from the one you are making isn't "talking out of both sides of my mouth".
It's pointing out that you and he are making different arguments.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, if Hamas were using human shields it would be a war crime. But they are not.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[mandrill]

Yes, that's one of my crucial beliefs: it matters not what Israel does, Hamas will always exist.
They have been, and that's why it's no surprise support for Hamas in Gaza is so high. But killing they familiales and destroying their homes and hospitals and schools isn't going to do anything to demonstrate their education describing Israelis as evil, genocidal maniacs is wrong.

But Israel hasn't actually attacked Gaza for many years. They lived in an uneasy truce. But Gazans still hate Israel. It's ideological. Most Iranians hate the USA for instance.

The munitions used on October 7th were Iranian-provided and had far more sophistication than what Hamas usually uses. This demonstrates an uptick in the support they are receiving.

Historically Hamas has been limited to Hamas-produced Qassam rockets. Small, weak, relatively easily intercepted by Iron Dome, and in relatively small numbers. October 7th involved Iranian Fajr3 and Fajr5 rockets or copies of them, Iranian mortar and artillery fuses, and glider attacks that would've required specialised training away from Israeli intelligence that mimic Iranian tactics.

Which is why I think the key is getting support from the international community to sanction and possibly embargo Iran and starve Hamas of the training and resources it needs to carry out these attacks.

The international community is not going to embargo Iran. Iran will always have support from a coterie of allies, which apparently now includes Putin's Russia.

The disturbing aspect of 7 October is that it indicates a sudden new escalation in the Middle East.

Every country does. Every country could have a terrorist attack any day. 9/11 proved that. The solution can't be turning a city of over 2 million people into an open air prison and bombing mostly civilians every couple of years when it happens.

I believe that if Hamas' international support was ended their ability to carry our attacks will be diminished. Not only will the Israeli death tolls go back to their old numbers of a dozen or so every few years, but possibly even less.

Every country doesn't have a terror attack every day because most countries are out of easy reach of potential terrorists and take extensive measures to prevent such attacks. When was the last time you visited an airport? Israel is directly across a fence from Gaza. 7 OCtober could literally occur every day.

So your solution is the forced deportation. That's a war crime. And how do you force Arab nations to accept immigrants? At a time when most western nations are dealing with immigration problems of their own and attempting to halt it drastically reduce their own immigration, they're going to force other nations to accept immigrants whether they want them or not?

I'm not sure it's a war crime, but it's unlikely to happen in Palestine.

Feel free to comment on what Pakistan is doing to its Afghan refugee population as we speak. They must be reading my posts in this thread.

Those are all borders settled by treaty or long ago internationally recognized. Only 2 nations recognize most of the Israeli conquest. Israel themselves considers much of the land "occupied territory". It has recognised in the past that it's settlements are illegal. It knows it only has a peace treaty with Egypt and none of the other nations from the 3rd and 4th Arab Israeli wars and despite agreeing to a UNTSO MAC with Syria just never showed up to any meetings.

Israel can kick all the Gazans out, it could even kick all the Palestinians out of all its territory, occupied or otherwise. That isn't going to stop Hamas terrorist attacks. I would hope a nation, and certainly bystanders like us, would be horrified at the idea of thousands of dead civilians that accomplishes nothing.

Gripes that are 75 years old are no longer worth fighting about.

And I presume that the IDF has a plan when they go into Gaza that is more sophisticated that just blowing random buildings up. I hope at least they are going to wreck weapons stockpiles and take out command centres and military facilities.

 

[Klatuu]

But Israel hasn't actually attacked Gaza for many years. They lived in an uneasy truce.

Groan. Deja vu in the rear view mirror.

2022 Gaza–Israel clashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or how about this in May of this year

“Forty military aircraft carried out a surprise bombing in violation of a ceasefire that had been implemented to quell the exchange of fire across the border.[6] The bombing commenced at 2 am local time on 9 May 2023 and lasted for approximately two hours.[6] Witnesses reported that the attack targeted a top-floor apartment in Gaza City and a house in Rafah.[6] The Palestinian health ministry confirmed the deaths of 13 individuals as a result of the bombing.[6] Among the casualties were three commanders, their wives, several children, and other bystanders.[6] Additionally, 20 people sustained injuries during the airstrikes.[6]”

May 2023 Gaza–Israel clashes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Valcazar]

Summary

Israel needs to abandon the idea of eliminating Hamas; it cannot be done. Instead it should focus on reducing support for Hamas from Palestinians and other nations, and increase support to enable better sanctioning of nations and groups that support Hamas.

To do that, Israel should first end the war, and then try things it has never done before. Namely ending all illegal settlements, recalling all settlers, return all occupied territories, provide aid and relief to all areas that suffered their illegal occupations, recognize Palestinian return to life, security and self-determinism. It should do this without conditions or demands on anyone else.

I think there is near zero chance of Israel doing that. But I think it's the only chance Israel has to live in some semblance of peace with minimal loss of life and maximum support when something does happen.

I know many will say this will just make Israel a target. I don't see how it makes them any more of as target than they already are. Some will see it makes them look weak, I say it will make them look like compassionate, understanding people. Some will say they've already tried this, but everytime Israel said they'd do anything like this it was tied to conditions of someone else going first and also they actively broke their promises and violated their proposal before, during, and after negotiations.

Israel has to act first in good faith. Not because Hamas has acted on good faith, but because Hamas are terrorists and it's foolish to ask them to do anything good. But Israel needs international support to secure itself as much as possible, and to do that it needs to redeem itself on the world stage.

That's what I think should happen. It's not a solution, it doesn't end violence or guarantee no Israelis will ever die to terrorism, but it's the only chance they have in my opinion.

Flame away.

Thanks for this.
I think the one issue I have with it is the turn back to the two-state solution.
I don't think that is viable with no one on either side wanting to push for it anymore.
There either needs to be a way of cultivating a new interest in legitimately giving it a chance, or there needs to be some one-state solution proposed (with all the issues that brings as well).
Right now, I see the latter as having more of a chance because it seems no one on either side is willing to seriously engage in the two state answer anymore.

 

[Klatuu]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720750546389176697

 

[nottyboi]

latest horrific video of Israeli handiwork attacking a convoy of refugees headed south. A move they demanded. *warning broken bodies of children* I have no words. ....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720475196807688241

 

[Butler1000]

It isn't about what I think would happen.
It is about you saying that you wanted no quarter given.
That has a meaning, and it means they can't surrender, you have promised to just kill them all no matter what.
That doesn't mean "hang them after a fair trial" either.

Not sure why you're changing your tune now, but anything that means you are backing off the "all war crimes all the time" attitude of yours is good.



Well, that sounds like we're back to "War crimes are easier, let's do that".
So much for my brief moment of hope for you.



That says a hell of a lot about you, doesn't it?



No. And why do you think that's the only way not to commit war crimes?
You really are going out of your way to say that the only proper way to win a war is by committing war crimes and that's just the right thing to do.
You're way out here out-hawking Hilary, hell, you may be out-hawking the Cheneys at this point.



Ahh.
"We need to commit war crimes because otherwise we are fighting with one hand behind our back."

Nice.

So are there any war crimes you are against?
Just curious.

Still avoiding things. You have no solution in mind other than generic bleatings that have no substance. Unless you can show me leadership on both sides that can be trusted to make and keep a peace deal then my point stands.

Neither side wants peace, and will stay at each others throats. There won't be a two state solution, a one state solution, or even the present status quo. In the long run there will only be a winner.

So pick a side, whine about the unfairness of it all, or be indifferent. Honestly I just don't care. You are a nobody on poo er board thinking you somehow carry weight or can affect the outcome. You can't.

I understand the inevitable outcome of a religious war in the Holy Land.

 

[Butler1000]

Butler.
Pointing out that not getting younger's argument is different from the one you are making isn't "talking out of both sides of my mouth".
It's pointing out that you and he are making different arguments.

The fact you think nuance of language is the most important point as opposed to the actual players events, history, shows how little you undsrstand.

 

[Valcazar]

The fact you think nuance of language is the most important point as opposed to the actual players events, history, shows how little you undsrstand.

I don't think it is the most important point.
I was pointing out you and he aren't actually making the same argument.

Just like "this person is dead, there is nothing we can do about it now" isn't the same argument as "That person deserved to die, and I'm really glad I killed him".

 

[Valcazar]

Still avoiding things. You have no solution in mind other than generic bleatings that have no substance. Unless you can show me leadership on both sides that can be trusted to make and keep a peace deal then my point stands.

Yes.
You've made it very clear.
Unless someone has a peace deal on the table that you think will work, the only solution is war crimes, which you enthusiastically support.

That's very fucked up, which is my point.
Even many of the people here who are most stridently in favor of Israel's current actions aren't saying that "what is really needed are war crimes, because they don't count against Hamas or Gaza anyway, and also they are just the realistic best way to get what I want".

That you think pointing out I don't have a solution that magically fixes everything means I should just agree with you that war crimes are good is also not a great look on you.

Neither side wants peace, and will stay at each others throats. There won't be a two state solution, a one state solution, or even the present status quo. In the long run there will only be a winner.

So pick a side, whine about the unfairness of it all, or be indifferent. Honestly I just don't care. You are a nobody on poo er board thinking you somehow carry weight or can affect the outcome. You can't.

I understand the inevitable outcome of a religious war in the Holy Land.

So since for you this is all about how there can only be one winner, do you not even care which side wins?
You just want to encourage both sides to commit as many war crimes as possible to win so that things end more quickly?
Morality doesn't matter, just power, so you just want to see who has enough power to win and that's who you will support?

 

[shack]

You refuse to say killing babies is wrong and refuse to show any remorse for any Palestinian civilian deaths.

Intentional misinterpretation.

 

[shack]

I was saying, that the decision to bomb civilians is Israel's alone.

They decided to bomb Hamas, not civilians. It's not Israel's fault that Hamas stays and operates within civilian areas.