Israel ordered people out of swathes of the main southern city in the Gaza Strip on Monday (December 4) as it pressed its ground campaign deep into the south, sending desperate residents fleeing even as it dropped bombs on areas where it told them to go. Lucy Fielder has more.
i can’t believe that they would kill all of these people and destroy everything without a real goal
They say they’re there to depose Hamas, I’m not sure why you say it’s unrealistic. Game theory could support a harsh response, imposing a high cost should anyone consider future attacks against Israel’s civilians. Netanyahu is very unpopular right now so it could also be a political move to appease voters who want some revenge/justice/catharsis.
imposing a high cost should anyone consider future attacks against Israel’s civilians.
Right now they’re giving gazans tens of thousands of reasons to want revenge against this bloodthirsty regime. They’re actually doing the opposite. Yes go devastate these people who have nothing left to lose, that’s definitely how you reduce extremism.
Pretend you are in charge of Israel, how would you have responded to the attack against your civilians? This was predictable, inevitable, and arguably the least bad choice.
Least bad choice… It’s sickening to me that you suggest there aren’t better ways to conduct war than to bomb hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. For a military that’s supposedly one of the best in the world to say 7000+ children needed to die is a joke. It’s incredibly obvious to any reasonable person.
Predictable? Yes, par for the course for this insanely violent and fascist regime.
It’s par for the course for any nation that is attacked to counter-attack.
Inevitable? It’s well documented that the IOF ignored many warnings about the incoming Hamas resistance. Not only that, netanyahu funded Hamas to weaken the Palestinian cause weak and fractured… Let’s start there.
I’m saying the response was inevitable, not the attack.
Least bad choice… It’s sickening to me that you suggest there aren’t better ways to conduct war than to bomb hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. For a military that’s supposedly one of the best in the world to say 7000+ children needed to die is a joke. It’s incredibly obvious to any reasonable person.
The alternative to going in with air support is sending in troops without it into a well prepared terrorist den where they would suffer high casualties. Yes, air strikes are the least bad choice for them. Israel essentially had to choose between the lives of its own people and the lives of people who live in a belligerent nation. That they didn’t sacrifice their own for Palestinians, thereby making Israel less safe, should be unsurprising.
Well we don’t know what would have happened on the other timeline where gaza didn’t face consequences for electing Hamas.
Deterrence means there had to be reprisals even if you think things were brutal beforehand. They clearly got more brutal. Suggesting they should maintain the status quo after such an attack doesn’t make sense to me.
Israel would have acted like the genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialism state it has been since it’s creation.
Israel has never been genocidal, for obvious reasons. If wiping out Palestinians were their goal, they certainly could do it more effectively, IDF is often warning people about incoming attacks, and publishing justifications for attacks.
The reason Palestine lost land was because they declared war on Israel and lost, refused to concede, declared war again, lost, refused to concede, then continued terrorist attacks against them for the next 60 years.
But sure just call it colonialism or genocide or whatever fucking buzzwords you think will get public opinion to give a shit about this group that absolutely caused their misery by remaining uncompromising, violent, and poking the bear every chance they get.
Significant percentages of Israelis are very non-white, but I know you’re just doing mental backflips trying to inappropriately conflate Israel with their old enemies, the Nazis.
It’s called war between nations, asymmetrical war but war nonetheless. They’re not starving out Gaza and demanding civilians bring them hamas, they’re going in there themselves.
If Gaza surrenders then terms like war crimes for collective punishment start making sense. Right now they have their own government which happens to be comprised of belligerent terrorists. Israel isn’t leaving until that’s no longer the case.
In my book bombing civilians is still called a war crime regardless of the supposed enemy you’re pretending to target. The excuse of collateral damage doesn’t even make sense, they shot artillery at the exact place they knew there would be civilians because they sent them there.
Also: Israel barely considers Palestine a country in the first place. How is this a “war between nations” and “actually not a warcrime at all” when one of the sides doing the warcrimes doesn’t even think their opponent has any sovereignty?
You’re accusing them of intentionally targeting civilians, and I’ve yet to see any evidence of that. It’s more accurate to say that Israel doesn’t care much about collateral damage.
The excuse of collateral damage doesn’t even make sense, they shot artillery at the exact place they knew there would be civilians because they sent them there.
If Hamas was there too, it makes sense and it is in fact collateral damage. Israel will attack potential targets even if there’s the slightest connection to Hamas. Evidently they built ai for this purpose, which gives them targets faster than they can bomb them.
Israel barely considers Palestine a country in the first place. How is this a “war between nations”
A nation is different than a country or a state. It just means a group of people with shared purpose. Israel disputes that Palestine is a state, not that it is a nation.
And they did have some limited sovereignty, they used it to attack Israeli civilians.
Oh, look… the Fascist Apologetics Association is trying to blame Hamas for the actions of a genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialist state again.
What’s the matter? Have you run out of “human shields” to use as propaganda props?
I addressed elsewhere why calling Israel white supremacist and genocidal are not appropriate, but you’re just going to repeat the same shit over and over again because you think it’s shocking. I’m blocking you now because you’re clearly not here in good faith, you’re here to yell and scream and insult those who disagree. I hope you learn to be better one day
Yeah, it almost sounds like they’ve lost and they refused to concede, doesn’t it? That’s why they’ve resorted to Guerrilla warfare hiding among civilians.
They’ve been at war since 1948 and Palestine has yet to surrender, preferring instead intafada. We are seeing the consequences of that today.
He’s the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it’s not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It’s more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can’t depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don’t reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they’ll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn’t suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn’t have to explain such obvious things and i’m afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it’s so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from “the free world”. What’s the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn’t think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they’ll be, how could it make any sense, they’ll only be hated even more, do you think that they’re acting guided by their emotions when they’re expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to “deter” israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to “avenge” the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it’s obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn’t our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they’re not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i’ve already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can’t think that they’re only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they’re head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they’re doing something like that it’s in order to gain something that couldn’t be obtained otherwise.
I don’t agree with you because i can’t see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
You can’t depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don’t reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they’ll just elect new ones
That has yet to be established, but it sounds like you’re making a case for annexation. If they are unwilling to pacify themselves, that seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Israel safe.
They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them,
Those lands were annexed because Palestinians declared war on Israel and lost, funny how the anti-Israel crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the Palestinians as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors.
What’s the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ?
If they are reasonable, yes it would. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of intifada and a one-state solution where they deny rights to Jews certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation.
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
[The claim that “if you kill their leaders they’ll just elect new ones”] has yet to be established
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won’t destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn’t destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because “Hamas”(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn’t you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can’t understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they’re killed way less than they’re killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can’t wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There’s a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don’t turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what’s the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can’t offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to ‘paint in another color’/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won’t happen since we(sterners) won’t give any of our “hearts”.
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It’s a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
the aggressors … they’re killed way less than they’re killing, both before and after Oct.7,
Casualties inflicted is not necessarily indicative of aggression. I say that Palestine is the aggressor not because they have a higher body count, but because they literally started the conflict, both by instigating the earliest massacres against Jews in mandatory Palestine, making a one state solution impossible, by declaring war on Israel with their Arab allies in '48, and later trying it again unsuccessfully in the 6-day war. They also instigated this latest reprisal even though their attack wasn’t as effective as Israel’s response.
Just because Israel’s self-defense is way more effective than Palestine’s constant attacks against them does not mean they are the aggressors. They didn’t start this fight, but they consistently respond to attacks and threats quite effectively as they are on the winning side of asymmetrical combat.
they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it),
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed is a result of this.
There’s a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution
No doubt, I wish their appreciation for realpolitik was as great as their anger, because that’s how one finds a path out of this situation; rationality and compromise and diplomacy and logic. Anger will not change their situation, it has led to things being this way.
Israel is asking for a lot and can’t offer much in exchange
They are asking for security and a return of hostages, and they have a lot of freedoms and land they can offer if Palestine is willing and able to deliver it. Because they are bargaining from a position of strength Israel probably won’t have to make as many diplomatic concessions for a viable peace. The alternative, of course, is that they remain belligerent, continue intafada, settlements continue and Palestine is eventually annexed entirely. Palestine should really be trying to make a viable peace lest they end up with nothing.
it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn’t be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there. While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did historically suffered for it with military losses, coups, and terrorist organizations operating within their borders.
our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic.
This is the first time I’ve heard, “send Muslims to Mars,” pitched as a solution. Somehow I don’t think they’ll go for it.
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed was a result of this.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis.
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won’t they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
Anger will not change their situation, it has led to it being this way.
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you’re probably right, i don’t really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they’re at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn’t be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did suffered for it with coups and terrorist organizations within their borders.
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you’re trying to put pressure and the more you’re exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don’t look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what’s fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
Yes. You skipped a few steps in there though, the Ottomans were deposed, the British allowed them to buy land, Arab nationalists started massacring Jews because they didn’t like them legally buying land, a 2-state solution became impossible, the UN divided them into countries because of this, Israel declared themselves a country with the borders the UN drew, Palestinian Arabs declared war on them and tried to destroy their state, they lost, and those were were belligerent or left had lands annexed (Nakba.) Not murdering your peaceful neighbors for legally buying seems like a low bar to clear, as does letting them have their own home where you can’t murder them. If they had remained peaceful the levant might be one multiethnic country today. Heck, if they had stopped trying to murder the Jews at any time for the past 70 years Palestine might not be in this situation.
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ?
Good question, I’d be interested to see polling on this matter if you’ve read any.
Why won’t they put an end to the settlements then
Probably because:
It puts pressure on Palestine to negotiate for viable peace because if they don’t they will lose everything.
If Palestine is unwilling to pacify themselves, the distance created from slow annexation via settlers will eventually create safety for Israel via distance from belligerent nations hostile to them.
Dismantling the settlements in Gaza as part of their 2005 unilateral withdrawal didn’t work out so well for Israel in hindsight.
why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
These nations are at war, which is arguably a zero-sum game. Israel is negotiating from a place of strength, which means they can further their own interests far more effectively than Palestine can.
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
I don’t follow. Why should westerners make any compromises, and for whom?
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
They were able to do that because of a modern military, not because of anger.
But yeah, you’re probably right, i don’t really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they’re at war as well, and seized an occasion.
A Pyrrhic victory at best, given the destruction the attack has caused their nation.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
If Egypt cared more about Palestinian lives than land claims and putting pressure on Israel, they would let Gazans voluntarily leave en masse, (even if Egypt were not their final destination;) deportation implies they are forced to leave.
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you’re trying to put pressure and the more you’re exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
The kinds of “help” they are offering are very limited, diplomatic stuff mostly. Many of the surrounding countries that let Palestinians stay have to deal with terror groups launching attacks on Israel from within their borders and reprisals, like Hezbollah in Lebanon who are now part of the government. The PLO caused civil war in Jordan when too many Palestinians settled there.
Every Arab nation that went to war with Israel on behalf of Palestine got their asses handed to them, and many lost territory for it. That’s how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)
(And realpolitik don’t look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what’s fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
It’s good to have morals, but morals don’t win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of one’s political and military situation is nessicary if one is to improve the situation of their nation.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, important for all the “children” of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&‘total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the “root” of our disagreement, you’ve seen that i’m not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can’t blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our “hearts” by force ? It’s not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you’d like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.
Now that i think about it, i can’t resolve myself to say that they don’t have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don’t agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren’t worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that’s diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn’t owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i’ll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn’t that Israel’s existence isn’t accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn’t made its existence acceptable, in other words it’s up to us to make this right.
You’ll probably say that we won’t make their loss acceptable, then i don’t see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it’s the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
I appreciate your tone and demeanor, it’s nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, … perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). … You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative,
I know that’s the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I don’t personally care about ancient claims nor do I believe they are very relevant to the present conflict. What matters more is who controls it now, and fighting over holy cities just ensures that this will never end because it’s hard to compromise with people who believe God is on their side and granted them access to specific lands. On some level I think the world would be better off if neither party had Jerusalem and it was independent, like the original partition plan called for, but now that ship has sailed and Israel controls it. I don’t see this changing any time soon.
If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&’total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)
Unfortunately I don’t think any of that is viable except perhaps for the security and separation part, it would be hard for the losing side to get the winning side to agree to such terms and pay war reparations for a war they didn’t start and won.
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction.
I’m not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasn’t been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but it’s certainly justifiable in the name of self-defense. Returning territories while their enemy remains belligerent seems like a bad strategy. The problem is that war is not a transitory state in this part of the world like the UN assumes are their nature, it is a permanent condition. Palestine refuses to concede despite being defeated time and time again. From the polling I’ve seen, most Palestinians don’t want to compromise for anything less than the '48 lands back with a one-state solution they control, which is a non-starter. International laws regarding war seem to be written with the idea that wars end when peace is sued for, and this conflict doesn’t fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.
Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. … then perhaps … it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
I don’t think either should be destroyed, but that’s probably what will happen if Palestine doesn’t surrender and pacify itself. Endless intifada will just push Israel to keep responding to violence with harsh responses and annexations, and they hold all the cards militarily speaking. If I were in charge, I think the best solution would be to eventually make the entire west bank the state of Palestine, contiguous and autonomous, provided it remains peaceful. This is not possible while the population wants revenge more than viable peace.
Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security,
Strive for peace based on a two-state solution: 36%
Strive to annex the West Bank and establish a single state with privileged status for Jews: 28%
Strive to annex the West Bank and establish one state with full equal rights for all: 11%
Don’t know: 25%
You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation’s ability to change that situation. I’m reminded of the saying, “give me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change.”
ah yes, game theory, the every man’s justification for the flavor of foreign policy made popular by the literal Nazis, yes Realpolitik (in this context) was heavily pushed by Nazis and war criminals the world over, after all it thrives on homogenizing any groups, justifies collateral punishments, along with expansionist empires, and oppressing minority populations.
Game theory & realpolitik = Nazis? Also absurd. You don’t seem to have a good understanding of what defined the Nazis, because you keep invoking them for ridiculous comparisons. Hitler liked puppies, liking puppies does not make one meaningfully Hitler-like.
I’m talking about acknowledging the reality of their situation and the likely behaviors and reactions of each actor. Game theory & realpolitik. Something every nation should do.
game theory in the realm of international relations is just an attempt to quantify realpolitik, and should have little if no place in advising the actions of moral society.
And other than of course the fact that Realpolitik is heavily influenced by and influenced the works of prominent Nazi thinkers such as Rosenberg, it justifies the imperialistic conquest and even genocide of one’s neighbor should they not align with your political will, it is a failed ideology that spawns only evil, literally.
Realpolitik is the approach of conducting diplomatic or political policies based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than strictly following ideological, moral, or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. It is often simply referred to as pragmatism in politics, e.g. “pursuing pragmatic policies” or “realistic policies”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Acknowledging political realities isn’t owned by nor generally associated with Nazism. In fact their downfall can be attributed to not acknowledging political realities due to batshit racial theories. Even in Germany, realpolitik predates them and is generally associated with Otto Von Bismarck. You’re reaching, obviously incorrect, and unwilling to admit it. Maybe next time don’t be so quick to invoke Godwin’s law.
Neither random tweets, nor Reutir seem like a good sources, take a look at Reutir’s “about us” page.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they annex Gaza, at least the north part. Bibi says he wants security control over it…
They say they’re there to depose Hamas, I’m not sure why you say it’s unrealistic. Game theory could support a harsh response, imposing a high cost should anyone consider future attacks against Israel’s civilians. Netanyahu is very unpopular right now so it could also be a political move to appease voters who want some revenge/justice/catharsis.
Right now they’re giving gazans tens of thousands of reasons to want revenge against this bloodthirsty regime. They’re actually doing the opposite. Yes go devastate these people who have nothing left to lose, that’s definitely how you reduce extremism.
Worked in WW2 Germany and Japan pretty damned well.
Pretend you are in charge of Israel, how would you have responded to the attack against your civilians? This was predictable, inevitable, and arguably the least bad choice.
Predictable? Yes, par for the course for this insanely violent and fascist regime.
Inevitable? It’s well documented that the IOF ignored many warnings about the incoming Hamas resistance. Not only that, netanyahu funded Hamas to weaken the Palestinian cause weak and fractured.. Let’s start there.
Least bad choice… It’s sickening to me that you suggest there aren’t better ways to conduct war than to bomb hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. For a military that’s supposedly one of the best in the world to say 7000+ children needed to die is a joke. It’s incredibly obvious to any reasonable person.
Which regime are you talking about here? Not clear at all.
It’s par for the course for any nation that is attacked to counter-attack.
I’m saying the response was inevitable, not the attack.
The alternative to going in with air support is sending in troops without it into a well prepared terrorist den where they would suffer high casualties. Yes, air strikes are the least bad choice for them. Israel essentially had to choose between the lives of its own people and the lives of people who live in a belligerent nation. That they didn’t sacrifice their own for Palestinians, thereby making Israel less safe, should be unsurprising.
You mean the brutality everybody was ignoring before Hamas’ attack that didn’t manage to prevent such an attack?
Well we don’t know what would have happened on the other timeline where gaza didn’t face consequences for electing Hamas.
Deterrence means there had to be reprisals even if you think things were brutal beforehand. They clearly got more brutal. Suggesting they should maintain the status quo after such an attack doesn’t make sense to me.
Yes we do - Israel would have acted like the genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialism state it has been since it’s creation.
Israel has never been genocidal, for obvious reasons. If wiping out Palestinians were their goal, they certainly could do it more effectively, IDF is often warning people about incoming attacks, and publishing justifications for attacks.
The reason Palestine lost land was because they declared war on Israel and lost, refused to concede, declared war again, lost, refused to concede, then continued terrorist attacks against them for the next 60 years.
But sure just call it colonialism or genocide or whatever fucking buzzwords you think will get public opinion to give a shit about this group that absolutely caused their misery by remaining uncompromising, violent, and poking the bear every chance they get.
Regarding the whiteness of Jews:
https://jpost.com/opinion/jews-are-not-white-race-and-identity-in-israel-and-the-us-opinion-685368
Significant percentages of Israelis are very non-white, but I know you’re just doing mental backflips trying to inappropriately conflate Israel with their old enemies, the Nazis.
Israel is a genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialist state. It’s only white supremacists that disagree.
FTFY.
I get you’re repeating propaganda pieces, but you really dropped the ball on this one. The blockade started before Hamas was elected.
Yeah, bombing people is notoriously good at deterring further political violence (/s obviously).
What do you call collective punishment again? A War Cream? No that’s not right …
It’s called war between nations, asymmetrical war but war nonetheless. They’re not starving out Gaza and demanding civilians bring them hamas, they’re going in there themselves.
If Gaza surrenders then terms like war crimes for collective punishment start making sense. Right now they have their own government which happens to be comprised of belligerent terrorists. Israel isn’t leaving until that’s no longer the case.
In my book bombing civilians is still called a war crime regardless of the supposed enemy you’re pretending to target. The excuse of collateral damage doesn’t even make sense, they shot artillery at the exact place they knew there would be civilians because they sent them there.
Also: Israel barely considers Palestine a country in the first place. How is this a “war between nations” and “actually not a warcrime at all” when one of the sides doing the warcrimes doesn’t even think their opponent has any sovereignty?
You’re accusing them of intentionally targeting civilians, and I’ve yet to see any evidence of that. It’s more accurate to say that Israel doesn’t care much about collateral damage.
If Hamas was there too, it makes sense and it is in fact collateral damage. Israel will attack potential targets even if there’s the slightest connection to Hamas. Evidently they built ai for this purpose, which gives them targets faster than they can bomb them.
A nation is different than a country or a state. It just means a group of people with shared purpose. Israel disputes that Palestine is a state, not that it is a nation.
And they did have some limited sovereignty, they used it to attack Israeli civilians.
Oh, look… the Fascist Apologetics Association has decided to show up.
Forgive me for disagreeing.
You seem to get riled up when anyone doesn’t want to pick up a pitchfork and join your angry Hamas apologist mob.
Oh, look… the Fascist Apologetics Association is trying to blame Hamas for the actions of a genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialist state again.
What’s the matter? Have you run out of “human shields” to use as propaganda props?
I addressed elsewhere why calling Israel white supremacist and genocidal are not appropriate, but you’re just going to repeat the same shit over and over again because you think it’s shocking. I’m blocking you now because you’re clearly not here in good faith, you’re here to yell and scream and insult those who disagree. I hope you learn to be better one day
No, you didn’t. Israel is a genocidal white supremacist settler-colonialist state, and it’s only white supremacists that pretend otherwise.
Has Ben Shapiro come back yo you about that copium you wanted?
Hard to be belligerent when you’re under a blockade/military occupation (which is BTW an act of war).
Yeah, it almost sounds like they’ve lost and they refused to concede, doesn’t it? That’s why they’ve resorted to Guerrilla warfare hiding among civilians.
They’ve been at war since 1948 and Palestine has yet to surrender, preferring instead intafada. We are seeing the consequences of that today.
He’s the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it’s not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It’s more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can’t depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don’t reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they’ll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn’t suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn’t have to explain such obvious things and i’m afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it’s so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from “the free world”. What’s the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn’t think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they’ll be, how could it make any sense, they’ll only be hated even more, do you think that they’re acting guided by their emotions when they’re expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to “deter” israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to “avenge” the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it’s obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn’t our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they’re not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i’ve already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can’t think that they’re only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they’re head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they’re doing something like that it’s in order to gain something that couldn’t be obtained otherwise.
I don’t agree with you because i can’t see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
That has yet to be established, but it sounds like you’re making a case for annexation. If they are unwilling to pacify themselves, that seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Israel safe.
Those lands were annexed because Palestinians declared war on Israel and lost, funny how the anti-Israel crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the Palestinians as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors.
If they are reasonable, yes it would. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of intifada and a one-state solution where they deny rights to Jews certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation.
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won’t destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn’t destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because “Hamas”(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn’t you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can’t understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they’re killed way less than they’re killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can’t wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There’s a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don’t turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what’s the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can’t offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to ‘paint in another color’/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won’t happen since we(sterners) won’t give any of our “hearts”.
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It’s a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
Casualties inflicted is not necessarily indicative of aggression. I say that Palestine is the aggressor not because they have a higher body count, but because they literally started the conflict, both by instigating the earliest massacres against Jews in mandatory Palestine, making a one state solution impossible, by declaring war on Israel with their Arab allies in '48, and later trying it again unsuccessfully in the 6-day war. They also instigated this latest reprisal even though their attack wasn’t as effective as Israel’s response.
Just because Israel’s self-defense is way more effective than Palestine’s constant attacks against them does not mean they are the aggressors. They didn’t start this fight, but they consistently respond to attacks and threats quite effectively as they are on the winning side of asymmetrical combat.
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed is a result of this.
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis. For obvious reasons letting those they are at war with choose their leadership is a non-starter.
No doubt, I wish their appreciation for realpolitik was as great as their anger, because that’s how one finds a path out of this situation; rationality and compromise and diplomacy and logic. Anger will not change their situation, it has led to things being this way.
They are asking for security and a return of hostages, and they have a lot of freedoms and land they can offer if Palestine is willing and able to deliver it. Because they are bargaining from a position of strength Israel probably won’t have to make as many diplomatic concessions for a viable peace. The alternative, of course, is that they remain belligerent, continue intafada, settlements continue and Palestine is eventually annexed entirely. Palestine should really be trying to make a viable peace lest they end up with nothing.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn’t be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there. While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did historically suffered for it with military losses, coups, and terrorist organizations operating within their borders.
This is the first time I’ve heard, “send Muslims to Mars,” pitched as a solution. Somehow I don’t think they’ll go for it.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won’t they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you’re probably right, i don’t really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they’re at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you’re trying to put pressure and the more you’re exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don’t look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what’s fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
Yes. You skipped a few steps in there though, the Ottomans were deposed, the British allowed them to buy land, Arab nationalists started massacring Jews because they didn’t like them legally buying land, a 2-state solution became impossible, the UN divided them into countries because of this, Israel declared themselves a country with the borders the UN drew, Palestinian Arabs declared war on them and tried to destroy their state, they lost, and those were were belligerent or left had lands annexed (Nakba.) Not murdering your peaceful neighbors for legally buying seems like a low bar to clear, as does letting them have their own home where you can’t murder them. If they had remained peaceful the levant might be one multiethnic country today. Heck, if they had stopped trying to murder the Jews at any time for the past 70 years Palestine might not be in this situation.
Good question, I’d be interested to see polling on this matter if you’ve read any.
Probably because:
These nations are at war, which is arguably a zero-sum game. Israel is negotiating from a place of strength, which means they can further their own interests far more effectively than Palestine can.
I don’t follow. Why should westerners make any compromises, and for whom?
They were able to do that because of a modern military, not because of anger.
A Pyrrhic victory at best, given the destruction the attack has caused their nation.
If Egypt cared more about Palestinian lives than land claims and putting pressure on Israel, they would let Gazans voluntarily leave en masse, (even if Egypt were not their final destination;) deportation implies they are forced to leave.
The kinds of “help” they are offering are very limited, diplomatic stuff mostly. Many of the surrounding countries that let Palestinians stay have to deal with terror groups launching attacks on Israel from within their borders and reprisals, like Hezbollah in Lebanon who are now part of the government. The PLO caused civil war in Jordan when too many Palestinians settled there.
Every Arab nation that went to war with Israel on behalf of Palestine got their asses handed to them, and many lost territory for it. That’s how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)
It’s good to have morals, but morals don’t win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of one’s political and military situation is nessicary if one is to improve the situation of their nation.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take “back” these (holy )lands, important for all the “children” of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their “hearts”, then fairness would require to give one of our “hearts” in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&‘total separation’ of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you’re starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn’t accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the “root” of our disagreement, you’ve seen that i’m not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can’t blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our “hearts” by force ? It’s not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it’s not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you’re right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn’t be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you’d like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn’t have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would ‘be satisfying’/‘made it acceptable’.
Now that i think about it, i can’t resolve myself to say that they don’t have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don’t agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren’t worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that’s diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn’t owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i’ll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn’t that Israel’s existence isn’t accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn’t made its existence acceptable, in other words it’s up to us to make this right.
You’ll probably say that we won’t make their loss acceptable, then i don’t see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it’s the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
I appreciate your tone and demeanor, it’s nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.
I know that’s the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I don’t personally care about ancient claims nor do I believe they are very relevant to the present conflict. What matters more is who controls it now, and fighting over holy cities just ensures that this will never end because it’s hard to compromise with people who believe God is on their side and granted them access to specific lands. On some level I think the world would be better off if neither party had Jerusalem and it was independent, like the original partition plan called for, but now that ship has sailed and Israel controls it. I don’t see this changing any time soon.
Unfortunately I don’t think any of that is viable except perhaps for the security and separation part, it would be hard for the losing side to get the winning side to agree to such terms and pay war reparations for a war they didn’t start and won.
I’m not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasn’t been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but it’s certainly justifiable in the name of self-defense. Returning territories while their enemy remains belligerent seems like a bad strategy. The problem is that war is not a transitory state in this part of the world like the UN assumes are their nature, it is a permanent condition. Palestine refuses to concede despite being defeated time and time again. From the polling I’ve seen, most Palestinians don’t want to compromise for anything less than the '48 lands back with a one-state solution they control, which is a non-starter. International laws regarding war seem to be written with the idea that wars end when peace is sued for, and this conflict doesn’t fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.
I don’t think either should be destroyed, but that’s probably what will happen if Palestine doesn’t surrender and pacify itself. Endless intifada will just push Israel to keep responding to violence with harsh responses and annexations, and they hold all the cards militarily speaking. If I were in charge, I think the best solution would be to eventually make the entire west bank the state of Palestine, contiguous and autonomous, provided it remains peaceful. This is not possible while the population wants revenge more than viable peace.
I just looked up current polling regarding what Israelis want regarding Palestine, evidently it’s a contentious issue with the Israeli public generally split regarding how to proceed:
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation’s ability to change that situation. I’m reminded of the saying, “give me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change.”
ah yes, game theory, the every man’s justification for the flavor of foreign policy made popular by the literal Nazis, yes Realpolitik (in this context) was heavily pushed by Nazis and war criminals the world over, after all it thrives on homogenizing any groups, justifies collateral punishments, along with expansionist empires, and oppressing minority populations.
Game theory & realpolitik = Nazis? Also absurd. You don’t seem to have a good understanding of what defined the Nazis, because you keep invoking them for ridiculous comparisons. Hitler liked puppies, liking puppies does not make one meaningfully Hitler-like.
I’m talking about acknowledging the reality of their situation and the likely behaviors and reactions of each actor. Game theory & realpolitik. Something every nation should do.
game theory in the realm of international relations is just an attempt to quantify realpolitik, and should have little if no place in advising the actions of moral society.
And other than of course the fact that Realpolitik is heavily influenced by and influenced the works of prominent Nazi thinkers such as Rosenberg, it justifies the imperialistic conquest and even genocide of one’s neighbor should they not align with your political will, it is a failed ideology that spawns only evil, literally.
Acknowledging political realities isn’t owned by nor generally associated with Nazism. In fact their downfall can be attributed to not acknowledging political realities due to batshit racial theories. Even in Germany, realpolitik predates them and is generally associated with Otto Von Bismarck. You’re reaching, obviously incorrect, and unwilling to admit it. Maybe next time don’t be so quick to invoke Godwin’s law.
sure, in theory EVERYTHING is a good thing, if you go by the idealized version of everything.
and while I don’t agree with everything many Liberals say, Kraut has a very good critique of the ideology