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.
the aggressors ā¦ theyāre killed way less than theyāre 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 wasnāt as effective as Israelās response.
Just because Israelās self-defense is way more effective than Palestineās constant attacks against them does not mean they are the aggressors. They didnāt 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.
Thereās 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 thatās 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 canāt 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 wonāt 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 wouldnāt 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 Iāve heard, āsend Muslims to Mars,ā pitched as a solution. Somehow I donāt think theyāll 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 wonāt 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, youāre probably right, i donāt really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, theyāre at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldnāt 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 youāre trying to put pressure and the more youāre 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 donāt look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for whatās 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 didnāt 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 canāt 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, Iād be interested to see polling on this matter if youāve read any.
Why wonāt they put an end to the settlements then
Probably because:
It puts pressure on Palestine to negotiate for viable peace because if they donāt 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 didnāt 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 donāt 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, youāre probably right, i donāt really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, theyāre 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 youāre trying to put pressure and the more youāre 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 āhelpā 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. Thatās how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)
(And realpolitik donāt look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for whatās fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
Itās good to have morals, but morals donāt win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of oneās 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 ābackā these (holy )lands, important for all the āchildrenā 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 āheartsā, then fairness would require to give one of our āheartsā 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&ātotal separationā of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, youāre 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 didnāt 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 ārootā of our disagreement, youāve seen that iām not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i canāt blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our āheartsā by force ? Itās not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that itās not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps youāre right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldnāt be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If youād like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldnāt 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 ābe satisfyingā/āmade it acceptableā.
Now that i think about it, i canāt resolve myself to say that they donāt have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still donāt agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ļ·ŗ were prophets, the disagreements arenāt 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(, thatās diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldnāt owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so iāll stay with my conclusion : the problem isnāt that Israelās existence isnāt accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didnāt made its existence acceptable, in other words itās up to us to make this right.
Youāll probably say that we wonāt make their loss acceptable, then i donāt see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if itās the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
I appreciate your tone and demeanor, itās 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 ābackā these (holy )lands, ā¦ 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). ā¦ You may think that itās not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps youāre right, everything is relative,
I know thatās the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I donāt 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 itās 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 donāt see this changing any time soon.
If they ever agree to lose one of their āheartsā, then fairness would require to give one of our āheartsā 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&ātotal separationā of both Israel and this state, etc.)
Unfortunately I donāt 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 didnāt start and won.
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, youāre 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.
Iām not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasnāt been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but itās 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 Iāve seen, most Palestinians donāt 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 doesnāt 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 didnāt accepted Israel in the first place. ā¦ then perhaps ā¦ it wouldnāt be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
I donāt think either should be destroyed, but thatās probably what will happen if Palestine doesnāt 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%
Donāt know: 25%
You probably wouldnāt 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 ābe satisfyingā/āmade it acceptableā.
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nationās ability to change that situation. Iām reminded of the saying, āgive me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change.ā
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nationās ability to change that situation.
Weāre arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Hereās why i think that the law of the strongest doesnāt necessarily work against them :
Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Since you mentioned ārealpolitikā, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant āterrorismā by more numerous inhabitants.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Yet when iām thinking of such examples itās about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldnāt be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).
Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
If it wasnāt enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. Thatād mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that theyāre still closer to us.
(What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldnāt matter, but even through that lens, )Hereās a (naive )picture of how it could happen :
theyāll throw a lot of propaganda to make their citizens f*cking hate to death israelis, painting them as monsters by recycling their war crimes and implying that theyāre doing so because theyāre evils, not because they want to survive, antisemitism could also help in that ;
theyāll progressively cut all economic ties with the west as long as we dont accept their request, and have prepared beforehand as much as they can to withstand sanctions/āeconomic warā ;
theyāll strengthen their link and, this is important, pledge publicly and repeatedly that theyāll invade each other if(when) someone is elected(, or placed after a coup,) that intend to break this oath ;
theyāll regularly make military threats to Israel, but without acting upon it unless they know how to get rid of the bomb, so mostly to mark a point before diplomatic meetings and eventually take a habit of strengthening popular support like that, rejoicing in the fear that they think it may bring israelis, and of the coming day when theyāll conquer back their lands, as well as enact laws against israelis or even perhaps westerners ;
ā¦
If āfairness is excludedā/āmight makes rightā/āthe only factor is strengthā, then theyāre not weak.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/ānever doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.imā then we wouldnāt rely on states, laws, borders, ā¦, for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldnāt belong to anyone and we wouldnāt possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since weāre not perfect itās useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldnāt be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other donāt also believe that heās one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).
Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. Itās not really comparable because of this.
Since you mentioned ārealpolitikā, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant āterrorismā by more numerous inhabitants.
Ukraine is also fighting for its existence.
Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.
Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel. They have been dealing with terrorism/intifada relatively effectively for the past 70 years and have built a sophisticated system that insulates them from Palestinian belligerents. While it failed spectacularly on Oct7, I donāt suspect that will happen again. The only domain where Palestinians seem to be able to gain territory is in the court of public opinion.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
Wasnāt that what happened in '48 and '67? It didnāt work out well for other nations who went to war on their behalf. Israel is much stronger now than it was then.
If it wasnāt enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. Thatād mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that theyāre still closer to us.
Interesting
I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations.
Palestinian resistance groups are getting support from Iran, who is using them as a proxy, but most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands. Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.
Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front, and there are many Russian Jews in Israel. Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.
If āfairness is excludedā/āmight makes rightā/āthe only factor is strengthā, then theyāre not weak.
It is not the only factor but it is the most relevant one in this conflict, because itās so very asymmetrical.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner
If such creatures exist, they havenāt weighed in, which is curious given that Allah/Yahweh supposedly care so much about their followers and who controls their holy cities. Funny how gods are always concerned with the same things that their followers and the men who claim to speak for them are, rather than what Iād expect from omnipotent creatures beyond our understanding. It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?
freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth
I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.
Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. Itās not really comparable because of this.
Really? ? A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an āexistential threatā to Israel?
Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.
Come on, if you are gonna try to be the one calling for rational discourse you have got to at least try not to be so intellectually dishonest.
A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an āexistential threatā to Israel?
They are unlikely to win but if they did, yes, the consequences would be existential. It wasnāt long ago that Israel was the underdog in this conflict.
Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. Itās not really comparable because of this.
Itās not comparable because the disparition of Israel would be an existential threat to the u.s. ?
Realpolitik just means acknowledging the political realities of their situation. Political realism.
Without discussing what should be, only how to do it(, and usually without considering the morality of the path taken, only its assumed effectiveness, thereāre reasons to believe that Machiavel wrote The Prince as a criticism and not a support b.t.w.).
If i remember correctly J.Mearsheimer liked realism for its predictive power.
Guerilla warfare can sometimes be effective, however I do not believe this approach will lead to victory against Israel
Only because Israelās territory isnāt populated by palestinians, which is why i mentionned Ukraine, whose annexed/liberated territories arenāt anti-russians like in eastern Galicia, perhaps because they believe that Russia is large enough to become a.n āfuture continentā/āoriginal cultureā by itself, and want to believe in this idea, and/or perhaps for other reasons. But w/e.
For Israel this isnāt a fight to colonize, itās a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews.
They can go in āthe first&free worldā if thatās your argument.
And theyāre colonizing more territories because itās a fight to exist ?
As this comment pointed out : palestinians are at most a threat in the future, but arenāt strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and as you previously recognised, if weāre only talking about palestinians, then theyāre not there( yet).
Israelis were relatively safe all these decades(, compared to their neighbours), and i could only imagine that Palestineās destruction would enhance their security if arabs/muslims accept it and refuse to stand for palestinians, and if israelis stop there, because they would still have to invade/coup such countries as Iran or political movements such as Hezbollah, and would continue as long as theyāre not accepted.
If you presented Israelās survival as āa moral argumentā/āwhat should beā, which would probably not be ārealistā to do so, then i could return the same argument for palestinians, and ask you why you donāt support the intifada on these same moral grounds, but you more likely said that to explain their motivation and give an estimation of their strength/resolve.
I believe you are overestimating both international support for Palestine and the military capabilities of most African and South American nations
As you saw afterwards, i wasnāt talking of a military fight, but of a.n economic&diplomatic one(, even if coups generally imply a military role, sometimes bloodless but very often not).
most of their Arabic neighbors recognize that making an ally of the United States and the EU is far more strategically valuable than backing this group that wants endless war and seeking unreasonable demands.
Unreasonable because they wonāt ever win ? Well, who knows ?
I donāt see them supporting Israel and abandoning palestinians(, only Moroccoās gains would be significant, yet theyāre still seemingly hesitant), iāll agree that they still have a margin of retaliation/pressure towards the west though, perhaps are they forced to wait for a more opportune time to act or, as you said, have accepted such unconditional loss, not sure that we would have if the roles were reversed. As previously mentioned, they wouldnāt win anything by complying, and i donāt see clearly the extent of what theyād lose by resisting(, some could include their honor or other immaterial examples).
Hamas launched this attack because Saudi Arabia was about to recognize Israel, after all, and SA is dependent upon the US for security. If they alienate the US they have Iran to contend with.
In my opinion Saudi Arabia has more reasons to be afraid of the u.s.a.&co than of Iran, since, except for the Gulf monarchies, every single one of their neighbours āhas beenā/āis beingā destroyed : the color revolutions, Mohamed Morsi, Lybia, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Lebanon is in an economic crisis(, and kinda TĆ¼rkiye as well), you just have to open a map and list every country. If weāre going a bit further then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all countries destroyed by the west, and i havenāt counted kurd separatists or the islamic state, itās not a stretch to think that they desire stability, but what a f*cking world, we donāt understand that, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Niger, central asian republics, Georgia, ā¦, these countries seems far away, if the realist choice is just to always follow the strongest regardless of whatās right/fair, then i donāt want to be a realist.
Russia has its own issues right now and cannot afford another front
Is there a single non-western country more active than them around the world currently ?
Given their behaviors in Chechnya, they do not seem to be sympathetic to Muslims.
As if they didnāt lose enough historical territory in 1991, V.Putinās party isnāt called United Russia for nothing, of course we(sterners) supported the separatists terrorists(, but hated them when these āorksā fought on the side of Russia&āsouth-eastern ukrainiansā recently).
The first hostage released by Hamas was an israeli who also had a russian nationality, and there were other gestures if this kind of things matter, the timing of the l.g.b.t. ban may perhaps also be linked in some way, i.d.k.(, they also have their own muslim republics in the russian federation, Chechnya is apparently very homophobic, and itās not only inside their borders or in the Middle-East, but in Africa as well), just to say that i wouldnāt count on their islamophobia.
If such creatures exist, they havenāt weighed in
The (uncaused )Cause is the only being which isnāt a creature(, and the only to be the Being), i donāt think a direct visible interference would be that desirable, everything would just be solved and there wouldnāt be anything else to do, i prefer to feel free, but in any case thereās always determinism and God as the Cause for this kind of interrogation.
It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?
Not sure that despite our imperfection we wouldnāt be a part of the All/One, and thereās always the law of karma among other laws of our reality, parts of the All do care, and if we look/seek the Greatest we/ants do care.
I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.
You didnāt wrote that to imply that we should only get there through secular means(, by fighting other paths), but i find interesting that we fight communism and islamism : apart from these two, and royalism, do you know of a single large ideology that survived the colonization and isnāt the western one of a constitutional capitalist secular republic ?
I wrote about these communities with their own rules because i feel that weāre unfortunately looking for unity at the expense of diversity, instead of looking for a permanent peace in harmony, ensuring both our unity and our diversity, weāre not looking towards this direction, and thereās even this selfish nationalism saying that itās not our role to help each other, i canāt like it, we should aim to live together.
Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israelās enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israelās safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the āillegalā settlements,) could be envisioned, thatās a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesnāt seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israelās destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
Iām in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
āI do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&ātheir alliesā recognise Israelā is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question
Itās just an addition, please donāt feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat
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 wasnāt as effective as Israelās response.
Just because Israelās self-defense is way more effective than Palestineās constant attacks against them does not mean they are the aggressors. They didnāt 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 thatās 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 wonāt 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 wouldnāt 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 Iāve heard, āsend Muslims to Mars,ā pitched as a solution. Somehow I donāt think theyāll 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 wonāt 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, youāre probably right, i donāt really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, theyāre 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 youāre trying to put pressure and the more youāre 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 donāt look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for whatās 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 didnāt 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 canāt 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, Iād be interested to see polling on this matter if youāve 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 donāt 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 āhelpā 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. Thatās how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)
Itās good to have morals, but morals donāt win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of oneās 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 ābackā these (holy )lands, important for all the āchildrenā 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 āheartsā, then fairness would require to give one of our āheartsā 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&ātotal separationā of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, youāre 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 didnāt 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 ārootā of our disagreement, youāve seen that iām not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i canāt blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our āheartsā by force ? Itās not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that itās not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps youāre right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldnāt be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If youād like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldnāt 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 ābe satisfyingā/āmade it acceptableā.
Now that i think about it, i canāt resolve myself to say that they donāt have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still donāt agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ļ·ŗ were prophets, the disagreements arenāt 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(, thatās diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldnāt owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so iāll stay with my conclusion : the problem isnāt that Israelās existence isnāt accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didnāt made its existence acceptable, in other words itās up to us to make this right.
Youāll probably say that we wonāt make their loss acceptable, then i donāt see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if itās the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
I appreciate your tone and demeanor, itās nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.
I know thatās the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I donāt 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 itās 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 donāt see this changing any time soon.
Unfortunately I donāt 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 didnāt start and won.
Iām not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasnāt been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but itās 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 Iāve seen, most Palestinians donāt 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 doesnāt fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.
I donāt think either should be destroyed, but thatās probably what will happen if Palestine doesnāt 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 itās 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 nationās ability to change that situation. Iām reminded of the saying, āgive me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change.ā
Weāre arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Hereās why i think that the law of the strongest doesnāt necessarily work against them :
Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Since you mentioned ārealpolitikā, and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant āterrorismā by more numerous inhabitants.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Yet when iām thinking of such examples itās about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldnāt be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).
Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
If it wasnāt enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. Thatād mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that theyāre still closer to us.
(What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldnāt matter, but even through that lens, )Hereās a (naive )picture of how it could happen :
If āfairness is excludedā/āmight makes rightā/āthe only factor is strengthā, then theyāre not weak.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/ānever doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.imā then we wouldnāt rely on states, laws, borders, ā¦, for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldnāt belong to anyone and we wouldnāt possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since weāre not perfect itās useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldnāt be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other donāt also believe that heās one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).
Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. Itās not really comparable because of this.
For Israel this isnāt a fight to colonize, itās a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews who have already been expelled from the Muslim world, and are facing enemies who quite explicitly want to genocide them.
Wasnāt that what happened in '48 and '67? It didnāt work out well for other nations who went to war on their behalf. Israel is much stronger now than it was then.
Interesting
It is not the only factor but it is the most relevant one in this conflict, because itās so very asymmetrical.
If such creatures exist, they havenāt weighed in, which is curious given that Allah/Yahweh supposedly care so much about their followers and who controls their holy cities. Funny how gods are always concerned with the same things that their followers and the men who claim to speak for them are, rather than what Iād expect from omnipotent creatures beyond our understanding. It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?
I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.
Really? ? A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an āexistential threatā to Israel? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.
Come on, if you are gonna try to be the one calling for rational discourse you have got to at least try not to be so intellectually dishonest.
deleted by creator
Spare me your insults.
They are unlikely to win but if they did, yes, the consequences would be existential. It wasnāt long ago that Israel was the underdog in this conflict.
Itās not comparable because the disparition of Israel would be an existential threat to the u.s. ?
Without discussing what should be, only how to do it(, and usually without considering the morality of the path taken, only its assumed effectiveness, thereāre reasons to believe that Machiavel wrote The Prince as a criticism and not a support b.t.w.).
If i remember correctly J.Mearsheimer liked realism for its predictive power.
Only because Israelās territory isnāt populated by palestinians, which is why i mentionned Ukraine, whose annexed/liberated territories arenāt anti-russians like in eastern Galicia, perhaps because they believe that Russia is large enough to become a.n āfuture continentā/āoriginal cultureā by itself, and want to believe in this idea, and/or perhaps for other reasons. But w/e.
They can go in āthe first&free worldā if thatās your argument.
And theyāre colonizing more territories because itās a fight to exist ?
As this comment pointed out : palestinians are at most a threat in the future, but arenāt strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and as you previously recognised, if weāre only talking about palestinians, then theyāre not there( yet).
Israelis were relatively safe all these decades(, compared to their neighbours), and i could only imagine that Palestineās destruction would enhance their security if arabs/muslims accept it and refuse to stand for palestinians, and if israelis stop there, because they would still have to invade/coup such countries as Iran or political movements such as Hezbollah, and would continue as long as theyāre not accepted.
If you presented Israelās survival as āa moral argumentā/āwhat should beā, which would probably not be ārealistā to do so, then i could return the same argument for palestinians, and ask you why you donāt support the intifada on these same moral grounds, but you more likely said that to explain their motivation and give an estimation of their strength/resolve.
As you saw afterwards, i wasnāt talking of a military fight, but of a.n economic&diplomatic one(, even if coups generally imply a military role, sometimes bloodless but very often not).
Unreasonable because they wonāt ever win ? Well, who knows ?
I donāt see them supporting Israel and abandoning palestinians(, only Moroccoās gains would be significant, yet theyāre still seemingly hesitant), iāll agree that they still have a margin of retaliation/pressure towards the west though, perhaps are they forced to wait for a more opportune time to act or, as you said, have accepted such unconditional loss, not sure that we would have if the roles were reversed. As previously mentioned, they wouldnāt win anything by complying, and i donāt see clearly the extent of what theyād lose by resisting(, some could include their honor or other immaterial examples).
In my opinion Saudi Arabia has more reasons to be afraid of the u.s.a.&co than of Iran, since, except for the Gulf monarchies, every single one of their neighbours āhas beenā/āis beingā destroyed : the color revolutions, Mohamed Morsi, Lybia, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Lebanon is in an economic crisis(, and kinda TĆ¼rkiye as well), you just have to open a map and list every country. If weāre going a bit further then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all countries destroyed by the west, and i havenāt counted kurd separatists or the islamic state, itās not a stretch to think that they desire stability, but what a f*cking world, we donāt understand that, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Niger, central asian republics, Georgia, ā¦, these countries seems far away, if the realist choice is just to always follow the strongest regardless of whatās right/fair, then i donāt want to be a realist.
Is there a single non-western country more active than them around the world currently ?
As if they didnāt lose enough historical territory in 1991, V.Putinās party isnāt called United Russia for nothing, of course we(sterners) supported the separatists terrorists(, but hated them when these āorksā fought on the side of Russia&āsouth-eastern ukrainiansā recently).
The first hostage released by Hamas was an israeli who also had a russian nationality, and there were other gestures if this kind of things matter, the timing of the l.g.b.t. ban may perhaps also be linked in some way, i.d.k.(, they also have their own muslim republics in the russian federation, Chechnya is apparently very homophobic, and itās not only inside their borders or in the Middle-East, but in Africa as well), just to say that i wouldnāt count on their islamophobia.
The (uncaused )Cause is the only being which isnāt a creature(, and the only to be the Being), i donāt think a direct visible interference would be that desirable, everything would just be solved and there wouldnāt be anything else to do, i prefer to feel free, but in any case thereās always determinism and God as the Cause for this kind of interrogation.
Not sure that despite our imperfection we wouldnāt be a part of the All/One, and thereās always the law of karma among other laws of our reality, parts of the All do care, and if we look/seek the Greatest we/ants do care.
You didnāt wrote that to imply that we should only get there through secular means(, by fighting other paths), but i find interesting that we fight communism and islamism : apart from these two, and royalism, do you know of a single large ideology that survived the colonization and isnāt the western one of a constitutional capitalist secular republic ?
I wrote about these communities with their own rules because i feel that weāre unfortunately looking for unity at the expense of diversity, instead of looking for a permanent peace in harmony, ensuring both our unity and our diversity, weāre not looking towards this direction, and thereās even this selfish nationalism saying that itās not our role to help each other, i canāt like it, we should aim to live together.
Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israelās enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israelās safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the āillegalā settlements,) could be envisioned, thatās a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesnāt seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israelās destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
Iām in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
āI do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&ātheir alliesā recognise Israelā is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question
Itās just an addition, please donāt feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat