|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 6, 2024 4:54:04 GMT -5
I am aware the US continuing to be dickwads means there is no chance of UN peacekeepers.
It's not just the US, it's also Russia. Russia doesn't want the conflict to end because the current state of things makes the current US government look bad and increases the chances (as thankfully small as they may be) of getting his puppet back into power, at which point US support for Ukraine ends. Russia is sacrificing vast numbers of its own troops without the slightest hint of remorse, if the price of victory in Ukraine is the death of every single resident of Gaza then Russia will take that deal without hesitation.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 211
|
Post by nfe on Feb 6, 2024 4:59:37 GMT -5
...and I think a proper two state solution at 1967 borders could lead to a durable peace. In addition, most of the Arab states around Israel have no interest in hostilities with Israel in this era (although popular support against Israel is present in many of these states). There isn't any reason Israel cannot remain militarised and not occupy Palestine. Indeed, occupying the West Bank is probably what allowed October 7th to be so devastating. Finally, peace hasn't realistically been tried, because the conditions Israel has always demanded for any Palestinian state are unacceptable. *I don't think their rationales are good, but they are there. To be fair, it wasn't Israel that rejected the 1967 borders. I think you are probably right that a lasting peace around the 67 borders could be established - obviously not while Hamas are a significant power in Gaza, because nothing short of the eradication of Israel and likely of all Southern Levantine Jews will ever suffice - but the process of getting there will be a nightmare, even with instant endorsement from Israel and Fatah. I've absolutely no idea how a more-likely-to-negotiate leadership is established in Gaza, given the risk to anyone attempting to challenge Hamas. No one from the PA is likely to volunteer again... Meanwhile, the rightward shift of Israeli politics will continue as long as Hamas does, but would at least be easier to usurp if the left could get its act together a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by herzlos on Feb 6, 2024 5:00:39 GMT -5
I genuinely can't see how Israel is under any existential threat from Palestine.
They aren't, but only because they have that position of overwhelming power to commit their genocide. Any sort of compromise or backing off from their position of power will not lead to winning hearts and minds, it will simply give the other side more ability to commit their genocide. That's the fundamental problem with this situation, both sides are starting from a premise that total extermination of their religious enemies is the goal. We can choose which side's genocide to support (entirely for cynical political and foreign policy goals) but at this point I don't see any possible way to stop the slaughter short of sending troops in to divide up Israel by force and maintain borders that neither side is permitted to cross.
I'm not sure, I reckon that Israel could scale it's military down significantly (even to about 10%) and still be able to overwhelm Palestine. The size of the Israeli military seems to be more to prevent agression (or defense) from the rest of the surrounding states.
I suspect that a lot of Palestinians (maybe not Hamas, who don't strictly speak for all of Palestine) would be happy with a compromise where they got their own land back and had a proper border that was properly secured against land stealing. Of course you're then back to the argument about where the border should be*. The border would probably also need to be controlled by a 3rd party (NATO/UN) for a few generations.
Would Palestine still want the eradication of Israel if they weren't essentially living in a concentration camp that's constantly shrinking?
*I like the 1947 UN proposal that Jerusalem was a separate UN controlled entity; that would work with giving everyone fair access to the holy city, but is presumably not acceptable to either side.
The other difficulty is that there's no real way to allow both a contiguous Israel or Palestine without giving the South East section of Israel to Palestine. Ditto if connecting Golan Heights as well.
I'd largely support returning the border back to where it was before Israeli aggression started, why should they get land that was essentially stolen?
Sadly the only viable solution I can actually see happening is the complete eradication of Palestine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 5:02:18 GMT -5
I am aware the US continuing to be dickwads means there is no chance of UN peacekeepers.
It's not just the US, it's also Russia. Russia doesn't want the conflict to end because the current state of things makes the current US government look bad and increases the chances (as thankfully small as they may be) of getting his puppet back into power, at which point US support for Ukraine ends. Russia is sacrificing vast numbers of its own troops without the slightest hint of remorse, if the price of victory in Ukraine is the death of every single resident of Gaza then Russia will take that deal without hesitation.
Russia have tabled amendments pushing for a ceasefire, which the US vetoed. The Gaza war benefits Russia, but they have demonstrated less entrenchment over this. Anyway, if the US did agree to peacekeepers, that is likely to be a drain on US resources too. |
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Feb 6, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Would Palestine still want the eradication of Israel if they weren't essentially living in a concentration camp that's constantly shrinking?
Probably. Hatred of Israel and calls for the extermination of all Jews are hardly limited to the occupied areas, it's like asking if a Nazi would stop wanting to build death camps if they got the borders of Germany shifted a bit. The fanatical hatred on both sides has just gone too far for a peaceful solution to be believable to me.
They have, but remember that this is the context where they know the US will veto those resolutions. They can make the suggestion, force the US to veto it, and get the best of both worlds: the US pays its domestic political cost of a veto and the conflict continues. In an alternate reality where the US would be willing to agree to imposing a ceasefire and sending UN troops to enforce it Russia would find some way to sabotage the process and ensure that peace never happens. Continued conflict is just too valuable to Russia right now for them to allow a peaceful resolution.
Not in any meaningful sense, and certainly not when it comes to Russia's goals in Ukraine. Forcing the US to expend resources on a peacekeeping mission gains Russia nothing because the limiting factor on aid to Ukraine isn't US resources (which are available in abundance), it's obstructionist pro-Russia republicans blocking further aid. What Russia needs is for Trump to be elected, at which point regardless of resources available all US aid to Ukraine ends. And right now the situation in Israel is a negative for Biden.
(And yes, it's stupid because Trump would endorse Israel killing everyone in Gaza if they promised to let him build a shiny new hotel in the ruins. But Russian propaganda farms don't need to mention that little detail, only to blame Biden.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 5:36:03 GMT -5
But Russia calls for ceasefires exactly because they know what the response is. Often the UN is little more than political theater.
Unfortunately the initiative seems to be fully with the Israelis, it will be almost impossible to fully eradicate (organizations like) Hamas, but you can take away most of their support on the ground. Extremists will always exist, but the scale is something that relies partially on the acts of the Israeli government.
The situation on the ground isn't as important as the strength of the states involved. Egypt and Jordan have basically all but normalized relations with Israel, even if the population is pro-Palestine.
In my opinion, if you give the Palestinians an actual viable state, their security apparatus should be able to keep a lid on it for the largest part. But what is their motivation now? Gaza is controlled by terrorists and the on the West Bank they exist in a state of constant occupation/invasion. The only other player in the region that can't keep a lid on it is Lebanon, but the history of Israeli involvement there isn't great either.
|
|
nfe
OT Cowboy
Posts: 211
|
Post by nfe on Feb 6, 2024 8:18:11 GMT -5
I suspect that a lot of Palestinians (maybe not Hamas, who don't strictly speak for all of Palestine) would be happy with a compromise where they got their own land back and had a proper border that was properly secured against land stealing. I have no doubt this is the case, though, as you say, opinions on what is 'their land' are diverse. I'm fairly sure they would not (though I certainly don't believe this is a universal position at present, either!). Support for war is pretty tough to maintain if people don't feel threatened. Support for war against an overwhelmingly more powerful adversary less so. Hamas would, though, and so you have that issue of how you degrade them sufficiently to create the context for peace because any relaxation of oppression at present will absolutely result in dead Israelis (well, dead anyone inside Israel) - as they've said, October the 7th at every opportunity, forever. Obviously, the current approach to degrading Hamas is almost certainly strengthening Hamas, however. I think making Jerusalem, which was, after all, the capital of a Hebrew nation at least 2750 years ago and maintained a Jewish majority for almost the entire period since, an independent entity and not part of Israel is a non-starter in negotiating terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 8:56:06 GMT -5
But is it relaxation of oppression or complacency? It seems the higher-ups in Israel ignored a lot of warning signs that something big was happening. It seems to be more that the events of the 7th transpired because the Israeli government was so complacent in the success of their perceived oppression than that it happened in spite of it.
Oppression isn't usually the way to break apart such movements, unless you actually go at it a 100% in the vein of some of the worst authoritarian governments.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 6, 2024 9:42:43 GMT -5
I genuinely can't see how Israel is under any existential threat from Palestine.
They aren't, but only because they have that position of overwhelming power to commit their genocide. Any sort of compromise or backing off from their position of power will not lead to winning hearts and minds, it will simply give the other side more ability to commit their genocide. That's the fundamental problem with this situation, both sides are starting from a premise that total extermination of their religious enemies is the goal. We can choose which side's genocide to support (entirely for cynical political and foreign policy goals) but at this point I don't see any possible way to stop the slaughter short of sending troops in to divide up Israel by force and maintain borders that neither side is permitted to cross.
This is not correct. At no point has Israel categorically stated that their goal is the destruction of a Muslim state and its people. Whereas it has been the stated goal both of Hamas (it is actually written in their founding statement) and from Iran, who are almost certainly supplying Hamas and attacking by proxy. Netanyahu may flog that horse at every opportunity for his own agenda, but he is not fabricating what has been the stated aim. So you have that fanatical fundamentalism on one side, which is calling for the destruction of a people - and this is why you can have sites of people celebrating in the street at the news of rape and murder coming out of Israel on October 7th. |
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 6, 2024 9:52:30 GMT -5
They aren't, but only because they have that position of overwhelming power to commit their genocide. Any sort of compromise or backing off from their position of power will not lead to winning hearts and minds, it will simply give the other side more ability to commit their genocide. That's the fundamental problem with this situation, both sides are starting from a premise that total extermination of their religious enemies is the goal. We can choose which side's genocide to support (entirely for cynical political and foreign policy goals) but at this point I don't see any possible way to stop the slaughter short of sending troops in to divide up Israel by force and maintain borders that neither side is permitted to cross.
I think this is more absolutionist than it needs to be. Neither group is acting irrationally*, and I think a proper two state solution at 1967 borders could lead to a durable peace. In addition, most of the Arab states around Israel have no interest in hostilities with Israel in this era (although popular support against Israel is present in many of these states). There isn't any reason Israel cannot remain militarised and not occupy Palestine. Indeed, occupying the West Bank is probably what allowed October 7th to be so devastating. Finally, peace hasn't realistically been tried, because the conditions Israel has always demanded for any Palestinian state are unacceptable. *I don't think their rationales are good, but they are there. The problem is that the rationale of Hamas does not brook any compromise. Their stated aims are the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and because it is backed by a religious text in the Quran, and is rewarding its martyrs with paradise, there is not some agreed point of rationality that both sides can reach. The text is very clear in the Quran; if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, and the only acceptable outcomes are either your death or conversion to the faith. And this is what allows them to carry out utterly psychotic acts on non-combatants, which I will not repeat here. I had read the same thing about the occupation of the West Bank. Apparently Israel had moved so much military force to that area of the country, to protect the settlers, that then allowed Hamas' attack to be so effective. In fact there are a lot of reports that the Hamas fighters were almost stunned by how easily they had managed to encroach on Israeli territory - considering the general consensus before was that a bird could not fly over the border without the IDF knowing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 11:05:56 GMT -5
They aren't, but only because they have that position of overwhelming power to commit their genocide. Any sort of compromise or backing off from their position of power will not lead to winning hearts and minds, it will simply give the other side more ability to commit their genocide. That's the fundamental problem with this situation, both sides are starting from a premise that total extermination of their religious enemies is the goal. We can choose which side's genocide to support (entirely for cynical political and foreign policy goals) but at this point I don't see any possible way to stop the slaughter short of sending troops in to divide up Israel by force and maintain borders that neither side is permitted to cross.
This is not correct. At no point has Israel categorically stated that their goal is the destruction of a Muslim state and its people. Whereas it has been the stated goal both of Hamas (it is actually written in their founding statement) and from Iran, who are almost certainly supplying Hamas and attacking by proxy. Netanyahu may flog that horse at every opportunity for his own agenda, but he is not fabricating what has been the stated aim. So you have that fanatical fundamentalism on one side, which is calling for the destruction of a people - and this is why you can have sites of people celebrating in the street at the news of rape and murder coming out of Israel on October 7th. Israel's current ruling coalition has a stated aim of Greater Israel, and includes such people as Ben Gvir (security minister), who has called for the expulsion of Arabs. Ethnically cleansing Palestine to create a larger Jewish religious ethnostate is a goal of the Israeli far right and they have the same issue with religious fundamentalism that Palestine does. To be clear, I think Hamas is despicable and in no way condone their actions on October 7th. However, I also think I have no right to condemn Gazan people who cheered for that when those people have grown up in a prison being routinely bombed at the whims of said neighbour. That isn't how you create a well-adjusted population. |
|
|
|
Post by Haighus on Feb 6, 2024 11:25:34 GMT -5
I think this is more absolutionist than it needs to be. Neither group is acting irrationally*, and I think a proper two state solution at 1967 borders could lead to a durable peace. In addition, most of the Arab states around Israel have no interest in hostilities with Israel in this era (although popular support against Israel is present in many of these states). There isn't any reason Israel cannot remain militarised and not occupy Palestine. Indeed, occupying the West Bank is probably what allowed October 7th to be so devastating. Finally, peace hasn't realistically been tried, because the conditions Israel has always demanded for any Palestinian state are unacceptable. *I don't think their rationales are good, but they are there. The problem is that the rationale of Hamas does not brook any compromise. Their stated aims are the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, and because it is backed by a religious text in the Quran, and is rewarding its martyrs with paradise, there is not some agreed point of rationality that both sides can reach. The text is very clear in the Quran; if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, and the only acceptable outcomes are either your death or conversion to the faith. And this is what allows them to carry out utterly psychotic acts on non-combatants, which I will not repeat here. Hamas is an organisation that engages in warcrimes and has religious fundamentalist reasons for their goals, but they have also demonstrated they are rational actors who do things with specific aims (like the vast majority of organisations worldwide). For example, October 7th seems to have happened when it did because Israel was normalising relationships with Saudi Arabia at the expense of Palestine, and Hamas wanted to disrupt that to prevent Palestine being left out in the cold. It has certainly done that, at a huge cost in life. Hamas took hostages and has engaged in negotiations to secure a ceasefire and hostage exchanges. This is a war crime, but it is also rational and not the actions of some crazed fanatics frothing at the mouth. They even treated many of the hostages reasonably well, because returning beaten hostages is terrible optics and it is rational to keep your hostages alive and well. Again- still a despicable war crime, I'm not defending war crimes. No one should take hostages. I'm only pointing out that Hamas is doing rational actions and will compromise on their ideology (in the short term) to further their goals. Another example is the softening of the current Hamas charter from their foundation. With that said, I think treating Hamas as purely frothing lunatics is unhelpful and it is probably the case that a negotiated compromise can be reached that would reduce the violence and ultimately undermine extremism in both Palestine and Israel. Hamas hasn't held particularly well to ceasefires in the past, but then equally they've not been given more than "we'll stop shooting and bombing you, for now" with said ceasefires. Gaza has been a prison for nearly 2 decades. The same is true of the Israeli far right, they are making rational decisions to further their aims. The difference is they currently hold all the cards and will only compromise if forced to by outside pressure. That basically means the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Feb 6, 2024 11:26:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pacific on Feb 6, 2024 11:55:59 GMT -5
This is not correct. At no point has Israel categorically stated that their goal is the destruction of a Muslim state and its people. Whereas it has been the stated goal both of Hamas (it is actually written in their founding statement) and from Iran, who are almost certainly supplying Hamas and attacking by proxy. Netanyahu may flog that horse at every opportunity for his own agenda, but he is not fabricating what has been the stated aim. So you have that fanatical fundamentalism on one side, which is calling for the destruction of a people - and this is why you can have sites of people celebrating in the street at the news of rape and murder coming out of Israel on October 7th. Israel's current ruling coalition has a stated aim of Greater Israel, and includes such people as Ben Gvir (security minister), who has called for the expulsion of Arabs. Ethnically cleansing Palestine to create a larger Jewish religious ethnostate is a goal of the Israeli far right and they have the same issue with religious fundamentalism that Palestine does. To be clear, I think Hamas is despicable and in no way condone their actions on October 7th. However, I also think I have no right to condemn Gazan people who cheered for that when those people have grown up in a prison being routinely bombed at the whims of said neighbour. That isn't how you create a well-adjusted population. From what I have read Gvir is regarded as being fringe-RW, even by the standards of Netanyahu's government, those comments are downplayed and he will be gone when Netanyahu is ousted (which, I have read, is a matter of when, not if). I don't think there is a possibility of something like that becoming a government policy because it would never get through their process of law. Contrast with Hamas, where due to the nature of the organisation and the confict, fanatics have unbridled control. If they somehow got hold of a chemical or nuclear WMD, I don't think they would have any compunction whatsoever of releasing one in Tel Aviv, or within the densest population mass they could find, as it would be the fastest way of them fulfilling their explicit aim. (In fact, part of me thinks that this is quite possibly how the conflict, and the issue of Israel and the middle east is going to end) I agree with you how the Gazan people have been appalling treated, but again I think there is a difference in mindset there. Crowds in London celebrated VE day and the end of the war, but they did not come out into the streets and cheer the firebombing of Dresden. People in the US celebrated the end of WW2, but the site of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have filled them with an awed horror. They would not have cheered at the concept of the people being burnt alive or melted into the sides of their houses. I think many would have thought or discussed, privately, "they had what was coming to them" (my Grandfather was one of them) but there is generally a basic ethical code in place that makes it unseemly to celebrate that openly. In the case of Gaza, many of the crowds were cheering after the footage had emerged of what had taken place on Oct 7th - there was no communal shame in place that prevents the cheering of the rape/torture and murder of those people. I think the point I am trying to make here is having some sort of moral framework means that you view the (violent) death of other human beings as something horrific, because we can draw parallels to it happening to ourselves, to our family or loved ones. The Religious fundamentalism involved, like with extreme forms of Nationalism or Racism (which allowed the Nazis to load other human beings into gas chambers), denigrates those other people into non-human; 'infedels' as the Quran states. They are to be eradicated, and their own, twisted, moral code is to treat those people as you would when exterminating vermin. I think that is a big part of problem when understanding what is happening in Gaza. It's possible to acknowledge that what Israel is doing is reprehensible in terms of the loss of human life and suffering they are causing. But also to acknowledge that, from Israel's own perspective, they are combating a foe that is utterly unrelenting and unreasoning - unless they remove the root of that 'mind virus' (fundamentalist Islam) which allows Hamas to carry out the sort of attack it did on Oct 7th, the sort of attack will just happen again. Even as all of these events, and the abject poverty that the people of Gaza live in, serves as a fertile recruitment ground for a continuation of that extremism. |
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Feb 6, 2024 12:09:27 GMT -5
So much worrying about what Hamas may do if the IDF stops trying to ethnically cleanse Gaza, so little care for the fact the IDF is currently doing it. Good to see some people here have their priorities straight.
|
|
