Gaza

but a Hamas that accepts a 2 state solution just might.

The cold blooded murder of 1200 people is pretty odd opening gambit for negotiations. Hamas is a tool of Iran. Take a look at Iran, that's what Palestine would be if Hamas was in charge in a 2 state solution. Do you think Israel would allow that on its border?

Like I said, there's no chance any Israeli govt would go into an election on a manifesto of negotiating with Hamas for peace, while at the same time; Hamas will have to be involved in some way if there's to be lasting peace.

"Actions speak louder than words. October 8 showed what Hamas is about."

October 9 through to April 5 does exactly the same for Israel.

That's kind of the bizarre thing about this whole mess - each side at the extreme end is as bad as the other, and the solution lies somewhere in the middle. For as long as neither side is willing to make a concession, neither will know peace.

"The cold blooded murder of 1200 people is pretty odd opening gambit for negotiations. Hamas is a tool of Iran. Take a look at Iran, that’s what Palestine would be if Hamas was in charge in a 2 state solution. Do you think Israel would allow that on its border?"

Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas. It's a mess they've created themselves. It takes two sides to negotiate, and neither seems particularly willing to.

"Like I said, there’s no chance any Israeli govt would go into an election on a manifesto of negotiating with Hamas for peace, while at the same time; Hamas will have to be involved in some way if there’s to be lasting peace."

Strong agree. Rabin and Arafat both got Nobel peace prizes for agreeing the bones of a 2 state solution - for Rabin (who'd been chief of staff of the IDF in 1967) it meant assasination and the swift removal from power of his party.

each side at the extreme end is as bad as the other,

Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power peacefully (and put on trial and imprisoned for his corruption). Hamas is a different thing, they can't be voted out of power peacefully. A peace treaty can only be negotiated by moderates who are willing to accept that the other side has legitimate interests. Right-wing Israelis can't be part of a peace negotiation, neither can Hamas. Problem is, an Israeli government can be voted out of power, Hamas will only leave at gunpoint.

An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses.

Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood and the violence that it promoted against Jews spread across the whole region, and was never limited to Israel. The modern day groups, such as Hamas, that continue their cause through violent means are not unique to Israel and Palestine today either.

An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses.

How?

I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

You're not wrong.

I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

They came to power through an election, but then they established a repressive autocracy and refused to hold any more elections. Saying that they have democratic legitimacy is like saying that Hitler had democratic legitimacy because he initially came to power by being elected. The problem is what they did after being elected. Voting them out of power is not an option because they refuse to allow democratic opposition.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that, thank you.

"The Muslim Brotherhood and the violence that it promoted against Jews spread across the whole region, and was never limited to Israel. The modern day groups, such as Hamas, that continue their cause through violent means are not unique to Israel and Palestine today either."

I don't doubt. It was a pretty fringe group until 1967, though.

""An Israeli government can put Hamas out of business, if it chooses."

"How?"

Hamaa exists because Palestine is oppressed. End the oppression.

 I, like very many of my Israeli colleagues, do not support some of the actions and decision-making displayed by the IDF but there has to be a realisation that as utterly shit as it is, in war there will always be civilian casualties.

There was an item on Channel 4 News last night about how the IDF wait until minor Hamas people get home and then bomb their houses, killing the family and (maybe) the target. Apparently this goes by the name of "Where's Daddy". This is not "collateral damage" in my view, it's depraved blood lust that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

There was an item on Channel 4 News last night about how the IDF wait until minor Hamas people get home and then bomb their houses, killing the family and (maybe) the target. Apparently this goes by the name of “Where’s Daddy”. This is not “collateral damage” in my view, it’s depraved blood lust that cannot be justified under any circumstances.

It's really difficult to know what official Israeli policy is. The movie Munich is an excellent example of Israel's strategic failure on this sort of thing. Their policy is based on deterrence, so any attack on Israel will face a disproportionate response (this is the moral dilemma of deterrence - it's justified on the basis that it deters a greater evil, but for it to work, it requires a disproportionate response.). The moral aspect isn't the only issue here, the problem is that it doesn't seem to have actually deterred attacks on Israel. So, Israel based their security strategy on a deterrence theory that has never actually worked against non-state opponents and now their response is handcuffed by those decades of reliance on deterrence (the evidence on nuclear deterrence against other countries is a different matter.)

Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power

Pseudo democracy.  Try exercising democratic rights if you are arab.

One thing is for sure.

Israel's response (it's government) will create another 10 fighters for every Hamas terrorist they kill.

Kids barely old enough to hold a pencil will grow up longing to hold a rifle instead.

Short term Israel's response is tragically disproportionate and long term it has done more to recruit Hamas fighters than all the Hamas propaganda in the world could ever do.

Israel has a right to respond to an horrific terrorist attack but tragically, it's arguably managed to attain moral parity.

On that note, I've not got anything else to say.

Yes, but Israel is a democracy and Netanyahu can be voted out of power

Can we conclude from this that the majority of Israelis are in favour of the slaughter?  Whereas the citizens of Gaza have not approved the actions of Hamas at the ballot box.

I could be wrong, but I thought that Hamas had been elected in Gaza (beating Fatah).

In 2007 at which point they stopped holding elections perhaps because their majority wasnt exactly sweeping. It made the brexit referendum look like will of the people with 44.45% for Hamas vs 41.43% for Fatah.
Israel could possibly do a deal with the clans to help get rid of Hamas but they would need to offer some improvements and unfortunately with the current extremist government that isnt going to happen.
An balancing act they could have done whilst attacking Gaza would have been to offer improvements to the west bank. Unfortunately though if anything they have upped their land theft and acts of violence there as well. Indeed it seems part of why Hamas inflicted so much damage was the Israeli army were diverted to helping out the extremist settlers in the west bank.

Pseudo democracy.  Try exercising democratic rights if you are arab.

I think "troubled democracy" is a more useful term, similarly to Turkey, for example. They have a democratic structure, but are drifting towards autocracy. I'm deeply pessimistic about the direction that both those countries are taking, but it's not impossible that they will reverse and become more liberal. The plight of Palestinians rests pretty directly on keeping Israel as a liberal democracy so promoting that needs to be a major priority - same goes for Turkey. In a region full of unelected autocracies, flawed democracies are better than the alternative.

thols2 :

In international relations, the answer is always, “It’s complicated.”

Part of it, as I understand it, is that the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal that was sorted out in the 1970s guaranteed that the U.S. would provide military aid to both countries. Prior to that, there were major wars in 1956, 1967, and 1973 (plus of course, the 1948 war that established Israel as a country.) Israel won all of those wars and Egypt suffered huge losses. In the 1970s, Israel developed nuclear weapons as an open secret. That made the Arab League’s goal of destroying Israel a suicide pact – if Arab countries did succeed in destroying Israel, their own cities would be incinerated in nuclear fireballs.

You can thank Germany for providing them with the equipment and knowledge to start on a nuclear program, along with submarines that hold ballistic missiles. It's in my link above yours.

This comes from a belief that ultimately Gaza will be rebuilt and there will be a managed return for all the displaced civilians.

Doubt there will be many Palestinians around given the there are Jewish organisations already selling off the newly claimed lands.

and am i right in think the we and the Jewish state that was formed after world war 2 are to blame really for the entire shitshow.

Think Germany might be partly to blame. Should have given the Jewish population Bielefeld or the state of Hessen.

You can thank Germany for providing them with the equipment and knowledge to start on a nuclear program

Nuclear weapons were only invented once, in the U.S., heavily influenced by work by Jewish refugees from Hitler. That design was then leaked to the USSR, so the first Soviet A-bomb was just a copy of the US Fatman bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Every nuclear bomb program since has been based on leaks from existing programs.

My thoughts and feelings about what happened then is completely coloured by what was aired on TV in the USA soon afterwards (where I was staying)… they were prepared to show stuff from those attacks that UK TV never would.

The attack by Hamas and the 9 associated factions was utterly horrific and there is no excuse for attacking what is primarily an occupying civilian population as they did - the occupying military force and the machinations of the state are legitimate targets under ICRG law set out by the Red Cross but I have to take issue with the vile propaganda that Israel deployed afterwards - talk of dozens of beheaded babies, some placed in ovens and cooked, multiple rapes of all the women, babies cut from pregnant mothers and such like.

This has been verifiably debunked as false by multiple news agencies but once that thought has been implanted into the population of Israel then the hatred and desire for revenge at all costs is understandable, any amount of atrocities and rage can be justified against a population that "harboured" such terrorists.

The sooner Palestine is recognised as a nation state then Israel WILL have to stop occupation and come to the negation table.

I can recommend Palestine - Joe Sacco if you wish further reading, dont be put off by the fact it is a graphic novel 

also Footnotes in Gaza - Joe Sacco

Nuclear weapons were only invented once, in the U.S., heavily influenced by work by Jewish refugees from Hitler. That design was then leaked to the USSR, so the first Soviet A-bomb was just a copy of the US Fatman bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki. Every nuclear bomb program since has been based on leaks from existing programs.

That was not my point but yes , you are correct.

If you have the time then do read the article I posted.

Yet without Israeli oppression of Palestine, there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess they’ve created themselves.

Yet without Israel there would be no oppression of Palestine, therefore there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess we’ve created ourselves.

Doubt there will be many Palestinians around given the there are Jewish organisations already selling off the newly claimed lands.

I'm not denying it, and certainly the issue of settlements in the West Bank is ongoing, but I can't find anything about Israel claiming/selling off land in Gaza. Mind posting a link?

multiple rapes of all the women

Is that careful wording? Many women were raped, yes? Not "all" the women of course.

I didn't see footage of any of the things you describe. That wasn't the kind of broadcasting I was talking about (this wasn't Fox or any equivalent). But I don't want to get into discussing the horrors of what was shown.

I don't have much to add to the discussion, but I have been seeing a lot more cars around here with supporting Israel type stickers. Often along with the blue lives matter US flag, 'Don't tread on me' or 'Let's go Brandon' stickers. What this says about the people driving the car I'm not sure.

Every few pages I'm going to post to remind any new readers/posters to check my OP before you post anything.

Just a polite reminder is all.

This is not a response to any particular reply.

Yet without Israel there would be no oppression of Palestine, therefore there would be no Hamas. It’s a mess we’ve created ourselves.

All fair points, but exactly how does this oft repeated mantra actually contribute to a solution? What value does it bring to the table?

The perspective of history is always 20/20 and too often used as a cudgel to stifle any meaningful work to a resolution and as a means to justify actions in the present.

However tenuous and fragile that argument may be.

@TheFlyingOx

bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68650815.amp

theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/11/new-jersey-israel-palestine-protest-real-estate

https://www.liberationnews.org/israeli-real-estate-events-selling-stolen-palestinian-land-met-with-protests-and-disruption/

cheers mark, noted.

The sooner Palestine is recognised as a nation state then Israel WILL have to stop occupation and come to the negation table.

I don't know how old you are, but this is known as the "Two State Solution". Bill Clinton bet his legacy on negotiating a deal like this, but it collapsed because Israeli right-wingers and Palestinian right-wingers both want a one-state solution (i.e. where their side dominates and excludes the other side.).Hamas are extremist one-staters - their aim isn't to establish a Palestinian state the coexists with Israel, it's to erase Israel from the map and replace it with an Islamist state. (That's what the slogan, "From the river to the sea" is referring to, a single Islamist state from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.)

Hamas do not accept a two-state solution and their aim isn't to negotiate with Israel, it's to destroy Israel. That's why Israel have zero interest in negotiating with Hamas. Hamas are one-staters and one-staters have no interest in talking to two-staters.

@somafunk, went to read your article and your links bust.

I view this through a very simple lens. Israel irrespective of history had a right and responsibility to respond to the attacks across its borders and of it's citizens.

However as a democratic nation, with clear obligations under national and international law their response has stretched beyond what is deemed appropriate, proportionate and lawful.

Sadly Hamas are under no such obligations, they are not signatories to international treaties, they don't have the same internal governance and therefore the obligations in terms of waging armed conflict are set by themselves with no moral framework or care to wider international law.

This ain't me giving approval to either, just a very simple lens from a soldiers perspective. It is in esscene what fighting an irregular force on 'equal' terms looks like when one is organisationally and technologically superior.

It's a living example of why you must not do it.

should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

after WW2 when the Jewish people were give Palestine, it seem they were then given  free reign to settle where they wanted regardless of bounderies.  history says they took 60% of the land designated for the Arab states.

we, Britain, USA and UN allowed this.

I don’t know how old you are,

You know fine well how old I am, and I am well aware of the two state solution.

See below for definition of statehood

Is Palestine considered a state.

Adam Tooze substack : Germany and Israel relationship explained

That should be it...oops.

edit : just checked and it works.

should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

The very real danger with the UK is that any hostility towards UK armed forces and any response irrespective of proportionality would probably cause more issues. A UN force made up of troops from a nation that hasn't perpetuated or had a hand in this long brewed conflict might be better for all parties.

Edit: Whoever that is would need a competent, flexible force btw. The situation is too delicate for a a single hammer or a tickle feather, it needs a force and leadership that can flex with the mission to maintain peace effectively. Utilising a braid range of approaches.

But who would be prepared to send troops in? It’s not a realistic option.

should Britain and the rest of the UN get their act together, and put a very strong peace keeping force in place in the whole of Israel and Palestine?

Israel has nuclear weapons. Where else do you propose to send this peacekeeping force? The DMZ in Korea? Crimea?

so the answer is what ??  just let Israel carry on until all the Palestinian people and homes are gone ?

kind of like what someone wanted to do to the Jewish people in the past ??

You know fine well how old I am

I really don't know how old you are. How would I?

@somafunk

The BBC link contains the rambling wishes of a hard-right Israeli grandmother, not evidence of land in Gaza being sold to Israeli settlers. Indeed it specifically states the Israeli government has no policy of settling Gaza.

The Guardian link discusses what I already mentioned about illegal settlements in the West Bank and the word "Gaza" only appears in passing in the first sentence.

I've no desire to defend Israel's illegal settlements, but I also think if we're going to have an adult discussion about the situation then we should be absolutely clear on what is and what isn't true.

But who would be prepared to send troops in? It’s not a realistic option.

A slightly childish, tongue in cheek response; SA could put their money where their mouth is...

Genocide has a legal definition, part of which is intent. Proving genocide is difficult (especially given that Israel has nuclear weapons and could exterminate every Palestinian within minutes if that really was their intent.)

Well the nazis didnt have any nuclear weapons, and their intent was eradication the old fashioned way with bombs, guns and knives.

If Israel was to launch a nuclear strike in Gaza, killing many of the inhabitants, the blast if only one wouldn't kill everyone, but as a consequence would contaminate parts of Israel, but more importantly other neighboring states, and of course the condemnation of the entire planet, including just about everyone sitting on the fence, so some sort of 'nuclear option' is a fantasy.

A bit like the Americans 'No option is off the table' or the Russian media claiming some sort of nuclear option in Ukraine. Bluff and bluster. The type of thing you hear from the majority of the readership of the Jerusalem Post(Which is a bit of a mix between, the daily mail, fox news and combat18)

End goal is however the removal of the Palestinian people. 20 years from now the entire region will say Israel on the map, and any Palestinians left will be there in a kind of bonded labour type scenario.

This prediction isn't mine but has been discussed in other circles.

so the answer is what ??

A two-state solution is the only realistic option that I can see. That would require both Israel and Palestine to recognize each other as legitimate states and to coexist in peace. Right-wingers on both sides reject that, so it would require more moderate leaders to negotiate a deal. Israel would basically have to retreat to the 1967 borders and Palestinians would have to stop attacking Israeli civilian targets. Both sides are currently led by right-wingers who reject a two-state solution so the answer is to build support moderates on both sides who are interested in negotiating. I'm not holding my breath.

@TheFlyingOx

I think you misdirected that link at myself.

 Right-wingers on both sides reject that, so it would require more moderate leaders to negotiate a deal.

Yep, the right wing in Israel opposed the establishment of a two state solution

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv. The assailant was Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.

The assassination of Yitzak Rabin by an Israeli ultranationalist

@somafunk apologies, you're right, it's was meant for @alpin

Well the nazis didnt have any nuclear weapons, and their intent was eradication the old fashioned way with bombs, guns and knives.

The intent is the crucial part of the legal definition, as I understand it. The Nazis were quite meticulous in their record keeping, apparently, so they basically recorded their genocide attempt and handed it over to the prosecution. Without recorded statements of intent, proving genocide in court would be difficult. Violation of human rights is a much easier charge to prosecute because it doesn't require proof of intent.

Yep, the right wing in Israel opposed the establishment of a two state solution

The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the fifth prime minister of Israel, took place on 4 November 1995 (12 Marcheshvan 5756 on the Hebrew calendar) at 21:30, at the end of a rally in support of the Oslo Accords at the Kings of Israel Square in Tel Aviv.

Exactly. And Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian military officers because he negotiated a peace treaty with Israel. Extremists oppose peace treaties so a peace treaty is only possible when both sides agree to moderate and accept that the other sides has legitimate claims.