8 ms·

I'm curious where the tipping point is, where the military response exceeds the financial cost of a political response. It's one thing to have tensions simmerin

I'm curious where the tipping point is, where the military response exceeds the financial cost of a political response. It's one thing to have tensions simmering on both sides of a border, it's another that one side feels wronged and is lobbing bombs over the fence. The fact that they're having to develop a laser defense system to defend against lobbed bombs seems like it's time to reevaluate political solutions.

jlawson 5y ago
- ahthat 5y ago
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  The Palestinians? They have not made it clear at all. TMany people living in Gaza, one of the poorest, unsafe, strips of land with the least amount of autonomy or basic human respect given, don’t have time and energy to focus on a goal of utterly conquering and pushing Israel to the sea. I assume this implies killing all Israelis too? Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza citizens that can barely survive. — > Either you can afford the defenses you need to exist, or you can't and you stop existing. In no world could Palestine ever stop Israel from existing either. Like: - Kurds or Armenians can’t wipe out Turkey. - Yemenese rebels (Houthi) can’t wipe out Saudi Arabia. - Uyghur’s or Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan can’t wipe out China. - Ukraine or Georgia or Bosnia or Crimea can’t wipe out Russia. - Kosovo can’t wipe out Serbia. - Pakistan can’t wipe out India. - IRA or Ireland can’t wipe out Britain. —- Israel is a beautiful place. I enjoyed Tel Aviv quite a bit. I certainly don’t want Israel going anywhere :)
  - golergka 5y ago
    > I assume this implies killing all Israelis too? Yes. > Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza citizens that can barely survive. Talk to them. Personally, I think that the reason this conflict is so misunderstood in the West is that you guys are just too distant from the cultural norms of the region, and literally can't believe that millions of people could openly and unapologetically be pro-genocide.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      I have talked to some. You didn’t respond to any other parts of my post. Especially the main point I made of the listing of states in conflict where it is similarly not possible for the smaller side to wipe out the nicer one. The point of that is to show how unreasonable expecting any of those smaller states or people to ever be able to do a serious amount of damage to the stronger power. It is a stretch to say “millions” for Gaza. The population is under 2 million. Technically that is millions. Just want to clarify it means under 2M. It’s also hard to talk to them when I don’t live close by and The 1.8M people in Gaza use the energy equivalent to a town of under 25K people in the US.* * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electri...
      - golergka 5y ago
        > Especially the main point I made of the listing of states in conflict where it is similarly not possible for the smaller side to wipe out the nicer one. You're conflating the sides of the conflict here. It's not palestinians versus israelis, and it started much earlier than in 20th century. Arabs have already wiped out all the jews from their states already in 1940s — some managed to flee to Israel, but many more were just killed. Yes, Israel managed to build bridges with some arab governments, from Egypt to Saudis, especially lately. But don't conflate government with countries. The majority of arabs all over the muslim world, both Sunni and Shia, despite their internal differences, offer wide popular support to complete genocide of jews.
        skinnymuch 5y ago
        You’ve most the goal posts and entire discussion. What do Palestinians especially in Gaza, have to do with Arabs as a whole? Your original comment specifically said Palestine. So the topic is Palestine and Israel only. And that’s what it was when I did my comment. Also to note, Arab countries don’t care about Palestine. Egypt actively hurts Palestinians for example. Arab country leadership are awful. Otherwise your comment is a diff topic and isn’t relevant to the treatment, destruction, and deaths of Palestine. > Arabs have already wiped out all the jews from their states already in 1940s — some managed to flee to Israel, but many more were just killed. Do you have any citation for this? I tried looking for numbers. I could not find any besides the general numbers of nearly 1M expelled from Arab countries. Especially the “many more were just killed”.
  - flyinglizard 5y ago
    The thing about your list of conflict is that all of them involve a minority against an overwhelming majority and fighting over distinct territories. This is about two populations roughly equal in size fighting over the same territory.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      Kosovo fought with Albania. Albania and Kosovo have a closer population to Serbia than Palestine to Israel. So that situation is even more uneven population wise. And just as ridiculous as just saying Kosovo. Israel has 2x the population and far more land. This is not about fighting for the same territory. The West Bank government and people are not fighting to get Israel. The weak Hamas government can say whatever they want. Do you have any citation or anything that the majority of Gaza citizens want to take over all of Israel, if they could get back control of Gaza for themselves including land settled on? Anecdotally, I have not seen this be the case.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    Gaza used to be the most prosperous Arab nation that didn't have oil. That's not good for recruiting cannon fodder so they launched the second intifada to destroy the economy. They focus on destroying Israel because it brings them money.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      They? Do you not see how offensive that is to group together 1.7M people like that? When if that same sort of wording happens for almost any other situation, it’s called out as wrong, which it obviously is, very quickly. There is a common dog whistle and coded word sort of stuff especially recently with China. Instead of specify the authoritarian Govt and elite in China, one may say the Chinese used to be X but now they are doing Y to hurt every one. Or: North Korea was doing well before their famine and the Soviet collapse. Or better than the past 30 years. They screwed everything up and now do silly begging for food and silly missile presentations. Almost no North Korean had a say or any power. Even if most of the population has been tricked into believing the powerful In North Korea are doing fine when they are doing evil things. It’s clear that saying “they” is wrong. The responsible are the elite few in North Korea. —- If it isn’t clear. I believe Hamas sucks. Iran sucks for backing them.
      - nradov 5y ago
        Palestinians literally elected Hamas in a democratic election. So actions by Hamas apparently represent the will of the people. That's hardly comparable to China and North Korea, which are authoritarian dictatorships where the governments were never elected.
        ocschwar 5y ago
        WHile true, it's worth remembering that Hamas has not submitted to new elections in quite some time.
        skinnymuch 5y ago
        Palestinians did that under desperation 15+ years ago. No elections since then. Would you call it democratic still if we didnt hold Senate, House, or Presidential elections in the US for the next 15 years?
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  This is just war propaganda. This isn't the sixties anymore, Israel isn't surrounded by a coalition of pan-Arab states wishing to destroy it. In fact, a good chunk of the Arab world is now closely linked and maintain good relations with Israel (Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.) Congratz, you've just been brainwashed by the military industrial complex who just want to maintain Israel in a state of perpetual war to sustain ever-increasing defense spending.
  - dang 5y ago
    Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it. That includes not using HN primarily for political or ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
- dang 5y ago
  Your account has unfortunately been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of your politics or ideology. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it. We've already had to warn you about this multiple times before. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
  - jlawson 5y ago
    I wish there was more clarity on what this rule actually means. I can see how this particular comment would get a side-eye (though I think it doesn't stand out among the others in this thread), but when I look through my recent comments I'm having trouble figuring out the line here.
    - dang 5y ago
      I've written a lot about this. Maybe some of the past explanations will help? https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I took another look at your comment history and I agree it's a borderline case. Still, comments like these are the sort of ideological battle thing we're asking people specifically to avoid here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30124830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30124830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29837811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29837811
      - jlawson 5y ago
        What I'm understanding is that my account would be fine if I had a bunch of other posts in between my existing ones, and the other posts were all about Java optimization or Apache version control or other "non-political" topics. I guess it seems kind of a strange rule. Stated another way, "If 50% or more of your posts relate to controversial/political topics, you're in violation". The posts are fine, I'm just supposed to have other posts there to reduce their proportion of the total. It seems strange to convict on the absence of certain posts. I will of course endeavor to follow the rule. It is your website after all. But just some thoughts on it: I just find social issues interesting, I don't believe like that's wrong or destructive. (If it was being aggressive or unthoughtful about them that would be an issue but I try to be thoughtful and make meaningful points.) I don't think commenting on controversies has to degrade the site. For example, the subreddit r/TheMotte has some of the best discussion on the internet and it's 100% about the culture war. I could have had an alt account that I use for more 'acceptable' topics. Many people don't want their thoughts on controversial topics to be associated with their public persona. This rule basically bans having an alt account in this way. Note that I'm not focused on one issue; I comment on lots of different issues. Yes I have a unifying philosophy but so does everyone. I think a rule against single-issue activist accounts would make more sense. In any case thanks for responding.
SuoDuanDao 5y ago
There are really only three solutions. One, Israel annexes Palestine in its current form, and ceases to be a Jewish state. Two, Israel annexes Palestine after removing its current inhabitants. Three, Israel stays in a state of low-grade warfare while carving out the most desireable bits of Palestine for its settlers as its population grows. One is untenable for obvious reasons. Two is untenable until memories of the holocaust cease being a formative experience for Israel, so essentially untenable for the rest of our natural lives. Three is not only the only option available, it's actually not that bad a situation while Israel can maintain its military dominance. I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk, peace activists from the region but unconnected to the ruling structure notwithstanding.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  Israel would like peace, but they know it's not feasible. Peace will only come about either with the at a minimum extirpation of Jews from the area, or with the backers deciding they don't want to support the war anymore--and that would require at a minimum a serious threat of Israel going nuclear, probably actually nuking somebody's capital. Hence the low-level conflict is the least bad choice.
- nekcihc 5y ago
  In first solution - it depends. There is also option, that Islam ceases to exist(all according to islamic scriptures). Palestinian Arabs in that situation can convert to Judaism or whatever and anyone who would be able to find Jewish ancestry who were converted can probably easily find those roots. Though in that case, borders of Israel would include more than Palestine. The conflict from Islam POV is about which religion is better. That is biggest weakness of Islam in the region, where Jews were living in Medina and Mecca long before Islam was arisen and where majority of Arabs were Christians up till Middle Ages. So, even if it takes another 1000 years, I would put money on that Jews will survive, while Islam will be long forgotten history.
- weatherlite 5y ago
  > I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk Israel has everything to gain by a true peace deal with Palestine. Palestinians though have everything to lose - their entire identity is intertwined with returning to their old homes from 1948. I don't think there is symmetry; one side basically "won" and would really like to live in peace if it was possible (barring a few religious Jewish settlers), but the meaning of peace for the other side is basically letting go of its identity and admit defeat. Palestinians can't let go of what happened in 48, it's as foundational for them as Zionism is for Israelis. A lot of people miss this subtle point but if you really listen to Palestinians it's all there. While if you really listen to (most) Israelis - its mostly about security. Most Israelis don't give much of a hoot about the settlements.

jlawson 5y ago

ahthat 5y ago
skinnymuch 5y ago
The Palestinians? They have not made it clear at all. TMany people living in Gaza, one of the poorest, unsafe, strips of land with the least amount of autonomy or basic human respect given, don’t have time and energy to focus on a goal of utterly conquering and pushing Israel to the sea. I assume this implies killing all Israelis too? Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza citizens that can barely survive. — > Either you can afford the defenses you need to exist, or you can't and you stop existing. In no world could Palestine ever stop Israel from existing either. Like: - Kurds or Armenians can’t wipe out Turkey. - Yemenese rebels (Houthi) can’t wipe out Saudi Arabia. - Uyghur’s or Tibet or Hong Kong or Taiwan can’t wipe out China. - Ukraine or Georgia or Bosnia or Crimea can’t wipe out Russia. - Kosovo can’t wipe out Serbia. - Pakistan can’t wipe out India. - IRA or Ireland can’t wipe out Britain. —- Israel is a beautiful place. I enjoyed Tel Aviv quite a bit. I certainly don’t want Israel going anywhere :)
- golergka 5y ago
  > I assume this implies killing all Israelis too? Yes. > Quite a statement to make about the vast majority of Gaza citizens that can barely survive. Talk to them. Personally, I think that the reason this conflict is so misunderstood in the West is that you guys are just too distant from the cultural norms of the region, and literally can't believe that millions of people could openly and unapologetically be pro-genocide.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    I have talked to some. You didn’t respond to any other parts of my post. Especially the main point I made of the listing of states in conflict where it is similarly not possible for the smaller side to wipe out the nicer one. The point of that is to show how unreasonable expecting any of those smaller states or people to ever be able to do a serious amount of damage to the stronger power. It is a stretch to say “millions” for Gaza. The population is under 2 million. Technically that is millions. Just want to clarify it means under 2M. It’s also hard to talk to them when I don’t live close by and The 1.8M people in Gaza use the energy equivalent to a town of under 25K people in the US.* * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electri...
    - golergka 5y ago
      > Especially the main point I made of the listing of states in conflict where it is similarly not possible for the smaller side to wipe out the nicer one. You're conflating the sides of the conflict here. It's not palestinians versus israelis, and it started much earlier than in 20th century. Arabs have already wiped out all the jews from their states already in 1940s — some managed to flee to Israel, but many more were just killed. Yes, Israel managed to build bridges with some arab governments, from Egypt to Saudis, especially lately. But don't conflate government with countries. The majority of arabs all over the muslim world, both Sunni and Shia, despite their internal differences, offer wide popular support to complete genocide of jews.
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        You’ve most the goal posts and entire discussion. What do Palestinians especially in Gaza, have to do with Arabs as a whole? Your original comment specifically said Palestine. So the topic is Palestine and Israel only. And that’s what it was when I did my comment. Also to note, Arab countries don’t care about Palestine. Egypt actively hurts Palestinians for example. Arab country leadership are awful. Otherwise your comment is a diff topic and isn’t relevant to the treatment, destruction, and deaths of Palestine. > Arabs have already wiped out all the jews from their states already in 1940s — some managed to flee to Israel, but many more were just killed. Do you have any citation for this? I tried looking for numbers. I could not find any besides the general numbers of nearly 1M expelled from Arab countries. Especially the “many more were just killed”.
- flyinglizard 5y ago
  The thing about your list of conflict is that all of them involve a minority against an overwhelming majority and fighting over distinct territories. This is about two populations roughly equal in size fighting over the same territory.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    Kosovo fought with Albania. Albania and Kosovo have a closer population to Serbia than Palestine to Israel. So that situation is even more uneven population wise. And just as ridiculous as just saying Kosovo. Israel has 2x the population and far more land. This is not about fighting for the same territory. The West Bank government and people are not fighting to get Israel. The weak Hamas government can say whatever they want. Do you have any citation or anything that the majority of Gaza citizens want to take over all of Israel, if they could get back control of Gaza for themselves including land settled on? Anecdotally, I have not seen this be the case.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  Gaza used to be the most prosperous Arab nation that didn't have oil. That's not good for recruiting cannon fodder so they launched the second intifada to destroy the economy. They focus on destroying Israel because it brings them money.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    They? Do you not see how offensive that is to group together 1.7M people like that? When if that same sort of wording happens for almost any other situation, it’s called out as wrong, which it obviously is, very quickly. There is a common dog whistle and coded word sort of stuff especially recently with China. Instead of specify the authoritarian Govt and elite in China, one may say the Chinese used to be X but now they are doing Y to hurt every one. Or: North Korea was doing well before their famine and the Soviet collapse. Or better than the past 30 years. They screwed everything up and now do silly begging for food and silly missile presentations. Almost no North Korean had a say or any power. Even if most of the population has been tricked into believing the powerful In North Korea are doing fine when they are doing evil things. It’s clear that saying “they” is wrong. The responsible are the elite few in North Korea. —- If it isn’t clear. I believe Hamas sucks. Iran sucks for backing them.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Palestinians literally elected Hamas in a democratic election. So actions by Hamas apparently represent the will of the people. That's hardly comparable to China and North Korea, which are authoritarian dictatorships where the governments were never elected.
      - ocschwar 5y ago
        WHile true, it's worth remembering that Hamas has not submitted to new elections in quite some time.
      - skinnymuch 5y ago
        Palestinians did that under desperation 15+ years ago. No elections since then. Would you call it democratic still if we didnt hold Senate, House, or Presidential elections in the US for the next 15 years?
littlestymaar 5y ago
This is just war propaganda. This isn't the sixties anymore, Israel isn't surrounded by a coalition of pan-Arab states wishing to destroy it. In fact, a good chunk of the Arab world is now closely linked and maintain good relations with Israel (Morocco, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.) Congratz, you've just been brainwashed by the military industrial complex who just want to maintain Israel in a state of perpetual war to sustain ever-increasing defense spending.
- dang 5y ago
  Flamewar comments like this will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it. That includes not using HN primarily for political or ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
dang 5y ago
Your account has unfortunately been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of your politics or ideology. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for, so we ban accounts that do it. We've already had to warn you about this multiple times before. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on, we'd appreciate it.
- jlawson 5y ago
  I wish there was more clarity on what this rule actually means. I can see how this particular comment would get a side-eye (though I think it doesn't stand out among the others in this thread), but when I look through my recent comments I'm having trouble figuring out the line here.
  - dang 5y ago
    I've written a lot about this. Maybe some of the past explanations will help? https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20bimodal%20battle&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I took another look at your comment history and I agree it's a borderline case. Still, comments like these are the sort of ideological battle thing we're asking people specifically to avoid here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30124830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30124830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30082558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29837811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29837811
    - jlawson 5y ago
      What I'm understanding is that my account would be fine if I had a bunch of other posts in between my existing ones, and the other posts were all about Java optimization or Apache version control or other "non-political" topics. I guess it seems kind of a strange rule. Stated another way, "If 50% or more of your posts relate to controversial/political topics, you're in violation". The posts are fine, I'm just supposed to have other posts there to reduce their proportion of the total. It seems strange to convict on the absence of certain posts. I will of course endeavor to follow the rule. It is your website after all. But just some thoughts on it: I just find social issues interesting, I don't believe like that's wrong or destructive. (If it was being aggressive or unthoughtful about them that would be an issue but I try to be thoughtful and make meaningful points.) I don't think commenting on controversies has to degrade the site. For example, the subreddit r/TheMotte has some of the best discussion on the internet and it's 100% about the culture war. I could have had an alt account that I use for more 'acceptable' topics. Many people don't want their thoughts on controversial topics to be associated with their public persona. This rule basically bans having an alt account in this way. Note that I'm not focused on one issue; I comment on lots of different issues. Yes I have a unifying philosophy but so does everyone. I think a rule against single-issue activist accounts would make more sense. In any case thanks for responding.

SuoDuanDao 5y ago

There are really only three solutions. One, Israel annexes Palestine in its current form, and ceases to be a Jewish state. Two, Israel annexes Palestine after removing its current inhabitants. Three, Israel stays in a state of low-grade warfare while carving out the most desireable bits of Palestine for its settlers as its population grows. One is untenable for obvious reasons. Two is untenable until memories of the holocaust cease being a formative experience for Israel, so essentially untenable for the rest of our natural lives. Three is not only the only option available, it's actually not that bad a situation while Israel can maintain its military dominance. I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk, peace activists from the region but unconnected to the ruling structure notwithstanding.

LorenPechtel 5y ago
Israel would like peace, but they know it's not feasible. Peace will only come about either with the at a minimum extirpation of Jews from the area, or with the backers deciding they don't want to support the war anymore--and that would require at a minimum a serious threat of Israel going nuclear, probably actually nuking somebody's capital. Hence the low-level conflict is the least bad choice.
nekcihc 5y ago
In first solution - it depends. There is also option, that Islam ceases to exist(all according to islamic scriptures). Palestinian Arabs in that situation can convert to Judaism or whatever and anyone who would be able to find Jewish ancestry who were converted can probably easily find those roots. Though in that case, borders of Israel would include more than Palestine. The conflict from Islam POV is about which religion is better. That is biggest weakness of Islam in the region, where Jews were living in Medina and Mecca long before Islam was arisen and where majority of Arabs were Christians up till Middle Ages. So, even if it takes another 1000 years, I would put money on that Jews will survive, while Islam will be long forgotten history.
weatherlite 5y ago
> I think a big mistake we in the west make when thinking about 'solutions' to the conflict is assuming both sides want peace. That's not been my impression on hearing anyone from either side talk Israel has everything to gain by a true peace deal with Palestine. Palestinians though have everything to lose - their entire identity is intertwined with returning to their old homes from 1948. I don't think there is symmetry; one side basically "won" and would really like to live in peace if it was possible (barring a few religious Jewish settlers), but the meaning of peace for the other side is basically letting go of its identity and admit defeat. Palestinians can't let go of what happened in 48, it's as foundational for them as Zionism is for Israelis. A lot of people miss this subtle point but if you really listen to Palestinians it's all there. While if you really listen to (most) Israelis - its mostly about security. Most Israelis don't give much of a hoot about the settlements.