4 ms·

> It beehoves the Palestines to build a strong military (which they can't without a State) and not hide like cowards lacking any code of ethics or morality. Is

> It beehoves the Palestines to build a strong military (which they can't without a State) and not hide like cowards lacking any code of ethics or morality. Is it correct to say Israel won't like that, because they prefer Hamas/Hizb-style millitia and collective punishment over a recognised military (and not a puppet "security force" like the NSF)? If true, do Israelis realise this and despite the government for it? Since the entire region is very small there is a concern about a standing army literally at the doorstep. I don't think there's a preference for millitia but one of the rallying cries of the right is: "why did you give them guns". This refers to the fact that the Oslo accord provided the Palestinian police with guns. Then when things soured these weapons were used against Israelis. They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here. > Normalisation efforts are a great starting point. The right was trying to push for peace with Saudi Arabia as a way to pressure the Palestinian leadership into a deal on Israels terms. I don't think that would have worked. Ideally, these holy areas should be open to everyone. Israels tourism numbers are amazingly low considering everything it has to offer. I know there's tourism from Jordan, UAE, etc. But this will require a tectonic shift in mindset. The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists. > Norman Finkelstein, a very controversial figure, said in a talk at University of Waterloo (2008) that the issue of Palestine is a simple one but that the US had made it complicated for whatever it stands to gain (I wonder what that is, I have no clue). Finkelstein says, most of the world (via UN) agrees that Israel should rapidly work towards as 2 state solution, when only US doesn't and it consistently vetos most resolutions (some 280+ that have been brought against Israel, which is an astoundingly high number). What do you make of this stance (which comes from someone who's considered 'an enemy of Israel'). I 100% agree with the two state solution as did most Israelis in the past when it was surveyed. Not sure if this is still true. I think the solution is simple, but there's a lot of nuance which is where the main problems occur. There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc. The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers. This is mostly the US defending Israel against a stacked playing field. Some of that is enablement but if it wasn't for the US there would be no moderation. A lot of the deals and holding back is due to US pressure. > Well, Israel eventually split from Judea... Is that the kind of ideal settlers harbour long term? A lot of people are talking about this since the split between right and left seems to be very clear here. E.g. Tel Aviv is as liberal as can be... It's often referred to as Tel Aviv state because it is so different in its views. Realistically, this is probably not doable. > Another theme I see on the Israeli tech Twitter, is the insistence on convincing the American public about the war. Not sure if propoganda is the right term, but it is pretty close to it. A recent set of letters from Harvard and other universities student bodies really shook up the local press. I Get that. They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary. There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide. > at times seems hysterical I was reading about a family of 3. The father and mother were unarmed and shot as part of the attack. The Hamas kidnapped the 3 year old to Gaza and the two other kids survived by hiding under their mothers body for 7 hours. Children hiding under bodies to survive is very reminiscent of the holocaust survivor stories. It's about as triggering as can be. The Hamas reminded Israelis just how vulnerable Israel is. I think the hysteria is partially warranted. > conditions in Gaza without any semblance of empathy or sympathy This is "what aboutism" at its worse. I think they are doing a disservice to their country. > > This is a scary dystopian future. > > If so, I wonder why the US supports such a future unconditionally? They don't. Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule. That's smart, we're lucky that he's in-charge and not Trump or someone else. He understands the nuances of this situation better than most. China is terrible, it made the worst communication mistakes with Israel when this whole thing started. They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has.

ignoramous 3y ago
> They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here. If I am being Machiavellian, I can see why ethnic cleansing might be an eventual option when push comes to shove, while morphing the well-meaning Oslo Accords into apartheid (some object to use of this term, I am none the wiser) is the ongoing preference. > I don't think there's a preference for millitia ... There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc. This then seems like a federated government with two sets of laws and two power centers (like the one proposed to prevent the partition of British India) might be probable after a sustained period of peace, with free movement of goods and people; especially since going back to 1967 borders is non-workable to make way for a 2-state solution, on top of the already non-negotiable (from Israel's pov) Right to Return for the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. > The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists. Such tragic events are as much a chance for the centre / left to root out far-right and far-left as they're for them to cement their political ideology. I genuinely hope the US and the UK push the Israeli Government to abandon this concept of "security state" (as some put it) and work towards equal rights of the Palestine people (ie, make it part of the constitution). Some might say that it is an unfair outcome for Israel, but frankly, there's nothing that's been fair in this overwhelmingly one-sided conflict. Hopefully, the Arab League can offer wholesale normalization in exchange (not sure about Syria re: Golan Heights and other proxies of Iran). It'll be nice to see what peaceful Middle East looks like, for once. > The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers. Geo-politics is one way to look at it; another way is the human rights violations as reported by independent bodies (Amnesty, HRW, and even B'Tselem) which can't be merely dismissed as agenda of the Arab states? As one example: The 2006 Lebanon War, in particular, had heavy Lebanese civilian casualties (2 town centers leveled, for all intents and purposes, which still don't show much signs of infrastructure recovery), and another report claiming that Israel launched 5million mortars into Southern Lebanon after a cease fire was agreed (and 1 million of it remained unexploded). I am in the camp that believes that this recklessness is due to the impunity US affords Israel, which invariably, makes me very apprehensive of the US policing the region in general, even though, I genuinely think the US has much better ideals than most other Arab countries (not a high bar). > They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary. The critics (not me) come from a place where they say though Hamas violently lashes out for the sole purpose of spreading terror, their previous offers for a long truce (hudna; apparently accepted by the IDF but denied by the Israeli Government) and attempt at non-violent protests (The Great March of 2018) against the siege hasn't worked, as reportedly IDF maimed and killed 200+ Gazans. Norman Finkelstein says that as the reports of 7 Oct were coming out, it wasn't clear just what had happened, and that the left were wrong to put out statements in support of them. Then, he posits the notorious Mandela quip ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; I don't ascribe to it, because I haven't personally been subject to apartheid, but my community, not too dissimilar to the Druze, has been in 12th to 17th centuries in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Yemen; and thereafter across most of the British Empire) applies to Hamas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); and that while their terrorist acts are reprehensible as a matter of fact (innocent lives lost), the moral judgement is however harder to pass (ex: Nat Turner's rebellion against slavery in the US), given Israel's role in inciting / incentivizing such a response (again, not my view). > There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide. Understandable, but their response has been, from what I can tell, to incite Islamophobia. Remind the West that this is "a clash of civilizations". I'd rather relinquish all of Levant to Israel to have it stopped, because the previous wave wasn't at all easy. > It's about as triggering as can be. Sigh. Not to downplay or compare, but such triggers (Shoah v Nakba) exist on both sides, and it seems limitless, this cycle of anguish. > Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule. I predict a month or two from now, there will come a point when other (uninvolved) populace (in the West, even if not in the Arab world) will simply exhaust their emotional capacity to follow the conflict. It'll be interesting to see how things proceed then. I instead hope for war/crime trials (of those responsible on both sides), long-term truce, and expediting a 2-state plan (either Palestine as a protectorate / federate (without 1967 borders) enshrined in the Israeli constitution, or a sovereign republic (w/ 1967). > They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has. Don't think the Arab states trust the US... and I'd argue that indulging the nuances has what's led us to a complicated situation. I am not an expert, but in my own naive way, I think some hefty compromises are a way forward unless Israel believes it can remain a "security state" forever, and wait out a total Palestine defeat (as in Arabs leaving voluntarily). (ps sincere apologies if any of my replies have been inconsiderate / tone-deaf)

ignoramous 3y ago

> They have a fantasy of a demilitarized autonomy, I honestly don't have a good answer here. If I am being Machiavellian, I can see why ethnic cleansing might be an eventual option when push comes to shove, while morphing the well-meaning Oslo Accords into apartheid (some object to use of this term, I am none the wiser) is the ongoing preference. > I don't think there's a preference for millitia ... There's also execution of a solution which is MUCH harder, e.g. clearing settlements, etc. This then seems like a federated government with two sets of laws and two power centers (like the one proposed to prevent the partition of British India) might be probable after a sustained period of peace, with free movement of goods and people; especially since going back to 1967 borders is non-workable to make way for a 2-state solution, on top of the already non-negotiable (from Israel's pov) Right to Return for the Arab refugees in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. > The problem is that it's really hard to root out extremists. Such tragic events are as much a chance for the centre / left to root out far-right and far-left as they're for them to cement their political ideology. I genuinely hope the US and the UK push the Israeli Government to abandon this concept of "security state" (as some put it) and work towards equal rights of the Palestine people (ie, make it part of the constitution). Some might say that it is an unfair outcome for Israel, but frankly, there's nothing that's been fair in this overwhelmingly one-sided conflict. Hopefully, the Arab League can offer wholesale normalization in exchange (not sure about Syria re: Golan Heights and other proxies of Iran). It'll be nice to see what peaceful Middle East looks like, for once. > The vetos in the UN are related to resolutions brought about by Arab countries who have more influence in the UN due to their numbers. Geo-politics is one way to look at it; another way is the human rights violations as reported by independent bodies (Amnesty, HRW, and even B'Tselem) which can't be merely dismissed as agenda of the Arab states? As one example: The 2006 Lebanon War, in particular, had heavy Lebanese civilian casualties (2 town centers leveled, for all intents and purposes, which still don't show much signs of infrastructure recovery), and another report claiming that Israel launched 5million mortars into Southern Lebanon after a cease fire was agreed (and 1 million of it remained unexploded). I am in the camp that believes that this recklessness is due to the impunity US affords Israel, which invariably, makes me very apprehensive of the US policing the region in general, even though, I genuinely think the US has much better ideals than most other Arab countries (not a high bar). > They wrote that Israel is 100% to blame for everything even the attack on its own people. That is delusional and scary. The critics (not me) come from a place where they say though Hamas violently lashes out for the sole purpose of spreading terror, their previous offers for a long truce (hudna; apparently accepted by the IDF but denied by the Israeli Government) and attempt at non-violent protests (The Great March of 2018) against the siege hasn't worked, as reportedly IDF maimed and killed 200+ Gazans. Norman Finkelstein says that as the reports of 7 Oct were coming out, it wasn't clear just what had happened, and that the left were wrong to put out statements in support of them. Then, he posits the notorious Mandela quip ("One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; I don't ascribe to it, because I haven't personally been subject to apartheid, but my community, not too dissimilar to the Druze, has been in 12th to 17th centuries in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Yemen; and thereafter across most of the British Empire) applies to Hamas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m36CUGA1Ucw&t=2700); and that while their terrorist acts are reprehensible as a matter of fact (innocent lives lost), the moral judgement is however harder to pass (ex: Nat Turner's rebellion against slavery in the US), given Israel's role in inciting / incentivizing such a response (again, not my view). > There's concern that Israel will find itself isolated again if it lets such rhetoric slide. Understandable, but their response has been, from what I can tell, to incite Islamophobia. Remind the West that this is "a clash of civilizations". I'd rather relinquish all of Levant to Israel to have it stopped, because the previous wave wasn't at all easy. > It's about as triggering as can be. Sigh. Not to downplay or compare, but such triggers (Shoah v Nakba) exist on both sides, and it seems limitless, this cycle of anguish. > Biden is actually pushing to something that would resemble a Marshal plan for Gaza with UN rule. I predict a month or two from now, there will come a point when other (uninvolved) populace (in the West, even if not in the Arab world) will simply exhaust their emotional capacity to follow the conflict. It'll be interesting to see how things proceed then. I instead hope for war/crime trials (of those responsible on both sides), long-term truce, and expediting a 2-state plan (either Palestine as a protectorate / federate (without 1967 borders) enshrined in the Israeli constitution, or a sovereign republic (w/ 1967). > They don't have the capability of nuance or diplomacy that the US has. Don't think the Arab states trust the US... and I'd argue that indulging the nuances has what's led us to a complicated situation. I am not an expert, but in my own naive way, I think some hefty compromises are a way forward unless Israel believes it can remain a "security state" forever, and wait out a total Palestine defeat (as in Arabs leaving voluntarily). (ps sincere apologies if any of my replies have been inconsiderate / tone-deaf)