7 ms·

I very much agree that calling any criticism of Israel anti-semitic is both factually wrong and very bad, on many levels. The main thing that upsets Israelis i

by edanm 3y ago

I very much agree that calling any criticism of Israel anti-semitic is both factually wrong and very bad, on many levels. The main thing that upsets Israelis is when the criticism is: 1. Specific only to Israel, and/or far harsher on Israel than on other similar countries for no reason. 2. The criticism offers no path by which Israel is allowed to defend itself. It's totally legit (and morally must be done) to criticize Israel if it does bad things - but if literally every action that Israel takes is criticized as being "too much", the end result can only be "Israel cannot do anything". Btw, small language nitpick - the correct term is "Israeli" not "Israelian", at least in English.

hef19898 3y ago
It is tricky isn't it? Because both sides in this conflict have the right to exist and defend themselves. Terror attacks are not self defence, nor are illegal settlements or what amounts to terror bombing. Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.
- ido 3y ago
  I think if Netanyahu loses the next elections and is replaced with more moderate voices (like Ganz or former PM Lapid), and if the US/NATO/UN peace keeping forces will agree to PLO's leadership wishes to back them into taking control of the Gaza strip with Hamas as a junior partner in its government we may get there. But a lot of these things may not happen.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    I really hope it plays out like this. What really pisses me off so, Hamas leadership is sitting savely in the Emirates. And the religious right in Israel, the ones promoting the settlement policies for example (their rethoric isn't something I'll repeat or even cite) is excempt from serving in the military to an extent.
- edanm 3y ago
  For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it. > Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances. The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that. Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
    - edanm 3y ago
      > Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself. > The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets. Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force. Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)

by edanm 3y ago

hef19898 3y ago

It is tricky isn't it? Because both sides in this conflict have the right to exist and defend themselves. Terror attacks are not self defence, nor are illegal settlements or what amounts to terror bombing. Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. And that won't hapoen for all kinds of reasons. Displacing all Gazans isn't a solution neither so, and if tried it would isolate Israel internationally. And by extension of that risking of deviding the world at large into supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestinians, in which case this whole thing could blow up in everyones faces.

ido 3y ago
I think if Netanyahu loses the next elections and is replaced with more moderate voices (like Ganz or former PM Lapid), and if the US/NATO/UN peace keeping forces will agree to PLO's leadership wishes to back them into taking control of the Gaza strip with Hamas as a junior partner in its government we may get there. But a lot of these things may not happen.
- hef19898 3y ago
  I really hope it plays out like this. What really pisses me off so, Hamas leadership is sitting savely in the Emirates. And the religious right in Israel, the ones promoting the settlement policies for example (their rethoric isn't something I'll repeat or even cite) is excempt from serving in the military to an extent.
edanm 3y ago
For the record, I am completely against the illegal settlements. Though if you're referring to the current war when you say "terror bombing", I disagree with that description of it. > Honestly, I have no idea how solve this besides some larger power stepping in. Honestly, what needs to happen is completely obvious to everyone. The only way peace will happen is if there is a two state solution in which Palestinians get some land (presumably the WB, Gaza, and/or land swaps for existing settlements that are hard to move). And Israel gets some security assurances. The only problem is that there have been no leaders on either side willing to reach such a deal, or at least, we haven't had leaders on both sides willing to reach a deal at the same time.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Absolutely agree on the two state solution, withe qual security assurances and existence rights for both. Otherwise it will end with a last man standing thing, and hopefully only a very small minority is actually fine with that. Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing, we can call startegic bombing if you want. Point is, this didn't work once since it was first tried, small scale, in WW1 and at an unprecedented scale in WW2. It didn't work in Vietnam neither. Or Iraq, the Balcans... The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. For the very same reason I am utterly opposed to drone warfare as done by the West in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan, among others.
  - edanm 3y ago
    > Re bombing: Using unopposed air power to wreck civil infrastructre is pretty much the definition of terror bombing It isn't done to wreck civil infrastructure, it's done to attack Hamas that is cynically using that civil infrastructure for itself. > The difference between an air strike resulting in 20 colleteral casualties and a suicide bomber (which Hamas hasn't used so far if I am not mistaken) doing the same thing is the means and available resources. Well the intent is a big difference too. Trying to kill civilians on purpose vs. air striking valid military targets. Though yes of course, if Hamas had the means of bombing Israel with something stronger than what it's using now, no doubt it would do so. Imagine that they ever get those means - a rocket that Iron Dome can't stop for example - the direct result of that would be Israel being forced to attack Gaza with far more force. Also, Hamas not using suicide bomers? Are you kidding? They've been using them for dozens of years in order to disrupt peace processes, among other things. Even after October 7th, there have been additional terror attacks that Hamas has claimed credit for (though I think it was stabbings, not a suicide bomber specifically, not sure.)