3 ms·

> Gazans are being exterminated regardless of their actions. That's simply factually inaccurate, Hamas started the latest war while the population of Gaza was

> Gazans are being exterminated regardless of their actions. That's simply factually inaccurate, Hamas started the latest war while the population of Gaza was growing. The Jews started the Warsaw Ghetto uprising while they were being actively exterminated(i.e. population declining).

watutalkinbout 2mo ago
Hamas isn't Gazans. The population of Gaza has been declining over the last 2 years as a direct result of 10s of thousands of Gazas being killed, including thousands of kids. The methods thankfully differ, but the goals are pretty similar. Both contain an ethnonational conception of the state, seek to secure political sovereignty for a particular ethnonational people, attach historical/national significance to territory, and contain expansionist/settlement currents aimed at extending that people's presence and political control over territory. And the direction of movement is towards similarity (not away from it) - eg nation state bill. Israel's main strategy until recently appeared to be to maximise suffering to force displacement. I don't really see a realistic peaceful strategy for Gazans based on decades of history, they have little power. It's like an amplified Northern Ireland.
- jameshilliard 2mo ago
  > Hamas isn't Gazans. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza and retains a high level of support amongst the population. The population could put more pressure on Hamas to disarm but so far it has been fairly minimal. > Israel's main strategy until recently appeared to be to maximise suffering to force displacement. Israel's strategy before October 7th was one of containment, but that clearly failed so they switched to a strategy of proactive threat management. Israel probably should just fully occupy the territories in the short term and make a more serious attempt at Palestinian de-radicalization so that hopefully some sort of two state solution eventually becomes viable. Occupation with de-radicalization worked with the Nazi's and Imperial Japan at the end of WW2 but Israeli's just really don't want to have to fully occupy Gaza so that's going to be politically problematic. > I don't really see a realistic peaceful strategy for Gazans based on decades of history, they have little power. They had opportunities for peace, Palestinian leadership ultimately threw those opportunities away by refusing to even so much as propose a concrete peace deal that would be acceptable.
  - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
    I'm struggling to work out if you actually believe this, which seems unlikely, or if it's just a plausible facade.
    - jameshilliard 2mo ago
      > I'm struggling to work out if you actually believe this, which seems unlikely, or if it's just a plausible facade. I think my positions/views are fairly middle of the road/moderate when it comes to the conflict.
      - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
        I think if you believe that a two state solution is a potential future outcome (without gargantuan shifts in numerous things), then I think you aren't evaluating information sources very well (which to be fair applies to all of us constantly). I'm inclined to think that's largely true about the past too, although there was a point around 2000 where it wasn't fantasy. But given settlement activity continued over this time, it's hardly a realistic basis on which to form agreement. Why negotiate the borders of a Palestinian state while the territory you're negotiating over is continuing to be settled? Israel is a very sophisticated political actor (that holds nearly all the power), it's a complex mix of political opinions (which don't align) but whatever those are, the state itself in terms of how it acts in the world looks a lot like Russia in the information space. Case in point the original post all these comments sit under. That's partly a function of the particular position Israel is in, and in the same way that Palestinian authority is mostly politically unsophisticated isn't surprising. That should affects the way we account for information surrounding Israel-Palestine, like when for the thousandth time an Israeli spokesman appears on the BBC to very reasonably tell us about the strong ethical rules that govern the IDF, and that this particular incident was just a terrible accident. The hardline elements within Israel ultimately win, through various tactics, above and below board, which is not particularly surprising given the history of some of the characters involved (and that deep rooted mindset) over the years (Irgun etc), who were also very happy to carry out terrorism on British targets alongside their list of other atrocities. The 'moderate' position is always taken in by apparent reasonableness over the immediately recollectable present. That is changing though, for largely obvious reasons, which is good. Topical data point: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly50gn1e54o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly50gn1e54o

watutalkinbout 2mo ago

Hamas isn't Gazans. The population of Gaza has been declining over the last 2 years as a direct result of 10s of thousands of Gazas being killed, including thousands of kids. The methods thankfully differ, but the goals are pretty similar. Both contain an ethnonational conception of the state, seek to secure political sovereignty for a particular ethnonational people, attach historical/national significance to territory, and contain expansionist/settlement currents aimed at extending that people's presence and political control over territory. And the direction of movement is towards similarity (not away from it) - eg nation state bill. Israel's main strategy until recently appeared to be to maximise suffering to force displacement. I don't really see a realistic peaceful strategy for Gazans based on decades of history, they have little power. It's like an amplified Northern Ireland.

jameshilliard 2mo ago
> Hamas isn't Gazans. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza and retains a high level of support amongst the population. The population could put more pressure on Hamas to disarm but so far it has been fairly minimal. > Israel's main strategy until recently appeared to be to maximise suffering to force displacement. Israel's strategy before October 7th was one of containment, but that clearly failed so they switched to a strategy of proactive threat management. Israel probably should just fully occupy the territories in the short term and make a more serious attempt at Palestinian de-radicalization so that hopefully some sort of two state solution eventually becomes viable. Occupation with de-radicalization worked with the Nazi's and Imperial Japan at the end of WW2 but Israeli's just really don't want to have to fully occupy Gaza so that's going to be politically problematic. > I don't really see a realistic peaceful strategy for Gazans based on decades of history, they have little power. They had opportunities for peace, Palestinian leadership ultimately threw those opportunities away by refusing to even so much as propose a concrete peace deal that would be acceptable.
- watutalkinbout 2mo ago
  I'm struggling to work out if you actually believe this, which seems unlikely, or if it's just a plausible facade.
  - jameshilliard 2mo ago
    > I'm struggling to work out if you actually believe this, which seems unlikely, or if it's just a plausible facade. I think my positions/views are fairly middle of the road/moderate when it comes to the conflict.
    - watutalkinbout 2mo ago
      I think if you believe that a two state solution is a potential future outcome (without gargantuan shifts in numerous things), then I think you aren't evaluating information sources very well (which to be fair applies to all of us constantly). I'm inclined to think that's largely true about the past too, although there was a point around 2000 where it wasn't fantasy. But given settlement activity continued over this time, it's hardly a realistic basis on which to form agreement. Why negotiate the borders of a Palestinian state while the territory you're negotiating over is continuing to be settled? Israel is a very sophisticated political actor (that holds nearly all the power), it's a complex mix of political opinions (which don't align) but whatever those are, the state itself in terms of how it acts in the world looks a lot like Russia in the information space. Case in point the original post all these comments sit under. That's partly a function of the particular position Israel is in, and in the same way that Palestinian authority is mostly politically unsophisticated isn't surprising. That should affects the way we account for information surrounding Israel-Palestine, like when for the thousandth time an Israeli spokesman appears on the BBC to very reasonably tell us about the strong ethical rules that govern the IDF, and that this particular incident was just a terrible accident. The hardline elements within Israel ultimately win, through various tactics, above and below board, which is not particularly surprising given the history of some of the characters involved (and that deep rooted mindset) over the years (Irgun etc), who were also very happy to carry out terrorism on British targets alongside their list of other atrocities. The 'moderate' position is always taken in by apparent reasonableness over the immediately recollectable present. That is changing though, for largely obvious reasons, which is good. Topical data point: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly50gn1e54o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly50gn1e54o