Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

Although WW1s aftermath created a lot of strife in my part of the world, I will give you that ww2 is a more apt example of total war by nations/ethnicities against each other)

Croatia isn't considered a core territory by Serbians so they gave up the way colonisers gave up their colonies or Russia the Warsaw pact states. It does not disprove my point.

You were too young to remember when Yugoslavia was a nation.  It may be that young Serbs do not view Croatia as a core part of greater Serbia, but that has not always been the case.  In fact, they did actually fight a war over this issue. 

And you have not yet addressed the Czechoslovakian example.

You might just want to back down from your claim that there has been no resolution absent starving another patient citizens to death.

[The Minsky Moment]

Also, Hamas would still be the most voted party by a large difference (as of May). Both in the West Bank and Gaza.

No surprise there.  The IDF has been the best recruiting program for Hamas in years.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think we have to go to Yugoslavia for historical analogues, there is one closer to home.  Maronites and Muslims were trapped in a seemingly intractable cycle of violence not that long ago. Lebanon is far from being a model for anything, but that communal violence has subsided.

[Tamas]

I don't think we have to go to Yugoslavia for historical analogues, there is one closer to home.  Maronites and Muslims were trapped in a seemingly intractable cycle of violence not that long ago. Lebanon is far from being a model for anything, but that communal violence has subsided.

Did it happen before Iran made Hezbollah the strongest faction there? Honest question.

[Grey Fox]

Euros, go enjoy the presence of others.
Americans, back to work.

[Tamas]

Although WW1s aftermath created a lot of strife in my part of the world, I will give you that ww2 is a more apt example of total war by nations/ethnicities against each other)

Croatia isn't considered a core territory by Serbians so they gave up the way colonisers gave up their colonies or Russia the Warsaw pact states. It does not disprove my point.

You were too young to remember when Yugoslavia was a nation.  It may be that young Serbs do not view Croatia as a core part of greater Serbia, but that has not always been the case.  In fact, they did actually fight a war over this issue. 

And you have not yet addressed the Czechoslovakian example.

You might just want to back down from your claim that there has been no resolution absent starving another patient citizens to death.

I was born in 1980 mate, I remember people being worried due to the Serbian atrempts to draw Hungary into their war.

There was never Czech-Slovak emnity past squabbling, I am not even sure what I am supposed to comment there. I am sorry, try finding out what's the average Slovakian view of Czechs vs Hungarians, you have clearly no lived experience of how these ethnic hostilities work.

I don't know how high Croatia is on the Serbian reconquest list but I am petty sure it's below Kosovo and Bosnia. Serbs let them go before militairly they had no choice. Let the Serbs get back those two other countries and see the two coexist peacefully sharing a border with Croatia and then you will have one counterpoint against the ones I raised.

But on the other hand if you think Croatia and (lol) Czechoslovakia are viable examples for Israel to follow to manage the conflict with the Palestinians, please do share what you consider lessons learned. Because I can't see the resemblance, let alone the shared road to a solution.

[Razgovory]

Are you saying the US wars vs Canada and Mexico were ethnic conflicts comparable in nature to those of the 20th century? Give me a break.

No, of course not.  He's saying that the wars between colonists and natives in US, Canada and Mexico were solved without ethnic cleansing or starvation.

[Razgovory]

And you have not yet addressed the Czechoslovakian example.

The peaceful dissolution of a state without hunger or ethnic cleansing:

[grumbler]

*: by unfair I mean that when Western countries faced similar conflicts, they couldn't find another way to victory than the one Israel is applying. In WW2 they indiscriminately bombed civilian populations to subdue the fascist nations. Violence still brutal but not that brutal failed to achieve it's aims (Vietnam etc). The only other option that "worked" was retreat like in numerous colonial independence movements. Which is an option Israel do NOT have - the UK retreating from India and other former colonies achieved peace between the ex-colony and the UK because the ex-colony's population had achieved their full aim. Israel cannot do so because an influential portion of the opposing population wants them gone not just from the post-1967 borders but beyond.

The Western Allies did not "indiscriminately [bomb] civilian populations to subdue the fascist nations," no matter how revisionist historians want to claim that.  Considering the cost in lives, treasure, and time, it is absurd to contend that the allies would randomly bomb Germany or Japan. They always had a military target in mind, even when that target was intended to dehouse the population so as to make them less productive in the factories.

Nor is it true that the only tactic that worked besides indiscriminate killing of civilians was retreat. The British settled the Malay Insurgency without either randomly killing civilians or retreating. Ditto the Mau Mau rebellion, the South Africans in Angola, and on and on.

Having said that, I think it equally untrue that Israel is today just randomly bombing civilians in Gaza. What I think is true is that they are not applying the required scrutiny of necessity and proportionality when they do decide to accept collateral losses.

I think that the deliberate famine is much more reprehensible and sinister behavior, since it is unrelated to their stated war aims.

[Razgovory]

Okay, the Israelis should do what the British did in Malaya.  

[Josquius]

But to suggest the current conflict in Gaza is a core survival interest for Israel is just no right. This isn't the Yom Kippur War here. Israel as a whole was never in any serious danger. Had the government been competent what casualties they did suffer in the initial attack could have been slashed dramatically.  It's a hostage rescue gone horribly wrong. On the face. More cyncially a naked power grab. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks Israel being pissed is understandable. But even then thinking their national survival is under threat would be nuts. Still due to the brutality of the attacks and high emotions some leeway could be given at first. But as the hours became days became weeks became months became years.... Jeez. You partially misunderstood my point. I don't want to get into discussing whether Israel (surrounded by several countries and organisations publicly wishing for their country's destruction since 1948) is justified to fear for their national survival, as my post also mentions, that's beside the point. Moreover, for this scenario, you only need to have one side to feel like that. And even if Israel wouldn't, the Palestinians, or at least sufficient portion of them, do, in the sense that they have been refusing compromise two-state solutions since 1948, in the hope of resolving the territorial questions with them dictating the terms the same way the Israelis are dictating now. And, again, for my overall point, this doesn't matter. What I am saying is that it is incorrect and somewhat unfair* to say that the conflict Israel is facing can be resoled without a major impact on the Palestinian civilian population. No. The same way the Palestinian preferred outcome could not be achieved without a major impact on the Israeli civilian population. Such conflicts end (permanently) either because one side wins and then ethnically cleanses the areas in question, or a power stronger than both combatants enforces a truce by force of arms. *: by unfair I mean that when Western countries faced similar conflicts, they couldn't find another way to victory than the one Israel is applying. In WW2 they indiscriminately bombed civilian populations to subdue the fascist nations. Violence still brutal but not that brutal failed to achieve it's aims (Vietnam etc). The only other option that "worked" was retreat like in numerous colonial independence movements. Which is an option Israel do NOT have - the UK retreating from India and other former colonies achieved peace between the ex-colony and the UK because the ex-colony's population had achieved their full aim. Israel cannot do so because an influential portion of the opposing population wants them gone not just from the post-1967 borders but beyond. Is a constant cycle of brutalisation, keeping Gaza impoverished and hopes really the correct approach to take if you want them to like you? Or at least to not vote for extremist lunatics who are willing to sell them down the river if it means killing you? Many of the people in Gaza hate Israel and want to commit genocide?- shocked pikachu face. Saying "maybe we just didn't bomb them hard enough last time"? Also seems doomed to failure. And that's just looking at things purely from a selfish Israeli POV. From the general human side this is not great. If we want to learn from WW2 a good lesson to take is how the western allies to a large extent didn't repeat the punishment approach of WW1. They put quite a bit of effort into rebuilding the destroyed axis nations and educating them that fascism was bad. This "Palestinian preferred outcome" you mention isn't happening. It's not even worth considering. But a more educated people with a higher quality of life and something to live for are less likely to support this kind of silliness.

[Iormlund]

If we want to learn from WW2 a good lesson to take is how the western allies to a large extent didn't repeat the punishment approach of WW1.
They put quite a bit of effort into rebuilding the destroyed axis nations and educating them that fascism was bad.

We already tried the rebuilding stuff bit. The US, EU and Arab states funded the shit out of Palestine after the Oslo Accords.

As for education, how do you figure that would go? It worked in Germany and Japan because most people clearly acknowledged the Nazi and Imperial regimes were, at the very least, catastrophic. Most Palestinians still think the Oct 7 attack was the correct course of action.

[Josquius]

If we want to learn from WW2 a good lesson to take is how the western allies to a large extent didn't repeat the punishment approach of WW1.
They put quite a bit of effort into rebuilding the destroyed axis nations and educating them that fascism was bad.

We already tried the rebuilding stuff bit. The US, EU and Arab states funded the shit out of Palestine after the Oslo Accords.

As for education, how do you figure that would go? It worked in Germany and Japan because most people clearly acknowledged the Nazi and Imperial regimes were, at the very least, catastrophic. Most Palestinians still think the Oct 7 attack was the correct course of action.

A majority of Germans in 1945 still thought Hitler was rather great. When you've got a nation declaring itself your enemy and destroying your country, killing your kids, day after day, then it is expected you wouldn't really reflect on whether the same happening to a few of them was a good thing or not.

I'm not suggesting it will be easy or would happen over night. But it's a much better solution than continuing the traditional  Israeli policy of mowing the lawn or the current one with innumerable labels.

There is a bit of a notable difference between the slightly better (but still awful) situation of the West Bank and that of Gaza.

[Razgovory]

If we want to learn from WW2 a good lesson to take is how the western allies to a large extent didn't repeat the punishment approach of WW1.
They put quite a bit of effort into rebuilding the destroyed axis nations and educating them that fascism was bad.

We already tried the rebuilding stuff bit. The US, EU and Arab states funded the shit out of Palestine after the Oslo Accords.

As for education, how do you figure that would go? It worked in Germany and Japan because most people clearly acknowledged the Nazi and Imperial regimes were, at the very least, catastrophic. Most Palestinians still think the Oct 7 attack was the correct course of action.

It worked in Germany and Japan because they were completely occupied, and completely broken after the brutal war, ethnic cleansing and starvation.  We face very little resistance from Germany and Japan because shortly after the war pretty much every able bodied male, (along with many of not-so-able bodied men) were in camps.  They were not all treated well and many were denied their rights as POWs under the Geneva Conventions so we didn't have to feed them as much.

While putting much of the population of Gaza in camps and slowly filtering them based on political affiliation would probably work, it is unlikely to be popular with the rest of the world.  I doubt CC, Zoupa and Josq would approve of it.  They certainly wouldn't like Palestinian prisoners working on Israeli farms for years, like German prisoners did in Britain.

We Westerners live in a world of peace and tolerance.  We've forgotten what was required to get us there.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Although WW1s aftermath created a lot of strife in my part of the world, I will give you that ww2 is a more apt example of total war by nations/ethnicities against each other)

Croatia isn't considered a core territory by Serbians so they gave up the way colonisers gave up their colonies or Russia the Warsaw pact states. It does not disprove my point.

You were too young to remember when Yugoslavia was a nation.  It may be that young Serbs do not view Croatia as a core part of greater Serbia, but that has not always been the case.  In fact, they did actually fight a war over this issue. 

And you have not yet addressed the Czechoslovakian example.

You might just want to back down from your claim that there has been no resolution absent starving another patient citizens to death.

Croatia saw heavy fighting in the 90s. Quite some ethnic cleansing too. The krajina might ring a bell. The Croatian did manage to liberate the territory occupied by the Serbs in the end, resulting in a significant amount of them having to fuck off out of the country.

My pa was there as an observer in the early 90s, when the inhabitants of Zagreb were using everything they could find to make sandbags.
Pretty sure he observed stuff when he had to observe around Bihac. Not that we (mum and I) know details, but he was not the same after.

The only part that got away clean was Slovenia since they were shielded by Croatia and furthest away. They had about a week of conflict iirc.