Israel-Hamas War 2023

[OttoVonBismarck]

Much like American settlers arrived on Indigenous lands with the authorization of the federal government, yet it doesn't seem quite right to say it wasn't colonization.

So you would say that legal asylees in Europe and America are colonizers? (I bet not, almost like you're just going to twist various ways to ape stupid lefty biases on Israel.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

Edit: Incidentally this is partl why I suspect Hamas have also been preparing for this stage of the Israeli response too.

Eh, based on Hamas calls for peace I think they are actually not that prepared for this stage.

Hamas own leadership claims only a small number of top military commanders knew of the attacks beforehand. That suggests the entire organization probably was not preparing for this, which is probably part of how it was never detected by Israeli intelligence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It occurs to me that the people who think that the Jewish population who settled in what is now the state of Israel we're always there may not understand the history of how the state of Israel was created.

The idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.

Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it make sense for them to have some small enclave out of the huge swathe of Ottoman lands to try and live in?

And the Ottomans were not "colonizers" of the Levant, that's stupid and dumb, and attempting to water down the word "colonizer" to basically mean "anything."

There have always been large movements of peoples and cultures throughout Anatolia / Middle East/Levant, not all migrations are colonization, not all movements of peoples are colonization.

[crazy canuck]

It occurs to me that the people who think that the Jewish population who settled in what is now the state of Israel we're always there may not understand the history of how the state of Israel was created.

The idea that they were "always there" is silly, but the idea that means they have less right to be there than the Arabs is confusing and dumb. The Ottoman Empire had 900,000 Jews, almost none of whom were ever going to be allowed to remain in Islamist or Arab Nationalist post-Ottoman states.

Were they just supposed to fuck off and die? Or did it make sense for them to have some small enclave out of the huge swathe of Ottoman lands to try and live in?

And the Ottomans were not "colonizers" of the Levant, that's stupid and dumb, and attempting to water down the word "colonizer" to basically mean "anything."

There have always been large movements of peoples and cultures throughout Anatolia / Middle East/Levant, not all migrations are colonization, not all movements of peoples are colonization.

You are ignoring entirely the influx of populations which occurred after the Balfour declaration, and particularly after the creation of the state of Israel. If you read the history of the region, there was not much if any conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian communities until the Palestinian started to be displaced from their historical homelands.

To put it bluntly the local Palestinian communities did not treat the Jewish communities the way the Israeli community is now treating the Palestinians.

The Israelis have an effectively told the Palestinians to, in your words, fuck off and leave.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You are ignoring entirely the influx of populations which occurred after the Balfour declaration, and particularly after the creation of the state of Israel. If you read the history of the region, there was not much if any conflict between the Jewish and Palestinian communities until the Palestinian started to be displaced from their historical homelands.

I'm not ignoring it, I am saying it wasn't that large. 900,000 Jews were expelled or migrated from other parts of the former Ottoman Empire because they were being actively forced, or the "writing was on the wall" that they were not welcome.

In 1922, the first census in the British Mandate since its takeover found around 80,000 Jews. Most of these were indeed Jews who had settled, often with financial backing from wealthier European Jews, as part of the deliberate Zionist colonization movement--going back to around 1880. [I will correct your claim that they were living peacefully with the Palestinians. Their MO was to buy land from absentee Turkish land lords; most based in Istanbul, many Arab residents in the 1880s were still semi-Nomadic, and the settled Arabs often were living on land they either rented--or had simply occupied without owning for years. There were common clashes between Zionist settlements and Arab villages.] A small share of that 80,000 were members of the "permanent" Jewish population in the Levant which had actually been there since time immemorial, but it was such a small population as to be relatively irrelevant to our discussion.

By 1931 the Jewish population had grown to 173,000--which certainly was caused by the Balfour Declaration increasing Jewish interest in migration. However, this is still before the large migrations.

In 1941 the population jumped to 475,000--and this jump was almost entirely Jews fleeing, or being forced out, of other places. Then it jumped again to 600,000 in 1946--again, almost entirely refugee driven growth. And then it jumped against after Israeli statehood was declared and successfully defended--and this was the largest growth and night-entirely refugee driven.

If not for the Jewish refugee crisis it is unlikely that the Jewish population in the mandate would have even exceeded 200,000 by 1945, so pretending that the mass of Jewish refugees aren't the primary story of Israel's founding is incredibly false.

To put it bluntly the local Palestinian communities did not treat the Jewish communities the way the Israeli community is now treating the Palestinians.

The local Arab communities never won wars against the Jews and took military occupation over their lands, so it isn't a direct comparison. But the idea that the Palestinians were docile loving lambs who just hugged everyone is entirely fictional. If you have even studied the history of the British and French Mandates at all you would know the entire region was awash in religious and ethnic nationalist violence throughout the 1930s and 40s. Roving bands of genocidal men were active, with all communities participating. There were bands of Jewish soldiers who went around mass murdering Arab Muslims and Christians. There were bands of Arab Christians and Muslims who did the same to Jews (and to other Arabs of the "wrong" religion.) Minority ethnic and religious groups like the Assyrians, Kurds, Yazidi, Druze and Alawites all suffered varying degrees of mass murder with genocidal intent. Even just "local" minorities, like groups of Arabs in one region who were Sunni when more of the locals were Shiite, and vice versa, suffered as well.

This was a rough time, a time of nationalism and religious supremacy, in an age when the Western world was busy gearing up for (and later fighting) WWII. Only someone with a strong preconceived bias is going to come in and paint the Jews as the villains--or really any of the "broad" ethnic / religious groups. All of these groups had villainous murderers in them, but it is not helpful and frankly encourages bigoted thinking to "blame" Arabs, or Christians, or Jews or Muslims.

[Tamas]

Also an annoying point I often see from the useful idiots is the whole "Jews have been there for millenia. Its natural homeland! Palestinians have other countries!" thing.
A whole lot of ignorance of just where the Palestinian population come from- a huge chunk of their makeup comes from the native population who were Christianised under the Romans then heavily Islam/Arabised under the various muslim empires.

The Palestinians sadly seem to have themselves (well, their ancestors) to blame with much of this- it previously being considered socially desirable to concentrate on that one bit of your heritage that can be traced back to the Arab homeland.

If you want to bring genetics into this then of course most people if they live where they were born would carry genes back to the first settlement of that place, I am sure, unless we are saying that shift of cultures also meant total physical eradication of followers of previous cultures. Which I am fairly sure study of history moved past a long time ago.

Also what is the ultimate goal of this discussion? To decide who has dibs on the land? This might seem like a unique Israel/Palestine conundrum to you but the Balkans and Eastern Europe is choke full of similar conflicts and dilemmas. Who does Transylvania belong to, for example? Romanians? Why? Because they have some dubious continution claims from ancient Roman times? What about the Hungarians for whom -in a very clearly recorded way- it was a key economic and more importantly cultural region for a thousand years? But what about the Romanians who also very clearly recordedly lived there for many centuries? What about the Germans who played a key role in urbanisation there? Oh wait forget about the Germans they have largely been shipped out.

Kosovo? Bosnia? Novi Sad and its region full of Hungarians in Serbia? Moldova? Etc. etc.

For some reason the Western public isn't constantly spinning around like crazy over these. Sure there isn't any quasi-apartheid of Hungarians going on now but all these various ethnicities were merrily pogroming and cleansing each other since the mid-19th century at least. Or in Kosovo, is anyone considering just MAYBE the Serbs stuck on the brand-new side of the border might have rightful grievances? Do those grievances mean Albanians have no right to avoid risking being ethnic cleansed again?

So I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.

[The Minsky Moment]

Pre-47, there was always a small but material Jewish community in the Palestinian region.  There was a good deal of immigration in the Ottoman period and good deal more in the British mandatory period.  IMO it makes zero sense to refer to that immigration as colonization, any more than it makes sense to refer to Chinese colonizing the lower east side of New York city or Dominicans colonizing Washington Heights.  Colonization implies territorial and jurisdictional control and the Jews had none.  They were admitted under Ottoman/British law and subject to their jurisdiction.

Pre 48 the only ones colonizing Palestine were the Ottomans and British.

The events of 1948-1967 are familiar to most and while any number of claims or judgments can be made, the concept of colonization simply doesn't fit.

Post 67, the 21st century era build up of settlements in the occupied areas of the West Bank does fit within the rubric of colonization.  But that phenomenon has nothing to do with Hamas and Gaza.  Hamas does not particularly object to the WB settlements, it objects to Israel tout court.  It isn't bombing Modin, it is shelling Ashkelon.

I make these points for the sake of accuracy or clarity not as pleading for the Israeli side.  I personally do not take the term "colonial" as the all purpose term of abuse that some do.  I happen to live in a nation founded by colonizers out of colonial states.  I do think such an origin creates certain continuing moral obligations to persons displaced by that process, and that is an area where both the USA and Israel have historically failed rather badly.  But again that is not the matter at issue today in Gaza.

[crazy canuck]

So I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.

You make good points.  I would add to your list that one should not ignore the political influence North American evangelicals have and their believe that the existence of Israel is necessary so that the Temple can be rebuilt in order for Jesus to return according to their interpretation of biblical prophecy.

[viper37]

I've been trying to find reliable numbers to see how big support Hamas has in Gaza. I've seen everything from 95% to almost nothing.

Most reliable numbers point to something like more than half of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, with numbers from June 2023. Their support seems to go down in calmer times and up in times of conflict. Their support is larger in Gaza, something like 55-60% and amongst the younger population.

That's to compare with the Nazi's peaking at 37% of the vote, can't really find popularity numbers for later years. In parliamentary democracies it's very very rare to have a party with over 50% of the popular vote.

So, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.

The scenes of support from around the world for the terrorist acts and the horrible triumphal scenes from inside Gaza when the captives were driven around reinforces this view.

In short, their support inside Gaza seems less than I would have guessed, but still very very solid. This terrorist act seems to have popular support behind it, although it can be hard to know that.

Edit: According to wiki there's something like 2.4 million inhabitants in Gaza. The population being young means that I should guess that there's about 1 million adult supporters of Hamas. And in my mind they are fully deserving of the dildo of consequences, but something like 1-1.5 million non-adults or non-supporters of Hamas are stuck there also. It's an absolutely horrible nightmare.

From what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.

A majority reject the extremist views of Hamas, but a solid core approve of their terrorism actions and their objective of a Palestine without Jews.

Just like a solid percentage of Israelis approve of the colonization and the constant destruction and killing of Palestinian civilians, regardless of their involvement with Hamas.

75 years of warfare tend to do that to people.  I don't think the Siegebreaker view is the odd, isolated one among the Israeli.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So I think the reason why Palestine is the only of the dozens of such disputed territories being focused is because a) the Jews are involved and b) the Palestinians are resorting to terrorism to get their voice heard.

Well put Tamas.

[OttoVonBismarck]

From what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.

It is actually possible Hamas is less corrupt than Fatah. Fatah and the PLO on a percentile scale, are basically at "100%" corruption. So even if Hamas is "only" 75% corrupt, that is still a significant amount less corrupt than Fatah. Now, Hamas is also a violent terrorist group, which definitely outweighs any positives in their being less corrupt administratively.

[PJL]

I've been trying to find reliable numbers to see how big support Hamas has in Gaza. I've seen everything from 95% to almost nothing.

Most reliable numbers point to something like more than half of all Palestinians support Hamas over Fatah, with numbers from June 2023. Their support seems to go down in calmer times and up in times of conflict. Their support is larger in Gaza, something like 55-60% and amongst the younger population.

That's to compare with the Nazi's peaking at 37% of the vote, can't really find popularity numbers for later years. In parliamentary democracies it's very very rare to have a party with over 50% of the popular vote.

So, from a general view Hamas can be seen as having overwhelming support from the population of Gaza, it's about as common to not support them as it is to believe in UFO's in the US, about 40%.

The scenes of support from around the world for the terrorist acts and the horrible triumphal scenes from inside Gaza when the captives were driven around reinforces this view.

In short, their support inside Gaza seems less than I would have guessed, but still very very solid. This terrorist act seems to have popular support behind it, although it can be hard to know that.

Edit: According to wiki there's something like 2.4 million inhabitants in Gaza. The population being young means that I should guess that there's about 1 million adult supporters of Hamas. And in my mind they are fully deserving of the dildo of consequences, but something like 1-1.5 million non-adults or non-supporters of Hamas are stuck there also. It's an absolutely horrible nightmare.

From what I read, most Palestinians seem to view Hamas as less corrupt than Fatah.

A majority reject the extremist views of Hamas, but a solid core approve of their terrorism actions and their objective of a Palestine without Jews.

Just like a solid percentage of Israelis approve of the colonization and the constant destruction and killing of Palestinian civilians, regardless of their involvement with Hamas.

75 years of warfare tend to do that to people.  I don't think the Siegebreaker view is the odd, isolated one among the Israeli.

It's not just an Israel/Palestine thing IMO. I've come to the conclusion that a third of humanity are just nasty, plain & simple. You may quibble on the exact numbers, but I reckon that figure is a good ballpark estimate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Israel's military has discovered unspeakable horrors in an Israeli community that was attacked by Hamas on Saturday, including dozens of dead babies, some with of their heads chopped off, Israeli media reported.

According to local Israeli outlet i24News, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers moved into Kfar Aza, one of the communities Hamas terrorists invaded early Saturday morning, and discovered about 40 dead babies, some decapitated — highlighting the brutality of the invading forces.

[crazy canuck]

Pre-47, there was always a small but material Jewish community in the Palestinian region.  There was a good deal of immigration in the Ottoman period and good deal more in the British mandatory period.  IMO it makes zero sense to refer to that immigration as colonization, any more than it makes sense to refer to Chinese colonizing the lower east side of New York city or Dominicans colonizing Washington Heights.  Colonization implies territorial and jurisdictional control and the Jews had none.  They were admitted under Ottoman/British law and subject to their jurisdiction.

Pre 48 the only ones colonizing Palestine were the Ottomans and British.

The events of 1948-1967 are familiar to most and while any number of claims or judgments can be made, the concept of colonization simply doesn't fit.

Post 67, the 21st century era build up of settlements in the occupied areas of the West Bank does fit within the rubric of colonization.  But that phenomenon has nothing to do with Hamas and Gaza.  Hamas does not particularly object to the WB settlements, it objects to Israel tout court.  It isn't bombing Modin, it is shelling Ashkelon.

I make these points for the sake of accuracy or clarity not as pleading for the Israeli side.  I personally do not take the term "colonial" as the all purpose term of abuse that some do.  I happen to live in a nation founded by colonizers out of colonial states.  I do think such an origin creates certain continuing moral obligations to persons displaced by that process, and that is an area where both the USA and Israel have historically failed rather badly.  But again that is not the matter at issue today in Gaza.

I am not sure how useful a distinction there is to the influx of Jewish populations after the Balfour declaration as being British colonization vs colonization by the influx of the population actually taking up residence.

If your characterization is accepted then there is nothing wrong with continuing to displace Palestinians by building even more settlements.  They are called settlements for a reason 

If the indigenous population of Palestinians was not displaced through a process of colonization, what would you call that process?

Lastly, this has everything to do with what is happening in Gaza today.  There would be no HAMAS without the displacement of Palestinians.  And ignoring the fact that Gaza is populated by displaced Palestinians provides less of a moderating force on an extreme Israeli Prime Minister who must feel empowered to do his worst to that population.     

[Razgovory]

Is the reverse true?  Are Palestinian actions the cause of the rise of the far-right in Israel?