Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Razgovory]

Oh, so you think you're better than the Arabs?  The Arabs don't a have the morality that you Europeans have?  Tsk, Tsk.  Such racism.

It still amazes me that the European left supports far-right religious conservatism and extreme anti-semitic nationalism.  Seems like such an odd mix.  Did Uncle Joe leave such a lasting influence on you?

[Valmy]

They are anti-colonialism types who think the Israelis are settlers. The victims of colonialism aren't expected to be perfect to support.

Now I don't think that fits very well and rather see it as a normal ethnic conflict, but I think you have to be pretty willfully obtuse not to see where those leftists are coming from or be amazed they feel that way. They think imperialism and colonialism are bad.

[viper37]

Oh, so you think you're better than the Arabs?  The Arabs don't a have the morality that you Europeans have?  Tsk, Tsk.  Such racism.

It still amazes me that the European left supports far-right religious conservatism and extreme anti-semitic nationalism.  Seems like such an odd mix.  Did Uncle Joe leave such a lasting influence on you?

Because Israel has no far right religious conservatism?  No anti-West movement, no US vs THEM mentality in part of the population?  They are a country totally exempt of such of vices, contrary to our own corrupt political cultures?

[Josquius]

Oh, so you think you're better than the Arabs?  The Arabs don't a have the morality that you Europeans have?  Tsk, Tsk.  Such racism.

Wut? I've no idea where youre pulling this from.
Pretty sure the Arabs also think Israel are being pretty immoral.

It still amazes me that the European left supports far-right religious conservatism and extreme anti-semitic nationalism.  Seems like such an odd mix.  Did Uncle Joe leave such a lasting influence on you?

They don't.
They support the right of self determination of oppressed people. That the far right Israeli treatment of Gaza creates a fertile breeding ground for anti Israel far right views is part of what they oppose.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We have literally gone over all of these points before, but I guess being Languish we can do it again.

1. Arabs have no special, magical tie to "land", in fact--no people do. This "land and blood" nationalism is at the heart of much of the greatest evils we have known as a species, and should be rejected.

2. Since magical, special ties to the "land" aren't a valid premise, there must be some other premise to any party's claim of land. This premise should also be grounded in some measure of practical reality. There's any number of things that can form the basis of a valid claim to land.

3. Israel's claims to the land include lots of magical thinking, which I do actually reject for the Jews as well. But it also includes some good old fashioned "receipts." The Zionist Jews were buying land from Ottoman absentee landowners. That is a strong presumption to a right to keep the land, that they legally bought it. Much of this land was, I believe, centered around Haifa, with smaller settlements throughout the rest of the region.

4. In addition to that basis of legal land ownership, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and the world community accepted that the British would be given legal control over the territories now in question. The British made a declaration essentially saying, that in trying to settle the multiethnic, multifaith Ottoman lands, that the Jews should have "some form" of homeland. This is at least another tick mark for legitimacy for Jewish possession of the land.

5. The 1947 UN partition plan, representing the closest thing to an international consensus to be had, drew out a specific territory for Israel, which the Israelis accepted. The Arabs did not. The 1947 UN partition gives a strong argument for the core Israeli territory that fell under these borders.

6. In response to the UN partition plan, the Arabs collectively invaded Israel, and lost. The armistice line in this conflict became known as the "Green Line", which is the territorial extent of Israel that the lion's share of countries that accept Israel, more or less accept as "their" land. This is another tick in favor of Israeli control of this part of the territory.

7. At this stage of the game, the West Bank is part of Jordan--which makes perfect sense. The Gaza strip is controlled as a quasi-state entity by the Egyptians, apparently for no reason other than to use a political chess piece against the existence of Israel. The idea of a "two-state" solution at this time does not really exist. In the Arab world the two state solution at this point would be "Palestine" carved out of the non-Jordanian held territory (e.g. all of Israel inside the Green Line) and combined with Gaza, and then "Jordan" would be the West Bank + the present day Hashemite Kingdom. There would be no Jewish state at all.

8. After the 1967 War, the Arabs lose again, and this time they lose control of the West Bank and Gaza. At this point the "problem" arises that Jewish Israel now occupies two areas with lots of Arab Muslims in them, which isn't going to work for anyone. Israelis of the time largely do not aspire to annex this land for the simple fact they don't think it mathematically "works", annexing the land would make it impossible for Israel to remain a Jewish state. Israel was ruled by more practical politicians for most of the 20th century--they also recognized the political problems of trying to create some weird state with two classes of citizenship (Jew and Non-Jew), they also recognized the huge political problems of just pushing all those Arabs into Jordan and Egypt (almost certainly a resumption of active fighting with all the Arab countries of the region.) Israel's leader's tacitly accept a long process of negotiation that goes on for decades, and eventually crystallize an acceptance of a two state agreement.

9. The Palestinians continue to behave as if they aren't giant pathetic losers that will never conquer Israel, and continue supporting terrorism and hatred of Jews, culminating in intifadas and eventually the current war. This is tacit rejection of the two state solution of the past, and frankly opens up the legitimacy of non-two state solutions by showing firmly and forever Palestinians can never be part of a two state solution because they are intrinsically immoral and untrustworthy.

10. The Palestinians certainly started off with strong claims to some of the land as well--by virtue of being, also, legal occupants of large portions of the land. However, they also started a war in 1948, and many of them chose to flee at that time. Whatever the reasons for that, they chose to flee while the Jews stayed and fought. That will often mean land is lost, that was true in all wars ever.

11. The Palestinians further eroded their claims to the land by acting in manifest bad faith every time negotiations have occurred or agreements have been made.

12. It is simple reality that when certain people war monger too much and lose wars, consequences get visited on those people collectively. (And no, it isn't GC prohibited "collective punishment", no one argues the WWII peace treaties were GC-prohibited "collective punishment" of Germany and Japan.) The Germans who were expelled from long occupied homes after WWII had valid claims to the land they lost, but that doesn't mean it was wrong to expel them. Sometimes practical reality requires it. The Germans chose this by supporting Hitler, and one of the major arguments Hitler used to justify invasion of neighboring countries was to "protect" the German populations of those countries. Given the extreme bad behavior of the Germans, and using their presence as a pretext to war, they as a people collectively (and justly) lost rights to live in places like Poland, Kaliningrad, Hungary etc. Considering Putin does this today with Russian populations, I think countries like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia would be 100% justified in expelling all ethnic Russians from those countries as well [I don't think it would be good strategically, but morally it is 100% justified.]

[Razgovory]

They are anti-colonialism types who think the Israelis are settlers. The victims of colonialism aren't expected to be perfect to support.

Now I don't think that fits very well and rather see it as a normal ethnic conflict, but I think you have to be pretty willfully obtuse not to see where those leftists are coming from or be amazed they feel that way. They think imperialism and colonialism are bad.

It does go a bit further than that.  The Islamists are welcomed into the Left-wing and Far-Left wing parties in Europe.  I suspect that Anti-Americanism is a major factor.  You had Stop the War activists protest Western (mostly American) Intervention in the war against ISIS but basically okay with it when Russia did it.  I suspect if Israel received it's weapons from China or Russia many of the left would be fine with them.  I also suspect that if Gaza was rising up against the Egyptians or Jordanians (in such a scenario there is no Israel), and getting the shit kicked out of them like they are now, the Arab world and the Muslim world would also be fine with it.

[viper37]

We have literally gone over all of these points before, but I guess being Languish we can do it again.

1. Arabs have no special, magical tie to "land", in fact--no people do. This "land and blood" nationalism is at the heart of much of the greatest evils we have known as a species, and should be rejected.

2. Since magical, special ties to the "land" aren't a valid premise, there must be some other premise to any party's claim of land. This premise should also be grounded in some measure of practical reality. There's any number of things that can form the basis of a valid claim to land.

3. Israel's claims to the land include lots of magical thinking, which I do actually reject for the Jews as well. But it also includes some good old fashioned "receipts." The Zionist Jews were buying land from Ottoman absentee landowners. That is a strong presumption to a right to keep the land, that they legally bought it. Much of this land was, I believe, centered around Haifa, with smaller settlements throughout the rest of the region.

4. In addition to that basis of legal land ownership, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and the world community accepted that the British would be given legal control over the territories now in question. The British made a declaration essentially saying, that in trying to settle the multiethnic, multifaith Ottoman lands, that the Jews should have "some form" of homeland. This is at least another tick mark for legitimacy for Jewish possession of the land.

5. The 1947 UN partition plan, representing the closest thing to an international consensus to be had, drew out a specific territory for Israel, which the Israelis accepted. The Arabs did not. The 1947 UN partition gives a strong argument for the core Israeli territory that fell under these borders.

6. In response to the UN partition plan, the Arabs collectively invaded Israel, and lost. The armistice line in this conflict became known as the "Green Line", which is the territorial extent of Israel that the lion's share of countries that accept Israel, more or less accept as "their" land. This is another tick in favor of Israeli control of this part of the territory.

7. At this stage of the game, the West Bank is part of Jordan--which makes perfect sense. The Gaza strip is controlled as a quasi-state entity by the Egyptians, apparently for no reason other than to use a political chess piece against the existence of Israel. The idea of a "two-state" solution at this time does not really exist. In the Arab world the two state solution at this point would be "Palestine" carved out of the non-Jordanian held territory (e.g. all of Israel inside the Green Line) and combined with Gaza, and then "Jordan" would be the West Bank + the present day Hashemite Kingdom. There would be no Jewish state at all.

8. After the 1967 War, the Arabs lose again, and this time they lose control of the West Bank and Gaza. At this point the "problem" arises that Jewish Israel now occupies two areas with lots of Arab Muslims in them, which isn't going to work for anyone. Israelis of the time largely do not aspire to annex this land for the simple fact they don't think it mathematically "works", annexing the land would make it impossible for Israel to remain a Jewish state. Israel was ruled by more practical politicians for most of the 20th century--they also recognized the political problems of trying to create some weird state with two classes of citizenship (Jew and Non-Jew), they also recognized the huge political problems of just pushing all those Arabs into Jordan and Egypt (almost certainly a resumption of active fighting with all the Arab countries of the region.) Israel's leader's tacitly accept a long process of negotiation that goes on for decades, and eventually crystallize an acceptance of a two state agreement.

9. The Palestinians continue to behave as if they aren't giant pathetic losers that will never conquer Israel, and continue supporting terrorism and hatred of Jews, culminating in intifadas and eventually the current war. This is tacit rejection of the two state solution of the past, and frankly opens up the legitimacy of non-two state solutions by showing firmly and forever Palestinians can never be part of a two state solution because they are intrinsically immoral and untrustworthy.

10. The Palestinians certainly started off with strong claims to some of the land as well--by virtue of being, also, legal occupants of large portions of the land. However, they also started a war in 1948, and many of them chose to flee at that time. Whatever the reasons for that, they chose to flee while the Jews stayed and fought. That will often mean land is lost, that was true in all wars ever.

11. The Palestinians further eroded their claims to the land by acting in manifest bad faith every time negotiations have occurred or agreements have been made.

12. It is simple reality that when certain people war monger too much and lose wars, consequences get visited on those people collectively. (And no, it isn't GC prohibited "collective punishment", no one argues the WWII peace treaties were GC-prohibited "collective punishment" of Germany and Japan.) The Germans who were expelled from long occupied homes after WWII had valid claims to the land they lost, but that doesn't mean it was wrong to expel them. Sometimes practical reality requires it. The Germans chose this by supporting Hitler, and one of the major arguments Hitler used to justify invasion of neighboring countries was to "protect" the German populations of those countries. Given the extreme bad behavior of the Germans, and using their presence as a pretext to war, they as a people collectively (and justly) lost rights to live in places like Poland, Kaliningrad, Hungary etc. Considering Putin does this today with Russian populations, I think countries like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia would be 100% justified in expelling all ethnic Russians from those countries as well [I don't think it would be good strategically, but morally it is 100% justified.]

1) You sure want Israel to have some magical tie to the land.  So much so that you want a liar, a cheater, an incompetent moron to win the presidency just on the oft chance that Israel might not so easily manipulate the next President into receiving 100% of everything they are asking to keep their magical tie to the land.

2) Why are you giving them weapons if they don't have a magical tie to the land?  Why were you so pissed when they complained they weren't immediately receiving everything they were asking for?

3) Ok, so they bought some land around there.  Then it gives them the right to everywhere around?  Does that work in the US too?  You buy a plot of land, it gives you the right to the lands of all your neighbors?

4) That's not really how it happened, the British and the international community proposed a partition plan, which the Jewish settlers had no intention of respecting.

5) Great!  let's get back to that partition plan!  Oh wait...

6) The wag begun because Israelis settlers were already busy killing and evicting Palestinians.  And as soon as the war started, the IDF killed and evicted a lot more Palestinians (Arabs, then, as they were simply known; then again, I'm not sure we could talk of Israelis before 1947-1948).

7) Debatable.  The Arabs weren't willing to accept the idea of a dangerous neighbor, but could have been persuaded if Israel had negotiated in good faith.  Which was extremely complicated during the cold war and the decolonization phase with various interests at play.

8) At this point, what Israel accepts is that it will take many decades to get rid of the Palestinian problem and they stall for time with fake peace plans.  The few leaders who truly talk of peace are shunned by their own people, when not outright killed.

9) Partly true.  A faction of Palestinians do not want peace.  Just as most of Israel is not willing to entertain the idea of peace.  But we've been over that many times.

10)  Sure.  And the Ukrainians also started a war with Russia.  They seceded from the Empire, they insisted on existing, they wanted closer ties with the West than with Russia, all provocation against Russia.  Therefore, they are responsible for the war and no one should help them.  Right?

11) Because Israel has been acting in good faith during negotiations?  How so?

12)  Great!  Let's ditch Ukraine.  Let Russia win.  Let Russia invade everyone it wants.  It's great for peace.  Just like in WWII, if only we had let Germany take over Poland, there wouldn't have been so many deaths.  And the US could have stayed out of Vietnam, North Korea could have annexed the Southern Part... So many deaths avoided, so much warmongering in the world because some people chose to resist.

[viper37]

They are anti-colonialism types who think the Israelis are settlers. The victims of colonialism aren't expected to be perfect to support.

Now I don't think that fits very well and rather see it as a normal ethnic conflict, but I think you have to be pretty willfully obtuse not to see where those leftists are coming from or be amazed they feel that way. They think imperialism and colonialism are bad.

It does go a bit further than that.  The Islamists are welcomed into the Left-wing and Far-Left wing parties in Europe.  I suspect that Anti-Americanism is a major factor.  You had Stop the War activists protest Western (mostly American) Intervention in the war against ISIS but basically okay with it when Russia did it.  I suspect if Israel received it's weapons from China or Russia many of the left would be fine with them.  I also suspect that if Gaza was rising up against the Egyptians or Jordanians (in such a scenario there is no Israel), and getting the shit kicked out of them like they are now, the Arab world and the Muslim world would also be fine with it.

Not so long ago, you were totally fine with radical Islam yourself.

[Valmy]

We have literally gone over all of these points before, but I guess being Languish we can do it again.

I don't recall the discussion reaching some consensus.

1. Arabs have no special, magical tie to "land", in fact--no people do. This "land and blood" nationalism is at the heart of much of the greatest evils we have known as a species, and should be rejected.

Yes. I don't think anybody has a magical tie to the land and I completely agree that this kind of nationalism sucks but mostly when you apply it to land you do not currently inhabit.

2. Since magical, special ties to the "land" aren't a valid premise, there must be some other premise to any party's claim of land. This premise should also be grounded in some measure of practical reality. There's any number of things that can form the basis of a valid claim to land.

Sure. Maybe something like currently living there.

3. Israel's claims to the land include lots of magical thinking, which I do actually reject for the Jews as well. But it also includes some good old fashioned "receipts." The Zionist Jews were buying land from Ottoman absentee landowners. That is a strong presumption to a right to keep the land, that they legally bought it. Much of this land was, I believe, centered around Haifa, with smaller settlements throughout the rest of the region.

And I think we can all agree that Haifa is legally part of Israel and was designated to be so in the UN partition plan.

4. In addition to that basis of legal land ownership, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and the world community accepted that the British would be given legal control over the territories now in question. The British made a declaration essentially saying, that in trying to settle the multiethnic, multifaith Ottoman lands, that the Jews should have "some form" of homeland. This is at least another tick mark for legitimacy for Jewish possession of the land.

Sure.

5. The 1947 UN partition plan, representing the closest thing to an international consensus to be had, drew out a specific territory for Israel, which the Israelis accepted. The Arabs did not. The 1947 UN partition gives a strong argument for the core Israeli territory that fell under these borders.

Sure. I think everybody in this thread accepts the legitimacy of the 1947 plan even if the vote itself has been a bit controversial. But corruption in the UN is no shock I guess. Still it is the best we have.

6. In response to the UN partition plan, the Arabs collectively invaded Israel, and lost. The armistice line in this conflict became known as the "Green Line", which is the territorial extent of Israel that the lion's share of countries that accept Israel, more or less accept as "their" land. This is another tick in favor of Israeli control of this part of the territory.

Sure and I think everybody in this thread recognizes that Israel at least consists of the territory within the Green Line. The Oslo Accords define Palestinian authority to be vaguely in the Gaza strip and West Bank if unspecific as to where exactly those lines are drawn, I think we can all agree that the territory within the Green Line is Israel.

7. At this stage of the game, the West Bank is part of Jordan--which makes perfect sense. The Gaza strip is controlled as a quasi-state entity by the Egyptians, apparently for no reason other than to use a political chess piece against the existence of Israel. The idea of a "two-state" solution at this time does not really exist. In the Arab world the two state solution at this point would be "Palestine" carved out of the non-Jordanian held territory (e.g. all of Israel inside the Green Line) and combined with Gaza, and then "Jordan" would be the West Bank + the present day Hashemite Kingdom. There would be no Jewish state at all.

8. After the 1967 War, the Arabs lose again, and this time they lose control of the West Bank and Gaza. At this point the "problem" arises that Jewish Israel now occupies two areas with lots of Arab Muslims in them, which isn't going to work for anyone. Israelis of the time largely do not aspire to annex this land for the simple fact they don't think it mathematically "works", annexing the land would make it impossible for Israel to remain a Jewish state. Israel was ruled by more practical politicians for most of the 20th century--they also recognized the political problems of trying to create some weird state with two classes of citizenship (Jew and Non-Jew), they also recognized the huge political problems of just pushing all those Arabs into Jordan and Egypt (almost certainly a resumption of active fighting with all the Arab countries of the region.) Israel's leader's tacitly accept a long process of negotiation that goes on for decades, and eventually crystallize an acceptance of a two state agreement.

Yes. This pretty much the shit sandwich we have all been saddled with ever since.

9. The Palestinians continue to behave as if they aren't giant pathetic losers that will never conquer Israel, and continue supporting terrorism and hatred of Jews, culminating in intifadas and eventually the current war. This is tacit rejection of the two state solution of the past, and frankly opens up the legitimacy of non-two state solutions by showing firmly and forever Palestinians can never be part of a two state solution because they are intrinsically immoral and untrustworthy.

Well so long as the Soviet Union was out there giving them hope they thought they had a chance. Nope.

10. The Palestinians certainly started off with strong claims to some of the land as well--by virtue of being, also, legal occupants of large portions of the land. However, they also started a war in 1948, and many of them chose to flee at that time. Whatever the reasons for that, they chose to flee while the Jews stayed and fought. That will often mean land is lost, that was true in all wars ever.

11. The Palestinians further eroded their claims to the land by acting in manifest bad faith every time negotiations have occurred or agreements have been made.

All I will say to this is that I don't think anybody here is saying the land Israel has occupied since 1949 should be returned to some Palestinian Arab state. At most maybe compensation could be paid for private property seized but even knowing what that is and what value it holds would be hard to work out after all this time.

As for the Palestinians negotiating in bad faith...I don't know. The deal offered in the Camp David Summit was not great for Palestine but under the circumstances I certainly would have taken it. But I always suspected both sides had hardliners who would have taken violent action if either side had reached an agreement that favored the other. See the murder of Yitzhak Rabin.

But I have claimed many times that any state building in Palestine would require some kind of third party to come in and provide security and disarm any militias. That is just a fact. Palestine is just not a functional government, centuries of neglect under Ottoman Rule followed by a century of conflict would be a huge challenge for any civil society. Throw in all the other nonsense that goes on in the Middle East...

If all these people who pretended to care about the Palestinians actually did, that security assistance would be easy to get. But nobody actually cares about the Palestinians and seem happy to just let them suffer.

12. It is simple reality that when certain people war monger too much and lose wars, consequences get visited on those people collectively. (And no, it isn't GC prohibited "collective punishment", no one argues the WWII peace treaties were GC-prohibited "collective punishment" of Germany and Japan.) The Germans who were expelled from long occupied homes after WWII had valid claims to the land they lost, but that doesn't mean it was wrong to expel them. Sometimes practical reality requires it. The Germans chose this by supporting Hitler, and one of the major arguments Hitler used to justify invasion of neighboring countries was to "protect" the German populations of those countries. Given the extreme bad behavior of the Germans, and using their presence as a pretext to war, they as a people collectively (and justly) lost rights to live in places like Poland, Kaliningrad, Hungary etc. Considering Putin does this today with Russian populations, I think countries like Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia would be 100% justified in expelling all ethnic Russians from those countries as well [I don't think it would be good strategically, but morally it is 100% justified.]

This is largely where we disagree. I do not think the actions of the settlers in the West Bank are justified or legal even under the rules of war. I also regard the killing of civilians as a bad thing, though I understand sometimes this is a necessary side effect of war.

However I also think Netanyahu is extending this war for his own corrupt reasons to maintain his power and protect himself from being prosecuted for his crimes. The Israelis seem rather unhappy about it.

I am also just tired of the United States sending massive amounts of money to Egypt, Israel, and the PLA as some kind of bribe to...um...do something. I don't know. I don't think our investments are paying off and I think we should stop.

[Valmy]

I also probably doesn't help that any Palestinian with any means, talent, or sense probably got the hell out of there by now.

[grumbler]

I am tired of the US sending massive amounts of money, or spending  massive amounts of money to send weapons and ammunition, to the whole region.  There are no US allies there, and we should treat the Middle east like we treat South America:  humanitarian assistance, and some bilateral trade deals, but only when they are in the US interest.

I acknowledge that Israel was once an ally and used to consider US interests before acting, but it is clear that this is no longer true, and the Israel of yore no longer exists.

[HVC]

To many end of time cultists in the US for that to end.

[viper37]

Israel accused of killing its own people in loose interpretation of Hannibal rule
Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens under the 'Hannibal Directive' during October 7 chaos

[grumbler]

Israel accused of killing its own people in loose interpretation of Hannibal rule
Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens under the 'Hannibal Directive' during October 7 chaos

I don't doubt for a moment that Israeli forces killed some Israelis.  I don't believe, however, that they killed them simply to keep them from being abducted.  When hostile forces are intermingled with civilians in a firefight, some of the civilians are likely going to suffer from both sides.

Sensationalists will sensationalize, though.

[Razgovory]

Israel accused of killing its own people in loose interpretation of Hannibal rule
Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens under the 'Hannibal Directive' during October 7 chaos

This is a favorite talking point of the Antizionists.  Hamas is innocent, it was the Israelis who killed all those people.  It's in the same vein as Abbas' theory that Holocaust was perpetrated by Zionists.