Palestine

[Leeds Ram]

On 19/10/2023 at 11:47, David said:

Obviously I would disagree given you have quoted my post.

The thing is, I'm struggling to understand how you can sit here and say bombing Gaza is fair game for the festival attack, yet think Russia should have just sat and chuckled politely as NATO surrounded them.

Self defence is protecting yourself. Both will claim their actions are justified to defend themselves.

The first look at the historical underpinnings of NATO and Israel's history since 1948 would tell you the differences between the two case studies though David. 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

Finkelstein is a bit of a troll and not really respected in this area. Ilan Pappe is an interesting one. Done some good historical work but is frequently critiqued by new historians who argue he's way overplayed his historical hand. 

Hamas are one of the larger impediments to peace in reality. 

But the main reason for the lack of peace is the illegal settlements, settler violence, Apartheid, occasional bombing on Gaza and the fact it's pretty much a giant prison camp.

In reality, no Hamas and the Palestinians are well and truly screwed. Because peace to them doesn't mean submitting to the illegal occupation and having their homes knocked down to make room for Israel. 

Of course Finklestein and Pappe have little to no credibility. Of course. I should have guessed. 

On a scale of 1 to 10 how credible are they? 

1 being doctored videos by Israeli government and a lack of evidence for a number of outrageous claimed and 10 being Human Rights organisations compiling lists of thousands of dead Palestinians.

[Alph]

As has been said. Israel has to be able to defend itself. But all Palestinians aren't Hamas. But you wouldn't be able to tell from how often poor IDF soldiers are forced to beat them, take their homes away and murder them. You'd think they were "human animals" or something. 

[Leeds Ram]

6 hours ago, Alpha said:

But the main reason for the lack of peace is the illegal settlements, settler violence, Apartheid, occasional bombing on Gaza and the fact it's pretty much a giant prison camp.

In reality, no Hamas and the Palestinians are well and truly screwed. Because peace to them doesn't mean submitting to the illegal occupation and having their homes knocked down to make room for Israel. 

Of course Finklestein and Pappe have little to no credibility. Of course. I should have guessed. 

On a scale of 1 to 10 how credible are they? 

1 being doctored videos by Israeli government and a lack of evidence for a number of outrageous claimed and 10 being Human Rights organisations compiling lists of thousands of dead Palestinians.

That ignores the fact that Palestine in some form has been an ongoing conflict for over a century now. Your assessment seems to be rooted in events which have arguably only occurred in the past 15-20 years which are inevitably rooted in greater historical disagreements. A Palestinian homeland was on the table and has been conceivable since 1948, but each time it's gotten close to the goal line, either or both sides have done things which have messed it up. In reality, if Palestine wants a state, it will have to convince the Israelis it can keep Hamas in check when it happens. Hamas are an active block on the chance for Palestine to get a state, not a route for them to get it. If you wonder why that is, check their 1988 and 2017 charters... 

I'd give Finklestein a 2 maybe a 3 and anyone serious would be in the same ballpark in regards to him. Pappe is someone with a genuine rep and during my undergrad and MA days, I was taught him regularly. I'd say his credibility genuinely depends on who you're talking to these days. I'd usually give him around a 6-7 as i think his overall points aren't out of whack but his detailing can be sloppy for a historian.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/85344/ilan-pappe-sloppy-dishonest-historian 

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

That ignores the fact that Palestine in some form has been an ongoing conflict for over a century now. Your assessment seems to be rooted in events which have arguably only occurred in the past 15-20 years which are inevitably rooted in greater historical disagreements. A Palestinian homeland was on the table and has been conceivable since 1948, but each time it's gotten close to the goal line, either or both sides have done things which have messed it up. In reality, if Palestine wants a state, it will have to convince the Israelis it can keep Hamas in check when it happens. Hamas are an active block on the chance for Palestine to get a state, not a route for them to get it. If you wonder why that is, check their 1988 and 2017 charters... 

I'd give Finklestein a 2 maybe a 3 and anyone serious would be in the same ballpark in regards to him. Pappe is someone with a genuine rep and during my undergrad and MA days, I was taught him regularly. I'd say his credibility genuinely depends on who you're talking to these days. I'd usually give him around a 6-7 as i think his overall points aren't out of whack but his detailing can be sloppy for a historian.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/85344/ilan-pappe-sloppy-dishonest-historian 

Yes, Palestinians will have to convince colonial apartheid Zionist state Israel that they can keep Hamas in check. 

Well I mean as we can see, Israel have killed 5,000 of the terrorist scum now. And 90 in West Bank. That's to add to the thousands killed since 2008. 

Israel can't condone terrorism. Unless it's theirs which began on the British in it's creation (rebranded rebellion for the sake of the narrative) or the vile treatment of Palestinians in West Bank. 

Palestinians have only ever needed to accept displacement and massive loss of territory. But no. They're always moaning about their rights and war crimes. 

No wonder Biden said if Israel didn't exist they'd have to create one. I do think we need specific rules on which countries can indiscriminately bomb dense civilian populations though. The blurred lines between Napalm strikes/atomic bombs and Russian drones striking apartment buildings is very confusing. Even the UN keep gaslighting Israel for the past 70 years. Right from the start with the concerns about mass migration they were struggling. 

Oh, is that Jabalia market that's on fire? I thought they were told that was a safezone. Clumsy clumsy Zionist Netenyahu. Probably accidently put his mug down on the button 

[Leeds Ram]

44 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Yes, Palestinians will have to convince colonial apartheid Zionist state Israel that they can keep Hamas in check. 

Well I mean as we can see, Israel have killed 5,000 of the terrorist scum now. And 90 in West Bank. That's to add to the thousands killed since 2008. 

Israel can't condone terrorism. Unless it's theirs which began on the British in it's creation (rebranded rebellion for the sake of the narrative) or the vile treatment of Palestinians in West Bank. 

Palestinians have only ever needed to accept displacement and massive loss of territory. But no. They're always moaning about their rights and war crimes. 

No wonder Biden said if Israel didn't exist they'd have to create one. I do think we need specific rules on which countries can indiscriminately bomb dense civilian populations though. The blurred lines between Napalm strikes/atomic bombs and Russian drones striking apartment buildings is very confusing. Even the UN keep gaslighting Israel for the past 70 years. Right from the start with the concerns about mass migration they were struggling. 

Oh, is that Jabalia market that's on fire? I thought they were told that was a safezone. Clumsy clumsy Zionist Netenyahu. Probably accidently put his mug down on the button 

If a neighbouring state is set up according to Palestinian demands for Land on the 67 borders, then yeah, It's not unreasonable to say Israel will need security guarantees. Both sides, at different times, have massacred and tried to displace each other. As Edward Said argued the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they are victims of the victims but both sides have guilt and blood on their hands in this battle for land. Even Just War theorists who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, such as Michael Walzer, are saying they need to be eliminated, and then a just peace has to be enacted.

Hamas did this knowing the response; they pour money into underground tunnels, rockets, and weapons, giving the Palestinians no real chance for justice of any kind. That's not absolving the response of Israel, but this was not an attack which was legitimate, nor did they not know what the response would be. The rockets and attacks have been an ongoing problem for over 3 decades as has the land grabbing. But you can't, like you try to, discuss one without the other. 

For what it's worth, I'm against the bombing of Gaza. However, I'm also not naive enough to believe a country which has faced invasion twice in the past 60 years is surrounded by powerful actors whose populations hate them and has an intractable, yet up until now low level, civil conflict on its border isn't going to want a security guarantee. I'm also not naive enough to believe they wouldn't overreact or that I wouldn't be demanding the same if I was in their position. 

 

https://wisdomofcrowds.live/p/the-revolutionary-legitimacy-of-hamas

Edited October 24, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Ram-Alf]

11 hours ago, ramit said:

 

Right where should I start, I've posted before as you have Ramit about this being something that's not right, I've posted that Israel has one of the most effective intelligence agencies on the planet, This man is ex security and I would hope he knows a thing or 2 about intelligence, Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic 🤷‍♂️that believes a Government can have it's own citizens murdered "for the greater good" 🙄 what is the cost of losing circa 2000 Israelis for saving 10s of 1000s in the long term.

The USA aren't there for support of Israel against Hamas and Gaza, They are there because of Lebanon and Iran, It's a show of force, The Hawkes in the USA who are might I add in no way going to get blown up or a bullet in the body, These are the ones that are calling the shots(no joke there).

In my mind things just didn't look right on Oct 7th, And in Vincent's mind too and he's closer to this War than myself.

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

If a neighbouring state is set up according to Palestinian demands for Land on the 67 borders, then yeah, It's not unreasonable to say Israel will need security guarantees. Both sides, at different times, have massacred and tried to displace each other. As Edward Said argued the tragedy of the Palestinians is that they are victims of the victims but both sides have guilt and blood on their hands in this battle for land. Even Just War theorists who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, such as Michael Walzer, are saying they need to be eliminated, and then a just peace has to be enacted.

Hamas did this knowing the response; they pour money into underground tunnels, rockets, and weapons, giving the Palestinians no real chance for justice of any kind. That's not absolving the response of Israel, but this was not an attack which was legitimate, nor did they not know what the response would be. The rockets and attacks have been an ongoing problem for over 3 decades as has the land grabbing. But you can't, like you try to, discuss one without the other. 

For what it's worth, I'm against the bombing of Gaza. However, I'm also not naive enough to believe a country which has faced invasion twice in the past 60 years is surrounded by powerful actors whose populations hate them and has an intractable, yet up until now low level, civil conflict on its border isn't going to want a security guarantee. I'm also not naive enough to believe they wouldn't overreact or that I wouldn't be demanding the same if I was in their position. 

 

https://wisdomofcrowds.live/p/the-revolutionary-legitimacy-of-hamas

I think you've played down Israel's role there. Massively. Everything is disproportionate. But you've made it sound quite balanced. One more step and you'll be in line with Sunak, Biden and Netenyahu and we'll have to feel sorry for the IDF brutes. 

For what it's worth I've not defended Hamas. I just find it interesting that people think that if Hamas are gone then the lives of your average Palestinian in Gaza or the west Bank improves because peace will reign across the land. Israel's land obvs. 

I don't support Hamas. But what do the PA do? Cower to Israeli expansion. What does the world do? Nothing. So I understand why Palestinians turn to Hamas. I would imagine some of the peace loving politicians in the West might feel a bit angry if they grew up knowing Israeli oppression. If their families were shot, blown up, displaced, were not entitled to basic human rights. They too might consider Hamas to be more freedom fighters/rebels. 

I know what Hamas are. I said plenty of times in this thread that with their goals (and others) there's no chance of peace. Iran pump money into them and willingly use Palestinians as buffer/proxy. But Israel helped make them to begin with and is still helping them today. This attack on Gaza won't destroy Hamas any more than the last how many assaults in the last decade? 

You said Michael Walzer is sympathetic towards Palestine but even he admits they must be destroyed? Who? Hamas or Palestinians? I'm assuming Hamas but I liked the confusing way you phrased it because that what Israel get mixed up too

In the long term, I agree. Many Palestinians that are dragged on TV have only refused to condemn Hamas because the narrative demands they justify Israel. So they refuse until people acknowledge the crimes of Israel. 

But when pushed, many have said that they don't support Hamas. Just that they're not quite the evil Hollywood villains they're painted as. They're more complex. And at times have been willing to negotiate with Israel. But there's a push to have them be seen as cave dwelling lunatics shooting AK's in the air shouting death to the west. Chopping up babies and stealing old ladies. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think I'd enjoy their Christmas party. However you accuse me of being biased, which I am. But the whole world is bias and nobody stands up to Israel. Even now, they'll bomb Gaza to pieces and nothing will happen. Nothing. No sanctions. No pressure from the west. Not funding cuts. Nothing. 5,000 and counting but it's just collateral damage to get the real murderers.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Alpha

[ramit]

8 hours ago, The Last Post said:

Right where should I start, I've posted before as you have Ramit about this being something that's not right, I've posted that Israel has one of the most effective intelligence agencies on the planet, This man is ex security and I would hope he knows a thing or 2 about intelligence, Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic 🤷‍♂️that believes a Government can have it's own citizens murdered "for the greater good" 🙄 what is the cost of losing circa 2000 Israelis for saving 10s of 1000s in the long term.

The USA aren't there for support of Israel against Hamas and Gaza, They are there because of Lebanon and Iran, It's a show of force, The Hawkes in the USA who are might I add in no way going to get blown up or a bullet in the body, These are the ones that are calling the shots(no joke there).

In my mind things just didn't look right on Oct 7th, And in Vincent's mind too and he's closer to this War than myself.

I agree with your points, they are quite sane, the naive view would be that this was planned and conceived by Hamas alone, when it obviously wasn't.  The Americans are there for Hezbollah and Iran, Iran being the central target.  The ground operation keeps getting postponed, Israel is ready but USA is not quite there yet, this tells us that they were forced into this position of reacting to Israel's plot of pulling them into a war with Iran, as dangerous and unpredictable as that may be for the entire world.

Edited October 24, 2023 by ramit
Form

[Ram-Alf]

31 minutes ago, ramit said:

I agree with your points, they are quite sane, the naive view would be that this was planned and conceived by Hamas alone, when it obviously wasn't.  The Americans are there for Hezbollah and Iran, Iran being the central target.  The ground operation keeps getting postponed, Israel is ready but USA is not quite there yet, this tells us that they were forced into this position of reacting to Israel's plot of pulling them into a war with Iran, as dangerous and unpredictable as that may be for the entire world.

It sounds crazy doesn't it, December 7th 1941, Churchill was reported to have known about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, It was muted that Roosevelt knew, The USA citizens had had enough of War in Europe after WW1, Churchill was desperate to pull in the USA, If there was knowledge then it worked, I've watched the series of Churchills body guard and in it it was quoted by the Bodyguard that Churchill had the best nights sleep for quite a long time when he found out Pearl Harbour was bombed.

Once WW2 was over and Russia had stormed into Berlin, Stalin told his soldiers to have 3 good days in Berlin, This was in "The Savage peace" 1000s were killed, 1000s of Women/Children raped, German soldiers butchered for the revenge of Stalingrad and other Russian towns/Cities...Churchill and Truman were aware of the horrendous atrocities in Berlin by the Russian army...and did nothing.

Citizens are a tool for Politicians to use as they see fit.  

[Leeds Ram]

33 minutes ago, Alpha said:

I think you've played down Israel's role there. Massively. Everything is disproportionate. But you've made it sound quite balanced. One more step and you'll be in line with Sunak, Biden and Netenyahu and we'll have to feel sorry for the IDF brutes. 

For what it's worth I've not defended Hamas. I just find it interesting that people think that if Hamas are gone then the lives of your average Palestinian in Gaza or the west Bank improves because peace will reign across the land. Israel's land obvs. 

I don't support Hamas. But what do the PA do? Cower to Israeli expansion. What does the world do? Nothing. So I understand why Palestinians turn to Hamas. I would imagine some of the peace loving politicians in the West might feel a bit angry if they grew up knowing Israeli oppression. If their families were shot, blown up, displaced, were not entitled to basic human rights. They too might consider Hamas to be more freedom fighters/rebels. 

I know what Hamas are. I said plenty of times in this thread that with their goals (and others) there's no chance of peace. Iran pump money into them and willingly use Palestinians as buffer/proxy. But Israel helped make them to begin with and is still helping them today. This attack on Gaza won't destroy Hamas any more than the last how many assaults in the last decade? 

You said Michael Walzer is sympathetic towards Palestine but even he admits they must be destroyed? Who? Hamas or Palestinians? I'm assuming Hamas but I liked the confusing way you phrased it because that what Israel get mixed up too

In the long term, I agree. Many Palestinians that are dragged on TV have only refused to condemn Hamas because the narrative demands they justify Israel. So they refuse until people acknowledge the crimes of Israel. 

But when pushed, many have said that they don't support Hamas. Just that they're not quite the evil Hollywood villains they're painted as. They're more complex. And at times have been willing to negotiate with Israel. But there's a push to have them be seen as cave dwelling lunatics shooting AK's in the air shouting death to the west. Chopping up babies and stealing old ladies. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think I'd enjoy their Christmas party. However you accuse me of being biased, which I am. But the whole world is bias and nobody stands up to Israel. Even now, they'll bomb Gaza to pieces and nothing will happen. Nothing. No sanctions. No pressure from the west. Not funding cuts. Nothing. 5,000 and counting but it's just collateral damage to get the real murderers.

I'm not surprised you think that I've downplayed Israel's role in the conflict but I don't see it as either actor as primarily at fault. They both are. Both have conducted operations which devastate lives, have been obstinate and have refused peace when it's been offered. Again, your view takes into account the events of since 1993, but in reality, the roots of the conflict are much deeper than this, and the history on both sides before then is incredibly ugly. 

Hamas have run Gaza into the ground squandering the meagre resources available and have been more than happy to murder and oppress political opponents when it's suited them. Hamas aren't Palestinians, and Palestinians aren't Hamas, but Hamas presents a significant political obstacle to a viable Palestinian state right now. Terrorism as a method for getting what you want isn't really that effective in the long term; it tends to stiffen resistance, diluting the moral clarity of the cause making it harder for international actors to back you up. If the Palestinians had undergone a peaceful resistance movement, I'd wager they'd be much more likely to both have a lot more support, and there would be a lot more pressure internationally on Israel to back off. All groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad do is make it easier for Israel to say to the US 'You see what we have to deal with'. 

The conflict is ultimately a tragedy with innocents on both sides suffering. Israelis can't live in peace while rockets fly overhead on a daily basis, even with the Iron Dome system, and Palestinians face a form of second-class citizenship. But simply playing the blame game of 'evil Israel' doesn't address the real problems in the conflict. It may feel good to assign culpability but ultimately it's a fruitless endeavour. 

 

[Alph]

In fact @Leeds Ramfor the sake of balance I will say that besides the obvious threats to Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups that branch off them, there's quite a large number of Palestinians and Arabs in the whole region that sees the entirety of Israel as illegal

I think, I'm not sure, that there's next to no Jews in Jordan and Lebanon. There are no synagogues.

Israel is also the most democratic liberal nation in the region. With Muslims represented politically 

Many Palestinians and Arabs in the region would not settle for even the pre 1967/1949 borders. They'll say the British gave them land that wasn't theirs to give. They immigrated there in numbers that were not agreed, they were terrorists attacking the British and have continued that aggressive expansionist attitude based on 3,000 year old prophecy. 

I know I said peace doesn't come with the destruction of Hamas. But I do know peace doesn't come with Israel just being nice. 

My bias is based on that the West not only turns a blind eye to Israel's aggression but actually encourages it openly. Funds it. And Israels retaliation/aggression whatever you want to call it is always disproportionate. With their military power it's them who should show restraint. If they want to represent democracy and freedom in the ME then they have to abide by international law. 

Its too easy, for anyone that shares my bias, that Israel is more interested in subjugating Palestinians, being America's key to the Middle East and claiming ancient historic homeland. They behave more like colonials. 

[Alph]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

 But simply playing the blame game of 'evil Israel' doesn't address the real problems in the conflict. It may feel good to assign culpability but ultimately it's a fruitless endeavour. 

 

I've not done that. 

In fact I would argue that if anyone is being play out as evil then it's Hamas. You say I only took the history back to 93? 

The narrative I've read and seen on British TV and newspapers is this goes back to only October 7th. That Hamas are evil beheading babies and mass rape. 

It's odd too that Hamas would do these crimes knowing that Israel would respond with bombarding Gaza, as they do regularly, and that it would provide a perfect good Vs evil scenario for Israel. I'm not into conspiracy theories so I don't really see the point in exploring that. 

But definitely, if anyone is being portrayed as evil through Western Media it's Hamas. Which again, I don't really think many on the Palestine side particularly care about. It's more that Israel and The West would have themselves portrayed as the good guys again if nobody stands against them. 

I loved Piers Morgan's interviews where he constantly claims because he stood against the Iraq invasion and he once said something nice about Palestine that he understands the nuance of the conflict. Then proceeds to quote Israeli claims without proof (ironic given his disgraced history, ask Palestinians to condemn Hamas, refuse to directly condemn Israel, outright lie and use very subtle wording differences when describing the actions of one and the other. 

Pretty standard for most the news. A few exceptions. 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Alpha

[Ram-Alf]

It makes some wonder what warnings the IDF "didn't take seriously"

 https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-war-freed-hostage-says-hamas-were-prepared-for-kidnappings-and-idf-did-not-take-warnings-seriously-12991386

[ramit]

8 hours ago, The Last Post said:

It makes some wonder what warnings the IDF "didn't take seriously"

 https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-war-freed-hostage-says-hamas-were-prepared-for-kidnappings-and-idf-did-not-take-warnings-seriously-12991386

Maybe this is a genuine Israeli statement, maybe not, all the same, their propaganda machine took a hit.

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by ramit
Wording

[Rev]

 

As stated previously, I'm not a long term student on the situation, so I found this German state broadcaster film on the origins of conflict illuminating, and depressing in equal measure.

[MaltRam]

On 20/10/2023 at 20:18, Mostyn6 said:

1400 most likely means 140, which is still too many. Not unlike Israel to twist facts. 

I let a lot of what you say on here slide Mostyn, because I feel that, like myself, you may not be the full 9 yards at times...but you should hang your head in crying shame for having typed that. Shame on you.

[Mostyn6]

29 minutes ago, MaltRam said:

I let a lot of what you say on here slide Mostyn, because I feel that, like myself, you may not be the full 9 yards at times...but you should hang your head in crying shame for having typed that. Shame on you.

Which bit do you take issue with?

[Broderick]

For people that oppose Israel, I'm curious what they think would have been an appropriate response from Israel after the 10/7 attack from Hamas?

[Highgate]

15 minutes ago, Broderick said:

For people that oppose Israel, I'm curious what they think would have been an appropriate response from Israel after the 10/7 attack from Hamas?

I don't oppose Israel. I think Israelis should be able to live in peace and security in that part of the world without fear of attack. They have every right to do so in my opinion. The problem Israel is that it declared itself a Jewish state from the start, so instead of Israel/Palestine being a country where Jewish people could live or migrate to, safe from their European persecutors, it instead became a place where Israelis dominated Palestinian. Even to the extent of not allowing Palestinians who fled of the war of 1948 to return to their homeland ever, while permitting European or North Americans Jews claim citizenship without any impediment.  In short I oppose Israel's treatment of Palestinians ever since 1948 at least. 

Hamas are an appalling terrorist organization and their attack on 10/7 was barbarous.  It's hard to say what an appropriate response would be now, but an appropriate response at the time would have been for the IDF to engage Hamas as it happened and eliminate the threat before they could do too much damage.  Unfortunately the IDF were caught napping to an alarming degree.  Increasing security at the border would be an appropriate response, increase intelligence efforts would be another appropriate step. There is no good answer really, given the situation as it is.  Bombing civilians and an invasion of Gaza...will kill more innocent people than were killed in Hamas' attack.  In fact that's probably happened already, it will also end any possibility for peace in the region for decades, as another generation of Hamas terrorists will inevitably be created.  Exactly what Hamas would want in fact. The bombing will not only be an inappropriate response but it will also be counter-productive.  Disarming Hamas is a justifiable goal for the Israeli government, I just don't see how it can be done without making things even worse. 

The best long term solution is, and always was, treating the Palestinian people with justice and to stop occupying and settling the little land they have left. If they do that, the support for Hamas from within their own community would steadily diminish.  Regrettably, I can't see anything like that happening.