Israelo-Palestinian Conflict: 2023 Edition

[whYNOT]

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The Israeli government at one time allowed Hamas to form or allowed them to move into Gaza as a political tool that would be useful internally and internationally in ultimately ending a ‘two state solution’ solution. 

 

"Creating a monster". The clip to supply background. But did you think tmj the then Israeli Gvt. could have foreseen the consequences and is now complicit in/culpable for Hamas' terrorist nature? Any sinister motives, like this speaker suggests? Or indeed, satisfied with the results? Guilty true, of political maneuvring and social engineering as any Gvt's. are prone to do.

I don't think they were out to scupper a 2 state, but just to reduce PLO's/Arafat's power monopoly with an alternative party

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by whYNOT

[Eiuol]

4 hours ago, EC said:

That *reason* is what makes it an invalid question, not that "I stated it", i.e. pointed out the fallacy that makes it invalid. 

I think you completely misunderstood the point of the question, you have the reason all wrong. 

[whYNOT]

10 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

So your answer is that, yes, the US does have the right to nuke Israel if an Israeli terrorist attacks it?

Well, congratulations on taking down that ridiculous strawman, but you still haven't answered my original question.

It is a specious question. Replied to well by EC. One terrorist does not (necessarily) represent his/her nation. One attack does not call for a nuclear response.

And to draw any slight equivalence, you'd have to pose a great number of such Israeli attacks on the US which would necessitate a great(er) retaliation on that country.

Vast numbers of missiles and rockets - almost daily - and many ground assaults have been carried out over many years by Hamas, and several wars of (Israeli) self-defense erupted.

You need to identify the nature of 'the beast'. It did not start 'operations' in October and will not stop until forced to do so. 

I told you: what you are condemning - as many others pretend to do - is "disproportionality".

They 1. pretend to want "a fair fight", by which the IDF would limit itself in its effectiveness and be limited by humanitarian concerns and 2. wish for an Israeli defeat by Hamas et al. "River to the sea..."

A is A. Anyone or group or nation provokes a justified reprisal from a hugely more powerful country, and reality dictates the outcome - they will suffer. 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by whYNOT

[EC]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I think you completely misunderstood the point of the question, you have the reason all wrong. 

Wrong, but this will be my last comment on this craziness with anyone.

The question amounted to: What if SpookyKitty from Catland travels to Dogland under her own volition and under no one else's knowledge nor directive from anyone else in Catland, goes crazy, randomly decides--by herself--with no knowledge nor direction from anyone else to randomly blow up Dogland's largest and most famous doghouse, should Dogland then attack Catland for SpookyKitty's lone act of terrorism when it was only SpookyKitty and literally nobody else in any manner involved in the act?

Also, just to add context, both Catland and Dogland are relatively rights respecting nations who are allies with no history of conflict, share intelligence, are both opposed to terrorism in any form, with both nations governments condemning her lone random terrorist act and both not just condemning her lone act of criminal terrorism but also want her held to justice for the evil crime. 

But again, done with any further discussion on this.

Edited December 13, 2023 by EC

[Easy Truth]

3 hours ago, EC said:

Also, just to add context, both Catland and Dogland are relatively rights respecting nations who are allies with no history of conflict, share intelligence, are both opposed to terrorism in any form, with both nations governments condemning her lone random terrorist act and both not just condemning her lone act of criminal terrorism but also want her held to justice for the evil crime. 

There is the question of how should Dogland or Catland behave, but there is also the question of how your nation "observing" react.

It would be an interesting question regarding how an "Objectivist" leader of an "Objectivist" nation reacts. This could also be asked regarding a philosophy or religion (ideology). For instance, was 9/11 done by a group of terrorists that was not nation-sponsored? Did it justify attacks on Afghanistan where it did originate, and on Iraq where it did not? These are tiring questions that require stamina to discover their answer.

But with all the previous irrationality that has gone on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, ultimately it would rest with the issue of who initiated and who was negligent in preventing. One has to find who was responsible and how can it be prevented in the future. Was the nation with the lone terrorist negligent in preventing such an attack, or was there a pervasive philosophy that encouraged such an attack where a nation represents that philosophy? There is a battle between the zionist philosophy and the Islamic Philosophy in the case of Hamas (Palestinians are not all Islamic))

As a reaction, the nation attacked, like a human being will simply react violently. It seems that some on this thread are arguing that anything goes. If anything goes, the road to annihilation is wide open. So "anything" can't go. That does not mean choosing altruism/self-sacrifice, only that "limits" are to one's benefit.

[SpookyKitty]

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

It is a specious question. Replied to well by EC. One terrorist does not (necessarily) represent his/her nation. One attack does not call for a nuclear response.

If the US has no right to attack Israel in this case, how then does the US keep itself safe from Israeli terrorists?

[SpookyKitty]

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It seems that some on this thread are arguing that anything goes. If anything goes, the road to annihilation is wide open. So "anything" can't go. That does not mean choosing altruism/self-sacrifice, only that "limits" are to one's benefit.

One time, my sister asked me to hold her baby. I agreed, but then the baby puked on my shoulder. A clear initiation of force! So I threw that baby to the ground, stomped and punched it into pieces, spat on the corpse, set it on fire and danced over it while cackling maniacally and chanting "A is A! A is A! Muahahahaha!". I mean, what did that baby think was going to happen when it decided to attack me? Any lesser response would be self-sacrificing of me.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by SpookyKitty

[Eiuol]

7 hours ago, EC said:

Wrong, but this will be my last comment on this craziness with anyone.The question amounted to: What if SpookyKitty from Catland travels to Dogland under her own volition and under no one else's knowledge nor directive from anyone else in Catland, goes crazy, randomly decides--by herself--with no knowledge nor direction from anyone else to randomly blow up Dogland's largest and most famous doghouse, should Dogland then attack Catland for SpookyKitty's lone act of terrorism when it was only SpookyKitty and literally nobody else in any manner involved in the act?

Presumably, Dogland would launch a nuclear missile at SK in self-defense, killing millions of innocent Catlandians as collateral damage. The blood is on SK'S hands! If Dogland should not send a nuke, why are you saying that Dogland shouldn't defend itself!?

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

If the US has no right to attack Israel in this case, how then does the US keep itself safe from Israeli terrorists?

Ask Israel to extradite the terrorist to face our justice.

 

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

One time, my sister asked me to hold her baby. I agreed, but then the baby puked on my shoulder. A clear initiation of force! So I threw that baby to the ground, stomped and punched it into pieces, spat on the corpse, set it on fire and danced over it while cackling maniacally and chanting "A is A! A is A! Muahahahaha!". I mean, what did that baby think was going to happen when it decided to attack me? Any lesser response would be self-sacrificing of me.

How is this relevant to the current discussion?

 

[tadmjones]

16 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Creating a monster". The clip to supply background. But did you think tmj the then Israeli Gvt. could have foreseen the consequences and is now complicit in/culpable for Hamas' terrorist nature? Any sinister motives, like this speaker suggests? Or indeed, satisfied with the results? Guilty true, of political maneuvring and social engineering as any Gvt's. are prone to do.

I don't think they were out to scupper a 2 state, but just to reduce PLO's/Arafat's power monopoly with an alternative party

 

Allowing Hamas to exist , indeed using its existence as a political weapon, does make the Israeli government culpable in Hamas' attack Oct 7, but the Israeli citizens are not.

If the investigations into the draw down of the security around the incursion area prove anything more than severe negligence , I'd say the Israeli government is complicit in the whole of the atrocities of that day. But the Israeli citizens were not.

Hamas should be wiped from the planet, but even then Gaza would still be a uniquely horrible situation , yeah ?

 

[EC]

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Ask Israel to extradite the terrorist to face our justice.

 

Obviously this. Not going into this ridiculous side-track any more, just can't believe someone can't see the obvious difference between a random lunatic doing some sort of terrorism completely alone versus state sponsored, proxy, or a terrorist organization and how they are considering them to be the same situation requiring the same type of government responses. 

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

the baby puked on my shoulder. A clear initiation of force!

It is NOT.

[SpookyKitty]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Ask Israel to extradite the terrorist to face our justice.

 

Indeed, this is the correct answer. But would this task be easier or more difficult if the US, for some reason, did not recognize the state of Israel?

Edited December 13, 2023 by SpookyKitty

[whYNOT]

18 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

If the US has no right to attack Israel in this case, how then does the US keep itself safe from Israeli terrorists?

Once again, you need "to identify". What is its "character"?

Is this fictional "Israel" a terror state, with an ideology and active history of anti-Western and anti-American belligerence?

Was it a lone wolf "Israeli" attacker, an anomaly? 

Hamas blatantly published its mission statement to eradicate Israel - and has substantiated this with aggressive and murderous acts for over a decade.

Everyone treats the matter as if it began Oct 7. Thar was the culmination. It was not the beginning.

All is a rush to judgment lacking or evading the context and evidence. 

Edited December 14, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

What to watch out for is slipping into:

'This has nothing to do with us; it is Israel's problem; they brought it on themselves; the Palestinians are the innocents; condemn Israel for being overly 'self-defensive''; let Israel simply disappear, and all will be peaceful".

The oiled Islamist propaganda machine was designed, to press all the right buttons with the 'right' masses of people, in tandem with and anticipation of the initiation of brutal force in October.

Beyond arguing over the rights of national self-defense and un/justifiable force, objective intellectuals could be reminded: what we see is a combined Islamist/neo-Marxist global ideology. Force doesn't stamp it out. It cannot be appeased. It has spread and appeared everywhere it finds purchase with intellectual and moral weaklings. Palestine-Israel is just the ideological front line. A spark to set off the blaze, one symptom of the universal disease, not the cause.

Even a kid:

:https://nypost.com/2023/12/14/news/boy-13-charged-with-planning-mass-shooting-at-synagogue/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons

Edited December 14, 2023 by whYNOT

[whYNOT]

20 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Allowing Hamas to exist , indeed using its existence as a political weapon, does make the Israeli government culpable in Hamas' attack Oct 7, but the Israeli citizens are not.

If the investigations into the draw down of the security around the incursion area prove anything more than severe negligence , I'd say the Israeli government is complicit in the whole of the atrocities of that day. But the Israeli citizens were not.

Hamas should be wiped from the planet, but even then Gaza would still be a uniquely horrible situation , yeah ?

 

A brief history.

[Gaza had been administered, after the Ottomans, by Egypt, who lost it, after attacking Israel in the '67 war. A small number - 10.000 - of Israeli settlers eventually 'occupied' the Strip, and movement across the border by Gazan workers and Israelis was quite unrestricted. The settlers and IDF were later completely evacuated. It did not placate Hamas].

Read at the end how the Israel Gvt. fell into complacency.

This account by Reuters, generally partial to Palestine, might reveal Israel's peaceful initial intentions--until aggressions from Hamas/Palestinians .

Land, sea and air embargoes attempting to limit weapons entering Gaza seemed to be the rational solution.  Who - actually - was "the besieged"? Who consistently responded in self-defense?

Continued...

"With the Egyptians gone, many Gazan workers took jobs in the agriculture, construction and services industries inside Israel, to which they could gain easy access at that time. Israeli troops remained to administer the territory and to guard the settlements that Israel built in the following decades. These became a source of growing Palestinian resentment.

1987 - First Palestinian uprising. Hamas formed

Twenty years after the 1967 war, Palestinians launched their first intifada, or uprising. It began in December 1987 after a traffic accident in which an Israeli truck crashed into a vehicle carrying Palestinian workers in Gaza's Jabalya refugee camp, killing four. Stone-throwing protests, strikes and shutdowns followed.

 

Seizing the angry mood, the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood created an armed Palestinian branch, Hamas, with its power base in Gaza. Hamas, dedicated to Israel's destruction and restoration of Islamic rule in what it saw as occupied Palestine, became a rival to Yasser Arafat's secular Fatah party that led the Palestine Liberation Organization.

1993 - The Oslo Accords, and Palestinian semi-autonomy

Israel and the Palestinians signed an historic peace accord in 1993 that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Under the interim deal, Palestinians were first given limited control in Gaza, and Jericho in the West Bank. Arafat returned to Gaza after decades in exile.

 

The Oslo process gave the newly created Palestinian Authority some autonomy, and envisaged statehood after five years. But that never happened. Israel accused the Palestinians of reneging on security agreements, and Palestinians were angered by continued Israeli settlement building.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad carried out bombings to try to derail the peace process, leading Israel to impose more restrictions on movement of Palestinians out of Gaza. Hamas also picked up on growing Palestinian criticisms of corruption, nepotism and economic mismanagement by Arafat's inner circle.

2000 - Second Palestinian intifada

In 2000, Israeli-Palestinian relations sank to a new low with the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada. It ushered in a period of suicide bombings and shooting attacks by Palestinians, and Israeli air strikes, demolitions, no-go zones and curfews.

 

One casualty was Gaza International Airport, a symbol of thwarted Palestinian hopes for economic independence and the Palestinians' only direct link to the outside world that was not controlled by Israel or Egypt. Opened in 1998, Israel deemed it a security threat and destroyed its radar antenna and runway a few months after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

 

Another casualty was Gaza's fishing industry, a source of income for tens of thousands. Gaza's fishing zone was reduced by Israel, a restriction it said was necessary to stop boats smuggling weapons.

 

2005 - Israel evacuates its Gaza settlements

In August 2005 Israel evacuated all its troops and settlers from Gaza, which was by then completely fenced off from the outside world by Israel.

Palestinians tore down the abandoned buildings and infrastructure for scrap. The settlements' removal led to greater freedom of movement within Gaza, and a "tunnel economy" boomed as armed groups, smugglers and entrepreneurs quickly dug scores of tunnels into Egypt.

 

But the pullout also removed settlement factories, greenhouses and workshops that had employed some Gazans.

2006 - Isolation under Hamas

In 2006, Hamas scored a surprise victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections and then seized full control of Gaza, overthrowing forces loyal to Arafat's successor, President Mahmoud Abbas.

Much of the international community cut aid to the Palestinians in Hamas-controlled areas because they regarded Hamas as a terrorist organization.

 

Israel stopped tens of thousands of Palestinian workers from entering the country, cutting off an important source of income. Israeli air strikes crippled Gaza's only electrical power plant, causing widespread blackouts. Citing security concerns, Israel and Egypt also imposed tighter restrictions on the movement of people and goods through the Gaza crossings.

 

Ambitious Hamas plans to refocus Gaza's economy east, away from Israel, foundered before they even started.

Viewing Hamas as a threat, Egypt's military-backed leader Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who took power in 2014, closed the border with Gaza and blew up most of the tunnels. Once again isolated, Gaza's economy went into reverse.

Conflict cycle

Gaza's economy has suffered repeatedly in the cycle of conflict, attack and retaliation between Israel and Palestinian militant groups.

 

Before 2023, some of the worst fighting was in 2014, when Hamas and other groups launched rockets at heartland cities in Israel. Israel carried out air strikes and artillery bombardment that devastated neighborhoods in Gaza. More than 2,100 Palestinians were killed, mostly civilians. Israel put the number of its dead at 67 soldiers and six civilians.

2023 - Surprise attack

While Israel was led to believe it was containing a war-weary Hamas by providing economic incentives to Gazan workers, the group's fighters were being trained and drilled in secret.

 

On Oct.7, Hamas gunmen launched a surprise attack on Israel, rampaging through towns, killing hundreds, and taking dozens of hostages back to Gaza. Israel took revenge, hammering Gaza with air strikes and razing entire districts in some of the worst blood-letting in the 75 years of conflict".

Edited December 14, 2023 by whYNOT

[SpookyKitty]

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Once again, you need "to identify". What is its "character"?

Is this fictional "Israel" a terror state, with an ideology and active history of anti-Western and anti-American belligerence?

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is. Let's say that ever since this hypothetical US began its illegal blockade of Israeli ports, an undercurrent in Israeli society took umbrage with this situation and began to attack US assets and civilians.

[tadmjones]

Brief and somewhat truncated. Israel/Palestine problems have their earliest origins in 1948 , even prior but before 48 there wasn’t such a thing as Israel.

It looks like Hamas is just about to end its utility and will be ended , and good riddance, obviously for the death and destruction visited on anyone in its name.

But that isn’t yet the ‘end’ of a Palestinian problem, for Palestinians or Israel.

Regardless it really is an Israeli problem and something that has almost no effect on me, thank god.

[Doug Morris]

22 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

ndeed, this is the correct answer. But would this task be easier or more difficult if the US, for some reason, did not recognize the state of Israel?

It might be more difficult.  We might have to go through an intermediary, like the cease-fire being arranged through Qatar.

 

[SpookyKitty]

1 minute ago, Doug Morris said:

It might be more difficult.  We might have to go through an intermediary, like the cease-fire being arranged through Qatar.

 

Agreed. Again, would the task be easier or more difficult if the US illegally occupied a part of Israel?

[Doug Morris]

5 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Agreed. Again, would the task be easier or more difficult if the US illegally occupied a part of Israel

If the US occupied a part of Israel, legally or illegally, that could make complications.

 

[SpookyKitty]

40 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

If the US occupied a part of Israel, legally or illegally, that could make complications.

 

And if this hypothetical US was also subjecting Jews in occupied territories to arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention, and military tribunals with no recourse to legal defense, I imagine that wouldn't go too well either?

Edited December 14, 2023 by SpookyKitty

[tadmjones]

But hypotheticals like that , even somewhat potentially hyperbolic, mess up a nice neat Dungeons and Dragons style of directing moralizations and assigning condemnation.

[whYNOT]

What was plotted by Hamas and the rest could soon be something to do with everyone.

Why does anyone expect this to remain localized, not part of a grander scheme?

It is plain, they've detected the West's intellectual frailty, and infighting, like the divisions over anti-Semitism, they have achieved rousing Western solidarity (campuses etc.) The best time to spread onwards to other regions.

With global backing from their malleable followers.

A caution, they have smart experts in the political section who understand their western foes, Hamas are not all dumb thugs.

Europe next?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67715120

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by whYNOT