If Israel is not careful, it risks becoming the thing it hates the most by committing some of the same actions which led it, collectively, to conclude "never again". Some proposed legislation suggests this and also serves to highlight a disturbing trend in political thinking in Israel. They want to subordinate Israel's democratic values to its identity as a Jewish nation state--"traditional Jewish values" (whatever that means) could take precedence over established, democratic law? They want to allow for the establishment of communities which are for Jews only? According to Avi Dichter, Likud party member in the Knesset, "Anyone who does not belong to the Jewish nation cannot define the State of Israel as his nation-state". If that doesn't sound *creepy* then you aren't paying attention.
Israel have right now a very populist government, to say the least.. this is mainly because different politicians want to earn points with their base of voters.
The current Israel Government is composed of the central-right party (Likud/Bibi Netanyahu), central-economic party and smaller parties: a far-right wing party and the ultra-orthodox jews parties.
Because the government is brittle, and composed from 7 different parties with different ideologies, each party tries to put some populist law, in order to so called "justify" their sitting in the government, it sometimes seems like a black mail..
Luckily, most of the populist laws are stopped and archived, the proposing politicians earns their points with the base, and move on..
I really hope next elections (2019) will produce a stable and sane government, though I doubt it, because of the multiple sectors and diversity of Israel population - left, right, ultra-orthodox, light-orthodox, arabs, secular - there are multiple parties per sector.
My point is this: if the threat from Hamas is SO great that it requires the absolutely over the top responses we are seeing now and in 2014, it would only stand to reason there would be some statistical evidence of how great that threat is in fatality or casualty numbers. Instead, all I ever see is dead Palestinians by the thousands.
How many times is the "they forced us to shoot or bomb a group of people indiscriminately" card going to be played?? And the second half of Meir's quote sounds like the excuse of every abusive, alcoholic father in history, which is "you made me do it."
So Israel is just supposed to roll over and let Hamas/the Palestinians just do or have whatever they want rather than risk killing even one person?
No one has yet answered this question: why are the protesters bringing children to an event where they clearly expect violence to occur?
How many times is the "they forced us to shoot or bomb a group of people indiscriminately" card going to be played?? And the second half of Meir's quote sounds like the excuse of every abusive, alcoholic father in history, which is "you made me do it."
So Israel is just supposed to roll over and let Hamas/the Palestinians just do or have whatever they want rather than risk killing even one person?
No one has yet answered this question: why are the protesters bringing children to an event where they clearly expect violence to occur?
First off, I'd have more sympathy for this human shield argument if it wasn't used to explain away literally EVERY Palestinian death caused by Israeli military forces (and by default, us, since we are paying for a large chunk of it). But secondly, even if you take this at face value, then by Israel's own definition of how Hamas is using the situation, these Palestinians (and especially the children) are nothing more than hostages. And correct me if I'm wrong, but can you name ANY hostage situation where the decision is to just KILL the hostages to end the situation and get to the culprit??
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
No one has yet answered this question: why are the protesters bringing children to an event where they clearly expect violence to occur?
First off, I'd have more sympathy for this human shield argument if it wasn't used to explain away literally EVERY Palestinian death caused by Israeli military forces (and by default, us, since we are paying for a large chunk of it). But secondly, even if you take this at face value, then by Israel's own definition of how Hamas is using the situation, these Palestinians (and especially the children) are nothing more than hostages. And correct me if I'm wrong, but can you name ANY hostage situation where the decision is to just KILL the hostages to end the situation and get to the culprit??
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
Since one side has burning tires and flaming kites, what logic are they using which gives them the idea that they might attain victory? Given that "victory" is not attainable under the current scenario, what is the actual goal being pursued here? I suppose that it could be possible to march enough people at the IDF that even *they* will stop shooting at some point but not even Hamas is willing to go that far.
On the first point, no--there is no hostage negotiator in existence who will conclude that killing the hostages will successfully resolve the situation and allow them to apprehend the hostage taker. Hypothetically speaking, that *would* resolve the situation but it would also be the polar opposite of "successful resolution".
edit/add: I think the closest parallel we are seeing in the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the United States versus the First Nations from 1840 - 1900--one side has a clear advantage in both numbers and technology while the other side tries to rely on small skirmishes from time to time. As we all know, that conflict did not end well for the First Nations. This is why my advice to Israel continues to be "don't roll over in submission but definitely stand down". That is the sort of battle Israel will definitely win...but they will lose something else in doing so.
edit/add 2: what the--?! Trump has something to say about people on the White House staff who leak information to the press: "leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!". *roll eyes* Well, Mr. Trump, perhaps if you *inspired* loyalty in people who work for you rather than *demanding* it things might be a little different in your Administration.
Maybe they don't want their kids to be violenced but they want to go to protest the percieved insults to their magic man in the sky mythology and can't find or can't afford a baby sitter.
Trump has been talking about rooting out leakers in his White House since the first month of this Administration. To my knowledge, not one person has been "discovered". Moreover, most of the bad news that hits this White House gets out because people in the INSIDE are talking to reporters. You didn't see this level of leaking the Obama Administration because the people working the White House actually respected him, likely because he showed respect in return.
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
Since one side has burning tires and flaming kites, what logic are they using which gives them the idea that they might attain victory? Given that "victory" is not attainable under the current scenario, what is the actual goal being pursued here?
I think a lot of it is just inertia. It might not make sense to pursue a losing war, but changing course is hard. As a Palestinian, you could say,
"We've been fighting this war for X years now and we've seen no progress. We're just strong enough to win it. The best we can hope for is to squeeze out a few small concessions and then end the war. We won't get most of what we wanted, but we'll be a little better off than we are now, and we won't have to fight anymore."
...and you'd be right to say so. That's the logical course of action if you want to maximize your gains. But imagine being the one guy, in a room of pissed-off people, who wants to call it quits when everyone else wants to fight and win. No one wants to be that guy. No one wants to confront that reality. No one wants to accept defeat, even if it's already there--the very concept is offensive. I actually think humans evolved to think that way.
A lot of history is people doing the same things they've always done, simply because they don't see changing course as an alternative. Inertia is a little-appreciated force of history.
Alternatively, Hamas could be making the gamble that, if they get enough innocent Palestinians killed in the process, they might win enough international sympathy to somehow get an edge over Israel. Maybe some other countries will get involved and provide the Palestinians with the resources, military or diplomatic or otherwise, to achieve independence. I'm not the first person to speculate that Hamas is intentionally sacrificing Palestinian children for PR reasons.
Of course, I personally have seen no indication that that tactic is any more realistic than defeating Israel through force of arms. The greater Middle East supports Palestine, but they're not going to stick out their necks by confronting Israel directly, when any attack on Israel would involve a crushing retaliation. Most countries outside of the Middle East sympathize with Palestine, but no one else is interested in actually intervening. The United States could theoretically make Israel relinquish its hold on Palestine or make some other form of concessions to the Palestinians, but the U.S. is solidly on Israel's side for various reasons.
Even if Hamas gets the whole world to hate Israel and pity Palestine, it's still not going to accomplish anything. That idea, too, is a dead end--too many other factors are working against it.
But perhaps the main reason the Palestinians are willing to fight is because they know that Israel is not going to use its full force on them. For quite some time now, Israel has had the power to wipe out the Palestinian people practically overnight, but they have never done so. I don't think it's because the Israelis are afraid of international outcry, or some Arab attack to exact vengeance, or potential war crimes trials for Israeli leaders or anything like that--or at least, it's not primarily because of those fears.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians. I have little doubt that Hamas would gleefully wipe out Israel if given the chance, but Israel doesn't feel the same way. They don't want to exterminate the Palestinians; they just want the Palestinians to stop fighting, and they resort to violence because, for various reasons, they don't see peace as a workable solution. They don't think it's possible.
Trump wants you to believe that ridiculing a man dying of cancer and he and his staff doing nothing is not bad. He wants you to think people finding this out is bad.
Isn't the government not supposed to be secret. Public servants. Not secret police enriching themselves.
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
Since one side has burning tires and flaming kites, what logic are they using which gives them the idea that they might attain victory? Given that "victory" is not attainable under the current scenario, what is the actual goal being pursued here?
I think a lot of it is just inertia. It might not make sense to pursue a losing war, but changing course is hard. As a Palestinian, you could say,
"We've been fighting this war for X years now and we've seen no progress. We're just strong enough to win it. The best we can hope for is to squeeze out a few small concessions and then end the war. We won't get most of what we wanted, but we'll be a little better off than we are now, and we won't have to fight anymore."
...and you'd be right to say so. That's the logical course of action if you want to maximize your gains. But imagine being the one guy, in a room of pissed-off people, who wants to call it quits when everyone else wants to fight and win. No one wants to be that guy. No one wants to confront that reality. No one wants to accept defeat, even if it's already there--the very concept is offensive. I actually think humans evolved to think that way.
A lot of history is people doing the same things they've always done, simply because they don't see changing course as an alternative. Inertia is a little-appreciated force of history.
Alternatively, Hamas could be making the gamble that, if they get enough innocent Palestinians killed in the process, they might win enough international sympathy to somehow get an edge over Israel. Maybe some other countries will get involved and provide the Palestinians with the resources, military or diplomatic or otherwise, to achieve independence. I'm not the first person to speculate that Hamas is intentionally sacrificing Palestinian children for PR reasons.
Of course, I personally have seen no indication that that tactic is any more realistic than defeating Israel through force of arms. The greater Middle East supports Palestine, but they're not going to stick out their necks by confronting Israel directly, when any attack on Israel would involve a crushing retaliation. Most countries outside of the Middle East sympathize with Palestine, but no one else is interested in actually intervening. The United States could theoretically make Israel relinquish its hold on Palestine or make some other form of concessions to the Palestinians, but the U.S. is solidly on Israel's side for various reasons.
Even if Hamas gets the whole world to hate Israel and pity Palestine, it's still not going to accomplish anything. That idea, too, is a dead end--too many other factors are working against it.
But perhaps the main reason the Palestinians are willing to fight is because they know that Israel is not going to use its full force on them. For quite some time now, Israel has had the power to wipe out the Palestinian people practically overnight, but they have never done so. I don't think it's because the Israelis are afraid of international outcry, or some Arab attack to exact vengeance, or potential war crimes trials for Israeli leaders or anything like that--or at least, it's not primarily because of those fears.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians. I have little doubt that Hamas would gleefully wipe out Israel if given the chance, but Israel doesn't feel the same way. They don't want to exterminate the Palestinians; they just want the Palestinians to stop fighting, and they resort to violence because, for various reasons, they don't see peace as a workable solution. They don't think it's possible.
They may not be willing to engage in total annihilation, but they are absolutely willing to bomb hospitals and schools, even after being given the exact coordinates to avoid them by the UN:
So let's stipulate that everything Israel says about Hamas is true 100% of time. Let's say every one of those schools (full of women and children) and hospitals (full of helpless patients) DID have Hamas rockets being hidden in them. Is that a justification for dropping bombs on hundreds of helpless people?? Because it seems to me to be the definition of a war crime, which is the deliberate targeting of civilians. And if you want to blame Hamas for putting the rockets there, yeah of course. But to just ABSOLVE Israel of dropping a bomb on what is CERTAINLY one of the only places that should never be attacked even in war?? Yeah, I don't think so. Especially when the United States is paying for about about 20% of them.
Mind you that EVERY TIME one of these incidents take place (especially with the two examples I mentioned) Israel will immediately claim that the building was either being used as a command center or was storing weapons. Not some of the time, but EVERY time. Which would indicate that Hamas is not only in control, but is apparently omnipotent.
@semiticgod ehm no, "palestinians" (some groups & leaders) are willing to fight because they're fanatical and hateful. they're not thinking about "ending the war". but i disagree with your reasoning on a very fundamental level:
imagine a slave and a master - a slave wants to kill the master, while the master (or tyrant) does not want to hurt the slave at all. should we "take the side" of the master? you're almost explicitly stating that the side who is more cold-blooded is purer of heart. that's almost always how it doesn't work in real life. people will stoke anger in other people in calculated ways for their own benefit.
...then take a step back and imagine an occupier and the occupied who want to kill the occupier. should we take the side of the occupier, a priori, as long as he does not want to exterminate the other?
what if the "occupier" is a really cold-hearted military power that doesn't care, on a very fundamental human level, about the people they're suppressing and segregating. while also usurping their land and other interests such as their historic capital etc? ...
banal moralizations can't explain away hatred and calculated malice.
Using innocent civilians as human shields is also a war crime. There are no "good guys" here, only two groups of bad guys fighting each other.
I suppose there is something in me that finds it nearly impossible to take the side of the party who has infinitely more power and technology, and also who, ostensibly, should know better based on why their country was founded in the first place. In the end, even in 2018, we aren't anywhere near free from the consequences of what the Nazis did during World War II, but also in the other countries of the world turning away European Jews fleeing certain extermination. All of humanity it seemed help create this endless conflict.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians.
I'm not sure I'd say the Israelis are more cold-blooded, imbalanced death counts or no. I'm saying that the Israelis have the power to inflict more death than they have, and I don't think it's just fear of international retribution that's holding them back. I'm not saying that that makes them good guys (I don't like the concept of "good guys" to begin with, actually)--I'm saying that I find it odd.
I also wouldn't call anyone in this conflict pure of heart. I don't think many people would, even the defenders of this or that side.
If I was to summarize my outlook on the situation: I see sympathetic viewpoints and valid interests, but I do not see sympathetic actions or valid strategies.
You didn't see this level of leaking the Obama Administration because the people working the White House actually respected him, likely because he showed respect in return.
And here I thought his administration had imprisoned more whistleblowers than all other American presidents before him combined, and that this might have deterred the staff from running around with gossip.
Thanks for putting me straight on that. They just plain liked him. Go figure.
You didn't see this level of leaking the Obama Administration because the people working the White House actually respected him, likely because he showed respect in return.
And here I thought his administration had imprisoned more whistleblowers than all other American presidents before him combined, and that this might have deterred the staff from running around with gossip.
Thanks for putting me straight on that. They just plain liked him. Go figure.
I'm fairly certain West Wing staff wasn't in danger of being put in jail for leaking the subject of a morning meeting to the Washington Post. So the working theory here is that Obama's own staff was so scared of being prosecuted they just didn't say anything?? Trump is straight up calling them traitors and that doesn't seem to be deterring anyone, but Obama must have been running a veritable gulag right under the nose of the entire White House press corps to keep all those staffers silent.
You didn't see this level of leaking the Obama Administration because the people working the White House actually respected him, likely because he showed respect in return.
And here I thought his administration had imprisoned more whistleblowers than all other American presidents before him combined, and that this might have deterred the staff from running around with gossip.
Thanks for putting me straight on that. They just plain liked him. Go figure.
This statement always amuses me as if it was Obama who was the prosecutor, judge and jury in all of these cases, many of them not really "whistleblowers" such as Barrett Brown who was charged and convicted of threatening a FBI agent in a youtube video.
Most of them aren't even whistleblowers in the traditional sense. Leaking confidential and classified information such as pictures of a nuclear submarine is not the same as informing the public that the government I keeping tabs on it citizen. Barrett Brown above was targeted because he was willfully posting information about a private company that was obtained illegally in bulk instead of actually you know sifting through the stuff to find out what exactly he was blowing the whistle on.
Compare that the Trump's leakers of "this person said something offensive" gossip that he is calling a traitorous act. There is a huge and significant difference.
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
Since one side has burning tires and flaming kites, what logic are they using which gives them the idea that they might attain victory? Given that "victory" is not attainable under the current scenario, what is the actual goal being pursued here?
I think a lot of it is just inertia. It might not make sense to pursue a losing war, but changing course is hard. As a Palestinian, you could say,
"We've been fighting this war for X years now and we've seen no progress. We're just strong enough to win it. The best we can hope for is to squeeze out a few small concessions and then end the war. We won't get most of what we wanted, but we'll be a little better off than we are now, and we won't have to fight anymore."
...and you'd be right to say so. That's the logical course of action if you want to maximize your gains. But imagine being the one guy, in a room of pissed-off people, who wants to call it quits when everyone else wants to fight and win. No one wants to be that guy. No one wants to confront that reality. No one wants to accept defeat, even if it's already there--the very concept is offensive. I actually think humans evolved to think that way.
A lot of history is people doing the same things they've always done, simply because they don't see changing course as an alternative. Inertia is a little-appreciated force of history.
Alternatively, Hamas could be making the gamble that, if they get enough innocent Palestinians killed in the process, they might win enough international sympathy to somehow get an edge over Israel. Maybe some other countries will get involved and provide the Palestinians with the resources, military or diplomatic or otherwise, to achieve independence. I'm not the first person to speculate that Hamas is intentionally sacrificing Palestinian children for PR reasons.
Of course, I personally have seen no indication that that tactic is any more realistic than defeating Israel through force of arms. The greater Middle East supports Palestine, but they're not going to stick out their necks by confronting Israel directly, when any attack on Israel would involve a crushing retaliation. Most countries outside of the Middle East sympathize with Palestine, but no one else is interested in actually intervening. The United States could theoretically make Israel relinquish its hold on Palestine or make some other form of concessions to the Palestinians, but the U.S. is solidly on Israel's side for various reasons.
Even if Hamas gets the whole world to hate Israel and pity Palestine, it's still not going to accomplish anything. That idea, too, is a dead end--too many other factors are working against it.
But perhaps the main reason the Palestinians are willing to fight is because they know that Israel is not going to use its full force on them. For quite some time now, Israel has had the power to wipe out the Palestinian people practically overnight, but they have never done so. I don't think it's because the Israelis are afraid of international outcry, or some Arab attack to exact vengeance, or potential war crimes trials for Israeli leaders or anything like that--or at least, it's not primarily because of those fears.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians. I have little doubt that Hamas would gleefully wipe out Israel if given the chance, but Israel doesn't feel the same way. They don't want to exterminate the Palestinians; they just want the Palestinians to stop fighting, and they resort to violence because, for various reasons, they don't see peace as a workable solution. They don't think it's possible.
I think on both sides there are religious fundamentalists who believe the other side should not exist. I don't think that those groups are very large in number, but both their actions and rhetoric help keep the conflict going. Countries like Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel gives the impression that fundamentalists are the norm. I don't think that's the case and suspect that a comprehensive peace deal with Iran would be possible (as was previously done with Egypt), although clearly there would be plenty of people who would work against that.
More significant than the fundamentalists I think are those protesting about Israeli occupation of Palestine. Again there are hard-liners here who regard the presence of Israel in any form as a military occupation, but I think the main motivation for the current round of protests is the ongoing occupation of the territory taken following the 1967 war - and the US effectively recognizing the annexation of East Jerusalem has obviously added strength to those protests. I dislike the idea of violence personally, but I'm not at all certain that I would be able to just calmly accept a military occupation of my country - irrespective of the balance of military forces involved.
I do think there is a legitimate concern about the balance of the Israeli response to attacks on them, but I can understand the fear and anger driving that a response should be made. What seems much less understandable to me is the continual expansion of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. That is obviously extremely provocative and being done in cold blood and the sheer scale of the continuing settlement program makes the possibility of a peace deal ever more remote - the 200,000 or so of them are sufficient to constitute a significant political bloc on their own, even discounting wider supporters of the program.
It seems reasonable to me to consider the analogies with Northern Ireland. That is also a conflict partly driven by religion, but much more about nationalism and rights to land. The scale of the conflict is also comparable in terms of the size of the areas involved, the number of terrorist casualties (around 3,600 killed in the 30 years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998) and the multi-generational nature of it. As might be expected the existing peace agreement is fragile and there have been hundreds of incidents since it was signed. Nevertheless the general climate in Northern Ireland now is of a peaceful country, which was not the case prior to 1998. If any agreement over Palestine were to be made (and currently I find it difficult to imagine that happening because of the settlements issue) that would undoubtedly also be tested for years to come. The lack of an ideal solution does not mean though that people should give up trying to improve the current situation.
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
Since one side has burning tires and flaming kites, what logic are they using which gives them the idea that they might attain victory? Given that "victory" is not attainable under the current scenario, what is the actual goal being pursued here?
I think a lot of it is just inertia. It might not make sense to pursue a losing war, but changing course is hard. As a Palestinian, you could say,
"We've been fighting this war for X years now and we've seen no progress. We're just strong enough to win it. The best we can hope for is to squeeze out a few small concessions and then end the war. We won't get most of what we wanted, but we'll be a little better off than we are now, and we won't have to fight anymore."
...and you'd be right to say so. That's the logical course of action if you want to maximize your gains. But imagine being the one guy, in a room of pissed-off people, who wants to call it quits when everyone else wants to fight and win. No one wants to be that guy. No one wants to confront that reality. No one wants to accept defeat, even if it's already there--the very concept is offensive. I actually think humans evolved to think that way.
A lot of history is people doing the same things they've always done, simply because they don't see changing course as an alternative. Inertia is a little-appreciated force of history.
Alternatively, Hamas could be making the gamble that, if they get enough innocent Palestinians killed in the process, they might win enough international sympathy to somehow get an edge over Israel. Maybe some other countries will get involved and provide the Palestinians with the resources, military or diplomatic or otherwise, to achieve independence. I'm not the first person to speculate that Hamas is intentionally sacrificing Palestinian children for PR reasons.
Of course, I personally have seen no indication that that tactic is any more realistic than defeating Israel through force of arms. The greater Middle East supports Palestine, but they're not going to stick out their necks by confronting Israel directly, when any attack on Israel would involve a crushing retaliation. Most countries outside of the Middle East sympathize with Palestine, but no one else is interested in actually intervening. The United States could theoretically make Israel relinquish its hold on Palestine or make some other form of concessions to the Palestinians, but the U.S. is solidly on Israel's side for various reasons.
Even if Hamas gets the whole world to hate Israel and pity Palestine, it's still not going to accomplish anything. That idea, too, is a dead end--too many other factors are working against it.
But perhaps the main reason the Palestinians are willing to fight is because they know that Israel is not going to use its full force on them. For quite some time now, Israel has had the power to wipe out the Palestinian people practically overnight, but they have never done so. I don't think it's because the Israelis are afraid of international outcry, or some Arab attack to exact vengeance, or potential war crimes trials for Israeli leaders or anything like that--or at least, it's not primarily because of those fears.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians. I have little doubt that Hamas would gleefully wipe out Israel if given the chance, but Israel doesn't feel the same way. They don't want to exterminate the Palestinians; they just want the Palestinians to stop fighting, and they resort to violence because, for various reasons, they don't see peace as a workable solution. They don't think it's possible.
I think on both sides there are religious fundamentalists who believe the other side should not exist. I don't think that those groups are very large in number, but both their actions and rhetoric help keep the conflict going. Countries like Iran calling for the obliteration of Israel gives the impression that fundamentalists are the norm. I don't think that's the case and suspect that a comprehensive peace deal with Iran would be possible (as was previously done with Egypt), although clearly there would be plenty of people who would work against that.
More significant than the fundamentalists I think are those protesting about Israeli occupation of Palestine. Again there are hard-liners here who regard the presence of Israel in any form as a military occupation, but I think the main motivation for the current round of protests is the ongoing occupation of the territory taken following the 1967 war - and the US effectively recognizing the annexation of East Jerusalem has obviously added strength to those protests. I dislike the idea of violence personally, but I'm not at all certain that I would be able to just calmly accept a military occupation of my country - irrespective of the balance of military forces involved.
I do think there is a legitimate concern about the balance of the Israeli response to attacks on them, but I can understand the fear and anger driving that a response should be made. What seems much less understandable to me is the continual expansion of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. That is obviously extremely provocative and being done in cold blood and the sheer scale of the continuing settlement program makes the possibility of a peace deal ever more remote - the 200,000 or so of them are sufficient to constitute a significant political bloc on their own, even discounting wider supporters of the program.
It seems reasonable to me to consider the analogies with Northern Ireland. That is also a conflict partly driven by religion, but much more about nationalism and rights to land. The scale of the conflict is also comparable in terms of the size of the areas involved, the number of terrorist casualties (around 3,600 killed in the 30 years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998) and the multi-generational nature of it. As might be expected the existing peace agreement is fragile and there have been hundreds of incidents since it was signed. Nevertheless the general climate in Northern Ireland now is of a peaceful country, which was not the case prior to 1998. If any agreement over Palestine were to be made (and currently I find it difficult to imagine that happening because of the settlements issue) that would undoubtedly also be tested for years to come. The lack of an ideal solution does not mean though that people should give up trying to improve the current situation.
It's also not helped by the perception (at least to me as an outsider) that Netanyahu seems to derive all his domestic political power from constant conflict and what seems like an almost deliberate provocation and escalation in many instances. Take today for example. Anyone could have predicted the US moving the embassy to Jerusalem was going to cause a problem, but the juxtaposition of the celebration today and the slaughter taking place at the fence couldn't have been more stark. Frankly, it almost seemed like the killings were a part of the celebration. On the day when the US President's decision (motivated entirely by his political courting of the religious right) does away with any pretense of giving a shit about the Palestinians in any way, shape or form, Israel takes the gloves off, and meets slingshots and rocks with gunfire, killing 50, wounding thousands. And why not?? They have no one to answer to. We are going to hand them billions of dollars to keep their military supremacy in the region unquestioned. The embassy move was nothing but a massive "rub their nose in it" moment that served no strategic or long-term goal whatsoever. For Trump, it is simply a play to his base. For Netanyahu, it's the moment he's been waiting for his entire public life, the ultimate middle-finger to the Palestinian people. It's hardly a coincidence this is how it played out.
Let's say for the sake of argument that for some unfathomable reason, the US embassy absolutely HAD to be moved to Jerusalem. Given the tensions in the region, was it really necessary to hold a goddamn ceremony celebrating the event?? Could this not have been done quietly, with no fanfare, and little or no media presence?? Maybe just move the diplomats to the new building and go on with the business of whatever the hell it is that is done there without sending over Ivanka and Jared to hold what was essentially a ribbon cutting ceremony??
Let's say for the sake of argument that for some unfathomable reason, the US embassy absolutely HAD to be moved to Jerusalem. Given the tensions in the region, was it really necessary to hold a goddamn ceremony celebrating the event?? Could this not have been done quietly, with no fanfare, and little or no media presence?? Maybe just move the diplomats to the new building and go on with the business of whatever the hell it is that is done there without sending over Ivanka and Jared to hold what was essentially a ribbon cutting ceremony??
It could have been. However, the purpose of the move was a symbolic one (essentially recognizing Israel should be expanded from its original creation) and therefore a ceremony was appropriate. Given the recent narrative of the conflict from both sides (peace is impossible due to the attitude of the other side) the public nature of the US embassy move seems to suit all parties. - many Israelis will welcome a break in the general international condemnation of their country's actions, even if they don't fully agree with those. - Trump gets to keep another campaign promise. - the Palestinians are provided with a PR opportunity to focus attention on the conflict again and enable them to recruit more fighters.
Let's say for the sake of argument that for some unfathomable reason, the US embassy absolutely HAD to be moved to Jerusalem. Given the tensions in the region, was it really necessary to hold a goddamn ceremony celebrating the event?? Could this not have been done quietly, with no fanfare, and little or no media presence?? Maybe just move the diplomats to the new building and go on with the business of whatever the hell it is that is done there without sending over Ivanka and Jared to hold what was essentially a ribbon cutting ceremony??
It could have been. However, the purpose of the move was a symbolic one (essentially recognizing Israel should be expanded from its original creation) and therefore a ceremony was appropriate. Given the recent narrative of the conflict from both sides (peace is impossible due to the attitude of the other side) the public nature of the US embassy move seems to suit all parties. - many Israelis will welcome a break in the general international condemnation of their country's actions, even if they don't fully agree with those. - Trump gets to keep another campaign promise. - the Palestinians are provided with a PR opportunity to focus attention on the conflict again and enable them to recruit more fighters.
I find it interesting that you individualize the Israelis using the word "many" (implying not all) and "don't fully agree" while you just write "the Palestinians" like they are a monolithic block. While certain elements of Hamas will probably have indeed seen this as a PR opportunity, I am sure that many Palestinians were honestly outraged, instead of seeing this as a huge PR opportunity.
This is a crisis and tragedy leading to loss of life and hospitalizations of hundreds of people. It is also totally unnecessary.
If you think this is bad, wait until they start talking about rebuilding Solomon's Temple. Its the next (ill)logical step for the fundamentalists. Nevermind that the Dome of the Rock is sitting on the site now...
Comments
The current Israel Government is composed of the central-right party (Likud/Bibi Netanyahu), central-economic party and smaller parties: a far-right wing party and the ultra-orthodox jews parties.
Because the government is brittle, and composed from 7 different parties with different ideologies, each party tries to put some populist law, in order to so called "justify" their sitting in the government, it sometimes seems like a black mail..
Luckily, most of the populist laws are stopped and archived, the proposing politicians earns their points with the base, and move on..
I really hope next elections (2019) will produce a stable and sane government, though I doubt it, because of the multiple sectors and diversity of Israel population - left, right, ultra-orthodox, light-orthodox, arabs, secular - there are multiple parties per sector.
No one has yet answered this question: why are the protesters bringing children to an event where they clearly expect violence to occur?
Also, one of the sides here is a nuclear power possessing the most advanced military technology available to man. The other has burnt tires and flaming kites.
On the first point, no--there is no hostage negotiator in existence who will conclude that killing the hostages will successfully resolve the situation and allow them to apprehend the hostage taker. Hypothetically speaking, that *would* resolve the situation but it would also be the polar opposite of "successful resolution".
edit/add: I think the closest parallel we are seeing in the Israel/Palestinian conflict is the United States versus the First Nations from 1840 - 1900--one side has a clear advantage in both numbers and technology while the other side tries to rely on small skirmishes from time to time. As we all know, that conflict did not end well for the First Nations. This is why my advice to Israel continues to be "don't roll over in submission but definitely stand down". That is the sort of battle Israel will definitely win...but they will lose something else in doing so.
edit/add 2: what the--?! Trump has something to say about people on the White House staff who leak information to the press: "leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they are!". *roll eyes* Well, Mr. Trump, perhaps if you *inspired* loyalty in people who work for you rather than *demanding* it things might be a little different in your Administration.
"We've been fighting this war for X years now and we've seen no progress. We're just strong enough to win it. The best we can hope for is to squeeze out a few small concessions and then end the war. We won't get most of what we wanted, but we'll be a little better off than we are now, and we won't have to fight anymore."
...and you'd be right to say so. That's the logical course of action if you want to maximize your gains. But imagine being the one guy, in a room of pissed-off people, who wants to call it quits when everyone else wants to fight and win. No one wants to be that guy. No one wants to confront that reality. No one wants to accept defeat, even if it's already there--the very concept is offensive. I actually think humans evolved to think that way.
A lot of history is people doing the same things they've always done, simply because they don't see changing course as an alternative. Inertia is a little-appreciated force of history.
Alternatively, Hamas could be making the gamble that, if they get enough innocent Palestinians killed in the process, they might win enough international sympathy to somehow get an edge over Israel. Maybe some other countries will get involved and provide the Palestinians with the resources, military or diplomatic or otherwise, to achieve independence. I'm not the first person to speculate that Hamas is intentionally sacrificing Palestinian children for PR reasons.
Of course, I personally have seen no indication that that tactic is any more realistic than defeating Israel through force of arms. The greater Middle East supports Palestine, but they're not going to stick out their necks by confronting Israel directly, when any attack on Israel would involve a crushing retaliation. Most countries outside of the Middle East sympathize with Palestine, but no one else is interested in actually intervening. The United States could theoretically make Israel relinquish its hold on Palestine or make some other form of concessions to the Palestinians, but the U.S. is solidly on Israel's side for various reasons.
Even if Hamas gets the whole world to hate Israel and pity Palestine, it's still not going to accomplish anything. That idea, too, is a dead end--too many other factors are working against it.
But perhaps the main reason the Palestinians are willing to fight is because they know that Israel is not going to use its full force on them. For quite some time now, Israel has had the power to wipe out the Palestinian people practically overnight, but they have never done so. I don't think it's because the Israelis are afraid of international outcry, or some Arab attack to exact vengeance, or potential war crimes trials for Israeli leaders or anything like that--or at least, it's not primarily because of those fears.
I think it's because, as much as Israel is willing to kill Palestinians here and there in response to this or that provocation, they simply don't have it in their hearts to actually wipe out the Palestinians. I have little doubt that Hamas would gleefully wipe out Israel if given the chance, but Israel doesn't feel the same way. They don't want to exterminate the Palestinians; they just want the Palestinians to stop fighting, and they resort to violence because, for various reasons, they don't see peace as a workable solution. They don't think it's possible.
Isn't the government not supposed to be secret. Public servants. Not secret police enriching themselves.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/another-gaza-hospital-hit-israeli-strike-four-dead-40-hurt-n161086
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-presses-attack-16-killed-at-un-school/2014/07/30/4a643588-17a5-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html?utm_term=.90d4a19e62ea
So let's stipulate that everything Israel says about Hamas is true 100% of time. Let's say every one of those schools (full of women and children) and hospitals (full of helpless patients) DID have Hamas rockets being hidden in them. Is that a justification for dropping bombs on hundreds of helpless people?? Because it seems to me to be the definition of a war crime, which is the deliberate targeting of civilians. And if you want to blame Hamas for putting the rockets there, yeah of course. But to just ABSOLVE Israel of dropping a bomb on what is CERTAINLY one of the only places that should never be attacked even in war?? Yeah, I don't think so. Especially when the United States is paying for about about 20% of them.
Mind you that EVERY TIME one of these incidents take place (especially with the two examples I mentioned) Israel will immediately claim that the building was either being used as a command center or was storing weapons. Not some of the time, but EVERY time. Which would indicate that Hamas is not only in control, but is apparently omnipotent.
ehm no, "palestinians" (some groups & leaders) are willing to fight because they're fanatical and hateful. they're not thinking about "ending the war". but i disagree with your reasoning on a very fundamental level:
imagine a slave and a master - a slave wants to kill the master, while the master (or tyrant) does not want to hurt the slave at all. should we "take the side" of the master? you're almost explicitly stating that the side who is more cold-blooded is purer of heart. that's almost always how it doesn't work in real life. people will stoke anger in other people in calculated ways for their own benefit.
...then take a step back and imagine an occupier and the occupied who want to kill the occupier. should we take the side of the occupier, a priori, as long as he does not want to exterminate the other?
what if the "occupier" is a really cold-hearted military power that doesn't care, on a very fundamental human level, about the people they're suppressing and segregating. while also usurping their land and other interests such as their historic capital etc? ...
banal moralizations can't explain away hatred and calculated malice.
I also wouldn't call anyone in this conflict pure of heart. I don't think many people would, even the defenders of this or that side.
If I was to summarize my outlook on the situation: I see sympathetic viewpoints and valid interests, but I do not see sympathetic actions or valid strategies.
Thanks for putting me straight on that. They just plain liked him. Go figure.
Most of them aren't even whistleblowers in the traditional sense. Leaking confidential and classified information such as pictures of a nuclear submarine is not the same as informing the public that the government I keeping tabs on it citizen. Barrett Brown above was targeted because he was willfully posting information about a private company that was obtained illegally in bulk instead of actually you know sifting through the stuff to find out what exactly he was blowing the whistle on.
Compare that the Trump's leakers of "this person said something offensive" gossip that he is calling a traitorous act. There is a huge and significant difference.
More significant than the fundamentalists I think are those protesting about Israeli occupation of Palestine. Again there are hard-liners here who regard the presence of Israel in any form as a military occupation, but I think the main motivation for the current round of protests is the ongoing occupation of the territory taken following the 1967 war - and the US effectively recognizing the annexation of East Jerusalem has obviously added strength to those protests. I dislike the idea of violence personally, but I'm not at all certain that I would be able to just calmly accept a military occupation of my country - irrespective of the balance of military forces involved.
I do think there is a legitimate concern about the balance of the Israeli response to attacks on them, but I can understand the fear and anger driving that a response should be made. What seems much less understandable to me is the continual expansion of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. That is obviously extremely provocative and being done in cold blood and the sheer scale of the continuing settlement program makes the possibility of a peace deal ever more remote - the 200,000 or so of them are sufficient to constitute a significant political bloc on their own, even discounting wider supporters of the program.
It seems reasonable to me to consider the analogies with Northern Ireland. That is also a conflict partly driven by religion, but much more about nationalism and rights to land. The scale of the conflict is also comparable in terms of the size of the areas involved, the number of terrorist casualties (around 3,600 killed in the 30 years leading up to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998) and the multi-generational nature of it. As might be expected the existing peace agreement is fragile and there have been hundreds of incidents since it was signed. Nevertheless the general climate in Northern Ireland now is of a peaceful country, which was not the case prior to 1998. If any agreement over Palestine were to be made (and currently I find it difficult to imagine that happening because of the settlements issue) that would undoubtedly also be tested for years to come. The lack of an ideal solution does not mean though that people should give up trying to improve the current situation.
Let's say for the sake of argument that for some unfathomable reason, the US embassy absolutely HAD to be moved to Jerusalem. Given the tensions in the region, was it really necessary to hold a goddamn ceremony celebrating the event?? Could this not have been done quietly, with no fanfare, and little or no media presence?? Maybe just move the diplomats to the new building and go on with the business of whatever the hell it is that is done there without sending over Ivanka and Jared to hold what was essentially a ribbon cutting ceremony??
- many Israelis will welcome a break in the general international condemnation of their country's actions, even if they don't fully agree with those.
- Trump gets to keep another campaign promise.
- the Palestinians are provided with a PR opportunity to focus attention on the conflict again and enable them to recruit more fighters.